Legal reasoning

 

Mike and his young girlfriend, Tina, both out of work and penniless, thought that love was all that mattered and
decided to get married. Although Mike had no money, he told Tina he was going to buy her an engagement
ring. Tina asked how he could afford it and he looked at her, winked, and said, “watch me.” The couple went to
Malaguti’s Jewelry store and Tina picked out the ring of her dreams. Mike paid for the ring with $5,000.00 in
cash. Tina, dumbfounded, asked Mike where he got the money. In response, Mike rushed Tina out of the store
with the ring.
Outside the store, Mike told Tina not to worry about the money. Besides, he told her, it only cost him $500.00
because the money was counterfeit and he had purchased it earlier from his friend Tony. The argument ended
as Mike kissed Tina and slipped the ring onto her finger. They got married the next day at the Justice of the
Peace.
After the ceremony, Mike and Tina decided to go to the local bar to drink to their wedded bliss. While there,
several friends purchased multiple rounds of shots for them. Mike drank what Tina was unable to. When Mike
ordered more, the bartender Tommy, refused to serve him any more due to his condition. An argument ensued
and Mike pulled a gun out of his pocket and fired a single shot, which grazed Tommy’s arm, ricocheted off the
wall, and killed Maria, another bartender, who was standing behind Tommy.
Mike grabbed Tina and started to leave the bar. Tina, who had come to her senses about Mike by now,
resisted, but Mike forced her out and pushed her into his car. Tina insisted that if he did not turn himself in to
the police, she would turn him in. Mike drove to his friend Tony’s apartment. He pushed Tina, now hysterical,
into Tony’s apartment and told Tony what happened. Mike, panicked, aimed the gun at Tina. Tony, a small-time
ex-con, did not want to be charged with murder, so he stepped in front of Mike to stop him from shooting Tina.
Before Mike could shoot, however, Tina had backed away from Mike to an open window, where she fell to her
death. Mike then hit Tony over the head with the gun and Tony fell unconscious on the floor. Before leaving
Tony’s apartment, Mike filled his pockets with Tony’s “phony money” to use for his getaway.
Outside the apartment, Mike flagged a taxi down. He gave Maria, the driver, the address to his apartment. But
when they arrived at Mike’s apartment and he paid the fare, Maria realized the money was phony. Angry that
Mike had swindled her out of a fare, Maria decided to get the money that Mike owed to her. She went back to
Mike’s apartment to confront him. When no one answered Mike’s door, Maria noticed a doggie door on the
patio door. She decided to slip through the dog door and tiptoe into Mike’s apartment to get her money. Once
Maria was in Mike’s apartment, though, it was very dark. She tripped over a skateboard, hitting her head and
knocking herself unconscious. In the morning, Mike’s friend found Maria on the floor and called the police.
Police officers took Maria to the hospital, where she was treated and released.

Sample Solution

controversial, and there is no general agreement about which instrumentation method provides the most effective treatment outcomes while limiting the excess damage to or removal of the remaining tooth cementum. These accounts fail to resolve the contradictions between the removal of plaque, calculus, additional microorganisms, and tissue contributing to periodontal disease in patients, and the most effective instrument in the treatment, prevention, and arrest of periodontal disease in the patient.

Other studies both previously and concurrent within the experiment time periods are overall inconclusive showing replication/validity could be called into question. The researchers within each study group acknowledge that the application of various tools with different sharpness and tip size, tip contact with root surface, operator’s skills and force applied during SRP could be a contributing factor in the creation of the controversial results in these and other various studies.

This project provided an important opportunity to advance the understanding of the proper utilization of the various instrumentation available in the ability to effectively arrest or recover periodontal disease processes. Unfortunately, research on the subject has been mostly restricted to the limited in-vivo comparisons on dentin surface quality, and not on the effect this has on the disease process itself. Therefore causal factors leading to the hygienist’s instrumentation of choice in order to best treat patients’ periodontal health is inconclusive at best due to the paucity of evidence in longitudinal in-vitro observations. This indicates a need to reassess the various perceptions regarding the continued practice of scaling and root planing that exist among the dental community today. Additional research is indicated in order to provide statistically significant evidence regarding the instrumentation effects in-vitro have not only on the

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.