Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
***Official "More Like FeBREWary Chat Thread, amirite???"*** ***Official "More Like FeBREWary Chat Thread, amirite???"***

02-28-2011 , 07:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge
With luck, we'll become homeowners out there before we return.
Good luck!

Quote:
Originally Posted by xxMaquiladoraxx
True story: My better half and I watched Spartacus and Top Gear instead of the Oscars.
You're lucky. I was subjected to about an hour of the awards show last night, against my better judgment. Needed multiple PBRs to muscle through.
02-28-2011 , 07:19 PM
PBR?

what are you? 90?
02-28-2011 , 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLnit
Well said. You are exactly right. I mean if you just get $0.50 or $1.00 from a few million people you've made a nice profit - and that's not hard to do in this country given the right outlet.

It does seem however that Hollywood can manufacture someone if they want and when they want. But that being said, apparently it's just easier to go with a known quantity than it is to make one. So it is easier to give a ****** actor a script than to actually make a new actor. Just look at Disney. They literally make the kid idols and when they grow up they just replace them and don't miss a beat.
Miley who?
02-28-2011 , 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stranglylucid
I have no problem with a dying man's words being admisible in court in that circumstance. If there were no supporting evidence, then I would have issue. But I think this is one of those situations where the letter of the law and the intent of the law are at odds.

But really, how hard could it be to get a conviction even without the statement? I mean damn, if you walk up to my porch and find all that evidence, you can be pretty sure I shot someone.
I just think it's a scary precedent and can think of all sorts of situations where it can convict and innocent person.

So a guy gets shot and is dying on the ground. Cops ask, "Hey buddy who shot you?" Dying man replies, "Eddie shot me." He just KNOWS Eddie is the dude because Eddie has had it out for him for a long time. However he was shot from behind and he didn't see the actual shooter but he dies and cops don't get the full story. Eddie is arrested and convicted because a witness to the crime said he did it....although that witness is dead and can't be questioned.
02-28-2011 , 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by udbrky
PBR?

what are you? 90?
No, but when it's like $8 for a 12-pack and we're in the supermarket, I can be conviced to be cheap.
02-28-2011 , 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb coolman
Miley who?
Jonas brothers...etc. There will be more and they will just keep coming. Once one grows out of the role another one will be put into it. It's plug and play.

And this is obviously nothing new. Can you say The Monkeys and The Partridge Family?
02-28-2011 , 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLnit
I just think it's a scary precedent and can think of all sorts of situations where it can convict and innocent person.

So a guy gets shot and is dying on the ground. Cops ask, "Hey buddy who shot you?" Dying man replies, "Eddie shot me." He just KNOWS Eddie is the dude because Eddie has had it out for him for a long time. However he was shot from behind and he didn't see the actual shooter but he dies and cops don't get the full story. Eddie is arrested and convicted because a witness to the crime said he did it....although that witness is dead and can't be questioned.
Yeah, but without all the supporting evidence, you don't have a case. So, yeah, it would suck for Eddie being the primary suspect, unless Eddie happens to have the gun that shot the dying man, it's really just an inconvenience. Now I'm not saying that this type of thing couldn't be used to get a falst conviction at some point, but I think the number of times it helps get a correct conviction will far outweigh the number of times it hurts someone.

This is one of the things I hate about our legal system. We get so caught up in the symantics, we forget the spirit.
02-28-2011 , 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLnit
I am certainly not a lawyer by any means but I find this decision by the US Supreme Court pretty scary.

So a person can be convicted based on what someone says even when that someone cannot be questioned?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...-used-at-trial
The facts of the case decided seem like a standard application of the very old "dying declaration" rule, that allows statements of people facing imminent death to be admitted into court (on the quaint assumption that someone who is about to meet his maker will not tell a lie with his dying breath.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NLnit
That doesn't make much sense. Ya i understand who the accuser is. That's not a revelation by any means. But their argument, or part of it, can be based on what a guy says who is in no position to be cross examined?

So a dude can be dying and in a state of shock and say something which implicates another individual and that is allowed in court?

And the fact that it is reported in CSM does change the meaning of the decision.
The particular facts of this case don't really bother me, because the dying declaration exception to the inadmissibility of hearsay actually makes a lot of sense.

It is founded in common sense--if somebody shoots you and you are laying there bleeding out, it is exceedingly unlikely that you will falsely accuse someone. You'd obviously want to tell the police who actually shot you, so that the shooter can be punished.

