- Member for
- 7 years 31 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|20 hours 7 min ago||The||
car analogy is completely useless. The victim has not identified al alleged perpetrator in that case. It is apples to oranges. Here the parties are both identified. Identification is not an issue. So the only question here is whet the person already identified committed a crime.
|23 hours 8 min ago||We||
do fundamentally disagree, but not by as much as you would think. I think it is a fair starting point to say the alleged victim "believes, in their current state of mind, that he or she was the victim of a crime." I think assuming they were, in deed, the victim of a crime goes too far.
|23 hours 19 min ago||Calling||
that a straw man is unfair to straw men.
|23 hours 26 min ago||You||
don't assume anything about the victim. They are a complainant in a criminal investigation. The one thing that you don't assume is that the accused is guilty.
|23 hours 30 min ago||Seriously,||
Is this the twilight zone? What the hell does making them stay on the team have to do with anything?
|23 hours 33 min ago||"Far||
more guilty people will be locked up than innocent ones." Wow. Afraid you are not ready for this conversation, friend.
|23 hours 46 min ago||You||
have got to be kidding me. Looking at the available evidence is the only way to determine whether somebody is guilty or not guilty of a charged offense, and looking at both how an accuser and an accused behaved immediately before any alleged offense is not part of "a culture," it is relevant evidence to the determination of guilt. It is like Criminal Law 101. That is not the same thing as saying that a girl "sleeps around" so it is probably not true. Not the same thing at all. You are confusing two seperate things.
|1 day 13 min ago||Believing that||
a citizen of the United States is innocent until proven guilty of a crime does not make me "complicit in a rape culture" or "part of the problem." That is a very ingorant statement. It makes me a believer of the costitutional rights afforded a criminal defendant in the United States, and very knowledgeable as to the history of criminal prosecutions and why they are afforded those rights.
|1 day 17 min ago||It||
doesn't invalidate anything. You always have to prove those two things, it doesn't create a more significant burden in any way. In fact, often times, the most significant element of the crime (that sex occured) is often admitted by the accused and is not in dispute, and he only has his word as his defense. In this way, innocent until proven guilty is even more important in a rape case.
|1 day 24 min ago||It depends||
on where the offense occurs. In some jurisdictions, hiding until you are found is considered Resisting Law Enforcement even if you don't physically threaten or resist once you are found. To me, that is a "dubious" charge.
|1 day 37 min ago||You||
are absolutely 100% patently incorrect. Never has a better case been made for the need for the innocent until proven guilty mandate than your statements here.
|1 day 40 min ago||No,||
innocent until proven guilty is one of the most fundamental, indispensible aspects of a civilized society.
|1 day 54 min ago||OK, hold up-hold up||
1) Innocent until proven guilty is every bit as applicable to rape than to any other crime. There should not be any kind of presumption that a person accused of rape is more likely to be guilty than any other type of crime, that is ridiculous.
2) You think it is more likely that a rape occured because the alleged victim voluntarily went to a hotel room with the alleged assailant to watch him involved in a threesome? Huh? I am not saying the alleged victim is lying but I can't see how these particular circumstances would convince you even further of his guilt.
|1 day 1 hour ago||It||
just seems like a redundant charge to Disorderly Person. The charge is often used as a kind of "add on" to ambiguous charges like Disorderly Person or Disorderly Conduct so it will plead out quickly as it often does.
And the decision to charge the offense would have nothing to do with the police officer reporting the facts, it would have to do with the prosecutor deciding to charge.
See, us superior, postmodern, humane, progressives, aren't all bad. We just tend to, kind- of, think, about stuff sometimes.
|1 day 1 hour ago||I||
thought some things about it were kind of odd, I can't deny that. Not odd for any specific reason, but just kind of "off." He had the entire day to determine if he was going to play, and it was a little out of the ordinary that he would just be deciding, like the minute that coverage picked up, whether he was going to play or not. I also thought it was a little strange that he was watching the game from the press box, I can't say as though I can remember that ever happening.
