Soxbadger

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 01:37 PM) OTOH plenty of libertarians make explicitly that argument. I was referring to the current law, not what we may think the law should be.

Jenks, What about replace with race, religion? So would it be okay to not serve a Jew because my religion said so? Maybe a woman? What about an Asian? We both know that it would not be okay to say "I wont bake you a cake because youre a white guy marrying a black girl" Now maybe you think that should be okay, I dont know. Should we just let everyone be racist and say we have the right to be dicks? Its great if youre a white man, maybe not so great if youre anything else. Should we legislate fairness?

Ugh I think I finally have to get a new job and interview. Just too annoyed with my current bosses and having to fix the problems that they create.

Yeah back when I skiied a lot Apline was my preference over Wilmot.

Big Bang Theory has some really clever jokes that combine certain fanboy culture with science, etc. Not everyone is going to get that.

Id say no spoilers here. If you want to read what happened fine, but wait to discuss until its been on tv.

But once again, nothing you stated proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox did it. It certainly raises suspicion, maybe its even more likely than not that she did it. But if the Italian law is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that is not enough. Its not just enough to be a liar and circumstantially placed at the scene of the crime. Why? Because associating with someone who may be a murder doesnt make you a murder. Lying to police to protect your murdering boyfriend and his friends, doesnt make you a murderer. Thats the problem with the argument. There is pretty much 0 evidence to suggest Knox actually stabbed or was involved in the murder of Kutcher. Was it possible she was there? Sure, perhaps in Italy there is some sort of felony murder rule that states if you are involved in the commission of a crime that results in the murder you can be convicted of murder, but Ive yet to see you make that argument. And "enormous stretch" is exactly what the test should be. Beyond reasonable doubt means that you have NO question that Knox actually murdered her. The proper interpretation is that non of the jury should have ANY doubt as to her guilt. Im sorry but Id rather let 1000 criminals go free than 1 innocent person be wrongly convicted. The evidence just isnt there.

Her blood was found in the bathroom of the apartment she lived in. Im still not seeing how this is beyond a reasonable doubt murder conviction. Was her blood found on Kercher? Was her dna under fingernails etc? What evidence do we have to tie Knox to the actual murder, besides for you dont believe her story and think shes lying. Because thats enough to convict for murder.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 10:39 PM) I don't think NFL teams draft based on media hype as much as you're implying. Eh big time programs like Alabama/LSU are machines. Its not based on media hype, its based on the college coach hype etc. Its why you see certain schools have players over-drafted almost every year.

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 06:53 PM) Right, but when there is a large body of evidence suggesting they were directly involved the murder, failure to establish a watertight motive does not mean her conviction was suspect. It's clearly not admission that there's reasonable doubt in this case as the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and two courts found her guilty under that burden. What large body of evidence suggests Knox committed murder? Every piece of evidence you presented has suggested Sollecito's involvement. What direct evidence was there that Knox killed Kercher? Not Sollecito's footprint or dna on a knife, but something to connect Knox. Even if Knox lied about everything, thats not enough proof to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt". And its interesting you said its odd behavior to s*** in someones bathroom and take a shower, isnt even odder behavior to do that after committing murder? I mean you have to admit that the facts are pretty odd and there is really very little evidence that Knox committed murder. Perhaps obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit murder, etc, but I just dont see any hard evidence that Knox killed her.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 10:17 PM) There is a Huge correlation between star ratings and NFL draftees. So that is incorrect. Without seeing the stats Id say that makes sense because highly hyped guys are still generally hyped in college. The real question is there a correlation between star ratings and pro bowlers etc.

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 05:09 PM) Fortunately for my argument, in Italy, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution: any doubt on the defendant’s guilt will resolve in an acquittal, as the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure explicitly affirms that guilt should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Having to prove the defendant's motive is overrated due to TV shows. Criminal law states that whilst motive can be important during investigation and sentencing, courts are not generally concerned with it when determining guilt of a criminal defendant, and prosecutors need not prove the defendant's motive. They need to prove intent, but not motive. I never said they had to prove motive. Im just saying that you arent going to convince a jury that someone committed a murder for "no reason", you generally have to convince them that there is a good motive. Not having a motive, is one of the easiest ways for a defense attorney to create doubt. And just as an fyi, I get paid to try cases, so Im not basing it on tv. When you have a jury of 12 people, its hard to convince them that someone, with no history of random violence, committed murder for no good reason. Its also hard to convince a jury when you dont have 1 story, thats why I predicted Casey Anthony would be acquitted. You cant do a shotgun approach in criminal law, it works in civil where you can plead in the alternative and the burden of evidence is preponderance of the evidence (what is most likely true). But in criminal court its basically an admission that there is some doubt. How can you have no doubt, if the prosecution cant tell you exactly how/why/where/when/who committed the murder? You cant and thats why Knox's conviction is suspect.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 01:13 PM) The Big Ten West vs East recruiting comparison is hilarious right now. It makes me long for the good ol days of leaders and legends Eh come on Rock, we all know that recruiting stars is a joke to make money. You get an alabama offer you immediately are bumped to 4*/5*. If recruiting stars mattered Wisconsin wouldnt be good. Funny thing, some of the best players on Wisconsin were walk ons. That guy JJ Watt, didnt even have a *.

