Soxbadger

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jul 17, 2013 -> 04:18 PM) It doesn't mean that at all. The game has always negotiated separately with schools. The ncaa does not own the school's licensing rights. The only thing that changes is the name on the cover. College Football '15 it is. Yes but if you read between the lines the NCAA is trying to distance itself from any potential lawsuit by saying "It wasnt us, it was the school" So now schools will have to license without the cloak of authority from the NCAA. Id guess that a few schools play it safe and dont renew their licenses due to concerns of potential future lawsuit.

Steve is the smarts. The NCAA is worried about lawsuits by players saying that the NCAA is making money off of them. It has nothing to do with exclusive license. In comparison the NFL/NFLPA have agreements with the players where they can license their image. Which is why back in the day a few players were not named, because they did not individually agree to it.

Well Im guessing Qatar has the money to pay for this change. If they can build floating cloud air conditioners, they can pay off a few executives.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 17, 2013 -> 02:57 PM) The more you break it down, the more sympathetic and understanding they seem. This entire piece reads: "perfect little angel from a broken home and no country leans on his only role model, a more and more devout Muslim seeking jihad." They're painting a portrait of a kid who had no choice but to murder people. Why cant they break it down and say (and since neither of us have read the article who really knows where it goes): "Regardless, nothing that happened in his life should have lead him to do what he did and he will soon find out that there is nothing glamorous about a life without parole." For all I know someone reads that article and decides against doing something stupid because they dont want to spend the rest of their life in a cell.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 17, 2013 -> 02:35 PM) With Manson they didn't go out of their way to make him look cool. LULZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/rolling-stone/2 "Charles Manson The Incredible Story of the Most Dangerous Man Alive" Id say that tag line is doing just that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 17, 2013 -> 01:51 PM) The stand that you don't have to support things you don't believe in? All this sounds like some fauxrage from yourself over some fauxrage. lulz What exactly do these people not believe in? I was bored at lunch, read into this and started laughing. IM SO MAD THAT A MAGAZINE REPORTED ON AN EVENT THAT HAPPENED, ROAR ROAR ROAR Sorry but that is just effing hilarious.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 17, 2013 -> 01:40 PM) That's always the downside to taking a stand, but if someone feels that taking a stand is worth it, then do it. Right Im just asking what stand are we taking here? That we arent going to write articles about people who do bad things anymore? That only "certain" magazines can write articles about people who do bad things? I have no problem with people who want to stand for something, I just generally think there should be something to actually stand for. Not just some selective rage by a company to try and get some free publicity.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 17, 2013 -> 01:25 PM) Yeah, let's compare anything now to something 40 years ago. That's 2 generations difference. lol Its the same magazine isnt it? If we are going to get all fauxrageous about a magazine putting a murderer on the cover, lets talk about the fact that one of the most famous covers of said magazine is of a murderer. Its as if people are just finding out that Rolling Stone likes to be edgy and push boundaries. The irony is, I wouldnt have even known about the cover unless people went all fauxrage. Interestingly enough, the fauxrage made it more public not less. So wouldnt the best idea be, just to say nothing, so that no attention is drawn to it? Certain irony in that argument, isnt there.

Right so Rolling Stone putting Charles Manson on the cover... http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures...manson-28695264 That was 40 years ago, people now just fauxraging?

This is always curious. Time has had the following people on the cover: Hitler, Stalin, Mao And of course: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19990503,00.html http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19950501,00.html Is this outrage just because its Rolling Stone? Cause they already have had a Manson cover http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/rolling-stone/2#i61

I have to disagree. Even if his motives were entirely racist, he can call the police if he truly believed something bad was going to go down. Its then up to the police to use their judgment to determine whether it is worth actually investigating. It hurts no one for a cop car to drive by Trayvon and ask "Hey are you lost, do you need a ride somewhere?"

Yeah im not sure anyone is saying that Zimmerman cant call the police, or calling the police is a bad thing. I think its the entire "taking justice into your own hands" that most of us find troubling. I hate to say it but in the grand scheme of things a house being robbed is not worth an innocent life. If you go through the outcomes of Zimmerman's actions, there are very few that are "good", most of them very from bad to extremely bad.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 03:34 PM) I really think in these instances this is more of an example of ignorance of crime and crime statistics than ignorance because he is racist. At least more often than not. Iamshack, The article itself is may or may not be racist. But the article definitely does not address the issue of a system that has an inherent racial bias and why that bias impacts every single statistic related to that system. Simply put, you can not logically conclude that any given black man is more likely to commit a crime than any given white man. From the data you can conclude: That the only group who almost always is accused more than arrested is black people. If you then think about that rationally, it gets to the heart of the issue. When in doubt, its probably a black guy. That is the underlying inherent racism, and people can pretend it doesnt exist, but many of us know the truth. Which is why an article like that is so dangerous. It basically says "its okay to think this way because of stats."

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 03:13 PM) Well in fairness after he said stop-and-frisk was justified he did actually acknowledge it violates young black men and said these kinds of problems for black people actually exist and aren't new which is more than I could say for most other articles like that. But the article is entirely faulty as many would argue that crime stats are inherently biased due to the fact that whether you are arrested/charged/convicted can be based on race/sex. And when you look at the stats, youll notice the only race which is a suspect more than it is arrested is (outside of 1 "other felony sex crimes")... Black people. Oh society, how you create a system where the systematic racism is then used as a reason for why we should be more suspicious of that race. Good show, good show.

lostfan, Sometimes you just have to accept that a certain subset will just never see/understand what it is like to be "other". It was a lot simpler when people were just overtly racist.

This is a little bit putting the cart before the horse, but its amazing that in this day and age people are still mixing alcohol and painkillers. Its one thing to purposefully kill yourself, its another to just be stupid about drugs.

