During the night of the You Gotta Be A Dope fraternity party, there were many laws, which were broken, that stemmed from the unknowing intoxication of the guests of the party, while the fraternity brothers knowing concealed alcohol in the beverages. Serving alcohol in this manner goes against several laws of the New York Penal Code. The first law is endangering the welfare of a child. As many guests were under the age of seventeen and the penal code 260.10 states “a person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child when: 1. He knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less then seventeen years old.” Serving alcohol to minors puts them at physical and moral risk. Also by serving alcohol to minors the fraternity brothers Unlawfully dealt with a child in the first degree as paragraph two of penal code 260.20 states “A person is guilty of unlawfully dealing with a child when…he gives or sells or causes to be given or sold any alcoholic beverage…to a person less then twenty-one years old.” They are also if nothing less morally culpable for the many unlawful acts of the night because they intoxicated many and did not inform them of the alcohol. The first crime, which was a result of the intoxication, was the rape in the second degree of David Jeffery by Mary Mondoona. Statute 130.30 paragraph two states a person is guilty of rape in the second degree if “he or she engages in sexual intercourse with a person who is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally disabled or mentally incapacitated.” Being that they were both under the age of seventeen and over that age of thirteen, Mary being sixteen, and David being only one day from the age of 16, rape charges d... ... middle of paper ... ...ng sober. The final act in question in terms of legality, of the night, is Jeremy Derek’s sever injuring of three students with an automatic firearm during a marksmanship demonstration. It could be said that this is assault in the second degree because of reckless acts that lead to sever injury with a deadly weapon. The issue with this conviction is that he was unaware that the firearm was automatic, and fully expected and believed it was a marksmen’s rifle. This again shows Jeremy did not have intent or Mens Rea to injure people. Staples v. United States is a good precedent to show that the type of gun that the owner believes he owns is enough to prevent conviction by the law due to a gun being illegal. Jeremy can also claim the firearms dealer mislabeled and false advertised the gun, and that if he was sold the proper gun, he would not have injured anyone.
While reading Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities, I learned more about the inner workings of Greek Life. I learned that the odds of me finding a sorority are so slim due to my independent and different personality. While I am not good at sticking up for myself, something this book has made me feel is crucial to blend in and conform to an ideal to fit into a sorority, I am too opinionated. There are not many sororities (at least shown in Pledged) that welcome girls who are different, preferring to stay similar. For example, each pledge class would soon like identical within a few months of pledging. Another thing I learned about is the careful planning and manipulation that occurs throughout sororities,
The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, but only in cases of self-defense and hunting for food. However, the use of guns has drastically changed since 1791 when the amendment was implemented. Today, guns are not solely used in their intended ways. Since 2010, over eighty-seven school shootings have occurred within American grade schools, high schools, and universities, resulting in approximately 107 injuries and 109 murders of innocent students. The two most deadly shootings in the world occurred in the United States: the Virginia Tech University Massacre which left thirty-two dead and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting which left twenty-eight dead. Each new shooting prompts a debate about gun control laws and leaves citizens wondering about the accessibility of guns; any United States citizen over the age of twenty-one that does not have any previous felonies is able to easily receive a gun license. Forty-nine out of the sixty-one school shootings that occurred between 1982 and 2012 legally obtained firearms. The statistics become even more outstanding: seventy nine percent of all shooters have been diagnosed with a mental illness or disability, including the Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook shooters, Seung-Hui Cho and Adam Lanza. Cho and Lanza were diagnosed with mental illnesses and disabilities, depression and autism, respectively. Even so, they were still able to acquire the guns they needed because extensive mental health background checks did not and still do not exist; Cho purchased his own weapon and Lanza stole his mother’s guns. Although the case studies of Lanza and Cho are only two out of the many school shootings, they should be considered prime examples to illustrate the necessity to add stri...
Over the last decade or so, the United States of America has been shaken by an epidemic of terrifying mass shootings, devastating slayings of unexpecting victims, and unnerving annihilations of the innocent. There is no specific target, no explicitly sought-out group, nor definite individual. From a classroom of first-graders, to a crowded movie theatre, to a U.S. Naval yard, the location seems at most, random, other than that it is almost always a public place. The perpetrators responsible for these horrific murders also vary, and often surprise those who thought they knew them. However, while the occurrences of mass shootings are unpredictable and always shocking, most have one thing in common: the use, or rather misuse, of assault weapons-automatic or semiautomatic military style rifles. To ensure the safety, security, and well-being of the people of the United States, the government should ban assault weapons.
Why I desire to be an Alpha man? The answer to that question answered in its entirety would far exceed the three page limit allotted for this essay. In the Army we are taught to K.I.S.S things meaning, keep it simple. The mission statement of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. is to develop leaders, promote brotherhood and academic excellence, while providing service and advocacy for our communities. This mission statement embodies the backbone principles of why I desire to be an Alpha man.
We knocked on the door of the off-campus apartment, as it opened we were confronted with the heavy stench of alcohol. A young girl was passed out on the living room floor, a pile of empty beer cans filled the kitchen sink, and the deafening music rattled the window panes. A group of girls managed to stumble past us. They waved goodbye to the host, who was handing drinks to me and my sister. It was not my first time drinking. In fact, everyone there was quite experienced – after all, it’s college. Half of the guests were completely drunk, and I had no problem with it. That is, until later that night when my sister locked herself in a room with a guy she had met only a week before. This prompted me to seriously consider the effects of alcohol. Would my sister have been able to see the danger of the situation had she been sober? Would the absence of alcohol have prevented the events of that night from occurring? These questions, along with the vivid memory of that night, fueled my examination of the complex social problem of underage drinking.
