鄠邑区老师哪里有升学率(西安中考高中复读有哪些) (今日更新中)

As Americans protest racial inequality and the death of George Floyd and others at the hands of police, their pleas are being heard in the chambers of the U.S. Capitol. Both Democrats and Republicans have introduced legislation to reform policing in America, but they diverge on some issues.The far-reaching legislative proposal from Democrats, the Justice in Policing Act, would limit legal protections for police, create a national database of excessive-force encounters and ban police chokeholds, among other changes.Republicans say their bill, known as the Justice Act -- one of the most ambitious GOP policing proposals in years -- “will maintain the constitutionally-limited role the federal government plays in local law enforcement decisions while still effecting significant change.” It calls for an enhanced use-of-force database, restrictions on chokeholds and new commissions to study law enforcement and race.Here’s a side-by-side look at some proposals:POLICE MISCONDUCT & USE-OF-FORCE DATABASESMany officers who wind up involved in fatal shootings have a history of misconduct, including Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis officer charged with murder in Floyd’s death. He had at least a dozen complaints made against him, according to records.But those records are often not made public, making it difficult to know if officers have such a record.President Donald Trump signed an executive order this week requiring the attorney general to create a database tracking terminations, criminal convictions and civil judgments against law enforcement officers for excessive use of force. It encourages participation by providing certain grants only to those agencies that submit the required information.— Democrats’ bill: Calls for a national registry including complaints, disciplinary records and termination records. It also would require states to report to the Justice Department any incident in which force is used against a civilian or law enforcement officer. The proposal would require the agencies to report the reason force was used and the national origin, sex, race, ethnicity, age, disability, English language proficiency and housing status of each civilian against whom a law enforcement officer used force.— Republicans’ bill: Would require state and local governments to report all use-of-force incidents that result in serious injuries or death to the FBI on an annual basis. Municipalities that fail to comply could see a reduction in federal funding.CHOKEHOLDSThere’s a notable difference. The Democrats’ bill would specifically ban the use of chokeholds and carotid holds at the federal level, while the Republican bill incentivizes police departments to ban the practice through grant funding. Trump’s executive order also encourages such bans through financial incentives.— Democrats’ bill: Would ban chokeholds and carotid holds and would condition law enforcement funding for state and local law enforcement agencies on establishing a law to prohibit the use of chokeholds and carotid holds.— Republicans’ bill: Would condition certain Justice Department funds on a police department having specific policies restricting the use of chokeholds, except in situations in which deadly force is authorized.NO-KNOCK WARRANTSThere has been a growing call to ban no-knock warrants since 26-year-old Breonna Taylor was killed in her Louisville, Kentucky, home by officers in March. Democrats have proposed a ban on the practice, typically executed in some of the most dangerous investigations conducted by police departments. A no-knock warrant, as its name implies, is an order from a judge that allows police to enter a home without ringing a doorbell or banging on the door. Critics have said the use has increased dramatically, and some departments use them routinely in cases that don’t merit such an exception.— Democrats’ bill: Would specifically ban no-knock warrants for all federal drug cases and would require local and state law enforcement agencies to prohibit their use to qualify for some federal funding. Oregon and Florida are the only states that have outlawed such warrants.— Republicans’ bill: GOP senators argue there is no conclusive data on how, why and how often no-knock search warrants are used and have proposed requiring state and local law enforcement agencies to report specific data to the Department of Justice each year. The department would then be required to make a public report.FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW— Democrats’ bill: Would amend the federal civil rights law that governs police misconduct to no longer require prosecutors to prove that an officer’s actions were willful, a high burden of proof. The law would allow an officer to be charged for acting with reckless disregard for someone’s life, causing that person’s death.— Republicans’ bill: Would not amend that section of the law.QUALIFIED IMMUNITYPolice officers are generally not held personally liable for anything that happens on the job, including when someone dies. The concept of qualified immunity has long been a way to protect police from unnecessary lawsuits and to give them the freedom to police without fear of unnecessary retribution.— Democrats’ bill: Would amend federal misconduct statutes to make it easier for courts to find officers personally liable for the violation of civil rights. Officers might think twice before abusing their power, but it could make it more difficult to recruit police nationwide. It could also potentially lead to officers being held financially liable.— Republicans’ bill: They say this is a step too far. As an alternative, the lead senator on the bill, Tim Scott of South Carolina, has suggested a “decertification” process for officers involved in misconduct.The president’s executive order instructs the Justice Department to push local police departments to be certified. Under the order, Justice would ensure a department could only be credentialed if its use-of-force policies adhered to federal, state, and local laws.White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Wednesday the qualified immunity provision in the House Democrats’ bill “is a total and complete nonstarter.” 6166

