Jenksismyhero

Dang. Should taken a timeout and tried to run something. Tough loss, I f***ing hate Boeheim

here we go!

gotta start playing D

tough charge call there, might have been moving at the last second.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 07:48 PM) Live by the 3, die by the 3. or live by the 3!

there we go. come on badgers

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 05:28 PM) I don't know how you could conclude that Zimmerman started the brawl illegally beyond a reasonable doubt, not when he wqs also injured. He certainly created the circumstances, but can you tell me who made the first physical contact? Threw the first punch? Moved in a way that escalated things? If th standard is that you can shoot it you feel threatened, then all that matters is if you can prove the deceased took no aggressive acts, which you can't. All i'm saying is the guy should have been charged. Arrested at the minimum for a full investigation. Whether or not he can ultimately be found guilty given this defense is up to a jury. And its his burden to show it. I don't know why you're so hung up on him being hurt. People get in fights all the time and hurt each other. That doesn't always equate to fear of severe injury or death. The standard isn't shoot if you feel threatened. It's whether you have a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary. Plenty of people could choose not to believe that deadly force was warranted here because his "fear" wasn't reasonable given the testimony that he was potentially harassing/following the victim.

Does Bo Ryan not know how to use a timeout? How can you let Cuse go on a 13-0 run without a timeout?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 05:04 PM) If Forte was seriously worried about the non-guaranteed nature of those contracts, then he could have signed an extension 2 years ago, probably gotten $12-$15 million, and been well on his way to renegotiating already. Except that would have been less money than getting tagged twice, so he gets screwed both ways. It's pretty s***ty of the Bears to not offer him a 20-25 million dollar 3 year deal with like 15-18 guaranteed. That would have been market rate for a guy as important as he is. I understand why the Bears didn't, but it doesn't make it less s***ty for Forte.

I can understand both sides. For the Bears why would you give a guy a guarantee of 20-25 million when you can tag him for 7 a year (especially when he was so underpaid his first few seasons). From Forte's side, Chris Johnson just signed a multi-year deal with a 10 million signing bonus and 7-10 mil base per year. So i'd be angry too knowing that my paycheck is limited to a one year contract for 7.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 01:35 PM) I don't get why they b**** so much about it, it's great guaranteed money for one year. Yeah you don't get the big deal but it's an effective way to keep a player on a team while still in "negotiations" while also paying the player top dollar. Honestly I think the stupidest thing a player can do is holdout. I'd be pissed too. Instead of getting a multi-year deal with more guaranteed money (i.e., security in case of injury) he's got to play basically for yearly contracts. It's kind of bogus, especially since he's arguably the second most important player on the team.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 01:02 PM) I dint have a problem with heller. But look at bush v gore and then his somewhat recent statements on gender protection and the 14th. he makes a legislative intent argument to deny one and completely ignores it to reach a conclusion he likes. Conservatives are typically the loudest in complaining about activism and are completely blind to their own transgressions. That is what is annoying. I don't have a supposedly deep philosophical objection to it, while Scalia does but only when convenient. After bvg conservatives should have lost their right to complain about activist judges for a generation or two. I think Bush v Gore is a total outlier for most things. They were flying by the seat of their pants and were tired of the endless challenges. Not familiar with the recent gender protection/14th cases. What were those?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 01:09 PM) Well it is in the graphs, very well actually. Thanks to robust housing regulations, however, they weren't hit nearly as hard. Well i meant the tea party policies in effect in Texas. Are they similar to the ones Wisconsin enacted? If so, that would negate your point that they didn't work - they just didn't work in Wisconsin (though I agree with NSS that you're fudging the numbers by not recognizing the cuts in government jobs are obviously going to lower hiring numbers).

It's the British version of the site. Do they have the same issue with that word as we do?

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) Section 1981 specifically applies by its terms to "nongovernmental discrimination." It is invoked in civil suits against private entities all the time. I'm pretty sure a conspiracy by private individuals to deprive someone of their civil rights could be criminally prosecuted, but I'm certainly no expert. Yeah but it has to apply to other protected activities, usually employment.

