I think the most accurate answer would be D- Getting in a fight
Depends on how hard you throw it if you kill them with the snowball you might have some issues but you only put them in a coma you are all g
Answer:
See explaination
Explanation:
1. The Defensible Space Theory can really be seen as a logical explanation for controlling crime from the perspectives of a defender as well as an attacker. This theory makes use of the science of psychology with the science of meaningful space. When the defender, that is, the home owners will be responsible for their home space, the sense of responsibility will be higher on the same. The home owners will be accountable for their defense. This encourages home owners to design their home space in such a way that they will be able to control their environment based on their present capabilities like family structure, income level, and socioeconomic status. The attacker, that is, the potential criminal will feel insecure and uncomfortable on a highly defended land. So, the probability of the criminal attacking the home space or neighborhood may be lessened. This argument is supported by the study which involved private homes in two high-crime areas in St. Louis. These areas recorded lower crimes than public areas using the Defensible Space Theory.
2. According to the Routine Activity Theory, the condition for crime is the presence of a suitable target(s) and the absence of a guardian(s). It is important to note that something or the other will always be present to motivate potential offenders to commit crime. So, there will always be motivated offenders. If motivated offenders are present, so suitable targets will be present in the society on the other side for crime to take place. So, suitable targets cannot be left unguarded which will increase the probability of crime, considering the target is in an isolated position. Even a weak guardian is sometimes equivalent to no guardian or protector. So, I think, presence of guardian(s), more specifically, more capable guardian(s) plays the greatest role at reducing
Answer:
Greene (U.S. 1999): Held that a Brady violation occurs when: (1) evidence is favorable to exculpation or impeachment; (2) the evidence is either willfully or inadvertently withheld by the prosecution; and (3) the withholding of the evidence is prejudicial to the defendant.
Explanation:
Greene (U.S. 1999): Held that a Brady violation occurs when: (1) evidence is favorable to exculpation or impeachment; (2) the evidence is either willfully or inadvertently withheld by the prosecution; and (3) the withholding of the evidence is prejudicial to the defendant.
A solid grasp on the instruments and controls at your disposal
I think.. that is correct
