Tag: 夜上海论坛

Border patrol agents came to Jersey City to assist in ‘narcotics-related…

first_img Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter Bayonne Rodney Scott – Chief, United States Border Patrol By John Heinis – November 18, 2020 2:44 pm 2 November 18, 2020 7:56 pm at 7:56 pm November 19, 2020 7:52 am at 7:52 am Previous articleHudson County reveals details on how NYC ferry service could come to 6 municipalitiesNext articleWith Jersey City Arts & Culture Trust Fund on the horizon, arts council planning next steps John Heinis U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents came to Jersey City to assist in a “narcotics-related operation” yesterday, but declined to say much beyond that since the investigation is ongoing. Photo courtesy of Joel Brooks.By John Heinis/Hudson County View“On Tuesday, November 17, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers were assisting law enforcement partners in a narcotics-related operation. At this time, these are all the details we can disclose, since the investigation is ongoing,” said CBP spokesman Anthony Bucci.Joel Brooks, a member of the Northern New Jersey Democratic Socialists of America (the Hudson County branch), as well as the Hudson County Progressive Alliance, said he saw two marked CBP trucks parked on Gifford Avenue and John F. Kennedy Boulevard around 3:45 p.m. yesterday.He said neither the Jersey City Police Department of Hudson County Sheriff’s Office were present when he was on his way to the Walgreens on JFK Boulevard, which was also the case when he was walking back about an hour later.Brooks also said he recorded a short conversation with the agents on the scene via his cell phone, where they indicated that they weren’t ICE and worked for CBP.“It was disturbing to see CBP openly operating in Jersey City given massive human rights violations documented in the last four years. Also their response ‘we are not ICE’ was ridiculous – as a layperson there is no difference,” he told HCV.Federal regulations allow CBP to operate within 100 miles of any “external boundary” in the country and their authority also allows them to operate immigration checkpoints.With that in mind, Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop signed an executive order back in February 2017 declaring the municipality a sanctuary city, which says that the JCPD won’t assist federal agencies like ICE and CBP unless mandated by a warrant or court order.“The cooperation of Jersey City’s immigrant communities is essential to prevent and solve crimes and maintain public order, safety and security in the entire City and is especially critical to the success of community policing which depends on trust with every community,” the order says.Councilman-at-Large Rolando Lavarro said in an email this morning that Police Chief Michael Kelly’s office informed him yesterday that they were unaware of any CBP activity and were not assisting them in any way.“Jersey City’s Sanctuary City Executive Order affords key safeguards for Jersey City residents, ensuring accountability and coordination when federal immigration officers patrol our communities,” he noted.“If CBP was in Jersey City for a narcotics investigation, hopefully they obtained a valid and properly issued judicial criminal warrant and notified local law enforcement and city officials of their presence and activities.” CrimeJersey CityNewsPolitics & Policy Bayonne man pepper sprayed, arrested after punching cop in the face, authorities say Simply sounds as if this is more pushback against President Trumps immigration crackdown and NJ’s insistence to go against all the administration’s policies. The author cites human rights violations the last 4 years ignoring the last 20 or 30 years of the same. Just as NJ AG Grewals directive to law enforcement, that they limit engagement with ICE, was widely seen as nothing more than opposition to Trump, this is more if the same. If the border patrol was here, it was for good reason. Post 9/11, the hypocrits would’ve applauded BP in Hudson County, all of a sudden, it’s now an issue. The hypocrisy is disgusting. Bayonne Bayonne Facebook Twitter Bayonne man busted with cocaine, heroin, semi-automatic handgun after fleeing from cops CarePoint Health reaches deal for Cigna Health Insurance to join their network 2 COMMENTS If you are going to write ignorant uninformed stories, can you at least read the side of the vehicle in the photo you use and get the agency names right? It is Customs and Border PROTECTION. You may also want to do a little research about the different roles and responsibilities each federal agency has and share that with your readers – or at least with your contributors. Noel RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Border patrol agents came to Jersey City to assist in ‘narcotics-related operation’ TAGSjersey city ward bnarcotics investigationRolando Lavarrou.s. customs and border patrol SHARE Comments are closed.last_img read more

Call for nominations: Vermont State Colleges 2016 Award for Extraordinary Contribution

first_imgVermont State Colleges,Vermont Business Magazine In recognition of the exceptional leaders who have built and sustained the Vermont State Colleges (VSC) since 1961, the Board of Trustees will confer its first Award for Extraordinary Contribution as part of the new Vermont State Colleges Hall of Fame. This awardee will be inducted to the Hall of Fame along with five accomplished alumni from each of the member colleges. The Vermont State Colleges Hall of Fame will highlight the accomplishments of the VSC’s many talented alumni and shine a spotlight on the positive impact the VSC has on the economic, intellectual, and civic wellbeing of Vermont. The winner of the Award for Extraordinary Contribution and the five alumni inductees will be recognized at the Vermont State Colleges Hall of Fame celebration on March 9, 2016 at the Capitol Plaza in Montpelier. Proceeds from the event will fund scholarships for Vermont students.The Board invites nominations from the public for a person or organization that has made a significant and positive impact on the Vermont State Colleges system. We seek nominees whose accomplishments are a reflection of the ideals of the Vermont State Colleges institutions and the system; who have provided exemplary service to the State of Vermont; and/or whose outstanding work has made a significant, positive impact on the Vermont State Colleges system.How to submit a nomination:·         Nominations open November 1st and will be accepted until November 23rd.·         Choose “VSC Hall of Fame” at www.vsc.edu/about-vsc(link is external) to fill out a nomination form (direct link: http://www.vsc.edu/about-vsc/Pages/VSC-Hall-of-Fame.aspx(link is external))·         Nominations should include a statement of 500 words maximum explaining why the individual or organization should be chosen. ·         A resume or summary of the nominee’s work and community involvement should be submitted as well.·         Nominees for the Trustees award will be chosen by the Board at its December, 2015 meeting. For more information about the Award for Extraordinary Contribution and the VSC Alumni Hall of Fame, please choose “VSC Hall of Fame” at www.vsc.edu/about-vsc(link is external).Source: VSC. 10.30.2015last_img read more

