Answer the following statements true (T) or false (F)
1. The Sacramento, California, Police Department reduced workers’ compensation claims and the number of on-duty injuries by contracting for a professional to give officers nutritional advice; provide customizable workout plans; and inform officers about exercise safety, healthy living, and creative ways to remain active.
2. The Las Vegas, Nevada, Metropolitan Police Department implemented an employee assistance program which provides access to suicide intervention programs.
3. If out-of-pocket expenses are to be paid at some point by the officer for an employee assistance program, often a sliding scale fee basis can be arranged based on the officer’s income.
4. All police agencies have a comprehensive wellness program to assist officers in coping with stress.
5. No human being can exist in a continuous state of stress.
1. True
2. True
3. True
4. False
5.True
You might also like to view...
A man promising a woman to marry her if she has sex with him is an example of "trickery" under rape statutes
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
In Ireland, in the latter half of the 16th century, England tried to impose __________ on the largely __________ Irish
a. Catholicism, Protestant b. Judaism, Protestant c. Catholicism, Jewish d. Protestantism, Catholic
The general theory of crime states that an impulsive personality is the key to crime, not the environment
a. True b. False Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Did the trial judge's actions interfere with Archer's right to a fair trial?
Archer, Bailey, and Edmonds robbed three men, wounding two and killing one. Edmonds and Bailey were arrested, tried, and convicted while Archer was still at large. Bailey received a reduced sentence in return for agreeing to testify against Edmonds and Archer. Bailey told police that he did not know Archer's full name but was able to provide a description and a location of where Archer might be found. Archer was later arrested and identified by the surviving victims. Archer's first trial ended in a mistrial when Bailey refused to testify. At Archer's second trial, Bailey's counsel informed the trial court that Bailey was unwilling to testify. Bailey alleged he had been stabbed in prison for having testified against Edmonds and was afraid to testify against Archer. Bailey was a "compellable witness" because he was immune from any charges except perjury and contempt. Thereupon the trial judge threatened Bailey with contempt if he did not testify, called a fellow judge in Bailey's presence to set up a separate contempt hearing, and orchestrated the hearing. The judge also told Bailey that if he testified favorable for Archer, all that the state could do would be to cross-examine him about his previous testimony in Edmonds' trial. Bailey was then brought before another trial judge for a contempt hearing, and although it is not known what transpired in the other judge's chambers, Bailey then testified, contrary to his testimony at Edmonds's trial, that it was Archer's idea to rob people that night. He did identify Archer as the third assailant, which contributed to Archer's conviction. What will be an ideal response?