南昌市治精神(南昌市第十二医院治精神科靠谱么贵吗) (今日更新中)

PEORIA, AZ — An Arizona man and woman have been arrested after their three-year-old child died of an apparent fentanyl overdose.According to court paperwork, a three-year-old child was found dead on June 14 inside a Peoria, Arizona, home by the child’s mother.Police say Shala Durham and Ryan Konkol were interviewed by detectives after they responded to the home, and weren’t able to give a clear, consistent account of what transpired before the child was found dead.Court paperwork shows that Durham told officers she had recently purchased Xanax from a street drug dealer, and that she was also under medical treatment of Methadone.Durham allegedly told police that she had taken one-and-a-half pills and left the others in her purse on a table before falling asleep with the child on a living room couch. Konkol reportedly fell asleep around the same time on a separate couch. Durham said that when she woke up the next day, the child was deceased.Search warrants were obtained for blood samples of Durham and the child’s father, Ryan Konkol.Results for Durham and Konkol came back positive for fentanyl. A lethal amount of fentanyl was also detected in the victim’s blood.Lab results showed the pills to be Alprazolam, which is a benzodiazepine, used to treat anxiety and as a sleep aid.Both Durham and Konkol face one count of first-degree murder.This article was written by 1390

OTAY MESA, Calif. (KGTV) - A 72-year-old man died Friday night after being struck by a semi-truck trailer. San Diego police say the man had pulled off the 905 freeway at La Media Dr. to fix a broken spark plug on his 1980 Honda motorcycle. He was working on the bike when the big rig exited the 905 onto La Media heading east. The driver missed the motorcyclist with the cab but clipped him with the back tires of the trailer, dragging the body for several feet according to investigators. The man was rushed to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. The driver of the semi-truck stopped at the scene and is cooperating with authorities. Police say he could face a misdemeanor charge of involuntary manslaughter. 744

People who aren’t rich or famous typically don’t have prenuptial agreements, which are legal documents detailing who gets what in a divorce. Even ordinary folks without prenups, though, should think about how to protect their money if something goes wrong.Planning for divorce may be cynical, but it’s also smart, San Diego certified financial planner Ginita Wall says.“It’s cynical to put on a seat belt when you pull out of your garage, because you’re planning for an accident,” says Wall, who is also a certified public accountant and the author of several books including “The ABCs of Divorce for Women.” “You want to be safe if that happens, God forbid.”Marital breakups aren’t the only concern. Creditors can come after joint accounts and property if a spouse has unpaid debts or gets sued, says Carl Soranno, a family law attorney in Roseland, New Jersey.“Even if your marriage is strong, or you think it’s strong, there are events that can put pressure on it,” Soranno says.Estate planning also can be easier when at least some assets are kept as separate property. You might trust your spouse to do right by the kids after you’re gone, for example, but can you trust your spouse’s next spouse? Separate property can allow you to better control who inherits after your death.“Separate property,” by the way, is the legal term for assets such as cash, investments and real estate that you owned before you married. It also applies to any gifts or inheritances you receive during marriage.But there are plenty of ways separate property can become marital property if you’re not careful. Depositing an inheritance into a joint account can do it. So can using money from a joint account to pay taxes on separately owned investments or property. State laws vary enormously, so it can be worth consulting an experienced attorney or financial planner to find out the rules that apply in yours, says CFP Shelly-Ann Eweka, a wealth management director with TIAA in Denver.“You want someone familiar with your state laws and your situation to give you advice,” Eweka says.Here are some moves that typically help to protect what you own:Have ‘mine’ and ‘ours’ accounts 2178

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

Our team is working hard to get the full picture. In the meantime, we’re relieved to hear the officers are all okay. https://t.co/rjJYFSYjZc— SHAKE SHACK (@shakeshack) June 16, 2020 189

来源：资阳报