LegalEagle's Devin Stone Answers Criminal Law Questions

I'm Devin Stone,

practicing lawyer, adjunct law professor

and host of the LegalEagle Law Channel,

and I'm here today

to answer your questions from the internet.

This is Law Support,

but it is not legal advice.

[upbeat music]

A Reddit user asks,

Is there a chance

with a jury trial Luigi gets a not guilty verdict?

I would say in this particular case

regarding Luigi Mangione,

he has a better than average chance.

Now that chance is still very, very low,

given what seems like mountains of evidence.

Right now, Mr. Mangione is represented

by a very capable criminal defense lawyer,

Karen Friedman Agnifilo.

So far, his attorneys have moved to exclude

some of the evidence that was found on his person

when he was arrested in Pennsylvania.

That includes a 3D-printed gun,

some writings in a notebook, as well as a fake ID.

Mr. Mangione got a lot of press,

and a lot of people seem to be upset

with the state of healthcare in this country.

As a result, it's possible

the jury can do something called nullification.

That is, the jury could recognize

that given the facts and the state of the law,

this person is guilty of the crime that they are accused of,

but they simply refuse to find them guilty

and instead acquit them of the charge.

The ZehGentleman asks,

Are public defenders actually bad at their job,

or are the people they have to deal with

just usually screwed?

Public defenders are doing

some really, really thankless work.

It's the prosecutors

that get all the glory, putting away criminals,

but it's the public defenders that are ensuring

that everyone is represented

if you are accused of a crime.

I think even most public defenders would agree

that most of the people that they represent

are probably guilty of something,

which means that

there's probably going to be overwhelming evidence

because a prosecutor's probably not gonna want to go

to trial unless they have certainty

that they're going to stand a good chance

of getting a conviction,

which means that the public defenders,

even when they're doing a fantastic job,

they probably have the deck stacked against them.

wannabecanadian17 asks,

Explain like I'm five the difference

between a misdemeanor and a felony.

Well, this one's super easy.

A misdemeanor is generally any crime that can be punished

with less than one year in jail and/or fines,

and a felony is any crime that can be punished

by more than a year in jail.

Hermaeus_Mora_irl asks,

Deepfakes and the law.

How do we prevent deepfakes

from making video evidence worthless?

So far, it hasn't been too much of a problem

because believe it or not,

there's a whole system that controls

what evidence makes it into trial and what doesn't,

and part of the rules of evidence

includes chain of custody and authentication.

So just because there is a video of something

doesn't mean that it automatically comes into court.

You've gotta go through a whole bunch of hoops

to establish for the court

that it's something that can be relied on.

And in the case of video evidence,

that's often considered hearsay.

Hearsay, of course being,

come on, let's all say it together,

an out of court statement used

for the truth of the matter asserted.

Often video evidence does get to come in,

but you have to establish that it's reliable,

and if there is a dispute about the authenticity,

then there might be experts testifying

that this particular video evidence is a deepfake

or this particular evidence is not a deepfake.

The system isn't perfect,

but so far, it's doing a pretty good job,

even when technology is getting really scary.

What I'm assuming is kidshitstuff asks,

Is what the DOGE doing actually legal?

Man, I don't even know if DOGE is legal at this point.

DOGE started as what was supposed to be a new department

or agency within the Executive Branch,

but the administration quickly found out

that only Congress can create a new department.

What they did is they turned the old US Digital Service,

which had been created during the Obama Administration,

into what we now know as DOGE.

And the problem is that the current Trump Administration

not only keeps saying different things

about what DOGE is doing,

they also keep lying to the judges

about what is actually, in fact, happening.

The President keeps saying

that Elon Musk is in charge of DOGE.

In court, they keep saying that other people

and definitely not Elon Musk are the ones in charge.

So we really don't have an org chart

for the department itself at this point,

but at this point,

Elon Musk is acting like an officer of the Executive Branch,

and an officer needs to be confirmed by the Senate,

which he definitely has not been at this point.

It also would make him subject

to a bunch of conflict of interest laws

that he doesn't appear to be complying with.

The bottom line is

some of what they're doing is probably legal,

and a lot of what they're doing is probably illegal,

and it's gonna take a while to sort all of that out.

A very suspiciously user named deleted says,

What actually happens

if the police don't read you your rights?

Does it help your case at all?

Well, it actually can.

Cops hate this one weird trick.

The Constitution requires that the police,

when you are taken into a custodial interrogation,

read you your Miranda Rights.

