Rob's House

I'm not familiar with Ricky Gervais other than knowing he's a British comic, but I think a lot of the more reasoned anti-religion types are responding to a very vocal minority of the religious community. In my younger days I was on that band wagon, but had to eventually jump off as it became clear that the people with the most power and influence who wanted to impose their will based on an illogical, unsound, or unsubstantiated basis (like faith) were coming not from the religious right, but from the secular left. However, when I was on an anti-religion kick it was because it infuriated me to have people tell me that I shouldn't (or more specifically couldn't) do something for no other reason than that some 2000 year old scripture said so.

Do I get an honorable mention for being away for the last few weeks?

Speaking specifically to Penn, I've heard him discuss his religious beliefs, and his atheism is more akin to what most consider agnosticism. It's not that he's declaring that he knows there is no God, but rather that he doesn't believe in God - and then he gives a semantic breakdown of how he landed on atheism as opposed to agnosticism. His views on religion and global warming are actually pretty consistent. I'm the same here. I grew up Christian, but my analytical mind won't allow me, no matter how hard I tried in my formative years, to accept it as truth. That doesn't mean that I don't still enjoy the traditions, and unlike some non-religious folks, i don't feel the need to denigrate those who do believe.

I was thinking dog48579 has been reincarnated.

Oh goodie. Fresh meat. So do you have a substantive gripe with libertarian philosophy, and if so what do you prefer? Edit: nevermind. I was curious whether you were an idiot or a statist kneeler. After seeing the O'Reilly thread I see you are both.

It's not your final opinion on the case that is irritating, but how you get there. You base your opinion on a story we know didn't happen. But saying he chased him with a gun, despite being utter horseshit, is much better for the case you've for some reason adopted and advocated than the truth is. Also, if you were given this fact pattern on a criminal law exam & your answer was based primarily on Zimmerman getting out of the car after being advised he didn't have to, you would be lucky to slide by with a D-.

I don't know Eric Holder, and if I did I may think differently of him, but he seems to be a truly evil man who cares nothing for justice & is little more than a powerful klansman, only with the roles reversed.

Interesting comparison of 2 scenarios: Hispanic guy concerned over local break ins reports suspicious looking figure to police, is attacked and shoots his assailant - Media verdict: Burn him. Kid given opportunity to live in America uses that opportunity to inflict as much pain & suffering as possible on innocent people - Media verdict: Show compassion & understanding. This bomber better thank his lucky stars that the kid his bomb killed wasn't carrying skittles.. Boston Strong

It also shows how disengenuous the outrage over this case was. Unless you really believe this is about the centuries old legacy of Hispanics shooting down blacks.

I know the TV told you that your take on this is cool, popular, & enlightened, but to any reasonable adult you come off as a post-adolescent MTV disciple who hasn't grown enough as an individual to have learned how to critically evaluate your own thoughts. You seem like the kind of guy who would decide to like a band & become an impassioned fan because some girl you like was in to them. It's not very cool or masculine, it's actually quite weak and feminine to be led by emotion and other men. A man keeps a level head & thinks for himself. You might want to man up.

Reminds me of a pair of white liberals who took their daughter on a do-gooder mission to help impoverished Africans. When a group of Africans beat her to death for being white (despite her African friend advising them that she was "one of the good one's") her parents said they understood and forgave them.

If you had to pass a quiz on the material facts of the case before you could opine publicly, the protestors would find themselves with a silent majority.

If it's true that Byrd rejected 5/40m/20m then he's playing hardball. Rewarding that tactic by throwing "good faith" money at him when you're his only option is a horrible tactic. What's the message? If you hold out we'll throw money at you to make you like us?

Eugene Parker needs to tweak his theory on leverage.

It turns out we were lied to about the tea; it was actually watermelon punch. That distinction might be what swayed the jury.

In a state where the defendant has to prove self-defense as an affirmative defense its burden is preponderance of the evidence. In most cases when the "victim" was on top of the shooter pumping his face with his fist when he got shot you've got a pretty good case. Especially when all it appears he did to provoke the attack is report the other guy to the police. Of course if the "victim" has some cute childhood pictures & skittles all bets are off.

That's actually a pretty solid post for her. She usually just calls everybody racist, throws in a quip about Foxnews, and disappears. To her credit, she admitted the state's case was garbage and that we don't know what happened that night, which means she agrees with the ruling. I'm proud of her for taking her game up a notch. I disagree with both of you. This may have been a reasonable case at one time, but by the time it got to trial the prosecution knew what they did and didn't have, and it was clear from the outset that there wasn't sufficient evidence to establish murder 2. If you want to argue that a case could be made for manslaugher I might reluctantly concede that a weak case could be made, but just barely rising to the level of probable cause, if even that, but there was no case to be made for murder 2 and that's what they charged.

Thank God. I thought you !@#$s would never let this thread die.

It would certainly be easier to justify than a criminal conviction, especially considering puppy48579's negligence argument wouldn't get laughed out of court, but the plaintiff will still have a problem establishing causation. The "but for" causation that the retards have bee regurgitating (but for him getting out of the car...) is only half the question. They also have to establish that it was also the proximate or legal cause of TM's death. The problem is that TM punching him the face is an intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation. Therefore, they still have essentially the same legal hurdle, the bar's just been lowered a bit.

I don't know that he was necessarily talking about Kolb. He could very well have been referring to the 3 other scrubs that started last year. The Cards were winning when Kolb was playing.

I think I posted this a while back, but it's worth mentioning again. About a year or so ago I could have been in Zimmerman's position. A black guy was on my friend's neighbor's porch around midnight. The guy looked suspicious and we walked up to him and asked him what he was doing while calling the cops. My friend went in his house to get his doberman while I questioned the guy in the street. I never threated or made physical contact with the man, but I asked him who he was and who he was looking for. It turned out he was a prowler, didn't know who lived there, claimed he had the wrong address, but couldn't even come up with the name or address he was looking for. By the time the cops got there he was long gone and probably has victimized others since. If I'd followed him up the street to tell the cops where he was he could have answered to them. If at any time he had decided to attack me, and was able to break my nose, mount me, and start pummeling me (which is unlikely, but he could be tougher than he looks) I would have shot him out of fear for my safety, and I'd be in the exact same spot as Zimmerman (minus tea and skittles).

They're not missing the point, they're intentionally obscuring it. They know exactly what they're doing. They're just a bunch of scum bags. These dipshits should stay off twitter. I used to be a fan of SJ. At least Roddy White had the decency to apologize for his idiocy, SJ stands by his.

The civil trial might actually make it harder to bring out character evidence about TM. Character evidence to show propensity is usually barred reagardless of whether the case is civil or criminal. In a criminal trial, if the prosecution brings in character evidence to show the accused was the aggressor it opens the door for the defense to bring in character evidence to show the deceased was the initial aggressor, but in civil no such exception exists.

I'm not so sure he'll be acquitted. My wife's been reading me some comments from her FB on the case & there are a lot of people out there who make puppy seem reasonably intelligent by comparison. These jurors could fall into either camp. A hung jury would not surprise me.