When asked to describe the above-mentioned events, words like horrific, saddening, and terrifying inevitably are among the first to cross one’s mind. The question arises, “Where does the line lie that separates American’s personal freedom from the public’s safety?” The Second Amendment promises, “[…] the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” But after the recent shootings and scares at the campuses of Purdue and Oklahoma University, one must ponder the idea, “Should America ban assault weapons?” This emotionally charged battle has even reached the White House steps, and is hotly debated by Republicans and Democrats alike. This paper will present a comparative analysis of banning and not banning assault weapons, and will conclude with a discussion in favor of lighter gun control.
The 2nd amendment “The Right to Bear Arms” has not been brought up to date in over 200 hundred years and it is time that we make the necessary adjustments. Handguns and assault weapons are to blame for many mass killings in America. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Handguns and semi automatic weapons have been used in these massacres. The choice of rules such as exercising the right to further background checks and limit the availability of automatic weapons should be the first and foremost concern of both federal and state legislators.
The debate on college campuses’ gun policies mirrors that of the national level in that at the heart of both debates is the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment reads “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Some argue that the wording used is outdated and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual’s right to bear arms—the Supreme Court disagrees. In the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court concluded that the wording of the Second Amendment does in fact guarantee an individual’s right to possess and carry a weapon (Mauro). While the debate over the Second Amendmant is not over yet, with the Heller ruling, for now the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution; me...
Since the development of firearms, human life has been threatened more than from the use of any other weaponry. Crimes related to firearms like mass killing, assault and homicide are increasing at a tremendous rate. Keeping the safety of their citizens in mind, many nations have formulated gun control laws as a major part of their legislation. Just like other nations, the United States has also passed out the Second Amendment law declaring ‘right of the people to keep and bear Arms’ (Worsnop). Gun control laws illustrated by the second amendment make drastic changes in gun-related issues. Not only does it restrict the usage of highly dangerous
Gun violence in America is a public health crisis, which needs to be recognized and changed by legislatures, and the voting American. As conscious Americans, we need to vote for changes to gun laws that would improve background checks nation-wide, make firearm registration mandatory, restrict the sale of assault weapons and weapon modifications that give the shooter military-grade fire power, and invest in gun-safe technology and safe firearms storage designs. This type of technology will help prevent criminally oriented people from accessing guns, and will help prevent the accidental deaths of many children by guns. This essay will explain the reforms needed to help ensure Americans can still exercise their 2nd amendment right of owning firearms, and preventing the unnecessary deaths of many Americans at the same time.
Throughout the course of history, the gun control debate has been an issue that has been dealt with since the age of the colonial Americans and it is also being disputed today. The US currently holds over 200 million guns and has weaker gun laws in comparison to other developed nations, mostly because the Supreme Court has advocated gun control rights. Not many actions were taken until numerous gun shootings and incidents revolving around guns have occurred. These incidents have aroused a pleading to pass gun control laws, but the Supreme Court is against passing of the laws. Although the Supreme Court considers it unnecessary to have them, recent tragedies and past instances clearly support the implication of gun control laws.
Gun control and self-defense has been a hot topic in the United States in the last couple of years, with the United States having 88.8 guns for every 100 people. People argue whether individuals should have the right to own and carry weapons or whether there should be a stricter regulation on guns. With crimes occurring everywhere in the United States it’s only logical to allow those who qualify for a concealed weapon the right to obtain a permit to carry. With the recent laws of concealed carry weapons being allowed in all 50 states and Jerry Brown banning concealed carry on college campuses, controversy is hotter than it’s ever been. Although we have seen weapons used for hurting, guns, when placed in concealed carry hands, are not the cause
The law commission makes it clear there is an issue with the fact that there is not a definition of the word ‘lethal’, the point is also made that it is due to this there is an overreliance on expert witnesses to determine the lethality of a firearm thus leading to longer and more expensive trials. Furthermore, for the purposes of this legislation (Firearms Act 1968) it is unclear whether low power air rifles or poorly modified imitation firearms which cause reduced harm can come under the banner of lethal. This is further complicated by section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 which gives provisions on those who have served a sentence by the courts and places restrictions on their rights to possess a firearm, the issue here is whether one who has
More and more frequently, we are saddened by the news of mass shootings. Whether it takes place in a school or public area, these shootings are both disastrous and mortifying. Families begin to feel anger and sadness, and demand immediate justice. Although these terrible events continue to happen, there have been no significant steps taken towards the reduction in the number of weapons; specifically assault rifles. This leads one to question do we need to ban the right to possess such weapons? If the possession of these weapons is not made illegal, we run the risk of another attack. While there is no questioning the severity of these mass shootings, a ban on assault rifles is not the answer because they are not the cause of such events, and it is a constitutional right to own them.
...rict of Columbia vs Heller The Supreme Court striked down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and ruled that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” and that the amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” In Beard v. U.S. (1895), the court approved the common-law rule that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and that, when attacked, a person “was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon,” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death(NRA).”