This comes from a very famous Supreme Court case

called Miranda versus Arizona.

And by custodial, I mean an interaction with the police

where reasonable person would not believe

that they were free to leave that interaction.

So if you happen to have confessed

to the police about a particular crime

during this interaction,

then that confession

will probably not be allowed into evidence.

Now, that doesn't mean that the police

and the district attorneys can't prosecute you,

they just can't use those particular statements.

A Reddit user asks, Are crypto pump and dumps illegal?

So a classic pump and dump

is what is depicted in the movie The Wolf of Wall Street.

You have a bunch of brokers

who know that a stock is basically worthless,

but they tell a bunch of people

that it's the best, hottest new stock,

drive up the value

so that they can sell all the shares that they have

that otherwise would've been worthless,

get their bag, leaving their clients out in the cold.

And that is happening a lot right now

with crypto-related assets,

whether it's an NFT,

whether it's a meme coin.

There are so many people out there

who are offering no value whatsoever.

They are hyping up, for example, their coin of choice,

simply to get some greater fool to buy into it

so that they can sell their holdings

and make out like a bandit.

This is what people call a rug pull.

If the crypto asset is considered a security,

then it would almost certainly be considered

securities fraud under the Securities and Exchange Act.

But whether it's a security or not

is currently up for debate.

And given that our current President

and First Lady launched meme coins

to the tune of billions and billions of dollars

right before they took office,

I don't think we're gonna see a crackdown

on crypto assets anytime soon.

BlizzardVortex asks,

What's up with the Mayor Eric Adams prosecutors resigning

instead of just charging him?

This is one of the craziest

and darkest days with the Department of Justice

that we've seen probably since Watergate.

Mayor Eric Adams was charged with all number of bribery

and corruption allegations.

He was accused of taking thousands of dollars

of free plane rides and hotels from the Turkish government,

as well as getting millions of dollars

in matching funds from the City of New York

for his campaign for mayor,

which he was arguably not entitled to.

And he was being prosecuted by the Department of Justice.

Before President Trump took office for the second time,

Mayor Adams started changing his tune

about the kinds of policies

that he was going to implement in the City of New York.

And then shortly after President Trump took office,

his Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove

issued a very strange memorandum

that said that while he wasn't making a judgment call

about the accuracy

or propriety of what the prosecutors had done,

because the prosecution had been politicized

and because it was interfering with Mayor Adams' ability

to effectuate the policy preferences of President Trump,

they were going to drop the prosecution.

And they weren't just gonna drop the prosecution,

they were gonna drop it without prejudice,

meaning that they could refile those charges later on.

That's not how the justice system is supposed to work.

You are supposed to prosecute criminals

without fear or favor for what they can do.

The lead prosecutor,

the acting U.S. attorney

for the Southern District of New York,

refused to move forward and resigned instead.

Seven to eight other attorneys also resigned

rather than move forward with this incredibly craven

and corrupt decision

from the acting Deputy Attorney General.

back1987 asks,

Is it true that 60 to 70% of wrongful convictions

are due to eyewitness testimony?

Eyewitness testimony, despite having this reputation

as being the absolute gold standard for evidence in court,

is surprisingly fallible.

I mean, think about it.

What did you have for breakfast eight days ago?

Or what color are my eyes?

Often prosecutors are asking people to remember things

that happened weeks or months ago

or sometimes even years ago.

So it's not surprising

that often eyewitnesses get things absolutely wrong.

A study by the Innocence Project says

that about 70% of wrongful convictions

where DNA evidence was used

to exonerate someone involved eyewitness misidentification.

PrintOk8045 asks,

Can Trump really rename the Gulf of Mexico

the Gulf of America?

Well, he can certainly try.

The President can arguably define geographical names

for the purposes of the federal government,

but nobody else outside of the federal government

needs to comply.

So if you're outside of the federal government,

you can call it whatever you want.

Some companies chose to capitulate.

Google and Apple both label the Gulf of Mexico

the Gulf of America in their various map apps,

and some companies, like the Associated Press,

made a conscious decision to call it the Gulf of Mexico

and not call it the Gulf of America.

And because no good deed goes unpunished,

the Trump Administration,

when they saw the AP style guide,

kicked the AP out of the White House press pool.

Local-Concern asks,

What is the point of multiple life sentences

when there is no possibility of parole?

Well, there's a couple concerns.

One is symbolic.

If someone, let's say, commits multiple homicides,

you want to have a punishment

that reflects the severity of the crime

that they have committed.

But also there are some pragmatic considerations.

