吉林好的男科医院有那些(吉林前列腺肥大的症状与治疗) (今日更新中)

At a Monday afternoon hearing regarding records from the Florida Department of Children and Families, a judge ruled a three-page confidential investigative summary and 19 pages of background materials could be released regarding Nikolas Cruz.FULL COVERAGE: Parkland school shootingNames of non-DCF employees listed in those pages will be redacted, but their titles won't be.The records were released later Monday, showing the following: ?       DCF Adult Protective Services was called on Sept. 28, 2016 to investigate allegations that Nikolas Cruz was being victimized by his caregiver -- his adoptive mother.?       Following an investigation involving mental health counselors, school personnel, and law enforcement who had contact with Cruz, DCF found no indicators of abuse or neglect as alleged; 854

At Tuesday’s presidential debate, President Donald Trump complained that poll watchers in Philadelphia were denied access to early voting in the critical battleground state.“I’m urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully because that’s what has to happen,” Trump said. “I am urging them to do it. As you know, today there was a big problem. In Philadelphia, they went in to watch. They’re called poll watchers, a very safe, very nice thing. They were thrown out. They weren’t allowed to watch. You know why? Because bad things happen in Philadelphia. Bad things.”Poll watching is generally a commonly-accepted democratic practice employed throughout the US. But there are questions on what constitutes a polling site.In Pennsylvania, voting centers are not considered polling locations. Early voting centers are locations where voters can pick up a mail-in ballot and can complete and return the ballot on-site. Voters have the option of taking the ballot home and returning it before the election.“We don’t give someone a poll watcher certificate to … watch somebody fill out their ballot at their kitchen table,” Republican Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt told the Philadelphia Inquirer.While poll-watching laws vary by state, the practice is generally accepted, but it has limits. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, poll watchers are to take a hands-off approach.For instance, poll watchers should not talk to voters, interfere with the voting process or campaign while on-site. Poll watchers, however, can watch for irregularities and report them to elections officials and political campaigns.There are generally limits on the number of poll watchers a campaign or party can designate. An accreditation process in 40 states means an ordinary citizen cannot walk into a polling site without some level of training, according to the Carter Center. "This process is led by local party chairs, candidates, or ballot issue groups and can require approval by election officials or the secretary of state’s office," the Carter Center said.Some interpreted Trump’s call for poll watchers as a voter intimidation tactic."Trump also told 'his supporters' to 'go into the polls and watch very carefully,'" said Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford on Twitter. "But he wasn't talking about poll watching. He was talking about voter intimidation. FYI, voter intimidation is illegal in Nevada. Believe me when I say it: You do it, and you will be prosecuted."A hands-off approach is what differentiates someone engaging in legal poll watching and illegal voter intimidation. While poll watching laws are regulated at the state level, there is a federal law against voter intimidation.“Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both,” the law reads.To learn more about each state’s laws on poll watching, click here.Justin Boggs is a writer for the E.W. Scripps National Desk. Follow him on Twitter @jjboggs or on Facebook. 3576

As more and more public spaces open back up, many people are finding themselves a little jumpy when they hear someone cough nearby. Are they sick, is it allergies, is it coronavirus?Chances are, we are jumping to conclusions about those “sick” sounds we find disgusting, according to a recently published study from the University of Michigan and University of California, Irvine.“We find no evidence that perceivers can reliably detect pathogen threats from cough and sneeze sounds, even though they are reasonably certain they can,” said Nicholas Michalak, the study’s lead author and a University of Michigan psychology graduate student.In other words, we humans are not very good at distinguishing the seriousness of a cough or sniffle by the sound of it. In fact, the study found that the more disgusting a person perceived the sound to be, the more likely they were to believe the sound came from an infected person, regardless of whether it did.Previous research has indicated people can accurately diagnose infection in others using other senses, like sight and smell.The research is based on four studies that had participants judge whether a cough or sneeze sound came from people infected with a communicable (easily spread) disease or not. On average, participants guessed four out of ten sounds correctly.“Moreover, there was no evidence that accuracy improved when participants knew the true number of infectious sounds in advance or when participants focused on how clear or disgusting they perceived the sounds,” Michalak said. “Despite this poor overall accuracy, perceivers consistently reported reasonable certainty in their judgments.”The study’s authors theorized that people have a belief that a sound that disgusts them is likely to represent a disease threat - this could lead them to exhibit biases to avoid interactions with others who make disgusting but noninfectious noises, according to Mickalak.The study’s co-authors are Oliver Sng, assistant professor of psychological science at UC-Irvine, and U-M graduate student Iris Wang and U-M associate professor of psychology Joshua Ackerman.Read the full study here. 2150

AUSTIN, Texas — A Texas sheriff has been indicted on charges accusing him of destroying or concealing video in an investigation into the death in custody of a Black man, Javier Ambler, that was filmed by the police reality TV series “Live PD.”Williamson County Sheriff Robert Chody was booked into his jail Monday on a ,000 bond and released a short time later. The sheriff’s charge is a third-degree felony that is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.Williamson County prosecutors have been investigating possible evidence tampering following Ambler’s death in March 2019.The county's sheriff’s deputies repeatedly used stun guns on the 40-year-old man, despite his pleas that he was sick and couldn’t breathe.A report obtained by The Associated Press shows Ambler’s death was ruled a homicide and noted it could have been “justifiable.” An autopsy showed the man died of congestive heart failure and hypertensive cardiovascular disease associated with morbid obesity “in combination with forcible restraint."Body-cam video of the deadly incident has surfaced, but another that was shot by “Live PD” crews has been destroyed.A&E, which aired the now-canceled show, has said it didn’t keep the footage after it was informed that the initial investigation into Ambler’s death had closed. The network also has said it wasn’t “asked for the footage or an interview by investigators from law enforcement or the District Attorney’s office.”Court records obtained by The AP show Chody is accused of destroying or concealing recordings “with intent to impair their ability as evidence in the investigation” of Ambler’s death.Chody denies ever tampering with evidence and has accused prosecutors of bringing the case to a grand jury for political reasons. 1765

AVALON, Calif. (AP) — The nonprofit organization that owns a majority of California’s Santa Catalina Island plans to boost eco-tourism by adding more bison to existing herds, recharging a debate over their environmental impacts. The Los Angeles Times reports the Catalina Island Conservancy says there has not been a bison calf born on the island in seven years and the herd size has dwindled to 100. The conservancy board is working to bring two pregnant bison to the island. A biologist says bison herds stay on isolated patches of grass and adding more animals will not result in more bison sightings by eco-tourists. 628

来源：资阳报