Amendments to criminal jury instructions

first_imgAmendments to criminal jury instructions This instruction should be used for crimes committed on or after June 20, 2014. See Chapter 2014-195, Laws of Florida. A defendant may have knowledge of a victim’s prior specific acts of violence because he or she was present during the occurrence of the specific acts or because the defendant heard of the specific acts prior to the date of the alleged act of self-defense. See Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1985 [477 So. 2d 985], 1992 [603 So. 2d 1175], 2006 [930 So. 2d 612], 2007 [947 So. 2d 1159], 2008 [976 So. 2d 1081], 2010 [27 So. 3d 640], and 2016 [191 So. 3d 411], and 2017. a. the person against whom the defensive force is [used] [or] [threatened to be used] has the right to be in [or is a lawful resident of the [dwelling] [residence]] [vehicle], such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or b. the person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is [used] [or] [threatened to be used]; or < p>c. the person who [uses] [or] [threatens to use] defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] to further a criminal activity; or < p>d. the person against whom the defensive force is [used] [or] [threatened to be used] is a law enforcement officer, who enters or attempts to enter a [dwelling] [residence] [vehicle] in the performance of [his] [her] official duties and the officer identified [himself] [herself] in accordance with any applicable law or the person [using] [or] [threatening to use] the force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. If requested, give definition of “law enforcement officer” from § 943.10(14), Fla. Stat. a. The person against whom the defensive force was [used] [or] [threatened to be used] was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and b. (Defendant) knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. Give the elements of the applicable felony that defendant alleges victim attempted to commit, but omit any reference to burden of proof. See Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Give if applicable. §§ 776.012(2), 776.013(3), 776.031(2), Fla. Stat. (Defendant) was justified in [using] [or] [threatening to use] deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believed that such [force] [or] [threat of force] was necessary to prevent [imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [or] [another] [or] [the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.) against [himself] [herself] [or another]]. If (defendant) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity and was in a place [he] [she] had a right to be, then [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground. Give the elements of the applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim was about to commit, but omit any reference to burden of proof. See Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). < p>Give if applicable when there is evidence that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity or was not in a place where he or she had a right to be, which means there was a duty to retreat. Morgan v. State, 127 So. 3d 708 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Where appropriate, the court should state or define the applicable criminal activity that may have been engaged in by the defendant. If (defendant) was otherwise engaged in criminal activity or was not in a place [he] [she] had a right to be, then the use of deadly force was not justified unless [he] [she] used every reasonable means within [his] [her] power and consistent with [his] [her] own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to the use of deadly force. The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify [his] [her] use of deadly force, if, by retreating, [he] [she] could have avoided the need to use deadly force. However, if (defendant) was placed in a position of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and it would have increased [his] [her] own danger to retreat, then [his] [her] use of deadly force was justifiable. < p>Force in resisting a law enforcement officer. § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat. A person is not justified in [using force] [or] [threatening to use force] to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer. < p>Give if applicable. However, if an officer uses excessive force to make an arrest, then a person is justified in the [use] [or] [threatened use] of reasonable force to defend [himself] [herself] (or another), but only to the extent [he] [she] reasonably believes such [force] [or] [threat of force] is necessary. See § 776.012, Fla. Stat.; Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Jackson v. State, 463 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). < p>Read in all cases. In deciding whether (defendant) was justified in the [use] [or] [threatened use] of deadly force, you must consider the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the [force] [or] [threat of force] was used. The danger need not have been actual; however, to justify the [use] [or] [threatened use] of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that [force] [or] [threat of force]. Based upon appearances, (defendant) must have actually believed that the danger was real. However, the defendant had no duty to retreat if [he] [she] was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity and was in a place where [he] [she] had a right to be. < p>Presumption of fear (unlawful and forcible entry into dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle). Give if applicable. § 776.013(1), Fla. Stat. (Defendant) is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] when [using] [or] [threatening to use] defensive force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: Exceptions to Presumption of Fear. § 776.013(2)(a)-(2)(d), Fla. Stat. Give as applicable. The presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm does not apply if: Exceptions to Presumption of Fear. §§ 776.013(2)(a)-(2)(d), Fla. Stat. Give as applicable. The presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm does not apply if: a. The person against whom the defensive force was [used] [or] [threatened to be used] was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and b. (Defendant) knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. This instruction should be used for crimes committed on or after June 20, 2014. See Chapter 2014-195, Laws of Florida. A defendant may have knowledge of a victim’s prior specific acts of violence because he or she was present during the occurrence of the specific acts or because the defendant heard of the specific acts prior to the date of the alleged act of self-defense. See Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1985 [477 So. 2d 985], 1999 [732 So. 2d 1044], 2000 [789 So. 2d 954], 2006 [930 So. 2d 612], 2008 [976 So. 2d 1081], 2010 [27 So. 3d 640], and 2016 [191 So. 3d 411], and 2017. 