The film, ‘A Few Good Men’, is about a court case surrounding the accused, Lance Corp. Dawson and Pfc. Downey who killed Pfc. Santiago. After all the evidence is shown we must decide, are Lance Corp. Dawson and Pfc. Downey guilty or innocent? Here is my opinion. Firstly, Lance Corp. Dawson and Pfc. Downey are not guilty of murder. Lance Corp. Dawson and Pfc. Downey’s actions resulted in the death of Pfc. Santiago, even if accidental. Even though it was Lance Corp. Dawson and Pfc. Downey’s action that killed Pfc. Santiago, they had good intentions. The definition of murder is “Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being.” So if the killing was protected by the law, it would be considered Homicide, but because it wasn’t …show more content…
Kendrick’s orders, they are to blame and not Lance Corp. Dawson and Pfc. Downey, thus it is manslaughter. Secondly, Lance Corp. Dawson and Pfc. Downey are not guilty for conspiracy to commit murder. Lance Corp. Dawson and Pfc. Downey were not the people who planned the assault of Pfc. Santiago; it was Lt. Kendrick and Colonel Jessop who planned the attack of Pfc. Santiago. Thus the charge should be applied to Colonel Jessop and Lt. Kendrick. But the original intended act was for Pfc. Santiago to be injured, but not for him to die, so it would be Conspiracy to Commit Assault. Lastly, Lance Corp. Dawson and Pfc. Downey are not guilty of Conduct Unbecoming a United States Marine. Lance Corp. Dawson and Pfc. Downey followed orders from a higher ranking officer, which is a must in the marines. Lance Corp. Dawson was threatened to follow orders a little before the incident of Pfc. Santiago’s death, were Lance Corp. Dawson fed a starving Pfc. Santiago, contrary to what Lt. Kendrick’s order’s said. As a result, Lance Corp. Dawson received a poor grade for that week. Due to obedience, Lance Corp. Dawson and
The case involving Birch & Davis International, Inc., and Warren M. Christopher, the United States Secretary of State was decided on September 13th, 1993. The case involved procurement procedures conducted by the Agency of International Development (Open Jurist). The issue centered on exclusion of bids made by Birch & Davis International, Inc. Birch challenged the exclusion to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals and they decided that the actions taken by the agency were fair. The case got to the Federal level when Birch appealed the decision by the board.
On August 2, 2014, a man by the name of Harry Kumar was shot dead by Stephanie Hardee. That much is known. What is not known is whether Stephanie Hardee’s intent was malicious or not. The prosecution, being led by Hanna Kumar, the daughter of the decendent, alleges that her grandmother, Stephanie Hardee murdered Harry Kumar with “deliberate premeditation and malice” (Mock Trial, 30). Meanwhile the defense, being led by Stephanie Hardee, tells a story of how Mr. Kumar was abusive to Hanna and that Stephanie Hardee shot Harry only in self-defense, and ergo is not guilty of premediated murder. Both sides pose very valid arguments, with plenty of supporting evidence, and the case boils down to a simple question,
Escamilla's trial attorneys told jurors he was responsible for James' slaying but argued it didn't merit a death sentence because James wasn't officially on duty, meaning the crime didn't qualify as a capital murder.
When considering the facts of the Margolin’s lawsuit with the rules of jurisdiction, first one must understand when personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction would be applicable. As stated in the textbook, “Personal Jurisdiction is a court 's power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court. Generally, a court 's power to exercise in personam jurisdiction extends only over a specific geographic region.” (Kubasek, pg.42, 2009). Before a court can decide to implement control over a person, they require a minimum contact within the district in which the court is over. In this case, the minimum contact was established over the internet when Margolin inputted information over the internet that completed the business transaction. Since the contact is through the internet, and not within boundaries of the state of California or Florida, the court can exercise personal jurisdiction Margolin’s lawsuit over Funny Face and Novelty Now (Kubasek, 2009).
Your honor, I respectfully request that you find the defendant, Jamie Hayes, guilty of voluntary manslaughter. As you can see from our witness’s testimony, we have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Jamie Hayes, is indeed guilty of manslaughter. Our first witness, Lou Williams, head of campus security, explained the specific details of every incident involving the track team and campus security. Alongside this, Lou Williams also told us that the security department was well trained and prepared for any incident that was to occur. All security officers were licensed to carry firearms and to use them if necessary. Furthermore, she stated that they hired Lee Valdez based off his respectable credentials and that he was a great officer to work with. During Valdez’s time, recent events involving police brutality raised some serious concerns amongst many of the students at CCU. Since then, the students have held two rallies on excessive use of force by law enforcement, and with this, the security department has noticed a change in the students’ attitudes towards authority. In response to this, Lou Williams conducted monthly training meetings with her staff on how to deescalate tense situations. Despite what defense may say otherwise, Campus Security did have a procedure that was followed on the night of the incident on May 15, 2014.
