[Music] lawyers [Music] reaction the legal videos that I posted in 2023 were crazy they're actually one of the most viral videos that I've posted on any platform anywhere and they were right here on YouTube shorts because they were controversial so I thought what better way to start the new year than to discuss how some of the most viral videos of 2023 will help inform us about the law in 2024 ladies and gentlemen these are the top and most controversial videos of the year with a more detailed legal explanation as to why my rulings came down the way they did and ladies and gentlemen I'm going to be saving the most controversial and the most viral video of them all for the very end so be sure to subscribe and watch to the very end of this video just to give you some background my name is Ugo Lord I'm an attorney that has been posting videos on social media now ever since the pandemic and I love being able to bring the law to my audience in a way that is completely affordable entertaining but most importantly educational now there are times where my videos are controversial but at the end of the day the law is the law so I'm going to use this opportunity in this long form video to explain why the law is the way that it is I've worked on famous cases cases that when you bring them all together have won nearly $600 million for my clients and I'm a little nervous to say this you know fingers crossed but as of 2024 I've not lost a single case in my 10-year career so let's let's go ahead and Jump Right In by talking about our number 10 most controversial and viral video of the Year let's see lawyers reaction ladies and gentlemen the reason why this video is controversial is because there's a great debate going on whether or not it is reasonable to break for an animal now there are some people that say that you should just run an animal over just kill it that's apparently what some people say and then of course there there the flip side to that argument which is don't injure the animal that's why you should break leave some distance behind the car in front of you so if they do break in an emergency you don't hit them that is why this video went viral but also because it was so controversial and here's the answer ladies and gentlemen the law says that if the animal is large enough where it could damage the vehicle and potentially even harm the occupants inside that vehicle perhaps from airbags deploying then it is completely reasonable to break in order to avoid hitting that animal but if the animal is so small like a squirrel for example it would be unreasonable to hit the animal so we know that this is a dog this is a dog that can absolutely cause injury to the passengers inside the vehicle definitely could cause significant damage to the vehicle itself and consequently it would be reasonable for that driver to hit the brakes which is why it is so important to drive at a safe distance behind the car in front of you yes ladies and gentlemen it does make this scooter liable for all the damages that happen next and can we also talk about the fact that this scooter had at least 10 business days days to stop I mean at least maybe 9 if it was like a rush delivery but had so much time to stop and the Motorcycle did not stop so of course the motorcycle is liable now let's go to video number nine lawy [Music] reaction sometimes these videos are difficult to watch which is why I have to censor it out listen I got to comply with the guidelines at the end of the day this video became really controversial because we are dealing with security guards anytime I do a video about security Beauty guards or police officers they tend to do very well because the audience is usually split on what they believe is Justified but if you look at this video carefully you'll see that this woman either hit or almost hit the officer in order for self-defense to be reasonable and justifiable there has to be a fear or a threat of bodily injury it doesn't always have to mean that there actually is physical contact but the fear of physical contact is enough so in this case it doesn't matter whether or not she hit him or not the fact that she tried to it made it reason able for him to then use non-lethal force in order to eliminate the threat yes of course it means that this officer was not guilty of committing any crimes now let's go to video number eight lawyers reaction oh I remember this video oh the feathers guys it's the feathers in order to be Char it's the feathers okay ladies and gentlemen this is another important video that we can use to learn more about in 2024 now the reason why I included this video not only cuz it was super viral I received so many comments that stated that this was not in America it's not in America the laws don't apply ladies and gentlemen I'm only licensed here in the United States of America meaning I'm only going to interpret US law to any of these videos regardless of where they occur even though it's true that this did not occur in America so let's go ahead and talk about it yes this person was transported into another dimension they were literally transported into into another land without their permission but in order for it to be considered battery it has to be some sort of offensive contact now if you look at the videos Not only was this Transportation happening but look at all the feathers look at all the glue there are so many things in this video that is considered offensive so absolutely it would still be considered battery even if there was not a physical person contacting them or a physical person touching them yes it means that these pranksters would be guilty of battery let's go to video number seven lawyers Rea this guy this guy you hear me now there's no doubt have you guys seen this YouTuber I mean it's he's a