Comments by "MacAdvisor" (@MacAdvisor) on "LegalEagle" channel.

  1. Objection: The children are all restored to normal through the efforts for he Oompa-Loompas. They not only don't die, but, in the end, do not suffer any harm.
    19
  2. Objection: Things, knives included, are not "completely unique," they are either unique or they are not.
    9
  3. Objection! Though the Constitution does indeed require Senators to be 30 years of age when they assume office, it also requires House members to be 25, but William Charles Cole Claiborne of Tennessee was elected to the House at age 22, but was seated by the House anyway. As "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members," the chamber may seat members that do not meet the qualifications.
    4
  4.  @EMTedroni  Hundreds of Black men have been killed by police officers for a hundred years or more, perhaps if we were so concerned about stopping that, we wouldn't have people being killed by mobs today. From what I can see, there seems to be about as many dead bodies from unlawful police action that from mob action. There isn't much to be proud of here, but I hope something good comes out of this.
    3
  5. O*B*J*E*C*T*I*O*N!!!!: At 24:33, you state, "It is a violation of your lawyerly ethics to respond to any tribunal in a honest manner." Seriously, listen to your statement there. You basic state that one must lie. I think you misspoke there or it is one of the greatest Freudian slips ever.
    3
  6. "In reality you want to minimize the amount of legalize that you're using because you don't want to use overly complicated words and phrases." Absolutely. For the most part, you need to be understood by judges, who, from what I can tell have got to be the stupidest people on Earth. Its like all the law school graduates who were so bad as lawyers they couldn't earn a living became judges.
    3
  7. Objection: I have used my casebooks in my practice. They look very nice decorating my office.
    3
  8. OBJECTION! Distinguish for me please selecting the angle, the light, the frame, and setting on the camera versus the giving the AI the the parameters for the story it generates. In both cases, the human sets up the conditions under which the device works. The comic is as much a product of human creativity as a photograph.
    2
  9. I was in law school when this show premiered and spent the first episode you are watching screaming at the TV how utterly unrealistic it was. I could never bring myself to watch another episode. The show is absolutely awful.
    2
  10. Objection: there really is an intermediate stage between closing arguments and the finder of fact making a decision, if the finder of fact is a jury, and that is jury instructions. In most cases, the jury is instructed on what they are to decide and how they are to decide it. For example CACI No. 3116 instructs the jury "'Fraud' means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact with the intention of depriving [name ofplaintiff/decedent] of property or of a legal right or otherwise to cause[name of plaintiff/decedent] injury." While most instructions are set by precedent or case law, there can be times when there needs to be a special instruction on a particular point and that can be a major battle between the sides. Further, the jury may send out questions for the court to answer on certain procedures or laws, and the answer to those questions can be source of many billable hours.
    2
  11. Well said, sir, well said.
    2
  12. OBJECTION: And you, of all people, a good lawyer who did debate, should damn well be aware of this. Who would become President does not beg the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion is assumed as an assumption. Example: chocolate is the best ice cream because it is the best ice cream. THAT is begging the question. In you case, it RAISES the question.
    1
  13. Objection: The phrase "force majeure" is French for "superior force". The period goes WITHIN the quote, even if is not part of the quote. My G-d, you are a lawyer, do misuse this in legal documents? I bet you use "that" to restrict verbs to, such as, "I declare that the following is true and correct." Seriously, you should have studied Elements of Style back in high school.
    1
  14. OBJECTION!!!! Hearsay is an out of court statement BEING BROUGHT IN TO COURT to prove the truth of the matter. The "being brought into court" is important.
    1
  15. Objection: The doctrine of minimalism doesn't really apply here. The trier of fact really doesn't have any facts to decide. The question is one of law, not fact. What is the legal criteria to define something as a sentient being. Thus, one can argue the consequences of each side. Look at the argument raised in Roe v. Wade for example. They dealt nearly exclusively in the consequences of abortion and it being illegal. The same is very true of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka where there was testimony from psychiatrists on the effects of segregation on school children. Also, look at this year's docket, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, where the law has even been repealed, but the effective the law is being argued.  Moreover, as there as so few facts in dispute here, this issue should have been decided by demurrer. Even if everything Commander Maddox states is true factually, that doesn't show Data isn't sentient. Data is a commissioned officer in Star Fleet. ONLY sentient beings are such, not computers or chairs. Thus, Data is entitled to all of the protections such an officer is entitled to, including not being experimented on without consent and the right to refuse medical procedures.