Like I said, it doesn't add up to any particular "theory," but I can at least acknowledge that I was vaguely curious as to the circumstances.
That doesn't mean that a paid ESPN analyst should be able to just throw it out there though without following up on it. That is a whole different thing.
|1 day 1 hour ago||At||
this point, it is not really about Gus Johnson as much as not having ESPN call The Game every year. With Herbstreit calling it every year and Galloway as one of the primary studio guys, Michigan was always going to be the "non-preferred" team of the two. Given that The Game is likely going to have extreme significance on an annual basis, I think that happened at just the right time. I am not a Herbstreit hater, but it always had a pro-Ohio State lean to it regardless of how objective he tries to be.
|1 day 3 hours ago||Why||
did he flip out on the issue to begin with? Doesn't everybody pretty much agree that it was a really dumb move? Why was he breathing so much fire about it?
|1 day 3 hours ago||I mean,||
he was playing behind the best point guard in the conference. He did not exactly see the floor a lot. I do agree that bringing in a grad transfer is not a good sign for him, but I don't think it can be said that it was based on Simpson's play or lack thereof last year. He simply didn't play much, and it was pretty clear why that was.
|1 day 3 hours ago||I||
do think it is a bit of a vote of no confidence in Xavier Simpson, though. In Simpson I thought we were getting a kid that could at least start in the Walton-2014 way next year. With both MAAR and Simpson on the roster and Brooks coming in, I am a little but surprised at this.
|1 day 3 hours ago||I still||
have not watched the injury. I looked away during the replay and have never seen it. That sounds like the right move from what I have heard.
|2 days 4 min ago||Yeah,||
he wrote that entire sermon just so he could call people "pot heads" and think about how awesome it was.
|2 days 9 min ago||Well||
assuming that everybody else on the Board is correct, players know 1) they are going to get tested at the combine and 2) a diluted test is treated as a positive test. So, if they intentionally dilute their test so as to mask the presence of a banned substance then they are going to have a positive test anyway because they two are treated as the same.
So, question - What motivation would anybody ever have to dilute a test?
Peppers seems like a fairly smart guy. If you are going to be treated as though you tested positive regardless of whether you test positive or test diluted, why would anybody intentionally give a dilute sample? Doesn't add up. The smarter course of conduct would be to just take the test, hope you pass, and have a great "What had happened......." story for teams if you don't.
|2 days 21 min ago||"Does"||
a lot of pot?
|2 days 49 min ago||Well,||
unless said player admitted that they were lying originally, has there ever been a case where you can know for sure that they weren't telling the truth?
Aside from Pac Man Jones, that is.
He wasn't telling the truth.
|2 days 57 min ago||^^ This||
As a society, we need to get together and determine how long it is going to be before we can officially stop treating pot as a big deal. It is already *wink*wink* not a big deal to pretty much everybody so when can it officially become not a big deal.
I know that if that is the case, it is not a smart move by him. I get it. It is just that to define whether somebody can or cannot succeed or is of high character or not based on use of that specific substance does not follow. It is not that kind of thing.
|2 days 19 hours ago||Even||
the Fritos burrito? Worst fast food item on the market.
|3 days 27 min ago||2 Whoppers with Cheese||
and a large fry.
|5 days 4 hours ago||The||
middle one looks like he was awakened before he was done with his nap and somebody is going to pay for it.
|5 days 5 hours ago||The primary||
issue right now is that many people feel that if certain things are said by anybody, on the blog or otherwise, not responding is not the equivalent of "avoiding political discussions" but is more of a tacit acceptance of an inherently toxic system of thought that needs to be explicitly rejected in all forms. It may be that the tide of public sentiment is going to shape history right now and many people feel almost morally obligated to be on the right side of it.
|5 days 19 hours ago||Long||
story short. Weed and actual depression don't mix well.