No one will ever know for sure. I guess they all just hate kids.
Answer:
The possible answers are:
A
. Yes, because his actions constituted an unlawful operation of the construction equipment.
B. Yes, because he was intoxicated while attempting to move the construction equipment.
C. No, because at most he could be found guilty of criminal negligence.
D. No, because he must have been aware that his conduct would cause the damage to the trailer in order to be found guilty of reckless damage.
The correct answer is:
B. Yes, because he was intoxicated while attempting to move the construction equipment.
Explanation:
The worker should be found guilty, since he was aware of being intoxicated from the beginning of the action, knowing in advance that when operating the heavy construction equipment there would be a great threat for the people and properties around. Besides, he was also aware about the alarming signs, due to the fact that he could not reach the dum truck normally, he had to jump the fence to reach it, increasing the risk with his actions.
<span> the tactics of interest groups have never been criticized because they strictly monitored by government officials.</span>
It depends if the parent has a long line of a certain gendor