Im nothing. At a very young age I doubted all religions, simply because if religion X was right, part of my family was wrong and if religion y was right, the other part of my family was wrong. So did that mean no matter how good of a human I was, id go to hell (not hell) just because my family picked wrong (right)? I cant imagine that a "just" god would allow that. I couldnt imagine that if I was the greatest human being but a jew, Id go to hell, or if I was the worst and a christian id go to heaven. It just made no sense. As I grew up I became more convinced of my rightness. Not just about religion, but also about god. If god exists, then he is all knowing and all powerful. If that is true, than predestination must be true, because he already knows the end, so everyone of my actions was already predetermined whether I liked it or not. And I just dont accept that premise. So I believe that we are nothing more than a grain of sand on a very large beach. And maybe there is some sort of higher power that I cant understand, because well you cant create something from nothing. But that is it, thats the only question. Where did it all come from? Maybe the answer is it always existed. I generally dont fit in any box, because quite frankly I dont really care to be associated with others, and Im not trying to convince anyone of my ways.

Great argument, but you still havent addressed the actual legal issue: 1) What is the burden of proof for criminal conviction in Italy? In the US Knox would not have been found guilty. There is no motive, there is no clear cut explanation of what happened. In the US we arent supposed to convict people on maybes, its supposed to be definite. In 1 concise statement you should be able to tell me: Who, why, when and where about the crime. If you cant, its likely an innocent verdict. It doesnt matter if 1,2,3 are plausible, at least not in the US. Its not the defendants responsibility to prove their innocence, its the prosecutions job to prove they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And thats the system the US uses and thats why when you are arguing about Italian law, you might want to tell us what the standard/burden is, because otherwise we are going to apply the US standard, which pretty much makes youre entire argument irrelevant.

Im not about to get into an argument about the Italian legal system, because quite frankly, I dont know anything about it. But in the US, the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that means that at the end of the prosecutions case, there can be absolutely NO doubt that it was Knox. Not maybe its more likely it was Knox, you have to have 0 belief that it wasnt her, otherwise you have to find her not guilty. That is our system, its in my opinion the best system. It may not be that way in Italy, but then you have to explain to us what the burden of proof is and why under Italian law she would be guilty. Because under US law I doubt shed be convicted. She doesnt have to prove she didnt do it, the prosecution has to prove she did. There are just to many problems, the main 1 being motive. The second being that Guede broke into some sort of childrens day care days before and was found with a knife. He then randomly appears at a place where someone is murdered with a knife and flees the country. His statement to police that he saw a man who told him something like "your black youll be guilty" just seems unbelievable. So im not really sure how given that evidence anyone can be absolutely sure that Knox killed Kutcher, which is the standard of evidence required to convict in the US.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 4, 2014 -> 03:19 PM) Yes, but the quality of human rights in a country is inversely proportional to the amount a country is willing to pay under the table, so they have to choose one or the other. Option B tends to win out. Then the Olympic's shouldnt b**** when I validly point out their hypocrisy. The head(s) of the Olympics should just fly their fancy planes and hang their heads in shame.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 4, 2014 -> 02:36 PM) Because there's absolutely NOTHING political about the Olympics and the IOC... Thomas Bach, IOC President, Slam Politicians Over Sochi Olympics Maybe the Olympics shouldnt promote countries that dont recognize basic human rights. Simple solutions to stupid problems.

The Olympic selection is a sham and everyone knows it now. The next 2 Olympics could be complete train wrecks.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 4, 2014 -> 12:54 AM) um yeah they do. Uh no they dont. I cant recall a single paper where a teacher went "Well Badger, you had the best ideas, best argument, but you misspelled a word so I gave you an F." And even better, once you get to a certain level, someone proof reads all your s***. Unless now we are saying the editor is more important than the author??? But hey, if you want to show off a bunch of spelling bee awards, thats your call. Like I said, Ive never cared about spelling, never will. Say Im bad at it, I dont care lol.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Feb 4, 2014 -> 12:30 AM) I have honestly never seen you admit you're wrong. Not once. Even here when it's something as simple to prove as a spelling error, you just make a smug comment basically saying you're above needing to spell Thats because even when I was a child I used to tell people that I was above spelling and that one day computers would do it for me. Sure I got a homophone wrong, it happens to everyone, I cant spell, I freely admit it and will never say that Im a spelling champ. I do find it quite annoying when people correct peoples spelling on the internet and I always use the secretary line. Because its true, no one judges intelligence by spelling.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 05:32 PM) Sorry to be that guy, but you used the wrong word 5 times in 2 posts. What guy? My secretary? If you couldnt understand "heroin" versus "heroine" thats more on your reading comprehension and less on my lack of proofreading an internet post. Even when I get paid to write, there is someone who proofreads for me. Ptac, You have the study? Most studies Ive ever seen regarding marijuana have a problem in that many of the marijuana smokers are also cigarette smokers, so its hard to determine its impact alone.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 02:54 PM) Heroine - Joan of Arc Heroin - Diamorphine Thanks for being my secretary.

Im not sure, I cant speak from experience, I can only say what Ive seen and relay the experience of those that I know. The problem with "Dare" and "Just Say No" is that it created a false belief that all drugs were equally bad. Thus when some kids tried smoking weed, etc, and it didnt kill them, they just believed all drugs arent that bad. But some are, some are really f***ing ridiculously dangerous with almost 0 redeemable qualities. Its coincidental, but Friday I was talking about Heroine. And I flat out told my friends that we can try a lot of s***, but dont ever f*** around with needles and most specifically Heroine. Because its not even a happy drug, its a f***ing sad drug that you take when you want to dull the entire world. Which also is part of the problem, a lot of people who turn to Heroine are already partially down the path of being gone.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 09:04 AM) it's not really one of those things you can just DECIDE to stop doing one day... it's a tad more complicated than that... nonetheless I agree with you that it's incredibly selfish and stupid to not at least try and seek help given his circumstances. 10 days in rehab doesn't quite cut it imo. so stupid. It may be hard to stop, but its certainly easier to not start. I am generally not someone to say "no" to drugs, but honestly Heroine is a killer. If you are ever thinking about Heroine, dont not many people can get out of the spiral.