As with any criminal case, there are always a number of issues pertaining the stages of the crime and also the media and the general public’s opinion of the case. Many of the issues and explicit actions of certain individuals that had happened during the Corryn Rayney case had affected the interpretation of the case in someway for both government workers and the general public. By analysing the issues of the case, it allows a much more detailed view on the case and how most of the issues are linked in one way or another. One of the issues regarding this case was where a police officer had been found attempting to pressure forensic pathologists to alter their case reports to align with their best interests.
On 11-14-2015 at about 2106 hours I was dispatched to a domestic violence report at the Emerald Point Condos at 31900 104th AVE SE; H102, Auburn/King/Wa. Enroute dispatch advised the reporting party/victim, Lizbeth Nunez Santana was calling to report that she was assaulted by her husband. The incident occurred about two hours prior and the husband was no longer at the residence. I arrived at the address and contacted Lizbeth and her cousin, Maribel Chavez. Throughout my conversation with Lizbeth it was clear that she was very upset, she had to stop speaking several times as she was crying and upset with the situation.
On Monday 06/27/16 at 2148 hours I was dispatched for an assault at Cedar Ridge Apartments located at 30819 124th Ave SE in the City of Auburn, King Co, WA. Dispatch advised the reporting person, Amber Archer, stated a male was hitting children with a cane. When I arrived I observed several people in a group speaking with Officer T. Minkler. Officer Minkler pointed to a male, a stated he was a possible witness and father to one of the victims.
I think it would be difficult for the prosecution to form an argument off of my points. The prosecution admitted that they don’t argue that Ms. Stephens is a victim of abuse, but rather is not suffering from battered woman syndrome. Once I use all of my witnesses and explain how Ms. Stephens is a clear case of battered woman syndrome, I think they will have a difficult time arguing that considering she clearly has every sign and symptom. The only argument I think they can use would be that because Mr. Stephens went to take a nap, Ms. Stephens could have just called the police and not shot him herself. I think members of the jury may also agree with this purely on the basis that those who aren’t victims of abuse can easily have the mindset that
On 06/14/2017 around 1750 hours, I, Officer Burkes, responded to a report of a suspicious person knocking on a door at 1504 Homestead Blvd. The caller stated that a white male was bleeding all over her door and asking her to call 911. When I arrived on scene, I noticed a white male, later identified as Alex Schesny, sitting between the screen door and steele door. I asked Alex to get up and walk out to the back of my patrol car. Once on the back of my car, I retrieved my gloves out of the front seat.
It was a snowy winter day in Toronto, Ontario. On Sunday, January 12th 2014 I was on duty working for the Toronto Police Service. At 1900 hours I was on Yonge Street where I saw my fellow co-worker sitting up against a wall with a stab wound on his leg, luckily a paramedic was already assisting my fellow officer. I then saw a man covered in blood and carrying a knife, running away. I had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the guy running away was the offender, which led me to run after him while identifying myself as a police officer.
Youngblood case has great relevance to today’s and future court cases. There are three things that this case has proved to today’s society. The first is that it covered the potential acts of good faith in the police officer, and how the evidence that was claimed to not be stored properly. The defendant blamed the officer and thought they should be accountable for the length of Youngblood’s sentences. It has been proven that even though the evidence is an essential piece to the individual case, the officer should not be held fully responsible for the entire sentence for a mistake.
Julian wants to sue David, the other player. In his complaint, which tort theory is Julian’s attorney most likely to allege and what will he have to prove for Julian to be successful? Julian’s attorney is most likely to allege Intentional Tort for his complaint to be successful. An intentional tort occurs whenever someone intends an action that results in harm to a person’s body, reputation, emotional well-being, or property. During the game David kicked Julian in the head while Julian was in possession on the ball. Contact with a goaltender while he is in possession of the ball is a violation of FIFA. David was know for being a very rough player, who leaded the team in penalties. When a player plays rough they usually intend to do some type
On Tuesday 22 September 2015 I was working as a police officer for the London Police Service. At 1600 hours I was called down to the London International Airport in regards to a forged passport. When I arrived at the airport a security guard told me about a man named Kevin Reegy using a forged passport. The security guard escorted me to a room on the other side of the airport, where Mr. Reegy was. As I entered the room I introduced myself as a police officer to Mr. Reegy.
Jason Aldean’s “Old Boots, New Dirt” In 2014, Jason Aldean released his newest album, “Old Boots, New Dirt”. After two years of waiting, fans could finally get their hands on another one of Aldean’s remarkable albums. Since 2005, Jason Aldean has taken over and become one of the top country artists. Songs like “She’s Country”, from his 2009 album “Wide Open”, are what put Aldean in the spotlight.
The barrister proceeded to give a timeline of events, which should have given some order, but it confused me further with all the dates and names. The details of the case were very complicated in my opinion and the language used in court added to the confusion. One thing I noticed was that the barrister referred to the judge as ‘President’ as is appropriate in High Court
Here a compensation tribunal was set up to compensate the families of victims who had died in the Stardust tragedy. The grieving father of one victim sought a review of a decision made by the tribunal to award the mother of a victim compensation and the father no compensation. The court refused to quash the decision of the tribunal and, strangely, agreed that there were circumstances which justified awarding of compensation to one parent and not the other. This decision was made by a court which was quite critical of the approach taken by Lord Diplock in GCHQ. Henchy J. said he would be ‘slow to test reasonableness by seeing if it accords with logic’ and would be ‘equally slow’ to accept the moral standard criteria believing it a vague and inconsistent principle to base reasonableness on.
[The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) shared a similar view. Lord Lane C.J said, at p.1074: "The remaining and no less difficult question is whether, despite that view, this is an area where the court should step aside to leave the matter to the Parliamentary process.
In this case the courts rebutted the presumption however they stated this is unusual. This indicates the law is fair and flexible as in exceptional cases the courts will rebut the presumption. The case of Jones v Kernott re emphasised the fact that equity should follow the law. The court stated in this case that where the court cannot infer and intention they may impute one. Lord Kerr stated this was eminently fair and Lord Collins stated that the courts are courts of law, but they are also courts of justice’.