American Indian Movement Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

American Indian Movement - Research Paper Example The revolutionary movement attracted the attention to the FBI agents that set out to destroy them. In the 1970s, there was a conflict between AIM and the FBI agents. Later on, the leaders were tried in court. The paper will highlight the history of the movement using the perspectives of different sociologist authors. Only few sociologists chose the study of American Indian or a Native American population in the country. Some of the reasons on why the topic is popular could be the Indians represent a small group that 1980s statistics illustrates 1 percent of the entire American population. Sociologists perceive that areas of ethnicity, race, and intergroup relations lie in the conflict of the natives to gain citizenship in American society. Most of the sociologists are aware of the Indian problem that is the principal public issue that faces the United States. The story of how Indians change in the view of the dominant society from being a major impediment to the growth of United States to being a minor irritant to the Western states and communities is a fascinating, sociological, historical, and political endeavor that deserves more attention from sociologists than it has received. Josephy (1982) Now That the Buffalos Gone: A Study of Todays American Indians is a culmination of thirty years association with the American Indians. His memoirs explain their needs, concerns, and problems in a personal, revealing, and historical way. The book has seven chapters where three are historical, and three are contemporary, and one projects concerning the future (Josephy, 1982). Each chapter examines a major contemporary Indian concern. Some of the issues explored include Indians will endure, Indian self-determination, hunting and fishing rights, water rights, racial stereotypes, land rights, and spirituality (Josephy, 1982).Each chapter presents a tie of past policies to the present concerns. Indian people voice their feelings, speak, dreams, and frustrations in a

Ethics studies Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Ethics studies - Essay Example These factors could include cultures, him-self or values. The poem written by David brings out an immense debate about the colours of individuals and the marriage between races and the influences that this has on their identities. This paper analyzes the subject of identity and self-hate. More so, it discusses the popular and the cultural traditional beliefs as to why people tend to get involved in interracial relationships. Marriages between races have been affected by attractiveness, acculturation and propinquity. Several researches have come up with the conclusion that propinquity tent to be the strongest predator in determining whether or not people can engage in interracial marriages. Assimilation and acculturation have been shown to be related to several incidents of interracial relationships in a positive way. It is believed that when it is removed from the demands of the intra-ethnic relationships that are opposed by most communities and families, there is the possibility for the exploration of the interracial relationships with different ethnic and racial backgrounds. These are the main factors for most ethnic and racial groups. In this paper, it discusses the relationships or rather the beliefs that exists behind the interracial marriages/relationships betw een the â€Å"Black community† and the â€Å"White† community in the United State since independence (Hearn, 1998). When talking of interracial relationships, there exist two beliefs that are associated that decision. The beliefs are traditional and popular cultural beliefs. There is a belief that when men from a different colour to that of the women will only marry from a different race if they are in need of escaping from their value, culture and/or themselves. This regards to the traditional beliefs. These beliefs explain that men who marry from a different race or a different ethnic community are

Virtue Ethics Is Useless Giving No Clear Guidance Philosophy Essay

Virtue Ethics Is Useless Giving No Clear Guidance Philosophy Essay Virtue ethics is person rather than action based; it does not focus on actions being right or wrong but rather how to be a good person. Virtue ethics looks at the virtue or moral character of the person carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties or rules, or the consequences of particular actions. Essentially, Virtue ethics provides guidance as to the sort of characteristics and behaviours a good person will seek to achieve; it looks at what makes a good person and the qualities or virtues that make them good. Therefore, the immediate answer would be that virtue ethics is useless for guiding action; an ethical system centred on the individual person and what it means to be human does not provide clear guidance on how to act or behave in moral dilemmas. However, presumably a person who is totally virtuous would, as a result, know what to do in certain circumstances, and we could consider these virtues or characteristics that a virtuous person has as a suitable guide for act ion. Like Plato, Aristotle also placed eudaimonia or happiness as the final and overriding end of human activity and therefore goes on to discuss the character traits of a person who is going to achieve eudaimonia. Like Plato and the Cardinal Virtues, Aristotle saw two types of virtues: intellectual virtues which are developed by training and education, and moral virtues developed by habit. Aristotle identified nine intellectual virtues, wisdom being the most important, and suggested that by using our reason we are all capable of being virtuous. However these virtues, including prudence, justice, fortitude, courage and so on, and the overall idea of being virtuous is a bit like a playing musical instrument- it needs teaching and then practiced before it can be played well. Aristotle did, however, suggest that while all people do have the potential to develop