Answer:
C. Tooth and Nails Approach
Explanation:
The type of approach Sgt. Evans and Lee the intern take in solving the issue of the robbery attempts on a targeted ATM is Tooth and Nails Approach.
The process involves analyzing data.
Sgt. Evans and Lee the intern would likely take a Community Oriented Policing approach, focusing on building community relations and tackling the socio-economic factors contributing to crime, in order to prevent and solve the robbery attempts at a targeted ATM.So,option B is correct.
Sgt. Evans and Lee the intern would likely adopt a Community Oriented Policing approach in solving the issue of the robbery attempts on a targeted ATM. This approach involves building ties and trust with the community to increase police legitimacy and reduce crime. By focusing on specific problems and leveraging community partnerships, police can develop more precise strategies such as targeted patrols and neighborhood watch programs which are shown to be more effective than generic increases in policing resources.
Moreover, a problem-oriented policing model would prioritize analyzing specific crime and disorder problems to develop effective response strategies. Drawing from the social ecology approach, Sgt. Evans and Lee might consider the socio-economic factors contributing to crime in the neighborhood, such as poverty and social disorganization, and incorporate this understanding into their strategy.
In contrast to the get-tough approach, which has not demonstrated reductions in crime effectively and cost-efficiently, community and problem-oriented policing both present more holistic and preventative methods by addressing the social roots of crime.
pol 470 Justiciability is an appropriate or suitable reason for a federal tribunal to hear or to solve a conflict. Question 7 options: True False
Answer:
True
Explanation:
It is true that a federal tribunal can hear or solve a particular conflict by referring to the concept of justiciability. Justiciability is a term in law that refers to the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority. In other words, justiciability establishes the situations when a particular court can exercise its duties. When a court cannot provide an adequate solution to a dispute, the matter is considered not justiciable.
Justiciability is the concept that a case must be appropriate for a court to hear and decide upon it, requiring a real controversy with legitimate adversaries. It is true that justiciability is necessary for a federal tribunal to consider a case. This concept helps to ensure that federal courts operate within their constitutional and statutory boundaries.
Justiciability refers to the appropriateness or suitability of a case for a federal tribunal to hear and resolve a conflict. This legal principle implies that for a court to exercise power, the case before it must be a legitimate controversy involving adversaries who have directly suffered or are about to suffer harm, where legal rights are in dispute or a wrong needs redress. It is true that justiciability is about the court's capacity to entertain such disputes.
To determine if a federal court can hear a state case, one key consideration is whether it involves a federal question. The Constitution and the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 grant federal courts the jurisdiction to hear certain types of cases, which can include those that involve a federal question. Internal limitations also require that the parties involved are not colluding to get a desired outcome (i.e., they must have genuine opposing interests).
Moreover, for the administration of justice, certain procedural safeguards are typically in place, such as unbiased tribunals and the opportunity for both sides to present evidence and call witnesses, ensuring that decisions are made based on the evidence presented. These safeguards are crucial for maintaining the integrity and impartiality of the dispute resolution process and underscore the importance of justiciability in the legal regime.
What is the relationship between statutory immunity and common law duty here? 2. Would it have been better for Ms. Torti to argue that she was providing medical treatment and have the court deal with the issue of what constitutes medical care rather than the issue of immunity? 3. What are the implications of this decision for people who are trying to offer assistance at the scene of an accident?
Answer:
What is the relationship between statutory immunity and common law duty here?
The relationship between statutory immunity and common law duty here, is emergency care, while statutory immunity states that the emergency care is completely linked with trained medical personnel providing the help with proper equipment and trained enough to manage emergency situations discarding help from others, common law specifies a citizen´s duty to give emergency medical care if there is no trained personnel available.
2. Would it have been better for Ms. Torti to argue that she was providing medical treatment and have the court deal with the issue of what constitutes medical care rather than the issue of immunity?
No, it wouldn´t because a common law duty existed.
3. What are the implications of this decision for people who are trying to offer assistance at the scene of an accident?
The implications of this decision for people who are trying to offer assistance at the scene of an accident are several and complex, as we are dealing decision-making dilemma which would be the difference between life and death, although the circumstances around the conditions after surviving the accident are impossible to be evaluated at that emergency moment.
Explanation:
This case would rather need to provide a proof of breach of duty and damage so that the plaintiff would be able to get a private solution for the defendant's statutory breach, but if this is excluded then a common law duty would not be presented.