And by the way, the justifiable force statute is premised on the fact that YOU (the shooter) are not doing something illegal. I'd say starting a fight is an illegal activity (battery) making this entire statute inapplicable. Since there's some pretty strong evidence out there that the dead guy was being followed and harassed, it's entirely proper (and reasonable) for a jury to conclude that Zimmerman started the brawl, engaged in criminal activity (battery) and was therefore not afforded the protection of the statute. That's why my point 2 comments ago about punching people in the face to justify killing doesn't work.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 01:14 PM) Depends a whole lot on what the actual circumstances. At the very least...it would be really hard to try you if you and I got into a fight on a street and you shot and killed me. Even if you start the confrontation, you don't have a duty to retreat, and you have every reason to believe that by killing me you can prevent a response that would cause you bodily harm. For this case to actually go to trial under that Florida statute, I can't see how it would be possible to convict if he were injured. He's already suffered bodily harm. The only thing you could really try him for is some version of assault if you think he both initiated the confrontation and struck the dead kid first...but now you're trying to figure out exactly who did what in a case where the only other eyewitness is dead. Under your reading of this statute, I could just start punching people in the face, and so long as someone looks at me funny in response, I can shoot them dead. In this case you've got a third party that is going to offer evidence that Zimmerman was the attacker. That information, along with everyone else, should be given to a grand jury to decide if there's enough to indict him for murder.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 01:02 PM) I think so (maybe). The feds could conceivably charge him based on a deprivation of Martin's civil rights. IIRC, that's what happened to the cops who originally walked on the state charges connected to the Rodney King beating. I can't see that happening, though. I just read that a grand jury's being convened. He'll be indicated for something. Edit: On the other hand, those King charges may have been conspiracy based, which might not be possible since Zim acted by himself. This was individual on individual. Civil rights/discrimination laws only cover states/state entities.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 12:43 PM) It's abundantly clear to me that if the shooter himself was injured then he's easily surpassed that standard. Who initiated the conflict really doesn't matter. Come on. If you and I get into a fight, i'm injured, we separate and later on I come after you it's reasonable that i'm in fear of serious injury or death? That's not "reasonable" fear or what a "reasonable" person would think.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 12:29 PM) Its written that the shooter needs to "reasonably feel" that he is threatened. That is extremely broad. Welcome to every other area of the law where the standard is what a "reasonable person" would do/think. This guy should have been charged. Few jurors (i.e., the racist ones) are going to say that it was "reasonable" to fear someone if you have to go after them. At the very least a prosecutor should have taken this to a grand jury.

Wonder how Texas policy in the same period compares to Wisconsin.

You guys need to step back a little bit from the ridiculousness. The statue is NOT that broadly written. It's still a factual question that would ultimately be up to a jury. If you're going to blame someone here, blame the state prosecutors for not bringing charges.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 11:29 AM) See, that is the problem. He is so staunchly against judicating from outcomes and "judicial activism," except when he isn't. The most obvious case is Bush v Gore, but iirc he had a dissent last year in the Cali prison case that explicitly reasoned from outcomes. The recent 11th amendment/fmla ruling barring residents from s uing their own state is another example of pretty blatant activism. At least the more liberal lines of judicial philosophy don't pretend to be adhering to a strict, unchanging understanding of originalism. I'd say the majority of the time that he does it it's based on something that's in the Constitution. The recent DC gun ruling is a good example. You probably view that as judicial activism, he's viewing it as just reading the plain language of the Constitution, not what the drafters intended and not what he thinks should be included. I'd bet if someone did a history of his decisions, when his rulings are a form of judicial activism they line up with something expressly written in the Constitution (or not expressly prohibited). But yes, both sides have their decision and find out the best way to use precedent/the facts to support the ruling. That's just the way it works. You don't find a woman's right to abortion in the Constitution, so you gotta find a way to argue it based on the law and public policy.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 21, 2012 -> 07:45 PM) Oh, I didn't mean my Scalia attack to sound partisan -- it just so happens that I've seen this happen with him more than any of the others. And yeah, I can imagine it would be difficult, but that's why I can appreciate a little leeway in distinguishing facts. Scalia just either A)takes WAY too much leeway when distinguishing or B)Seems to ignore his own reasoning entirely. I'd imagine that's probably because he (1) writes a ton of opinions, especially "popular" ones, and (2) he's the most anti-judicial activism judge on the Court. His baseline rule is that Judges have no businesses making law. If a legislature passes a law, that's what society wants, and that should only be changed if it's in direct conflict with something in the Constitution. This position works 95% of the time, but some of the main areas of the law we take for granted today (privacy for example) aren't covered, so his position becomes unworkable. If you're at all interested he addresses this "problem" in his book (http://www.amazon.com/Matter-Interpretation-Antonin-Scalia/dp/0691026300).

Sloppy game so far.