That he is a skilled swordsman.
This is in Act 3 Scene 1. It tells us that mercutio doesnt take benvolio's threat seriously. This is because it states "...when there is no need" which means that Mercutio is saying that there no need to be so serious about things. This coment makes Mercutio seem judgemental and quite courageous too.
The prince states that Romeo shall be banished instead of being put to death for killing Tybalt. Tybalt killed kin of the Prince, Mercutio, so it was justified, but still a wrongdoing.
The Prince has the difficult task of trying to restrain the violence of the two feuding families without becoming a tyrant. He upbraids himself at the end for being too soft on them, but in reality he is being unfair to himself. Issuing a proclamation that public brawling would be punished by death was as strong an action as he could reasonably take. We also see the Prince struggling with the difficult question of vigilantes. In essence, this is what Romeo has done in killing Tybalt, and the argument Benvolio puts forward why Romeo should not be punished for it. Benvolio argues that Tybalt's life was forfeit already, having killed Mercutio in a street brawl. The Prince, wisely, does not accept this argument as a full justification of Romeo's actions. Had he done so, he would be licencing the feuding parties to continue their feud ad infinitum. The Prince's main problem is that he is trying to legislate something which, while socially necessary, is unpopular. He does right by trying to get Montague and Capulet to support his initiative, but their support is faint at best. Notwithstanding the ban, Tybalt still pursues Romeo around the town for a totally imaginary slight; Mercutio is happy to step into someone else's quarrel just for the heck of it; Romeo appoints himself a vigilante to avenge Mercutio's death; and Lady Capulet is hiring murderers to get her revenge on Romeo. There is no sense that Tybalt, Mercutio, or Lady Capulet think that these actions are wrong, and Benvolio defends Romeo's. Romeo is the only one who knows that what he has done is wrong; he is "Fortune's Fool". As the prologue states, only the deaths of Romeo and Juliet could convince the families that feuding is not just illegal, it is wrong, and they should stop doing it. The Prince could not, using the power of law, punish everyone who kept up the fighting, yet as a result of Romeo and Juliet's deaths, "all are punished".
They wear masks when they attend the Capulet party. At that time and in that culture, hiding your face was not considered an outrage as it would be nowadays in many countries (e.g. France, the United States)
The play states that Juliet is 13, and therefore we can assume the other character's ages. It's estimated that Romeo was about 16 and Mercutio was approximately 18-28. Therfore, we can guess that Benvolio is about 18-28 as well.
There are 12 States in the U.S. That require ALL parties involved in the conversation (All Party Consent) to be made aware that the conversation is being recorded. These States are listed below.The remaining 38 states require that only one party to the conversation (this can include the party doing the recording) be aware of it.IT IS UNLAWFUL IN ALL STATES, and under federal law, to record a conversation of any type in which you are not a participant.The 12 states requiring ALL PARTY notification are:CaliforniaConnecticutDelawareFloridaIllinoisMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMontanaNew HampshirePennsylvaniaWashington
Capulet states to Tybalt that young Romeo Montague has had many wonderful things said about him and is seemingly a gentleman according to others in Verona. He also states that it would not do him any justice if he was kicked out of the party, and that Tybalt should calm down and enjoy the party since Romeo wasn't doing anything wrong to begin with.
From what I remember, Lord Capulet states that Romeo had killed Tybalt and therefore should too die. This is countered by the Montague's who tell of Mercutio's death at the sword of Tybalt. All of this leads to Romeo being banished from Verona
There are 12 States in the U.S. That requires ALL parties involved in the conversation (All Party Consent) to be made aware that the conversation is being recorded. These States are:CaliforniaConnecticutDelawareFloridaIllinoisMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMontanaNew HampshirePennsylvaniaWashingtonThe following 38 States require that at least ONE person (One Party Consent) involved in the conversation has given permission for the conversation to be recorded including the person doing the recording:AlaskaArkansasColoradoDistrict of ColumbiaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMinnesotaMississippiMissouriNebraskaNevadaNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingThis falls under the United States Code: Title 18.2511. As long as you actually take part in the conversation and are doing so in a State that allows "One Party Consent", it is quite legal to record the conversation without another party in the conversation giving permission or even being told that they are being recorded.Hope that fully answers your question..
The conservation law states that a particular measurable prop
In most states as long as one party of the conversation, which could be the one doing the recording, has knowledge that they are being recorded, recording a phone conversation is legal.
Yes, in many states it is considered a felony to record a conversation without the consent of all parties involved.