Manny is driving down Polo Bl. And is stopped by the local police for speeding 45 in a 35 mph. Zone. He is written a traffic summons to either appear in court or pay a fine and avoid coming to court. What type of offense is this?
The offence committed by Manny is referred to as a Traffic Infraction
Explanation:
Driving related offenses can be classified into
Infractionmisdemeanors or felonies.Traffic Infraction
It is also Known as "Violations"or "civil infractions".It is the most common driving related offence.Some examples of Traffic infraction includes
Failure to wear seat belt Over speeding of vehicleCrossing the Limit line when the signal is red.Inappropriate lightning of a vehicle
Manny committed a speeding offense and has the option to pay a fine or appear in court.
Explanation:The type of offense Manny committed is speeding.
Driving over the speed limit is a violation of traffic laws, and in this case, Manny was driving 10 mph over the posted speed limit of 35 mph. This type of offense is commonly referred to as a speeding ticket.
Manny has the option to either appear in court or pay a fine to resolve the issue. If he chooses to pay the fine, he can avoid going to court.
Learn more about Speeding offense here:https://brainly.com/question/33567901
#SPJ3
Who can bring suit to stop action by a federal agency? a. Only the Justice Department b. Only the company or individual affected by the agency action c. Another federal agency d. Citizen and environmental groups
Answer:
d. Citizen and environmental groups
Explanation:
Citizen and environmental groups can bring suit to stop action by a federal agency.
Joe is the CEO of a company that handles medical billing for several regional hospital systems. How would Joe's company be classified under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
Answer:
Business associate of a covered entity
Explanation:
A business associate is an entity, person or organization that is granted the legal access to health information that is deemed protected for them to perform services for a covered entity. The privacy rule clearly affirms that the covered entity should be confident that the business associates they deal with must safeguard the protected information they handle or gathered on behalf of the covered entity. The business associate would handle tasks such as claims processing, billing, benefit management, etc.
________ refer to cases arising under the U.S. Constitution, treaties, and federal statutes and regulations.
Answer: Federal question cases.
Explanation:
Federal question cases are civil cases heard when a person who brings a case is going against federal law. It is a law applied in the United States when a plaintiff goes against a treaty in which the US is part of or when the constitution of the United States is been violated.
There are four sources of American law. a. Describe each source, and b. state the branch of government that creates each source of law.
The 4 sources of American Law are United States Constitution, Federal Statues (passed during legislative session) and State Statues (enacted by State Legislature), Administrative Regulations (issued by state or federal administrative agencies) and Case law and Judicial Opinions (judge-made law).
Explanation:
Laws are rules of conduct implemented to keep stability and justice in a community. There are four sources of American law:1. United States constitution
Constitution is the most fundamental of the sources of law.United States constitution is their "supreme law of the land."Constitution provides the power and responsibility of the government and provides guidance on how government is organised.First 3 articles describe the structure and scope of the federal government.2. Federal and State statues
Also called statutory law and it is the second important source of law.United State Congress enacts federal statues and they are applicable in all 50 states.Federal Statues are passed during legislative session are published in the United States Code.State statues are enacted by state legislature and is applicable only within the state.3. Administrative regulations
Administrative regulations are the ones issued by state or federal administrative agencies.Administrative regulations are developed through 2 types of rule making - formal and informal.4. Case law and judicial Opinions
They are judge made laws.Federal court system has trials and appellate courts.Many jurisdictions have contracted with private prisons to solve their overcrowding problems. Identify at least two benefits achieved in contracting with a private prison.
Identify at least two disadvantages resulting from contracting with a private prison.Cite at least two articles (not in the class reading list) to support your response.
Comment on the postings of at least two of your classmates.
Answer: According to the article "The Economics of Private Prisions", the advantages of contracting with private prisions are the prices, which are cheaper than public ones for tax payers, since the company hired is the one responsible for solving any structural demands for example, that is currently generating over 80 billion dollars a year in expenses to be mantained for the government. Also, private companies generate jobs for the community, which could be the other advantage of contracting private prison services. The disadvantages, as pointed in "ISSUES IN CONTRACTING FOR THE PRIVATE OPERATION OF PRISONS AND JAILS", are concerning the fact that those prisons are able to "choose the criminal" according to the offense of the convict, and then aren't obliged to accept all of them as public ones are. Also, the ratio of convicts to employees are higher, and it is reported that these employees face 50% more violence acts against them when compared to public institutions.
