Answer:
the dead body along with spattered blood in the house
Explanation:
Corpus delicti evidence at the Willow Lane crime scene includes the dead body along with spattered blood in the house.
For decades in the U.S., there have been isolated incidents of removal of Confederate monuments and memorials, although generally opposed in public opinion polls, and several U.S. States have passed laws over 115 years to hinder or prohibit further removals.
In the wake of the Charleston church shooting in June 2015, several municipalities in the United States removed monuments and memorials on public property dedicated to the Confederate States of America. The momentum accelerated in August 2017 after the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.[1][2][3] The removals were driven by the belief that the monuments glorify white supremacy and memorialize a government whose founding principle was the perpetuation and expansion of slavery.[4][5][6][7][8] Many of those who object to the removals, like President Trump, claim that the artifacts are part of the cultural heritage of the United States.[9]
Answer:
The use of the term "ethical" sometimes is a bit too lax when applied to evaluate situations. However, sometimes, it can also be too harsh. In response to your two questions, these would be the answers:
1. The ethical question here would be whether Greedy was right in overusing a benefit that the charitable organization had with the First California Bank. As President of the organization, it is in the hands of Greedy to ensure not just development, but also sustainable development of the organization. However, in the course of his attempts to improve the growth and efficacy of Send Me Money, he abused the benefit of the overdraft, and not to just any extent, but to the negative balance of 10.000 dollars. Although his intentions were in favor of the organization, and he used the money wisely, there still lies the question of if he could not have accomplished just as much, without abusing a benefit that could very well mean the end of the organization. So the ethical issue is that although the intention of Greedy was in the benefit of the organization, he did not take the best interest of it into account, because if he had, he would have tried to accomplish his goals without bringing the debt so high.
2. I disapprove of the way that Bill Greedy acted because he could have accomplished much more realistic goals and not placed the organization at risk by raising the debt to a bank to such high levels. Even if he increased fundraising efforts, it is evident that these were not successful, as the debt is so high.