these moral and intellectual virtues, only few will actually achieve this. Essentially, these traditional virtues themselves are useless in giving clear guidance for action. A person being courageous or just, for example, perhaps has no use or relevance for someone who is considering an abortion. Guidance for action needs to be somewhat absolute, or if not, atleast relative to certain situations and circumstances; consequences may need to be considered and duties may need to be taken into account. Virtues ethics, being centred on the person and what a person should become, seems to ignore all of these concepts and instead only values certain characteristics that make a person à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"goodà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢. Being a virtuous person is not necessarily clear guidance for action. While it may be conceivable that a completely virtuous person would therefore know what to do or how to act, it still seems illogical to suggest the use of virtues or characteristics of an individual as a way to determine how to act. You also need to consider that if, as Aristot le suggested, only a few will achieve these virtues, then even aspiring to become a virtuous person seems a waste of time. The fact that there is no general agreement on what the virtues are suggests that Virtue ethics is completely useless itself, whereby the virtues that are susposed to benefit human beings are themselves not even absolute or universal. Most virtue theorists say that there is a common set of virtues that all human beings would benefit from, rather than a set for different sorts of people. When considering guidance for action, it seems logical that everyone should abide by the same rules to ensure that everyone is behaving in a way that is perhaps universally acceptable or expected. Since the lists of virtues vary from different times, different societies and cultures and so on, virtue ethics, if common for all humans, does not provide clear guidance on what to do in moral dilemmas. Everyone is different, and if action was to be sought from virtue ethics, then essentially anyone could do what they wanted to if it appears to make them a virtuous person, even if it was frowned upon by oth ers, i.e. being courageous or having magnificence. Ultimately, Virtue ethics is not culturally relative and agent-centred and therefore does not have anything to do with decision making or guiding action. Phlippa Foot suggested that virtues benefit the individual by leading to flourishing and that virtues are good for us by helping us correct harmful human passions and tempatations. However, flourishing and correction of harmful human actvities has no relevance to action. There is perhaps no denying that Virtue ethics does provide general guidance on how to be a good person, but being a good person has no relevence to someone who faces the dilemma of telling a lie to save an innocent life, for example. A virtue ethicist would focus less on lying in any particular instance, but instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about the persons character and moral behavior. When someone needs to decide to tell a lie or not, there is no use in them considering what it says about them as a person. Virtue ethics moves away from any sense of duty or belief, and completely ignores the action, yet when considering clear guidance for action, it is the action itself that us ually matters. Rosaline Hursthouse defends Virtue ethics and claims that virtues are virtues because they help a person achieve eudaimonia, and so living a virtuous life is a good thing for a human being. For Hursthouse, being a virtuous person is the most reliable path to flourishing. Hursthouse also attempts to address the criticism that Virtue ethics provides no guidance in moral dilemmas- not by telling us how a virtuous person would act, but by showing how a virtuous person would think about a moral dilemma. However, this approach still seems to ignore the actual action itself and the need for guidance. How a virtuous person thinks about a moral dilemma is not a clear guide for action. Presumably someone who is a virtuous person may be seen as a role model for others, but not necessarily for action. Different individuals are faced with completely different dilemmas, and so advice or guidance is not rooted with the characteristics and talents of another person who is considered virtuous. Robert Louden raised the problem that Virtue ethics cannot be applied to moral dilemmas. He outlined the major criticism that it does help people who are facing a crisis because it does not give any clear rules for action. He argued that it is difficult to work out the virtuous response to stem-cell research or abortion, for example. Essentially, Virtue ethics does not give us an concrete information or answers and instead says that it is more a matter for the practical wisdom of the individual facing the situation. Louden also highlighted that it is difficult to even decide who is virtuous, as acts may appear virtuous on the outside but may not have good motives, and vice versa. Ultimately, Virtue ethics does not accommodate rights and obligations, and so is perhaps inadequate for dealing with big issues or decision making; it does not seem to have a view on what makes an act right and wrong. Overall, Virtue ethics is useless, giving no clear guidance for action. Many may consider the fact that Virtue ethics does not rely on any formula to work out what we ought to do and instead focuses on the kind of person we are as good thing, allowing room for emotions and commitments, friends and family. However, it is this that seems to make Virtue ethics a useless approach to action; Virtue ethics does not provide any rules or guides and instead roots everything in the person and their characteristics, but being a virtuous person does not lead to concrete answers on what to do in compex situations. Decisions about abortion, euthanasia or genetic engineering, for example, does not come from us being virtuous or good people.

