And when that doesn’t happen, do you give the kids a lunch?

It does, but the details make Schilling sound worse.

You are conflating debt collectors and debt purchasers, which are sometimes the same entity, but have a different role depending on what hat they wear.  The debt collectors usually don’t charge unless they collect, but that is often a high percentage such as 25 to 40% of the debt.  But, it is not likely that the…

How often was he even a top-5 player at a position in a given year?

Edited: Not bothering

As far as I can see in the video, his hands do appear to touch her neck for a second, but I can’t tell that any choking happens.

Eric better watch out or one of these days.... Bang, Zoom, to the Moon

Context as to what a song means when it is written is one of the least important parts of that because hearing a song does not require that additional information. What is the meaning in itself? If the song was as innocent even then, then why were the parts named the wolf and mouse? Why did the writer refer to himself…

Poster Plagiarizes Poster’s Pithy Post Positing Poetic Peers Plagiarized by Pushcart Prize Poseur

The problem is that context differs over time. There is a context to playing now based upon what certain language means now. The song is being played alone on the radio, not as part of a movie with other information beyond just the song.  That matters. 

People can understand the history, know the lyrics and think differently than you.  It’s possible, particularly considering you haven’t contributed anything to the conversation beyond insults and bare conclusions.

I thought that you could use a little help out of the grays for that.

You provide a limiting provision within the law that it is only applicable to section X or some such nonsense.

The statute was passed before the rape occurred. So, there is no need for arguing retroactivity. His lawyer is doing his job, even though it is a hail mary. The law is the problem here.

I don’t think it’s scummy.  I think it’s required.  It’s not as if he can think of it, then discard it as a possible defense to a specific charge.  If it is legally arguable, even if unlikely to succeed, it’s his duty to his client to do it.

Agreed for the most part.  It’s a bad argument, but a nonfrivolous one.

It sounds like a lawyer who doesn’t have much of a case otherwise.  Sometimes as a lawyer you have to present an issue to the court that is a bad argument but arguable under the state of the law.  In other words, this is nonfrivolous because the Kansas legislature was/is a bunch of ideologues.

I don’t usually brag about my intentional ignorance, but I didn’t click that link

The whole system is built upon persons losing a jury trial and receiving a greater punishment. 

Only a duckling mutilation and child murder?  There’s no genital mutilation or smashing?  Von Trier seems to be losing it.