    1
  16. Objection: The case of BMW v. Gore, 517 u.s. 559 (1996) is the real limiting factor in punitive damages (it limits punitive damages far too much in my mind, but I do not sit on the Supreme Court). The case limits punitive damages, however egregious the behavior of the defendant, to not more than three times the actual damages. In order to get one day's profit, as suggested here, of $190 million, the actual damages for the loss of life would have to be just less than $64 million. That is a preposterous number the facts would almost certainly not support.
    1
  17. Objection. Oh! My! G-d! Objection. Court clerks are not the grease that makes courts work, they are the sand that gums everything up. From you can't file that because it isn't two-hole punched at the top while sitting at the window with a two-hole punch right there to we can't accept that because you didn't fill in section 3 when section 3 is clearly labelled to be filled in by the court. I once spent twenty minutes arguing with a court clerk who had just handed me my approved fee waiver, but then would not take the documents I wanted to file without the fee (I finally managed to get a supervisor who told me she would accept it this time rather than admit her clerk was an idiot). Now, with the excuse of COVID, they don't even answer the phones. I recently filed an ex parte motion to serve by publication and, after four weeks, finally reached someone who told me those motions take SIX MONTHS to process. All there is to do is confirm the proper number of attempts at service and location have taken place and there really is a case. They should take more than a day. The assignment wasn't due in two hours, it was due two hours ago. Reading comprehension is important.
    1
  18. OBJECTION: For Pete sakes, did you write this one when you were drunk or high? Senators are members of Congress. Congress is BOTH the House and the Senate. Thus, there would be members of Congress, but there might not be members of the House. All House members are Congress members, but not all Congress members are House members.
    1
  19. Objection 1: I don't believe a law requiring Presidential candidates to reveal their income tax forms would be Constitutional as it adds requirements to those listed in the Constitution at Article II, Section 1, Part 5, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Nowhere does the Constitution allow to add additional requirements or mention tax returns. I think the only way to require the release would be to amend the Constitution and doing so is not worth the benefit. If people really want the returns, they can punish the candidate by not voting him into office. Objection 2: I believe Congress won an outright victory in Trump v. Deutsche Bank. There is much precedent about requiring Presidents to comply with subpoenas in civil or criminal cases, but almost nothing (in fact, I would say nothing) about complying with Congressional subpoenas as, until Trump, Congress and the President have always worked things out between themselves and not involved the courts. The Supremes had to make law and did a very good job, putting forth very reasonable standards Congress will meet in the case. Yes, the Congress will likely not the returns before the session ends, but I firmly believe the next session of Congress will again ask for them and the returns will be submitted. The real objection (question) I would like to ask is why these kinds of cases take so friggin' long? I think US courts are wildly lazy and the Supreme Court here even more so. Nine people, with at least two clerks each, and a couple of secretaries, handle about 100 to 150 cases out of the some 7,000 cases appealed to it each year. Is there a law firm anywhere in the US with nine partners and 18 associates that only handles 150 cases a year that isn't in or headed to bankruptcy? With two people helping me with research and proof reading, I could write one of these opinions a week without breathing hard or staying up late. For example, on August 28, 2019, the Parliament of the United Kingdom was ordered to be prorogued by Queen Elizabeth II upon the advice of the prime minister, Boris Johnson. By September 24th of the same year, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, their equivalent to our Supreme Court, rendered a decision against the prorogation. The case was heard in the court of the first instance, appealed, and ruled on by the Supreme Court in less than TWO MONTHS. Trump v. Deutsche Bank took more than a year. In the recent case on employment rights for LGBTQ people, TWO of the plaintiffs died the case took so long. The court managed to override the trial court on a death penalty case in a week ignoring the harm to the appellant (death), but allowed MONTHS if not YEARS to go by in these things. Why? Why does the courts take SOOOOOO long? And don't tell me you lawyers need time to prepare and respond to briefs. I work for lawyers, if you guys don't wait until the last minute to do something, you wait to the last second. Anything longer than a week is wasted. The whole process needs to be sped up.