Let's say there are multiple homicides

involved in a single case.

You might imagine that

with respect to one of those homicides or murders,

let's say it gets overturned.

If they were only convicted of a single life sentence,

they might go free,

but if they are convicted of multiple life sentences,

then they'll still be serving time in jail,

regardless of what happens

to one of those particular charges.

@US_Culchie asks,

Serious question for lawyers, please.

How is breaking into the Capitol resulting in misdemeanors

for these J6 criminals?

Would breaking into a military base or embassy

or any other restricted government building

always be a misdemeanor too?

Not understanding.

There were about 1,600 people

who were arrested in connection

with the riots inside of the Capitol.

There were probably many more people associated

with that riot,

but one of the problems

was that there just weren't simply enough police officers

to arrest all of those people,

but of those 1,600,

about 700 or so were convicted of misdemeanors,

or those people just simply pled guilty to misdemeanors.

And there's a lot of reasons

why some people would get misdemeanors

and some people would be convicted

or plead guilty to a felony.

A lot of it depends

on the severity of the actions they took on that day.

Absolutely anyone who was convicted

of assaulting a police officer would've received a felony.

But some people obviously didn't break down any doors.

They didn't put their feet up on Nancy Pelosi's desk.

And under those circumstances,

they might be guilty of a bare misdemeanor of trespass

in a federal building.

And apart from the legality of everything,

there's also pragmatic reasons

why the U.S. Attorney's Office

might want to get rid of a lot of the cases

just simply on a misdemeanor basis.

It probably conserves resources to just get them

to plead to a misdemeanor,

and then they can focus their time on the people

who engaged in things like seditious conspiracy and treason.

Though, all the prosecutions were for naught,

because as you probably know,

all 1,600 people

in connection with the January 6th riots got a pardon,

which wiped out the convictions entirely.

While a handful of people, like Stewart Rhodes,

the founder of the Oath Keepers,

received a commutation,

which leaves the conviction intact,

but simply reduces his sentence.

@dannypics06, Why did I just hear

about the Menendez brothers?

I don't think they should be in jail.

The Menendez brothers captivated the attention of America

really in the same way that the O.J. Simpson trial did.

It was a national phenomenon,

and in part because of the severity of the crime,

the nature of the accused,

two very, very wealthy brothers,

and also the fact that they received two trials.

In the first trial, they had a hung jury,

so the jury could not come to a conclusion

as to whether they were guilty or not.

And during the second trial,

a lot of the evidence of their abuse

at the hands of their father

did not make it into the courtroom.

Now, interestingly, under a 2018 law

that was passed in California

because the Menendez brothers were under the age of 26

when they committed these homicides,

they are arguably eligible for parole.

So there's gonna be a hearing on whether they are eligible

and whether they can be released coming up soon.

A Reddit user asks,

Is the death penalty unconstitutional?

Well, it depends.

There are a lot of people

who believe that under the text of the Constitution,

it is always considered a cruel and unusual punishment.

But right now, the Supreme Court says

that the death penalty is constitutional.

In a 1972 case called Furman versus Georgia,

the Supreme Court established

that the death penalty can be considered cruel

and unusual punishment

in violation of the Eighth Amendment

if the penalty is too severe

for the crime that is established.

So in the U.S.,

you could never have a death penalty

for shoplifting, for example.

And that case resulted in a four-year moratorium

on the use of a death penalty .

Then in 1976,

the Supreme Court established that under some circumstances,

and probably under most circumstances,

the death penalty is allowed under the Eighth Amendment,

and it's not necessarily cruel and unusual punishment.

demonthenese asks, Explain like I'm five:

the difference between civil and criminal court.

If someone commits a crime against you,

they might be prosecuted by the state.

That is a criminal offense,

and they might go to jail as a result of that offense.

But if you are the victim,

you probably aren't getting any compensation back

from the person who committed this crime against you.

So you need a vehicle to receive compensation

to make you whole for damages that happened

as a result of someone's actions,

and that's what the Civil Court is for.

At yujibear1 asks,

Bro, but I don't get it.

Why pardon the creator of Silk Road,

a [beep] drug trafficking site?

Why?

Trafficking drugs is not legal.

How could getting him out of jail be a good or fair idea?

Well, the reason he's out of jail

is because he supported President Trump's campaign.

Now the difference between Ross Ulbricht

and Mexican drug lords,

I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Whether it's a good idea,

that never entered into the equation.

@DQuarles asks, How many folks beat RICO charges?