Also, the fact that hearsay is admissible doesn't mean that the case against you can be proved. hearsay statements can be cross examined to a certain extent even if the person who made the statement is unavailable. For example, the officer offering the hearsay statement from the dead guy that "Joe shot me," can be cross examined on whether the dead guy has a grudge against Joe, whether he had blood in his eyes, whether he had adequate opportunity to observe who shot him, etc. etc.

In the hands of a clever defense attorney, a hearsay statement is largely dogmeat, because you can come up with 82,000 things that the officer doesn't know that can undermine the credibility of the dying declaration.

So just because the dying declaration comes in doesn't mean it's game over.

Last edited by mpethybridge; 02-28-2011 at 07:53 PM. Reason: finished the last sentence
02-28-2011 , 07:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stranglylucid
Yeah, but without all the supporting evidence, you don't have a case. So, yeah, it would suck for Eddie being the primary suspect, unless Eddie happens to have the gun that shot the dying man, it's really just an inconvenience. Now I'm not saying that this type of thing couldn't be used to get a falst conviction at some point, but I think the number of times it helps get a correct conviction will far outweigh the number of times it hurts someone.

This is one of the things I hate about our legal system. We get so caught up in the symantics, we forget the spirit.
But it's not a simple tally of correct convictions against improper convictions to determine the success of the judicial system.

So if 5 people are rightly convicted and 4 people are wrongly convicted is it a success? I don't think you would say it is. It's my opinion that if you send one innocent guy to jail for every 100 truly guilty you are doing something wrong.

I agree with that you say about the spirit of the law however and the state violates that as much as anyone. The whole three strikes your our thing to me is an example. Sending a guy away for life for three 'minor' offenses is pretty incredible imo. A guy I know turned his son in for stealing audio equipment. It was his third strike. He is now in jail for life...whatever that means (with parole and whatnot).
02-28-2011 , 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge
The facts of the case decided seem like a standard application of the very old "dying declaration" rule, that allows statements of people facing imminent death to be admitted into court (on the quaint assumption that someone who is about to meet his maker will not tell a lie with his dying breath.)



The particular facts of this case don't really bother me, because the dying declaration exception to the inadmissibility of hearsay actually makes a lot of sense.

It is founded in common sense--if somebody shoots you and you are laying there bleeding out, it is exceedingly unlikely that you will falsely accuse someone. You'd obviously want to tell the police who actually shot you, so that the shooter can be punished.

Also, the fact that hearsay is admissible doesn't mean that the case against you can be proved. hearsay statements can be cross examined to a certain extent even if the person who made the statement is unavailable. For example, the officer offering the hearsay statement from the dead guy that "Joe shot me," can be cross examined on whether the dead guy has a grudge against Joe, whether he had blood in his eyes, whether he had adequate opportunity to observe who shot him, etc. etc.

In the hands of a clever defense attorney, a hearsay statement is largely dogmeat, because you can come up with 82,000 things that the officer doesn't know that can undermine the credibility of the dying declaration.

So just because the dying declaration comes in
OK. The problem is, as it pertains to this case, it seems clear that the guy was not lying. But it seems to me that the decision has opened up the number of instances in which it can be used. That is my problem.

To me it's not that cut and dry of a deal to begin with. I mean it did get the the SCOTUS and they felt like it was important enough to rule on.

“Today’s opinion distorts our confrontation clause jurisprudence and leaves it in a shambles,” Scalia wrote.
02-28-2011 , 07:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLnit
OK. The problem is, as it pertains to this case, it seems clear that the guy was not lying. But it seems to me that the decision has opened up the number of instances in which it can be used. That is my problem.

To me it's not that cut and dry of a deal to begin with. I mean it did get the the SCOTUS and they felt like it was important enough to rule on.

“Today’s opinion distorts our confrontation clause jurisprudence and leaves it in a shambles,” Scalia wrote.
yeah, the opinion seems interesting.

The majority purports to have created an "emergency" exception to the hearsay rule, which would allow any statement made to the police during the course of an emergency (but not an investigation) into evidence as hearsay.

This would be a major expansion of the hearsay exception.

The case itself may or may not have been cut and dried--there is a lot of caselaw out there on, for example, how imminent your death needs to be for a declaration to be an admissible dying declaration.

With a 6-2 decision, though, it looks like the court took this case for the purpose of creating a new hearsay exception; in which case the case could have been completely straight forward, and simply happened to be the most available case for the court to use to make a new law.
02-28-2011 , 08:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge
yeah, the opinion seems interesting.

The majority purports to have created an "emergency" exception to the hearsay rule, which would allow any statement made to the police during the course of an emergency (but not an investigation) into evidence as hearsay.

This would be a major expansion of the hearsay exception.

