Juror#8

TJ Graham. Never heard that name....ever. Any intel?

Looks like the 71 was retained as well. This should be interesting.

Did we trade up?

The last person to use "assuage" in conversation and in context was Abe Lincoln. I was there but not the topic of conversation. He used muliebrity, olid and griseous in the same sentence and about the previous evening's entertainment. Anyhow, one issue with your thought process concerning draft value and draft charts - it presumes that draft picks have a certain liquidity or a bankable, articulated value. You use the example that RG3 is not worth 3X Aaron Rogers presumably because of what Washington gave up to get the 2nd overall pick in order to draft RG3. But who knows how well those draft picks will perform vis-a-vis RG3. If he is 4 times the player that each of those traded picks are in the aggregate but still not 3X as good as Aaron Rogers, what then? My point is, Washington isn't just trading value...they're unloading uncertainty. Who knows who would have remained after the ____ picks before them had picked or what teams would have traded ahead of them. Who knows who would have been available. And who knows how well the heretofore unknown individual would have performed for them, in their system, etc. Washington didn't just trade a bounty of picks to draft RG3. They also traded for the certainty of getting exactly who they wanted and avoided betting on an unknown quantity and a variety of hypothetical outcomes. There is value and a pecuniary quality to that certainty. I don't think that you took account of that in your post.

As I see it now...

Trade down 10 spots and draft Shea McClellin.

_____________ is going to win the presidential election on November 6th because the country is _____________, _______________, and _____________. This election will be an indictment of ____________________ and a victory for _______________. Bonus Points: ____________________ wins by ____ electoral votes. Who wants to go on record?

Wait...wait...whatddya mean? Does that mean that Noma finally overtook Golden Corral on the list? Buffet Rule: No matter what you smell, there is neither chicken nor beef on the Chinese buffet. The General Szos consists of something more exotic.

Take what you touch first and avoid this man: http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-confounded-by-buffet-procedure,1609/

Buffet Rules: 1. Don't eat at Golden Corral. 2. If you do eat at Golden Corral, you'll have the uncontrollable, rapid-fire, schits. This just shows how misleading the Golden Corral commericals are: http://golden-corral.pissedconsumer.com/don-t-eat-at-golden-corral-20110317227254.html Any other rules?

Apparently Olbermann is an insufferable prick and impossible to be in the same room with. Maybe that's a prerequisite to being an on-air personality in a primetime slot (except for Rachel Maddow who is an INCREDIBLY nice woman personally - only met her once, and it was at a fundraising event, but you would seriously think she's a bartender or a cool co-worker; she's that !@#$ing personable). I'm a HUGE Chris Berman fan but who can forget this gem: And O'Reilly has been known to throw a stink or two:

Just noticed that. Thanks. Mods please lock or delete.

Anyone else hear about this? You can't make this **** up. Keith Olbermann, who was tapped to be the "savior" for the very liberal network (that can't sustain consistent viewership btw), was canned (again) and he and Al Gore are going back and forth in a media war. Bunch of jackasses. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/keith-olbermann-out-current-eliot-spitzer_n_1392513.html

Wait, what? What do you mean? So we should stop sending threatening affirmative action letters to Iowa? http://www.theonion.com/articles/black-guy-photoshopped-in,1433/ Ok, that's better.

Just the opposite. I can't find anything productive to do. Vacation days always feel odd. Since it's Friday I figured that parody posts were in order. It's a hoot on some of the JD forums that I frequent.

BREAKING NEWS IN MARTIN CASE Cop confesses: http://www.theonion.com/articles/cop-kills-own-partner-vows-to-track-self-down,20234/

http://www.dhs.state.il.us/OneNetLibrary/27897/documents/Initiatives/Trafficking/Information%20sheet.pdf "The Chicago-based National Immigrant Justice Center at Heartland Alliance served 80 survivors of trafficking from 2003-2008, most coming from Illinois. The majority of these were female." "There have been no prosecutions under the Illinois anti-trafficking legislation to date."

http://www.theonion.com/articles/republicans-urge-minorities-to-get-out-and-vote-on,1241/ Because Ann has a black vibrator. It didn't take me long this morning to remember why I don't watch the news on television.

It'll probably take them that long to cool off after realizing that they're hogtied by Wickard.

