中山痔疮出血了要怎么办(中山大便糖稀,有血) (今日更新中)

Ru-El Sailor is still not completely a free man, even after he was released from prison last week, moments after his 2003 murder conviction was vacated in Cuyahoga County, Ohio court.Sailor now ordered to wear an ankle monitor for 120 days, due to an Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction regulation that requires those released from a maximum security prison to be monitored and not leave the state.The ankle monitor requirement was imposed, even though Sailor spent 15 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit.Sailor believes a change in state law is needed to prevent this from happening to others exonerated here in Ohio."Desperately needs to be changed, desperately needs to be changed," said Sailor."If I have to be the one that has to bite the bullet first and open the door for others, then I don't mind biting the bullet.""I'll wear this ankle monitor for four months or a year if I have to, if it's going to make change for other people behind me to come and not have to go through the same things I went through," he said.Black on Black Crime Incorporated, which also fought for Sailor's release, along with the Ohio Innocence Project, agrees a change in ankle monitor requirements are needed in cases of wrongful conviction.Black on Black Crime Inc. President Al Porter Jr. said his organization will ask for a change in state law."The state law definitely does have to be changed," said Porter."We will stand also to make sure that the next person doesn't have to go through this, especially once they've been freed, and proven innocent beyond a shadow of doubt."Sailor's legal team said it is working to resolve the ankle monitor situation.Meanwhile, Sailor told News 5 the ankle monitor isn't stopping him from working on starting his own business.Sailor said he would like to create a service that would shuttle family members who want to visit loved in prison across the state. 1927

Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that President Donald Trump's legal team has responded to the special counsel, the latest effort in ongoing negotiations over a possible interview."We have now given him an answer. Obviously, he should take a few days to consider it, but we should get this resolved," Giuliani said during an interview on the radio show of fellow Trump attorney Jay Sekulow."We do not want to run into the November elections. So back up from that, this should be over by September 1," Giuliani said.Sekulow confirmed in a statement that the legal team "responded in writing to the latest proposal" from the special counsel, but declined to comment on the substance of the response.Giuliani had previously told CNN that the team planned to send its counteroffer to special counsel Robert Mueller regarding a potential interview on Wednesday."It is a good faith attempt to reach an agreement," Giuliani, one of Trump's lawyers on the Russia investigation, told CNN.The former New York City mayor similarly would not describe the contents of the counteroffer, except to say that "there is an area where we could agree, if they agree."Giuliani wouldn't say if that area has to do with collusion or obstruction.The President has previously said that he wants to speak with the special counsel and has insisted there was no collusion or obstruction, while deriding the investigation as a "witch hunt."But Trump's public attacks on the Russia probe have sparked questions over whether his actions could constitute obstruction of justice. Those questions intensified earlier this month when the President called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to shut down the investigation, an escalation that Giuliani attempted to downplay as Trump merely expressing an opinion.The President's team has sought to limit any potential interview to questions about collusion. But Giuliani told CNN they would be willing to consider questions relating to any obstruction of justice inquiry as long as they are not "perjury traps," a phrase favored by the Trump legal team as a way to raise questions about the fairness of the special counsel, though it also speaks to the risks of having the President sit down for an interview."For example: 'What did you say about Flynn?' 'Why did you fire Comey?'" They already know our answer," Giuliani said, referring to former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former FBI director James Comey, whom Trump abruptly fired in May 2017. The former FBI director later testified to Congress that Trump had pressed him to drop an investigation into Flynn, a claim that Trump has denied. "If they can show us something in that area that didn't involve those direct questions, that we don't consider perjury traps, we would consider it," Giuliani said, but conceded he "can't think of what that would be."Mueller has indicated to the team that the special counsel wants to ask the President obstruction questions in an interview.The President's lawyers had previously offered the special counsel written answers to obstruction questions and limiting the interview to matters before his presidential inauguration, which are largely confined to collusion.The back and forth over an interview comes as the special counsel investigation faces its first major test in court as Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort stands trial in the Eastern District of Virginia where he is accused of bank fraud, tax evasion and other financial crimes.Manafort's case isn't about the 2016 presidential campaign, but he is the first defendant Mueller's team has taken to trial. 3603

RICHMOND, Va. — There has been a major drop in the number of people behind bars in the U.S. An analysis by The Marshall Project and The Associated Press found that between March and June, more than 100,000 people were released from state and federal prisons. That's a drop of 8%. By comparison, the Vera Institute of Justice found that for all of 2019, the state and federal prison population fell by 2.2%. As the U.S. struggles with the coronavirus, prison reform advocates are urging releases to halt its spread in correctional facilities. But their release, and how they behave when they’re out, is likely to affect the larger criminal justice reform movement. 671

