This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
No law for pages and pages, yet still highly entertaining and educational!
I feel like I ought to explain the problems the law is trying to deal with first. Trust me, we’re getting there!
No, I wasn’t criticizing, just commenting that you’re being your normal educational self, and doing it in an entertaining way. We know it’s all relevant, although if you decided to take a trip through la-la land, I suspect few would complain.
Is it just me, or does the leg of the girl in the orange dress look REALLY weird?
Anyway, great comic, everyday I’m waiting for more. And I’m not even American.
Her foot looks kinda like a flipper, huh? I thought so, too. I was trying to be faithful to the original drawing, but maybe I oughta change it anyway…
It looked like the foot was bent backwards to me, just like in the original drawing in the party.
It’s not inaccurate – strikes me as one of those “it would actually look that that in reality, but it’s hard to understand as a drawing” kind of situations. I’d rotate it a clockwise a bit so you can see the shape of the heel.
I think the issue is the length, her leg was running further along the table in the original so the foot should be further right with more leg on it. If you look at where her heel would be and where her knee is, you’ve kind of forgotten her shin.
Probably a good point about how two different viewpoints can depict something totally different, while both trying to be faithful to what they saw. So in a way, it fits :-)
I agree with SPACKlick, I think it would look better to run parallel to the table. That’s what I perceived when looking at the original. if you think the current is more accurate, I’d say add a shadow to give the impression of distance.
Do you think the law should disallow all witness testimony then? Or is there some better way to handle it than the law currently does? It seems unfair that memory is allowed in court, if it’s so changeable.
the problem, i think, isn’t allowing witness testimony, it’s the fact that people think it’s so much more reliable than it is. people are, by and large, the most unreliable source of evidence short of a magic 8 ball. we misremember, purposefully lie, make things up without even trying.
that doesn’t mean that testimony is useless only that it should be taken with a grain of salt at all times and empirical evidence should be favoured any time it conflicts with witness testimony. sadly juries tend to think the exact opposite.
I can’t forget about it. My hippocampus has already gone to work.
Jake appears to be a Kaiser Chiefs fan…
“Forget about memory”, hmm.
So apparently Eric didn’t even get burned at all, he just hit his hand. In that case, I find it hard to believe that the rumor that he got burned went around for weeks without being corrected. It’d make sense if the point of confusion was only whether he fell or was pushed, but if his hand wasn’t physically burned, that’d be proof that it didn’t touch the fire. If Eric just letting this rumor go on in order to harm Matt’s reputation?? The plot thickens…