Answer:
In parts of the United States there are prisons which, instead of being run directly by the government, in the traditional style, are run with private interests. The state authorities allocate money to the financing and make sure that they follow the same standards as state prisons, for example in terms of cells, food, work, rights and other conditions.
Advantages and disadvantages arise from this situation. As for the advantages, we can see that the government invests less money than it would invest if the prison were state-owned, so less money is invested in an activity that is not productive in itself, being able to allocate that public money to another type of expenses most necessary to improve the life of society. In addition, the fact that private prisons coexist with state prisons implies that the prison system is not saturated, since many investors can create new prisons, avoiding overcrowding of convicts as happens in other parts of the world.
As for the disadvantages, the main one is that the prison ceases to be a punishment for the inmate and a protection for society to be a business, so that since there is an economic interest, there can be an over-incarceration of the accused in the various criminal trials of the country. In addition, the lowering of costs in the prison day to day may lead to the violation of the rights of prisoners.
In Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital, the court had to balance the hospital's negligence against the charitable immunity doctrine to determine whether Flagiello could recover for injuries sustained on the hospital's property. The court determined that:
A. the charitable immunity doctrine was specifically and clearly written so they were bound to follow the clear intent of the statutory scheme and find for the hospital.
B. the charitable immunity doctrine had been litigated in the past and stare decisis required that the court adhereto established case precedent and find for the hospital.
C.current societal norms rendered the charitable immunity doctrine inapplicable to this case and that fundamental fairness allowed the court to deviate from established case precedent and find for Flagiello.
D. the charitable immunity doctrine can only be repealed or overturned by the state's legislature and that stare decisis required that case precedent be followed, however, due to the severity of Flagiello's injuries, the charitable immunity doctrine allowed for certain exceptions, permitting Flagiello to recover in this case.
Answer:
current societal norms rendered the charitable immunity doctrine inapplicable to this case and that fundamental fairness allowed the court to deviate from established case precedent and find for Flagiello.
Explanation:
In Appeals, Nos. 293 and 351, Jan. T., 1964, from judgments of Court of Common Pleas No. 4 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1963, No. 4018 is found a case of Mrs. C Mary, and her husband Thomas Flagiello against the Pennsylvania Hospital, in which the Flagiellos rightly stated that Mrs Mary was injured in the Pennsylvania Hospital where she paid $24.50 a day for hospital facilities and nursing care. An action of trespass was brought against the medical institution and two employees were said to be involved.
The hospital accepted their wrong doings but they should not be liable since they are an organization dependent on charity. After series of legal proceedings, the court finally affirmed that precedents would not be followed in the case and that charities, like the hospital, must be liable
Final answer:
In Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital, the court found that societal changes made the charitable immunity doctrine inapplicable, allowing Flagiello to recover for injuries sustained on the hospital's property.
Explanation:
In Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital, the court had to weigh the application of the charitable immunity doctrine against claims of negligence by the hospital in a case where Flagiello was injured on the hospital's property. The correct decision made by the court was that current societal norms rendered the charitable immunity doctrine inapplicable in this case. The court found that fundamental fairness and changing societal values allowed for deviation from established case precedent, enabling Flagiello to recover for her injuries.
This represents a significant shift in how courts perceive and apply doctrines like charitable immunity, often influenced by changes in societal attitudes toward institutions and the accountability expected of them, especially in contexts where public safety and welfare are concerned.
Describe several situations in which compulsion, consent, or other excuses take away criminal liability.
Answer:
Absolute excuses are the causes that operate on a crime, eliminating its punishability, as a result of reasons not linked to either unlawfulness or guilt, but rather the reasons linked to utility or material justice.
Explanation:
Among some causes of exclusion from punishment are inviolabilities, which are based on the relevant role played by the body to which the person who has the prerogative of inviolability belongs, for example, the Head of State, deputies and Senators, the Constitutional Court magistrates and the Ombudsman.
Another cause of exclusion is the cover-up between relatives, those of their spouse or person to whom they are stably linked through an emotional relationship, their ascendants, descendants, brothers, by nature or by adoption.
Another cause is the exceptio veritatis, in which the defendant of the crime of slander will be exempt from any penalty proving the criminal act he has charged. The exceptio veritatis constitutes an objective cause of exclusion of the penalty that may take place during the course of the slander process and that finds its foundation in the interest of the State.
