Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
southsider2k5

Only JR knew of new TLR DUI upon interview and hire

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

DUIs where the offender falls asleep at the wheel or where he is involved in a collision could be charged as a felony if the prosecutor decided to do so. Felony DUI could also be decided based on BAC. Furthermore, there are some states where there is no time limit, if you get a second DUI it could well be charged as a felony, Arizona is not one of these. In fact, I will guarantee you there are people in this country who have served months in jail for doing things exactly like Tony LaRussa and who were then charged with a felony.

He is a rich, well represented white guy, and so your statement that he is not a felon is tantamount to a statement “he’s rich and white, this is not open to debate. Next”

I'm well aware of all that.  But "felon" and "felony" are legal terms of art with fixed meaning.  You're either a "felon" or you're not, and he is not.  If you want to say he's a jerk, fine.  If you want to make a broader point about the legal system, fine.  If you want to say that you think he's wrongly convicted, or that he was over- or under-charged, fine.  But saying he is a "felon" is simply false, and saying so is not tantamount to anything--it's a statement of fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

I'm well aware of all that.  But "felon" and "felony" are legal terms of art with fixed meaning.  You're either a "felon" or you're not, and he is not.  If you want to say he's a jerk, fine.  If you want to make a broader point about the legal system, fine.  If you want to say that you think he's wrongly convicted, or that he was over- or under-charged, fine.  But saying he is a "felon" is simply false, and saying so is not tantamount to anything--it's a statement of fact.

At the very least, your “next” was insufficient as a “all conversation on this point stops” given that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

I'm well aware of all that.  But "felon" and "felony" are legal terms of art with fixed meaning.  You're either a "felon" or you're not, and he is not.  If you want to say he's a jerk, fine.  If you want to make a broader point about the legal system, fine.  If you want to say that you think he's wrongly convicted, or that he was over- or under-charged, fine.  But saying he is a "felon" is simply false, and saying so is not tantamount to anything--it's a statement of fact.

Oh good lord.  Do you run around saying OJ was innocent too?  Doesn't carrying the water for Jerry get tiring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Oh good lord.  Do you run around saying OJ was innocent too?  Doesn't carrying the water for Jerry get tiring?

Say what?  I didn't say anything about TLR (let alone OJ) being "innocent."  I didn't defend his actions in any way.  I don't even like the hire.  With all due respect, you completely missed the point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all are really reaching here with the “carrying the water”. The poster above was just trying to get across that referring to him as a “felon” is incorrect, he in fact is not legally a felon. He wasn’t defending TLR’s actions or hire (I’m not either). He was just clarifying a fact, not an opinion. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ShoeLessRob said:

You all are really reaching here with the “carrying the water”. The poster above was just trying to get across that referring to him as a “felon” is incorrect, he in fact is not legally a felon. He wasn’t defending TLR’s actions or hire (I’m not either). He was just clarifying a fact, not an opinion. 

Call it short hand for "a guy who has probably committed many more felonies in his life but has gotten caught twice that we know of, but because he is rich has been able to plead down to something low enough that people will still defend him and his reputation."

The "missing the point" part of all of this is the part where you take exception with one word in the description, instead of the criminal actions of the person we just hired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Call it short hand for "a guy who has probably committed many more felonies in his life but has gotten caught twice that we know of, but because he is rich has been able to plead down to something low enough that people will still defend him and his reputation."

The "missing the point" part of all of this is the part where you take exception with one word in the description, instead of the criminal actions of the person we just hired.

You're still stuck in the same place.  Where on earth are you getting the idea that I don't "take exception with" Tony LaRussa's criminal actions?  I think what he did is terrible, I don't support the hire, and I think the organization has handled the situation as poorly as I could possibly imagine. 

Now back to the actual point.  I now realize it was you who originally said TLR is a "felon" (two-time felon, I think?)  That's false, no matter how you slice it.  The statutes that restrict felons' voting rights, for example, don't have a category for "shorthand felon," or "felon depending on how you look at it."  If you called TLR a "felon" in a court filing you'd be subject to sanction.  You should just acknowledge it, but somehow it seems like you're still digging.  That's your right--this is a message board, after all, not a court of law--but as a moderator you should try to do better in my humble opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

You're still stuck in the same place.  Where on earth are you getting the idea that I don't "take exception with" Tony LaRussa's criminal actions?  I think what he did is terrible, I don't support the hire, and I think the organization has handled the situation as poorly as I could possibly imagine. 

