With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 186, 124 S.Ct. 2451, 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004)). A victim’s medical state can provide “context for first responders to judge the existence and magnitude of a continuing threat to the victim, themselves, and the public.” Bryant, 131 S.Ct. at 1159. We also consider not only whether the threat “to the first victim has been neutralized” but also whether the emergency “threatens the police and public[.]” Id. at 1158. The Supreme Court in Bryant noted that “[d]o-mestic violence cases like Davis and Hammon often have a narrower zone of potential victims than cases involving threats to public safety.” Id. However, even in domestic violence cases, the zone can extend beyond the victim. See Martin, 885 N.E.2d at 21 (<HOLDING>). Here, Medrano arrived at the fire station

A: holding that even though the declarant was not in danger she was experiencing an ongoing emergency because she did not know where her children were and she feared for their safety
B: holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination
C: holding that trial court was not required to conclude that wife was disabled for alimony purposes where she testified about her disability and offered documentation of her social security disability benefits but where she produced no medical testimony and where other evidence indicated that she was otherwise active and did not stay in bed all day as she claimed
D: holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired
A.