farmteam

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 11:51 AM) Who cares about the DNC? Ta-Nehisi isn't the DNC. Saying that the DNC is weak-willed and allows itself to be rolled by a reactionary Republican party has f*** all to do with anything TNC is writing. Why is TNC accountable for the lack of political will in the DNC? I thought shack was just saying that you can't look at things of this nature in a vacuum, and the political will to actually effect changes is a natural part of any practical discussion...

Congrats! Hope you already have a blackhawks onesie.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 04:57 PM) This is the End was fantastic, I may go see it again In the Rolling Stone article, Rogen said something to the effect of, "Go see it twice! Once baked, once not-baked. It'll be a completely different experience."

Watched 50/50 last night. Funny yet not outlandish. Very good.

Congrats! That's awesome.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 09:44 PM) Dad, please stop posting in here. Hate all you want, I love me some Suits. The Bridge was good last night. Better than the premiere, and Kruger's character was way less annoying.

2022 World Cup to be played in Winter? http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1500789/...-winter?cc=5901

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 17, 2013 -> 12:43 PM) So Rolling Stone has put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover, and has a lengthy article about him, and the blow back has already begun with CVS refusing to sell the issue. Not a fan when the "bad guys" are the ones with the cover story. Don't remember them. I know it's inevitable, but I still don't like it.

Season premiere of Suits is tonight. Oh yes.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 12:08 PM) This is where I get confused. Since Zimmerman was acquitted, it had to be because of self-defense, otherwise he'd be guilty of manslaughter by default, would he not? The only way around getting convicted of manslaughter would be in self-defense. And so, since a higher court than a civil court essentially ruled he's innocent by self-defense, wouldn't that supersede the civil in that he's now granted immunity as the law is written? This is the problem with laws...they're written so complex that you need 50 people dissecting them in order to figure out what's what. If it's right that the prosecution was the one with the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not in self-defense, then that would not immunize Zimmerman from a civil suit. This is where the different burdens of proof become important. That's because while the prosecution may not have been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not in self-defense, they may have been able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the killing was not in self-defense. Using percentages that don't actually mean anything, it's like saying that the prosecution could prove that there was a 60% chance Zimmerman did not kill Martin in self-defense. That 60% is not good enough for reasonable doubt, but it is good enough to prove preponderance of the evidence.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 12:06 PM) Yes, that's what I think...I guess I am confused because of the whole SYG thing that never really happened... Did Zimmerman's attorneys actually plead self defense as an affirmative defense? Or did they not have to do so? Yeah I'm getting confused in general, because who knows at this point what's actually true and what's just been repeated 1000 times at this point. Somewhere way back in this thread G&T (who I think is/was a prosecutor) said that the burden was on the state to prove that it was not self-defense. Must only be an affirmative defense in civil actions? Or, it's an affirmative defense in a criminal trial in the sense that the defendant has to raise it, but it's the prosecution that must prove that it wasn't self-defense?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 11:56 AM) Yeah, it would seem as though they had to, since we know Zimmerman killed Martin. If they didn't find as a matter of fact that it was in self defense, than it would seem to be the wrong verdict. I guess I should actually read the details of the verdict a bit more thoroughly. But doesn't the prosecutor have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't in self-defense? Proving it wasn't in self-defense might not have been possible with a reasonable doubt burden, but it could be with preponderance of the evidence. Though in a civil trial I would think it would be on Zimmerman to prove (by preponderance) that it was in self-defense?

