吉林割包皮前注意事项(吉林哪家医院治急性前列腺炎) (今日更新中)

Facing death, 17-year-old Hannah Carbocci wanted her big sister.A bullet had just pierced the wall of her classroom at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Gunshots -- a lot of them -- had exploded. Someone in her class was hurt. Someone else, somewhere, was yelling.  303

FALLBROOK (KGTV) -- A couple looking to buy a home in the North County wants to share an experience they're describing as negative as the new solar energy law goes into effect in 2020.The law requires that homes built in California starting in 2020 must have solar panels. It has caused confusion among potential homebuyers, like Brian and Carmen McKay. They recently left Las Vegas, looking to move back to San Diego County.“I used to work at Fallbrook skilled nursing many years ago,” said Carmen McKay. The couple found a home they liked in the Horse Creek Ridge development, a new housing project in Fallbrook.“When we realized it was a corner lot… oh my gosh, we loved it,” Carmen said.They were told the cost was roughly 5,000—which sounded like a reasonable price for San Diego, according to the McKays. That is when they say they got a surprise from the sales representative.“Then she says, by the way, once we were sold on the house and the price… there’s solar panels on the house. You have the option to lease it or buy it. And we’re like, why?” Carmen said.They said during the home tour, solar panels were not mentioned at all. Carmen said the sales representative only mentioned it when they were back in the office, ready to sign documents to buy the home. As the McKays were questioning solar, they were told “it’s required by the state.” That is only partially true. A spokesperson for the California Energy Commission told Team 10 that “the law only applies to homes that have been permitted after Jan. 1, 2020.”“If that’s not the case with the home in question that you mentioned, then the mandate does not apply,” wrote energy commission spokesperson Edward Ortiz.The McKays were told it would be about ,000 extra to buy the solar panels.“I think that it was misleading because we were buying a house that we were told it was 5, but it’s actually 5 or we’re paying a higher monthly out of pocket,” said Brian McKay.The seller knew they were on a time crunch.“We sold our property [in Nevada]. We’re at an AirBnB… we need to buy,” Carmen added.Nobody at the sales offices at Horse Creek Ridge would comment. Team 10 was directed to public relations. Through email, the spokesperson said:“Two separate state energy requirements guide D.R. Horton in its decisions regarding home design options in the state of California – the current State Energy Code requirements (commonly known as Title 24) and the State‐Mandated Solar requirements, which take effect in 2020. In most communities, we have found that solar is the best, most cost‐effective option for both D.R. Horton and our homebuyers to meet the current Title 24 Energy Code requirements. Thus, Horse Creek Ridge was designed using solar to meet the current Title 24 requirements, and as a result, we are required by the state to have solar on each home in the community.”When asked why that was not told to the potential homebuyers from the beginning, during the tour of the home, D.R. Horton spokesperson added that “solar requirements are communicated to customers via numerous marketing materials… and as an addendum to the home purchase agreement.” She pointed to an 8-page brochure, where solar is mentioned once on page 7. She also sent Team 10 an image of solar displayed on a model home—something the McKays said they never saw.There is no mention of solar or photos of any homes with solar on Horse Creek Ridge’s website. “I feel like I was deceived,” Carmen said. “We fell in love with the place. I felt like I was pushed in the corner.”Dan Zimberoff is an attorney not involved in this case, but he has seen solar disputes in the past. “A buyer needs to be aware,” Zimberoff said. “If you’re purchasing a new home and you see what that price is, ask the details. Is that really going to be the final price?” “We’re starting to remember why we left California,” Carmen said.The McKays ultimately decided not to buy the home. They hope their experience teaches others about the right questions to ask. “We were willing to pay the higher cost to live here, but I don't like being misled by builders,” Brian said. For more information, see the California Energy Commission's FAQ website. 4189

