Answer:
this question is kind of hard to answer because it depends on the circumstances but my main answer is no.
Explanation:
1) if they've committed a crime, then they really shouldn't have the ability to have access to a fire arm, especially if their crime(s) involves a firearm.
2) they gave away their absolute freedom the moment they committed a crime, so they shouldn't get the exact same "freedoms" as the citizens who are completely clean.
3)criminals are seen to have people be more careful around them, so they shouldn't get "free rein"
4)they could commit the crime or a different maybe larger crime if they know there wont be "after jail" consequences.
5) because some criminals cant be fully 100% trusted with certain things.
(i understand they seem repetitive, i had the right idea but i just cant get it to come out the way im thinking it.
Answer:
La ley de refracción
Explanation:
La ley de refracción, o la ley de Snell, predice el ángulo en el que un rayo de luz se doblará o refractará, a medida que pase de un medio a otro.
Answer:
B
Explanation:
i think so i dont study law or so hopefully i helped somehow
Answer:
Yes, if the parole board members failed to check up and uphold their responsibilities while allowing a parolee to commit a crime.
Explanation:
Answer:
B. Seep's is not liable because Abel didn't act within the scope of his employment.
Explanation:
According to the facts, Abel is a rightful employee of Seep Corporation. And he also has a duty to preserve the interest of his employer.
But at the same time, his act of beating up and assaulting Johnny was done outside of the jurisdiction of his working hours. And as such, he wasn't covered in the company's rule of using <em>"force to keep intruders from climbing the fence to enter the plant"</em>. Moreover, the personal attack that Johnny had done on him makes this assault personal. So, Abel's attack on Johnny has nothing to do with the company he works for, and the Corporation is not liable for any charges or damages that their employee had done outside of his 'employment' hours.
Thus, the <u>correct answer is option B.
</u>
