濮阳东方医院看妇科非常靠谱濮阳市东方医院专家怎么样,濮阳东方妇科评价好么,濮阳东方医院割包皮价格标准,濮阳东方医院治疗早泄收费便宜,濮阳东方看妇科病技术可靠,濮阳东方妇科医院评价很高,濮阳东方医院看早泄很好

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Two major law enforcement organizations have dropped their opposition to California legislation that strengthens standards for when officers can use of deadly force, a shift that comes after supporters made changes to the measure.Spokesmen for organizations representing California police chiefs and rank-and-file officers told The Associated Press on Thursday that they won't fight the measure, which was prompted by public outrage over fatal police shootings.As originally written, the measure would bar police from using lethal force unless it is "necessary" to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to officers or bystanders.That's a change from the current standard, which lets officers kill if they have "reasonable" fear they or others are in imminent danger. The threshold made it rare for officers to be charged following a shooting and rarer still for them to be convicted."With so many unnecessary deaths, I think everyone agrees that we need to change how deadly force is used in California," said Democratic Assemblywoman Shirley Weber of San Diego, who wrote the measure. "We can now move a policy forward that will save lives and change the culture of policing in California."Law enforcement officials did not immediately explain their decision. But a revised version of the bill filed Thursday drops an explicit definition of "necessary" that was in the original version. The deleted language provided that officers could act when there is "no reasonable alternative."The amended measure also makes it clear that officers are not required to retreat or back down in the face of a suspect's resistance and officers don't lose their right to self-defense if they use "objectively reasonable force."Amendments also strip out a specific requirement that officers try to de-escalate confrontations before using deadly force but allows the courts to consider officers' actions leading up to fatal shootings, said Peter Bibring, police practices director for the American Civil Liberties Union of California, which proposed the bill and negotiated the changes."By requiring that officers use force only when necessary and examining their conduct leading up to use of force, the courts can still consider whether officers needlessly escalated a situation or failed to use de-escalation tactics that could have avoided a shooting," he said.Even with the changes, the ACLU considers the bill to have the strongest language of any in the country.Democratic leaders in the Legislature signed on to the revised version, which is set for a key Assembly vote next week. 2634

ROCHESTER, Indiana — The woman accused of crashing into four Indiana children as they crossed the street to get on a school bus pleaded not guilty Thursday morning, according to ABC 57 News in South Bend. The suspect, 24-year-old Alyssa Shepherd, had previously told police she saw the lights from the bus but didn't realize what it was until the kids were in front of her. She has been charged with three counts of reckless homicide and one count of disregarding the stop arms on a school bus causing injury. The crash happened Oct. 30, near the intersection of State Road 25 and CR 400 N in Fulton County.Police say Shepherd was driving a Toyota Tacoma on State Road 25 sometime after 7 a.m. when she allegedly "disregarded" the stop arm and lights on a stopped school bus in front of a mobile home park, striking four kids who were crossing the street to board the bus. Alivia Stahl, 9, and her twin brothers, Xzavier and Mason Ingle, 6, were all pronounced dead at the scene. A fourth child was also hit. Maverik Lowe, 11, was hospitalized. His family said he "continues to improve."A pretrial conference for Shepherd has been scheduled for Feb. 5, 2019, ABC 57 reported. 1218

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Lawmakers can avoid the long lines plaguing California's Department of Motor Vehicles offices by visiting an office near the Capitol not open to the public, a decades-old practice under fresh fire as wait times surge.The office provides services for current and retired lawmakers, their staff and some other state employees, The Sacramento Bee reported Thursday. DMV spokesman Artemio Armenta said its primary purpose is to handle constituent requests that arrive on lawmakers' desks and that the two-member staff handles 10,000 requests per year.But one lawmaker said it shouldn't provide extra perks for the Capitol community as regular Californians are forced to wait up to hours in line for services at their local office.RELATED: Shorter lines? Larger DMV planned for Hillcrest"I have gotten my registration and all that stuff the old-fashioned way like everybody else in my district," Republican Assemblyman Jim Patterson told the Bee. "When you are living a public life the way most private people live, you'll understand when taxes hurt and bureaucracies hurt."Patterson's colleagues rejected his request to audit the DMV on Wednesday, and lawmakers have recently approved more money for the agency to deal with its exploding wait times.DMV officials said the long lines are due to complications complying with new federally mandated security upgrades for ID cards. In late 2020, airport security checkpoints will require so-called "Real ID" compliant cards, and Californians are now beginning to get the updated cards.RELATED: California lawmakers ask DMV officials about long linesLawmakers have approved tens of millions of dollars to hire more staff and implement the roll-out of Real ID. The DMV recently announced it would open more than a dozen offices on Saturdays.Whether lawmakers and Capitol staff should get access to a private DMV has been disputed before. Some people who work in and around the Capitol downplayed the office's existence in response to the Bee article, saying it's been known about for years. A 2006 Capitol Weekly article highlighted the debate over the office, referencing a small-government activist who criticized it for years.The office has been open for decades, moving locations around the Capitol. At one point it was open to the public. Now, the office is unmarked at the end of a hallway in the Legislative Office Building, located across the street from the Capitol.RELATED: State report: California DMV worker slept thousands of hours on the jobWhen a reporter stopped by on Friday, the door was locked and a woman who answered directed all questions to the public affairs office.Armenta, the DMV spokesman, said the door is locked because the office handles cash transactions and holds people's personally identifiable information. About 90 percent of the office's work relates to requests from constituents who call their lawmakers over complicated problems the local DMV branch may not be able to solve, he said."Often times it's a conduit for constituent work," Armenta said. "It provides the Legislature a way to be closely in contact with state government on helping customers with situations that they're having."Spokespeople for Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins did not respond to questions about whether it's appropriate for lawmakers to get services at the office. 3398