The case itself may or may not have been cut and dried--there is a lot of caselaw out there on, for example, how imminent your death needs to be for a declaration to be an admissible dying declaration.

With a 6-2 decision, though, it looks like the court took this case for the purpose of creating a new hearsay exception; in which case the case could have been completely straight forward, and simply happened to be the most available case for the court to use to make a new law.
In what part of law did you practice? I'm just curious and not questioning your knowledge by any means (don't let anyone know but I think your SUPER ****ing smart).
02-28-2011 , 08:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLnit
In what part of law did you practice? I'm just curious and not questioning your knowledge by any means (don't let anyone know but I think your SUPER ****ing smart).
For the first 5 years I was in practice, i did criminal law almost exclusively. I worked as both a defense attorney and as a prosecutor.

Later, I went into civil litigation. My particular specialties became shipwreck law and utility regulatory litigation (I usually represented people/entities whose property was in the proposed path of high voltage electrical transmission lines).

At the end of my career, I owned a firm with 8 lawyers working for me. They practiced in workers compensation, eminent domain, immigration, domestic law, corporate transactions, bankruptcy and criminal defense, and I was conversant in all of those areas of law as well.

edit: i forgot that I did a fun stint as a specialist in ballot access laws.
02-28-2011 , 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Split*
ARF doesn't mean Absolutely Ridiculous Female?!?
^ This deserves some lovin'...

Last edited by EN09; 02-28-2011 at 09:01 PM. Reason: There ya go!
02-28-2011 , 09:09 PM
I have no opinion on this legal stuff, but PBR is probably the #1 drink of hipsters, so the what are you 90 argument doesn't hold!

(but srsly, it's like 3 or 4 bucks for a tall boy at most bars that are charging 4 bucks min for any other 12 oz vessel!)
02-28-2011 , 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnAnonymousCoward
No, but when it's like $8 for a 12-pack and we're in the supermarket, I can be conviced to be cheap.
The college mantra I remember hearing was: "what is our favorite kind of beer? FREE BEER! What is our second favorite kind of beer? CHEAP BEER!"
02-28-2011 , 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by springsteen87
I have no opinion on this legal stuff, but PBR is probably the #1 drink of hipsters, so the what are you 90 argument doesn't hold!

(but srsly, it's like 3 or 4 bucks for a tall boy at most bars that are charging 4 bucks min for any other 12 oz vessel!)
There's a bar, not too far from us, offering $3 pints of PBR. I'm not proud, but I've been known to order them when we're in there.

re: hipsters - I agree, but being called a hipster (or hipster-like substitute) would be grounds for a PBR being thrown at you, imo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkyj
The college mantra I remember hearing was: "what is our favorite kind of beer? FREE BEER! What is our second favorite kind of beer? CHEAP BEER!"
Yessir!

Our college mantra (and actually since has turned into a life mantra of sorts) was "if it's free, it's for me".
02-28-2011 , 10:01 PM
Anthony Bourdain in Haiti.... back in an hour.
02-28-2011 , 10:21 PM
I enjoy his show
02-28-2011 , 10:22 PM
I kind of like it, but his show from Beirut was epic!
02-28-2011 , 10:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge
I kind of like it, but his show from Beirut was epic!
One of my favorites... Although the Haiti show is heartbreaking if you dig little kids.
02-28-2011 , 10:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge
I kind of like it, but his show from Beirut was epic!
Both were great episodes - the aborted show, and when they returned to do what they couldn't on the first go-round.

Actually about ready to go watch a bunch of backlogged episodes that we never got around to, with the new season starting and all - last things to watch on the DVR.
02-28-2011 , 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnAnonymousCoward
No, but when it's like $8 for a 12-pack and we're in the supermarket, I can be conviced to be cheap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by springsteen87
I have no opinion on this legal stuff, but PBR is probably the #1 drink of hipsters, so the what are you 90 argument doesn't hold!

(but srsly, it's like 3 or 4 bucks for a tall boy at most bars that are charging 4 bucks min for any other 12 oz vessel!)
I'll never be determining my choices by hipsters.

You can get any other cheap beer for $8 or so for a 12pack. PBR just is nasty. I tried it once, was one of the worst beers I've ever had:

- Red Dog
- PBR
- Beast
- Bud Light Lime
- Icehouse
- Fosters
03-01-2011 , 12:01 AM
Not in NYC, you can't. I think that you're being unnecessarily harsh on the PBR.

And none of the beers in your list are worse than Genny Cream Ale.

Or Golden Anniversary, now that I think about it.
03-01-2011 , 12:06 AM
i think PBR is the best tasting cheap cheap beer around, throw some names out and maybe i'll change my mind

      
m