When protecting the president, the Secret Service must ensure that the president is never more than a few minutes away from a Trauma Hospital.
<h3>
How does the President's security come from the Secret Service?</h3>
The Secret Service is distinct from other federal law enforcement organizations because, in addition to protecting visiting heads of state and governments, the president and vice president of the United States, and their families, as well as former presidents, presidential candidates, and other high-profile individuals, its agents also conduct criminal investigations—the agency's original mandate from 1865.
Both investigative and protective, they.
They need to provide safe sites for the president in case of an assault, locate nearby trauma hospitals, request a motorcade route through town, and clear airspace at the airport during the president's arrival, among other things.
To learn more about the secret service, refer
brainly.com/question/16979419
#SPJ13
Answer:
A. Fails to distinguish between violent defendants and one that no longer pose a danger to society.
C. Fails to differentiate between mental illness that are temporary or lifelong conditions.
Explanation:
M'Naghten Rule is an insanity defense used by defendant's attorney to plead defendant not guilty of crime due to mental conditions suffered during the time crime committed.
M'Naghten Rule states that a defendant will be pleaded not guilty only under conditions when it will be proved that the mental condition of defendant was not right at the time when crime was committed and that he/she was not able to discern his/her actions as right or wrong.
The criticism received to the M'Naghten rule is that it fails to distinguish between defendants who pose threat to the society and those who do not pose threat any longer. Another criticism is that it fails to distinguish between mental illness that are temporary or conditions which are lifelong.
Therefore, option A and C are correct.
Explanation:
A contract is said to be induced by 'undue influence' where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.
The most likely answer is that the victims should not be able to sue the manufacturer of a violent game for a design effect. This is because it is difficult to establish a direct connection between the video game and the mass shooting. It is likely that thousands, or even millions of other people have played the game constantly and have not developed these tendencies. Moreover, even if the tendencies were developed, this would not mean that the thoughts would develop into action. Thefore, it is unlikely that the manufacturer would be considered liable.
Answer: idk how about stupid
Explanation:
