郑州人的正常视力是多少郑州斜视手术价格,郑州郑州眼科哪家好,郑州眼睛做手术好不好,郑州孩子11岁近视750度有办法治疗吗,郑州河南省那个眼科医院最好,郑州尖峰眼科医院,郑州近视眼做手术

The school shooting was over in seconds. But it could have dragged on longer and proven deadlier were it not for the rapid response of a school resource officer.When a 17-year-old gunman walked into Maryland's Great Mills High School on Tuesday, the swift action of the school's sole resource officer, Blaine Gaskill, was instrumental in bringing the incident to a quick end.Gaskill's response was hailed as an example of exactly what a resource officer is supposed to do in such a circumstance, particularly when contrasted to the actions of the security officer in last month's shooting in Parkland, Florida. (In the incident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14, the armed school resource deputy waited outside the school building as the shooter gunned down students inside.)"He responded exactly how we train our personnel to respond," St. Mary's County Sheriff Tim Cameron told reporters.Engaging the shooterAs soon as the gunfire began, Gaskill rushed to the scene. He fired a round at the shooter, who also fired a round at the same time, Cameron said.It's not yet clear whether the shooter, Austin Wyatt Rollins, was felled by the officer's bullet or killed himself."DFC [Deputy First Class] Gaskill fired at the shooter ... almost simultaneously as the shooter fired," Cameron said. "This is something we train, practice and in reality, hope would never come to fruition. This is our worst nightmare."Gov. Larry Hogan called Gaskill "a very capable school resource officer who also happened to be a SWAT team member.""This is a tough guy who apparently closed in very quickly and took the right kind of action," he said. "And while I think it's still tragic, he may have saved other people's lives."Over in secondsThe incident began in a school hallway at 7:55 a.m., just before classes started. Authorities say Austin, armed with a handgun, shot a female student, with whom he had a prior relationship, and another male student.Gaskill responded to the scene in less than a minute, the sheriff said.Cameron said the entire incident took less than a minute, possibly seconds.The 16-year-old female student is in critical condition with life-threatening injuries, and the 14-year-old male student who was shot is in stable condition.Gaskill was unharmed."He's doing well and we're going to do everything to support and promote him and his well-being," Cameron said.Playing to a narrativeGaskill's actions were praised, rightly, across social media. But some -- most notably, the NRA -- held him up as an example of the "good guy with a gun" theory. The theory goes, that bad guys will always find a way to circumvent whatever gun laws are in place. And "to stop a bad guy with a gun," as NRA head Wayne Lapierre?said, "it takes a good guy with a gun.""This [Great Mills High School] armed school resource officer, you're not hearing anyone in #MSM talk about it because it disrupts their narrative," NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch said in one of several tweets Tuesday. (MSM is short for mainstream media.)So far, this year, there have already been 17 school shootings where someone was hurt or killed.In the Parkland shooting, school resource deputy Scot Peterson never entered the building after taking a position outside. He resigned after he was suspended without pay for his inaction."Had our resource officer taken action immediately, the result of the Stoneman Douglas Valentine's Day Massacre would have been different," Parkland student Kai Koerber told CNN."We might not have had to walk over the bodies of our classmates, once lovely and wonderful people, as we were led away from murderous tragedy."Speaking to reporters, Dr. James Scott Smith, the superintendent of St. Mary's County's public schools, put the senselessness of it all in perspective."It looks as though the SRO [school resource officer] did exactly what the SRO is trained to do, and yet we still have a tragic loss of life," he said. "We still have somebody in critical condition. And we have students at the school and staff at the school impacted." 4086

The White House on Wednesday downplayed comments by national security adviser John Bolton, who recently invoked Libya's decision to denuclearize during the Bush administration as a model for US policy on North Korea, potentially placing a planned US-North Korea summit in jeopardy.Hours earlier, a North Korean official said Bolton's remarks were indicative of an "awfully sinister move" to imperil the Kim regime. North Korea stunned Washington on Tuesday by threatening to abandon talks between President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un if Washington insists on pushing it "into a corner" on nuclear disarmament.Referring to the Libya comparison, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Wednesday that she hadn't "seen that as part of any discussions so I'm not aware that that's a model that we're using."I haven't seen that that's a specific thing. I know that that comment was made. There's not a cookie cutter model on how this would work."She continued, "This is the President Trump model. He's going to run this the way he sees fit. We're 100% confident, as we've said many times before, as I'm sure you're all aware, he's the best negotiator and we're very confident on that front."In April, Bolton suggested that the White House was looking at Libya as an example of how it will handle negotiations with North Korea to denuclearize."We have very much in mind the Libya model from 2003, 2004," Bolton said on Fox News. "There are obviously differences. The Libyan program was much smaller. But that was basically the agreement that we made."The US agreed to ease sanctions on Libya in 2003 in exchange for a promise by Moammar Gadhafi to abandon his country's nuclear program. Eight years later, however, Gadhafi was overthrown and killed by rebels backed by Washington.In a statement published late Tuesday by the state-run Korea Central News Agency, Kim Kye Gwan, North Korea's first vice minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, called Bolton's comments indicative of "an awfully sinister move to impose on our dignified state the destiny of Libya or Iraq which had been collapsed due to yielding the whole of their countries to big powers.""It is absolutely absurd to dare compare (North Korea), a nuclear weapon state, to Libya which had been at the initial stage of nuclear development," Kim said. "(The) world knows too well that our country is neither Libya nor Iraq which have met miserable fate."Singling out the national security adviser for personal criticism, Kim said that North Korea had "shed light on the quality of (John) Bolton already in the past, and we do not hide our feeling of repugnance towards him."  2657

