Ēkas rekonstrukcijas laikā vīrietim uzber zemes kravu , Mixnews.lv

Ēkas rekonstrukcijas laikā vīrietim uzber zemes kravu (1)

фото

Kriminālziņas | 2013. gada 20. februārī plkst. 11:54

Vakar Rīgā kādas ēkas rekonstrukcijas laikā 30 gadus vecam vīrietim uzbērta zemes krava, aģentūrai LETA pastāstīja Neatliekamās medicīniskās palīdzības dienesta pārstāve Inga Vītola.

Vītola sacīja, ka vīrietis guvis smagu mugurkaula krūšu daļas traumu un, iespējams, arī vēdera iekšējo orgānu bojājumus. Viņa pieļauj, ka traumas, visticamāk, gūtas, kad vīrietis no uzbērtās zemes smaguma pakritis. Cietušo operatīvi atbrīvojuši kolēģi, tāpēc glābēju palīdzība nav bijusi nepieciešama.

Vakar darbā cietuši vēl divi vīrieši. Zemgalē kāds 30 gadus vecs vīrietis iekritis tranšejā un nogādāts slimnīcā ar smadzeņu satricinājumu. Savukārt Vidzemē, strādājot mežā, 36 gadus vecam vīrietim uz galvas uzkritis zars, līdz ar to arī viņš nogādāts slimnīcā ar aizdomām par smadzeņu satricinājumu.

Kopumā mediķi vakar devušies uz 1266 izsaukumiem, no tiem 143 saistīti ar dažādām traumām.

Foto: no vietnes asbudownictwa.pl

Komentāri 1
vhDfKnAFpirms 5 gadiem
Aaron Davies: what is unclear about Ulpian's prilnipce? In the Roman Empire, per Ulpian, and as restated in Justinian's legal code (and thus restated ad nauseum by legal scholars and philosophers in a number of faux-creative variations ever since), the emperor's word was law. This was also true, per Jean Bodin's restatment of the prilnipce, in the Universal Monarchy of Bourbon France that many Jacobites aspired to emulate. Since MM has declared himself a Jacobite, and positively referred us to Bodin's disciple Hobbes, and now yearns for the return of a Roman emperor, I'm curious if he agrees with this prilnipce of Roman law that was widely emulated by 16th century Spanish Hapsburgs, the Bourbons, the Tsars, Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, etc. (Google Hans Kesel for the minor variation of this prilnipce used by the Nazis). Besides the massive theft, murders, and other oppressions that have resulted from this legal prilnipce, which I suppose MM might brush off with a wave of the hand as a price worth paying to reduce crime or teach those nasty Protestants a lesson or whatever, these absolute leaders tended to have rather poor credit ratings. They needed to pay high interest rates to borrow money, which would tend to put a crimp in MM's profit-maximizing ambitions. Nor are such monarchs prone to respect the property rights of their subjects, especially if they are political property rights. If the leader's word is law, he can't make a credible commitment to keep his promises or to follow any particular law or to respect any particular rights. If his word is law, the resulting legal system is the most *informal* possible -- quite contrary to MM's claims to be a "formalist". At any time the Dear Leader can just change the law to get out of any commitment he might have made. To come up with a political/legal structure that can make such credible commitments is a subtle and difficult task, but you can look at the relative bond ratings of governments through history to show that some governments have done it much better than others. Governments that follow Ulpian's prilnipce aren't among them.