-
Posts
13699 -
Joined
-
Days Won
21
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by Huckleberry
-
-
1 hour ago, HenryJames said:
He means that it isn't complete shit like Devine.
-
I don't know whether to groan or cry. Ha.
-
Just wanted to make a mention of the game Schmeichel had for Leicester today. What a damn stud. Even on Kompany's wonderstrike Schmeichel read the play perfectly and was stepping up before Kompany took the shot because he was the only one out there for Leicester who saw the danger.
-
They've figured out apostrophes, though, so plus one for them.
-
lulz
-
1
-
-
Meh, lots of weak smack talk around here. We have Liverpool fans taking shots at how much money City spends. Meanwhile Liverpool has been one of the Top 10 spenders in all of Europe for basically three decades with bupkis domestically to show for it.Im not the one making the same joke for years about a game that didnt get your team the title....your usually better at this, im quite disappointed actually -
It's slave labor money. If you're going to cry at least be accurate.Just glad all that Terrorist Money goes to funding City instead of bombs.
Well done, City.-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, HenryJames said:
I guess you'd have to call that pretty clutch.
I SAID IT WAS CLUTCH
-
-
GET IN!
-
1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:
Who cares? He's been the best player on a Golden State team that has won two.
Posters who are still butthurt that he didn't sign with their team, that's who. In this particular case, that's San Antonio.
-
1 hour ago, Helobious said:
I still don't understand what's supposed to be wrong with Thanos' plan. It's a solution that would solve virtually every global problem, it's fair and totally up to chance, and it's quick & easy with no mess.
How would killing half of all life help? He killed animals and plants, too. You know, the resources that are running short. Those got cut in half, too.
-
Don't do this. You compare players to their peers or these conversations are pointless.West was more of a shooting guard. Combo at that least. Cousy was great for his era but not sure the 37.5% shooting percentage would hold up past the mid 60's. I definitely think Kidd and Isaiah are in the conversation.
And f all y'all for not mentioning Slater Martin. -
Yeah, don't forget that Guyger reported that even after illuminating the apartment she still didn't know it wasn't hers until she went back to the hallway to read the apartment number to confirm her location for EMS.
We're not dealing with a bright bulb here.
-
1
-
-
While you raise a good point about historical castle residents, the fact remains that Guyger used a firearm to kill Jean. Murder, go to jail.
Now if she had used a trebuchet then we could submit into evidence exhibits related to medieval codes of conduct with respect to the castle doctrine.
-
I don't have any particular wishes as far as the jury goes, other than that she serves jail time for the reasons discussed previously (holding officers to a higher standard and also making sure she's never an officer again).
And the castle doctrine defense seems flimsy, but I've never been on a jury. If I were in that deliberation room I'd just find somebody who was all about the castle doctrine and ask them "so it's okay if I use the castle doctrine and kill you in your castle?"
-
Man, this guy's a good lawyer. So many jurors are likely to get confused by all that hand waving.
Was Jean supposed to be there? Yes. Was Guyger supposed to be there? No. Did Guyger aim at and intend to shoot Jean when she killed him? Yes.
Done and done. If she entered the apartment she's toast. Still haven't heard or read a good legal argument why she shouldn't be convicted of murder if she entered the apartment. If she entered then she was already committing a crime (likely accidentally) when she killed a guy in his home. Hell, if she didn't enter then she had plenty of opportunity to retreat/escape if she actually thought there was a physical threat.
-
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:
Now that is a reasonable point. Not sure I agree, but makes some sense. I think the facts are so weird and so unlikely to ever occur again, that one would be foolish to say "this gives me carte blanche to go around wasting people." And I think that probably goes more with an acquittal than by the sentence.
You are assuming that the facts are as she claims them to be. What if she actually intended to kill Botham Jean and knew how to act after the shooting? Then she absolutely believes she's teflon and got away with murder and could do it again. The facts are only unlikely to ever occur again if nobody intentionally recreates the facts necessary to get away with a similar incident. That wouldn't be very difficult.
-
23 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:
I am familiar with the data.
There we’re 3 outcomes possible. 0 for 2, 1 for 2 or 2 for 2. She was 1 for 2.
The fact that this case specifically doesn’t conform (cannot conform) mathematically to a NYPD average is of no import.
