梅州吸脂的价格是多少梅州白带很多怎么办,梅州微创可视人流多少钱,梅州什么时候人合适做流产,梅州妇科在线求医,梅州女子盆腔炎是什么症状,梅州外阴阴道炎严重吗,梅州阴道炎可以预防吗

PARADISE, Calif. (AP) — Police in Northern California say they'll pursue criminal charges against a wildfire cleanup worker who posted photos of himself posing at destroyed properties.Officials in the devastated town of Paradise said Saturday that the photos and accompanying captions by Rob Freestone are "unacceptable and reprehensible."One shows a grinning Freestone with a flower pot on his head in front of a charred home. Another shows him jumping on a burned-out trampoline with the caption: "Trampolines are stupid ... it used to be called a Jumpoline until your mom got on it."RELATED: Dog survives Camp Fire; Found guarding charred Paradise property when owner returnsFreestone and two other workers involved in the incidents last month have been fired from Bigge Crane and Rigging. The company called their behavior an "egregious insult."Freestone couldn't be reached for comment.RELATED: Camp Fire evacuees spend Thanksgiving in SanteeA police spokesman says investigators will determine whether any crimes were committed. 1042

People say it's important to give back to your community. Jennifer Pratt is doing exactly that.She was diagnosed with osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer, when she was just 11. The diagnosis meant she spent many days in the hospital.Pratt's chemotherapy took over a year, and because she spent so much time at Children's Minnesota in St. Paul, the hospital staff became like family to her. It was during her treatment that she decided to become a doctor and, 20 years later, she's living her dream as a hospitalist in the same place where she received treatment."(Cancer) is something that makes you stronger," she said. 628

Outside of the race for president, the 2020 Election was historic.It was the first time that Republican stronghold states voted in favor of marijuana, as both South Dakota and Montana voted to legalize recreational use of the drug.Arizona, a more moderate state, along with progressive New Jersey, also voted to legalize recreational use during the 2020 Election.“Once people legalize it they like it. They like prohibition ending,” said Brendan Johnson, a former U.S. Attorney for the district of South Dakota.In South Dakota, the vote to legalize marijuana on Nov. 3 passed with 54.2 percent approval, while 62 percent voted to re-elect Donald Trump as president; a once-partisan discrepancy that could also be seen in Montana, where 56.9 percent of the electorate voted for Trump and 57.8 voted for legalization.“Part of our state’s libertarian streak, which leads people to believe that the government doesn’t have a role to play in this, and, frankly, prohibition carried the day along with economic costs of building larger and larger prisons across the state,” said Johnson.According to Johnson, 10 percent of South Dakota’s arrests last year were for marijuana possession, oftentimes only a few grams. He says it is a number that is seen in states countrywide and one that has swayed Republicans to vote for a bill that they once may have not.In 1992, only about 25 percent of the party supported legalization nationwide, where today, that number stands at 53 percent, according to the Justice Collaborative Institute.“It became very hard to point towards legalization and say there was anything that was moving the topline numbers,” said Andrew Freedman, a vice president for Forbes-Tate, a bipartisan public advocacy firm.Freedman helped implement Colorado’s marijuana laws when the state became the first to legalize recreational marijuana in 2014. He says it became a case study for others who thought the drug would lead to more arrests, youth use, and crime-- all things that never transpired, according to the Crime and Justice Research Alliance.“There are a lot of Republicans who believe in less government and who think that the war on drugs was a failure and would themselves, be for legalization,” said Freedman. “There were a lot of unanswered questions, and now more and more questions are getting answered so there are fewer and fewer reasons to say no.”In six years, 15 states have voted to legalize recreational pot while 35 have legalized medical use. 2485

Pittsburgh launches 'guaranteed income' program with Jack Dorsey money | Fox Business https://t.co/xdmwbMz4fs— bill peduto (@billpeduto) August 4, 2020 159

Police reform has been at the forefront of protests the past few weeks, following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.The qualified immunity doctrine is getting a lot of attention.“Qualified immunity is a doctrine that was created by the Supreme Court in 1967 in a case called Pierson v. Ray, and when the Supreme Court announced the existence of qualified immunity, they described it as a good faith defense,” Joanna Schwartz, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, said.However, there have been debates on how this doctrine can be used.In recent weeks, Congressman Justin Amash proposed the “Ending Qualified Immunity Act” (H.R. 7085).“Qualified immunity is just another example of a justice system that is not working for people, and preventing people from getting the redress they deserve,” Representative Justin Amash (L-Michigan) said.So, we dove into qualified immunity with Joanna Shwartz, a law professor who studies civil rights litigation, and Justin Smith, a sheriff in Larimer County, Colorado.“Qualified immunity first of all has nothing to do with criminal immunity,” Sheriff Justin Smith said. Smith has been with the Larimer County Sheriff’s Department for nearly three decades.“Who in their right mind would build a career on running towards gun fire and confronting an armed suspect? Why would you do it without some type of civil protection?,” he explained.We sat down with him as he explained why qualified immunity is important for his officers. “I’d simply ask the question to the average American, is a police officer expected to be perfect in all of their actions in a split second?,” he asked. Smith said without qualified immunity, one incorrect decision made by an officer could cost a lot. “If you didn’t call that exactly right by one judges interpretation, that's a lawsuit,” he said.“Every time the officer puts on the shirt, the badge, straps on the firearm, comes to work, every action they take responding to a case essentially is as if they went to Vegas and they walked up to the table, placed a five dollar bet, and in Colorado for example, would cost them up to 0,000. Who's going to make that bet?,” Smith explained.However, those who want qualified immunity removed say the doctrine has changed over the years and it’s not necessary to protect officers who act in good faith when it comes to protection of rights.“Concerns about split second decision making...are already protected from liability by the Supreme Court's construction of what the Fourth Amendment allows. Qualified immunity is unnecessary to do that,” Schwartz explained.She went on to explain why she believes that qualified immunity isn’t necessary for the protection of money, either. “I studied lawsuit payouts across the country over several years, I found that police officer personally contributed .02 percent of the total dollars paid to plaintiffs,” she said.Schwartz said while the doctrine was originally created as a good faith defense, it has changed over the years to make it harder for people to file lawsuits against officers. “In order to defeat qualified immunity, find a prior case with virtually identical facts in which a court announced that that conduct was unconstitutional,” she said.Which has been an issue for James King from Michigan, who told a reporter he was assaulted by an officer in plain clothes in a mistaken identity case. The incident was caught on camera back in July 2014. “The simple fact is the majority of this time this situation happens to anyone, they have no recourse,” King said.Officers are often forced to make decisions in a split second. “This is a risk taking profession,” Smith said. “We can say the criminal justice system isn't perfect and that's accurate. Nothing in society is perfect. I think it’s overall improved significantly over the years.”But Schwartz thinks officers acting in good faith can be protected by other measures.“Qualified immunity is not necessary or well suited to play that role in weeding out insubstantial cases,” she said.Both Smith and Schwartz agree that when looking at proposed changes to qualified immunity on the federal and state level, it’s important to look at what officers the bill is including -- whether that be local, county, state, or federal officers.“Congress’ bills at this moment only end qualified immunity for state and local officials,” Schwartz explained. “As we are thinking about state and local law enforcement, we should not overlook the role of federal law enforcement and other government officials.” 4534