Our decision is to implement a no texting/talking while driving policy effective immediately. According to the concept of social responsiveness, we will be enacting a proactive strategy. This strategy is us trying to prevent an accident from ever occurring (Williams, p. 75). The safety of our sales representatives is critical to the success of the company as we drive all over the region to deliver product and generate new business. According to www.nationwide.com/newsroom/dwd-facts-figures.jsp, drivers that use cell phones are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves (NHTSA, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety).
University of Phoenix Material Ethical Dilemma Worksheet Incident Review 1. What is the ethical issue or problem? Identify the issue succinctly. The fact that the officer saw the husband driving was not in the first report but was in the second report. It seems to be important information that should not have been left out of the first report.
(2007) which would have permitted any consideration of the mandatory seatbelt law that moderates damages for pain and suffering. Valdez did not assert reparations for pain and suffering but for emotional stress, impairment in the quality of life and inconvenience and was so awarded. However, Justice Bender of the Colorado Supreme Court disagreed in part with this compensable award. His statutory interpretation led him to uphold the original findings, the $400,000 settlement for physical impairment and disfigurement but reversed the $100,000 award for noneconomic damages. The certiorari was based on the reasoning that “pain and suffering” encompasses damages such as impairment of quality of life, inconvenience, and emotional stress.
Although, I think Kevin has learned his lesson, I am glad that Arizona has laws in place that will prevent him from being able to drive for one year. However, I think our laws need to be more severe. I would vote for an “Ignition Interlock” system (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002) installed on the vehicle of every person who has had a DUI after his or her license has been suspended for a least a year. When the driver’s license is reinstated, they should have to pay a fee to have this device installed in their car before they drive anywhere
Then the vehicle in the photograph’s information is verified and they ensure that the vehicle is truly in violation. A ticket is only issued if the evidence is clear” (Officer Ponton).These facts definitely help prove to those against red light cameras how they function and how officers and cities manage to be able to fine violators who have violated the red light signal by proceeding through the intersection. Another huge argument that goes against being for the use of red light cameras in intersections is the fact that individuals say they are being fined for violations and they are not the one driving the vehicle. Most of the time this involves parents loaning their teenagers and young adult children their vehicles for going to work and back or on a trip and they commit the violation. What their huge argument is, is the fact that they do not feel that they should be required to pay the fine because they were not operating the vehicle at the time.
August 2, 2012 TO: Honorable Judge Stephania Jancewicz RE: Case #2011-CT-001879 Defendant: Sarah Johnson, DOB 09-25-1976 199 Northshore Circle Casselberry, FL 32707 321-439-8485 Sjohnson216@valenciacollege.edu Dear Honorable Judge Jancewicz: It is with deepest respect and the upmost sincerity that I write to you. The above named case is a criminal traffic violation of mine committed in 2011 for driving without a valid drivers’ license. At the time of the incident, I was sent a complaint to appear in court for this violation, but the complaint was accidently sent to the wrong address by your office, causing a bench warrant to be ordered, and I was ultimately arrested for not appearing for this hearing. My mother immediately
Some states have have left it to local agencies to implement the program. The most common argument at all levels of government is the impediment of the 4th amendment which, among other things, assures citizens protection from unreasonable search and seizures. State and local governments have primarily debated the explanation of what is unreasonable and constitutes probable cause. In 2011 a Florida appellate court ruled, officials cannot forcibly draw blood from a driver in a misdemeanor DUI case, still the State Attorney continues to push for the policy to be accepted for felony DUI. Many lawyers and other citizens argue this subjects them to unreasonable searches and it over steps the United States Governments limited powers (Limhardt, A., 2011, para.
We already know paternalistic laws are made on grounds of the government trying to protect the people of the nation from themselves. The laws can include laws concerning safety, health, economic welfare, morality, and education. Today we will talk about laws concerning safety more importantly automobile safety. A certain little law called “click it or ticket, Massachusetts is serious about saving lives” this quote is from a campaign done by the Rhode Island, and Massachusetts police divisions. There are a lot of problems with this law.
‘“Good intentions without thought make for bad laws and I think we have a risk of that,’ said J. Reid Meloy, a forensic psychologist and clinical professor at the University of California San Diego, who has studied rampage killers’’’ (Goode). “This point-of-view article discusses how the decades of case law interpreting and applying the other provisions of the Bill of Rights point to the troublesome approach to gun control and constitutional analysis” (Rivkin). “But you wouldn’t know from the current gun-control debate. Several states, for example are considering gun-insurance mandates modeled after those for automobile insurance. There is no conceivable public-safety benefit: insurance policies cover accidents, not intentional crimes, and criminals with illegal guns will just evade the requirement.
The Supreme Court struck down the provisions that make it a crime for undocumented immigrant to seek work and not carry proper documentation. The court also ruled that police could not arrest people that they would just suspect does not have documentation with a warrant the supreme court did rule however in favor of the provision that is called “show me your papers!” this provision will allow police officer and is a requirement that upon any encounter with the police check the legal status of the person. The ruling in fact is a victory to the 10th amendment of all Americans that believe that and inherent rights and reasonability’s of states to defend their citizens. After all of the ruling happened there was a statement that was made by Obama “I agree with the court that individuals cannot be solely contained to verify their immigration status.” The news article then talks about that president Obama has failed on the leadership of immigration and that it is just another promise that has been broken by the president. This article in a has a perception of the president being a bad person and not taking care of things and also sends out the message that the states can do what they want to do.