Learning to type is a valuable skill for everyone in today’s world. Typing allows us to use computers, write assignments, send emails, and even chat with friends. Good typing habits include sitting upright, keeping both feet flat on the floor, and using all ten fingers. Starting with the “home row keys” helps you build speed and accuracy over time. These keys A, S, D, F, J, K, L, and the semicolon are where your fingers should rest.
When you type, try to focus on the screen instead of looking down at the keyboard. At first, this might feel hard, but it gets easier with practice. Typing slowly and carefully is better than rushing and making mistakes. With time, you’ll type faster and without errors. Remember, every good typist started just like you taking small steps and practicing every day.
The keyboard has many different parts to explore. Besides the letters, you’ll find the space bar, the shift key, and the enter key. The space bar adds spaces between words, while the shift key lets you type capital letters or symbols. Pressing the enter key helps you move to a new line when writing. Understanding how these keys work will make typing easier and more fun for you.
In the future, being a fast and accurate typist will help you in school and at work. Whether you are writing essays, programming computers, or designing creative projects, typing is a skill you’ll use often. The more you practice, the better you’ll become. So keep your hands steady, focus on the screen, and do your best. You are on your way to becoming a typing expert!
occur Alley term Alley 1952
U.S.-Canadian consists three people
U.S.-Canadian people their
1) STRANGER, 2) Never, 3) 4) download, 5) 6)
La technologie aide a parler.
On peut voir des amis loin.
Les ordinateurs aident a travailler.
Les telephones donnent des infos.
La technologie aide a apprendre.
Mais elle coute beaucoup.
Les ecrans font mal aux yeux.
Les jeux video prennent du temps.
Les reseaux sociaux peuvent faire peur.
La technologie est bien et pas bien.
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
[topic] has become a widely debated issue in today's world. While some individuals strongly support it, others completely oppose its significance. In my opinion, [topic] have more positive effects than negative ones globally. To begin with, there are several reasons to support this belief. The most notable advantage is that [pos]. For example, a study conducted by the University of Sydney highlights that [pos]. Additionally, [pos] is another compelling reason. This ensures [pos]. On the contrary, critics argue that [topic] also have notable drawbacks. One of the most significant disadvantages is [neg]. For instance, research conducted by the University of New York reveals that [neg]. Furthermore, [neg] may also create challenges, such as [neg]. In conclusion, while [topic] may have certain negative aspects, the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. Therefore, it is crucial to promote the effective use of [topic] while minimising its misuse. By doing so, [topic] can become a more constructive and beneficial part of our lives.
On the contrary, critics argue that [topic] also have notable drawbacks. One of the most significant disadvantages is [neg]. For instance, research conducted by the University of New York reveals that [neg]. Furthermore, [neg] may also create challenges, such as [neg].
The Quick Brown Fox Jumps Over The Lazy Dog.
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
[topic] has become a widely debated issue in today's world. While some individuals strongly support it, others completely oppose its significance. In my opinion, [topic] have more positive effects than negative ones globally.
In conclusion, while [topic] may have certain negative aspects, the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. Therefore, it is crucial to promote the effective use of [topic] while minimising its misuse. By doing so, [topic] can become a more constructive and beneficial part of our lives.
Conspiracy requires (1) an agreement, (2) the defendant’s intent to commit a particular crime; and (3) in most jurisdictions, an overt act in furtherance of that agreement.
The Rule of Consistency: Under common law, if all other coconspirators were acquitted, the one remaining alleged coconspirator must also be acquitted. Not all jurisdictions still follow this rule. For example, “if substantial evidence supports a jury verdict as to one defendant, that verdict may stand despite an apparently inconsistent verdict as to another defendant.” People v. Palmer.
The Agreement: An agreement between at least two persons who have at least a tacit understanding of the object of the conspiracy.
The bilateral approach: conspiracy requires an agreement between at least two people who actually have a genuine criminal intent to accomplish an illegal objective. There can be no indictable conspiracy with a government informer who secretly intends to frustrate the conspiracy. Sears v. U.S.
The unilateral approach (MPC approach): the person can be guilty of conspiracy even if others in the conspiracy feign agreement.
The government need only demonstrate a tacit understanding between the conspirators. Can be inferred from circumstantial evidence; does not require direct evidence.
Each conspirator can be liable without agreeing to every illegal act but must understand the scheme’s essential nature. A condition imposed by the conspirators upon the carrying out of a conspiracy does not negate the conspiracy. U.S. v. Palmer.
Conspiracy requires that the parties have the purpose to achieve a common unlawful objective.
Conspiracy requires proof of two distinct intents: (1) the defendant intended to participate in the conspiracy, and (2) the defendant intended that the conspiracy’s unlawful object be achieved.
Suppliers of Goods or Services Used to Commit the Crime: Supplier’s purpose to achieve a common unlawful objective with a criminal purchaser exists if the supplier (1) knew of the criminal use to which the goods or services are to be used; and (2) intended to further that criminal use, considering direct or circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial evidence of supplier’s intent: supplier sold supplies at an inflated price, that no legitimate use for the supplies exists, or a significant percentage of the supplier’s business is with the purchaser.
