内蒙白癜风医院哪家较专业内蒙白癜风多久才能治好,北京那里治疗白癜风效果好,浙江白癜风根治的方法,山西医院能看白癜风吗,河北白癜风哪家医院能治愈,天津多长时间能治好白癜风,河北早期白癜风如何治疗

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- Voters across San Diego County could end up with the final say over massive housing developments proposed for the backcountry.That's if voters themselves approve an initiative headed to the March 2020 ballot. The measure, called S.O.S., for Safeguard our San Diego Countryside, would trigger a public countywide vote anytime the County Board of Supervisors moves to increase density in the general plan to make way for more housing. "When you put cities where there are no roads, where there isn't fire service, there aren't schools, the cost of the infrastructure is going to be borne by the general taxpayer," said Mark Jackson, with the Yes on S.O.S. campaign. But a group of developers, economists and union are sounding the alarm about the initiative, which they say would make the region's housing crisis even worse. A county report found that the public vote would add a year of delay to projects and increase the cost by as much as .3 million. Meanwhile, housing prices would rise as supply remains tight. "Many new officers have young families, and those families are hit the hardest by anti-growth and anti-housing measures like S.O.S.," said Jack Schaeffer, president of the San Diego Police Officers Association. Both sides agree San Diego County needs more housing. However, the proponents of the measure note the general plan already calls for 60,000 new homes for all income levels. Those opposed counter that those would largely be expensive, built on multi-acre lots. They add that this initiative could impact development proposals with as little as six housing units. The initiative made its way to the March ballot after the "yes" campaign got 107,000 signatures. That's the same election in which voters will decide the fate of the massive Newland Sierra development in Escondido, a 2,000-home master plan the county approved in 2018. A voter-led initiative achieved enough signatures to send it to the ballot, and overturn that change to the general plan. 2008

