宜宾注射玻尿酸的费用宜宾人工真皮隆鼻,宜宾切眼袋后多久恢复自然,宜宾隆鼻医院哪里好,宜宾怎么样消除眼部皱纹,宜宾光子嫩肤祛除痘印,宜宾光子嫩肤的价格,宜宾双眼皮埋线大约多少钱

Risky behavior behind the wheel is up during the pandemic.One-third of all roadway deaths are speed-related. Impaired driving and accidents with ejection are also up — meaning drivers and passengers aren't wearing their seatbelts."That just defies logic to me," said Pam Fischer of the Governors Highway Safety Association. "You know, when you talk to people — 'Oh yeah. everybody wears seatbelts.' But when we look at the fatalities that are happening on our roadways, we know that half of the people who die in motor vehicle crashes are not properly restrained."The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) met last week. They say they have to change how they get people to slow down while on the road."We can't put officers on every road, and we have to leverage technologies and resources that are going to help us to really get folks to change their behavior," Fischer said. "There's a very strong message being sent — you need to slow down. We're going to find you. We will stop you." Impaired driving is also up, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.The GHSA and Lyft just awarded five states — California, Illinois, Maine, Oregon and Washington — nearly 0,000 in grant funds to help prevent impaired driving over the holiday season. 1281

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

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California police say a man brandished what they later learned was a fake gun during a standoff that resulted in the evacuation of a hotel. The Sacramento Bee reported guests were evacuated from a Comfort Inn in Red Bluff early Saturday during a standoff between police and a domestic violence suspect. The Red Bluff Police Department said in a release that 21-year-old Christian Sandoval-Perez of Corning faces multiple charges including child abuse and domestic violence. Officers went to the hotel’s second floor and encountered Sandoval-Perez with a gun. He held off police for more than 75 minutes. 637

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — High-capacity gun magazines will remain legal in California under a ruling Friday by a federal judge who cited home invasions where a woman used the extra bullets in her weapon to kill an attacker while in two other cases women without additional ammunition ran out of bullets."Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts," San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote as he declared unconstitutional the law that would have banned possessing any magazines holding more than 10 bullets.California law has prohibited buying or selling such magazines since 2000, but those who had them before then were allowed to keep them.In 2016, the Legislature and voters approved a law removing that provision. The California arm of the National Rifle Association sued and Benitez sided with the group's argument that banning the magazines infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.Benitez had temporarily blocked the law from taking effect with a 2017 ruling.Chuck Michel, an attorney for the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said the judge's latest ruling may go much farther by striking down the entire ban, allowing individuals to legally acquire high-capacity magazines for the first time in nearly two decades."We're still digesting the opinion but it appears to us that he struck down both the latest ban on possessing by those who are grandfathered in, but also said that everyone has a right to acquire one," Michel said.Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement that his office is "committed to defending California's common sense gun laws" and is reviewing the decision and evaluating its next steps.The goal of the California law is to deter mass-shootings, with Becerra previously listing as an example the terrorist assault that killed 14 and injured 22 in San Bernardino.Benitez, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, called such shootings "exceedingly rare" while emphasizing the everyday robberies, rapes and murders he said might be countered with firearms.The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, named after a former congresswoman who survived a mass shooting, is also still evaluating whether the decision applies more broadly, said staff attorney Ari Freilich.But Freilich predicted the "extreme outlier decision" will be overturned on appeal and criticized a judge "so deeply out of touch that he believes mass shootings are a 'very small' problem in this country."Becerra previously said similar Second Amendment challenges have been repeatedly rejected by other courts, with at least seven other states and 11 local governments already restricting the possession or sale of large-capacity magazines. The conflicting decisions may ultimately be sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court.Benitez ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" under the U.S. Constitution, and that the California law "burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state."Benitez described three home invasions, two of which ended with the female victims running out of bullets.In the third case, the pajama-clad woman with a high-capacity magazine took on three armed intruders, firing at them while simultaneously calling for help on her phone."She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911," the judge wrote, saying she killed one attacker while two escaped.The magazine ban was included in 2016 legislation that voters strengthened with their approval of Proposition 63, which was championed by then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.In a statement, Newsom criticized the judge's ruling."This District Court Judge's failure to uphold a ban on high-capacity magazines is indefensible, dangerous for our communities and contradicts well-established case law," the governor said. "I strongly disagree with the court's assessment that 'the problem of mass shootings is very small.' Our commitment to public safety and defending common sense gun safety laws remains steadfast." 4228

RIVERSIDE, Calif. (KGTV and AP) - New charges were filed Friday against a Riverside County couple accused of torturing their children by starving, beating and shackling them. 192