A minor can make his position better, never worse

[john39]

I just want to talk.This time a debate.

Meliorem conditionem suam facere potest minor deteriorem nequaquam - A minor can make his position better, never worse

The presumption of incompetence of minors is legal presumption.

It is also rebuttable legal presumption (praesumptio iuris tantum)

The presumption of incompetence (and parental authority) are rebuttable IF the child is emancipated .

THE child (usually applies to adolescent) petitions a court for emancipation to free him/her from the control of parents and allow the minor to live on his/her own (or under the control of others).

Requirements for emancipation vary by state (age,means of support,parental consent to the emancipation ...etc) and if requirements are met,the child becomes emancipated.

Now,is there OTHER way that the minor is NO longer presumed incompetent to understand his rights and is no longer presumed unable to protect them ?

What do you think?Yes or no?

Are the cases where government ,through the police,questioned minor (legal incompetent),without consent from guardian,REGARDLESS of ,was the minor detained or not when questioned,AND those statements stuck in the judicial system to be used against him/her,in essence involuntary emancipation?


What do you think?

If yes,then should we put this Legal Maxim to rest ?

Meliorem conditionem suam facere potest minor deteriorem nequaquam - A minor can make his position better, never worse

 

[john39]

No one wants to chat?

Sublato fundamento, cadit opus

 

[army judge]

I just want to talk.This time a debate.

Meliorem conditionem suam facere potest minor deteriorem nequaquam - A minor can make his position better, never worse

The presumption of incompetence of minors is legal presumption.

It is also rebuttable legal presumption (praesumptio iuris tantum)

The presumption of incompetence (and parental authority) are rebuttable IF the child is emancipated .

THE child (usually applies to adolescent) petitions a court for emancipation to free him/her from the control of parents and allow the minor to live on his/her own (or under the control of others).

Requirements for emancipation vary by state (age,means of support,parental consent to the emancipation ...etc) and if requirements are met,the child becomes emancipated.

Now,is there OTHER way that the minor is NO longer presumed incompetent to understand his rights and is no longer presumed unable to protect them ?

What do you think?Yes or no?

Are the cases where government ,through the police,questioned minor (legal incompetent),without consent from guardian,REGARDLESS of ,was the minor detained or not when questioned,AND those statements stuck in the judicial system to be used against him/her,in essence involuntary emancipation?


What do you think?

If yes,then should we put this Legal Maxim to rest ?

Meliorem conditionem suam facere potest minor deteriorem nequaquam - A minor can make his position better, never worse

Oh, John there you go with this: Meliorem conditionem suam facere potest minor deteriorem nequaquam - A minor can make his position better, never worse!

Well, you're correct, maybe.

I'll provide you with a hypothetical.

I'm a 14 year old minor, Bobby Badders.

I purchase a car on time from your used car lot, Honest John's Very Old Cars!

I sign a note for 12 months on a 1949 Packard.

I pay you $200 down, and promise to pay you $100 a month for 12 months.

I drive the car off your lot.

Unfortunately, I have no drivers license and no insurance.

As I put the Packard in gear, it lurches forward and ends up wrapped around a light pole.

I break both legs, shatter my pelvis, and fracture my clavicle.

John, you were so honest and eager to sell me that 1949 Packard, you never verified anything.

Do I owe you a dime?

Can I get my $200 back?

Can I void the purchase contract?

What about that 1949 Packard that was demolished, who's gonna eat that?

I've got lots of medical bills, John, are you gonna pay them?

My dad is very mad.

He's talking about suing someone.

I wonder who?

My mom is fit to be tied.

You almost killed her little baby, John.

She's gonna sue you big time, dude!

How could you do this to a little kid?

You took advantage of my innocence, Dishonest John! :no:

Do you think I can sue you for my pain and suffering?

Can my 32 year old girlfriend sue you for loss of consortium?

I had a promising football career in Middle School.

The physicians say I'll never run again.

Can I sue you for that $2,000,000 signing bonus with the Packers that I'll never get?

Okay, John, pay me money, or else!

 

[john39]

That is funny story about Bobby and John Judge but I don't get the point.
Common tell me..

 

[john39]

It can not be Bobby's fault that he is presumed legal incompetent when officer came to question him about the wrecked Packard,is it?

So when the officer started to do his "accident investigation" and started to ask Bobby all the good questions,without calling Mrs and Mr.Badders,and Bobby admitted bunch of things .....how suddenly Bobby is presumed that he doesn't need mom and dad Badders to advise him of his right that he doesn't have to talk to Mr.officer

You and I are presumed to know that we don't have to talk to the officer.

He is presumed that he doesn't know that

Never mind John,the honest John ,he is another story

The question is not did Bobby have culpa about his actions with the John business .

The question is did Bobby have culpa about the fact that he is presumed by the state that he is unable to handle his rights on his own.

The question is if he is not guilty of being presumed legal incompetent,WHY the fact alone,that he encounters Law enforcer/officer ,makes his position WORSE.His position is now worse because suddenly it is presumed that he knows his right to shut his mouth .
How is that all of the sudden?


From there it comes Meliorem conditionem suam facere potest minor deteriorem nequaquam. his position can not be made worse by speaking to the officer.

About the honest used car dealer business...it is different story because even though minor ,standard of a reasonable person of his age can and will be applied to determine his guilt,if any,because there was never legal presumption that he can not bear guilt to an extend that the application of that standard of reasonable person (minor) determines.

In the case with the case of not knowing his rights there was such presumption,thus how come someone now is applying some standards that infact it was wrong that he was presumed unable to understand/protect his rights.

There is the difference

 

[army judge]

John, we haven't gotten to Little Bobby's encounter with the police, YET!

We're still trying to determine what to do about YOU taking advantage of that little boy and selling him that DANGEROUS, DILAPIDATED, DDEBILITATED old wreck of a Packard.

You recall, the car that ALMOST killed my client, Master Bobby Badders.

Honest John, the kid was only 14 years old.

He was a football star.

That old wreck took that away from him in a second.

Then you took advantage of him by stealing $200 from a kid and enticing him to sign a 12 month contract so you could steal more of his money from his trust fund.

John why did you try and kill a little kid?

You KNEW that car was unsafe, didn't you?

You had to know that a 14 year can't legally contract, so why did you trick little, innocent, sweet, naive Bobby?

Yet, you tricked that little, innocent child into signing that usurious installment contract.

John you're a bad man! You took advantage of a kid.

John, the kid's position is improving apreciably, isn't it.

Kids can't be held to contracts. You oughta know that, Honest John.

I want Bobby's $200 back, now!

By the way, little Master Badders is VOIDING that illegal installment sales contract.

 

[john39]

...................

 

[john39]

..............