In situations like the case of Leon Greenblatt, Andrew Jahelka and Richard Nichols, courts can sometimes ignore the limited liability status of a corporation or LLC and hold its officers, directors, and shareholders or members personally liable for what they owe to other people or companies. The court calls this piercing the corporate veil. The LL Company is supposed follow all legal procedures that a company should. In this case Loop cooperation looks like it gave full authority to Greenblatt. The company knew they were owing money to Wachovia but instead of repaying them, Loop made funds to closer entities and compensated its members without any forms to show the compensation. However, Loop used the LLC benefits for illegal reasons such as,
At the end of the day although the prosecutor and dick hickock make valid point about the appropriate punishment for the crime, the prosecutor comment that dick death sentence should not be contingent on who actually pulled the trigger is a more valid statement while we may never know who pulled the trigger on the clutters, whether it be Perry side of the story or dick’s side of the story. We do know that dick is just as guilty as perry if not more, due to his involvement to the crime. He came up with the plan to rob and kill the clutters from his prison cell, he didn’t try to not kill the clutters when Perry asked him to leave after they didn’t find the money he stayed, he was always the brains in the group so the decision to get rid of the witnesses was
I visited Monroe County Court on March 30th, 2016. The court case was called, “Williams vs United States”, and Williams was being sued for possession of an unregistered handgun on September 18th, 2015. The court procedure started at about 2:45 P.M. when Judge Randall entered the courtroom. Upon entering the courtroom everyone present arose. After rising Judge Randall asked everyone in the courtroom to sit down, and the judge briefly overviewed the nature of the case.
Times were changing and some Americans welcomed contemporary culture, mass entertainment, racial, sexual, and traditions while other frowned upon it. Evangelicals Protestants felt threaten by the old-fashioned values and the upsurge of Catholicism and Judaism due to immigration. Believing that the precise truth of the Bible made the foundation of Christianity, fundamentalists organized a campaign to get rid of modernism in order to battle the new liberties that challenged traditional ethics.
The five deaths were unjustified and unneeded. All of the five men were unarmed at the time of the shootings. If someone throws an apple at you, you don’t shoot him or her. In a today’s court system I believe them British soldiers would have been guilty and been convicted with murder. “Adams said, the killing were justified and blamed the violence of the immigrant Patrick Carr and Crispus Attucks'; (Mahin 1). So if Adams believes the death of the five men were blamed on them two how come they weren’t just arrested and how come the others were shot. “Adams told the jury
Calvin Cordozar Broadus, Jr. was born October 20, 1971, known professionally as Snoop Dogg, is a professional rapper and actor from Long Beach, California. His music career began in 1992 when he was discovered by Dr. Dre of N.W.A and, as a result, was featured throughout Dr. Dre's solo debut album, The Chronic (1992). He has since sold over 21 million albums in the United States and 35 million albums worldwide. Snoop Dogg has appeared in numerous films and television episodes throughout his career. His starring roles in film includes The Wash (with Dr. Dre) and the horror film Bones.
In the case of Steinway & Sons, two investment bankers, Dana Messina and Kyle Kirkland are faced with the question of how to build on the business. Steinway & Sons was established in 1853 in New York City, by Henry Engelhard Steinway, a German immigrant who became well known for his technical excellence in piano production. It is a 140 year old company, and has been recognized as a leader in the market for high quality grand pianos. The primary problem facing Messina and Kirkland is whether they should continue producing high-end, top quality vertical and grand pianos or pursue a more aggressive plan, including the mid-priced line of Steinway pianos. Does it make sense to sell a mid-priced
The above formula isolates free cash flows to the firm from earnings before interest and tax (EBIT). It can be noted that FCFF are after tax (1-T) but prior to interest expense. This initial overstatement of due tax is by design; the tax deductibility of interest payments will be accounted for when incorporating the after-tax cost of debt in the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) to determine the present value of free cash flows.
An innocent man was convicted of a crime he did not commit. Several reasons exist. First: Bennett had a previous arrest record and he seemed to fit the description of the killer. Second: the police were under pressure to solve the crime. And finally "above all, because the public was clamoring for some way to express its indignation (for the death of Mrs. Stuart), found Willie Bennett a plausible target"(Baird and Rosenbaum 97). Cases just like this one lead to innocent men found guilty with the potential of being put on death row.
Rule based accounting standards are difference from principle based standards in that rule based standards are just that – rules. For instance, the Internal Revenue code is rule based. There are things you can do and things you can’t. When rules are broken,