Eastern Flight 401 Essays -- Essays Papers

Eastern Flight 401 An Eastern Air Lines Lockheed L-1011 crashed at 2342 eastern standard time, December 29, 1972, 18.7 miles west-northwest of Miami International Airport, Miami, Florida. The aircraft was destroyed. Of the 163 passengers and 13 crewmembers aboard, 94 passengers and 5 crewmembers received fatal injuries. Two survivors died later as a result of their injuries. Following a missed approach because of a suspected nose gear malfunction, the aircraft climbed to 2, 000 feet mean sea level and proceeded on a westerly heading. The three flight crewmembers and a jumpseat occupant became engrossed in the malfunction. The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the failure of the flightcrew to monitor the flight instrument during the final 4 minutes of flight, and to detect an unexpected descent soon enough to prevent impact with the ground. Preoccupation with a malfunction of the nose landing gear position indicating system distracted the crew's attention from the instruments and allowed the descent to go unnoticed. As a result of the investigation of this accident, the Safety Board has made recommendations to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. This tragic accident was preventable by not only the flight crew, but maintenance and air traffic control personnel as well. On December 29, 1972, ninety-nine of the one hundred and seventy-six people onboard lost their lives needlessly. As is the case with most accidents, this one was certainly preventable. This accident is unique because of the different people that could have prevented it from happening. The NTSB determined that â€Å"the probable cause of this accident was the failure of the flightcrew.† This is true; the flight crew did fail, however, others share the responsibility for this accident. Equally responsible where maintenance personnel, an Air Traffic Controllers, the system, and a twenty cent light bulb. What continues is a discussion on, what happened, why it happened, what to do about it and what was done about it. Maintenance personnel should have replaced a faulty indicator light bulb for the nose gear. The filament in the bulb was detached from one of the two mountings. That enabled the bulb to illuminate intermittently. When the maintenance personnel serviced the aircraft, they found the light... ...3 Pardon? CAM-4 Wheel-well lights on? CAM-3 Yeah wheel well lights always on if the gear's down CAM-1 Now try it 23.41:40 APP Eastern, ah 401 how are things comin' along out there? 23.41:44 RDO-1 Okay, we'd like to turn around and come, come back in CAM-1 Clear on left? CAM-2 Okay 23.41:47 APP Eastern 401 turn left heading one eight zero 23.41:50 CAM-1 Huh? 23.41:51 RDO-1 One eighty 23.42:05 CAM-2 We did something to the altitude CAM-1 What? 23.42:07 CAM-2 We're still at two thousand right? 23.42:09 CAM-1 Hey, what's happening here? CAM [Sound of click] 23.42:10 CAM [Sound of six beeps similar to radio altimeter increasing in rate] 23.42:12 .... [Sound of impact] References 1. Mr. Johnson was an air traffic control instructor at Miami International Airport. 2. National Transportation Safety Board Abstract Available [Online] http://www.rpi.edu/dept/union/raf/public/NTSB_Accident_abstracts 3. Air Disaster.com Available[Online] http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/cvr_ea401.html Title: Eastern Air Lines, Inc., L-1011, N310EA, Miami, Florida, December 29, 1972. NTSB Report Number: AAR-73-14, adopted on 06/14/1973 NTIS Report Number: PB-222359/2

The Accounting Cycle

In the general point of view, an accounting cycle refers to certain procedures that must be established by every business unit to provide the data to be reported on the financial statements. The accounting process consists of two interrelated parts: the recording phase and the summarizing phase. Although these phases vary in details depending on the nature of the business, the main purpose is just the same – to be able to provide an accurate report containing the firm's condition and the result of its operation. To clearly illustrate the complete accounting cycle of a finance company, let us take as an example Dann & Berns, Inc. The company is engaged in providing business analysis including credit investigation, a thorough study of the company profile, review of the client's financial statements, and providing an overall rating of the clients, whom we will call as subjects in this example. Among Dann & Berns' subjects include big companies who are applying for accreditation as a distributor of another firm; applicant verification for banks and other financial institutions offering various types of loans, as part of their pre-approval requirements; outsourcing companies and other headhunting firms for hire-right purposes; and others from different industries. To be able to provide the necessary services, Dann & Berns is hiring very senior financial professionals for these functions. These professionals are required to have a solid background in finance and accounting as well as the ability to communicate with the top management of different financial institutions. A deep knowledge on financial analysis is highly expected from them. The Operations Department is involved in the main process and is consist of report coordinators, field officers, business analysts, and editors, who are all directly reporting to the vice president. Other departments providing support include marketing, human resources, legal, information technology, accounting and audit. The marketing people are the ones who have direct contact with the subject. They collect and forward the primary documents and other requirements to the operations department through the report coordinators. The report coordinators will then input necessary data for monitoring and assignment of subjects to the business analysts. The editors are responsible in reviewing the work of the business analysts. Their responsibilities include double-checking of the ratings given to the subject, based on their company profile, the result of background checks, outcome of credit investigations made, and the content of their financial statements. Field officers are the ones who do the personal background-checking and other liaison work including but not limited to gathering of pertinent documents from the Securities and Exchange Commission, IRS, Federal Bank and other banks, and other regulatory bodies to authenticate the validity of the papers submitted by the subject. Once the accreditation process is done, the editors will forward the reports back to the report coordinators, who will then issue a list of completed reports per subject to the accounting department for billing purposes. This is the starting point of Dann & Berns' accounting cycle.

