济南常见男科病治疗方法(济南治阳萎早谢) (今日更新中)

Anonymous artists in Salt Lake City have painted a mural honoring George Floyd, next to five others who were killed by police in Utah. 142

As Americans protest racial inequality and the death of George Floyd and others at the hands of police, their pleas are being heard in the chambers of the U.S. Capitol. Both Democrats and Republicans have introduced legislation to reform policing in America, but they diverge on some issues.The far-reaching legislative proposal from Democrats, the Justice in Policing Act, would limit legal protections for police, create a national database of excessive-force encounters and ban police chokeholds, among other changes.Republicans say their bill, known as the Justice Act -- one of the most ambitious GOP policing proposals in years -- “will maintain the constitutionally-limited role the federal government plays in local law enforcement decisions while still effecting significant change.” It calls for an enhanced use-of-force database, restrictions on chokeholds and new commissions to study law enforcement and race.Here’s a side-by-side look at some proposals:POLICE MISCONDUCT & USE-OF-FORCE DATABASESMany officers who wind up involved in fatal shootings have a history of misconduct, including Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis officer charged with murder in Floyd’s death. He had at least a dozen complaints made against him, according to records.But those records are often not made public, making it difficult to know if officers have such a record.President Donald Trump signed an executive order this week requiring the attorney general to create a database tracking terminations, criminal convictions and civil judgments against law enforcement officers for excessive use of force. It encourages participation by providing certain grants only to those agencies that submit the required information.— Democrats’ bill: Calls for a national registry including complaints, disciplinary records and termination records. It also would require states to report to the Justice Department any incident in which force is used against a civilian or law enforcement officer. The proposal would require the agencies to report the reason force was used and the national origin, sex, race, ethnicity, age, disability, English language proficiency and housing status of each civilian against whom a law enforcement officer used force.— Republicans’ bill: Would require state and local governments to report all use-of-force incidents that result in serious injuries or death to the FBI on an annual basis. Municipalities that fail to comply could see a reduction in federal funding.CHOKEHOLDSThere’s a notable difference. The Democrats’ bill would specifically ban the use of chokeholds and carotid holds at the federal level, while the Republican bill incentivizes police departments to ban the practice through grant funding. Trump’s executive order also encourages such bans through financial incentives.— Democrats’ bill: Would ban chokeholds and carotid holds and would condition law enforcement funding for state and local law enforcement agencies on establishing a law to prohibit the use of chokeholds and carotid holds.— Republicans’ bill: Would condition certain Justice Department funds on a police department having specific policies restricting the use of chokeholds, except in situations in which deadly force is authorized.NO-KNOCK WARRANTSThere has been a growing call to ban no-knock warrants since 26-year-old Breonna Taylor was killed in her Louisville, Kentucky, home by officers in March. Democrats have proposed a ban on the practice, typically executed in some of the most dangerous investigations conducted by police departments. A no-knock warrant, as its name implies, is an order from a judge that allows police to enter a home without ringing a doorbell or banging on the door. Critics have said the use has increased dramatically, and some departments use them routinely in cases that don’t merit such an exception.— Democrats’ bill: Would specifically ban no-knock warrants for all federal drug cases and would require local and state law enforcement agencies to prohibit their use to qualify for some federal funding. Oregon and Florida are the only states that have outlawed such warrants.— Republicans’ bill: GOP senators argue there is no conclusive data on how, why and how often no-knock search warrants are used and have proposed requiring state and local law enforcement agencies to report specific data to the Department of Justice each year. The department would then be required to make a public report.FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW— Democrats’ bill: Would amend the federal civil rights law that governs police misconduct to no longer require prosecutors to prove that an officer’s actions were willful, a high burden of proof. The law would allow an officer to be charged for acting with reckless disregard for someone’s life, causing that person’s death.— Republicans’ bill: Would not amend that section of the law.QUALIFIED IMMUNITYPolice officers are generally not held personally liable for anything that happens on the job, including when someone dies. The concept of qualified immunity has long been a way to protect police from unnecessary lawsuits and to give them the freedom to police without fear of unnecessary retribution.— Democrats’ bill: Would amend federal misconduct statutes to make it easier for courts to find officers personally liable for the violation of civil rights. Officers might think twice before abusing their power, but it could make it more difficult to recruit police nationwide. It could also potentially lead to officers being held financially liable.— Republicans’ bill: They say this is a step too far. As an alternative, the lead senator on the bill, Tim Scott of South Carolina, has suggested a “decertification” process for officers involved in misconduct.The president’s executive order instructs the Justice Department to push local police departments to be certified. Under the order, Justice would ensure a department could only be credentialed if its use-of-force policies adhered to federal, state, and local laws.White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Wednesday the qualified immunity provision in the House Democrats’ bill “is a total and complete nonstarter.” 6166