3.6(g) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF NON-DEADLY FORCE Because there are many statutes applicable to self-defense, give only those parts of the instructions that are required by the evidence. However, unless the evidence establishes the force used was deadly or non-deadly as a matter of law, both 3.6(f) and 3.6(g) must be given. Mathis v. State, 863 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Only the discharge of a firearm, whether accidental or not, has been deemed to be the use of deadly force as a matter of law. Hosnedl v. State, 120 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Read in all cases. It is a defense to the crime[s] of (name[s] of relevant crime[s]) if the actions of (defendant) constituted the justifiable use of non-deadly force. “Non-deadly” force means force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm. < p>Definition. “Non-deadly” force means force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm. < p>In defense of person. §§ 776.012(1), 776.013(3), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable. (Defendant) was justified in [using] [or] [threatening to use] non-deadly force against (victim) and had no duty to retreat if [he] [she] reasonably believed that such conduct was necessary to defend [himself] [herself] [another] against (victim’s) imminent use of unlawful force. < p>In defense of property. §§ 776.031(1), 776.013(3), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable. (Defendant) was justified in [using] [or] [threatening to use] non-deadly force against (victim) and had no duty to retreat if: 1. (Victim) [was about to trespass] [or] [was trespassing] or [was about to wrongfully interfere] [or] [was wrongfully interfering] with land or personal property; and 2. The land or personal property was lawfully in (defendant’s) possession, or in the possession of a member of [his] [her] immediate family or household, or in the possession of some person whose property [he] [she] was under a legal duty to protect; and < p>3. (Defendant) reasonably believed that [his] [her] [use] [or] [threatened use] of force was necessary to prevent or terminate (victim’s) wrongful behavior.center_img IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES – REPORT 2016-11, CASE NO. SC16-1964 3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE Because there are many statutes applicable to self-defense, give only those parts of the instructions that are required by the evidence. However, unless the evidence establishes the force or threat of force was deadly or non-deadly as a matter of law, both 3.6(f) and 3.6(g) must be given. Mathis v. State, 863 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Only the discharge of a firearm, whether accidental or not, has been deemed to be the use of deadly force as a matter of law. Hosnedl v. State, 126 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Read in all cases. It is a defense to the crime[s] of (name[s] of relevant crime[s]) if the actions of (defendant) constituted the justifiable use of deadly force. “Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. < p>Definition. “Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. < p>Both Chapter 776 and § 782.02, Fla. Stat., address the justifiable use of deadly force. < p>Give if applicable. § 782.02, Fla. Stat. The use of deadly force is justifiable if the defendant(defendant) reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] while resisting: 1. another’s attempt to murder [him] [her], or 2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon [him] [her], or < p>3. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon or in any dwelling house in which [he] [she] was presentoccupied by [him] [her]. Amendments to criminal jury instructionsThe Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases has submitted to the Florida Supreme Court a report proposing amendments to existing standard criminal jury instructions 3.6(f) (Justifiable Use of Deadly Force) and 3.6(g) (Justifiable Use of Non-Deadly Force). The court invites all interested persons to comment on the proposed amendments, which are reproduced in full below, as well as online at www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/proposed.shtml. All comments must be filed with the court on or before January 23, with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on the committee chair, Judge F. Rand Wallis, 300 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach 32114, [email protected], and on the staff liaison to the committee, Bart Schneider, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee 32399, [email protected], as well as a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled in this case. The chair has until February 13 to file a response to any comments filed with the court. If filed by an attorney in good standing with The Florida Bar, the comment must be electronically filed via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal in accordance with In re Electronic Filing in the Supreme Court of Florida via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC13-7 (Feb. 18, 2013). If filed by a nonlawyer or a lawyer not licensed to practice in Florida, the comment must be electronically filed via e-mail in accordance with In re Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-84 (Sept. 13, 2004). Electronically filed documents must be submitted in Microsoft Word 97 or higher. Any person unable to submit a comment electronically must mail or hand-deliver the originally signed comment to the Florida Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee 32399-1927; no additional copies are required or will be accepted. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA December 15, 2016 Notices § 776.013(4), Fla. Stat. § 776.013(5), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent or mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. < p>“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. < p>“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. < p>Aggressor. § 776.041(1), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable and only in cases where the defendant is charged with either a) an independent forcible felony, Martinez v. State, 981 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2008); or b) felony murder, if the underlying felony is an independent forcible felony, Cook v. State, 192 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). However, the [use] [or] [threatened use] of deadly force is not justified if you find that (defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.). Give the elements of the applicable forcible felony but omit any reference to burden of proof. See Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). < p>Aggressor. § 776.041(2), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable. Gibbs v. State, 789 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). However, the [use] [or] [threatened use] of deadly force is not justified if you find that (defendant) used [force] [or] [the threat of force] to initially provoke the [use] [or] [threatened use] of force against [himself] [herself], unless: 1. T t he [force] [or] [threat of force] asserted toward the defendant was unnecessarily so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than [using] [or] [threatening to use] deadly force on (victim) . [or] 2. I i n good faith, (defendant) withdrew from physical contact with (victim) and clearly indicated to (victim) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the [use] [or] [threatened use] of deadly force, but (victim) continued or resumed the [use] [or] [threatened use] of force. Prior threats. Give if applicable. If you find that the defendant (defendant) , who because of threats or prior difficulties with (victim) , had reasonable grounds to believe that [he] [she] was in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of (victim) , you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant (defendant) were those of a reasonable person. Specific act of victim known by defendant. If you find that at the time of the alleged (name[s] of relevant crime[s]), (defendant) knew that (victim) had committed an act [or acts] of violence, you may consider that fact in determining whether (defendant) reasonably believed it was necessary for [him] [her] to [use] [or] [threaten to use] deadly force. < p>Reputation of victim known by defendant. Give if applicable. If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant(defendant), you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant(defendant) were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation. < p>Reputation of victim not necessarily known by defendant (to show victim acted in conformity with victim’s character). Give if applicable. If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person, you may consider this fact in determining whether [he] [she] was the initial aggressor. < p>Physical abilities. Read in all cases. In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant(defendant) and (victim). < p>Read in all cases. If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant(defendant) was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant[him] [her] not guilty. < p>However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant(defendant) was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved. Comments Presumption of fear (unlawful and forcible entry into dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle). Give if applicable. § 776.013(1), Fla. Stat. (Defendant) is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] when [using] [or] [threatening to use] defensive force if: a. the person against whom the defensive force is [used] [or] [threatened to be used] has the right to be in [or is a lawful resident of the [dwelling] [residence]] [vehicle], such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or b. the person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is [used] [or] [threatened to be used]; or < p>c. the person who [uses] [or] [threatens to use] defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] to further a criminal activity; or < p>d. the person against whom the defensive force is [used] [or] [threatened to be used] is a law enforcement officer, who enters or attempts to enter a [dwelling] [residence] [vehicle] in the performance of [his] [her] official duties and the officer identified [himself] [herself] in accordance with any applicable law or the person [using] [or] [threatening to use] the force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. If requested, give definition of “law enforcement officer” from § 943.10(14), Fla. Stat. § 776.013(4), § 776.013(5), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent or mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. < p>“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. < p>“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. < p>Force in resisting a law enforcement officer. § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat. A person is not justified in [using] [or] [threatening to use] force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer. < p>Give the following instruction if applicable. However, if an officer uses excessive force to make an arrest, then a person is justified in the [use] [or] [threatened use] of reasonable force to defend [himself] [herself] [another], but only to the extent [he] [she] reasonably believes such force is necessary. See § 776.012, Fla. Stat.; Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Jackson v. State, 463 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). < p>Read in all cases. In deciding whether (defendant) was justified in the [use] [or] [threatened use] of non-deadly force, you must consider the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the [force] [or] [threat of force] was used. The danger need not have been actual; however, to justify the [use] [or] [threatened use] of non-deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that [force] [or] [threat of force], although as I have previously explained, the defendant had no duty to retreat. Based upon appearances, (defendant) must have actually believed that the danger was real. < p>Aggressor. § 776.041(1), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable and only in cases where the defendant is charged with either a) an independent forcible felony, Martinez v. State, 981 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2008); or b) felony murder, if the underlying felony is an independent forcible felony, Cook v. State, 192 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). However, the [use] [or] [threatened use] of non-deadly force is not justified if you find that (defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a[n] (applicable forcible felony listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.). Give the elements of the applicable forcible felony but omit any reference to burden of proof. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). < p>Aggressor. § 776.041(2), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable. Gibbs v. State, 789 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). However, the [use] [or] [threatened use] of non-deadly force is not justified if you find that (defendant) used [force] [or] [the threat of force] to initially provoke the [use] [or] [threatened use] of force against [himself] [herself], unless: 1. T t he [force] [or] [threatened force] asserted toward (defendant) was unnecessarily so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using non-deadly force on (victim) . [or] 2. I i n good faith, (defendant) withdrew from physical contact with (victim) and indicated clearly to (victim) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the [use] [or] [threatened use] of non-deadly force, but (victim) continued or resumed the [use] [or] [threatened use] of force. Specific act of victim known by defendant. If you find that at the time of the alleged (name[s] of relevant crime[s]) , (defendant) knew that (victim) had committed an act [or acts] of violence, you may consider that fact in determining whether (defendant) reasonably believed it was necessary for [him] [her] to [use] [or] [threaten to use] non-deadly force. Reputation of victim known by defendant. Give if applicable. If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant(defendant), you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant(defendant) were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation. < p>Reputation of victim not necessarily known by defendant (to show victim acted in conformity with victim’s character). Give if applicable. If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person, you may consider this fact in determining whether [he] [she] was the initial aggressor. < p>Physical abilities. Read in all cases. In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant(defendant) and (victim). < p>Read in all cases. If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant(defendant) was justified in the use of non-deadly force, you should find the defendant[him] [her] not guilty. < p>However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant(defendant) was not justified in the use of non-deadly force, then you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved. Comments last_img read more