Add Young thug to the list.

Just recused the judge in the case.

I smell #Mistrial.

Maybe that Tweet was a little bit premature

because eventually Young Thug did plead to crimes

related to the trial that he was being prosecuted for.

Now, the Young Thug trial was fascinating

for many different reasons.

It was filed under the Georgia version of RICO,

which is not exactly the same as federal RICO charges.

RICO on the federal level was created as a vehicle

to convict people

who the prosecutors would've had

a really hard time convicting

under traditional criminal laws.

These are people like Mafia heads

who are issuing multiple sets of orders

that get filtered down to the people

who are actually doing the dirty work.

That RICO trial was the longest criminal trial

in Georgia history.

It went on for years and years.

And there's a saying among prosecutors,

You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride,

meaning that you might ultimately win at trial,

but the process that you're gonna go through

is going to be excruciating.

And there's some things

that Young Thug could have been convicted of

where he would've spent less time in jail

than he did just simply waiting for the trial to conclude.

But the RICO trial of Young Thug

took a bunch of twists and turns.

At one point, the judge had to recuse himself

because he was having ex parte communications

with the prosecutors,

meaning that he was communicating

with the prosecutors in chambers

without defense counsel being present,

which is absolutely a no-no.

Anything that happens in a criminal trial,

both sides need to be present.

So eventually, he recused himself.

A new judge came in,

and things wrapped up pretty quickly,

but it was an absolute mess.

sus___scrofa asks,

What exactly is so difficult about the bar exam?

Oh, yeah, what's so difficult

about learning all of American law

in the span of about eight to 10 weeks

during a time when you don't have a job,

and you're not getting paid,

and whether you pass or fail

defines whether you can actually practice law,

which is the vocation that you've chosen,

and you've gone to law school for three years

and probably incurred, I don't know,

200 to $300,000 in debt for?

Yeah, that doesn't sound difficult at all.

Mimshot asks, Change my view.

If I'm not guilty,

I wanna be tried by a judge rather than a jury.

Most people don't realize that

if you are being charged with a crime,

you almost always have the option to be tried

by a judge instead of a jury.

Some people believe that

if you have a really complicated technical case,

a patent case involving technology

or maybe a securities related case,

you'd want to judge

because the common thinking is that the judge

is going to be able to understand more complex topics.

That's not always the case.

Sometimes people believe

that if you have a really emotional case,

you'll want the jury

because they are more easily swayable.

That's also not always the case.

It's definitely not always one or the other.

BannedYetMeHere asks,

Is AI art trained on stolen art, or is it fair use?

There are a ton of cases

that are looking to answer that exact question.

In general, copyright law protects artists

from other people just reusing the art that they created.

But there are exceptions to that,

and the big one is considered fair use,

where there are some circumstances

where people are allowed to use that underlying art

without asking for permission.

A classic example on YouTube is a reaction video.

There's some cases from the early 2000s,

a lot of them involving Google,

where Google did things

that some people characterized as copyright infringement.

In one of the cases, for example,

Google was creating a huge database of lots of images

that were on the internet,

and when people would search for images

on the Google Search Engine,

Google would show a thumbnail of that image.

That arguably could be considered copyright infringement,

but the court allowed Google to do this

under a fair use analysis

because it's really helpful for people

to be able to have a thumbnail of an image

without having to go to the website

and see the full resolution image.

And a lot of people are arguing that

what AI is doing is very similar to that,

and that there are similar prosocial reasons

why we should allow it.

And then on the other side,

you have a lot of people arguing

that unlike the Google case,

AI is coming through,

training itself on all of this original art,

and then creating bad art

that is replacing the original art itself.

So you have a lot of vested interests on this,

and both sides are arguing it out in court right now.

stormlight82 asks,

Do sovereign citizen defenses ever work?

I'm not aware of a single sovereign citizen

ever being successful.

There are these people that argue that

under some ridiculous interpretation of the Constitution,

they are not bound

by the laws of the United States.

They often say that they are passing through an area,

and therefore, they're not considered drivers

with respect to driving laws.

If that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is.

It seems to be becoming more popular.

Now I've been in court

when I've seen people try to pull this stuff

in front of a judge,

and the judges will just simply not put up with this.

gonials asks, To what extent

are MrBeast's illegal lotteries actually illegal?

A lottery is in general illegal in the United States.

We sometimes forget that

because lots of states have a state-sponsored lottery,

which means that they had to have a carve out in the law

that says We're the state.

We're allowed to do a lottery

that would otherwise be illegal if an individual did it.