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 12:43 AM) The jury's in!!! Pheg-mania!!! Since there's a decent chance I was the only person attending IU when Phegley was there, I call dibs on being the first one in on Pheg-Mania. Cerbaho and Balta can get in there as alums. Sort of like I can now with Schwarber! I love me some Hoosier catchers. /fanboyrant

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 11:45 AM) Even with the different thresholds for guilt? Did they make that finding that the actions were in self-defense? Or just that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing wasn't a result of self defense? Not sure. If they didn't, don't see how that could possibly immunize Zimmerman from a civil suit.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 11:45 AM) Even with the different thresholds for guilt? Did they make that finding that the actions were in self-defense? Or just that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing wasn't a result of self defense? Sorry, just went back and edited my original post. You're too quick.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 11:38 AM) So is this saying if the police believe you were using deadly force under those circumstances, then you are immune from having a criminal prosecution or a civil action brought against you? I just don't understand how this could be proven in any other way than in a criminal prosecution or in a civil action... I think it means if there's a specific finding of fact in a criminal trial that the actions at issue were in self-defense, then that finding suffices (for the purposes of this statute) for immunizing Zimmerman from civil liability for those actions. EDIT: Just went back and read the statute Y2HH posted. The statute is saying it can only be proven in a criminal prosecution or civil action; if it's proved in those actions, then they're immune from those actions (kind of circular, but I think you get what I'm saying). As for whether the finding of fact in a criminal prosecution would suffice to immunize Zimmerman from a civil suit, no idea (but my gut tells me it would because the initial criminal trial has a higher burden, assuming the factual/legal issues were identical). I'd assume there's Florida case law on that.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 09:35 AM) Has there been a worse group of girls on BB than Aaryn, kaitlin and GM? CBS has NEVER had to put a disclaimer before an episode like that. "On the bright side, Aaryn and GinaMarie have already been fired from their jobs outside the Big Brother house, because of the comments they’ve made on the inside." Link

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 07:59 AM) Jordan Spieth FTW. 19 years old, earned his Tour card, trip to the Open this week, a Masters berth next year, 11th in FedEx Cup standings. Crazy thing is the kid had already earned $1.2 million this season before winning the John Deere. Might have quite the career in front of him. Wow, didn't know that. That's impressive.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:56 AM) I think "trying to lose him" is doing quite a bit, honestly...but we could go back and forth on this forever. I guess it doesn't sit with me that Zimmerman's right to kill Martin seems to be predicated on the fact that he was losing a fight that I blame him for initiating. I think we'll all just agree to disagree at this point. Both of the bolded sentences sum up my thoughts on this.

Prosecution handled this really poorly, by all accounts. Such a tremendously sad situation.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 13, 2013 -> 06:09 PM) Of course. Monica Keena was so pretty before she loaded up on plastic surgery. Also finished the first episode of "Orange is the new Black" and I really liked it. It started slow but looking forward to watching the rest of the season. Jason Biggs had a funny American Pie reference in one scene. Saw this quote from Judd Apatow on Undeclared's wikipedia page, it struck me as accurate: "One reason for the death of college shows is that it's difficult to be honest about campus life on network or basic cable. It's hard to portray truthfully. The truth is, kids are high, drunk and having sex. No matter what you do, you're fudging it."

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 13, 2013 -> 12:23 AM) Such a brutal hour of tv. I liked it. I could see Kruger's character getting on my nerves, but I could also see me liking her. Outside of that rather large question mark, I thought the rest was great. Really, really thought Demian Bichir did well. QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 13, 2013 -> 12:16 PM) WAtching "UnDeclared" on Netflix. It's funny. Actually sort of close to my dorm life. Undeclared is very good. You've seen Freaks and Geeks, right?

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 01:50 PM) I believe her character has Asperger's. Was that actually said, or are you surmising it from the first episode? There's something going on there, could be Asperger's.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 11, 2013 -> 03:27 PM) Jake Johnson cracks me up, hopefully his career picks up a bit and gets in more movies. Gotta root for my fellow NT alums. And he's hilarious. Rock, I can definitely see all three of those guys being awesome to hang out with off set.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jul 11, 2013 -> 04:46 PM) It may not necessarily apply in this case, but couldn't this be used pretty easily to trick someone into incriminating themselves? What do you mean? For a lesser included offense, it's not like the "lesser" offense is a completely different charge. It's essentially a subset of the original charge.