famous YouTuber he's a famous prankster he does a lot of videos literally he's literally just writing all of my content for me like all of my content he writes and I'm grateful for and in fact I should cut him a check just to say thank you CU it allows me to write so much content and of course this video is no exception now I think the reason why this video became so viral and so controversial is the reason why people were split is cuz they didn't know if that older man went too far so let's go ahead and analyze the elements of self-defense reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily injury proportional force in order to neutralize the threat now if any creep comes up to your ear and starts blowing I don't even know what that was what was that I don't even know but if they start blowing it yes naturally it's totally natural to be afraid but I think the reason why this video is controversial is because people didn't know just how far this man could have gone in order to neutralize the threat if you replay the video and analyze it ladies and gentlemen you'll see that yes he did turn around he did put the guy in a choke hold and he held him there until he realized he was no longer a threat that is the key ladies and gentlemen you can't go too far and and choke them out if there's no longer an ongoing threat but the moment that you've stabilized the situation you've neutralized the threat and you've been able to assess and determine that there's no longer a threat there's no one else around there's nothing else happening then legally you have to let the person go if you look at what this man did he really stayed within reason he held him he held him into that position he realized that there was no longer a threat and then he let him go that's the important thing about the video and that's why this man is not guilty of battery all right let's go to number six this is one of my favorite videos take a look lawyers reaction one two three three shut up by the way these friends are bad [Music] influences I hope he pulls you over oh he's pulling you over now you got to be pretty Brazen to overtake a police officer especially if you're overtaking a police officer in bad weather like I don't know whose idea this was like who said you know what you know what we're going to do today we are going to give this officer a reason to give us a bad day that's exactly what happened because ladies and gentlemen the officer absolutely pulled over this young driver keep in mind ladies and gentlemen it is a speed limit it's not a speed suggestion it's an actual limit which means that you cannot exceed the Post-it speed limit now I know many jurisdictions say Hey listen we can go 5 mph above the speed limit and it's fine but that's not what the law says the law does not give you a leeway of 5 mph above the limit in fact the law says that this is a speed cap meaning that you can go under the limit not too under because there are other laws that can control how slow you can go but yes you can go under the speed limit but you just can't go over the speed limit so even though this young man was going 60 in a 55 he was still breaking the law and consequently yes he can found guilty of a traffic infraction now many people ask me how to get out of speeding tickets I'm going to make another video about that later this is going to be an interesting topic make sure you subscribe to make sure you're ready to see that video later let's go on to the next video video number five lawyers reaction cup scratched his Mustang [Music] spoiler oh no super controversial super super super controversial video people did not like the answer to this video people were actually angry people were upset they were furious with me I'm just the messenger I don't write the laws I just talk about them all right you guys there's a takings clause in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which essentially says that if the government takes your property they must provide you just compensation for doing that so the courts have looked at whether or not if the police damage your property while in execution of a search warrant or while doing something that they're lawfully supposed to do whether that would be considered a takings the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and guess what the Court ruled I'm sure you can already guess by now they ruled it is not a taking yes ladies and gentlemen courts have said that if the officers are there lawfully and if they're doing their job the way that they're supposed to be doing and it happens to damage your property even if it happens to completely destroy your property it is still not considered a takings under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution we actually see cases like this that are very interesting when it comes to search warrants where the police will end up destroying a home completely destroy destroying the home in order to execute a search warrant or let's say it's an arrest warrant where the home is completely destroyed in order to arrest somebody in the home in fact I did a video I did a video just like that where a suspect was hiding in the attic and the police completely tore up the entire home in order to find the suspect and of course it was deemed that the police are not liable for that now ladies and gentlemen historically it doesn't even matter how bad the police destroy your property they can completely destroy the property entirely and courts have held that it's still not a takings under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution however ladies and gentlemen there is a case brewing in the fifth circuit as we speak the case is known as Baker versus city of mckin Texas now this case is very fascinating because it has to do with a homeowner whose home