I’m disagreeing with your statement that “you’re only allowed to use deadly force in proportional response,” not with whether this case is being prosecuted rightly or not.

Mate, read that link I put in there. I can tell you, from experience, that if you shoot at someone stealing your property in Texas, where that penal code I posted is from, that exact portion of the statute is going to be used and you will not be convicted. It really is “anyone could have a gun or knife.” At least Texas has it so just theft has to be during the nighttime, so I guess that’s something.

You’ll also get similar worded statutes in many other states in the US, several of which, stating this again, where I’ve had the misfortune of having to research those laws. And that “reasonable belief” part about exposing yourself to risk of serious bodily injury or death? I have seen it applied to people who are simply physically larger than you. Proportional response is a moot concept.

As we got to that middle part, I was hoping it was going to turn into a neat critique of the idea of slaving yourself to a job to survive. Just really turning the screws on the idea that 18 year old kids should be planning for a career so they can “thrive” and then… that’s the sum total of life’s goals. No adventures, no exploring of the self; simply a job and maybe kids. Then it just became a straight faced sad ending.

Sorry, but that’s not exactly right, because in several areas, the prevention of death or great bodily harm also includes the scenario where if you were to attempt to reclaim control over your property, you would be putting yourself in those same risk categories. See 9.42 (3)(B) here, where I have had the misfortune of having to research the law before. In other words, if you think the person is stealing your stuff and could harm you if you try to recover said stuff… well, you’re ‘legally’ allowed to start blasting.

I’m not sure about the exact laws where the incident occurred, but in several other states that I know the law of, aggravated assault carries the exact same penalties as attempted murder. Because of the wording of the two laws, aggravated assault is much easier to prove. If you’re a prosecutor, why would you not go with the easier to prove, exact same penalty crime?

You won’t be. If I remember correctly, and I shudder at the memories, you’ll have anthropomorphized versions of the seven sins. Be warned, All hope abandon ye who enter here.

That’s what the beer hat is for.

Hades and Isaac are surprising. They’re both old enough that I would have thought they wouldn’t be flush with players right now. The fallout stuff makes sense, given its fanbase and the show’s influence. I wonder if I should go back and try to 100% either of them now…

You didn’t want to mate with that mantis anyway, trust me, bro. I’ve got your back.

The photo isn’t great, but my memory of that stretch of road is there is a curve after a bridge. If the load came off and the truck was eastbound, that giant pole would have rolled across oncoming traffic. The poor driver coming the other way never stood a chance of avoiding it.

Django and… shoot, just search for ‘tarantino nazi film’

I believe it. There once was a time, that may or may not be a memory, where the bartender would serve you if you could walk up to the bar and order. You also needed money, but a bit of bartering with scrounged flotsam from the quay could cover costs.

Damn you and your mouth-watering memory inducers!

Yes, but if you listen to the ‘reviews’ now, all you’re getting is the regurgitated product description compared to the product description of the other contenders. Except instead of the two sentences that were the original description, you get a five sentence opening about the topic, Somewhere between 12-15 sentences about the product that don’t add anything relevant (repeat)^ (for each product), and then a conclusion that’s random, arbitrary, and probably influenced by money.

At least with the older models I can see real information if I can find real reviews. If I have to extrapolate from there to today, I’m still better off.

It’s because these are two idiots trying to sound smart. I have used pre-2015 searches, because sometime between 2009-2016 is when SEO in general started being used. The AI generation just kicked it into high gear. Stuff before 2015 at least appears to offer information that isn’t just reworded lists of advertisements.

I wonder about that. Aren’t dolphins and whales non-buoyant, in the sense that they sink when they die?

Looking, I find https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-happens-when-whales-die.html

I guess the dolphin may have been at the floating stage?

Some classics are good enough to read. The problem is in forcing kids to try to do in-depth analysis. Even Charles Dickens or Charlotte Bronte isn’t all that bad to read, until you are squinting at every third word and wondering if this could mean something in the context of the whole book and just maybe you can write about it well enough in your stupid journal that you really want a B in so your parents don’t whip you with the belt again.

No, in another article from last week, he had put the amount they wanted in a separate bank account for them. It was more than the settlement amount. The bonder, at the least, isn’t going to lose money from Trump.

I mean, true heat death would also imply that even your body is spent. No neurons will be able to fire. No brain activity. You won’t be any different than dead.

Hopefully it brings consequences. Every time a bullet is fired, it is required (and I guess that must be in quotes for police officers…) that you be responsible for that bullet’s consequences. If you shoot at a legitimate threat, but hit the bystander, you should get charged. Cop, not-cop, firefighter, good samaritan with a gun, whatever. Charge them.

We actually do know if the kid kept quiet… because it mentioned in the article that he didn’t.