Sentences with phrase «n't victims of circumstance»

We aren't victims of circumstance, we are co creators of our own reality.

And I'm not a victim of my circumstances.

I consider myself one of those women who is a product of her choices, not a victim of her circumstances.»

The traditional ruler stated that he preferred Buhari's administration to that of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, adding that President Goodluck Jonathan would also have been a better leader if he was not a victim of circumstances, who allowed some people to use him.

Not exact matches

However, some people prefer to avoid responsibility; they can't seem to get beyond blaming others and being victims of their circumstances.

When there is nobody to protect your interests, and you are transformed into a victim of circumstance there are not a lot of things that you can hear that will make you feel better.

To sin is not simply to be maladjusted, or mentally ill, or socially conditioned in a certain way, or otherwise to be a victim of bad circumstances.

We don't have to be victims of circumstance.

It is not all his fault, but neither is he the helpless victim of circumstances.

This isn't a small school by any stretch, but one that's a victim of circumstance.

As «second victims» not only do we suffer intense emotional trauma and vulnerability, but depending on the circumstances, nurses can also suffer shame, guilt, anger, embarrassment, humiliation, isolation, depression, and loss of confidence.

You're not being particularly sensitive to those who have, and you know what, sometimes people are indeed the victims of crappy genes and bad circumstances.

Not all combatants were victims of the circumstances.

We can not all be just victims of the circumstances.

Cuomo stopped, short though, of criticizing the Assembly Speaker for the previously undisclosed payout to Lopez's victims back in June, saying he did not have all the information about the circumstances.

«A rape victim is never at fault and we do not want the circumstances in which these assaults take place to cause any victim to doubt that,» said Sean Sutton, Head of the NCA's Serious Crimes Analysis Section.

We can comprehend this, and we can see how Tonya becomes a victim of circumstance, of others» abuse, and of her own state of victimhood — seeing conspiracies against her, even though they might not exist.

And yet Marguerite is simply a victim of her own circumstance, tucked away in a lofty bubble surrounded by people who don't love her enough to tell her the truth.

But in spite of the film's marketing, Time isn't so much the villain as he is a victim of circumstance.

The movie doesn't see Kennedy in quite the same way the character sees himself — as a victim of circumstance and a family curse, which has left him the only living son of a dynasty that never made much room for him.

It is my firm belief that children who live in communities where their lives do not matter to the police, politicians, or members of their own community will fall victim to traumatic circumstances that will have a tremendous impact on them for the rest of their lives.

is the victim, not the instigator of her unfortunate circumstances.

However, just because everyone's playing by the same set of rules on paper doesn't mean consumers can't still be victims of circumstance.

Others might be victims of circumstances in which families are moving and decide to leave their pet behind, or can not afford to care for them any longer.

Some of these games are oddities, the kind of uniquely Japanese title that wouldn't have been commercial viable outside of the country; others may have done well but were victims of circumstance.

«There's nothing particularly wrong with Xbox One, but I think the Microsoft team has been victim to a very unfortunate set of circumstances, some of it self - made and some not.

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public intvictim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public intVictim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public intvictim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public intvictim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public intvictim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public interest.

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed against order to provide DNA sample — Appeal allowed — Order was issued to destroy DNA sample that was taken — Trial judge erred in failing to exercise discretion not to order DNA sample — Accused was first time offender, in circumstances that resulted in serious injuries, but with no intention of causing those injuries — Accused had otherwise been exemplary citizen, and likelihood of re-offending was rvictim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed against order to provide DNA sample — Appeal allowed — Order was issued to destroy DNA sample that was taken — Trial judge erred in failing to exercise discretion not to order DNA sample — Accused was first time offender, in circumstances that resulted in serious injuries, but with no intention of causing those injuries — Accused had otherwise been exemplary citizen, and likelihood of re-offending was rVictim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed against order to provide DNA sample — Appeal allowed — Order was issued to destroy DNA sample that was taken — Trial judge erred in failing to exercise discretion not to order DNA sample — Accused was first time offender, in circumstances that resulted in serious injuries, but with no intention of causing those injuries — Accused had otherwise been exemplary citizen, and likelihood of re-offending was rvictim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed against order to provide DNA sample — Appeal allowed — Order was issued to destroy DNA sample that was taken — Trial judge erred in failing to exercise discretion not to order DNA sample — Accused was first time offender, in circumstances that resulted in serious injuries, but with no intention of causing those injuries — Accused had otherwise been exemplary citizen, and likelihood of re-offending was rvictim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed against order to provide DNA sample — Appeal allowed — Order was issued to destroy DNA sample that was taken — Trial judge erred in failing to exercise discretion not to order DNA sample — Accused was first time offender, in circumstances that resulted in serious injuries, but with no intention of causing those injuries — Accused had otherwise been exemplary citizen, and likelihood of re-offending was remote.

