Analysis of the Strengths Based Model

Analysis of the Strengths Based Model A quality construct methodology works in light of the suspicion that individuals have qualities and assets for their own particular strengthening. In quality based- approach the emphasis is on the individual and their qualities and capacities not their inabilities. Quality base techniques dont overlook issues yet move the edge of reference in the issues. Quality based methodologies supplement the model of social incapacity. Key components of quality base methodology: A emphasis on qualities, not shortcoming ,issues or shortages The man is in control and nothing is done without their regard The group is an asset not a hindrance People keep on learning, develop and change regardless of what their handicap Assessment Formative directions cant be completely comprehended without an incorporated concentrate on pathology and fitness (Masten Coatsworth, 1995) and exploration has demonstrated that adolescents qualities are as critical to consider as their shortcomings in comprehension potential for succeeding in every aspect of working (Garmezy, 1993; Kirby Fraser, 1997). While not all kids who experience noteworthy hazard at last experience negative results, most youngsters who have a mixed bag of qualities experience sound results (e.g., Masten, Hubbard, Gest, Tellegen, Garmezy, Ramirez, 1999).However, a great part of the act of recognizing understudies necessities is taking into account a shortage model, which concentrates on issues, for example, handling deficiencies, poor accomplishment, and social-passionate troubles keeping in mind the end goal to endorse mediation programs. The accessibility of numerous psychometrically solid instruments to survey emotional sickness and handicap manages this deficiency center (Epstein, 1999). Despite the fact that therapists, social laborers, and advocates have created casual methodologies for quality based appraisal, the exact acceptance of appraisals inspecting youth qualities is in its initial stages. Unpretentious yet noteworthy contrasts between different terms connected with flexibility need to be precisely characterized so as to illuminate different phenomena under study. Terms, for example, hazard factors,protective variables, resources, and flexibility all speak to particular components that are regularly connected with specific models proposed to clarify versatility. A danger component is any impact in a youthslife, whether natural, behavioral, ecological, socio social, or demographic, that expands the likelihood of a negative result. Then again, a defensive variable is characterized as any impact in an adolescents life that declines the likelihood of a negative result (Kirby Fraser, 1997). Anxiety is a condition coming abou t because of an individuals apparent powerlessness to meet life requests that debilitates the capacity of the person to capacity effectively . Planning Numerous individuals now perceive that our perspective of, and reaction to, individuals with incapacities needs to change definitely in the event that they are to be offered admiration, poise and chances to lead esteemed lives in our groups. An increasing amount, individuals are recognizing that natives with inabilities, similar to whatever remains of us, are individuals with dreams, endowments and abilities who need to carry on with a decent life. By concentrating on individuals endowments and dreams – instead of limits a noteworthy movement has happened in the routes in which choices are made about individuals and the courses in which they are helped to live in their groups. This has implied that: We need to invest as much energy as important listening to individuals as people and giving chances to individuals to recognize their fantasies for the present and future; and  The routes in which we give help to individuals needs to regard singular objectives and goals and bolster individuals to do the things that will permit them to live conventional lives. On account of individuals who dont impart well –or not in any manner with words, we have to perceive that it is our obligation to figure out how they do convey and to adjust ourselves to their ways. Finding out around a mans fantasies, abilities, and what makes him or her interesting; Helping persons to decide solid dreams and objectives and the approaches to accomplish these. Recognizing what is happening at this point. Recognizing other persons to enlist to help achieve the objectives. Discovering approaches to manufacture quality to fulfill the objectives (for instance, what aptitudes need to be created or what connections kept up). Coordination The mission of Coordination is to assist persons with developmental disabilities and other groups needing assistance in determining and meeting their needs in ways they prefer. The organization works to do this by assisting individuals to become active members of their communities with equal rights and responsibilities. Service Coordination helps people develop and obtain high quality supports and services that are the least intrusive to meet their desires and needs and support their personal goals. Service Coordination believes that each persons values, dignity, happiness, and rights must be respected Services. Administration Coordination is an association that plans anticipates people with formative handicaps in light of the trusts and longs for these people. With the conviction that individuals with formative incapacities are qualified for the same rights as others, Service Coordinators help people in finding assets and bolstering for themselves, such that their needs are persistently met. strength Quality construct model centers with respect to the quality of the elderly individual as opposed to on their shortcoming, issues or deficiencies. The elderly individual is the primary in control and there is no hope without its approbation. All things considered, the support and right to assent from the elderly is worked out. Another quality to consider is that the group serves as an asset as opposed to a hindrances. Furthermore, in conclusion elderly individuals keeps on learning ,develop and change regardless of what their maladies and handicaps are. Weakness One conceivable destruction of the model is that it will get to be inadequate in the piece of the more established individuals if there is absence of coordination among different areas of wellbeing and human administrations assigned for them. Another shortcoming of this methodology is that obstructions might potentially happen which will impact the effectivity of this model. Boundaries here and there exists in executing confirm based practice among the quality of the more established individuals. Point of view Appraisals are considered in a social responsive way to distinguish assets that can expand administration interest and backing the accomplishment of settled upon objectives. Engagement and evaluation are portrayed by the accompanying: a. sensitivity to the ability of the individual or family to be locked in b. a non-debilitating way c. respect for the individual, self-sufficiency and classifiedness d. adaptability Social responsive evaluation can be incorporate the more established individuals decision or inclinations in regards to dialect of decision and religious, racial, ethnic and social foundation.

Garner v. Tennessee Case

A case in which the court ruled that a Tennessee â€Å"fleeing felon† law was unconstitutional because it legalize the use of deadly force by police when a suspect poses no immediate threat to the police or others. The court ruled that the use of deadly force was a Fourth Amendment seizure issue subject to a finding of â€Å" reasonableness. †Father, whose unarmed son was shot by police officer as son was fleeing from the burglary of an unoccupied house, brought wrongful death action under the federal civil right statute against the police officer who fired the shot, the police department and others. The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Harry W. Wellford, J. , after remand, rendered judgement for defendant, and father appealed. The Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit, and remanded. Certiorari was granted.The Supreme Court held that: apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment’s reasonablene ss requirement; deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others; Tennessee statute under authority of which police officer fired fatal shot was unconstitutional because it authorized use of deadly force against apparently unarmed, non dangerous fleeing suspect; the fact that unarmed suspect had broken into a dwelling at night did not automatically mean that he was dangerous. At about 10:45 p. m.  on October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright were dispatched to answer a prowler inside call.The fleeing suspect, who was appellee-respondent’s decedent, Edward Garner, stopped at a 6-feet-high chain link fence at the edge of he yard. With the aid of a flashlight, Hymon was able to see Garner’s face and hands. He saw no sign of weapon, and, though not certain, was reasonab ly sure and figured that Garner was unarmed, He thought Garner was 17 or 18 years of age and about 5’5’’ or 5’7’’ tall. While Garner was crouched at the fence, Hymon called out Police! and took a few steps toward him. Garner then began to climb over the fence. Convinced that if Garner made it over the fence he would ran away, Hymon shot him.The bullet hit Garner in the back of the head. Garner was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounce dead on the operating table. Ten dollars and a purse taken from the house were found on his body. In using deadly force to prevent the escape , Hymon was acting under the authority of a Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. The statute provides that â€Å" if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee, or forcibly resist, the officer may use all necessary means to affect the arrest. † The District Court concluded that Hymon’s action were auth orized by the Tennessee statute, which in turn was constitutional.Hymon had employed the only reasonable and practicable means of preventing Garner’s escape. Garner had recklessly and unmindfully attempted to jump over the fence to escape, thereby assuming the responsibility to be risk of being fired upon. The Court of Appeals for Six Circuit affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted in good-faith according to the Tennessee statute and was therefore within the scope of his qualified immunity. It remanded for reconsideration of the possible liability of the city, however. Justice White then delivered the opinion of the by saying â€Å" This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon.We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is deemed necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threa t of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only if reasonable. The Tennessee statute failed as applied to this case because it did not adequately limit the use of deadly force by distinguishing between felonies of different magnitudes. The facts as found, did not justify the use of deadly force under the Fourth Amendment.Officer