testfactor

I will say, the longer I look at that, the less confident I am that there is any difference at all, lol.

If I saw this, I think I'd take and eat one? Like, I do love a good raisin...

It kind of depends on the facts and your jurisdiction. With the button, maybe? With a death note book, almost certainly not.

When proving the elements of attempted murder (or any non-statutory crime), the state has to prove both "mens rea" and "actus rea" (that you intended to do the thing and that you tried to do the thing), but when you're being charged for something "attempted" you have the defense of "impossibility," when the actions you are trying to take couldn't have possibly worked.

Now, that doesn't cover cases where you were only wrong in point of fact. For instance, buying fake drugs from a cop. But it does cover instances like using a voodoo doll.

There's more detail on all the above in the illustrated guide to law, which is a pretty solid resource for stuff like this. Here are the relevant sections:

Actus Rea Explanation: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=261

Attempted Crimes: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=344

Impossibly Defense: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=416

I should have been more clear I suppose. I support all of the restrictions that were in place, and I think it's bad they were rolled back.

My response wasn't intended to say the changes were bad, but was rather in response to a general sentiment that I was seeing in the comment section. Both on this post and others when the topic of minors in the work force comes up.

My brother in Christ, I literally say in the comment you replied to that all of the protections that were rolled back (including all the ones you just mentioned) are important, and that it's a bad thing they were removed.

Who are you even arguing against?

That's not the only comment taking a similar position though. Just an example. I made my own top level comment to address something that seems like a more general trend when this issue comes up.

I agree. Children shouldn't have to work to support their families.

None of the regulations that were stripped away have anything to do with that though, as far as I can tell.

So that problem exists in any world where we let kids work at McDonald's for some spending money.

I mean, the comment literally right above mine is about how if we let kids work then they're gonna be molested by their bosses. That has nothing to do with any of the restrictions being rolled back.

And look, I'm not campaigning against any of the protections that got rolled back. I think it's bad they did, and would be totally for them being reinstated. 1000%.

And maybe I'm just off base. I feel like I have seen a lot of "children shouldn't be allowed to get jobs" rhetoric of late in this context. But it's entirely possible that most people are totally on board with 16yo's having jobs, and what I'm seeing is just a vocal minority.

Are you saying this didn't happen?

The gospels were, while written decades after the fact, written by people who were alive at the time. It's not really a game of telephone.

It turns out that when a guy dies in his early 30s, most of his buddies are still alive 30-50yrs later.

I mean, I agree that it's unaffordable, and that building up is a solution to that, but homelessness is rarely caused by housing costs being too high.

Most people who can't afford the rising cost of living in an area either add roommates or move somewhere cheaper.

To end up in a tent in an encampment is almost always correlated with drug use or mental illness.

Which isn't to say we shouldn't take care of those people. We should. But lack of housing is almost never the limiting factor there.