In response to the British attempt to recruit black soldiers for the Revolutionary War, New York promised freedom to any slaves who would enlist and serve in the military for three years in exchange for their owners receiving a land prize.
As a response to the British bid for black support during the Revolutionary War, New York offered freedom to all slaves who would serve in the army for three years, with their owners given a land bounty for their slaves. This was seen as a way to counteract the British strategy of offering freedom to slaves who joined their forces, and also as a recognition of the role that black soldiers played in the fight for independence. However, it is important to note that this offer of freedom was not extended to all slaves, and it was still conditional on their service to the army.
Learn more about Revolutionary War here
https://brainly.com/question/1466912
#SPJ11
In the midst of the American Revolution, the British sought to gain support from black individuals, who they believed could be swayed to their side in the conflict. To this end, the British offered freedom to any slaves who would fight for them, a move which was seen as highly controversial by American slave-owners.
In response to this bid for support, New York offered a similar deal to its enslaved population, promising freedom to those who served in the army for a certain number of years. This offer was made in 1775, at a time when the Revolutionary War was just beginning to heat up, and both sides were eager to gain support from any available source.
While this offer of freedom was no doubt appealing to some enslaved individuals, it was not without its drawbacks. For one thing, the idea of serving in a war that was not necessarily their own may not have been particularly appealing to all slaves, especially those who did not necessarily identify with the American cause.
Additionally, the fact that their owners would be given a land bounty for their slaves may have made some slaves wary of the offer, as they may have feared that their owners would not actually release them from bondage.
Nevertheless, this offer of freedom from New York was a significant moment in the history of the Revolutionary War, and it speaks to the complex relationships between slavery, freedom, and the American Revolution.
To know more about owner refer home
https://brainly.com/question/20333214#
#SPJ11
john bought a dishwasher from local appliance store. what type of law governs the contract between john and local?
Answer would be that the contract between John and the local appliance store is governed by contract law. Contract law is a legal field that deals with agreements and obligations between parties that are legally binding.
Contract law includes the elements of offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations. When John purchased the dishwasher from the local appliance store, there was an offer made by the store to sell the dishwasher and an acceptance by John to buy it. Consideration refers to the exchange of something of value, such as money, between the parties. The intention to create legal relations means that both parties intended for the agreement to be legally binding.
If there are any disputes or breaches of the contract between John and the local appliance store, contract law would be used to resolve them. This could involve remedies such as damages or specific performance, which requires one party to fulfill their contractual obligations.
To learn more about contract law visit:
brainly.com/question/14316157
#SPJ11
True or False: An immediate relationship must always exist between the act and the actor's intent for a crime to occur
False. An immediate relationship between the act and the actor's intent does not always need to exist for a crime to occur.
An act can be criminal even if the actor did not intend for it to be so. This is known as "strict liability," which means that a person can be held criminally liable for an act regardless of whether they intended for it to be criminal or not.
For example, if a person is driving under the influence of alcohol, they may not intend to injure anyone, but they can still be found guilty of a crime if they do cause injury.
In summary, an immediate relationship between the act and the actor's intent is not always necessary for a crime to occur.
Know more about strict liability here
https://brainly.com/question/28173731#
#SPJ11
A driver who refuses to take an alcohol test might lose his/her license under which law?
A driver who refuses to take an alcohol test might lose his/her license under the "Implied Consent Law."
Under this law, by obtaining a driver's license, the driver automatically agrees to take a blood, breath, or urine test if requested by a law enforcement officer suspected of driving under the influence. This law states that by operating a motor vehicle, drivers implicitly agree to submit to alcohol testing if requested by law enforcement. Refusing to take the test can result in the suspension or revocation of the driver's license.
Learn more about revocation here: https://brainly.com/question/30160947
#SPJ11
Probably cause deals with:A. hunches and suspicionsB. an exact degree of probabilityC. factual and practical considerations of everyday lifeD. having a specified number of facts
Probably cause deals with factual and practical considerations of everyday life. C
Probable cause is a legal standard used by law enforcement officers and judges to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the belief that a crime has been or is being committed.
