You are allowed to try to use the defense in some places, but there's no guarantee that it will work. It is banned in DC and 30 states: California, Illinois, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Washington, D.C., Georgia, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Texas, Virginia, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Arkansas, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Delaware, Michigan. Put another way, it's banned for about 76% of the US population. Does it actually work a lot when it is used? Did it ever? Note that the case you're referencing is from 1944, for instance.
I think the point is that THE DEFENSE STILL EXISTS IN SOME CAPACITY.
As a gay guy I've had str8 ppl tell me "you can still go to Egypt just you know, don't be gay". It's infuriating, depressing, and so much more.
Honestly, sometimes I kind of understand the tiniest bit of the queer peeps that were getting extra spicy like last year. Society is an amorphous blob of averages and if you don't fit into the average...well.
Doesn't work that way in Canada. In 2010, a 37-year-old male got 6 years for sucker-punching a 62-year-old male who made advances toward him in bar in the Vancouver west end (lotsa gays there). The 62-year-old fell, hit his head, and died as a result.
Best way to shorten a murder sentence seems to be to just do it with your car. It's crazy what people seem to get away even if they're clearly deranged, drunk, and blowing through red lights etc..
Oh, especially now in British Columbia with "no fault insurance". At-fault drivers cannot be sued by victims, unless they are convicted of a crime in connection with the incident.
If you can make the vehicular homicide look like an accident, you are scot-free, except for increased insurance premiums. No criminal charges, and no civil case to face.
152km/hr in a 60 zone, drunk, on film saying "I ain't stopping for no red lights", deliberately sped up as he was about the hit the guy, didn't stop afterward, left the scene, then called in to falsely claim the car was stolen, and had been previously convicted of sexual assault. 5 years less time served, 5 years after with no license. I guess the only way you could really top that list is if he continued on to say "hey lets hit that guy and see how far he goes"
It appears inconsiderate—perhaps even dismissive—to present me, a human being with unique thoughts, humor, contradictions, and experiences, with content that reads as though it were assembled by a lexical randomizer. When you rely on automation instead of your own creativity, you deny both of us the richness of genuine human expression.
Isn’t there pride in creating something that is authentically yours? In writing, even imperfectly, and knowing the result carries your voice? That pride is irreplaceable.
Please, do not use artificial systems merely to correct your grammar, translate your ideas, or “improve” what you believe you cannot. Make errors. Feel discomfort. Learn from those experiences. That is, in essence, the human condition.
Human beings are inherently empathetic. We want to help one another. But when you interpose a sterile, mechanized intermediary between yourself and your readers, you block that natural empathy.
Here’s something to remember: most people genuinely want you to succeed. Fear often stops you from seeking help, convincing you that competence means solitude. It doesn’t. Intelligent people know when to ask, when to listen, and when to contribute. They build meaningful, reciprocal relationships.
So, from one human to another—from one consciousness of love, fear, humor, and curiosity to another—I ask: if you must use AI, keep it to the quantitative, to the mundane. Let your thoughts meet the world unfiltered. Let them be challenged, shaped, and strengthened by experience.
After all, the truest ideas are not the ones perfectly written. They’re the ones that have been felt.
Heh, nice. I suppose that was AI-generated? Your beginning:
> It appears inconsiderate—perhaps even dismissive—to present me, a human being with unique thoughts, humor, contradictions, and experiences, with content that reads as though it were assembled by a lexical randomizer.
I like that beginning than the original:
> It seems so rude and careless to make me, a person with thoughts, ideas, humor, contradictions and life experience to read something spit out by the equivalent of a lexical bingo machine because you were too lazy to write it yourself.
No one's making anyone read anything (I hope). And yes, it might be inconsiderate or perhaps even dismissive to present a human with something written by AI. The AI was able to phrase this much better than the human! Thank you for presenting me with that, I guess?
I didn't wear cleats until I was almost 14 playing baseball.. I just used tennis shoes.. some of my friends gave me a hard time about it. I could hit dingers all day so no big deal.
But you know what. I wore a helmet at every at bat. Did I really need it for every at bat?? No; But I had it.
There's a long list of dead people who went into the wilderness or hiking under prepared. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean the same outcome for others.. I know this is supposed to be a metaphor for when to buy and upgrade the tools you have. But safety should always come first.
Know how many 9 year olds I’ve seen hit in the head with a baseball, while at bat? (Many. One kid on my sons team was hit in the head for four consecutive tournaments last fall.)
Always wear a helmet when you’ve got a bat in your hand.
Obviously your idea of safety coming first is based on your exact specifications, which are unclear and known only by yourself, which isn’t actually very useful
I agree with you completely. My country has an out-of-control safety culture that has many unintended effects. For example we are one of only a handful of countries on earth with a cycling helmet law. As a result, fewer people cycle and drivers take less care around cyclists. Lots of studies have shown that at a population level it's quite possible helmet laws have a negative impact on health and safety. I am currently travelling Japan and I have seen thousands of cyclists and not a single helmet (and very little in the way of dedicated cycling infrastructure). To my knowledge Japan doesn't have an epidemic of head injuries.
Safety first doesn't mean "don't do anything unsafe," it has a broad meaning. With your interpretation I suppose it could mean if you're going to do something, be sure to consider your safety tradeoffs first.
I think “safety first” generally means that you should put safety first when you’re doing something but that I should consider the safety trade offs first when I’m doing something.
I've never experienced any deaths on hikes, but I have experienced folks suffering the initial stages of hypothermia (and not realizing it) when wearing jeans on a multi-day excursion when the weather went from dry and sunny to rainy, to icey-rain to sleet.
Unwaxed cotton absorbs water, stays wet, and shrinks when wet to make close contact with skin--three properties that one does not want when its wet and cold.
That depends on the specifics of the environment, trail, and your pants.
Indeed, going "pantsless" for short periods can be less risky if your pants are already soaked-through, it's very humid, there's ice build-up, and there's little to no risk of skin abrasion from terrain traversal.
reply