濮阳东方医院治阳痿靠谱濮阳东方医院男科治阳痿比较好,濮阳东方医院看早泄技术很靠谱,濮阳东方医院治阳痿收费不高,濮阳东方医院男科看阳痿口碑非常好,濮阳东方医院看妇科好么,濮阳东方医院男科割包皮多少钱,濮阳东方医院男科治阳痿口碑好很不错

Two children were killed and nine people were injured Monday evening after a man driving a stolen police cruiser crashed at high speed into a SUV and a minivan in Dayton, Ohio, police said.The suspect, Raymond Andrew Walters Jr., was driving 97 mph when he ran a red light and plowed into the two vehicles, Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl said at a press conference Tuesday.Walters had been on active parole, and police suspect methamphetamine may have played a part in the incident, Biehl said.The incident unfolded when Walters' father was trying to take his son to a hospital for mental health issues, but when the suspect realized where they were going, he began assaulting his father, Biehl said.Suspect stole a police cruiser, police saidThe suspect left his father bleeding from head and face wounds, and took off in his father's Chevy truck, Biehl said.Walters crashed the truck into a tree in nearby Riverside, Dayton police said.When a Riverside officer responding to a 911 call about the accident got out of his police cruiser to check on the driver, the suspect got in and took control of the cruiser from the passenger side, Biehl said.The Riverside officer tased Walters twice, Biehl said, but that didn't stop the suspect from taking off in the cruiser.Running the police lights and sirens, Walters reached a maximum speed of 101 mph, Biehl said. He was not being pursued by police at the time of the accident, the police chief said.The Honda minivan was carrying seven children and one adult, all family members, Biehl said. There were three adults in the SUV, the police said.Another child is badly hurt, police saidAll occupants were taken to local hospitals and at least three of them were in life-threatening condition when they were transported, Lt. Eric Henderson said.Two of the children later died, he said.A third child remains in critical condition, Biehl said.Two Riverside officers sustained minor injuries when the suspect struck their vehicle.The suspect was injured in the crash and is in stable condition in a hospital, Biehl said.The police cruiser broke into several parts when it hit the minivan, Biehl said. Still, "counterforce was necessary to take Walters into custody," according to a police presentation.Walters' criminal history includes aggravated burglary and robbery, possession of drugs, domestic violence and assault, police said. He was released from prison in August. 2430

We honestly have no explanation for the floating objects over Kansas City.— NWS Kansas City (@NWSKansasCity) June 21, 2019 134

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams disagrees so much with a gun bill making its way through the Colorado legislature that he's willing to go to jail rather than enforce it."It's a matter of doing what's right," he said.He's not the only one who feels so strongly.The controversial "red flag" bill aims to seize guns temporarily from people who are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others.Colorado's state Senate passed the bill Thursday by a single vote, without any Republican support, and the bill is expected to pass the House, possibly this week. With Democratic majorities in both chambers, state Republicans have too few votes to stand in the way.But more than half of Colorado's 64 counties officially oppose the bill. Many have even declared themselves Second Amendment "sanctuary" counties in protest.Failure to enforce a court order to seize a person's guns could mean sheriffs being found in contempt. A judge could fine them indefinitely, or even send them to jail to force them to comply.Reams says it's a sacrifice he'd be forced to make.What is the bill?Colorado's "extreme risk protection order" bill would allow a family member, a roommate, or law enforcement to petition a judge to take someone's firearms if they are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.The push for legislation followed the death of Zack Parrish, the 29-year-old Douglas County sheriff's deputy killed in 2017 by a man with an arsenal of weapons who authorities said had a history of bizarre behavior, including threats to police.Parrish's former boss, Sheriff Tony Spurlock, has been one of the most vocal advocates of the bill and says he believes it could have prevented Parrish's death. Democratic House Majority Leader Alec Garnett, one of the bill's primary sponsors, agrees.The other House sponsor is Rep. Tom Sullivan, whose son, Alex, was killed in the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting in 2012.Garnett says he won't lose any sleep if Reams or another Colorado sheriff opts for jail instead of enforcement of a court order."What I'm going to lose sleep over is, if that's the choice that they make and someone loses their life, someone in crisis goes on a shooting spree, (or) someone commits suicide" because a gun wasn't taken away, he said.What's so controversial?Gun rights activists, and an increasing number of law enforcement leaders, say the bill goes too far.David Kopel, a constitutional law expert who has written extensively about gun policy in the United States, says he thinks the bill is generally a good idea but that he has serious reservations about how it is written -- in part because of outside influence."The gun ban lobbies are getting more and more extreme and aggressive," he said.The bill allows a judge to order a person's guns to be seized before the person has a chance to appear in court. The bill does require a second hearing with the gun owner present to be held within 14 days, where the owner could make a case to keep the weapons -- but if the owner is unsuccessful, a judge could order the guns seized for as long as a year.Kopel said it would be difficult to prevent a nightmare scenario in which someone misuses the law to take guns away from a person they intend to target violently.The burden of proof is low -- "preponderance of the evidence," which is the same standard used in civil cases, and a much lower bar than the criminal standard, "beyond a reasonable doubt."Reams said he also worries about the potential to aggravate an already volatile person by taking their weapons."Going in and taking their guns and leaving the scene, I can't see how that makes them less of a risk. It just takes one tool away," said Reams, arguing that a person bent on hurting someone could do it with a knife or a car.In 2018, 3783

WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court has largely upheld the Federal Communications Commission's controversial repeal of its net neutrality rules for internet providers, finding the agency didn't overreach when it decided in 2018 to deregulate companies such as Comcast and Verizon.The decision marks a victory for the Republican-led commission in light of opposition by consumer groups, tech companies and local government officials who had sued the agency in a years-long battle over the future of the open internet.But there is an important caveat: The court struck down a key aspect of the agency's order that could lead to further battles at the state level.Tuesday's opinion by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit is a win for the broadband industry, which had argued the regulations created uncertainty for internet providers and were too restrictive. But the decision also handed a partial victory to net neutrality advocates in that it provides a path for states to create their own net neutrality rules.Both sides were quick to declare victory.In a statement Tuesday, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the decision is a win "for consumers, broadband deployment, and the free and open Internet." He added: "A free and open Internet is what we have today and what we'll continue to have moving forward."Democratic FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a net neutrality advocate, cheered the court's decision as it "vacates the FCC's unlawful effort to block states and localities from protecting an open internet for their citizens."For years, consumer groups have pushed for tough net neutrality rules. Advocates say providers should not be allowed to slow down websites, block access to apps or give faster service to preferred partners, which could distort the market for online services. Under those principles, Verizon, for example, would not be allowed to speed up loading times for, say, Yahoo, which it owns. Similarly, Spectrum could not downgrade Netflix as a way to deter cord-cutting.In light of the decision, Mozilla, maker of the Firefox browser and one of the lead plaintiffs in the case, said the fight to preserve the principle of net neutrality "is far from over."Consumer groups succeeded in 2015 when the FCC decided to regulate internet providers much like legacy telephone companies. The agency imposed clear rules banning the blocking, throttling or accelerating of Web content by internet providers and reserved the right to investigate business practices that risked violating the spirit of net neutrality.Opponents charged that the rules were a gross overreach by the government. Industry groups argued the constant danger of FCC investigations created business uncertainty and the rules opened the door to direct federal regulation of broadband prices.When President Trump took the White House, Republicans gained control of the FCC. Among the first acts Pai took as the new chairman was a plan to unwind the rules. Pai argued that the net neutrality regulations were heavy-handed and discouraged internet providers from upgrading their networks. In 2017, the FCC voted to repeal major parts of the rules, including the bans on blocking and slowing of websites.Internet providers say they are not interested in blocking or slowing down websites anyway.USTelecom, an association representing broadband providers, said the litigation showed how "Congress must end this regulatory rinse and repeat cycle by passing a strong national framework that applies to all companies."But internet providers have lobbied for the freedom to strike deals with websites to provide premium service, possibly in exchange for extra fees.Some policymakers have argued that practice, known as "paid prioritization," could benefit advanced applications like self-driving cars and telemedicine. Critics worry it could become an unbearable cost for some websites and tech companies — giving wealthy, established firms the power to dominate while marginalizing smaller businesses that can't afford to pay.Those arguments figured prominently in the legal battle over net neutrality. A coalition of critics led by Mozilla sued the FCC in hopes of blocking Pai's deregulation.The case was decided with the panel's three judges concluding the FCC acted lawfully when it decided to undo the Obama-era rules and regulate internet providers more lightly.But the opinion also struck down efforts by the FCC to prevent state governments from enacting their own net neutrality laws and regulations. The court on Tuesday rejected that approach, saying it amounted to an attempt to "categorically abolish all fifty States' ... authority to regulate intrastate communications." The FCC could still seek to preempt states on a case-by-case basis, setting the stage for multiple legal tussles.Andy Schwartzman, a lecturer in law at Georgetown University, said the decision "provides a roadmap to rules that can protect the promise of a vibrant internet that serves people, not the big cable and telcom companies." 5018

Virginia's highest court has upheld a ban on firearms at a pro-gun rally in the state's capital next week. The Supreme Court issued its decision late Friday, rejecting an appeal from gun-rights groups that said the ban violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The court did not rule on the merits of the case, however. The justices said they did not have enough information to decide whether a lower court judge had ruled appropriately. State officials had asked the court to uphold the ban. Gov. Ralph Northam said officials had received credible threats of "armed militia groups storming our Capitol” during the rally scheduled for Monday in Richmond. 676