It is a common standard in criminal law that requires the presence of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
The determination of probable cause requires a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of the offense, the evidence gathered by the police, and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that evidence.
It does not require an exact degree of probability, but rather a reasonable belief based on the totality of the circumstances.
Probable cause is not based on hunches or suspicions, nor does it require a specified number of facts.
It is based on a practical and common-sense analysis of the evidence and the circumstances of the case.
For similar questions on Probably
https://brainly.com/question/22499117
#SPJ11
The learners license will restrict the applicant until the:
The learners license will restrict the applicant until the they receive a regular license after passing the driving test.
An applicant under the age of eighteen cannot be given a learner's permit to operate a motorcycle without a gearbox without the written permission of the person responsible for the applicant.
With a learner's permit, you are legally permitted to take driving lessons on roads from a qualified instructor or driver. You can practice driving with someone who has a permanent driving license if you have a valid learner's license.
To obtain a permanent Driving License, you must have a valid Learner's License .
Learn more about driving license at:
brainly.com/question/10569631
#SPJ4
Understanding the system of government is important for students of public policy because
Students of public policy should be familiar with the structure of the government since doing so helps us identify the barriers to and opportunities for policy formulation within the system.
What is the public policy?Public policy is a formalised idea or a predetermined collection of measures, such as laws, rules, guidelines, and acts, that are intended to solve or address pertinent issues in the actual world. It is usually executed through programmes. According to some academics, one of the primary categories of public policy is substantive policy. Public health, criminal justice, gun rights, immigration, reproductive rights, drug usage, education, and disaster preparedness are just a few examples of the issues that public policy addresses. Informing the public about making healthy decisions regarding their diet, level of physical activity, and the effects of smoking are some instances of public policy. The mask requirements and other public policies we observed during the COVID-19 outbreak are examples of how policies can be used to stop the spread of diseases.To learn more about public policy, refer to:
https://brainly.com/question/29671415
According to US v Ramsey (1977), searches at international borders are:A. reasonable even without a warrant or probable causeB. reasonable only with a warrantC. reasonable without a warrant, if there is probable causeD. require probable cause, followed by a warrant
According to "US vs Ramsey", searches at "inter-national-borders" are: (a) reasonable even without "warrant"/"probable-cause".
The "Fourth-Amendment" of "U.S. Constitution" protects the citi-zens from "un-reasonable searches and seizures".
The "Supreme-Court" has recognized that searches at international borders are different from searches conducted elsewhere. In US vs Ramsey (1977), the Supreme Court said that searches made at the border to protect the country by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into the US are reasonable due to the fact that they occur at the border.
Therefore, such searches are reasonable even without a warrant or probable cause.
Hence, the correct option is (a).
Learn more about Warrant here
https://brainly.com/question/20153030
#SPJ4
The given question is incomplete, the complete question is
According to US v Ramsey (1977), searches at international borders are:
(a) reasonable even without a warrant or probable cause
(b) reasonable only with a warrant
(c) reasonable without a warrant, if there is probable cause
(d) require probable cause, followed by a warrant.
Why does Hamilton argue that a perpetual executive, like a king, is dangerous?
Hamilton argues that a perpetual executive, like a king, is dangerous because such a person would have no term limits and would not be accountable to the people.
This would create a situation where the executive could become corrupt and abuse their power, as there would be no mechanism in place to remove them from office. In addition, a perpetual executive would also be likely to pass on their power to their descendants, creating a hereditary monarchy that could further entrench their power and make it difficult for the people to challenge them.
This is why Hamilton believed that a system of checks and balances, with a limited term for the executive, was necessary to ensure that the government remained accountable to the people and prevented the accumulation of too much power in any one person or branch of government.
To know more about hereditary monarchy, click here:
https://brainly.com/question/10462967
#SPJ11
Why does Hamilton believe a single executive is safer?
Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers of the United States and a key contributor to the drafting of the US Constitution, believed that a single executive was safer than a multiple executive system.