Now back to the actual point.  I now realize it was you who originally said TLR is a "felon" (two-time felon, I think?)  That's false, no matter how you slice it.  The statutes that restrict felons' voting rights, for example, don't have a category for "shorthand felon," or "felon depending on how you look at it."  If you called TLR a "felon" in a court filing you'd be subject to sanction.  You should just acknowledge it, but somehow it seems like you're still digging.  That's your right--this is a message board, after all, not a court of law--but as a moderator you should try to do better in my humble opinion.

It's still not the ACTUAL point, but this is where it went, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Call it short hand for "a guy who has probably committed many more felonies in his life but has gotten caught twice that we know of, but because he is rich has been able to plead down to something low enough that people will still defend him and his reputation."

The "missing the point" part of all of this is the part where you take exception with one word in the description, instead of the criminal actions of the person we just hired.

So now Tony LaRussa is a career criminal and should be in the same conversation of legal privilege for the wealthy as OJ and not agreeing with this is carrying water for JR.

 

Edited by Harry Chappas
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting that a guy who was supposedly hired with zero tolerance if another one of these pops up, didn't even warrant a discussion whether said behavior should disqualify him from the job.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

It is interesting that a guy who was supposedly hired with zero tolerance if another one of these pops up, didn't even warrant a discussion whether said behavior should disqualify him from the job.

HOpefully someone put Uber on his Jitterbug phone.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

It is interesting that a guy who was supposedly hired with zero tolerance if another one of these pops up, didn't even warrant a discussion whether said behavior should disqualify him from the job.

When friendships and team image get tossed aside and the only thing that matters is winning,  you hire the guy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

HOpefully someone put Uber on his Jitterbug phone.

Some teams spend $75,000 on an interpreter.  Can the Sox afford a driver?  Especially since we are "all in".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Texsox said:

When friendships and team image get tossed aside and the only thing that matters is winning,  you hire the guy!

2 DUIs? No problem, we can work with that. 3 DUI's? That would be too much. You're not employable. 

Edited by Dick Allen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Some teams spend $75,000 on an interpreter.  Can the Sox afford a driver?  Especially since we are "all in".

It amazes me that people in this position get busted.  Even it is $100 ride, just pay for it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, southsider2k5 said:

It amazes me that people in this position get busted.  Even it is $100 ride, just pay for it.

That's the problem with alcohol, when you most need good judgment about the alcohol the alcohol clouds that judgment. Plan the trip home before the start. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

2 DUIs? No problem, we can work with that. 3 DUI's? That would be too much. You're not employable. 

Sometimes a person needs a break, someone to help them rehabilitate. Chicago White Sox Giving Hall of Famer criminals a chance since 2021(tm)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the spirit of forgiving past mistakes, I think they should let William Ligue Jr. and his son back into the park. Sure, they hope on the field and beat up a KC Royals coach, but it was a misdemeanor. Why do they have lifetime bans?

Edited by Dick Allen
  • Love 1
  • Fire 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we just found TLR a driver! 

@Dick Allen did you have to look up the name? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only JR knew of new TLR DUI upon interview ...

^^^^ Perhaps this topic and others involving personal opinions about social issues and conspiracy theories should be moved to  "SLaM" as this thing has become a distraction which only encourages unnecessary and irrelevant argument .

 

  • Haha 1
  • Fire 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, tray said:

Only JR knew of new TLR DUI upon interview ...

^^^^ Perhaps this topic and others involving personal opinions about social issues and conspiracy theories should be moved to  "SLaM" as this thing has become a distraction which only encourages unnecessary and irrelevant argument .

 

This topic is based on a news report from Jerry's personal leak receptacle, the same designated leak receptacle that broke the story on this idiotic hire in the first place.

Quote

When the White Sox started the interview process with La Russa in October, he also told Reinsdorf of the incident. Reinsdorf didn’t share it with anyone.

Perhaps you and the usual suspects would be more comfortable sticking with the White Sox official site and Steve Stone's twitter account, assured all discussions will conform with your myopic view of the world and White Sox baseball.

Edited by South Side Hit Men
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×