But an individual can get around this

by running a sweepstakes,

which is something that looks like a lottery,

but it allows someone to participate for free

or by doing something

that doesn't have much hardship associated with it.

And it seems like back in the day,

MrBeast, along with a lot of YouTubers,

was running basically a lottery ,

where someone had to actually make a purchase

to participate in it.

If there is no free or nearly-free option,

it will be considered an illegal lottery.

But I don't think this is gonna be something like a felony.

If they are prosecuted for it,

it would be a very small slap on the wrist.

Mo_Meant_M_On_YT asks,

High school student,

I'm not allowed to sit for the Pledge

despite being in a public school.

and despite having warned multiple staff.

Well, that's a big no-no.

One of the foundational cases on the First Amendment

for both freedom of speech

and also freedom of religion

is West Virginia versus Barnette

that established in 1943,

that individual students can't be compelled

to participate in the flag salute.

So while this is not legal advice,

if you're not gonna talk to a lawyer,

maybe you can go online

and print out that particular case

and show it to your teacher and your principal

because they should not be forcing you

to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance.

shellshock321 asks, Why is double jeopardy a thing,

especially if evidence can be brought forward

after the trial?

Well, the founders were very concerned about a practice

that was going on in Continental Europe before

and at the time of the founding of this country.

Some countries allowed for multiple prosecutions in serial.

If the Crown or the state

was unable to get a prosecution the first time,

they would just simply refile the same charges

and keep doing it until the person ran out of resources.

So the founders included the prohibition

against double jeopardy to prevent being charged

with the same crime multiple times.

If you are acquitted by a jury,

you cannot then be re prosecuted by that same sovereign.

Now, there are quasi exceptions to this.

Sometimes if you are acquitted on a federal level,

the states can sometimes file charges

over the same conduct.

But for the most part, once you're acquitted, that's it.

You get to go home forever.

Marvelman1788 asks,

Can the President of the United States pardon himself?

That's open for debate.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution states

that the president, quote,

shall have power to grant reprieve

and pardons for offenses against the United States,

except in cases of impeachment.

Now, that doesn't include an exception

for the President pardoning themself.

It simply says the President has the pardon power

regarding offenses against the United States,

which means the President can pardon infractions

of federal law but not state law,

and there is an exception for cases of impeachment.

Now, some people say that that means

that the President cannot pardon themself

if they are being impeached for that particular offense.

And since some people argue that the only thing

that can be done to a President is impeach them,

the President can never pardon themself

for any particular crime.

And while a self-pardon has never been tested in court,

the Office of Legal Counsel,

which is the part of the Department of Justice

that examines things for constitutionality,

they wrote a a memo saying

that the President did not have the power to self-pardon.

But OLC memos do not have the force of law.

So until the Supreme Court weighs in

on this particular question,

we'll never know for sure.

mart1373 asks, Under the Second Amendment,

can you openly carry a bomb,

mortar, or even a nuclear bomb as your arms?

Why or why not?

Well, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

states, 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.

Now, still to this day,

the Supreme Court hasn't worked out all the limitations

on the rights that this Second Amendment confers

on individuals at this point.

Now, certainly there are a lot of people who have argued

that the kinds of arms

that are covered by the Second Amendment should be the ones

that are analogous to the ones

that the founders of the Constitution had

at the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment,

and there are lots of people that argue

that people should be allowed to have basically anything

that would be helpful

in overthrowing a tyrannical government.

And they look to the precatory language

of the Second Amendment that says that it exists

for the purpose of having a well-regulated militia.

And there are certainly a lot of people

that argued that that same language

about a well-regulated militia being necessary

to the security of a free state

meant that this was never supposed to be an individual right

for citizens in the first place.

But at this point,

I don't know that there is a satisfying definition of arms

that would allow handguns and rifles,

but not allow bombs and mortars and nuclear bombs.

We'll see what the Supreme Court comes up with.

Thedarkestcharizard asks,

Why exactly can't felons vote?

Well, whether you can vote as a convicted felon

depends on the particular state that you're in.

Some states say that

if you're convicted of a felony,

you can never vote again.

Others say that you can only not vote

while you are currently serving your punishment as a felon.

And some states say you absolutely can still vote.

I happen to think that

if you have served the punishment for your crime,

you have served your debt to society,

and thus, you should be able to participate

in the voting process again.

Again, MythicMango asks,

Why are social media companies responsible

for the content their users post?

Well, actually, it's basically the other way around.