Hamilton argued that a single executive would be more effective in carrying out the laws and executing the policies of the government.
He believed that a multiple executive system, where power is divided among several executives, would lead to confusion and inefficiency.
In his view, a single executive would be more accountable to the people and could be more easily removed from office if they failed to fulfill their duties.
Additionally, Hamilton believed that a single executive would be better able to protect the country from foreign threats and maintain national security.
He thought that a divided executive, with multiple leaders competing for power and influence, would be more vulnerable to foreign manipulation and could lead to a weakened national defense.
Overall, Hamilton believed that a strong, unified executive was necessary for a successful government and a secure nation.
For similar questions on executive
https://brainly.com/question/18973126
#SPJ11
You should always park your vehicle more than 18 in. from the curb: (T/F)
Answer:
Explanation:
false, 18 in or less
grievance procedures in a union contract are preferable to other methods of resolving workplace disputes because
Grievance procedures in a union contract are preferable to other methods of resolving workplace disputes because they provide a structured and organized process for addressing concerns.
This method allows for the following advantages:
1. Fairness: Grievance procedures ensure that every employee's concerns are treated with equal importance and assessed on a consistent basis. This helps to create a fair and impartial environment in the workplace.
2. Clear communication: By having a well-defined procedure in place, employees are aware of the steps they need to take to raise their concerns, and employers know how to handle such issues.
3. Timeliness: Grievance procedures often have a specific timeframe for resolving disputes, which encourages timely resolutions and helps prevent disputes from escalating.
4. Impartiality: Grievance procedures often involve an impartial third party, such as a union representative or mediator, who can help ensure that both sides of the dispute are heard and considered fairly.
5. Confidentiality: The process of handling grievances is usually confidential, which protects employees from potential retaliation and allows them to raise concerns without fear.
6. Legal protection: Grievance procedures outlined in a union contract help protect both the employees and the employer by adhering to applicable labor laws, reducing the risk of legal action.
7. Resolution focus: By following a well-established process, grievance procedures encourage problem-solving and resolution, rather than focusing on blame or punishment.
In summary, grievance procedures in a union contract are preferable to other methods of resolving workplace disputes due to their fairness, clear communication, timeliness, impartiality, confidentiality, legal protection, and resolution-focused approach.
To know more about Grievance procedures refer here:
https://brainly.com/question/30049203#
#SPJ11
Grievance procedures in a union contract are preferable to other methods of resolving workplace disputes because they provide a clear and structured process for addressing employee complaints.
With content-loaded grievance procedures, employees have a specific set of steps to follow and can feel confident that their concerns will be heard and addressed fairly. Additionally, union contracts often include provisions for impartial third-party arbitration, which can help ensure that disputes are resolved objectively and without bias. Overall, having grievance procedures in a union contract can help promote a more positive and productive work environment, as employees know that their voices are being heard and their rights are being protected.
Know more about Grievance procedures here:
https://brainly.com/question/30049203
#SPJ11
Violation of a cease and desist order imposes a penalty of up to $(?) per violation or a maximum penalty of $(?) if the violation is willful
A violation of a cease and desist order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can result in civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation for individuals and up to $50,000 per violation for entities.
If the violation is willful, the penalty can be increased to $10,000 per violation for individuals and $100,000 per violation for entities.
The penalties for violating a cease-and-desist order can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific order that was violated.
In some jurisdictions, the penalty for violating a cease and desist order can include both civil and criminal consequences.
In the United States, a violation of a cease and desist order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can result in civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation for individuals and up to $50,000 per violation for entities.
If the violation is willful, the penalty can be increased to $10,000 per violation for individuals and $100,000 per violation for entities.
Additionally, a willful violation of a cease-and-desist order can also result in criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment.
The penalties for violating a cease and desist order can vary widely depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case. It's always best to consult with a legal professional to fully understand the potential consequences of violating a cease and desist order.