Tort Assignment

Notwithstanding that Fred may have provoked Ivan by his behavior towards Van's fiancee, however, this is not a defense to intentional wrong doing tort and there is not any reasonable ground for defense of the person of another. Therefore, it would be found that Ivan is liable for battery. There was no actual damage suffered by Fred, hence Fred can only claim for nominal damages. Ivan v the parking attendant – negligent trespass for battery A negligent battery Is committed when there is a negligent, direct, and unlawful contact or without consent to another's person.Prima ice, the injury suffered by Ivan was a direct injury negligently conflicted through the carelessness and negligence of the parking attendant. It would be reasonably foreseeable that someone might be standing under the shutter door. However, there has not been any precedent to support the view of negligent battery, or the interrelationship of fault and trespass. In my view, as long as the elements of negligent trespass are satisfied, the parking attendant would be liable for negligent battery and Ivan might claim for compensatory damage to compensate his medical bill and economic loss.Assault Ivan v Fred Assault is the intentional creation of an apprehension of an immediate physical violence or unlawful contact. Fred subjectively intended to create an apprehension to carry out force toward Ivan. The nature of his act was clearly manifested to batter Ivan; which hands clenched Into fists towards someone's face In close physical proximity would prove the apparent ability of Fred to carry out threat. However, concurrently, Fred intentionally made the statement â€Å"you wait till you're outside tonight, you d*head-you'll regret this†.Although the verbal threat could ultimately kook away the immediacy, and the fact that Fred went to sleep suggested that there was no clear evidence for imminent physical violence. However, Fried's threatening gesture was satisfied to cause reasonable app rehension of unlawful physical contact on any ordinary man's mind even If the act might happen later. So It would be found that Fred is liable and hence Ivan might claim for nominal damages as there was no actual injury suffered. Officer v Tony Referring to the definition, the threatening statement constituted an intentional act which aimed to threaten the officer with some kind of harm.The verbal threat of immediate force, and were not even mere words, which has all the essential elements Tort ten emcee to apprehend Immediate unlawful contact, although Tear Is not required. Tony subjected the officer to intimidation by threatening to apply force in a circumstance that the officer had no right to block the way out. However, the threat was made in an improper way of enforcing his right. On the on hand, it may be said that there has been restrained on Tony by his wife. Yet, this still constituted assault by possessing the means of carrying immediate violence.Tony would be liable for a ssault without any reasonable defenses. Again, the officer can claim for nominal damages only without any actual damage or feeling injury. Rosins v Fred As previously defined, Fred voluntarily blocked Rosin's way which sufficed as the intentional act. The act of unlawful photographing would not constitute an assault itself (intrusion of privacy instead), however, blocking someone with a â€Å"display of force† would carry means of threat into effect, which was reasonable for Rosins to apprehended that the threat would be carried out without her consent.Therefore, Fred would be liable for the tort of assault and Rosins likely to claim for nominal damages. False imprisonment Richard v State Immigration Department [SIDE] False imprisonment is defined as intentional and unauthorized restraint or deprivation of a person's liberty. SIDE was intentionally wrongful used its authority to cause confinement on Orchard's liberty. Although there has been no application of physical force, there was evidence of complete submission by Richard to the control of SIDE, which eventually satisfied the test drawn from the High Court's decision inBellman New Ferry Co Ltd v Robertson. Through the presence of officers, it was apparent that if Richard refused to follow, he would be restrained by force. So the requirement of total restraint was abundantly satisfied. SIDE took the action without any requisite warrants or reasonable evidence; a tip-off was not enough to satisfy, so an imprisonment was unlawful since the beginning as they barred exit. No minimum time limit is specified for constituting of the action on false imprisonment, therefore 20 minute of detention or even less than that would still constitute an action for false imprisonment.There will be no relevant defenses since the action was unlawfully carried out, without any authorized license or statutory authority. So SIDE would be liable for false imprisonment; Richard can claim for nominal damages to signify the in fringement of his right and inconvenience without any forthcoming apology from SIDE; and aggravated damages for the injury of his dignity and feelings upon the false