Duration of a Conspiracy: Conspiracy ends when the conspirators have accomplished the conspiracy’s goal or abandoned the conspiracy.
A person may become a coconspirator at any time between the formation and termination of the conspiracy.
Withdrawal from Conspiracy: If a defendant withdraws from the conspiracy, they are only liable for events occurred while participating.
Establishing withdrawal: defendant must prove that they (1) stopped participating in the conspiracy, (2) performed some affirmative act that was inconsistent with the conspiracy’s goals, (3) communicated their withdrawal to the other conspirators.
Scope of Conspiracy: In conspiracies with numerous participants, a person is a coconspirator only with those other participants that have a common interest.
Chain Conspiracy: In a chain conspiracy, the conspirators are involved in successive organizational cooperation.
Hub and Spoke Conspiracy
A single person (the “hub”) operates individually with persons or groups operating independently (the “spokes”).
The Pinkerton Doctrine (Accessory Liability for Coconspirators): A conspirator may be held liable for criminal offenses committed by a coconspirator that are within the scope of the conspiracy, are in furtherance of it, and are reasonably foreseeable as a necessary or natural consequence of the conspiracy. When the conspirator has played a necessary part in setting in motion a discrete course of criminal conduct, he should be held responsible, within appropriate limits, for the crimes committed as a natural and probable result of that course of conduct.
A defendant is vicariously liable for his coconspirators’ crimes if: (1) the defendant was a party to the conspiracy; (2) the crime was within the scope of the conspiracy’s unlawful aims; (3) the crime was in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) the defendant could reasonably have foreseen that the crime was a necessary or natural consequence of the conspiracy.
Wharton’s Rule
A rule that bars a conviction for conspiracy to commit a crime that by definition can be committed only by two people acting together, such as bigamy, prostitution, or dueling.
In jurisdictions requiring an “overt act,” conspiracy requires at least one coconspirator to take an overt act in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy
“At least one coconspirator”: Even a defendant who has taken no overt act is guilty of conspiracy if any one of the defendant’s coconspirators has done so.
“Overt act”: An overt act is any action taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. The action may be merely preparatory and need not itself be criminal.
The crime of attempt consists of (1) an intent to commit a particular crime; and (2) an act in furtherance of that intent.
Sufficient “Act in Furtherance”: An act is sufficient only if it goes beyond mere preparation to commit the offense.
MPC Approach: Substantial Step. An act is sufficient if it constitutes a substantial step in the course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime that objectively, strongly corroborates the actor’s criminal purpose.
Examples of potential substantial steps: lying in wait, searching for or following the contemplated victim; enticing or seeking to entice the contemplated victim of the crime to go to the place contemplated for its commission; reconnoitering the place contemplated for the commission of the crime; unlawful entry of a structure, vehicle, or enclosure where it is contemplated that the crime will be committed; possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime.
Proximity Approach: An act is sufficient if it is sufficiently proximate to the intended completed crime; the “last step” before the crime occurs.
Factors considered: the seriousness of the potential crime, the victim’s level of fear or apprehension, the likelihood of the crime actually occurring.
Defenses to Attempt: Impossibility and Abandonment.
Legal Impossibility: Conduct where the goal of the actor is not criminal, even though they believe it to be. A defense to attempt.
Factual Impossibility: Conduct where the objective is proscribed by the criminal law, but a circumstance unknown to the actor prevents them from bringing it about. Not a defense to attempt.
Inherent Impossibility: The means chosen are totally ineffective to bring about the desired result (like voodoo). A defense to attempt.
Abandonment before sufficient act: a defendant who abandons his efforts before completing a sufficient act is not guilty of attempt as an essential element of attempt (an act in furtherance) is lacking.
Abandonment after sufficient act: It is a defense to attempt liability if the defendant abandoned his effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevented its commission, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.
Insanity is a defense to criminal liability. The burden of proof of insanity is on the defendant. The result of a successful insanity defense is that the defendant is confined at a secure mental facility.
M’Naughten Test (Most used): A defendant will be found not guilty by reason of insanity if, as a result of a mental disease or defect, (1) the defendant did not know the nature or quality of the criminal act, or (2) if the defendant did know the nature and quality of the act, the defendant did not know it was wrong.
MPC Approach (ALI Test); (second most used)
4.01(1). A defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if, as a result of a mental disease or defect, the defendant lacks substantial capacity either to (1) appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of the defendant’s conduct or (2) to conform the defendant’s conduct to the requirements of the law.
Diminished Capacity: A defendant has a defense of diminished capacity if a mental defect prevented the defendant from forming the specific intent necessary to commit an offense.
A successful diminished capacity defense results in the defendant being found “not guilty,” but the defendant may be civilly committed under some circumstances.
Incompetency: If a defendant’s mental defect causes the defendant to be unable to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense, he may not be tried, convicted, or sentenced as long as that condition persists.
The defendant may be committed to a mental institution until they recover from the condition.