Scientists use electrical neuroimaging to reveal the mental processes behind prejudice

first_imgShare on Twitter We do not always say what we think: we like to hide certain prejudices, sometimes even from ourselves. But unconscious prejudices become visible with tests, because we need a longer time if we must associate unpleasant things with positive terms. Researchers in Bern now show that additional processes in the brain are not responsible for this, but some of them simply take longer.A soccer fan needs more time to associate a positive word with an opposing club than with his own team. And supporters of a political party associate a favourable attribute faster with their party than with political rivals – even if they endeavour towards the opposite. It is long since known that a positive association with one’s own group, an “in-group”, happens unconsciously faster than with an “outgroup”. These different reaction times become visible in the Implicit Association Test (IAT) with which psychologists examine unconscious processes and prejudices. But why the effort to address a friendly word to an outgroup takes more time was not clear up to now.Now a team headed by Prof. Daria Knoch from the Department of Social Psychology and Social Neuroscience at the Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, shows that an additional mental process is not responsible for this, as has often been postulated – but rather the brain lingers longer in certain processes. The study has now been published in the scientific journal PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America). Number and sequence of processes are exactly the sameThe researchers relied on a unique combination of methods for their study: they conducted an Implicit Association Test with 83 test subjects who are soccer fans or political supporters. While the test persons had to associate positive terms on the screen by means of a button click, either with their in-group or with an outgroup, the brain activity was recorded by means of an EEG (electroencephalogram).“We analysed these data with a so-called “microstate analysis”. It enabled us to depict all processes in the brain for the first time – from the presentation of a word up to pressing the button – temporally and also spatially”, explains co-lead author Dr. Lorena Gianotti from the Department of Social Psychology and Social Neuroscience.The analysis shows the following: the brain runs through seven processes, from the presentation of stimulus – i.e. a word – up to button click, in less than one second. “The number and sequences of these processes remain exactly the same, regardless of whether the test subject had to associate positive words with the in-group, i.e. their club or their party, or with an outgroup”, explains co-lead author Dr. Bastian Schiller, who is in the meantime conducting research at the University of Freiburg.The reaction time with the outgroup situation is therefore longer, because some of the seven processes take longer – and not because a new process is switched in between. “As a result, corresponding theories can be refuted”, says Schiller.A complete consideration of all processes in the brain is essential for an interpretation, emphasises Lorena Gianotti, and she illustrated this in the following example: on Monday after work you go out to eat with a friend and go to sleep afterwards at 10 pm. On Friday you do exactly the same thing – but you come home two hours later since you can sleep late on the next day. If you now compare the days at 8 pm, both times you were in a restaurant and one could conclude that this is an identical time schedule. If the comparison takes place at 11 pm, you are one time already in bed and one time still on the go. One could think that on Friday you were perhaps still in the sports studio or had an entirely different daily schedule. Therefore it is clear that selective considerations do not allow any conclusion with regard to the entire day – neither with regard to the sequence nor the activities.“In the research of human behaviour it is essential to consider the underlying brain mechanisms. And this in turn requires suitable methods in order to gain comprehensive findings”, summarises study leader Daria Knoch. A combination of neuroscientific and psychological methods can lead to new insights. LinkedIn Share on Facebookcenter_img Share Email Pinterestlast_img read more

News Scan for Apr 29, 2016

first_imgFDA: Dole kept salad facility running for 18 months after Listeria surfacedFederal inspection records obtained by Food Safety News (FSN) show that Dole kept a salad processing plant in Ohio operating for about 18 months after finding Listeria contamination there, until an outbreak was traced to the facility in January of this year.The information was in Food and Drug Administration records (FDA) obtained by FSN under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. FSN published a story on the records and posted them today. The listeriosis outbreak involved 33 cases and 4 deaths, including 19 cases and 1 death in the United States and 14 cases with 3 deaths in Canada. All the patients were hospitalized.The FDA report says the company found Listeria in environmental samples from the Springfield, Ohio, plant nine times between July 2014 and December 2015. The company suspended production at the plant on Jan 21, 2016, after a random test by state officials found a bagged salad from the facility contained L monocytogenes, the FSN story noted.DNA fingerprinting linked the Listeria isolate in the salad to the outbreak, the story noted. It said US and Canadian investigators had been trying to find the cause of the outbreak since September 2015.Dole announced the limited resumption of production at the plant on Apr 22, saying US and Canadian officials had completed their investigations there.In a press release today addressing media reports on the FDA’s observation reports, Dole said FDA item covers problems the company has corrected and that it has been working with the agency and other authorities to improve testing, sanitation, and other procedures, which led to the plant reopening.The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is doing its own investigation and has contacted Dole, and the company said it will also be cooperating with the DOJ to answer questions and address any concerns.Apr 29 FSN story FDA inspection report obtained by FSN Mar 31 CIDRAP News item on the outbreak Apr 22 Dole press release Apr 29 Dole press release Flu activity in US resumes its slow retreatInfluenza activity resumed its reluctant springtime decline across the United States last week, after hesitating a week earlier, according to the weekly update from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).The estimated share of clinic visits prompted by influenza-like illness (ILI) sank to 2.0%, just below the