imprisonment.There is no evidence to suggest that Richard suffered any special loss; however, the conduct of SIDE was considered to be arbitrary, oppressive and unconstitutional, hence exemplary damages would be claimed People in Bar Aroma v State Immigration Department [SIDE] Referring to the definition, as followed concurrently with the false imprisonment of Richard, the liberty of people in Bar Aroma was deprived totally; which could be proved through the fact that Tony was not able to leave.Again, SIDE had no right to imprison people without any requisite warrants; hence an imprisonment was unlawfully carried out. SIDE may argue of people's unawareness at the time the action took place. However, a person could be imprisoned without his knowing it. And the residence of an official stationed at each door would reasona bly allow people to recognize the total restraint on their liberty. Based on the fact, the mean of escape exalters tongue ten sloe door; never, tens was not apparent; nonce It wall not De regarded as reasonable.So SIDE would be found to be liable for false imprisonment. The people would expect to recover no more than nominal damages due to their unawareness of falsely imprisoned condition and no actual harm suffered. The local people v State Immigration Department [SIDE] As previously defined, the elements of total restrained through unlawful conduct ere abundantly satisfied by barring the exit doors and without any requisite warrants. However, there is no false imprisonment where a person has consented to a restraint on liberty.It appeared that the local people were aware of the situation and of the purpose in which it was carried out. It was therefore determined that they had given implied consents which surrendered of a portion of their liberty for a certain period. If the cause of action is a restraint in accordance with that surrender, they cannot complain. Furthermore, by knowing the side door, there was a reasonable mean of escape. Hence, an action for false imprisonment might not lie.Rosins v Fred Referring to the definition, Fred intentionally blocked Rosin's way, which illustrated his unlawfulness by stopping her right from passing the way. However, on the same fact, Fred did not amount to a total restraint of Rosin's liberty, as she could go different directions in order to avoid Fried's contact; hence through merely obstructed the passage of Rosins in a particular direction and not preventing her from going in another direction, Fred will have a good defense to any claim in false imprisonment rough by Rosins. Tort Assignment Notwithstanding that Fred may have provoked Ivan by his behavior towards Van's fiancee, however, this is not a defense to intentional wrong doing tort and there is not any reasonable ground for defense of the person of another. Therefore, it would be found that Ivan is liable for battery. There was no actual damage suffered by Fred, hence Fred can only claim for nominal damages. Ivan v the parking attendant – negligent trespass for battery A negligent battery Is committed when there is a negligent, direct, and unlawful contact or without consent to another's person.Prima ice, the injury suffered by Ivan was a direct injury negligently conflicted through the carelessness and negligence of the parking attendant. It would be reasonably foreseeable that someone might be standing under the shutter door. However, there has not been any precedent to support the view of negligent battery, or the interrelationship of fault and trespass. In my view, as long as the elements of negligent trespass are satisfied, the parking attendant would be liable for negligent battery and Ivan might claim for compensatory damage to compensate his medical bill and economic loss.Assault Ivan v Fred Assault is the intentional creation of an apprehension of an immediate physical violence or unlawful contact. Fred subjectively intended to create an apprehension to carry out force toward Ivan. The nature of his act was clearly manifested to batter Ivan; which hands clenched Into fists towards someone's face In close physical proximity would prove the apparent ability of Fred to carry out threat. However, concurrently, Fred intentionally made the statement â€Å"you wait till you're outside tonight, you d*head-you'll regret this†.Although the verbal threat could ultimately kook away the immediacy, and the fact that Fred went to sleep suggested that there was no clear evidence for imminent physical violence. However, Fried's threatening gesture was satisfied to cause reasonable app rehension of unlawful physical contact on any ordinary man's mind even If the act might happen later. So It would be found that Fred is liable and hence Ivan might claim for nominal damages as there was no actual injury suffered. Officer v Tony Referring to the definition, the threatening statement constituted an intentional act which aimed to threaten the officer with some kind of harm.The verbal threat of immediate force, and were not even mere words, which has all the essential elements Tort ten emcee to apprehend Immediate unlawful contact, although Tear Is not