Let's talk about panic defenses. What they are and what they mean. Because I just saw multiple people claim that murdering trans people is "legal" in 30 states.

Stop. Claiming. That. The. Defense. Being. Legal. Makes. The. Action. Legal.

A panic defense is an attempt at an affirmative plea to either the judge or the jury to consider for either an insanity defense or to try to lighten the sentence.

There are no statistics on how often this _works_, but it isn't common to even attempt it, and to the degree it does "work" it is more often going to be to the tune of a lighter sentence or charge, for example in Louisiana trying to get a 2nd degree murder charge reduced to manslaughter, because in Louisiana "sudden passion" and "heat of blood" are affirmative defenses to reduce the charge.

But even then it needs to work to get you there in the first place.

But note: even if it succeeds in that case the result is not "it is now legal," it is the difference between "life in prison without the possibility of parole" and "40 years in prison with the possibility of parole after 26 years."

Which is a far, far cry from "legal."

Often, however, it doesn't even get past the judge or get to a jury. When Allen Andrade attempted it the judge basically rolled their eyes and gave him the maximum sentence he could get away with, including with a hate crime addendum.

When Louis Church attempted it he ended up plea bargaining to avoid a jury trial—extremely standard—and being convicted for manslaughter. The judge basically ignored his reasoning and gave the maximal sentence available under the law.

I can go on.

In short: panic defenses are no good. We _should_ support and advocate for banning them. They _are_ scary. AND ALSO.

They do not render the actual action remotely "legal" and, to the degree they even _can_ succeed, they frequently _don't_.