national baseline of 2.1%. The previous week’s number was right at the baseline.New Jersey was the only state reporting high ILI activity, the same as a week earlier. Moderate activity was reported in Arizona, Arkansas, and Puerto Rico; a week earlier, only Minnesota and Puerto Rico were in that category.Flu cases were still said to be geographically widespread last week in 13 states and Puerto Rico, a tiny improvement from the 14 states and Puerto Rico reporting that status the previous week.The CDC said four more flu-related deaths in children were reported, compared with six a week earlier, raising the season total to 60. One death was attributed to influenza B, two to type A viruses that were not subtyped, and one to a virus that was not typed.In the 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System, 6.7% of deaths were attributed to pneumonia and flu, which was down from 7.7% a week earlier and below the week’s epidemic threshold of 7.0%.Also, labs tested fewer respiratory specimens and found fewer flu viruses in them last week: 12.5% of 14,806 samples tested positive, versus 14.0% of 18,188 the previous week.The cumulative rate of flu-related hospitalizations inched up to 29.8 per 100,000 people last week, compared with 28.4 the previous week. The rate for seniors was 79.6, up from 75.0 a week earlier.Apr 29 CDC FluView update Past FluView reports page Wisconsin probes more Elizabethkingia cases, including one in a newbornWisconsin health officials are investigating two more Elizabethkingia anopheles infections, according to a health department update, and a media outlet reported yesterday that an infection has been detected in a baby in the neonatal intensive care unit at a Milwaukee hospital.The Wisconsin Department of Health Services (WDHS) said as of Apr 27 it had received a total of 65 reports, with 59 of them confirmed, 2 under investigation, and 4 possible cases. Nineteen deaths have been reported, 18 in confirmed cases and 1 among the possible cases. Patients are from 12 Wisconsin counties.Meanwhile, Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin yesterday confirmed the Elizabethkingia infection in the baby, which appears to be the first involving a child, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. Most of the other infections are in seniors who have chronic underlying health conditions.The hospital said the baby’s illness isn’t serious and that the bacteria isn’t easily transmitted from person to person.Illinois recently reported a case matching the Wisconsin outbreak strain, and last week reported 10 more cases involving a strain different from Wisconsin’s. Michigan has also reported a case. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said it has received reports of 61 confirmed cases from the three states so far, 20 of them fatal.E anopheles can be found in soil and other environmental sources and has been linked to opportunistic infections. So far the source of the outbreak isn’t known. The organism is usually antibiotic-resistant, but the Wisconsin strain is susceptible to some drugs.Apr 27 WDHS update Apr 28 Journal Sentinel story CDC Elizabethkingia outbreak page Donor-host compatibility boosts fecal transplant effectivenessGenetic compatibility of bacterial strains between fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) donors and recipients may be the key to building diverse, co-existing gut bacteria in people with an array of digestive tract disorders, according to a study today in Science.Researchers led by the European Molecular Biology Laboratory sequenced 55 fecal samples from 10 people with metabolic syndrome, five of whom received allogenic FMTs and a placebo group of five people who received autologous FMTs. None of the recipients had used antibiotics or other medications in the 3 months before transplantation.The group that received allogenic FMTs demonstrated significant co-existence of donor and host gut bacterial strains, with 69.3% of donor-specific strains retained 2 days after transplant and 37.6% retained 90 days later. People who received an autologous transplant (ie, a transplant from themselves) had a 9.5% rate of variation, suggesting some possible benefit from the transfer process, the authors said.Strain compatibility between recipients and donors likely played a significant role in building diverse gut bacteria. Three people who received allogenic FMTs from the same donor had drastically different rates of strain co-existence (46.1%, 56.6%, and 12%) after 90 days. Donor strains were more likely colonize the digestive tract if their species were already present, which could aid in matching donors with recipients and replacing antibiotic-resistant bacteria with susceptible strains, the authors said.Further study is needed to determine the effect of microbial resilience in the digestive tract and individual immune response to FMT and strain compatibility, the authors said, adding that “A ‘one-stool-fits-all’ model currently supported by standardized donor stool banks may not be clinically appropriate.”Apr 29 Science study Tdap vaccine moderately effective in school pertussis outbreakEffectiveness of the tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) vaccine was 68.5% in two Maine schools during a 2011 pertussis outbreak and did not appear to wane over time, according to a Mar 31 retrospective cohort study in Vaccine.Researchers led by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) evaluated Tdap vaccine effectiveness (VE) in 314 students attending one of two schools in Maine’s rural Penobscot County. Students were between 11 and 19 years old during an Aug 15 to Nov 26, 2011, pertussis outbreak.Among 118 students at School A and 196 students at School B, pertussis attack rates were 11.9% (14 students) and 7.7% (15 students), respectively. Slightly more than half (51%) of students in both schools had received Tdap immunization, and 25% were vaccinated during or following the outbreak. Most cases (80%) in both schools occurred in students vaccinated less than 36 months before the outbreak began, the authors said.VE was 70.4% in School A and 65.2% in School B, for an overall VE of 68.5%. VE was comparable in larger samples of students who were unvaccinated or partially vaccinated (63.3% in 344 students) or lacked documentation of immunization status. (64.9% in 343 students), the authors said.The authors said that Tdap vaccination appeared to be “moderately effective” in preventing pertussis and showed little evidence of waning over time, noting that VE was comparable 2 years prior to and 2 years after the pertussis outbreak (68.5% vs. 71.5%).Lack of waning may be attributable to older children having been vaccinated with whole-cell pertussis vaccine in Tdap formulation, rather than with the acellular pertussis vaccine currently used, the authors said.Mar 31 Vaccine studylast_img read more