Compulsion, consent, and other excuses can take away criminal liability in certain situations in criminal law. Examples include compulsion under duress, informed consent, and other excuses like self-defense or necessity.
Explanation:In criminal law, there are situations in which compulsion, consent, or other excuses can take away criminal liability. Some examples include:
Compulsion: If a person is forced or threatened to commit a crime under duress, they may be considered not criminally liable. For example, if someone is held at gunpoint and instructed to rob a bank, their actions may be excused due to the compulsion.Consent: In certain cases, if a person willingly and informedly consents to an act that would otherwise be considered a crime, it may take away their criminal liability. For instance, if two individuals engage in consensual activities that are typically illegal, such as sexual acts between consenting adults, their actions may not be considered criminal.Other Excuses: There are various other situations that can excuse criminal liability, such as self-defense, necessity, and infancy. For example, if someone acts in self-defense to protect themselves from harm, their actions may be justified and not considered criminal.Some assaults are lawful
Answer:
Yes, some assaults are lawful. They are;
Assault committed as a result of self-defenseIn a case of Medical interventionA sport that allows touching.AccidentExplanation:
Assault refers to a situation when a person is threatened and physically caused grievous bodily harm by another person. Assault can both be a civil and criminal wrong. When it is a civil wrong, you claim damages (money) for the harm caused by the act of another. When it is a criminal wrong, the person who assaulted another person will be sentenced to prison for a specified number of months or years depending on how grievous the harm is by a Court of Law. In the United States, the maximum sentence given to a person guilty of assault depends on the Jurisdiction (States).
To prove an assault, certain elements must be present, namely;
That the defendant was the one that committed the wrong.That the defendant intentionally caused the victim grievous bodily harm.That the Defendant caused the victim to have grievous bodily harm.Aggravating circumstances differ widely in their significance; therefore, their content is more important than how many there are in determining the number of death-eligible offenses. Group of answer choices True False
Answer:
It is TRUE that Aggravating circumstances differ widely in their significance; therefore, their content is more important than how many there are in determining the number of death-eligible offenses.
Explanation:
“Aggravating circumstances refers to factors that increases the severity or culpability of a criminal act. ... Some generally recognized aggravating circumstances include heinousness of the crime, lack of remorse, and prior conviction of another crime.“
Do you think that eyewitness testimony should be given equal weight with other pieces of evidence in a court trial? Why or why not?
I do not believe that eyewitness testimony should be given equal weight with other pieces of evidence in a court trial. Eyewitness testimony refers to a type of evidence that comes from the statements of people who were present at the time of the crime/event. While I believe that this can be useful during a trial, I do not believe it should be trusted implicitly. Even when an eyewitness is honest, it is impossible to know whether his interpretation of an event is the right one. Moreover, his skills when it comes to sight, hearing, etc. are limited and subject to confusion and misunderstandings. Finally, there is also the possibility of bias or dishonesty.
Eyewitness testimony can be very compelling but often less reliable due to factors like stress and memory distortion. Therefore, it should not be given equal weight to other evidence types such as forensic analysis.
Eyewitness testimony can be extremely compelling for jurors, but it is essential to consider whether it should be given equal weight compared to other types of evidence such as physical evidence or forensic analysis.
Accuracy Concerns: Decades of research indicate that eyewitness testimony is often less accurate than it appears. Factors like stress, lighting, distance, and suggestibility can significantly affect an eyewitness's reliability.Memory and Perception: Human memory is not infallible and can be easily distorted. Events can be misremembered, and eyewitnesses can unconsciously fill in gaps in their memory, making their accounts less reliable.Psychological Research: Studies in psychology have repeatedly shown that people tend to overestimate the accuracy of their memories. This is why eyewitness testimony is a critical area of research in psychology.Bias Considerations: Eyewitnesses can be influenced by biases or leading questions during investigations, which can further reduce the reliability of their statements.Legal Implications: While eyewitness testimony can offer a unique perspective on an event, relying on it entirely can lead to wrongful convictions. Hence, it should not be weighed equally with more reliable evidence like DNA or video footage.In summary, while eyewitness testimony can provide important insights, its reliability is often compromised by various factors. Therefore, it should not be given equal weight to other pieces of evidence in a court trial.
Although both Sec61 and Sec33 are both involved in secretion, do their localization patterns suggest that they have different roles? Why?
Answer:
They do have different roles.
