So, I am telling you that went wrong here, with the Germans and full blown state.
Watch that... I hope you get automatic subtitles where ever you are, but he is playing to have picked up a pair of trousers that is labeled with a price and being at the point of sale now makes another offer to then lecture him about deal or no deal in German law.
Actually, that should be something like Belästigung or Disorderly Conduct, which covers Public Intoxication: Being visibly impaired in a way that poses a risk to oneself or others.
The point is the lecturing part. The law he quotes explains only technical details that only describe the Philosophy of Law in Germany. If a purchase and along a fixing of the price of a product only happens legally binding when at the specific point of sale the shop and customer agree, theft and price reductions laws are impacted, in case you need that defined as a people over common sense.
Common sense is not a formal "law" in the US, but it is the invisible engine that drives how laws are applied and interpreted by judges and juries. It acts as a safety valve to ensure that legal technicalities don't lead to absurd or unjust outcomes.
The "Reasonable Person" Standard
The most direct way common sense enters the courtroom is through the "Reasonable Person" test. Instead of having a rule for every possible scenario, the law asks: "What would an ordinary, sensible person do in this situation?
They miss out on that in every philosophical school of law most important idea, as he proofs.
Look world. I grew up here and I am telling you that giving a people that murdered in two World Wars they both started humans in numbers that have to be guessed a nation with a juridical system, is mankind's worst mistake ever.
In which other people would anyone make a law lesson video like that, even missing the point by fucking miles of what he is than referring for, is nothing more but annoying the sales guy at the counter?
Try: "That pair has a whole there. Can I get a discount, please?"
What you think how that man there will behave being finally a lawyer? They are all like that, but constantly. Germans. Most don't get it, because their English is bad per default. Guess why??
#igotstuck
#cyberpunkcoltoure
PS: And Harvey is just a TV character.
US law is famously filled with "annoying," outdated, or overly specific regulations that can feel burdensome or just plain absurd. These range from antiquated local ordinances to broad, vague federal regulations that create "annoying" scenarios.
Here are a few ways US law is currently or historically recognized as "annoying":
Explicitly Criminalizing "Annoyance":
Until 2014, Grand Rapids, Michigan, had a law on the books stating that "[n]o person shall willfully annoy another person". Similarly, Florida has a nuisance statute that makes "all nuisances that tend to annoy the community" a second-degree misdemeanor.
Vague Internet Laws: Federal law has historically struggled with defining "annoyance" on the internet, with statutes prohibiting the use of computers to send communications with "intent to annoy," which critics argue can be too broad and violate the First Amendment.
Outdated Local Ordinances: Many states have "dumb" or old laws still on the books, such as prohibitions on eating raw onions while walking down the street in Northfield, Connecticut, or bothering birds in public parks.
The "Annoying First Amendment Thicket": New York state has faced criticism for a statute that makes it a crime to communicate with the "intent to annoy, threaten, or alarm" others.
The difference between the English typing dominated Internet and a main gate?
They'll stand in a court smiling at the Judge telling him that being annoying was not illegal anymore, no matter how often he came back. In Germany you might need a psychiatric evaluation about the impact of that person, to find yourself medicated only having to close the shop being your only good right.
