1. If I am in my house in a storm and the power goes out, I would organize my response in order by largest to smallest outage impact. My rationale for approaching it this way is to ensure that I do not waste any time troubleshooting the electricity in my own home if the electricity is out all over the neighborhood. First I would check to see if my neighbors have power. If they do not have power either, I would know that the problem is not due to some electrical problem inside my house. At this point, I could call the electric company to see if this is a temporary problem that will be fixed shortly or whether a grid is down and will be down for awhile. If my neighbors do have power, then I would check my breaker box to see if any breakers are flipped. If breakers are flipped, I can reset them and see if power is restored. I would also check any GFI outlets to make sure that individual breakers on them are reset. If resetting breakers restores power, then I know that the storm just caused a power surge that flipped the breakers. If I still do not have power, then I could have a malfunctioning breaker box or a problem in my houseÆs electrical lines. At that point, I would have to call out the electric company to determine which it is and to repair it.
2. If I were on a jury and had to evaluate the validity of evidence that was all circumstantial, I would first make sure that the evidence was related to the crime the suspect was being tried for, and then I would then make sure that the evidence pointed to the suspect and not to someone else. For example, if the victim were killed with a 247 Magnum revolver, and the evidence showed that a gun was found near the body, I would ascertain whether the gun was a 247 Magnum revolver or not. I would seek proof that the gun had been recently fired. If the gun was proven to be a 247 Magnum that had recently been fired, it is likely that it was the murder weapon in the
...