For similar questions penalties
https://brainly.com/question/8860723
#SPJ11
In 2010, what percent of 12th graders reported using drugs in the past year?A). 75B). 90C). 38D). 50
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the annual national survey that tracks drug use among adolescents in the United States found that 38 percent of 12th graders reported using drugs in the past year in 2010.
This figure includes the use of illicit drugs such as marijuana, hallucinogens, inhalants, and non-medical use of prescription drugs. The survey also found that 8.5 percent of high school seniors reported using illicit drugs other than marijuana in the past month.
It is important to note that the overall rate of drug use among high school seniors has decreased significantly since 2010. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that the rate of illicit drug use among 12th graders in 2018 was 33.4 percent, down from 38 percent in 2010.
This decline is thought to be due to an increased awareness of the dangers of drug use, more stringent policies and laws, and increased access to drug prevention and treatment resources.
Know more about illicit drugs here
https://brainly.com/question/9743065#
#SPJ11
I am allowed to drive myself to the testing center without a licensed driver? (T/F)
The statement "I am allowed to drive myself to the testing centre without a licensed driver" is false because a licensed driver is mandated by law.
The correct answer is false.
A person at least 14 years old may apply for a learner's license in Arkansas. With a learner's license, the individual can drive but must be accompanied by a licensed driver who is at least 21 years old and has held a valid driver's license for at least two years. The licensed driver must sit in the front passenger seat next to the person with the learner's license and must be able to take control of the vehicle if necessary.
The learner's license is valid for 4 years, and the individual must complete a certain number of hours of supervised driving practice before they can apply for a provisional driver's license. The provisional license is issued to individuals at least 16 years old who have held a learner's license for at least 6 months and have completed the required hours of supervised driving practice.
To know more about drivers, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/685799
#SPJ4
Uri and Vicky orally agree on the sale of Uri's Nite Club to Vicky and note terms on a pair of the Club's napkins, which they both sign. A written memorandum evidencing an oral contract that would otherwise be unenforceable must contain
Uri and Vicky orally agree on the sale of Uri's Nite Club to Vicky and note terms on a pair of the Club's napkins, which they both sign. A written memorandum evidencing an oral contract that would otherwise be unenforceable must contain some essential terms and conditions.
In this case, it's not clear if selling Uri's Nite Club constitutes a sale of real estate or of personal property. If it is a sale of real property, then the written document that supports an oral agreement that would otherwise be void must include a number of key clauses.
These conditions must be sufficient to identify the agreement and provide proof that one has been made. The written memorandum need not be a legal document, but it must be signed by the party who will be charged or by a representative who is authorized by that party.
Depending on the specifics of the napkins' terms and the laws of the relevant jurisdiction, the napkins in this scenario that Uri and Vicky signed may be sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds' requirements.
Learn more about oral contract at:
brainly.com/question/13510392
#SPJ4
A brief description of the steps and judgments made by each court that has heard a case is called the:A. courts' judgmentsB. courts' decisionsC. courts' opinionsD. procedural history of the case
The brief description of the steps and judgments made by each court that has heard a case is called the procedural history of the case.
The procedural history of the case typically includes a summary of the relevant facts, the legal issues raised by the parties, the decisions and orders issued by each court, and any appeals or remands to lower courts.
The procedural history provides a chronological overview of the case and the key events that have occurred in its adjudication, and can be a useful tool for understanding the legal reasoning and precedents that have shaped the outcome of the case.
In summary, the procedural history of a case is an important component of legal analysis, providing a roadmap of the court proceedings and judgments that have led to the current state of the case.
Learn more about Judgments :
https://brainly.com/question/13131264
#SPJ4
According to Hamilton, how does a plural executive lead to less accountability to the people?
According to Hamilton, a plural executive, or a system where power is divided among multiple executives, would lead to less accountability to the people.
Hamilton believed that a single executive would be more accountable to the people because they would be solely responsible for carrying out the laws and policies of the government.
In contrast, in a plural executive system, the division of power could lead to a lack of clarity about who is responsible for what, making it more difficult for the people to hold anyone accountable for their actions.
