3putt

I think that NCAA players are ineligible. I looked back at previous rosters and didn't see any players eligible for the then upcoming season on the roster. It may violate their eligibility for some reason, but not sure on that. Or they may already be in their respective schools camps. Agreed, and it is an early indication of their progress in their offseason programs.

Where's the poll?

That takes a lot of upper body strength to manhandle a 6"6" man with one hand while pummeling him with the other. Yikes.

:w00t:

Farm Aid 30

The delay is puzzling. Perhaps Richards did not want to open another front where he would be subject to questioning under oath while a criminal investigation was pending.

I thought as CM junkie you would remember that their profiles are based on the examination of the crime scene, the victim, the forensic evidence and other factors to compile a list of probable characteristics that the "unsub", i think is the term they use, will likely have. it is a way of narrowing the pool of potential suspects to investigate and excluding those who don't match the profile. Keep in mind that they know at the time of creating the profile that a crime has been committed and are trying to identify an unknown perpetrator. In this instance, the commission of a crime by an identified subject is the matter under investigation in order to determine if a crime has in fact taken place, a profile is not very useful and as an aside inadmissible as evidence in court. Your "profile" was your supposition as to the occurrence of events, the condition of the actors, implied intent and knowledge of the actors and a determination of the culpability of the same. You need to be a bit more discerning in viewing the TV show. You missed important nuances. The other tool they use is a timeline, or sequence of events that is corroborated by the physical evidence. that is also supposition. Edit: The current investigation is an attempt to determine the facts surrounding the events and to determine if a crime in fact occurred. My original post was unclear as to that distinction.

New moniker for the Windy City and working title of the next Spike Lee joint about the gun violence in Englewood.

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/10/nhlpa-files-grievance-on-behalf-of-mike-richards/. NHLPA files on behalf of Mike Richards. Interesting in light of the discussion going on in other threads.

That is not a profile that is supposition about a sequence of events.

So true, but unfortunately, here in Chiraq there is a greater than average chance of getting lead "poisoning" due the fact that street gangs are now trying to establish certain trucks as their property. Many are closing up shop instead of being in the middle. Shame.

TW, I was simply pointing out that the value of association was his skin in the game. You are right that the party planners could have ordered food online. if the BN is to be believed she didn't go there alone. Is an escort from Triple Canopy your threshold of acountability?

I voted for the first option. It may not be at center, but he has improved every offseason and prior to the injury was on track to finish among the team leaders in scoring. And I can't help flashback to the goal he scored against Detroit which was a great display of hands and skill. There were others, but that was memorable. With the right mix on his line I see top line production potential. My only concern is he appears too nice at times. A bit more edge would be a plus.

when it comes to witness testimony or any evidence, the first threshold is relevance. Is the evidence supportive of the truth of the matter asserted. If relevant, it must pass a second test and be admissible. Certain evidence can be relevant but lack credibility to the point that introduction would be unfair to the party against whom it is introduced. Hearsay is the classic example because the offering witness lacks first hand knowledge. If evidence is inadmissible, there are exceptions such as effect on the Listener etc. In your example, I can see little relevance in Croce's testimony in a criminal trial. A civil matter maybe. Keep digging. it is more about brand equity than cash for services. He was tweeting about the cup coming to his establishment before the incident broke. He was leveraging media, albeit social, to leverage celebrity to his advantage. After the news broke he had the choice to distance himself or put more chips in the pot. He tried to do both.

Not from a trade value perspective, we lost. Suppose you buy a racehorse from a sub tier lineage. The value is pretty much determined at that time. If he winsnthe triple crown, you still overpaid at the time of purchase. If you paid triple crown prices and the horse ended up doing kiddie rides at the fair you would feel foolish. The value for Lehner or equivalent was far less than Murray paid.

arevyou reporting that she wasn't underage, i.e. Under 21, or under the age of consent, 17? Or are you proffering your opinion? Not bashing just curious because it matters when processing subsequent info.

Many theories but the one most proffered is that women are highly competitive and identify other women as competitors and thus are less sympathetic.

There are studies from the ABA and Stanford Law that show overwhelmingly that female jurors overwhelming side against female plaintiffs in civil personal injury cases and award significantly less damages when the female plaintiff prevails than what they award in to similarly situated male litigants. I

Dusting off the cobwebs here but understand that that there are two problems from an administrative point of view in allowing a mistake of age defense. The first is it creates a slippery slope as to reasonableness vesting courts with more power to create law through stare decisis than was intended by the legislative body enacting the statute. The second is that criminal codes tend to be ladders so to speak with the "peoples" counsel, i.e. the prosecutor, empowered to bring charges from top to bottom or starting anywhere in between. As you step down the ladder the elements needed for proof change and the resulting penalties for violation diminish. A strict liability standard removes that discretion on the part of the prosecutor and with education lets the public know what will not be tolerated at any cost. The mistake of age defense, is addressed as societal mores evolve or devolve and the legislature, theoretically representing those mores through democratic election, can snap the line, i,e, the age, where there constituency deems appropriate. I think you make great points that discussion allows for each individual to determine where their personal moral compass points and should exercise their right to make those known to their representatives to effect the change they seek. I would point out that the slippery slope get's even steeper the lower the age line is snapped and butts up against egregious conduct that society in general, and the overwhelming majority of the posters on this board would deem unconscionable, when it comes to protecting children or the mentally infirm. The concept of innocence until proven guilty is a legal fiction, or a tool to facilitate a judicial system. It simply is an arbitrary starting point that determines who has the burden of proof, and what the evidentiary criteria are to meet the burden. When thought of in this way, guilt or innocence sadly becomes a spectator to the mechanics of the process and in particular the rules of evidence that govern the trial of these issues. I think many people are influenced by the inventory of anecdotal instances where this conflict yields results that do not align with their personal belief system or are just to counter intuitive to accept. They are not privy to the even greater number of instances when that system works flawlessly and yields the results intended, even though one party may not like it. Not on a soap box, just an insight.

Or crepes.

3putt/bogey are essentially equivalent.

leadwoman?I have no hope for mine

who?

If she is one day under 17 and there was sex, pk goes directly to jail, do not pass go do not collect $200. There cannot be consent under the law.

what if she was the busgirl? She'd be there legally correct.