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's attorney general is demanding that a university journalism program return a state list that includes law enforcement officers convicted of crimes in the past decade, saying the information wasn't meant to be public and shouldn't have been given out by another agency.Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office sent reporters from the Investigative Reporting Program at the University of California, Berkeley a notice that confidential information had been inadvertently released from a confidential database, the program reported Tuesday.The attorney general's office said possessing the list was a misdemeanor and asked the reporters to destroy it. They received it last month from California's police training agency through a public records request.The reporters refused, but so far have released only limited details about the list. They say the list of nearly 12,000 names includes current and former officers and those who applied to be officers. It's not clear how many are active officers and how many had never been officers.The list outlines crimes including shoplifting, child molestation, embezzlement and murder. It's not clear how many of the convicted officers remain on the job.In a statement to The Associated Press late Tuesday, Becerra's office reiterated its position that the information came from a confidential database to which the reporters should not have had access."State law protects the records of all Californians in this database by prohibiting the possession and use of this information by anyone not identified by statute," his office said.The report comes as he is also refusing to release old records of serious misconduct by his own justice department agents under a new law that requires the release. Becerra is citing conflicting court decisions on whether records should be made public for incidents that happened before the disclosure law took effect Jan. 1.In a letter to reporter Robert Lewis with the reporting program's production arm, Investigative Studios, Deputy Attorney General Michelle Mitchell said the criminal history information was taken from a confidential law enforcement database where "access to information is restricted by law.""You are hereby on notice that the unauthorized receipt or possession...is a misdemeanor," she wrote, threatening unspecified legal action.First Amendment Coalition executive director David Snyder told the reporting program that, "It's disheartening and ominous that the highest law enforcement officer in the state is threatening legal action over something the First Amendment makes clear can't give rise to criminal action against a reporter."Without providing many details, the reporting program said the list includes current, former or prospective officers who dealt drugs, stole from their departments, sexually assaulted suspects, took bribes, filed false reports and committed perjury. A large number drove drunk, and sometimes killed people while doing so.The reporting program said the list came after a law last year allowed the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to keep records of when current or former officers are convicted of felonies or other crimes that would disqualify them from law enforcement. Previously, the commission would have to wait until the officer had exhausted all appeals before deeming them unqualified, but now the initial conviction is enough.That led the attorney general's office to provide the commission with the list of current and former officers with convictions. The commission provided the reporting program with 10 years' worth of convictions.Nic Marais, an attorney representing Investigative Studios, said in a letter to Becerra's office that the records are publicly releasable because they are summaries. He added that state law exempts reporters from prosecution for receiving records.Attorney Michael Rains, who represents police officers, told the reporting program that he understands there is public interest in police officers convicted of crimes, but said the same disclosure should apply to everyone. He noted there is no broad public disclosure of crimes committed by lawyers, doctors or teachers. 4210

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A staunchly conservative political party in deep-blue California will get to keep its name after the governor vetoed a bill aimed at banning what state lawmakers say are misleading monikers.Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday he had vetoed a bill that would have banned political parties from using "no party preference," ''decline to state" or "independent" in their official names.The bill would have applied to all political parties. But it was aimed at the American Independent Party, which has been an option for California voters since 1968.More California voters are registering with no party preference, now accounting for 28.3% of all registered voters. If "no party preference" were a political party, it would be the second largest in the state behind the Democrats.Critics say the American Independent Party has benefited from this trend because its name confuses voters into believing they are registering as independents. The party makes up 2.59% of California's registered voters, making it the third largest political party in the state after the Democratic Party at 43.1% and the Republican Party at 23.6%.In 2016, the Los Angeles Times surveyed the party's registered members and found most did not know they had registered to vote with the party. But Newsom said he vetoed the bill because he worried it was unconstitutional."By requiring one existing political party to change its current name, this bill could be interpreted as a violation of the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution," Newsom wrote in his veto message.Representatives for the American Independent Party did not respond to an email and phone call seeking comment. The party's website says it nominated Donald Trump for president in 2016 and "God willing, 2020."Democratic Sen. Tom Umberg, the bill's author, warned the mistaken registration could have electoral consequences. People registered with another political party would not be allowed to vote in the state's pivotal Democratic presidential primary in March.But Newsom signed another bill by Umberg that could help people rectify any registration mistakes. The law, signed Tuesday, allows voters to register to vote or update their registration at all polling places on election day.If people show up to vote in the Democratic presidential primary and are ineligible because they are registered with the American Independent Party, they can change their registration on the spot and cast a ballot. The ballot would be conditional, meaning it would not be counted until after the person's registration could be verified. 2676