    1
  20. OBJECTION!!! I can't believe you just said what you said. "Freedom of speech does not apply to private companies, generally speaking." You are confusing the concept of freedom of speech with the rights provided by the First Amendment. While the two promote a similar philosophical idea, they are not synonymous. Freedom of speech is the concept that people should be able to freely speak their minds without reprisal, while the First Amendment limits itself to prohibiting reprisal by the government. However, I can still post political signs on my lawn, even over the objection of my HOA, because of freedom of speech, not the First Amendment. A specific section of the Davis-Sterling Act here in California protects my ability to do so. The First Amendment does't protect that right, but the protection is part of the general idea of free speech. Moreover, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, (1980) 447 U.S. 74, supports the protection of free speech even in a private shopping mall. Free speech protects more than the First Amendment does. So, yes, freedom of speech also applies to private companies and society's laws and the Terms of Service agreements determine what is protected when. Censorship does not have to be done by the government. Censorship is, by definition, "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security." It doesn't matter if the censorship is done by the state or a private entity. Sometimes censorship is a good thing and sometimes it is not, but, again, where we want to draw the line by both government and private entities is a choice, but the censorship is imposed by other things than governments. Moreover, in the early days of the Internet, despite what you think, there were very strict rules about all sorts of content. Advertising, for example, was strictly prohibited. The Internet, in its early days, was a government-run, private communication system for use by the government, including the military, government contractors, certain universities, and think tanks. It was mainly email, but other things were transmitted and was designed to provide emergency communication during an attack on the US. Each subscriber had a specific person responsible for the content that the subscriber produced and regulated who could be on it. That is why email is so easy to spoof as the system was designed thinking the administrators would know and regulate everyone they gave an email account to. When private bulletin boards began to migrate to the Internet after it was opened to the general public is when the problems you describe began, but that was long after the Internet began.  Lastly, Trumps tweets, for the most part, come from his private account, not a government account. Thus, there isn't any reason he couldn't be sued now while he is a sitting President for defamation or something else based on his tweets. See: Clinton v. Jones, (1997) 520 U.S. 681. I don't want to be rude and I think very highly of your work, but I think this video was rushed and demonstrates a lack of time for sufficient research.
    1
  21. Objection: Serving the Devil is an obvious task and one Federal prisoners have told Federal marshals for generation. The marshals just need to go to hell. I would think the judge would be aware of this. Also, btw, if Satan wanted to claim protection as a foreign prince, that is for him to assert, not for the judge to assume.
    1
  22. Objection: IF most large law firms are in lock step with the salaries for first year associates, could this not be a violation of the Sherman Act on price-fixing?
    1
  23. OBJECTION! Action by the Security Council does NOT take the consent of all five permanent members, as you stated. It requires a permanent member not object, a rather different thing. The resolution on Korea is the best example. As Wikipedia puts it, "United Nations Security Council Resolution 82 was a measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on June 25, 1950. The resolution condemned the "armed attack on the Republic of Korea by forces from North Korea", (sic) while calling for "the immediate cessation of hostilities" and for "the authorities in North Korea to withdraw forthwith their armed forces to the 38th parallel". The measure was adopted by a vote of 9 support, none opposed, and one abstention. The resolution passed since the Soviet Union was boycotting the UN for recognizing Republic of China as China." The Soviet Union didn't agree, they just weren't there to object.
    1
  24. You are always a sharp dresser, but that orange tie for Halloween is simply wonderful. Simply perfect.
    1
  25. Objection! I rise to remind my learned colleague of the duty to complete a rescue. There are many people to whom one does not owe a duty. Walking by a swimming pool, I spot a person unknown to me drowning in the pool. I don't owe them a duty of rescue. I may walk on by, as the song says. However, if I walk over to the pool and toss the person a rope that they clutch on to, I have a duty to now complete the rescue and reel them in. I can't drop the rope and retreat. The police in Uvalde undertook to rescue and protect, then stopped midway for an hour, forty minutes. Not only did they not rescue or defend, but they prevented others from doing so. I suggest, unlike the police office who took the report and then went to dinner allowing the children to be killed, the officer in that case did not undertake a defense or rescue. I don't think firefighters can drive up to a burning home, hook up their hoses, and then do nothing. An EMT cannot pull up in an ambulance, load up the injured party, and then go to lunch, they must treat and go to an emergency department with all due haste. Once undertaken, the rescue or defense must be completed as a reasonable rescuer would do under same or similar circumstances. At least, if I were the attorney in the Uvalde case, that would be my theory of the case.
