Answer: Exception
Explanation: Immaneul Kant believed that some actions were immoral regardless of the purpose. Following this philosophy, stealing to feed your child is still wrong. He saw immorality as seeing yourself as the exception.
When we ask ourselves if it is acceptable for everyone to act the way we are about to and the answer is no or if we believe the action does not respect other people’s goals or rights, and still carry out the action, we are seeing ourselves as the exception and this is immoral.
Explanation:
The witness's testimony is inadmissible.
Under Federal Rule 804(b)(1), the testimony of a witness who is unavailable, given at another hearing, is admissible in a subsequent trial if there is sufficient similarity of parties and issues so that the opportunity to develop testimony or cross-examination at the prior hearing was meaningful.
The former testimony is admissible upon any trial of the same subject matter. The party against whom the testimony is offered or, in civil cases, the party's predecessor in interest must have been a party in the former action. "Predecessor in interest" includes one in a privity relationship with the party, such as grantor-grantee, testator-executor, life tenant-remainder man, and joint tenants.
These requirements are intended to ensure that the party against whom the testimony is offered (or a predecessor in interest in a civil case) had an adequate opportunity and motive to cross-examine the witness.
In the civil suit here at issue, the survivors of the victim were not parties to the criminal case, nor were they in privity with any such party. (The parties to that case were the defendant and the government.) These survivors, who are the plaintiffs in the instant litigation, are the parties against whom the testimony of the witness is being offered. Because they were not parties to the action in which the witness testified, they had no opportunity to cross-examine him. Even if the government had a similar motive to cross-examine the witness as do the plaintiffs in the current action, that is not sufficient to make the government a predecessor in interest to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the testimony of the witness does not come within the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule, and the testimony is inadmissible hearsay.
A victim and his former business.
Answer:
self hatred or it's could be from trama from a young age
Explanation:
if you had a bad childhood , let's say because of mom, and you feel angrey towards her you will start to hate ALL women , maybe not but definitely in the direction of that
Answer: Homer(whats your roblo.x name?)
Answer: wandered aimlessly
Explanation: They are teens. Teens are impatient, and will must likely be moving around waiting anxiously for the gates to open.
