Prompt As we get older, we are exposed to more and more situations that require conscious and thoughtful decision-making. Often times, we
find ourselves unprepared to know exactly what we should do in that moment - where our personal values conflict with pressures,
norms, and uncertainty. In these times, it is important to be mindful of what is or isn't maintaining our personal safety.
For this "Call to Action" Assignment, find a trusted friend and talk to them about an experience you have had related to either bodily,
emotional, relational, parental or caregiver, or sexual safety. Within comfortable limits, be open, honest, and descriptive of what this
situation was like and how it made you feel. Did you experience any "off" or uncomfortable feelings or thoughts? Did you recognize that
those reactions were acting as signals to let you know it was misaligned with your personal safety?
Ask them to share a story with you, too. Ask them how they normally handle situations that disrupt their personal wellness.
Afterwards, write down what you learned from this conversation and how you will handle harmful or unhealthy situations that may arise
in the future,

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.