    1
  26. i don't know how to state this in the form of an objection. Sorry. Just yesterday, a 92-year old German man was convicted of accessory to some 5,232 murders back when he was 17 and a guard at Stutthof Camp near Danzig. It was the fist camp outside of Germany. The intervening 76 years was legally irrelevant the judge said. What this young man did was perfectly legal at the time, though clearly wrong. Will we being trying these Federal officers for crimes against humanity and accessory to murders and kidnappings in 50 or 70 years? The passage of time is legally irrelevant. Will we bring to justice those that assist the Trump administrations in perpetrating these crimes?
    1
  27.  Mauris  The kidnappings are not legally justified. The officers are not suggesting any charges or providing any probable cause. They are not citing, providing court dates, or any due process. I have access to PACER, provide me any citation for any court dates for arraignment stemming from these kidnappings. The actions are entire illegal, but conducted under the color of authority. With such lawless and uncontrolled behavior, can murder and torture be far behind, The Nazis started with broken windows and ended with mass, systemized murder.
    1
  28. Objection! One does not "accept" service. It isn't a choice. A housekeeper, for example, can't tell the process server, "I don't accept service." If substitute service is available, the server can drop it at the housekeepers feet for all that matters. One doesn't accept or reject service. However, whether delivery to the served person counts as proper service is a whole different matter. Personal service means the documents must be given to the person directly (or dropped at their feet). In one famous case, service was deemed effective when the server tossed the documents to the object person 15 feet at a railway platform. Once one is aware of the documents, one is effectively served. In California, substitute service can be served on a person apparently 18-years or older and apparently in charge at the known dwelling of the object person.
    1
  29. G-d bless you, sir, G-d bless you. "Literally" does not mean "figuratively."
    1
  30. One suggest I have is one and your done when it comes to shooting someone. Unless directly ordered to fire at someone by a superiors officer, any police officer who fires his gun at a person, even if fully justified, is then relieved of duty and terminated. While many good officers would unfairly lose their jobs, I believe this would give police officers a real, concrete incentive to not fire their weapons. I think they would truly and fully explore other courses of action first. If, however, a situation arose where the danger was so great, then they could fire. They would just then be on to another line of work. I also think this would mean officers would not become inured to shooting at human beings. Think of it as term limits for police. Yes, term limits keeps politicians from serving forever, but it also ends the careers of many good politicians. There is not a right to be a police officer. It is a sacred duty, where society entrusts a few with ability to act violently in society. That trust must not be broken.
    1
  31. Objection: There is a US District Court case in Santa Ana under Judge Josephine Staton concerning the use of the Fairview Developmental Center in Costa Mesa as a coronavirus quarantine site.
    1
  32. Objection: the felony murder rules is, if one commits an inherently dangerous felony AND, during the course of that felony, someone DIES (not gets "killed") one is guilty of first degree murder. Thus, if one holds up a liquor store with a gun, but runs away and is chased by a security guard, who dies from a heart attack due to the exertion of running after one, that is first degree murder because someone died, though they were not killed.
    1
  33.  @Moleoflands  If one is going to explain the working of a legal principal, one should use the correct definition, not just one that applies to the specific case.
    1
  34. Objection! The election is November 3, 2020, not November 2, 2020, see time code 24:42.
    1
  35. Objection: I didn't go to law school until I was 57. I loved every minute. It was the time of my life, my happiest days, and so much fun. Yes, it was tons of work, but it was interesting work.