cannot resort to deadly force unless they have probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a felony and poses a threat to the safety of the officers or a danger to the community if left on the loose. The State of Tennessee, which had intervened to defend the statute, appealed to this court. The city filed for petition for certiorari. Whenever an officer restrain the freedom of a person to walk away, he has seized that person. While it is not always clear just when minimal police interfe rence become a seizure, there can be no question that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.A police officer may arrest a person if he has probable cause to believe that person committed a crime. Petitioner and appellant argued that if this requirement is satisfied, the Fourth Amendment has nothing to say about how that seizure is made. This submission ignores the many cases in which this Court, by balancing the extent of the intrusion against the need for it, has examined the reasonableness of the manner in which a search or seizure is conducted. To determine the constitutionality of a seizure â€Å"we must balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interest against the importance of the government interest alleged to justify the intrusion.†Because one of the factors is the extent of the intrusion, it is plain that reasonableness depends on not on ly when a seizure is made, but also how it is carried out. Notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The intrusiveness of a seizure by means of deadly force is unmatched. The suspect‘ s fundamental interest in his own life need not be elaborated upon. The use of deadly force also frustrate the interest of the individual, and of society, in judicial determination of guilt and punishment. Against these interests are ranged governmental interest in effective law enforcement. It is argued that overall violence will be reduced by encouraging the peaceful submission of suspects who know that they may be shot if they flee.Effectiveness in making arrest requires the resort to deadly force, or at least the meaningful threat thereof. Being able to arrest such individuals is a condition precedent to the state’s entire system of law enforcement. † Without in any way disparaging the importance of these goals, we are not such convinced that the use of deadly force is sufficiently productive means of accomplishing them of justify the killing of nonviolent suspects. The use of deadly force is a self-defeating way of apprehending threat of deadly force might be thought to lead to the arrest of more live suspects by discouraging escape attempts, the presently available evidence doe not support this thesis.The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspect, whatever the circumstances, is unconstitutionally unreasonable. It is no better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot doe not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non dangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute in unconstitutional because as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.It is not, however, unconstitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon of there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster. We do not deny the practical difficulties of attempting to assess the suspect’s dangerousness. However, similarly difficult judgement must be made by the police in equally uncertain circumstances.Nor is there any indication that the States that allow the use of deadly force only against dangerous suspects, the standard has been diffi cult to apply os has led to a rash of litigation involving inappropriate second-guessing of police officers‘ split-second decisions. Moreover, the highly technical felony or misdemeanor distinction is equally, if not more, difficult to apply in the field. And officer is no position to know, for example, the precise value of property stolen, or whether the crime was a first or second offense. Finally, as noted above, this claim must be viewed with suspicion in light of the similar self-imposed limitations of so many police department.The District Court concluded that Hymon was justified in shooting Garner because state law allows, and the Federal Constitution does not forbid the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felony suspect if no alternative means of apprehension is available. This conclusion made a determination of Garner’s apparent dangerousness unnecessary. The court did find, however, that Garner appeared to be unarmed, though Hymon could not be certain that was the case. Restated in Fourth Amendment terms, this means Hymon had no articulable basis to think Garner was armed. In reversing, the Court of Appeals accepted the District Court’s factual conclusions and held that the facts, as found, did not justify the use of deadly force. Officer Hymon could not reasonably believed that Garner posed any threat.Indeed, Hymon never attempted to justify his action on any basis other than the need to prevent an escape. Hymon did not have probable cause to believe that Garner, whom he correctly believed to be unarmed posed any physical danger to himself or others. The judgement of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceeding consistent with this opinion. As stated in the concept paper, in the killing of Miriam Carey by Washington DC Police. The Tennessee v. Garner case can be used as precedent in justifying the use of deadly force while she was fleeing. Where he reckless driving in attemp t to flee the scene can be consider as immediate threat to the police officers and the others.

