Bettel Case Summary

Forged by Fire has many symbols thought this book. Sharon M. Draper creates the tittle Forged by Fire because of the symbolic and literal events in the book. Firstly, the fire has symbolic significances that help create the title. When Gerald was young, he was a scared boy that really loved his mom. Gerald started a fire accidentally as a kid that burned down the entire apartment.

Nelly's father got up off the ground and picked Noyes up and began to punch him rapidly. Noyes began to fight back, as Camden pulled out a knife and attempted to stab Noyes, but he evaded it, only catching a slim cut on the arm. However, Camden came right back with a backhand dropping the knife, and leaving Noyes facvedown on the ground. Camden and Nelly were leaving the shed, as Camden shot a barrel of gunpowder, causing a massive blast. Noyes was left inside the burning shed, trying to gain the strength to stand up.

Jeanette and her brother Brian were in a shack that they called their laboratory. They both started mixing random chemicals in a jar but when she lit a match, throw it in there she basically created her own chaos. “Brian and I were knocked to our feet. When we stood up, one of the walls was on fire. I yelled to Brian that we had to get out of there, but he was throwing sand at the fire, saying that we had to put it out or we'd get in trouble”.

Before Montag burns his house down he was talking to this guy. The guy was telling Montag how to burn his house down and that he needs to do it himself. "He stepped into the bedroom and fired twice and the twin beds went up in a great simmering whisper, with more neat and passion and light then he would have supposed them to contain" ( 110). This quote tells us the details on how he burns down his house. Montag's identity changed because of an oppressive society.

Moon Shadow got mad and started yelling at them in English. Turns out Windrider was also in a fight and came home with a black eye. The Whitlaws,Windrider and Moon Shadow went to the park for a picnic. Moon Shadow went for a walk and ran into a kid named Jack and they started fighting. Moon Shadow punch him in the nose.

Winnebago County Social Services (1989) and Ingraham v. Wright (1977). I disagree with the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Social Services (1989) case because I think the judge should have did something to protect the child. They just let the father beat, bruise, and hospitalized the poor child. I disagree with the Ingraham v. Wright (1977) case because Supreme Court the the principle hit on the child under his will and bruise him to where he was out almost a whole week of school. I think this cruel and the Supreme Court should reopen the case

It may seem clear to know that it was Kino who caused it, but it was the pearl because the pearl wasn’t meant to be in that part of the ocean, and the pearl is a way for evil to rise and take control for people to have jealousy and do sins. The pearl is responsible for the tragedy that Kino and his family faced because, since the pearl is not a person is considered

It is unjust that anyone should die because they disagree with another’s political, religious or other views. Terrible events like the Holocaust and 9/11 could have been avoided if people stopped looking to extremism as the solution to all problems. When an idea had less pros than cons, it is only natural that it is discouraged. Extremism should only be resorted to in the most extreme situations that require it. So, go out and spread the message that there are other ways of achieving things than extremism.

With adventuring and seeking thrill, accidents are common. A topic of question is whether or not the victims should pay for the damage or expenses of a rescue team. A logical solution is to make the person or people who caused the mishap pay for what they’ve done, but sometimes they are the victims. If they were being careless beforehand and leading up to the incident, then they should pay for it, or at least part of it. However, if they had no part in it and was just unlucky enough to get injured, then they should not pay for the expenses.

If Geoffrey injured tom intentionally, then he will be prosecuted in assault and battery, which is a trespass to the person. “A battery is, angrily touching the other person”. – Holt C.J in Cole v.Turner 1704 . Nevertheless, if it was unintentionally, the court will take he’s cause of action as negligence, and not as trespass. Likewise, the negligence of the electric supply caused tom’s heart to stop.

In Miller v. Alabama, the United States Supreme Court declared that mandatory juvenile life without parole sentencing schemes violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment (Rhodes, 2012). This all stems from a night back in 2003, when Evan Miller, Colby Smith and their neighbor Cole Cannon got into a fight at some point during the day. Evan Miller was 14 years of age at the time and Colby Smith was 16 years of age at the time. Later on that evening, Evan Miller and Colby Smith robbed Cole Cannon of $350 and stole his baseball card collection. After they robbed him, they then beat him with a baseball bat and then proceeded to set fire to Cole Cannon’s trailer.

This is for the protection of the owner of the house. It is possible that the intruder intended to do harm to whomever was on the property. There are no statutory provisions that govern the right an owner to defend their property by a spring gun or other devices. I would say that, unless the property owner is intending to kill or seriously injure the intruder, then the owner does not have absolute liability of the injuries that the intruder has

It’s not something that should be protected against a nosy onlooker. There is no connection between the lack of a search warrant and the constitutional freedom against involuntary disclosure. The weapon would have been just as unlawful and involuntary if there was a search warrant. The warrant does not advance the idea that the defendant will be covered against disclosing his own crime. Actually, the warrant is used to urge him to disclose it.

Though he is responsible for his pickup, in this case there was more to the story and he was not responsible to pay. It also relates because the plaintiff was arguing that the rock trespassed onto her yard from the highway and acted as a threat to her causing injury. She argued she was not responsible because there was negligence when the defendant flung a rock onto her property causing her broken

The False Claims Act states, “Any person who knowingly submitted false claims to the government was liable for double the government’s damages plus a penalty of $2,000 for each false claim” (Department of Justice, 2011). The company was found out committing this fraud by Harrold Wright in the case U.S. ex rel. Wright v. Chevron USA, Inc. et al., 5:03-CV-264 (E.D. Tex.). Under the qui tam provision, a private person, referred as relator, is allowed to file suit for violation of the False Claims Act on behalf of the government (2011).