Crack Civil 3D 2015 ^NEW^

picName of Program: Autodesk AutoCAD Civil 3D 2015 SP1 RUS-ENG (AIO)Program Version: 2015 Build J.104.0.0Official site: By assembling : m0nkrusLanguage: English / RussianTreatment: complete

Crack Civil 3D 2015

1. Run the normal uninstall from the Windows control panel 2. Delete the Civil 3D 2015 folders from... a. C:\Users\[your login]\AppData\Roaming\Autodesk\ b. C:\Users\[your login]\Appdata\Local\Autodesk c. C:\Program Files\Autodesk\AutoCAD 2015\ d. C:\ProgramData\Autodesk\ 3. Go to REGEDIT.exe Verify that the following keys were removed: (If the uninstall completed successfully, these should already be gone - but I always like to check *just* in case.) a. HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Autodesk\AutoCAD\R19.1\ACAD-D000:409\ b. HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Autodesk\AutoCAD\R19.1\ACAD-D000:409\ 4. Turn off UAC and antivirus programs before reinstalling. 5. Reinstall Civil 3D 2015 6. Reinstall service packs (there are 3 for Civil 3D 2015) and any add-ons you are using. 7. More information on the clean uninstall/reinstall process: -service/installation-activation-licensing/get-ready/remove-pr...

A civil liability law publication for Law Enforcement ISSN 0271-5481 Cite this issue as: 2015 LR MayClick here to view informationon the editor of this publication.

A woman claimedthat an officer who came to the door of her home looking for a missingjuvenile grabbed her arm, threw her to the ground, punched her, jumpedon her, handcuffed her, and pulled her to her feet by her hair. A federalappeals court ruled that the officer was properly denied summary judgmenton the basis of qualified immunity. If her version of the incident wasbelieved, the officer had, at most, reason to believe that she might beguilty of a misdemeanor of contributing to the minor's delinquency, sheanswered all the officer's questions, gave no indication that she was inclinedto harm him, and was full compliant and responsive to all his instructionsand requests. Smithv. Ray, #12-1503, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 4391 (4th Cir.).

Officers respondingto a noise complaint entered an apartment and fired a Taser in the dartmode at a male resident, activating it for a total of 26 seconds--one fivesecond application and a second 21 second activation. The man started tofoam at the mouth, stopped breathing, and went into cardiac arrest. Heremained hospitalized for two weeks and suffered an anoxic brain injurydue to lack of oxygen, greatly impairing his mental functioning. Bth head his wife were initially charged with disorderly conduct, but those chargeswere dropped. The officers were properly denied summary judgment on thebasis of qualified immunity as there were disputed issues of material factas to whether a warrantless entry was in fact justified by the emergencyaid exception to the warrant requirement--which requires both the potentialfor injury to the officers or others and the need for swift action. Additionally,as to the excessive force claim, a jury could reasonably determine thatthe alleged disorderly conduct was not a serious crime for purposes ofdeciding whether excessive force was used in effecting an arrest for thatcrime, that the uninterrupted 21 second second application of the Taserwas "atypically long," and that it was reasonable to hold theofficer accountable for taking note of changes in the man's physical conditionover the total 26 second time that the Taser was used. The man had a clearlyestablished constitutional right not to have the Taser used on him whenhe was, as he claimed, offering at most passive resistence to the officer,as well as not to have the Taser gratuitously used after he ceased allresistance. Goodwinv. City of Painesville, #14-3120, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 4417, 2015Fed. App. 48P (6th Cir.).

Three officers weresued for ther involvement in the warrantless arrest of a vehicle passengerfor possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia, charges which were laterdropped. A federal appeals court held that summary judgment on the basisof qualified immunty was proper on a false arrest claim, as the officershad probable cause for the arrest because one officer saw the plaintiffthrow a crack pipe out of his car window. Two of the arresting officers,however, were not entitled to qualified immunity because they allegedlydelayed seeking medical care when the passenger was shot in the genitals,acting with deliberate indifference and reporting his injury as a "laceration."The third officer, who arrived later, was entitled to qualified immunity,however, as there was no indication that he knew that the other officerscaused a delay in medical care. Valderramav. Rousseau, #13-15752, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 4116 (11th Cir.).