Coca Cola Pr Crisis in Belgium

COCA-COLA CRISIS IN BELGIUM, 1999. Introduction The assignment given was to choose a case with an organization or person that suffered a PR crisis, and didn’t manage it correctly from a PR perspective, such as miss-communications with stakeholders, media etc. I chose to write about the crisis that happened in Belgium in 1999. I will analyze the steps the company took towards to solve the issue, explain what they did wrong, and give my own opinion on how they could’ve handled it better. I will end my case with a final conclusion, and what the situation is today. But firstly I will start by talking a little bit about the Coca-Cola Company.Company Profile The Coca-Cola Company is the global leader in the soft-drink industry, with world headquarters located in Atlanta, Georgia. Coca-Cola and its subsidiaries employ nearly 30,000 people worldwide. Syrups, concentrates and beverage bases for Coca-Cola, the company's flagship brand, and more than 160 other soft-drink brands ar e manufactured and sold by Coca- Cola and its subsidiaries in nearly 200 countries around the world. Approximately 70 percent of volume sales and 80 percent of profit come from outside the United States. The European market provides 26% of the company’s US$18B in revenues.Coca-Cola owns a 49% share of the European soft drink market, compared to Pepsi-Co’s 5%. Coca-Cola’s Corporate Mission Statement We exist to create value for our share owners on a long-term basis by building a business that enhances The Coca-Cola Company’s trademarks. This also is our ultimate commitment. As the world’s largest beverage company, we refresh that world. We do this by developing superior soft drinks, both carbonated and non-carbonated, and profitable nonalcoholic beverage systems that create value for our Company, our bottling partners, our customers, our share owners and the communities in which we do business.In creating value, we succeed or fail based on our abili ty to perform as worthy stewards of several key assets: 1. Coca-Cola, the world’s most recognized trademark, and other highly valuable trademarks. 2. The world’s most effective and pervasive distribution system. 3. Satisfied customers, to whom we earn a good profit selling our products. 4. Our people, who are ultimately responsible for building this enterprise. 5. Our abundant resources, which must be intelligently allocated. 6. Our strong global leadership in the beverage industry in particular and in the business world in general.Additionally, Coca-Cola has a stated commitment to social responsibility through philanthropy and good citizenship. The company's reputation for good corporate citizenship results from charitable donations, employee volunteerism, technical assistance and other demonstrations of support in thousands of communities worldwide. Coca-Cola Management From 1984 to 1997, Robert Goizueta ran Coca-Cola like; â€Å"a ship in calm waters† as we m ay say, it was going smoothly. In his 13 years at the helm of Coke as CEO, Goizueta transformed Coke from an Atlanta cola company to an international brand phenomenon.Analysts and employees alike viewed Goizueta like a â€Å"God. † In 1997, Doug Ivester succeeded Roberto Goizueta as CEO of Coke following Goizueta’s death from lung cancer. Ivester, an employee of the company since 1979, had previously been Goizueta’s right hand financial engineer and later his chief operating officer. On the face of it, the transition would appear seamless. Doug Ivester has often been described as a very â€Å"rational† man with a â€Å"bulldog† leadership style. James Chestnut, Coca-Cola’s chief financial officer, says Ivester is a â€Å"terribly rational† manager.He states, â€Å"Doug believes everything should go through a logical sequence. He’s fixed on where he wants the company to be. † Ivester’s recent focus had been on two potential acquisitions to increase Coca-Cola’s presence in Europe: Orangina in France and Cadbury Schweppes. The tactics Ivestor pursued to acquire Orangina and Schweppes, however, has been met with much criticism, especially by Europeans. A July article appearing in Fortune magazine summarized the conventional wisdom this way: â€Å"the way Coke went about the acquisitions – arrogantly, urgently, intensely – absolutely reflects Ivester’s personality.And it’s not working. † Other analysts who have followed Coca- Cola for years believe that if Goizueta were still running the company, controversy surrounding the recall in Europe would not be festering as it was under Ivester. The Source of the Problem The outbreaks appeared to be caused by two sources, contaminated carbon dioxide and fungicide sprayed on wooden pallets used to transport the product. The contaminated carbon dioxide found its way into the product at a bottler in Belgium.The comp any was unable to determine whether the carbon dioxide was already contaminated when the bottler received it or whether contamination occurred later, at the bottling facility. