If 당신 could get rid of any law, which one would it be?

*
In our country, or...?
CokeTheUmbreon posted over a year ago
*
^ Same question.
Jet-Black posted over a year ago
 TimberHumphrey posted over a year ago
next question »

랜덤 답변

ThePrincesTale said:
One Australian state STILL has "gay panic defence" law on their books: basically 당신 can assault / kill someone if 당신 think they're making unwanted same-sex advances. It doesn't apply to unwanted heterosexual advances. Thankfully they're getting rid of it this year.

Also some of the dumbass laws restricting embryo use in scientific research. Right now, scientists can only use excess embryos from IVF procedures (only if the man and women give consent ofc, and also under extremely strict conditions, eg. they cannot let it grow bigger than a few dozen 또는 hundred cells). Keep the strict conditions, but let scientists COMBINE the egg and sperm from consenting donors, rather than waiting for excess ones that are already-combined due to IVF. There's no ethical difference. And 의해 increasing the number of embryos available in research, it would be extremely helpful in researching therapeutics that could save millions of lives.

Don't even get me started on dumb "corporations can do whatever they want without legal / financial consequences" laws.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
Gay panic defense? Sounds like something they teach 당신 in the army.
Seanthehedgehog posted over a year ago
*
Lolol oh LOL yeah the army has some... very questionable... approaches to LGBT rights
ThePrincesTale posted over a year ago
*
Didn't Trump ban trans people from serving in the US military last year?
ThePrincesTale posted over a year ago
kingcesar67 said:
Since it says ANY law: Self defense counting as assault in some states. If it were up to me, 당신 should be allowed to kill someone without being charged if they are threatening your life.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
Hmm I don't know of any state that doesn't allow self-defence? It just has to be "reasonably proportionate" to the threat. If some severely drunk guy says "I'll kill ya" while swaying on his feet without any sort of weapon nearby, killing him wouldn't be a proportionate response. But if some guy is standing in front of 당신 with a 칼, 나이프 in hand threatening to kill you, but 당신 kill him first, the court will find self-defence.
ThePrincesTale posted over a year ago
*
Which is probably where "The person must have believed that the conduct was necessary for self-defence" would come into play. So like if the 6 foot person gave one strike and the person backed off but they kept hitting, that would be unreasonable. But if the smaller person kept fighting after the one 펀치 then it isn't. Lmao at "fuck around and find out".
zanhar1 posted over a year ago
*
Like thankfully I've never had to, but I like to think that I'd be able to put up a good fight.
zanhar1 posted over a year ago
next question »