Nightingale

According to cnn, they did not find blood. They did find some of Madeleine's hair. DNA cannot be extracted from a hair strand, only from a root, but it's not uncommon to find roots attached to hair strands, especially if the hair was pulled out (for example, in a struggle or by a hairbrush).

Because the guy who wrote the message she re-posted is in Australia and wrote it on an Australian message board.

Wasn't there just a senator who pled guilty without consulting an attorney? I can't believe how many people plead guilty to misdemeanors without even talking to a lawyer, with the public defenders sitting right there in the courtroom waiting to help them for free. All they have to do is ask, and they've been told a few times over that if they want an attorney, to ask and one will be appointed. But they don't ask. And then they show up whining about how they didn't know they'd be on the sex offender list, even though they were told, but all their brain heard was the "no jail time" part, or whining about how they're going to be deported and "didn't know they'd actually do that!" even though the judge told them twice.

Anakin was a biter at the vet's before his declaw. We decided to declaw him because when I took him in for shots, between claws and teeth, he bloodied up three techs and the vet, and still didn't get his shots. I'd tried the softpaws, but in the 20 minute drive to the vet's, he'd torn them all off. Even with his claws trimmed, he was doing a lot of damage to the people trying to take care of him.

Not quite a lawyer yet. Still waiting on the background check from the state bar. Should be soon, though.

Thanks! I was a screenwriting major in college, and then wrote a ton of research papers for my MA and JD. I write stories in my spare time. I guess I've always liked to write.

Anakin is home and doing well. He ate the canned food with no problem, and surgery was not required. He was apparently a terror at the vet's office; they had to sedate him every time they needed to handle him. I'm sure they were pretty glad to see him go home. On his chart was written in bright red "Caution: WILL BITE!" and he had a red card on his cage, which indicates he was being a rotten little beastie and trying to bite everyone. He ran up an extra $250 in charges for sedation, tranquilization, e-collar (lampshade) and nail trim (back claws) because the poor vets had to protect themselves from psycho-cat during exams. When I got there, he was hissing and snarling at everyone, but when he realized it was me, he let out this pathetic little "mew", and the entire staff in the back room stopped and stared at him, not believing that little mew could come out of a cat who was so set on killing everything in sight just moments before. He went straight into his carrier without any problem, and, of course, howled the entire car ride home. He's very happy to be home, and is chasing Indy around. They had a bit of a spat when I let Ani out of the carrier; I guess Ani needed to re-establish his place as top-cat, but now they're grooming each other. Ani jumped on the coffee table, apparently looking for more ribbon (I have found it all and put it way out of kitty reach). So, he's home and happy, and while I'm not pleased with the vet bill (final total: $1047.50), I applied for CareCredit and was approved, so I have 12 months to pay the bill off, interest free. (Thanks so much for the suggestion, Ladyskydiver!). I'm really relieved that this was taken care of so easily, and the card still has a large available balance in case something like this happens again. And so ends the three day ribbon-eating cat saga.

I have a big problem with airport security going through my bags. However, I recognize that the airline has a right to go through my things if I want to put my things on the plane. I don't like it, but if I want to get on the plane, I will permit the search. If a store demands (and, like the airline, makes the condition known to me in advance) that I submit to a search, I'll get my goods elsewhere, since I have other options. If a store doesn't make its conditions known in advance, and then pushes the issue, we have a problem.

Once you've given them the cash, it's theirs, and they can test it if they want to.

You're right. I'd forgotten about that. My mistake.

The key word in there is 'reasonable', That word introduces way too many problems into the law. What is considered reasonable varies widely from person to person. A "reasonable person" standard is an objective legal standard based on what a reasonable person in the same situation would think or do. The law is written this way mainly to preclude people from simply acting on hunches and feelings, rather than some supporting evidence. If someone goes into a back stockroom and is seen acting like they're putting something in their bag, it's reasonable to conclude they did so. However, if they just walk past a receipt line, it's probably more reasonable to conclude they're in a hurry or just don't want to bother. The question the court will try to answer is "would a reasonable person, under the same circumstaces, draw the conclusion that a theft occurred?"

What about being showing ID when you pay with check or CC? By asking for ID aren't they implying you are not who the CC says you are? Where is reasonable suspicion? j The difference here is that stores do not have to accept credit cards or checks. They must accept cash (legal tender for all debts, public and private), but can accept other forms of payment at their discretion, under their own terms. Also, it is usually part of their agreement with the credit card company that they must check IDs prior to accepting a credit card, and as a card-holder, you have also agreed to abide by conditions placed upon your use of the card. Once you have paid for your items, the items and receipt belong to you, not the store, so they can't force you to do anything with those items that you don't want to do with your own property. Edited to add: The store can't force you to produce an ID for your check or credit card, but you can't force them to accept the check or credit card without your ID. Edited again: and there is nothing wrong with them ASKING for your ID. There is no law against asking for ID, just like there is no law against asking to look at a receipt or in a bag. They just can't force you to comply if you don't want to.

The vet called this morning. No cat barf during the night, so they're pretty confident he's going to be okay, but they can't get him to eat. For Ani, he's at the VET! and he's very agitated, so he's not eating because he's upset and anxious. He won't touch his dinner from last night, which is the food he's used to at home. The vet won't let him leave until food gets down and stays down, so he called and asked if I could come by and sit with Ani until he calmed down enough to eat. However, I'm at work. So, I told the vet to give Ani some canned food, which he LOVES, and hopefully that will get him to eat. If not, I have to go over after work and sit with him until he eats, and then he doesn't get to go home until tomorrow.

There's no law against asking to look at a receipt or search a bag, and there's nothing prohibiting someone consenting to that if they want to be polite, but if someone doesn't want to waste the time, or have a security guard look through their stuff, unless there's a reasonable suspicion that they've done something wrong, the store can't force the person to submit to the search.

And the shopkeeper doesn't have the right to detain him under those circumstances. Either witness the whole act of theft and arrest him, but you can't just detain him on reasonable suspicion....only a LEO can do that. Nope. Shopkeeper's Privilege. "The shopkeeper's privilege, a defense to false imprisonment, expressly grants authority of law to detain customers to investigate ownership of property in a reasonable time and manner if there is reasonable belief that theft has occurred." The state may also have a "shoplifter's statute" that allows a shopkeeper to detain someone until authorities arrive. Refusal to stop for a cop or security guard alone doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion for a search. (Illinois v. Wardlow, 120 S.Ct. 673). A search is defined as an examination of an individual and/or his/her premises for evidence of criminal activity. Seems like a search of a bag an individual is carrying would qualify.

But walking in the back and appearing to grab something gave the shopkeeper (dave) reasonable suspicion to detain the guy. If he hadn't done anything suspicious, Dave has no cause to stop him.

I have noticed that martial arts tend to give kids confidence, and confident kids are bullied less often, since bullies tend to prey on easy targets.

No idea.

The vet called again a little while ago. The second x-ray looks "much improved" and "surgery is on the back burner at the moment". They're going to feed him in the morning and do one last x-ray, and if that one is clear, then he gets to go home! Things are looking up! Indy is still wandering around the house looking for Ani, though. I understand; I miss him too.

I'm not registered republican (but I'm actually considering re-registering so I can vote for him in the primary). Paul is more of a classic republican, for small government, and that view isn't very popular with the neo-con movement, so I guess a lot of registered republicans won't vote for him.

The vet just called. He didn't throw up at all last night, which is a very good sign, because it indicates that his dinner might be moving through his system.

Did you read the article?

Yep.

I like Ron Paul.

I will call them this morning! Thank you so much!