Hamilton argued that a single executive would be more effective in executing the laws and policies of the government because they would be solely responsible for that task.
This would make it easier for the people to hold that individual accountable for their actions, and to remove them from office if they failed to fulfill their duties.
In contrast, in a plural executive system, power is divided among several individuals, which can lead to confusion and a lack of accountability. Each executive may pass the blame to the other, making it difficult for the people to hold anyone accountable for their actions.
Additionally, Hamilton believed that a plural executive would be more likely to engage in political maneuvering and factions, which could lead to a lack of accountability and a weakening of the government.
For similar questions on Lead
https://brainly.com/question/15041800
#SPJ11
In United States v. Leon, the Supreme Court ruled that, despite the exclusionary rule, that evidence discovered under a faulty warrant was admissible because police had acted. true/false
In United States v. Leon, the Supreme Court decided that evidence found under a defective warrant was admissible despite the exclusionary rule because authorities had operated in good faith.
What are the duties of the Supreme Court?The Supreme Court often does not conduct trials, even though it may hear an appeal on any legal issue as long as it has jurisdiction. Instead, the Court's job is to determine what a law means, whether it applies to a certain set of facts, and how it should be applied. The three jobs include picking which cases to hear, deciding on particular cases, and figuring out how to explain the Court's decision. The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest in the American legal system, and it has the authority to rule on appeals in every matter filed in federal court or a state court but involving federal law.To learn more about Supreme Court, refer to:
https://brainly.com/question/15111973
The Republican Party agreed to pass legislation extending DACA protections in exchange for Democratic concessions to reach a budget government that reopened the government on January 22, 2018.A. TrueB. False
The given statement "The Republican Party agreed to pass legislation extending DACA protections in exchange for Democratic concessions to reach a budget government that reopened the government on January 22, 2018." is false as they did not pass any such legislation.
In order to reach a budget agreement that reopened the government on January 22, 2018, the Republican Party did not consent to pass legislation extending DACA protections. In fact, the failure of Congress to pass a spending bill led to a government shutdown that started on January 20, 2018.
On January 22 2018, the government reopened as a result of Senate Democrats' agreement to end the impasse in return for Senate Majority Leader McConnell's promise to permit a vote on a bipartisan bill to safeguard recipients. Although Congress has yet to pass legislation extending DACA protections, that promise was ultimately broken.
Learn more about Republican Party at:
brainly.com/question/342882
#SPJ4
1. ) Describe the unspoken culture in Mississippi. How does this compare to any unspoken culture that you’re aware of where you live? Explain.
2. ) What personal story does Lou share to illustrate the broken judicial system at work? Explain and analyze why this story speaks to her point.
3. ) Were there other jurors that experienced similar feelings of regret and remorse like Lou? What potential solution was mentioned that would allow the jurors to better cope with their duty? Discuss your thoughts on this.
4. ) What sentence could Lou’s granddaughter not answer? Explain the context and discuss whether you could answer this question or not. What coping mechanism has Lou employed to deal with the residual feelings of her juror experience? Discuss.
5. ) What are your thoughts on the death penalty? Do you believe that people are less likely to commit murder or violent crimes in states that have the death penalty? Evaluate and explain
Mississippi has a rich and complex culture that is deeply influenced by its history and geography. The unspoken culture in Mississippi is characterized by strong traditional values, a deep sense of community, and an emphasis on hospitality and politeness.
It also has a strong religious influence, particularly with Protestant Christianity. Respect for authority and hierarchy is also a common trait in this culture. In terms of comparison, every region has its unique unspoken culture, but there may be some similarities and differences depending on factors such as history, geography, religion, and socioeconomic status.
For example, the unspoken culture in urban areas may differ from rural areas, and the culture in the Northeast may differ from that of the South. It is important to note that these are generalizations and may not apply to every individual or community.
To learn more about culture the link:
https://brainly.com/question/30497684
#SPJ4
--The question is inappropriate, the correct question is:
Describe the unspoken culture in Mississippi. How does this compare to any unspoken culture that you’re aware of where you live? Explain.--
What aspect of the Constitution was brought up as the central issue regarding the health care reform law?