Cyrus Jones play and comments have Auburn’s attention

first_imgPlay VideoPlayMuteCurrent Time 0:00/Duration Time 0:00Loaded: 0%0:00Progress: 0%0:00 Progress: 0%Stream TypeLIVERemaining Time -0:00 Playback Rate1ChaptersChaptersdescriptions off, selectedDescriptionssubtitles off, selectedSubtitlescaptions settings, opens captions settings dialogcaptions off, selectedCaptionsAudio TrackFullscreenThis is a modal window. The Video Cloud video was not found. Error Code: VIDEO_CLOUD_ERR_VIDEO_NOT_FOUND Session ID: 2020-09-18:738fe252a2b7611ffa6d85 Player ID: videojs-brightcove-player-267171-4628526880001 OK Close Modal DialogCaption Settings DialogBeginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.TextColorWhiteBlackRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentTransparentWindowColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyTransparentSemi-TransparentOpaqueFont Size50%75%100%125%150%175%200%300%400%Text Edge StyleNoneRaisedDepressedUniformDropshadowFont FamilyProportional Sans-SerifMonospace Sans-SerifProportional SerifMonospace SerifCasualScriptSmall CapsDefaultsDoneClose Modal DialogThis is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button.Jones’ “streak”, as he calls it, hasn’t been contained to an on-the-field situation as he’s been talking a lot to set up this Iron Bowl rivalry. The senior defensive back, who has one interceptions and six passes broken up, has called Auburn’s receivers “nothing special” and has said throughout the week that he think he’s figured out Malzahn’s offense for this game.“He’s very strong, very confident and that’s the key to a good punt returner,” Malzahn said. “We’re going to have to do a good job punting, do a good job covering even if it is windy.” Session ID: 2020-09-18:bdfe03f0b94e670f9cbac4c0 Player ID: videojs-brightcove-player-357008-4626777306001 OK Close Modal DialogCaption Settings DialogBeginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.TextColorWhiteBlackRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentTransparentWindowColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyTransparentSemi-TransparentOpaqueFont Size50%75%100%125%150%175%200%300%400%Text Edge StyleNoneRaisedDepressedUniformDropshadowFont FamilyProportional Sans-SerifMonospace Sans-SerifProportional SerifMonospace SerifCasualScriptSmall CapsDefaultsDoneClose Modal DialogThis is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button.Alabama cornerback Cyrus Jones doesn't see anything special about the Auburn receivers.Alabama cornerback Cyrus Jones doesn’t see anything special about the Auburn receivers.AUBURN – Auburn won’t even be able to relax when they’re punting the ball back to Alabama.While also taking on the responsibility of shutting down the opponent’s best wide receiver, Cyrus Jones has also decided to make an impact in special teams. The senior from Baltimore had three punt return touchdowns in the last two games and is seventh in the nation in punt return yardage, which are all things Auburn punter Kevin Phillips will have to contemplate before punting the ball to 5-foot-10, 196-yard speedster with obvious athletic skills.“We’re definitely focused on him,” Auburn head coach Gus Malzahn said Tuesday. “He’s really tough in open spaces and he makes the first two guys miss.”Even without Jones’ talent, Auburn would’ve already focused on the punt return game after Isaiah McKenzie’s 53-yard punt return was the game-winning touchdown in Georgia’s 20-13 victory two weeks ago at Jordan-Hare Stadium.Play VideoPlayMuteCurrent Time 0:00/Duration Time 0:00Loaded: 0%0:00Progress: 0%0:00 Progress: 0%Stream TypeLIVERemaining Time -0:00 Playback Rate1ChaptersChaptersdescriptions off, selectedDescriptionssubtitles off, selectedSubtitlescaptions settings, opens captions settings dialogcaptions off, selectedCaptionsAudio TrackFullscreenThis is a modal window. The Video Cloud video was not found. Error Code: VIDEO_CLOUD_ERR_VIDEO_NOT_FOUNDcenter_img Session ID: 2020-09-18:40703ab872a02164788fc5d Player ID: videojs-brightcove-player-613048-4618648607001 OK Close Modal DialogCaption Settings DialogBeginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.TextColorWhiteBlackRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentTransparentWindowColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyTransparentSemi-TransparentOpaqueFont Size50%75%100%125%150%175%200%300%400%Text Edge StyleNoneRaisedDepressedUniformDropshadowFont FamilyProportional Sans-SerifMonospace Sans-SerifProportional SerifMonospace SerifCasualScriptSmall CapsDefaultsDoneClose Modal DialogThis is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button.In his last game, Jones played only one half of football but that was certainly enough. He returned two punts for touchdowns, forced a fumble, recovered a fumble and had three tackles (all for loss) as No. 2 Alabama defeated Football Championship Subdivision opponent Charleston Southern 56-6.“You never know what can happen in these last four games, man,” Jones said with a smile. “I’m on a streak right now, and I’m trying to keep it going.”Play VideoPlayMuteCurrent Time 0:00/Duration Time 0:00Loaded: 0%0:00Progress: 0%0:00 Progress: 0%Stream TypeLIVERemaining Time -0:00 Playback Rate1ChaptersChaptersdescriptions off, selectedDescriptionssubtitles off, selectedSubtitlescaptions settings, opens captions settings dialogcaptions off, selectedCaptionsAudio TrackFullscreenThis is a modal window. The Video Cloud video was not found. Error Code: VIDEO_CLOUD_ERR_VIDEO_NOT_FOUNDlast_img read more

Espanyol captain Dani Jarque found dead in hotel room

first_imgNewly-appointed Espanyol captain Dani Jarque was found dead in his Coviciana hotel room Saturday night.The centre-back is said to have suffered from heart failure some time after returning from training during Espanyol’s pre-season tour of Italy while talking to his girlfriend on the telephone.While she attempted to contact the hotel to let them know he had stopped talking, room-mate Ferran Corominas alerted the coaches that Jarque had not come down for dinner with the squad.After reaching his room, club medics attempted to revive the 26-year-old and so did the ambulance crew when they arrived, but neither could start the player’s heart.“Tragedy struck Espanyol and the family of Dani Jarque this evening. The player died from a cardiac arrest,” said a club statement.“The doctor carried out CPR on the player and used a defibrillator, which showed that the arrest was non responsive.“RCD Espanyol, broken with pain, wish to put themselves at the absolute disposition of the family of our captain Dani Jarque, to whom go our warmest thoughts.” Jarque’s death comes two years after the death of Sevilla’s Antonio Puerta, who collapsed on the field during his team’s Spanish league match against Getafe.“We are returning to Barcelona on Sunday but we can’t come back with the coffin because they have to do an autopsy to confirm the cause of death,” added club director German de la Cruz.“The players are destroyed. One minute he was there with them, and the next he’s gone. It’s terrible.”The tragic news came only one month after the player – who had spent his entire professional career at the club – was appointed captain of los Pericos.Credit: Stephen Crawford, Goal.comlast_img read more

Paula Pell talks real-life inspo for Amy Poehler-directed “Wine Country,” possible plans for more movies

first_imgColleen Hayes(NEW YORK) — Have you ever looked at your friends after a particularly crazy time together and thought, “This should be a movie”? Well, the ladies of Wine Country  thought it — and then they actually went and made the movie.The Netflix film, Amy Poehler’s directorial debut, stars SNL alums and longtime pals Poehler, Rachel Dratch, Ana Gasteyer, Paula Pell, Maya Rudolph, Emily Spivey and Tina Fey. The film is based on a real-life trip they all took for Dratch’s 50th birthday.“So many hilarious things [happened] and just the time spent was so funny and so touching and great that first time that it was already kind of discussed like, ‘This should be a movie,’” Pell, a writer on SNL from 1995 to 2013, tells ABC Radio.Thanks to Poehler’s production company and a green light from Netflix, they were able to make their movie idea a reality. Many real-life details from that initial girls’ trip and subsequent getaways even made it into the script — including a hilarious scene where Pell’s character buys all the ladies their very own, um, sex toys.Next up, the women are planning another trip to belatedly celebrate the 56-year-old Pell’s 50th birthday. So, will they be mining that trip for sequel material?“Well, we keep saying we just want Netflix to allow us to do, like, every other year, another Wine Country-type movie where we’re somewhere else,” Pell says. “You know, we’re on a cruise or we’re in Hawaii or we’re in… We just want free travel, let’s just face it.”Wine Country is now streaming on Netflix.Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.last_img read more