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Two former Cambodian refugees facing deportation for crimes committed as young adults were among seven people granted clemency Monday by California Gov. Gavin Newsom in his first pardons since taking office in January.Newsom pardoned Kang Hen, of San Jose, who pleaded guilty to being the getaway driver during an attempted armed robbery in 1994. Hen, who was brought to the U.S. when he was 9, surrendered to immigration authorities April 1 after he was notified he was wanted for deportation.The governor, a Democrat, also issued a pardon for Hay Hov, of Oakland, who was convicted of solicitation to commit murder and participation in a street gang in 2001.Hov, a naturalized citizen, was taken into custody by immigration officials in March.Both men immigrated to the U.S. lawfully as children. They petitioned Newsom for pardons, saying they have moved past their troubled youth to become respectable men with jobs and families.Pardons don't automatically halt deportation proceedings, but they eliminate the criminal conviction judges often base their decisions on, according to the governor's office.In Hen's case, a pardon may eventually allow him to stay in the U.S. Hov, whose green card was recently re-instated by a judge, is no longer at risk of deportation."Both men have young children, are the primary income provider for their families, and provide care to relatives living with chronic health conditions," the governor's office said in a statement. "Their deportation would be an unjust collateral consequence that would harm their families and communities."The pardons are a rebuke to President Donald Trump's administration, which has cracked down on immigrants who committed crimes. Since Trump took office, a large number of people have been detained and deported to Cambodia, according to advocates.Newsom's predecessor, Gov. Jerry Brown, pardoned five Cambodian refugees who faced deportation last year.Newsom on Monday also pardoned five other people who had convictions more than 15 years old — including business owners, students and at least one grandparent, the governor's office said. Their crimes ranged from forgery to drug-related offenses.None of those pardoned had multiple felonies and all had completed their sentences, Newsom's office said.Newsom's highest profile use of his clemency powers came in March, when he placed a moratorium on executions for the 737 people on California's death row. His action temporarily halted the death penalty in the state. 2528

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — High-capacity gun magazines will remain legal in California under a ruling Friday by a federal judge who cited home invasions where a woman used the extra bullets in her weapon to kill an attacker while in two other cases women without additional ammunition ran out of bullets."Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts," San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote as he declared unconstitutional the law that would have banned possessing any magazines holding more than 10 bullets.California law has prohibited buying or selling such magazines since 2000, but those who had them before then were allowed to keep them.In 2016, the Legislature and voters approved a law removing that provision. The California arm of the National Rifle Association sued and Benitez sided with the group's argument that banning the magazines infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.Benitez had temporarily blocked the law from taking effect with a 2017 ruling.Chuck Michel, an attorney for the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said the judge's latest ruling may go much farther by striking down the entire ban, allowing individuals to legally acquire high-capacity magazines for the first time in nearly two decades."We're still digesting the opinion but it appears to us that he struck down both the latest ban on possessing by those who are grandfathered in, but also said that everyone has a right to acquire one," Michel said.Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement that his office is "committed to defending California's common sense gun laws" and is reviewing the decision and evaluating its next steps.The goal of the California law is to deter mass-shootings, with Becerra previously listing as an example the terrorist assault that killed 14 and injured 22 in San Bernardino.Benitez, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, called such shootings "exceedingly rare" while emphasizing the everyday robberies, rapes and murders he said might be countered with firearms.The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, named after a former congresswoman who survived a mass shooting, is also still evaluating whether the decision applies more broadly, said staff attorney Ari Freilich.But Freilich predicted the "extreme outlier decision" will be overturned on appeal and criticized a judge "so deeply out of touch that he believes mass shootings are a 'very small' problem in this country."Becerra previously said similar Second Amendment challenges have been repeatedly rejected by other courts, with at least seven other states and 11 local governments already restricting the possession or sale of large-capacity magazines. The conflicting decisions may ultimately be sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court.Benitez ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" under the U.S. Constitution, and that the California law "burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state."Benitez described three home invasions, two of which ended with the female victims running out of bullets.In the third case, the pajama-clad woman with a high-capacity magazine took on three armed intruders, firing at them while simultaneously calling for help on her phone."She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911," the judge wrote, saying she killed one attacker while two escaped.The magazine ban was included in 2016 legislation that voters strengthened with their approval of Proposition 63, which was championed by then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.In a statement, Newsom criticized the judge's ruling."This District Court Judge's failure to uphold a ban on high-capacity magazines is indefensible, dangerous for our communities and contradicts well-established case law," the governor said. "I strongly disagree with the court's assessment that 'the problem of mass shootings is very small.' Our commitment to public safety and defending common sense gun safety laws remains steadfast." 4228

来源：资阳报