The central issue regarding the health care reform law and the Constitution was the individual mandate. The mandate required individuals to purchase health insurance or face a penalty.
Opponents argued that Congress did not have the authority under the Commerce Clause to require individuals to purchase a product. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the individual mandate as a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power. This decision set a precedent for the scope of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the limits of the federal government's authority in regulating individual behavior.
For more such questions on insurance , click on:
https://brainly.com/question/28562565
#SPJ11
the computer fraud and abuse act decriminalizes a wide variety of hacker-related activities. is called?
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is a federal law that makes it illegal to engage in a wide range of computer-related activities that could be considered "hacking."
These activities include accessing a computer or network without authorization, causing damage to a computer system, stealing or modifying data, and distributing malware or viruses.
The CFAA was originally passed in 1986 to combat computer-related crimes and has since been updated several times to keep up with the changing technological landscape. It is designed to protect computer systems and networks from unauthorized access and to deter individuals from engaging in illegal activities that could harm individuals or organizations.
While some have criticized the CFAA for being too broad and potentially criminalizing activities that are not actually malicious, the law remains an important tool for prosecuting cybercriminals and protecting against cyberattacks. In recent years, there have been efforts to reform the CFAA to ensure that it strikes the right balance between protecting against cybercrime and protecting individual rights and freedoms online.
For more such questions on CFAA visit:
https://brainly.com/question/30780121
#SPJ11
Tony is a 15 year old accused of punching another student in the face. Meanwhile, Paul is a 16 and caught trying to use a fake ID to buy cigarettes. Where would these cases be heard...
In most states in the US, cases involving minors (under the age of 18) are heard in juvenile court, which is a special court system that is designed to handle cases involving minors who have committed crimes or who need protection or care.
The correct answer is juvenile court.
Since Tony is a 15-year-old accused of punching another student in the face, his case would likely be heard in juvenile court. Similarly, since Paul is 16 and was caught trying to use a fake ID to buy cigarettes, his case would also likely be heard in juvenile court. This offense is typically considered a minor offence for which a minor would be held responsible in juvenile court.
However, the specific procedures and laws governing juvenile courts vary by state, so it's possible that the cases could be handled differently depending on the state in which they occurred.
To know more about juvenile court, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/15179832
#SPJ4
According to legal experts, the primary generators of the rules to regulate the behavior of police, prosecutors, and others involved in the criminal process rests with the:A. legislatureB. President of the United StatesC. trial courtsD. US Supreme Court
Legal scholars assert that the US Supreme Court is the principal source of laws governing how police, prosecutors, and others participating in the criminal justice system should behave. Here option D is the correct answer.
The Supreme Court's decisions on cases brought before it, particularly those related to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the US Constitution, have set precedents that guide the behavior of law enforcement officials at all levels of government.
The Court's decisions, as well as its interpretations of statutes passed by the legislature, provide important guidance to lower courts and law enforcement agencies, shaping how they interpret and apply the law.
Therefore, the US Supreme Court is considered the primary generator of the rules that regulate the behavior of police, prosecutors, and others involved in the criminal process.
To learn more about Supreme Court
https://brainly.com/question/12848156
#SPJ4
Reasonable suspicion needed to make a stop:A. Requires more than probable causeB. Requires a preponderance of the evidenceC. Requires only a hunchD. Requires some minimum level of objective justification
Answer:
d
Explanation:
this is answer because it's d
A special need that justifies airport searches is:A. protection of endangered speciesB. protection of public healthC. protection from drug smugglingD. protection for air travelers
The primary "special-need" which justifies airport searches is to protect air-travelers and ensure the safety of air travel, the correct option is (d).
The Airport searches are conducted by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in order to ensure the safety and security of air travel. The TSA is responsible for screening passengers and their belongings to prevent dangerous items from being brought onto airplanes.