After charges concerningsuspected involvement in a racially motivated attack were dropped againstan arrestee, he sued the detective who applied for and obtained the arrestwarrant, claiming that he had both omitted material information and suppliedfalse information, so the warrant lacked probable cause. A federal appealscourt, upholding a grant of qualified immunity to the detective, foundthat the modified affidavit, even without the complained of omissions andalleged false information, still established probable cause to believethat the arrestee had committed a bias-motivated crime, involvement inan attack by a group of African-American gang members on a Caucasian man,even if he did not himself hit the man. Pullerv. Baca, #13-1156, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 4572 (10th Cir.).

A high school studentwas detained for 23 days while police investigated a schoolyard fight thatcaused the death of another student. A video of the fight showed a malestudent who punched the victim as he tried to stand up, and the plaintiffwas identified as one of two assailants by an officer assigned to the school,by another student, and by two school staff members, who all viewed thevideo. Charges initially made against the plaintiff were ultimately droppedwhen it was established that he was not involved in the incident. A federalappeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendant officers, findingthat they had probable cause to make the arrest on the basis of the identificationsby those who viewed the video, so there was no false arrest. As to thelength of the detention, it was not excessive or unreasonable, as therewas no indication that any of the defendants imposed a deelay for impropermotives such as punishing the plaintiff or "drumming up" evidencemerely to justify his arrest. Baileyv. City of Chicago, #13-3670, 779 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2015).

A rape suspect ledofficer on a highway car chase before crossing the median, acceleratingthe wrong way, and ramming his vehicle head-on into a semitrailer. Officersfatally shot the suspect after he reached down into the car disobeyingcommands to show his hands, and then clasped his hands together in a shootingposture, pointing towards the officers, who then fired 80 shots. No weaponwas foundf in the suspect's car. A federal appeals court held that theofficers were entitled to qualified immunity on an excessive force claim.They had probable cause to believe that the decedent had a gun and poseda threat of serious physical harm.. From radio reports, they knew tharhe was suspected of a serious crime, wanted to avoid arrest, and mightbe armed. They were told that he had a concealed-crry permt. The fact thathe had no such permit and was actually unarmed did not change the result,as their belief to the contrary was reasonable and they "did not andcould not have known" anything to the contrary. Pollardv. City of Columbus, #13-4142, 780 F.3d 395 (6th Cir. 2015).

Groups of protestors,including some concerned with alleged sexual abuse by clergy and otherspromoting acceptance of gay, lesbian, or transgender people or Catholicordination of women, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionalityof a Missouri state statute prohibiting intentional disturbance of a "houseof worship" through the use of "profane discourse, rude or indecentbehavior . . . either within the house of worship or so near it as to disturbthe order and solemnity of the worship services." They argued thatthe law was facially invalid under the First Amendment. A federal appealscourt agreed. The court commented that there was no actual evidence ofdisturbance to houses of worship or indication that protests had interferedwith church members' entry or exit from services. The law, the court found,made content-based distinctions on the type of expression allowed neara church. this could cause "a substantial risk of suppressing ideasin the process." Law enforcement officials were given impermissiblepower to look at the content of the message. The law could not survivethe scrict scrutiny appropriate for content-based distictions that werenot necessary to achieve the asserted interest in protecting free religiousexercize. SurvivorsNetwork of Those Abused by Priests v. Joyce, #13-3036, 779 F.3d785 (8th Cir. 2015).

A group of advocatesfor homeless peopl were threatened with arrest and then arrested for loudchanting to protest an organized walk by elected officials and their supportersthrough a skid row area. They were charged under a state statute underwhich "willfully disturb or break up any assembly or meeting thatis not unlawful in its character" other than a political meeting,is a misdemeanor. A federal appals court found that, while the statutein question was not facially unconstitutional, it was unconstitutionalas applied to the plaintiff's behavior, or political meetings as occurredhere. The statute was improperly applied in this case to a group's protestof a meeting of public officials and members of the public to discuss conditionsin the skid row area. As to public meetings in which people assemble toconsider "public questions," arrests of protestors are only allowableif a protestor engages in "threats, intimidations, or unlawful violence,"not for non-violent political protest. CPRFor Skid Row v. City of Los Angeles, #12-55289,779 F.3d 1098 (9thCir. 2015).