Sentences with phrase «public danger»

Outside of business hours, call 911 to report injured animals or animals that pose an immediate public danger.

But to allow applicants to proceed without the required permits to run businesses, erect structures, purchase firearms, transport or store explosives or inflammatory products, hold public meetings without prior safety arrangements or take other unauthorized action is apt to cause breaches of the peace or create public dangers.

Pielke warns of a greater public danger than Atlantic storms: «Public discussion of disasters risks being taken over by the climate lobby and its allies, who exploit every extreme event to argue for action on energy policy.»

«As vaping has gone mainstream, with celebrities from Lindsay Lohan to Barry Manilow giving it a go, and with growing public debate on the public dangers and the need for regulation, so the language usage of the word «vape» and related terms in 2014 has shown a marked increase,» Judy Pearsall, Editorial Director for Oxford Dictionaries, told the BBC when asked to explain the choice.

Dorothy Sayers writes: We can not blink at the fact that gentle Jesus meek and mild was so stiff in his opinions and so inflammatory in his language that he was thrown out of church, stoned, hunted from place to place, and finally gibbeted as a firebrand and a public danger.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — President - elect Donald Trump's choice to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency expressed doubt about the science behind global climate change during a contentious Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday, but added he would be obliged for now to uphold the EPA's finding carbon dioxide poses a public danger.

The Obama administration adopted its climate change plan B today, formally declaring carbon dioxide a public danger so that it can cut greenhouse gas emissions even without the agreement of a reluctant Senate.

Based on a professional investigation, that broken outlet cover was a public danger for over a week and no one in the mall's management took the responsibility to correct the issue, although they were fully aware of the danger.

Every knife or weapon carried in the street represents a public danger.

Every knife or weapon carried in the street represents a public danger and therefore in the public interest this crime must be confronted and stopped.

In question is whether the Federal Court of Appeal was wrong to find that a change in ministerial responsibility was the determinative factor in interpreting s. 34 (2) of the IRPA and if the court unlawfully restrained the discretion of the minister by limiting the interpretation of «national interest» to issues of national security and public danger.

Then the matter would reduce to what other facts she knew of that would support a public danger conclusion.

If you are right, asking the question was a betrayal of trust at best; a «No» answer is an admission that you are in no fit state to drive, and so the doctor should call the police since you are intoxicated in public, while a «Yes» apparently allows the doctor to infer you are a public danger and should be arrested.

The secondary ground relates to public danger, and the third ground relates to the need to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

An answer «No, absolutely not», on the other hand would work against the «public danger» inference: that has no effect on the arrest, but could have an effect in a suit against the doctor (violation of the privacy rule).

In such a suit, the doctor's defense would presumably be that despite the answer, she still had a reasonable belief that you were a public danger.

However, Ready Player One is blind to the comparable threats that real people in its audience face from other civilians, and the Facebooks of the world won't be able to fix the problem until they recognize that public danger.