Let's be generous and give a standard police officer a 25% hit rate. Guyger claims she was so exhausted she couldn't tell she was in the wrong apartment, so I'm going to go ahead and unilaterally knock that down to an expected 12.5% hit rate. With a 12.5% expected hit rate, we would expect:
0 of 2: 76.6% of the time
1 of 2: 21.9% of the time
2 of 2: 1.6% of the timePardon the rounding. So while it was still a joke it's also a perfectly valid argument. Compare this to a not actually tired and was really just a dumbass standard 25% hit rate:
0 of 2: 56.3% of the time
1 of 2: 37.5% of the time
2 of 2: 6.3% of the timeI mean if we're going to get pedantic let's really do this shit.
-
1
-
-
Do you have a statistic and evidence to counter that argument? The NYPD determined in a study a while back that their officers hit their intended target less than 30% of the time.
Edited to add - Actually the numbers were usually worse.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf
-
Right, I admit it might not be the legal precedent to consider that, but if both parties were doing something wrong I'd be more likely to understand no jail time. Or if somehow neither one were doing anything wrong (like a wife shoots her husband when he's stumbling in late because she thought he was gone for the weekend).
And in the Guyger case I also have stated and still believe that the fact she was a police officer should result in more severe consequences than if she had been a regular citizen. She should be better trained and if she is going to do something like this then she needs it on her record in a manner which never allows her to work as a peace officer again.
-
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:
Thanks for playing.
In the first and second hypos, you find it satisfactory that the "castle doctrine" would apparently shield the homeowner/shooter in almost identical circumstances? I can certainly see the theoretical distinction, that you are allowed to be less responsible in your own home, but I find the different outcomes fairly unsatisfactory. In real world terms, the dissatisfaction I feel could be compensated by a light sentence for the visitor/defender.
Similarly, I find the initial mistake of entering the wrong home to be kind of a flimsy, or unsatisfactory basis for absolutely saying jail in one instance and not in the other. Granted, it's a colossal mistake and compounded by the "free-shooting" aspect, but if it is sincerely believed, I don't find it a "jailworthy" distinction in and of itself.
I find the "free-shooting," meaning without retreat or reflection, to be the most troubling aspect of any of these scenarios or crimes. Doesn't matter whether it's from police training, general fearfulness, racially motivated fearfulness, or aggro cowboyness. I find it somewhat curious and logically inconsistent that it is excused in some situations and sort of "doubled-down" on in others, based primarily on one's location.
Pretty sure I agree with "no need to burn" in any of the circumstances. Five years tops?
It's not about being allowed to be less responsible in your own home as much as it's about being secure in your own home when you're the one who gets shot. I'm not only looking at it from the shooter's perspective but from the one who is shot. Who did something "wrong"? The one who fired the shot, the one who got shot, neither, or both?
In the case that started this thread, the shooter did. Innocent person minding their own business is shot to death in their home.
In your first hypothetical the shooter did. It's not his home, he needs to be extra fucking sure he can shoot the person fumbling with the door especially because presumably he knows the homeowner isn't home. The homeowner entering his own home is doing nothing wrong.
In the second I addressed the shooter did nothing wrong. The person who got shot did, they criminally trespassed (accidentally) into someone else's home.
In the third the shooter did something wrong. The dead person did nothing wrong.
If you use deadly force you need to be really sure you are in the right.
-
So he's in the top 10% of technicals and top 20% of starters?CP3 is 30th in technicals for the regular season. He's also President of the NBA players association.
For real aholes, look at Bruce Bowen, Zaza the ankle killer, Ron Artest, Dennis Rodman, Adrian Dantley, Karl Malone and more.
Thanks for the supporting evidence. -
Lets simplify this case in a different way. A legally armed civilian fucks up and staggers into someone else's apartment, thinks they are an intruder, and shoots them. They die.
Would we all be screaming for that armed civilian to burn? Or might we be a little more willing to call it a horrible fucking accident and consider that while a criminal prosecution might be appropriate, a lengthy jail sentence or even jail at all, might not be?
Jail. No need to burn.
This is simpler than defending a Greg Davis offense.
-
1
-
2nd Round: Warriors vs. Rockets
in Basketball
Posted · Edited by Huckleberry
Hahaha. Durant barely grazed Paul's chin when going to grab his arm to throw it off of him and we have the usual babies in here crying like he threw a vicious elbow to the face on purpose.
Durant's elbow comes from Paul's right but somehow the sheer force of the massive blow causes Paul's head to turn to the right. The same direction the "vicious elbow" came from.