    1
  36. OBJECTION: While the Constitution does states, in pertinent part, the President, "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences (sic) against the United States," it does not say only Federal crimes. It says crimes against the United States. The states are part of the United States. Thus, crimes against one would be crimes against the whole. Is there any case where the Supreme Court has limited the President's power to just Federal crimes? Has any President tried to pardon someone for state crimes and the court's overturned the pardon? I think not. Thus, the answer is we don't know, but our best guess is.
    1
  37. I, too, am a huge L&O fan. The knock-offs aren't really L&O. The schtick of L&O is the first half is the police investigating and the second half the prosecutors in court. The first half establishes certainty and the second half brings up all the doubt. I was horrified at this episode. It was awful. A C grade is a kindness, based, I assume, on its 20-year reputation, but the show has sunk below water. The following episodes are just as bad. I must also point out the defense attorney opened the door for the confession by directly asking Det. Cosgrove about how he knew where the gun was. She opened the door to the answer. Even IF the prosecutors had stipulated to not introducing the confession, something I agree is utterly implausible, they can't bind the witness from answering the question honestly and truthfully. The ADA didn't ask about it, the defense did. They can't then complain they got a truthful answer. Why would the defense ever ask that stupid question!?! Me, this L&O is a solid F and the rest barely get above D.
    1
  38. Objection: absolutely nowhere in the record is there even a hint Congress considered the current situation of photographers taking pictures of people as they go about their private daily live and forbidding their use. Taking a photo of a celebrity on the red carpet at a premier is one thing, taking a picture while shopping at Whole Foods is quite different. The court needs to provide a privacy exception. The person in the photo must be useable by the people in the photo, even for commercial use. The photographer doesn't gain control of your image be cause they take a picture of you.
    1
  39. This was, by far, the best legal analysis of a legal movie I have ever seen. My law school actually did use My Cousin Vinny in our trial advocacy class and it had been my favorite for years because it rang so true. This is a remarkably good video, one of the best things I've ever seen on YouTube. May I humbly ask for a review of Witness for the Prosecution. Witness is a 1957 American film co-adapted from an Agatha Christie story, directed by Billy Wilder, and starring Marlene Dietrich, Charles Laughton, Tyrone Power, and Elsa Lanchester. While it employees somewhat dated English law, it is still a masterpiece. Even if you don't analyze it, I think you will enjoy watching it.
    1
  40. The new set looks like you bought it off a lawyer commercial, but, if you insist on showing off books, please put them properly on the shelf. Books should be shelved with their spines at the outside edge, not two or three inches back from the edge. The space in front creates a great spot for dust to gather. Second, the spines are easier to read to find the right book, if the spines are at the edge and the light can reach them better.
    1
  41. Objection: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory takes place in the UK, not the US, and, thus, would not be governed by the Federal Labor Standards Act. This lack of applicability of US law applies throughout.
    1
  42. Objection: incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Prisons, in fact, do tack on time for breaking the rules. It happens hundreds of times each and every day across the country. The revoke awarded "good time" credits. That is, for the most part, why there IS credit for good behavior. It gives the prison a very big stick to keep the prisoners in order. The prosecution as a crime of every prisoner who broke a rule would be very burdensome, if not impossible. Moreover, the revocation of good time is administrative and, thus, has a much evidentiary standard. It is so low, in real life, as to be non-existent. The prison says a prisoner did something, he gets his time revoked with about as little due process as can be imagined. A prison break would not cancel the parole hearing, but it would almost certainly result in a denial. Additionally, parole hearings are not typically a one-time thing. They reoccur at some interval, typically two years. So, the prisoner could be denied this time and then get it next time. Charles Manson was denied parole 11 times. Patricia Krenwinkel, infamous for her role in the 1969 murder of actress Sharon Tate and six others and the oldest prisoner in the US, has been denied parole 15 times. The parole board would not grant parole directly following an egregious rule breaking, at the next hearing, after context has developed, it may well grant parole., BTW, while a decision is rendered in the name of the board, it is really a staff member who holds the hearing at the prison, if one is actually, the decision is made after reviewing the file.