I never thought about this before, but if you use self defense, should the state then be allowed to call you to testify even though your 5th amendment right says otherwise? http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-pros...ories.html?vp=1 Basically the 5th amendment is to protect a defendant from incriminating themselves. But isnt an "affirmative defense" the equivalent of speech? The defendant basically gets to say something and the prosecution has no ability to cross examine what they said.

http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-gun-...topstories.html Im pretty sure the bravado is starting to get to them, insinuating you are going to hold people responsible? Id take my victory and gtfo of town.

Its not really the prosecutions fault. There were no smoke and mirrors to be played here. You have crappy laws and crappy facts. When in doubt its supposed to go to the defendant. I dont think a single person can honestly say with 100% certainty that at that split second Zimmerman did not legitimately think he was going to be killed. Which is ultimately why govts like to have other laws to make it easier to stick someone for this. IE If it wasnt legal for Zimmerman to walk around the street with a gun, then perhaps you charge him with felony murder and you get a conviction. But without that, not much to try and pin on Zimmerman.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 02:16 PM) I don't think we're on the same wave length here. All i'm saying is that the verdicts in both cases do not become findings of fact for the purpose of the case. In the civil case with OJ they still had to show under a lesser burden that he killed those people before they could win. OJ couldn't prevent the suit based on his NG verdict. Same with Zimmerman. He can't just say I have this not guilty verdict, they decided I shot in self defense, you can't sue me. He's going to have to defend the self defense angle again in the civil case (unless he wins a SYG hearing). Im not a fortune teller but the difference is going to be that Zimmermans attorney will file a motion to dismiss based on the law I quoted above stating that the law provides Zimmerman immunity to civil actions because he was found not guilty. The Plaintiff will reply arguing that its a different standard yadda yadda yadda The judge will then rule. None of this could possibly happen in the OJ case, you seem to keep glossing over the fact that Zimmerman's was an affirmative defense where as OJ's was merely a "I didnt do it." The OJ trial never determined whether OJ did or did not do it, where as the Zimmerman trial (at least on its appearance) did determine that Zimmerman acted lawfully in self defense. Now is there some sort of very fine argument to made that with a different standard maybe Zimmerman did not use self defense? Sure, perhaps. But the cases are going to involve very different legal arguments, which is why OJ is not very analogous.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 02:10 PM) I guess that might be the case with murder, but at least with manslaughter, it seems like the burden would be on Zimmerman. But what do I know...this is why I decided not to practice Burden does not shift. The reason being what burden would be on the defendant? Beyond reasonable doubt standard is supposed to protect defendant, so if that was self defense standard youd basically be convicting almost every person who raised self defense. It may make more sense to relax the burden on the prosecution (does it really make sense that its beyond reasonable doubt), but that would turn into some rather complex jury instructions. Ultimately the law is created so that in a situation like this the defendant should walk more times than they are convicted. Which is why its more important to discuss what actions got here and how can they be prevented in the future. Whether that is by changing the law or just using common sense, who knows. I think common sense would go along way.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 02:03 PM) The burden of proving self defense, which would seem to be an affirmative defense, should have then been on Zimmerman's lawyers, as I always understood it. To the best of my understanding this is not how it works. I believe the burden is on the prosecution.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 01:49 PM) SB I think you're wrong. The NG verdict is not a finding that Zimmerman shot in self-defense, it's a finding that the state couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not shoot in self defense. That's where my comparison to OJ's trial comes in. If what you're saying is true, OJ should have been able to say "ok, they found me innocent, as a factual matter I did not kill those people" and he could never have been sued in a civil case. But he was, because the NG verdict is not a finding of fact. I think Zimmerman will have to prove as an affirmative matter that he shot Zimmerman in self defense. He can't rely on his NG verdict to do that. We really need to stop comparing it to OJ because they are very very different. In the OJ case the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ killed 2 people. The jury found that the prosecution did not reach its burden. In the civil trial, the plaintiff had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that OJ killed them. The criminal trial and jury trial have nothing to do with each other. The criminal case never found OJ innocent, no criminal case ever finds someone innocent, unless the person is relying on an affirmative defense, like Martin. This is why comparing to OJ is very misleading because there was an affirmative defense. Now lets look at Martin. In Martin we have a law: Now maybe there is an argument that some how in a civil case they should apply different burdens, but here is the problem, in a civil case the burden on an affirmative defense is on the party making the defense. Thus where in criminal court it was the prosecutions case to prove that it was not self defense, in a civil case it will be Zimmerman's burden to prove that it was. Which is why I believe Florida made the law I quoted, to specifically prevent liability in this situation. Im not going to dig up Florida case law, but what is the point of: If not to prevent people who use self defense from being sued in civil court? I dont really care either way, I just think that OJ and this case are pretty different.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 01:40 PM) Zimmerman didn't have to prove s*** to the state since they brought the charges on him. The state had to prove that Zimmerman did what he did with ill intent. The not guilty verdict just means Zimmerman won that aspect. He's not innocent by any means. No he is innocent. Thats what it means when you are found not guilty. It had nothing to do with "ill intent", it had everything to do with it being found that Zimmerman lawfully shot Martin in self-defense.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 01:31 PM) Well no s*** they're different. My point was the NG verdict wasn't a finding of fact that could be used in the civil trial (i.e., OJ didn't do it, or Zimmerman killed in self defense). Well that is because a not guilty verdict is evidence, its not a finding of fact. The OJ trial didnt prove he was "factually innocent", but the Zimmerman trial (to my best understanding of how the law could be applied) found that Zimmerman was lawful in shooting Martin. Unless the jury just didnt believe that the Prosecution proved that Zimmerman actually shot and killed Martin.