That's odd. I didn't really see this outside of the aid stations. I can think of two times that I saw someone even with a gel in their hand in between aid stations. I don't recall seeing much in terms of wrappers on the roadway either.
It saved me this morning. I let the R go by at 46th Street and then rode the M right behind it past the entire mess of the NWR tunnel into Manhattan.
I'm actually kind of impressed at his dedication to "the cause" that he still had energy to be angry about the ticket.
^ Or this, lol. I didn't check to see when it was enacted. A similar dynamic is currently playing out in the NY legislature after Weinstein's conviction was overturned.
As you can see from my flair, I don't practice in CA so I am not an expert on what the law says there. Here in NY, said evidence could be admissible under what is called our "Molineux rule," but it has to meet certain exceptions and its probative value has to outweigh its prejudicial effect (see the recent Weinstein decision where his conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeals, which is our highest appellate court). While it was a politically unpopular opinion, I don't fault the justices for reaching that conclusion because the trial court let in A LOT of Molineux evidence.
I looked up what you cited (it's section 1109), and I can see there's a general 10-year limit on such evidence built into 1109 unless an "interest of justice" exception is met. I also see that it specifically intersects with section 1101, which reads similarly to the rule here in NY in that the prosecution can't use evidence of a prior crime or bad act just to prove your predisposition to commit the instant offense.
Either way, there was argument over this at the OJ trial, so I'd imagine it wasn't a given that such evidence was admissible.
The #1 ruling that comes to mind is the amount of prior domestic violence evidence that was allowed in. He was charged with a single incident, the murder, but the prosecution was allowed to elicit numerous prior instances of domestic violence. Arguably, had he been convicted, the defense could argue that the evidence led the jury to believe he had a propensity to be violent, so he "must" have done this too.
I think it was because the French didn’t support us invading Iraq.
Yeah, that's it. Really takes you from "oh right, that stupidity" to "wait, can we go back to that?"
I recently read an article about big news items in the 2000s, and one of the items was when Americans decided to refer to french fries as "freedom fries." My reaction to that memory was "ohmygod I forgot about that stupidity," but that quickly changed to "actually, can we get that level of stupid back? I was so young and naive to think it couldn't possibly get worse." And now...here we are. Diapers.
I absolutely loved it, but there's been a very vocal contingent of people online who absolutely hate it. Many of whom , but I don't think the game works without it and by doing so, they avoided making essentially a carbon copy of the first game but without a discernible stressor for the main characters.
A friend of mine was able to get points taken off his license in a very similar scenario. You'll certainly spend a lot less of your time doing it this way then trying to go to traffic court to fight it. Also, it doesn't sound like you're denying you committed the traffic infraction, so there wouldn't be much of a point going to traffic court.
Truly stunned by this news when I saw it on my feed first thing this morning. What is Arsenal even doing??
^ Staying dry before the start is the biggest hurdle imo. It looks completely ridiculously, but use plastic bags on your shoes and tie them off at your ankle to keep them dry before the start. I've raced about as many Bk Halfs in the rain as without, and the biggest difference between them was the one year I didn't have any protection and got soaked before I started (miserable) vs the years I protected myself.
At least the temps are warmer this year than last year's rain, so you won't be freezing and wet.
Add on that many of these acquaintance/friend/etc cases have alcohol involved, and it gets all kinds of complicated really quickly.
/uj I bought my car in June 2020 because the sales/deals were absolutely bonkers and dealerships were desperate to sell once they were allowed to re-open from lockdown and a month and a half of closure (this is in New York where we got slammed by Covid and deaths). I'd been planning to finally buy once the time was right and BOY was the time right then. The car I bought had 21,000 miles on it, and now has 41,000, and the dealership pesters me every quarter or so like "you SURE you don't want to sell it back to us and buy something new?" I promise bro, you can pry this low-cost, low-mileage car from my cold dead fingers. I'd hate to try and buy a car now.
You're giving parents like this too much credit. They probably went onto facebook to bitch about this "horrible store" and its "horrible service" on their local neighborhood group. Zero chance they learned anything from this.
It honestly depends on the judge. Some judges are more active than others whereas some judges take a "I'm not doing their job for them" approach. It doesn't necessarily reflect bad lawyering in itself; it can be the result of just unfamiliarity with a particular judge.
What the money she was paid was for -- and whether she had sex with Trump, and a whole bunch of other things she testified to -- have nothing to do with the criminal charges against Trump.
Except they opened on it and created the issue of whether the affair (the reason for the payment in the first place) ever happened. Once they claimed in their opening statement that the affair never happened and Daniels was lying, they opened the door to the prosecution eliciting evidence from her about the affair and/or whatever corroborating evidence they have because her credibility has now become an issue at the trial.
You can't successfully argue to preclude evidence at a trial and then go on to comment on said evidence in a manner most advantageous to your client. That's completely misleading and it will result in exactly what is happening here, which is evidence that would otherwise be irrelevant is now allowed to come in.
My understanding is that Merchan did sua sponte sustain objections on at least several occasions, which should've signaled to the attorneys to pay closer attention and object more than they did. Just use your common sense. For example, how is the fact of whether he used a condom or not even remotely relevant? It's not. It has nothing to do with the ultimate question of whether the affair happened and/or whether Daniels is a credible witness or not. I also can't believe they didn't object to that.
Which, to be fair, is putting his lawyers between a rock and a hard place, but then again...they willingly signed up for this. As I've said several times throughout this whole debacle, you couldn't pay me enough to represent a client like that. He's used to micro-managing and getting his way to an extreme, which means he will *not* listen to any advice, even if it could get him an acquittal.
Stress has an enormous impact on our fitness. You will be back to - and even better than - where you were before.
100% this. You've gone through one of the worst experiences I can even imagine, and it happened not that long ago. I hope running can become the stress release it is to a lot of us again for you as opposed to a source of additional stress. Until then, try to remember to show yourself some grace. You've gone through something incredibly traumatic.
They got some decent ones of me during the NYC Half, but these ones are truly awful lol. I am either behind someone, or way off to the side of the photo, or I'm a million miles away from the camera.
Who’s paying for those photos of the BK half?
RunNYC