Bryans pair up to win birthday bash scramble

first_imgJomtien Golf with the IPGCMonday, December 5, Eastern Star – StablefordA public holiday today and there were 15 members away and not playing, so the field was down to nine groups only.  The cut in the 3 men’s divisions was 5-15, 16-19 and 20+ and 36 points was the best score of the day for the organiser to win division 3.  Marty Aronson took second one point behind and the Cockney boy, Rod Howett was third with 32. It was a warm welcome back to Martin Grimoldby, still playing off 5, who won the first division with 20 points on the back nine and a total of 35.  Pete Sumner and Kari Kuparinen both came in with 34 points each but with an 18/16 back nine count back Pete was smiling most at the presentation. The top three pairings from the Eastern Star scramble: Bryan Rought, Bryan Priestley, Brian and Ning Neal, Paul Smith and Kari Kuparinen.Charlie Cox meanwhile topped division 2 with 34 points, Mike Lewis was second two points behind and Andy Baber beat Frank Kelly on the back nine (16/15) after they both returned scores of 31.Near pins went to Martin Grimoldby, Mike Missler, Alan Pilkington, Pete Sumner, Andy Galvin, Frank Kelly and Jim Lane.Pete Sumner was the only one to convert his near pin into a birdie ‘2’ to take the pot in Div. 1 while a rollover ensued in the second flight.Friday, December 9, Eastern Star – 2- Person ScrambleToday was a 60th birthday bash for a certain person, no names mentioned as too embarrassed, and there were 86 out, 43 teams in a two-person scramble here at Eastern Star.A 40% combined handicap was the allowance for this stableford competition but you were only allowed 2 shots higher than the lowest handicap.  Each team of two also had to select 7 drives each and mark the card.It was a very overcast day as we arrived here and as the first two teams got off at 8.30 the conditions remained constant with a very cool but slight breeze, fantastic conditions for golf.There were 4 divisions for individual nearest the pin prizes on all par threes irrespective of which ball you chose.  The cut was 2-15, 16-20 and 21+ and of course the ladies.The results of the competition were as follows:1st Bryan Rought & Bryan Priestley 48pts2nd Bryan & Ning Neal 48pts3rd Paul Smith & Kari Kuparinen 45pts4th Tony & Wendy Chetland 45pts5th Noi Emmerson & Frank Kelly 45pts6th Brian Blackford & Les Smith 44pts7th Pete Sumner & Keith Wooley 44pts8th Paul Chabot and Dennis Scougal 44ptsNear Pins:  Miss Chevrolet, Srithong Tann (2), Alan Griffiths, Rodney N, Paul Smith, Keith Wooley, Brian Blackford, Colin James, Bryan Rought, Les Smith and Tony Holehouse.2’s:  Brian Blackford & Les Smith; Tony Cowe & Malcolm Saunders; Alan Griffiths & Alan Pilkington (2); Toi & Darryl Blair; Pete Sumner & Keith Wooley.The worst score of the day was 30 points, no names mentioned, but well done Dazza Smyth and John Williams.It was congratulations all round to the two Bryans, and there was a golf ball draw for all non winners in the top eight placings.  There was live music and food for all at Siam Cats, so a big thank-you to Jules’s Restaurant in View Talay 1 for supplying the food and Faa and Olaf the music at Cats.  A great day was had by all – many thanks to all who attended and also many thanks for the birthday presents.last_img read more

Now or never for Leafs, game three Friday at NDCC Arena

first_imgBy Bruce FuhrThe Nelson Daily SportsIt’s time to put up or shut up for the Nelson Leafs.Down two games entering game three of the Kootenay International Junior Hockey League Murdoch Semi Final to the Beaver Valley Nitehawks, the Leafs can ill-afford to fall into a three-game deficit.“We have to win our two games at home to be successful,” Leaf coach Chris Shaw told The Nelson Daily Thursday.“It’s a make or break situation for us. But we’re pretty confident playing at home where we’ve had a lot of success this season.”That success, however, has been limited against the Hawks. In four games at the NDCC Arena, Beaver Valley has won three.“We got to concentrate on our scoring chances and on our power play,” Shaw confessed. “We had some chances to get back in the game (Wednesday) but our power play let us down.”Shaw said the mood in the Leaf dressing room improved immensely following game one’s meltdown.“The guys feel a lot better than after the first game,” said Shaw. “I thought we played well enough to win in game two.”Nelson played Wednesday’s game without the services of top center Gavin Currie.Shaw did not want to comment on Currie, who spent the past six weeks on the injury list, saying the star forward is “questionable” for Friday.The rookie coach did call out his top players to be better when the puck drops at 7 p.m. Friday.“Our top players need to be our top players,” Shaw insists. “Our forwards six through nine, our younger guys, have been great. We really need our older guys to provide veteran leadership to lead us to victory.”ICE CHIPS: Game four is Saturday at 7 p.m. in the NDCC Arena. If necessary, game five is Monday in Fruitvale. . . . Nelson’s top two scorers from the regular season, Colton Schell and Joel Stewart, have yet to register a point in the [email protected]last_img read more