Almost all social media companies are not responsible

for the content that their users post,

and the reason is twofold.

One is the First Amendment,

and the second is a law

called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 says that if you have a website

or a platform, generally speaking,

you are not responsible

for the content that another person posts.

So for example, if someone uploads a video

that engages in copyright infringement,

YouTube is generally not responsible for that.

Or if you're buying something on Craigslist,

and someone puts a fraudulent post up there,

Craigslist isn't responsible for that fraudulent post.

And Section 230 is one of the fundamental laws

that allows the internet to be what it is.

If every website was responsible for every single post

that a user created,

there probably wouldn't be platforms

as we understand them today.

So one of the other important factors of Section 230

is that it allows platforms to remove offensive or violent

or spam content from their platforms

without taking on ownership of that particular speech.

And if those kinds of protections were removed,

you'd basically see platforms either engaging

in no filtering and removal at all,

or it would engage in so much filtering

that there would barely be anything on there at all.

@BarstoolSyria, asks,

Can someone show me the law that says doxing is illegal?

Doxing, generally speaking,

revealing information about a particular individual,

is not itself, per se, illegal,

but there are other laws that it can run afoul of.

There are harassment and stalking laws.

This often comes up in the context of social media platforms

where there might be something in the terms of service

that says, Even though doxing itself might not be illegal,

we think it's, you know, kind of a dick move,

so we're not going to allow users to do it,

and if you do do it,

we might kick you off the platform.

So even if doxing itself isn't illegal,

you might get kicked off a platform if you engage in it.

jweller12 asks, Would aliens from other planets

have legal basic human rights?

So there's a couple different ways to think about this.

In the U.S., generally animals

are considered chattel property,

meaning they don't have human rights in and of themselves.

In some European countries,

more intelligent animals do have some rights

that are bordering on human-like rights,

like the greater apes, for example.

But I think a lot of people would argue

that a space fairing intelligence

should be considered analogous to humans,

and therefore. receive basically the same thing

as human rights.

But I think the more important question is,

if you have a species that's so intelligent

that they can travel through space

and visit us on Earth,

what rights are they gonna give humans?

SharpCartographer831 asks,

Can AI be blamed for a teen's suicide?

That's a really interesting question,

and it probably depends on what you mean by blamed.

Now, there was a very famous case involving two humans,

where a young woman was found guilty

for basically encouraging the suicide of her boyfriend.

Under those circumstances,

that young woman was found

guilty of involuntary manslaughter,

and that was upheld on appeal.

That being said,

I'm not sure an AI algorithm could be held

to a criminal standard in that respect,

so you'd have to look to the programmers

and the people running the company.

If, for example, there's a defect found in the program,

or they're found to have created a negligent product

that they didn't uphold the industry standards

that they should have,

then it's possible that they might be found civilly liable.

And this has come up recently in the AI context

because in 2024,

a young boy in Florida developed a relationship

with a Character.AI chatbot

that eventually encouraged him to commit suicide,

and he followed through with it.

gipgiponthattip, If you shoot someone

'cause they invaded your house, and they die,

will you still go to jail for murder?

Generally speaking, it depends on what state you're in

because some states have what's called the castle doctrine,

which generally allows the use of deadly force

for someone that has trespassed on your property itself,

and it also depends

on whether the state has a duty to retreat or not.

Some states require you to retreat

if you are reasonably able to do so

before you are privileged

to use deadly force against someone.

ConsiderationReal995 asks,

Why does every state have its own laws?

That's because the United States,

at least when it was originally founded,

was a very loose amalgam of different sovereigns.

The founders were concerned

that a very strong federal government would act like a king,

and so they made sure

that all 13 states retained a fair amount of power.

And each state has what's called plenary authority.

Now, over time, the federal government became more powerful,

but generally speaking,

because the founders wanted to make sure

that the states weren't trading one tyrant for another,

they made sure that the states were able

to exercise their own sovereign authority.

A Reddit user asks,

What are some laws you think

every American should know about?

I think the two most important ones

are the First Amendment allows you to speak your mind,

but remember that

just because you have the right to freedom of expression,

when you do exercise that freedom,

the First Amendment does not protect you

from the consequences

of saying something really, really stupid.

But remember, if you do exercise

those First Amendment rights,

and the police come around asking you questions,

you also have a right under the Fifth Amendment

to shut the [beep] up.

So that's all the questions,

and I'm gonna exercise

my own Fifth Amendment rights to shut up.

And until next time, I will see you in court.

[upbeat music]