As coronavirus rates rise in most parts of the country, many testing centers are inundated with new patients. Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the authorization of a brand new rapid COVID-19 test that people can take themselves at home."I think that it’s better to have a faster test than a slower one. People tend to abide by the public health recommendation to self-isolate if they have actual data in a reliable timeframe. The danger is that we’re asking people to do this at home. It's not in a controlled setting like a laboratory," says Dr. Amber Schmidtke, a public health microbiologist.Dr. Schmidtke says there are still questions about how this new rapid at-home test will be interpreted by health officials."I actually don't expect them to report it. I would be surprised. You know, most people don't report a home pregnancy test to our Department of Public Health, for example. But I think this is going to be treated much in the same way as a home pregnancy test. You know, if you call your doctor and say, 'I tested positive at home,' they're going to repeat that test as soon as you come in," says Dr. Schmidtke.The test, which a doctor will have to prescribe, will provide valuable information to people, as long as it is administered correctly."What if they don't do it very well? You have to put it in your nose and rub it around both nares. You have to put it in, swirl it around 15 times. You have to let it sit there for 30 seconds. You have to know which button to read. There's lots of things that can go wrong and so if the test is misunderstood and you don't have a professional looking over your shoulder, it could result in some unfortunate things," says Dr. Stuart Ray, a professor at Johns Hopkins University and infectious disease expert.Dr. Ray hopes people will use the test correctly so that it really does help prevent COVID-19 transmission in the community."What if they use that to decide that they're now negative after exposure so therefore it's safe to go out before their isolation or quarantine ends. And the problem is, they're still in the incubation period so the test is negative but in fact they’re infected," says Dr. Ray.Dr. Ray says it will take time to understand how the test works, but it's exciting to have a new tool for the general public to use. 2340

An employee at an Arizona pizza restaurant may lose his eye after being attacked by a woman with a stiletto. Scottsdale Police report that on Fbe. 19 they were called to Gus' Pizza.Witnesses reportedly told police that 32-year-old Kris May Loring fell out of her chair and onto the floor. She left the restaurant thinking other customers were laughing at her. Police say a few minutes later her boyfriend entered the business, yelled at the customers and allegedly threw pizza at them. While Aaron Walter, a security guard for Gus' Pizza Lounge, attempted to detain the man, police say Loring, "took off her stilettos and charged at the victim." She delivered, "deliberate and violent blows towards the victim's head." “I was kind of holding the back of her boyfriend’s neck, just kind of holding him down while he’s blowing off some steam, and next thing you know, I was hit in the eye,” said Walter. Police say one of the stilettos struck Walter in the eye causing a severe laceration. Walter was hospitalized for several days, and his vision has returned since the attack. “I'm glad it was a stiletto.. I'm glad it wasn’t a knife or a gun,” said Walter. Upon her arrest, Loring allegedly threatened to "bite the nose off the arresting officer." She is facing multiple charges including aggravated assault.Despite what happened, Walter says he holds no ill will towards Loring.“I want her to have a wonderful life, I want her kids to prosper, I want her husband to prosper, and I want everyone to just live."  1579

Anthem’s team has been working closely with Aurora to resolve this case for Mr. Magnuson. Aurora will resubmit the claim without the SPECT scan and Anthem will cover the non-SPECT services per the terms of Mr. Magnuson’s health plan. Aurora has agreed to write off the charge for the SPECT scan itself, meaning that Mr. Magnuson will not be charged for that service. 374

来源：资阳报