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Anton Amon, Coca-Cola’s chief scientist, said that, â€Å"contrary to Coke procedure, the plant wasn’t receiving certificates of analysis from the supplier of the gas, Aga Gas AB of Sweden. This certificate vouches for the purity of the CO2. † A CCE spokesman confirmed this statement and acknowledged that the company did not test the CO2 batch at the Antwerp plant.In either case, key quality control procedures were not followed. At the Coca-Cola bottling facility in Dunkirk, France, the plant received wooden pallets that had been sprayed with a fungicide that left a medicinal odor on a number of cans. Jennifer McCollum, a spokeswoman for Coca-Cola, described the substance as p-chloro-m-cresol or PCMC, â€Å"a chemical commonly found in wood pr eservatives and cleaning fluids. † The Environmental Chemicals Data and Information Network (ECDIN) states that PCMC can be absorbed through the skin and cause redness, burning sensation, pain and skin burns.If inhaled, the chemical can cause symptoms such as cough, sore throat, shortness of breath, headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, unconsciousness, and may cause effects on the central nervous system, liver and kidneys. These more severe conditions are said to require large doses or chronic exposure to the chemical. Coca-Cola said that the substance was sprayed on approximately 800 pallets used to transport cans produced in Dunkirk to Belgium. The supplier of the pallets was said to be Dutch. The company, however, declined to name the company, stating only that it was not one of their regular suppliers.The foul odor is believed to have caused numerous symptoms, including upset stomachs, headaches and nausea after drinking the product. Dr. Hugo Botinck, medical director at St. Joseph’s Clinic in Belgium and one of the first physicians to see these patients, stated in an interview that affected persons were treated for, â€Å"headaches, dizziness, nausea and muscular vibration. † He added that, â€Å"some of them were vomiting, but there was no fever. † Bottling and International Distribution One of Coke’s greatest strengths lies in its ability to conduct business on a global scale while maintaining a â€Å"multilocal† approach.At the heart of this approach is the bottler system. Bottling companies are, with only a few exceptions, locally owned and operated by independent business people, native to the nations in which they are located, who are contractually authorized to sell products of The Coca-Cola Company. These facilities package and sell the company’s soft drinks within certain territorial boundaries and under conditions that ensure the highest standards of product quality and uniformity. Coca-Cola Ente rprises (CCE) manages most of the European bottlers. The Coca-Cola Company controls a 40% interest in CCE. Coca-Cola Belgium.Belgium was introduced to Coca-Cola in 1927. Today Belgium is among the world’s top 20 countries in terms of per capita consumption of Coca-Cola products. The Coca-Cola Company currently employs close to 2,000 people and serves up to 30,000 restaurants, supermarkets and other customers in that country. Coca-Cola France. Coca-Cola was introduced in France in 1933. Coke has been the number- one soft drink in France since 1966 with total sales doubling over the past eight years. Coca- Cola France employs more than 1,000 French citizens and has invested more than 3 billion francs in local economy since 1989.Today, French consumers drink an average of 88 servings of Coca- Cola products each year. External Factors Involved In May and June of 1999, it is fair to say that Coca-Cola executives vastly underestimated the sensitivity of European consumers to food c ontamination issues in light of the existing social and political environment. Contributing to the anxiety was the â€Å"mad-cow† crisis that had taken place three years earlier. Additionally, the Coke incident coincided with a recent governmental ban on the slaughter of pork and poultry in Belgium.Earlier in June, cancer-causing dioxin was found in a large shipment of meat, which was believed to have originated through contaminated animal feed. In the end, this scandal forced the resignation of Belgian Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dahaene as well as the country’s health minister. With the Belgian government facing elections on June 13, all political platforms were under scrutiny. In the wake of the Coke crisis, European government agencies were scrambling to protect their reputations as watchdogs, taking a high-profile role in contamination issues.Consumers had previously considered Coke invulnerable to contamination concerns due to the artificial, manufactured nature of t he product. In addition to its proximity to other food scares in Europe, the crisis also occurred at a time when Coke was looked upon unfavorably by the European Commission. Earlier in 1999, Coke had made plans to acquire Cadbury Schweppes brands around the world. The European Commission was opposed to this acquisition, viewing Coca-Cola as excessively dominant. The company was forced to scale back its acquisition plans. Coca-Cola’s ResponseBy the time the recall