was completely destroyed the homeowner sued the city the city said not responsible and ladies and gentlemen ordinarily the city would be right but in a shocking decision the court said no Police Department you are liable which now means that there's a precedent that breaks away from the norm so what's going to happen of course it's going up to the Supreme Court let me read to you just a little bit about this case court documents say that Baker alleges extensive damage to her home resulted from the police department's standoff to capture a fugitive that was inside the home now the home was completely destroyed we're talking about broken windows a damaged roof Landscaping a blown out garage door even the garage ceiling the attic floor the drywalls they were all completely torn out not only that this part is actually really sad the homeowner's dog was left permanently blind and deaf because of the police gas that was thrown into the home and exploded very sad the appliances were completely irreparable ceiling plants Plumbing floor hard surfaces bricks even had to be replaced ladies and gentlemen Windows blinds fence front door garage door everything in the home was destroyed now we know ordinarily the police would not be liable and that's what the lower courts held that the city would not be liable but the fifth circuit said no way Jose this just went too far and therefore we have to hold the city liable so therefore it's going to the Supreme Court so unless you live in the fifth circuit the old rule stands meaning that the police department or the city would not be liable for any damages unless you're in the fifth circuit let's go to our next video viral video number four lawyers reaction oh I remember this video [Music] hey [Music] all those badge numbers badge numbers Nam don't touch me am I I think it's for here's another controversial video ladies and gentlemen and surprise surprise it involves police officers I told you those are the most controversial now let's go ahead and analyze this case from the perspective of the officers the officer when they wrote up their report said that this individual had assault Ed them so let's look at the legal definition of assault because often times there's this common misconception of what assault is assault does not need physical contact Now ladies and gentlemen jurisdiction by jurisdiction sometimes will adopt the word assault just because that is just the common language but the legal definition of assault is the fear or apprehension of bodily injury it does not require physical contact so the question was did this boy's conduct put the officers in any type of reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily injury this boy puts a donut up against the officer's face obviously making fun of them that they're police officers they like donuts da da d da this was going on during a protest so of course tensions were high but ladies and gentlemen this young man was not threatening in any way in fact there was nothing in his demeanor to suggest that he was any type of threat to the officer which then makes the subsequent arrest of this young man unlawful unfortunately it seems like eagles were bruised and that's the reason why they decided to arrest this young man ladies and gentlemen keep in mind that that the vast majority of officers are wonderful law-abiding individuals however there are some bad apples and they're the ones that gain all the attention so there's no doubt that this was unjustifiable force when he arrested this young man but this story gets a lot more interesting because this young man actually filed a lawsuit which ladies and gentlemen is exactly what you should do comply with the officers and then contact a lawyer like me because we can get you a lot of money in the end but what you don't want to do is get yourself shot or killed or even worse by not complying this young man ended up filing a lawsuit of course the charges were dropped by the prosecutors but most importantly the young man won his lawsuit approximately $20,000 because this was unjustifiable force let's go to our next video we're in the top three lawyers reaction hey you ain't supposed to smack him like that the is wrong with you man I'm on my property you can't come over here do nothing to me you come hey you ain't got to search War you can't come over here man hey look I got you on camera right now I'm on my private property another controversial video having to do with the police all right ladies and gentlemen here we go we have this bystander who's recording these activities recording what's going on and essentially calling out the officers for some sort of wrongdoing this cameraman is saying essentially you cannot do that you cannot treat him that way and how do the officers respond they respond by coming onto his property and treating him just the same way so let's focus on what the law says and this is why it's controversial the law says that you can arrest a bystander that is interfering with any type of police activity the reason why is that courts have ruled that an officer safety especially when they're in the middle of an active police activity is Paramount therefore they have the ability to detain individuals for the officer safety to ensure that they can carry out their police conduct without interference but ladies and gentlemen that also has to be weighed against the rights of the person who is being arrested and when we look at that rights we have also seen that courts have held that you can taunt an officer you can call them names you can give them the middle finger you can swear you can do any of those type of activities because it's covered by the First Amendment it is still considered freedom of speech to be able to disagree with an officer so you have to say okay where