As COVID-19 first started to spread in the U.S., hospitals around the country were forced to stop elective surgeries. Now, hospital officials say they're facing perhaps the biggest financial crisis in their history."We've had to curtail regular operations, some of which involve these non-emergent procedures that you mention, and as a result from March to June, we saw a loss of revenue of 0 billion or billion a month," said American Hospital Association President Rick Pollack.Hospitals have also taken on major expenses when it comes to preparing and caring for COVID-19 patients. Plus, many patients they treat don't have insurance.Pollack says hospitals collectively are one of the largest employers in the country, employing more than 5 million people."Half of hospitals' budgets, over half, is devoted to labor costs. So, of course, when all regular operations are shut down and you’re incurring additional expenses to prepare for treating the virus for the community, you have to find ways to cut costs," explained Pollack.Some hospitals have resorted to laying off or furloughing staff."So, it's the last choice,” Pollack said. “It's a bad choice and we try to avoid it, but sometimes, it's inevitable to just stay afloat.”"Whether the disruptions in the health industry remain temporary or permanent is an interesting case because it affects everyone," said Jack Strauss, the Miller Chair of Applied Economics at the University of Denver.Strauss is concerned about how the healthcare industry will recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, especially amid a possible second wave of infections."They make their money on elective surgery and those were not occurring, and so, they're not probably positioned to recover," said Strauss.While a number of states are allowing elective procedures again, the wait time for these patients may be detrimental."Whether it's the detection for a tumor or a scan of a part of a body for a diagnostic procedure, a replacement of a heart valve. So, when you talk about electives, they're really not all that discretionary and we’re really concerned in the period that we shut down all non-emergent procedures that there was a deferral of care,” said Pollack. “We do hear, anecdotally, that the people that are coming back are in a much sicker position because they didn’t get the care that they needed.”Pollack says in order for the healthcare industry to recover, they're going to need a lot of help from the federal government."There's no question, if we don't get the additional assistance it will put the financial viability of a lot of hospitals at risk, particularly in rural areas and vulnerable urban areas," said Pollack.As possibly the biggest industry in the country that's been on the front lines of treating COVID-19, hospitals hope they're one of the first to get major federal help so that the healthcare industry can survive this pandemic. 2909

An online petition is calling on President Trump or Congress to close down Fort Hood.The petition on change.org says the military post should be shut down due to its handling of the case of Pfc. Vanessa Guillen.The 20-year-old soldier disappeared from post on April 22. Human remains believed to belong to her were found Tuesday in an area near the Leon River in Little River Academy.Before her disappearance, Pfc. Guillen told friends and family she was being sexually harassed by her superior. An investigation has been started into those allegations.One suspect in her disappearance died by suicide as officers attempted to make contact. Another suspect, a civilian and estranged wife of a former Fort Hood soldier, has been arrested and is currently in the Bell County jail.The petition says Fort Hood failed her and "let her die when they claim, 'No soldier left behind.'"As of publication, the petition has 260,000 signatures. This story originally reported by Sydney Isenberg on kxxv.com. 1003

AP-NORC poll: About a quarter of U.S. adults aren’t sure if they want to get COVID-19 shots. Roughly another quarter say they won’t, and for most, their minds are made up. MORE: https://t.co/aXTvrdpCp1 pic.twitter.com/VInDaD8zmV— The Associated Press (@AP) December 9, 2020 287

An Arizona man was awarded a 5,000 verdict after a jury decided a dentist at a popular dental chain wrongly pulled all his teeth without consent.DeWayne Smith won his case against Western Dental Services and Dr. Steven Nguyen in January, ending a three-year legal battle.“They treated him like garbage,” said Craigg Voigtmann, one of Smith’s attorneys. “They took out all of his teeth and then abandoned him.”Western Dental disputes the allegations. In a statement, the California-based chain called the jury’s decision surprising and disappointing.On a Saturday in January 2015, Smith scheduled an emergency visit at the Western Dental. He was having severe tooth pain in his right upper wisdom tooth. It was his first visit ever at the dental office.“I really don’t like going to dentists but I was in pain,” Smith said.At the appointment, Western employees and Nguyen told him Smith had serious dental issues and that he would eventually need to replace all his teeth with implants or dentures.Smith understood, and under pressure from Western Dental sales staff agreed to a long-term treatment plan. However, Smith said he “made it very clear” that he only wanted to have one tooth pulled that day to relieve the pain.During the procedure, Western Dental staff numbed the area, sedated Smith with nitrous oxide, and then packed his mouth full of gauze, according to court testimony.Smith left not knowing they had extracted all his teeth.“I go to pulling this gauze out and then I realize there’s nothing there on the bottom, and there’s nothing there on the top,” he said. “I just fell to the floor. I didn’t believe what I was seeing.”Employees testified that Nguyen left immediately after the procedure and that no one appeared to tell Smith what they did.After the procedure, Western Dental also sent Smith a ,000 bill, he said.“(It’s) like running over a dog in the middle of the road and driving off,” said Smith’s fiancé, Sharon.Nguyen testified that he had a direct conversation with Smith, who told him he wanted to have all of his teeth extracted that day. Western Dental also produced consent forms with Smith’s signature.But Smith’s attorneys claimed those forms were manufactured after the procedure. And one Western employee testified against the company in hours of damning testimony.Bianca Esquer was a patient care coordinator at Western Dental from 2013 to 2015. She worked directly with Smith during his appointment.In a deposition and at trial, Esquer said that Smith made it clear he did not want a full extraction that day. She also discussed how employees and dentists are paid bonuses and commissions based on how much treatment patients get.Esquer also testified it’s hard to believe anyone would agree to have all their teeth pulled on their first visit and without detailed planning.“You don’t send someone home with a full extraction without teeth,” she said.Smith was not provided dentures from Western Dental until months after his procedure, he said.Scripps station KNXV in Phoenix reached out to Nguyen for comment through his attorney, Jeff Tonner. In an email, Tonner said Western Dental would be issuing the response.Western Dental’s full statement: 3206

来源：资阳报