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — Wednesday, the San Diego District Attorney's Office has released its findings on four officer-involved shootings and one in-custody death in San Diego County.The shootings took place between June 11, 2019, and Feb. 27, 2020. In each instance, the DA found that the officers involved "acted reasonably under the circumstances and bear no state criminal liability for their actions."An analysis of each case from the DA's Office release is included below:Suspect in stolen car shot by officer in El CajonOn February 12, 2020, two El Cajon police officers responded to a report of a stolen vehicle and located the car parked on South Johnson Avenue. An officer approached the car, which was occupied by Keith Crenshaw, 21, who appeared to be asleep in the driver’s seat. There was no one else in the car. A third El Cajon police officer arrived and also approached the vehicle. A Psychiatric Emergency Response Team (PERT) clinician was with the third officer. The PERT clinician stood behind the patrol vehicle because the scene was not secured. As Crenshaw appeared to wake up, one of the officers drew his gun and directed Crenshaw to show his hands, put his hands up, and get his hands out of his shirt at least ten times. The other two officers on scene directed Crenshaw to put his hands up or get his hands out of his shirt at least five times. Crenshaw’s hands were concealed under his clothing. Crenshaw did not comply with the officers’ orders, instead telling the officers, “Shoot me.” Crenshaw moved his right hand towards his waistband and made jolting and jerking movements toward one of the officers through the open passenger door. The officer fired two rounds, striking Crenshaw in the upper body and arm. Crenshaw remained conscious after he was shot telling the officer to, “Kill me please.” The officer continued to give Crenshaw commands to get his hands out of his shirt. Crenshaw complied and was removed from the vehicle. Officers provided medical assistance to Crenshaw until paramedics arrived and Crenshaw was taken to the hospital where he was treated for non-fatal gunshot wounds. A search of Crenshaw and his vehicle revealed that he possessed no weapons at the time of the incident. Fortunately, Mr. Crenshaw survived. He gave a recorded statement confirming the officer’s observations that he simulated actions wanting the officer to believe he had a gun because he wanted the officer to shoot him. In reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the call, Crenshaw’s failure to abide by commands to show his hands, Crenshaw reaching for his waistband with right hand and jerking towards the officer, viewing the situation in light of an objectively reasonable officer, the officer would have reason to believe that there was an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, either to himself or others, that needed to be instantly confronted. Therefore, the officer was justified in his actions and bears no state criminal liability.The DA’s detailed review can be found here.Officers responding to a reported attack are confronted by man wielding a shovelOn August 24, 2019, San Diego Police received a call from a citizen about her nephew’s erratic behavior. SDPD dispatched two officers, telling them that Dennis Carolino, 52, had thrown a brick at his aunt. Two San Diego police officers responded and interviewed the victim, who told officers Carolino was diagnosed with schizophrenia. Officers attempted to locate Carolino to evaluate him for a mental health referral. As officers made their way into a backyard and toward a shed that Carolino had been living in, the door to the shed suddenly opened and Carolino charged toward officers holding a long-handled shovel. Officers told Carolino to drop the shovel, but he continued to advance on officers and ignored their commands. Both officers believed Carolino was going to hit them with the shovel. One officer deployed his taser while the second officer fired his handgun, striking Carolino five times. Life saving measures where attempted but Carolino was pronounced dead at the scene. A review by the District Attorney found the officer used his gun in defense of himself, the civilian witness and the other officer.Based on these circumstances, the officer who fired his handgun acted reasonably and bears no state criminal liability for his actions.The District Attorney’s detailed review can be found here.Man dies from methamphetamine toxicity after being detainedOn June 11, 2019, a man called San Diego Police to report a burglary, saying he found a man he did not know inside his home who had apparently broken in.The first responding officer arrived with a civilian PERT Clinician and contacted Buddie Nichols, 40. The officer attempted to handcuff Nichols, but he began to resist the officer’s handcuffing efforts. Two more officers arrived, and it took all three officers to handcuff Nichols. Nichols resisted enough that the officers used physical force in order to take him into custody by hitting him with a flashlight on his shoulder. During the time the officers were handcuffing Nichols, he displayed symptoms of being under the influence of a controlled substance and continued to do so after he was handcuffed. Nichols was screaming and thrashing about and the officers held him in place on the ground to limit his movements.The officers requested paramedics respond to the location. As the paramedics arrived, the officers noticed Nichols appeared to be unconscious. Fearing he may be in medical distress, the officers removed the handcuffs. Paramedics could not detect a pulse from Nichols and began CPR. Nichols was transported by ambulance to UCSD hospital where he was pronounced deceased.The medical examiner determined Nichols’ cause of death was resuscitated arrest due to sudden cardiac arrhythmia due to excited delirium while intoxicated on methamphetamine. He also stated the manner of death was accident.Based upon a review of the facts and circumstances surrounding Nichol’s death, the law enforcement personnel involved in his restraint acted reasonably under the circumstances and bear no state criminal liability for their actions.The DA’s detailed review can be found here.Man reportedly grabs officer’s gun during struggle fatally shotOn January 24, 2020, two San Diego Police Officers observed Toby Diller, 31, illegally holding an open container of alcohol. Officers stopped the patrol vehicle to speak to Diller who immediately began running away and into lanes of busy traffic on 54th Street. The officers chased Diller on foot, giving him multiple commands to stop. Diller tripped while running through a planter, got back up and was tackled in the middle of a frontage road. Both officers were positioned over Diller as a violent struggle ensued.During the struggle, Diller grabbed the holstered gun on an officer’s duty belt. Diller managed to break the gun from the officer’s duty belt. The officer saw the holster in Diller’s hand, and it appeared Diller was trying to remove the gun from the holster. The officer yelled, “He has my gun, shoot him.” Another officer fired one shot striking Diller on the left side of his cheek. Diller was pronounced dead at the scene by medics. An autopsy showed methamphetamine in Diller’s system.Due to the imminent nature of the threat posed by Diller’s possession of the loaded handgun, it is objectively reasonable that an officer in the same situation would believe that Diller had the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to cause death or serious bodily injury to the officer and his partner.Based on these circumstances, Officer Johnson acted reasonably and bears no state criminal liability for his actions.The DA’s detailed review can be found here.Non-fatal shooting of a man in a homeless encampmentOn February 27, 2020, San Diego Police Officers were working a joint operation with the Chula Vista Police Department, San Diego Park Rangers and Environmental Services. Officers and Park Rangers went into the encampment and located Carlos Soto, 70, the only person in the encampment, inside one of the structures. San Diego Police Officers identified themselves and told Soto to come out of the structure. As Soto was coming out the officer could see the butt of a handgun in Soto’s right front jacket pocket. A second officer also saw the gun, which later was determined to be a “BB” air pistol.Both officers gave Soto multiple commands to get on the ground. Instead, Soto grabbed the gun from his jacket pocket and both officers fired. Soto sustained three gunshot wounds which were non-life threatening.Based on the totality of the circumstances the officers reasonably believed Soto presented an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to each of the officers. He removed what appeared to be a firearm from his pocket after they had given him several opportunities to come out of the tent and get down on the ground. In light of all the facts, the officers were justified in their actions and bear no state criminal liability for them.A copy of the DA’s detailed analysis can be found here. 9145