However, in circumstances where victim and the keeper were both equally aware of the risks it is often not a great hurdle to establish that the claimant accepted that risk.

The financial power imbalance between an accident victim and an insurer places the accident victim at a significant disadvantage which is heightened in circumstances where even if they incur the expense to obtain appropriate medical records and reports, and are successful, they are not entitled to any reimbursement for the cost of those records and reports, which can often exceed the amount in dispute.

There are even circumstances in which the injured accident victim has not elected this coverage in which their insurance company will still have to provide it for failing to comply with the special requirements of this law.

Although the facts and circumstances of every injury case are different, damages that are generally available to a victim of a catastrophic injury case can include but not be limited to:

We can not guarantee any particular legal outcome because the circumstances of every case is different; however, you will quickly find outcomes which our clients experience regularly surpass typical financial settlements for other victims of auto accidents with similar case facts.

Compensation for Damages Although the facts and circumstances of every injury case are different, damages that are generally available to a victim of a catastrophic injury case can include but not be limited to:

We can be proactive, and not just victims of circumstance, being tossed around on the sea during the storm of market disruptions and regulatory experimentation.

Also, after the accident, the victim should not talk to anyone under any circumstances, with the exception of cooperating with the police investigation.

26 Having found that the defendant did not see the victim at all prior to the accident, the only question for me to answer is whether, in the particular circumstances of this case, the defendant's failure to see the victim constitutes driving without due care and attention.

Tolling the statute of limitations ensures that victims are not unfairly barred from recovering compensation for circumstances beyond their immediate control.

Witnesses, victims, medical care providers, and police may not have a clear memory of the circumstances of your motorcycle accident weeks or months after.

While in some circumstances this is fine as the lawyer is an extremely ranked and reliable injury legal representative, the large majority of these circumstances turn out less than optimum for the victim due to the fact that the lawyer is not the appropriate option for the case.

What most victims do not realize is that there are various regulations and circumstances which involve Maryland truck accident law, Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations, accident reconstruction, investigations, and ultimately the chain of liability of the accident.

It would mean that where serious harassment by an employee in the course of his employment has occurred, the victim... would not have the right normally provided by the law to persons who suffer a wrong in that circumstance, namely, the right to have recourse to the wrongdoer's employer.

Stadlen J said the allegations against Bonhoeffer: «Could hardly be more serious... If proved, they would have a potentially devastating effect on his career, reputation and financial position... not only is this a classic case of one person's word against another but because the other alleged victims live in Kenya, neither the claimant nor the FTPP nor the GMC has any legal power to compel their attendance... It is hard to imagine circumstances in which the ability to cross-examine the uncorroborated allegations of a single witness would assume a greater importance to a professional man faced with such serious allegations.»

Victims of catastrophic brain injuries, amputations, disabling injuries or the loss of a family member from a crash do not want their law firm to be dealing with such severe circumstances for the first time.

The rule waives the requirement for individual agreement if the victim is unable to agree due to incapacity or other emergency circumstance and: (1) The law enforcement official represents that the protected health information is needed to determine whether a violation of law by a person other than the victim has occurred and the information is not intended to be used against the victim; (2) the law enforcement official represents that immediate law enforcement activity that depends on such disclosure would be materially and adversely affected by waiting until the individual is able to agree to the disclosure; and (3) the covered entity, in the exercise of professional judgment, determines that the disclosure is in the individual's best interests.

The final rule waives the requirement for agreement if the covered entity is unable to obtain the individual's agreement due to incapacity or other emergency circumstance, and (1) the law enforcement official represents that the information is needed to determine whether a violation of law by a person other than the victim has occurred and the information is not intended to be used against the victim; (2) the law enforcement official represents that immediate law enforcement activity that depends on the disclosure would be materially and adversely affected by waiting until the individual is able to agree to the disclosure; and (3) the covered entity determines, in the exercise of professional judgment, that the disclosure is in the individual's best interests.

The covered entity must make the decision whether to disclose only in limited circumstances: when there is no mandatory reporting law; or when the victim is unable to provide agreement and the law enforcement official represents that: the protected health information is needed to determine whether a violation of law by a person other than the victim has occurred, that the information will not be used against the victim, and that immediate law enforcement activity that depends on such information would be materially and adversely affected by waiting until the individual is able to agree to the disclosure.

It would not be reasonable to impose such a duty, since prosecutors must have regard to the wider public interest, as well as the interests of victims (which may not coincide with the public interest or the interests of other victims) and all other relevant circumstances.

The homeless are sometimes detained as a matter of policy for offenses that would ordinarily not be enforced or for marginal medical reasons, primarily as a matter of protective custody, when there is a fear that the individuals will suffer serious injury from exposure or from circumstances that make them particularly likely to be victims (e.g. following a surge of vigilante killings of homeless people).

Taking into account the financial circumstances of the applicants, the sentencing judge did not find it to be part of a fit sentence to impose a victim surcharge as part of any of their sentences.