the officer's safety at risk to allow yourself to then potentially say hey these first amendment protections do not apply because you're putting the officers at risk the answer quite simply ladies and gentlemen is no of course not why because this man was on his porch Not only was he several feet away from the officers but there was actually a fence a fence that was outlining his own private property indicating that he was not a threat and there was even a barrier that he would have to go through before he would even become a threat therefore the officers entering into his private property in order to arrest him would be unjustifiable Force so absolutely it would make these officers conducts unjustifiable Force allowing this homeowner to sue here we go our number two most viral video lawyers reaction this lady keeps stealing my mail I I am actually yes taking the you're taking my my property well something's going on in there something's going on taking the package it's my Amazon Wish List I'm taking the package no you're not taking my package that's excuse me EXC excuse me oh my God you killed me I did not you you sprayed me with whatever that this is one of my favorite videos of all time because the entitlement the entitlement is amazing it's like I'm going to check your mail because I know you are up to something I know you are up to something I know you're up to no good therefore I'm going to check out your mail and then I love the exorcism at the end don't just that was awesome ladies and gentlemen stealing checking taking hiding holding someone else's mail is a crime known as obstruction of Correspondence which absolutely makes this woman guilty but ladies and gentlemen there's an interesting part of this case that I was not able to talk about because the videos are so short did you know that it is completely unlawful to put something inside of someone else's mailbox yes it is a federal crime to open up someone's mailbox and put a letter inside put a note inside put anything inside because it's the act of opening the mailbox that is unlawful ladies and gentlemen another thing I wasn't able to talk about in this video is whether or not this man committed a crime when he threw the box when he threw the box at her ladies and gentlemen defense of property varies state by state but the general rule is that you have a right to defend your property so long as you are not using lethal force and it looks like this man decided to defend his property by throwing it at her because it did stop her from trying to take the property it would also mean that most likely a court would find that he was not guilty under the concept of Defense of property for throwing the box at her and let's be honest ladies and gentlemen I highly doubt that she was injured it seems like she was kind of putting on a show even her dog was embarrass did you see the dog did you see the dog embarrassed and here we've made it ladies and gentlemen to our final most controversial most viral video of 2023 and what we can learn from this video in 2024 and before we watch the video I just want to say thank you all again for watching and please be sure to hit that subscribe button if you learned anything in these videos now I welcome friendly debate so if there any of these videos that you disagreed with I welcome your thoughts on it but keep in mind the law is the law so for this next video remember I'm just a lawyer I'm not the person who wrote the law you have to take that up with your politician here we go our most viral and controversial video of last year lawyer's reaction okay you guys yall tore me apart in the comments on this one and again I'm just the messenger I'm just the messenger talking about the law okay let's talk about it so the law states that a fire department when fighting an active fire can use any source of water that is reasonable and necessary in order to fight the fire so legally speaking it means that the fire department was absolutely Justified and using that pool water in order to fight this forest fire but now here is the controversial part remember how we were talking about the Fifth Amendment a few videos ago yeah ladies and gentlemen the Fifth Amendment still applies here too because once again we're talking about a taking of private property for the purpose of government use yes it is still technically considered a taking to take someone's pool water and you're using it for government use which is to put out the fire which is the fire departments governments responsibility to do so yes technically this is a taking under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which means the homeowner has to be compensated for this now many fire departments across the country especially fire departments that deal with forest fires have a mechanism that actually allows them to track how much private water they're taking from citizens so that way they can reimburse them for that water later now you guys this is just the law it is not an ugal Lord requirement it is a law requirement so yes ladies and gentlemen it does make the fire department liable for all the damages that happened next and yes yes I would be happy for them to take my pool water I would say yes take my pool water take the whole thing take the whole thing just save my house please save my house absolutely I agree I agree I agree do not attack me all right ladies and gentlemen there you have it those are the most viral and controversial videos from 2023 and I hope that it's taught you just a little bit of something in 2024 because these laws still apply even if some of them are still working its way through the Supreme Court thank you guys for watching please be sure to subscribe my name is ugol Lord and I love you guys your amazing happy New Year and I'll see you soon oh