required. Tony subjected the officer to intimidation by threatening to apply force in a circumstance that the officer had no right to block the way out. However, the threat was made in an improper way of enforcing his right. On the on hand, it may be said that there has been restrained on Tony by his wife. Yet, this still constituted assault by possessing the means of carrying immediate violence.Tony would be liable for a ssault without any reasonable defenses. Again, the officer can claim for nominal damages only without any actual damage or feeling injury. Rosins v Fred As previously defined, Fred voluntarily blocked Rosin's way which sufficed as the intentional act. The act of unlawful photographing would not constitute an assault itself (intrusion of privacy instead), however, blocking someone with a â€Å"display of force† would carry means of threat into effect, which was reasonable for Rosins to apprehended that the threat would be carried out without her consent.Therefore, Fred would be liable for the tort of assault and Rosins likely to claim for nominal damages. False imprisonment Richard v State Immigration Department [SIDE] False imprisonment is defined as intentional and unauthorized restraint or deprivation of a person's liberty. SIDE was intentionally wrongful used its authority to cause confinement on Orchard's liberty. Although there has been no application of physical force, there was evidence of complete submission by Richard to the control of SIDE, which eventually satisfied the test drawn from the High Court's decision inBellman New Ferry Co Ltd v Robertson. Through the presence of officers, it was apparent that if Richard refused to follow, he would be restrained by force. So the requirement of total restraint was abundantly satisfied. SIDE took the action without any requisite warrants or reasonable evidence; a tip-off was not enough to satisfy, so an imprisonment was unlawful since the beginning as they barred exit. No minimum time limit is specified for constituting of the action on false imprisonment, therefore 20 minute of detention or even less than that would still constitute an action for false imprisonment.There will be no relevant defenses since the action was unlawfully carried out, without any authorized license or statutory authority. So SIDE would be liable for false imprisonment; Richard can claim for nominal damages to signify the in fringement of his right and inconvenience without any forthcoming apology from SIDE; and aggravated damages for the injury of his dignity and feelings upon the false imprisonment.There is no evidence to suggest that Richard suffered any special loss; however, the conduct of SIDE was considered to be arbitrary, oppressive and unconstitutional, hence exemplary damages would be claimed People in Bar Aroma v State Immigration Department [SIDE] Referring to the definition, as followed concurrently with the false imprisonment of Richard, the liberty of people in Bar Aroma was deprived totally; which could be proved through the fact that Tony was not able to leave.Again, SIDE had no right to imprison people without any requisite warrants; hence an imprisonment was unlawfully carried out. SIDE may argue of people's unawareness at the time the action took place. However, a person could be imprisoned without his knowing it. And the residence of an official stationed at each door would reasona bly allow people to recognize the total restraint on their liberty. Based on the fact, the mean of escape exalters tongue ten sloe door; never, tens was not apparent; nonce It wall not De regarded as reasonable.So SIDE would be found to be liable for false imprisonment. The people would expect to recover no more than nominal damages due to their unawareness of falsely imprisoned condition and no actual harm suffered. The local people v State Immigration Department [SIDE] As previously defined, the elements of total restrained through unlawful conduct ere abundantly satisfied by barring the exit doors and without any requisite warrants. However, there is no false imprisonment where a person has consented to a restraint on liberty.It appeared that the local people were aware of the situation and of the purpose in which it was carried out. It was therefore determined that they had given implied consents which surrendered of a portion of their liberty for a certain period. If the cause of action is a restraint in accordance with that surrender, they cannot complain. Furthermore, by knowing the side door, there was a reasonable mean of escape. Hence, an action for false imprisonment might not lie.Rosins v Fred Referring to the definition, Fred intentionally blocked Rosin's way, which illustrated his unlawfulness by stopping her right from passing the way. However, on the same fact, Fred did not amount to a total restraint of Rosin's liberty, as she could go different directions in order to avoid Fried's contact; hence through merely obstructed the passage of Rosins in a particular direction and not preventing her from going in another direction, Fred will have a good defense to any claim in false imprisonment rough by Rosins.