Kain did not disclose details of the alleged assault by Miss Pearce. Miss Pearce did, however, give consent for a child protection medical to be completed but refused to allow him to be accommodated. A child protection medical was undertaken. Kain had scratches on his head and the explanation that Miss Pearce gave was that the cat had scratched Kain’s head. A Police Protection Order was issued and Kain was placed in foster
On the 11th of June, 1982 following the conviction of a criminal offense, Robert Johnson was sentenced to two years probation. The terms of his probation included his person, posessions, and residence being searched upon reasonable request. When a search warrant was executed for Johnson’s roommate, officers testified that with enough reasonable suspicion, they were able to search Johnson’s living area as well.
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
The case of Graham v. Connor is about DeThorne Graham a diabetic that had an insulin reaction, and was pulled over and stopped by Officer Connor. The case is important because it has set the bar when it comes to other cases and the use of force and violation of Fourth Amendment rights.
The Daniel Pelka serious case review is one of many that are conducted around the United Kingdom every year. A serious case review is a local enquiry into the death or serious injury of a child, where abuse or neglect are known or suspected. These are conducted by the Local Safeguarding Children Boards; with the main focus being on what lessons can be learnt locally to prevent this from happening again (Brandon, Bailey, Belderson, 2010). In this textual analysis we will be looking back at previous case reviews including Jasmine Beckford and Baby P. We will then look at what recommendations have been made and use the Peka case to see weather we have learned from our previous mistakes or are we still in the same position now as we where then.
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
Throughout this essay, the health, safety and welfare policy and practise that came about after the Victoria Climbie case will be reviewed and evaluated. After arriving in England in November 1991 from the Ivory Coast, eight-year old Victoria Climbie suffered abuse from her great-aunt, Marie-Therese Kouao, and her great-aunts partner. The anguish and eventual murder of Victoria in 2000 from hypothermia, caused by malnourishment and damp conditions, provoked ‘the most extensive investigation into the child protection system in British history’ as described by Batty (Macleod-Brudenell, 2004). The high media profiled incident exposed a clear lack of precision and communication between all professionals and agencies involved. This is shown by the fact that the mistreatment Victoria was suffering had gone unnoticed by the social services, police and NHS staff, who failed to make each other aware of the clear danger signs. Within the Lord Laming Inquiry into Victoria Climbie’s death (2003), it can be seen that some features recur time after time in child abuse cases; inadequate resources to meet demands, inexperience and lack of skill of individual social workers. In addition, it can also be seen that crucial procedures were evidently not being followed. The procedure that was established after this case included the recommendations made by Lord Laming such as the Green Paper of Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003) and the Children Act (DfES, 2004). These ensure that all children have the fundamental right to be protected from harm and abuse. In addition to this, it also certifies all adults who come into contact with children and families have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
Clear and Danger was evaluated in the First Amendment and guarantees the right of Freedom of Speech. I have two scenarios regarding clear and danger, the first scenario is Debs v United States. In this case Debs v United States, Debs felt that socialism is the answer; however, Deb’s was prosecuted for the remarks that he made. In addition, the speech that Deb gave wasn’t as harsh as made by others, for example, George McGovern made a remark about the Viet Nam War during his 1972 presidential bid which was very harsh. This process was done by using its weak form of the clear-and-present-danger test and Deb’s ended up being sentenced to a ten year sentence. In this case Deb’s couldn’t speak everything on his mind that he wanted which was a violation
On the evening of September 21, 1977, the alleged victim in the case, known as Pat, was out at a high school alumni function, where she met up with several friends. They decided to go to Fells Point to have a few drinks. While en route, Pat stopped to phone her mother who was watching her child to inform her that she would not be out much longer. Once at Fells Point, they went to the bar and had approximately one drink. Pat and her girl friend, Terry, walked two blocks to an additional bar. This is where Pat met the defendant, Edward Rusk. A conversation ensued between the two of them. It was reported that their conversation covered the subject of them both being separated from their spouses and having children. Rusk is reported to have asked Pat for a
On 12/30/2015, at about 10am CM received a telephone call from Ms. Ayala/Care Coordinator at Edwin Gould to say client weekly visitation with her son it suspends until 1/20/2016, due to the client attacking the foster mother. CM inquires for the client to report her side of the story. “As per the client she stated on the day of the incident she was examining her son and she noticed that her son was wearing soiled clothes and he had scratches on his head, forehead and arms. She also mentioned that the foster mother gave her son a bottle and she told her son in Spanish not to drink that dirty water. Client continues to mention the foster mother when she heard that call her as she quote “stupid and dumb” client say she got up of her seat and the foster mother run out the visiting room screaming that client assaulted her. CM advises the client to go see her lawyer tomorrow and to report the
The Supreme Court Case, Kisela v. Hughes established that the Tuscon police officer, Andrew Kisela, did not break any laws due to his actions of shooting Amy Hughes. When I first read the introduction to this case, I was not surprised with the outcome. I trust that when I hear a policeman has been given the authority to carry a gun and protect the community, they will have the proper training to make the right decisions in the few moments they have to make life-and-death decisions. Police officers should be trained to make decisions (like shooting someone) very fast, but sometimes we forget that they are people too. I think that Officer Kisela made the decision that he thought was the right one in the moment. This woman was not responding to the officer that was giving her clear directions, had a dangerous knife, and appeared to be a threat to other people. Even though the other woman claimed she didn’t feel threatened, the officer had only the
In 1985, Christine J. Amos, Judy Bawden, Deniece Kanon, April Joy Reding, Arthur Frank Mason, Ruth Arriola, Shellen Adamson, and Ralph L. Whitaker sued The Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, for discrimination based on religion due to being fired for being unable to or unwilling to qualify for a “temple recommend”, in Utah District Court and “won”. By “won” it is meant the court decided, based on the three prong test[1] set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, that § 702 of Title VII of The Civil Rights act of 1964 was unconstitutional when applied to non-religious duties within a non profit business owned by a religious organization, or an organization which heavily relied on funding from a religious corporation.
District of Columbia v. Heller was a landmark case, in which the Supreme Court voted in a 5-4 decision that Washington D.C.’s handgun ban and shotgun/rifle restrictions were unconstitutional, in which all shotguns and rifles had to be “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock”. Heller, a police officer in Washington D.C., wanted a handgun for private off-duty use at his home. He applied for a one-year gun permit, which was denied. Heller claims that the restrictions on firearms in D.C., and the rejection of his application, violates his 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The landmark court case I chose, Debs v. United States, challenged the First Amendment and our freedom of speech. (Wikipedia) Eugene V. Debs was an American labor and political leader and five-time Socialist Party of America candidate for the American Presidency. Debs made an anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio, protesting US involvement in World War I which after led to him being arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917. As a result, he was convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison and deprived for life. Moreover, the quarrel of the Federal government was that Debs prevented the drafting of soldiers into the United States Army by attempting to trigger riot and treachery by. However, the altercation in approval of Debs was that he was authorize
The Donoghue V. Stevenson Case 1932 was about the violation of a consumer’s right to safe consumption of a product. Mrs. Donoghue the plaintiff was bought for a drink (Ginger Beer) by a friend in a cafe store. In the process of consuming the drink, a decomposing snail was discovered after it floated from the opaque bottle. The plaintiff had already consumed the drink and was in shock to discover the snail. Mrs. Donoghue was later diagnosed with shock and gastroenteritis. She later sued the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, seeking fiscal compensation for the damages (Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932]).
for sale. I would be interested in buying it for $2,000 if it is in