The Trump administration announced Wednesday plans to remove 12,000 US troops from Germany with some being returned to the United States, and others being relocated to other NATO allies.The Department of Defense says that 5,600 troops will be repositioned to other NATO nations, while 6,400 will be returned to the US.Defense Secretary Mark Esper told CNN that the move to relocate troops will cost in the billions.President Donald Trump said the move was made because Germany is taking “advantage” of the US.“They are there to protect Europe and there to protect Germany and Germany is supposed to pay for it,” Trump said on Wednesday. “And we don't want to be -- the United States has been taken advantage of for 25 years with trade and on the military. It's very simple, they are delinquent. Very simple. And there are other NATO countries also, there are 28 countries “While there have been concerns that removing troops from the region diminishes the US presence in Europe in keeping Russia in check, Esper said that the move will enhance its deterrence against Russia.“The repositioning of our forces in Europe constitutes a major strategic and positive shift, wholly in line with the NDS, and consistent with other adjustments the United States has made within NATO in previous times,” Esper said. “These changes achieve the core principles of enhancing U.S. and NATO deterrence of Russia; strengthening NATO; reassuring Allies; and, improving U.S. strategic flexibility and EUCOM operational flexibility.”The reduced presence in Germany cuts the number of troops stationed there by one-third. 1608

The Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a provision of federal law that requires the mandatory deportation of immigrants who have been convicted of some crimes, holding that the law is unconstitutionally vague.The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, had been closely watched to see if the justices would reveal how they will consider the Trump administration's overall push to both limit immigration and increase deportations.As expected after the oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the more liberal justices for the first time since joining the court to produce a 5-4 majority invalidating the federal statute. In doing so, Gorsuch was continuing the jurisprudence of Justice Antonin Scalia, who also sided with liberals when it came to the vagueness of statutes used to convict criminal defendants.Only eight justices heard the case last term after Scalia's death, and in late June, the court announced it would re-hear arguments this term, presumably so that Gorsuch could break some kind of a tie.Dimaya, a native of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States in 1992 as a lawful permanent resident. In 2007 and 2009, he pleaded no contest to charges of residential burglary in California and an immigration judge determined that Dimaya was removable from the US because of his two state court convictions.The court held that the convictions qualified for an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes removal of non-citizens who have been convicted of some violent crimes and defines aggravated felony to include "crimes of violence."Lawyers for Dimaya appealed the removal arguing that it was unconstitutionally vague and that their client never had fair notice that his crimes would result in deportation.They suggested the reasoning of a 2015 Scalia opinion, which struck a provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act as unconstitutionally vague, should extend to their case.  1945

The Supreme Court granted Tuesday a Trump administration request to continue to bar most refugees under its travel ban.Without comment, the court blocked a federal appeals court ruling from last week that would have exempted refugees who have a contractual commitment from resettlement organizations from the travel ban while the justices consider its legality. The ruling could impact roughly 24,000 people.The travel ban bars certain people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the US.The issue concerning the scope of the travel ban has been ricocheting through the courts since the spring when the Supreme Court allowed Trump's ban to go into effect except for those with a "bona fide" relationship to the United States. The order might give hope to supporters of the ban, but it may also simply reflect a desire on the part of the justices to maintain the status quo until the justices can hear the case next month."Although it may be tempting to see the order as a harbinger of how the court is likely to rule on the merits, it's better understood as a very modest procedural step to stabilize the full scope of the injunctions against the travel ban over the next four weeks," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law.The justices did not explain their reasoning, although it took five justices to make the decision.The court is expected to take up the legality of the travel ban October 10. 1500