Explanation:
A secreted protein begins its process in the Endoplasmic Reticulum then transported to the Golgi. Sec61 is present in the Endoplasmic Reticulum, we can say it's in the Endoplasmic Reticulum a role it is playing in the Endoplasmic Reticulum.
Also, Sec 33 is found in the Golgi, we can also say that Sec 33 has a role in the Golgi.
Sec61 might have a role in relational translocation in the Endoplasmic Reticulum, while Sec 33 a role of maybe processing the protein in the Golgi or transport protein between the Endoplasmic Reticulum and the Golgi.
Hence, since the roles of the Endoplasmic Reticulum and the Golgi are different in secretion so invariably, the roles of Sec 33 and Sec 61 must also be different.
Sec61 and Sec33 have different roles in protein secretion based on their localization patterns. Sec61 is a ribosome receptor and a gated pore for target proteins, while Sec33 is involved in post-translational import.
Explanation:Sec61 and Sec33 are both involved in protein secretion, but their localization patterns suggest that they have different roles. Sec61 is a ribosome receptor and a gated pore for the passage of target proteins, while Sec33 is involved in the post-translational import of proteins. Sec61 is part of the ER translocon complex and is located in the ER membrane, while Sec33 is required for the import of proteins into the ER and is also located in the ER membrane.
Would it be possible for the police to carry out their major functions without treating members of subordinate groups unequally? Explain why this would or would not be possible.
Answer:
It is possible for the Police to carry out their major functions without treating members of subordinate groups unequally because they are suppose to be professionals although it is difficult at times but it is very possible to protect the minority because they swore to serve and protect.
Explanation:
Subordinate group: this is a group that is minority in a community.
In this activity, you'll be writing an essay evaluating the reasoning of the Supreme Court majority opinion and dissent in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines. On what grounds did each group of justices support their opinions
Answer:
The 1969 Supreme Court instance of Tinker v. Des Moines found that the right to speak freely of discourse must be ensured in government funded schools, gave the demonstration of articulation or conclusion—regardless of whether verbal or emblematic—isn't problematic to learning. The Court decided for Tinker, a 13-year-old young lady who wore dark armbands to class to fight America's inclusion in the Vietnam War.
Majority Opinion
In Tinker v. Des Moines, a vote of 7–2 decided for Tinker, maintaining the option to free discourse inside a state funded school. Equity Fortas, composing for the majority feeling, expressed that "It can scarcely be contended that either understudies or educators shed their sacred rights to the right to speak freely of discourse or articulation at the school building door." Because the school couldn't show proof of critical unsettling influence or interruption made by the understudies' wearing of the armbands, the Court saw no motivation to confine their appearance of conclusion while the understudies were going to class. The majority likewise noticed that the school denied hostile to war images while it permitted images communicating different feelings, a training the Court thought about unlawful.
Dissenting Opinion
Equity Hugo L. Dark contended in a dissenting conclusion that the First Amendment doesn't give the privilege to anybody to communicate any sentiment whenever. The school area was inside its privileges to train the understudies, and Black felt that the presence of the armbands occupied understudies from their work and thus brought down the capacity of the school authorities to play out their obligations. In his different difference, Justice John M. Harlan contended that school authorities ought to be managed wide power to keep up request except if their activities can be demonstrated to come from an inspiration other than a real school intrigue.
A reversible error is: a. any mistake made in a case. b. one that might have affected the outcome of a case. c. determined during a motion for summary judgment. d. none of the above
Answer:
b. one that might have affected the outcome of a case.
Explanation:
A reversible error is an error of sufficient gravity to warrant reversal of a judgment on appeal. It is an error by the trier of law (judge), or the trier of fact (the jury, or the judge if it is a bench trial), or malfeasance by one of the trying attorneys, which results in an unfair trial. It is to be distinguished from harmless errors which do not rise to a level which brings the validity of the judgment into question and thus do not lead to a reversal upon appeal.
If history is a guage, the U.S. Government cannot be trusted when it comes to sending our children to war. It seems that many years after Congress sends our children to war, we find out that the basic premise for the war was an intentional lie.a. Trueb. False
Answer:
true
Explanation:
During the bloody Vietnam war, it was said that on august 1964, a certain section of the media reported that there were renewed attacks against the American destroyers by the Vietnam people and in response to that, the sitting president of America ordered the retaliatory attacks in which the American planes were seen to hit north Vietnam in order to stop the aggression. Further investigation revealed that there was NO renewed attacks and all were lies about that, which resulted in the death of over 50,000 American