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- With a string of recent fires in San Diego County and statewide, it’s no secret that so-called fire season, which California fire agencies say is now year round, is getting worse.So far this year, Cal Fire has battled nearly 3,800 wildfires that have so far scorched more than 292,000 acres.That figure shows a sharp increase from previous years and is far above average for this time of year.According to Cal Fire, the last five years have, on average, seen just over 118,800 acres burned statewide by this time."We are seeing more destructive, larger fires burning at rates that we have historically never seen," said Jonathan Cox, Cal Fire regional Battalion Chief.The increasing danger even has agencies like the US Department of Agriculture warning of the risks. As far as major fire incidents, so far this year there have been well over 100. Check out the map below to see this year’s major fires:Related Links: 955

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) - Two men wearing masks and gloves robbed a City Heights jewelry store Friday.One of the men jumped a display counter and confronted an employee of the Eclipse Jewelry Store at 4213 University Ave. just east of Interstate 15, police said.One man took jewelry from display trays and put it in a bag while the second man pointed a gun at the employee.The owner told 10News the men got away with about ,000 worth of mostly gold chains. He also said he thought perhaps the men had been in the store before since they seemed to know exactly what they wanted. Both men ran off and were last seen getting into a silver colored late model Toyota or Honda heading east.No one was injured in the robbery. Police did not have detailed descriptions of the suspects. 791

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- When entering most newly reopened businesses in San Diego County, customers will need to sign in with their name and phone number.The change only applies to businesses now offering indoor services; the county’s public health order was updated to reflect the changes now in effect for the following sectors:Hair Salons & BarbershopsPersonal Care ServicesGyms & Fitness CentersRestaurants, Wineries, Bars, Breweries, and Distilleries that serve food.“It’s a very modest step that can aide in our close contact investigation, and I think can help slow the spread and help these businesses stay open,” said County Supervisor Nathan Fletcher.Many people already give their name and phone number when making a reservation at a restaurant or booking a hair appointment; this won’t look much different, just more widespread, and businesses will also keep the sign-in sheets for three weeks.“In the event, there is an outbreak or exposure, I think most people would want to know if they’ve been exposed so they can quarantine or potentially get tested,” said Fletcher.If a COVID-19 outbreak happens, customers who visited will be notified if they were possibly exposed. The county will not collect or save the information.“It would only be used in the event there was a public health risk,” said Fletcher.Fletcher said the new plan could have possibly helped with contact tracing during the last wave or reopenings.“It’s certainly something we could have been done before, maybe a lesson learned from earlier, I think this could really aide in helping more quickly in letting folks know if they’ve been exposed," Fletcher said.Some people may have privacy concerns and be reluctant to give their personal information.Cybersecurity expert Ted Harrington, who is an executive partner at Independent Security Evaluators, says that while giving an email address would feel less invasive, the risk of providing a phone number and name is still minimal.“There’s no doubt what this order is doing is giving more information for people who don’t yet have a process to safely protect it, so we should accept that is the reality of what’s happening,” said Harrington. “But, is that a strong enough reason to not go to a restaurant or get your haircut or whatever? I wouldn’t be any more concerned than you might normally be with giving your phone number to a restaurant when you leave a reservation.” 2417