My take on Abrams is that he isn't the right guy to do Star Wars. Based on what I've seen from his Star Trek movies, his approach to storytelling is too intellectual- he's interested in complex storylines and clever plot twists. That's not what Star Wars is about. Star Wars is a modern fairy tail/myth/epic with lots of action and character-driven drama, but not much in the way of clever plot twists. Okay, I will give you the Luke I am Your Father bit, and the Now Witness the Power of this Fully Armed and Operational Death Star bit. But mostly, it's about plucky heroes and the odd scoundrel fighting black-clad villains and rescuing princesses, swordfighting and magic and spaceships and aliens. It's not about the head, it's about the heart, it's about feelings, and none of Abrams work has ever struck me as having the kind of soul needed to tell this sort of story. I guess I could sum it up by saying... I've got a bad feeling about this.

Prosecutors know what they can try. They don't try every possible case; some cases aren't winnable. If the prosecution looks at the evidence that was gathered and says "it doesn't look like we have much to go on here," then what would be the point of going through with a trial? For fun? To drag victims' families and the defendants through it?

If the prosecution says they have a case, and the defence says "he's right, we're F-ed," then you start seeing things like quick plea deals, just plain guilty pleas.

It's only when the prosecution and the defence both think they can win or at least get something major out of a trial, that's when you a see a trial. Otherwise there's really not much point.

Relevant because Michael Brown certainly knew about it and it informed his actions.

As a private citizen, I am not allowed to tackle a guy on the street, hand-cuff him, throw him in my truck, and drive him to the nearest police station, even if I suspect he might have committed a crime.

Yes, police powers are just that, for the police.

It confirms something I've long known: DRM only really inconveniences non-infringers. Warez kids and movie bootleggers have ways around it. Your average person at home trying to figure out how to space-shift his blu-ray so it plays in his car media center for the kids will not.

No they didn't. That's the problem -- removing a link but allowing a file to remain on your system which you've been alerted infringes, that is clearly against the DMCA.

Oh, almost forgot: and if you say that the DMCA is a US law and doesn't affect people in other countries... well, you'd be absolutely right that the DMCA itself is only a US law. However, it is requirement, an implementation of WIPO treaties which all mentioned companies have agreed to.

Except that in this case the law was very plain and it was obvious that it was being violated. I may not like the DMCA, but it doesn't take a legal brainiac to know that refusing to comply with take-down requests (what Kim's was doing with his links vs files argument) will lead to greater legal retaliation.

And/or understanding of the rules of D&D or RPGs in general.

No, it's not the same thing, there's a distinction between the two, and our justice system is built upon that distinction.

Not guilty does not mean innocent. This is not a binary, there are more than two options. It's an admission that we do not try to prove innocence in trial, we try to prove guilt, or we fail to prove guilt.

That's why defendants are not forced to testify -- they are not under any obligation to prove their innocence, and in the US it's considered legally and morally wrong to require someone to prove himself guilty.

You do not prosecute someone "for the greater good." You let justice be done for the accused and the defense. Those who are without standing (everyone else) should get nothing.

Of course it's an adversarial system. It always has been, and always should be. There are two sides in a dispute. Each side is not impartial, the goal is to let each partial side make its case while an impartial third party (judge, jurors) decides which side has made its case the best.

Maybe, maybe not. If a thug attacks an officer in his car and tries to grab his gun, maybe he DOES deserve what he gets, am i rite?

I take them seriously UNTIL they start breaking shit. But then at that point, I start thinking that maybe they are the bigger problem, and my sympathy lessens.

You can't consider that there might have been justification for this?