was completed, 249 cases of Coke-related sicknesses were reported throughout Europe, concentrated primarily in Belgium. A total of 15 million cases of product were recalled costing the bottler, Coca-Cola Enterprises (CCE), an estimated $103 million dollars. When the outbreak began, Coca-Cola executives waited several days to take action. Viewing the issue as low-priority, an apology to consumers was not issued until more than a week after the first public reports of illness. Top company officials did not arrive in Be lgium until June 18, ten days after the first incident was reported.The company’s casual and muted approach to the crisis was first made evident in its neglect to mention the May 12 incident – in which affected consumers suffered similar symptoms – once the other cases were reported, beginning in June. Ivester remained largely silent, at least publicly, throughout the crisis. He admitted that he happened to be in Coke’s Paris office on June 11, shortly after the first wave of illness reports surfaced, and was briefed in person on the Belgian situation. Ivester and Belgian Coke executives attributed the problem to a bad batch of carbon dioxide and â€Å"hardly a health hazard. The next day Ivester boarded a plane back to Atlanta, as planned. On June 14, the Belgium government ordered all Coca-Cola products off the market and halted production at bottling plants in Antwerp and Ghent. The government took the lead to protect consumers from the health scare, rather than Coca-Cola management. Coca-Cola issued a statement on June 15 from Atlanta (see Exhibit 1) refuting the contamination claims. On June 16, Ivester released a statement under his name (see Exhibit 2) expressing regret for the problems, but he mostly left the public side of the damage-control campaign to company spokesmen and CCE.On June 18, Ivester realized the magnitude and impact of the crisis and arrived in Belgium for the first time to manage the crisis. Ivester’s mission to Europe was his most visible step during the crisis and came only after the number of reported cases had ballooned to more than 200. Coca-Cola officials avoided the media, however, stating afterward that this decision was in response to a request from the Belgian Minister of Health, Luc van den Brossche, asking that the crisis be handled out of the public eye. ConclusionIn conclusion Coca Cola didn’t handle the situation properly by not communicating in a timely manner with the stakeho lders. The crisis represented vast damages to Coca Cola’s reputation and total cost of 66 million pounds. The main reason for the mistakes it was the lack of authority of local executives (Ivester). Coca Cola identified the reason for the fails in communications and consequently empowered the local teams to deal with this sort of situation. The lessons from this case study show how important it is to communicate with stakeholders.

Napoleon Bonaparte s Influence On France And Many Nations

Thesis: Although Napoleon Bonaparte had a lot of success throughout his career, he had many disasters happen to him as well that negatively affected France and many other European nations. Due: January 11, 2016 Option #1 Although Napoleon Bonaparte had a lot of success throughout his career, he had many disasters happen to him as well that negatively affected France and many other European nations. At first, he was viewed as a hero in France’s eyes after helping them win the Battle of Fulton against Great Britain. Soon after, he made mistake after mistake which caused him to not be viewed as a hero anymore. He eventually caused so much trouble that he was sent into exile. Napoleon Bonaparte was born into a middle-class family in†¦show more content†¦The new government he established was called The Consulate. A publicist is then held which Napoleon is named the leader for life. His title then becomes Consul. Napoleon then wrote the Napoleonic Code which fixed a lot of issues lower class French people were looking for a resolution for. Now, there was no privileges of birth, freedom of religion, Public education for men, and all men were equal. Shortly after Napoleon is named Consul, he sold the Louisiana Territory in the North America to the United States in order to raise money for his army. This helps France a lot and put the United States on good terms with France. Despite this major gain in funds, France loses the pivotal Battle of Trafalgar against Great Britain. France lost mainly because Great Britain had one of the strongest navies in the world. This would also really help Great Britain in a blockade that France set up later on. In 1806, Napoleon entered the German city of Berlin and conquered it. At this point, France had conquered a good portion of Western Europe and Napoleon was at the peak of his career. Now only Great Britain stood in France’s way of making a great empire. Instead of attacking Great Britain directly, France set up a naval blockade around it to starve them into surrendering and also set up an embargo on British products that all of France’s allies had to comply with. This was called the