    1
  43. A gender reveal party in and of itself is not inherently dangerous or likely to start a fire. My nephew recently had one with his wife where they cut a cake and the interior color revealed the sex of the fetus (male). It was a perfectly charming day with family and the couple's young friends. I am not entirely sure it was worth the drive to Bakersfield, a place I don't see a reason to exist, but they seem to like it and that is where they live. I attended a party a few years ago where the women tossed a ball to her husband and, after he hit it with a baseball bat, it broke into pieces spilling blue dust. Perhaps we could just eliminate parties with explosives, gender reveal or no.
    1
  44. Objection: The old adage aside, studies have shown that those who represent themselves have, in some situations, a better outcome than those represented by an attorney. The work of Julie Macfarlane of The National Self-Represented Litigants Project has some interesting published studies. Simple divorces in family law seems to show the best outcomes with significantly lower costs and without discernible impact on outcomes. Criminal law seems to suffer the most. Certainly small claims courts across the country demonstrate every day one can represent oneself in court very adequately. Landlords also represent themselves in eviction cases without seeming harm. I wouldn't suggest someone attempt a tobacco class-action lawsuit on their own, but getting back $500 for a slipshod repair job seems perfectly reasonable.
    1
  45. This video sounds like it was made to discuss what would happen IF Biden dropped out and got reworked to fill in now that Biden actually has.
    1
  46. ObjectionL Tommy's statement as to why he believes in Santa Clause is not hearsay. Hearsay, by definition, is an out of court statement being brought into court to prove the truth of the matter. In this case, the prosecutor's statement about Santa Claus is not being introduced to prove anything, but to explain Tommy's first-person believe in Santa Clause. It explains Tommy's thought process. Thus, not hearsay.
    1
  47. Objection: The FBI caught the Watergate burglars!?!?! What? The burglars were caught by Frank Wills, a security guard at the Watergate complex and not a member of the FBI. BTW, he played himself in the 1976 film All the President's Men.
    1
  48. Objection: Filing fees are not particularly expensive compared with the fees charged by expert witnesses or depositions. The Most expensive filing fee I know of is for an action brought under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, P.L. 104-114, 110 Stat. § 785 (1996) of $6,548. Yep, over six THOUSAND dollars. However, a standard lawsuit filing fee in Tennessee in a trial court is $100.00. Why even Mr. Baylor could afford that.
    1
  49. Objection! The problem is the entire reservation system violates the 5th and 14th Amendments by providing special privileges to certain American citizens based on their ancestry. Tribal "nations" are not in any way, shape, or form sovereign. They are entirely and utterly creatures of Congress that can be eliminated by the passage of a simple bill. They are like the FBI or the Post Office, something created by Congress that can be eliminate by Congress. The tribes are not like France or California. Congress can pass all the bills it wants, both France and California continue to exist. Congress cannot revoke California's sovereignty, nor can Congress split California into smaller states. As the tribes are completely Federal creatures, neither the President, nor Congress, can make treaties with them any more than they could with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The legal maximum is one cannot contract with oneself. Moreover, as these tribes are not actually nations, whatever they are called, they cannot have citizens and cannot have rights from their nation. Congress can certainly create clubs called tribal nations, but they cannot make the members of the club not subject to Oklahoma state law. A postal worker who hits his spouse is guilty and punishable for spousal abuse under state law despite his employer even if Congress were to pass a law saying letter carriers cannot be guilty of spousal abuse. The Federal government could retain the land as Federal property and even retain jurisdiction over the land just as the do Yellowstone National Park. However, all US citizens on Yellowstone property are equal and subject to the same Federal law, not a special subset based on their ancestry.  Thus, once the tribes stopped being actual sovereign nations and became creatures of Congress, the treaties ended. Another example would be Palestine. Palestine has ceased to exist as a functioning government and country. It has been conquered by Israel. Any treaty with Palestine is now null and void. Moreover, Palestinians cannot claim they are not subject to Israeli law, but only Palestinian law. I am sorry. The tribes and their members were treated horribly. They were cheated, robbed, killed, and basically had everything taken. No one today, however, walked the Trail of Tears and Death.  The Supreme Court should declare the entire tribal system unconstitutional and make any tribal members subject to the same laws as any other state citizen.
    1
  50. Officers do not have a duty to prevent injustice. They have a duty to prevent the law from being broken, however. The two are rather different things.
    1