I'm not saying that they're equivalent. I'm just saying that I've avoided bashing both because at the end of the day we're still left with two immutable facts - there is a grand jury that is considering an indictment against Zimmerman and there is an active police investigation. At the end of the day, Zimmerman is entitled to a presumption of innocence and due process and the media is entitled to be salacious. But I do see your point - the media fixation is weird; and these scenarios do play out across the country time and time again with little to no national attention. I'm just a little loathe to say that the media is pushing an otherwise unexceptional story for some race-driven reason. I think it's the totality of the circumstances that makes this case unique and has endeared it to the media. Look at Kacy Anthony, Teri Schiavo, Jon Benet Ramsey, Natalie Hollaway and the Van der Sloot kid, Scott Peterson. Those were all local matters that recevied national attention because of their unique facts and circumstances. Where was the racial element? Beth Hollaway Twitty was on national cable news EVERY night for a month. Greta had her on her show every few days for the next year or so. The tons of Americans who are kidnapped in Latin America and the middle east EVERY DAY don't get that level off attention. Where was the racial element? I just think that that is over-simplifying a rather complex set of facts and circumstances. There are myriad factors and uniquenesses that impact this matter - such that it is in the Hollaway, Ramsey, Schiavo group - and that have NOTHING to do with race: 1. Martin was killed in a place that he was entitled to be ostensibly for reasons originating from suspicions over his entitlement to be there. 2. The "stand your ground" law and it's practical scope. 3. Zimmerman, calling the cops XX number of times in XX amount of days. 4. Vigilante justice. 5. One had a weapon, the other didn't. 6. Martin was a minor. 7. Martin's body remained with authorities, and uninterred, for 3 days. Apparently, there was little attempt to contact relatives even though they had a cell phone. 8. Even though authorities had PC to effectuate an arrest, no arrest was effectuated. 9. According to witnesses, one of the lead investigators said that he didn't believe Zimmerman's story and the facts didn't match the evidence. Another, (maybe separate, maybe not) investigator recommended that a manslaughter charge be brought. The ADA thought that there wasn't enugh supporting evidence (this also ties in with point #2). 10. NOW we're getting into the realm of the conjectural - does the "stand your ground" law, as it's constituted in FL, basically allow culpable folks to get away with crimes in the occassions when there are only two parties to the actual inciting incident, and inexact, weak, or conflicting witness statements? More evidence is going to come out. If that evidence substantiates his already enjoyed presumption of innocence, then good. But IF through investigation, concrete prosecutable evidence comes to light that may not have otherwise seen the light of day (because of the prosecutorial discretion not to proceed forward as a result of outcome assuptions due to the SYG law), then that is a story of national moment. That kind of scenario would fundamentally impact the policy underlying basic criminal jurisprudence: investigate and get the bad guy. I don't give a **** about anyone else, but THAT is why I'm interested. I said this same thing like 10 pages ago.

1. I'm not a liberal. That you even bring that up evidences your effort to turn this into an off-topic political pissing contest. Get a grip man and stay focused. 2. I caution you, your fellow progressives, and others who think that they have a monopoly on "right," and who invariably view every wrinkle in this story in the light most favorable to them and to their pretentions, to allow the story to unfold and objectively appraise the information for its evidentiary value. Cause that's what I'm doing. 3. I never said "Zimmerman was no good." I've said that the man deserves his day in court/a fair process. I've conditioned any hypothetical outcomes with respect to his case - either pro or con - with a capitalized, "IF." Lawyers live in a "hypo" world. Everything is about fact patterns and hypotheticals. After thousands of them, it's just how we begin to think. I can't expect you to understand that - and it's not necessarily a good thing. Apropos, I've tried to focus on how the circumstances of this case may fit within the black letter law. But just like I've stayed out of the Zimmerman bashing, I've similarly avoided the media bashing. It bears no fruit. Maybe because I've refrained from bashing the media, you've decided to lump me in with them and everyone else. I'm not in your queer "blame the media monster" choir. I'm Hendrix man. I play my own style of music. !@#$ you and !@#$ them. Some of you sound like a bunch of bitches screaming about their collective periods and worsening incontinence. If you want to talk about the developing case and the law, let's talk. If you just want to talk about how everyone is mean to you and to Zimmerman, grow the !@#$ up. Life is hard. You don't have to oblige the media. You can simply expect a higher standard of analysis and discernment from yourself and from those with whom you converse - instead of steady complaining about **** !@#$ing constantly. Why not focus on the substantive/dispositive issues and let bitches B word? At least you can say that you were original. Then you can advance the debate and not spend valuable time in some queer !@#$ing reality-show "whose in my alliance" rainbow-bright bull **** wherein everyone is either 'for you' or 'against you.' Trayvon Martin was shot and Zimmerman did it. No amount of media sensationalism can change that or change why whatever happened, happened. So did you wanna discuss your view of the case or the media's handling of it? One matters and one is a sideshow.

I'm trying to look past all the sensationalism and pagentry and focus on the few bits of evidence that is there in this matter - the 911 call, Zimmerman's claim, the girlfriend's claim, witness statements, police report, and now this video. IF Zimmerman's claim is inconsistent with conclusive video evidence (and notice I mentioned "conclusive"), then there is a problem. According to ABC, the video doesn't show any evidence of a struggle - no significant bruises, no blood, nothing disheveled, no evidence of a significant struggle, and no evidence that Martin was where Zimmerman said he was when Zimmerman shot (over top of him in some fashion). Anyone getting anything evidentiary from this video that supports or refutes either side?

Also, interesting that Martin's girlfried called him and he answered 5 minutes before police arrived. Apparently then, as according to Zimmerman, a lot of things happened in 3-5 minutes.

According to ABC, Zimmerman had no bruises or cuts consistent with the story that he is telling. I don't think the quality of the video is good enough to tell definitively, but they probably have better equipment for analysis that I do. Look see: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/trayvon-martin-case-exclusive-surveillance-video-george-zimmerman/story?id=16022897

This, ladies and gentlemen, is indeed a rare moment. DCTom has given what can almost be construed as a compliment (or at the very least a non-insult). It's gonna be a good year. And dammit, I'm a twerp! Or at least a terp...or at least my mom is a Terp, my dad is a UMES alum so that is an ocean Terp...