ESCONDIDO, Calif. (KGTV) - Westfield Mall will be terminating its leases with two pet stores operating on their properties in San Diego County.It comes after two animal rights groups filed a lawsuit against Westfield and Bark Avenue, the pet store in the North County Fair mall.“We want to shut them down,” said Bryan Pease, attorney for the Animal Protection and Rescue League and Not One Animal Harmed.The complaint accuses Bark Avenue of unfair business practices. Despite a new state law that prohibits the retail sale of cats, dogs and rabbits, except for rescues, Bark Avenue has continued to sell purebred and designer puppies. RELATED: California limits pet store sales of cats, dogs and rabbits to rescue or shelter animals only“On the surface of it, the store is claiming these are from a rescue called Bark Adoptions. Well, Bark Adoptions is a fraudulent rescue that is run by the same people that own the store,” said Pease.A 10News investigation into Bark Adoptions is included as a resource in the lawsuit.Jasmin Ramirez, the manager of Bark Avenue told 10News she had not been served yet so she could not comment on the lawsuit.RELATED: Investigation into pet stores reveals 'puppy laundering scheme'She acknowledged that they will be leaving their location in the North County Fair, but said it was due to recent thefts.“We are currently in our efforts to move locations,” said Ramirez.Pease said lawyers for Westfield also told him they will terminate a lease with the Puppy Patch, a pet store in their National City mall.A spokesperson for Westfield only told 10News, “we don’t comment on litigation.”Both of the store’s leases will end in January. 1674

ENCINITAS, Calif. (KGTV) - Rare succulents grown along California's coastlines are under attack from poachers. Last week three South Korean nationals were charged with attempting to illegally export to Asia more than 0,000 in live Dudleya succulent plants. Federal authorities say the men pulled the plants out of the ground at remote state parks in Northern California and then brought them to a Vista nursery operated by one of the men. "What your seeing now, which is really detrimental, is that people are actually making so much money off of this stuff in some cases, that they're going out to habitat and just wholesale taking everything, just wreaking havoc," said Tony Gurnoe, Director of Horticulture at San Diego Botanic Garden.Part of the mission at San Diego Botanic Garden is to conserve rare and endangered plants and their ecosystems to preserve biodiversity."The natural world is under a lot of stress right now," says Ari Novy, President & CEO of San Diego Botanic Garden. Novy says the rare California succulents are a coveted treasure in several Asian countries. "Unfortunately in Asia there are a lot of really wonderful plant collectors, but there's a small minority that will go to any length to get plants they don't have, including imperiling plants in the wild and violating the law," said Novy. Two of the defendants have since fled the United States, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. If convicted on all counts, the defendants face up to 10 years in federal prison.The stolen succulents are now being reestablished in their habitat by California Plant Rescue. 1609

Ethan Couch, known for his "affluenza" defense in his deadly drunk driving case, was released from a Texas jail Monday after serving nearly two years behind bars for violating his probation.Couch, 20, first made headlines as a teenager when he was sentenced to probation for a drunken driving crash that killed four people and seriously injured two others.Prosecutors in that 2013 case sought 20 years in jail, but Couch received no prison time after a psychologist testified that Couch was a victim of "affluenza," a product of wealthy, privileged parents who never set limits for him.The decision by the juvenile court judge to put him on probation for 10 years outraged victims' families and anti-drunk driving advocates.In 2015, Couch violated the terms of his probation and fled to Mexico with his mother, Tonya Couch. They were found and sent back to the US, where a Texas judge ordered nearly two years of jail time for Couch.Mothers Against Drunk Driving described the two years Couch has spent in jail as "a grave injustice to the victims and their families.""The 720 days Ethan Couch served for his crimes shows that drunk driving homicides still aren't treated as the violent crimes that they are," the organization said in a statement. It vowed to keep monitoring the case because it "brought to light that there is so much more work to be done to hold drunk drivers accountable."As part of Couch's current probation, he will be required to wear an ankle monitor, an alcohol detecting patch, submit to drug testing, abide by a 9 p.m. curfew and have a video interlock ignition device installed in his vehicle, according to Mike Simonds of the Tarrant County Sheriff's Office.Couch's mother is currently facing charges of money laundering and hindering apprehension of a felon for helping her son flee to Mexico. Tonya Couch recently had her bond revoked after failing a drug test and is behind bars in the Tarrant County Jail, the sheriff's office said last week. 1983

来源：资阳报