Answer:
I would most definitely go and help the family of that house and call 911 as I head over so I would have a sort of back up just in case something went wrong.
Explanation:
I just have to stall the robber for time if I were to get hurt so the police can arrive although I could handle myself.
Answer:
C
Explanation:
When I looked more into it, information on certain sites stated that it depended on the minor crime, the most I could find was someone saying 2000. One can only assume the closest number though.
Keep in mind that I'm no expert and just looked it up ;-; I tried to help though
Lord Farquad settles for a good nights rest
Answer:
The United States first amendment carried more protection and less restriction in its implementation and here is why.
The edict of the United States does not qualify the application of the clause granting freedom of expression. That of the United Kingdom does. In doing so, it ensures that Freedom of Expression is used appropriately in that it must be targeted at the common good and the well being of the state.
It states, for instance, that
<em>"Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:
</em>
- <em>
protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety
</em>
- <em>prevent disorder or crime
</em>
- <em>protect health or morals
</em>
- <em>protect the rights and reputations of other people
</em>
- <em>prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence
</em>
- <em>maintain the authority and impartiality of judges"</em>
Cheers!