In order to accomplish this goal, the TSA has the authority to conduct searches of passengers and their belongings, including their luggage, carry-on bags, and personal items.
These searches are conducted to identify and remove-items that could pose a threat to air travel, such as weapons, explosives, and other dangerous items.
Therefore, Option(d) is correct.
Learn more about Airport here
https://brainly.com/question/12693186
#SPJ4
The given question is incomplete, the complete question is
A special need that justifies airport searches is:
(a) protection of endangered species
(b) protection of public health
(c) protection from drug smuggling
(d) protection for air travelers
Leon files a suit against Moira, a medical doctor, alleging negligence. As a physician, Moira is held to the standard ofa) a blameless individual.b) a faultless ordinary person.c) a reliable professional.d) a reasonable physician.
As a physician, Moira is held to the standard of- D. A reasonable physician.
Since they are experts with specialized knowledge and are not considered to be ordinary or blameless people, it is impossible to refer to them as blameless individuals or flawless ordinary people. Also in case of Moira, suit cannot be filed as this is specially considered for medical professionals.
Hence, option D. is correct.
Does a physician refer to a doctor?In general, a doctor with a medical degree is referred to as a "physician." Studying, diagnosing, and treating illnesses and injuries is how doctors try to preserve, promote, and restore health.
To know more about Physician visit:
https://brainly.com/question/9269991
#SPJ1
Whether Fourth Amendment seizures are stops or arrests depends on:A. duration, invasiveness, location, the officers subjective intentB. duration, invasiveness, and locationC. duration and invasivenessD. invasiveness and the officer's subjective intent
The determination of whether Fourth Amendment seizures are stops or arrests depends on a variety of factors, including the duration, the invasiveness, the location of the seizure, and the officer's subjective intent.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and courts have developed a framework to analyze whether a particular seizure violates the Amendment. Stops are temporary detentions that are less intrusive than arrests, while arrests involve significant deprivations of liberty. The determination of whether a seizure is a stop or an arrest can have important implications for the legality of the seizure and the evidence that can be used in a criminal trial.
Thus, the correct answer is A.
To know more about Fourth Amendment, click here:
https://brainly.com/question/28246295
#SPJ11
Why does Hamilton argue a feeble executive leads to bad government?
Hamilton believed that a feeble executive would lead to bad government because it would lack accountability, be unable to make decisions quickly and effectively, and fail to maintain the balance of power between the different branches of government.
Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, believed that a feeble executive, or weak central government, would result in bad governance. In his view, a strong executive was essential to ensuring effective governance and protecting the rights of citizens.
Hamilton believed that a weak executive would lead to a lack of accountability and an inability to make decisions quickly and effectively. He argued that a strong executive would be better equipped to handle crises, protect national security, and enforce the law. Without a strong executive, Hamilton feared that the government would become susceptible to corruption, factionalism, and a lack of public trust.
Furthermore, Hamilton believed that a strong executive would be better able to balance the powers of the different branches of government, providing a necessary check on the legislative and judicial branches. He saw the executive as a crucial component in maintaining the balance of power and ensuring the proper functioning of the government.
To learn more about Alexander Hamilton
https://brainly.com/question/31006348
#SPJ4
Vance points a gun at Workman and threatens to shoot him. Workman hits Vance, causing his death. Charged with homicide, Workman can successfully claim as a defense a. nothing. b. duress. c. entrapment. d. self-defense.
Workman can successfully claim self defense as a ground of defense.
The correct answer is option D.
The use of force to defend oneself against someone else trying to hurt them. Self-defense is a valid defence to a range of violent crimes and torts, such as murder, battery, and assault.
According to the "castle doctrine" tenet of common law, people have the right to use lethal force if necessary to defend themselves against intruders in their homes. State legislatures have formalised and enlarged on this idea.
Florida expanded on this idea by passing a law in 2005 known as the "castle doctrine," which included "stand your ground" provisions for duty to withdraw and self-defense.
The correct answer is option D.
To know more about self defense, click here:
brainly.com/question/1525962
#SPJ4