Prevention or Termination of a Felony: One, not necessarily a police officer, is justified in using (1) reasonable force (2) to prevent or terminate what he (3) reasonably believes to be (4) a person in the commission of a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace or of a felony.
Deadly force may be used only in the case of a felony that presents a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Making An Arrest or Preventing Escape: A police officer, or a person aiding him, is justified in using (1) reasonable force (2) to make a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of one already arrested.
Deadly force only allowed by a police officer when the escapee reasonably presents a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
One is justified in using reasonable force to protect his property from unlawful interference when they (1) reasonably believe that (2) their property is (3) in immediate danger of such unlawful interference and that (4) the use of force is necessary to avoid that danger.
Using Deadly Force: The use of deadly force is reasonable when (1) Where the unlawful interference with property is accompanied by a threat of deadly force; OR (2) (in some jurisdictions) The unlawful interference involves an invasion of an occupied dwelling house under circumstances causing the actor to reasonably believe that the invader intends to commit a felony or to do serious bodily harm to occupants therein.
Deadly Mechanical Devices: Not allowed. No deadly mantraps.
Necessity provides a defense when the defendant (1) reasonably believes that their criminal conduct (2) was necessary to avoid (3) an imminent harm to society (4) greater than the harm caused by the criminal conduct.
Reasonable Belief: Objective standard. The defendant’s subjective belief does not control.
Conduct Necessary: Necessity does not provide a defense if the harm the defendant faces is avoidable by reasonable alternative courses of action.
Not a Defense to Homicide: Some jurisdictions hold that necessity is not a defense to homicide.
Requirement of Natural Pressure: Some jurisdictions only apply necessity when the harm to be avoided is natural rather than a human threat. The MPC approach to necessity allows for manmade as well as natural threats.
Duress provides a defense to a defendant’s criminal conduct if the defendant committed the offense: (1) as a result of a person’s unlawful threat that (2) caused the defendant to reasonably believe that (3) committing the offense was necessary to avoid (4) imminent death or serious bodily injury of the defendant or another person.
Reasonable Belief: Objective standard. The defendant’s subjective belief does not control.
Conduct Necessary: Duress does not provide a defense if the harm the defendant faces is avoidable by reasonable alternative courses of action.
Not a Defense to Homicide: Some jurisdictions hold that duress is not a defense to homicide.
Requirement of Human Pressure: Duress requires a human threat rather than a natural threat.
Self-Defense: One who is not the aggressor in an encounter is justified in using reasonable force against his adversary when be reasonably believes that (1) he is in immediate danger of unlawful bodily harm from his adversary; and (2) the use of force is necessary to avoid that danger.
Under common law, an actor is permitted to use non-deadly force is self-defense if they reasonably believe that the other is about to inflict unlawful bodily harm upon them AND believes it is necessary to use such force to prevent the harm from being inflicted.
MPC 3.04(1): Use of Force Justifiable for Protection of the Person. The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.
Under common law, an actor is permitted to use deadly force if they reasonably believe that the other is about to inflict death or serious bodily harm upon them AND believes it is necessary to use such force to prevent the harm from being inflicted.
The use of deadly force is not justifiable under the MPC unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.
Reasonable Belief: The defendant must have an actual belief that he faces danger of harm and that belief must be reasonable in light of the defendant's circumstances.
A person who is the initial aggressor generally cannot use force in self-defense except (1) a non-deadly aggressor who is met with deadly force may justifiably defendant himself; (2) an aggressor who has withdrawn from further contact with the victim has a right of self-defense. The withdrawal must be clear and sincere.
Duty-to-Retreat Jurisdiction: Requires an actor to retreat if reasonably safe to do so before using deadly force in self defense. These jurisdictions usually recognize the Castle Doctrine--no duty to retreat in your own home or workplace unless the attacker is a cohabitant or coworker.
No-Duty-to-Retreat Jurisdiction: Do not require an actor to retreat before using deadly force.
Stand-Your-Ground Doctrine: Can be found in duty-to-retreat and no-duty-to-retreat jurisdictions. Creates a presumption that a person was justified in using deadly force if the actor used deadly force against an attack in the actor's own home.
Imperfect Self-Defense: When an actor uses deadly force, resulting in death, based on an honest but unreasonable belief that they must have used that force to defend themselves from an imminent attack, some jurisdictions reduce the grade of charge from murder to manslaughter.
General rule, an actor may not use force to defend themselves against the police, even if the police are using unlawful force on the actor. The exception, if the police are using excessive force, an actor has a right to use reasonable force to defend themselves from that excessive force. Limitations: (1) the actor cannot use greater force to protect themselves than reasonably necessary; (2) if the actor knows that the police will cease their use of excessive force upon the actor if the actor submits to arrest, they must submit to arrest.
Under the MPC, an actor is permitted to use force upon another for the protection of a third person when (1) the actor would be justified to protect himself against the injury that he believes is threatened to the third person, (2) the third person would be justified in using force against the attacker, (3) the actor believes that the intervention is necessary for the protection of the third person.
