Soxbadger

Frank Thomas was no good, Sox should have never drafted him because he was a TE at Auburn. And wooo Beckham

I can name 1 football player who was a good baseball player, Bo Jackson. I can name another on the field today, Joe Mauer, he had a scholarship to Florida State.

Quentin the only thing that can happen on an appeal is you get struck out, you cant gain, what are you doing?

That ball really carried, but tie game b****es!

Its already the second half. These next 2 games are part of the second half and if the Sox want to turn things around, it starts today. Simple as that.

I dont want them to lose, I just dont see how they can win unless this is some sort of joke on the fans and they are going to start playing for reals after the All-Star game. Its just a strange season. Maybe Reinsdorf over spent on a crappy product so that fans would actually be rooting for him to slash salary. If hes that clever, good for him.

Well save that for another day, plenty of other times when Ill need distractions at work.

I loved Ozzie, but he needs to be fresh and excited. Hes worn out with the Sox, its just a job. I actually think hed do better on another team, he needs a change of scenery. Its just everyone seems to be afraid of change, weve been together so long, what if nothing else is the same? Like a bad relationship that no one is brave enough to end. (edit) Id let the new manager select his coaches, if he wanted coop, baines, walker or whatever Id let them make that choice. new coach, he gets to choose his staff, im not getting involved.

Id be fine with just getting rid of Ozzie and giving all the players a fresh start to prove that they deserve to be on the team. If they dont shape up, anyone I could move would be gone.

I wasnt commenting specifically on this game. I was saying that the problem is that the Sox pitching has a razor thing margin. They just dont get many games where the Sox get 5 runs plus. Every pitcher will have their off days, weeks, months etc, but you hope that the hitting picks them up once in a while. Sox staff just has to be unbelievable dominatnt to win.

I dont blame the pitchers at all. Giving up 5 runs in an AL game isnt even that bad. Its just with the Sox offense 5 runs seems insurmountable.

Why did Ozzie do something strange in the 4th? Because hes Ozzie. I honestly feel hes cost us a significant amount of games, but it seems like nothing is changing. Not even sure what they should do, Id trade a bunch of guys, get rid of coaches and see what happens. Probably still be around 500 but at least not annoying.

If the Sox could some how rally, that would be amazing. But just seems to be no magic.

Fly, haha thats after I got home from work and was actually able to cite and reply coherently. And damn I was hoping to get to reply to you one more time and use your own line "you cant bend your morals, murder is murder. So even if you kill an innocent man with the best intentions, its still murder".

Joe, Do what you want to do. I was with a girl for almost 5 years that many people disliked for whatever reasons, etc etc. We eventually broke up, it probably was for the best, but it doesnt mean that a part of me still doesnt love the hell out of her and will always miss her. Live the moments, the future will work itself out.

Cell is a good time, weather has been great recently. If youre a fan you just go out and enjoy yourself, Ive seen almost every Sox player, but its always fun to see other teams great players. Ill never forget the game Bonds hit the hardest ball out of the Cell Ive ever seen or Ripkens last game, Dan Pasqua hitting a hr, or whatever it was that happened that day. Youre going to have seasons where everything is magical, youre going to have seasons that make you crazy. I try not to get to worked up about losses or bad seasons, just nothing I can do.

Alpha, Both the Supreme Court and I agree, that if a court found that what happened to Leal was harmless error, Texas was free to go on with the execution. Why would it have been so hard to give him 1 hearing on whether or not being given contact to the consulate did make a difference? If its such a closed case, why not just do it in 2004 and get it over with.

Flysox, The treaty is from 1963. So in 1994 the US had been subject to the treaty for a few decades give or take. lostfan, Because execution is final. What if he had gotten consular access and the Mexican govt provided him a better attorney who plead that Leal was disabled and therefore should be put in a mental institution? As a justice system, we cant rewrite the rules because "it wouldnt matter", the reality is, we dont know what would matter and what wouldnt. If we are going to say our justice system is fair and just, we must follow the rules, even if it doesnt matter, even if it means we have to spend extra money. Because that is what justice means. It means that you gave the Defendant all of their rights and they still lost. As soon as you take away 1, whats to stop you from taking away 2, or 3? I mean if we know they are guilty why even have a trial, why let them appeal? Why not just execute? Its because our system is based on the fact that for the majority of human history, there has been no semblance of justice for those who were not the extremely wealthy. That we our a society who created a system where even the most terrible, the poorest, the worst, get the same rights as the best of us. Because as long as we give the worst the fairest chance, we can be sure that we give everyone a chance. Kapkomet, Law didnt exist at the time? Does not compute. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/11-5001.pdf See the date, April 24, 1963. If the victim was 16 in 1994, she wasnt even born in 1963. See Lostfan, this is why it matters. Because there are people who will completely rewrite history to strip a Defendant of his rights. They will change the law to say it didnt exist, just so that they can execute someone today, instead of 15 years from now. Thats why its a big deal, because not many people in the world care about Defendants. They immediately assume they are guilty, they want to execute them instantly, they do not care that humans are imperfect and therefore prone to error. They would rather kill an innocent man today, than let a criminal not be executed and have to live in jail. , which means we changed the rules after we arrested Leal. So if you are upset about ex post facto, you should be made that the US changed the rules in 2005 after the ruling in 2004. (Its sad how dirty this all is.) Even more sad, all Texas was required to do was: Thus if you are all correct, that it was merely harmless, Texas would have still gotten to execute him. So why not have the hearing? If you are so sure this guy is guilty, why not in 2004 have the hearing? The only reason you dont want to, is because youre afraid that more than harmless error occurred. And maybe its not in this case, maybe its in one of the other X cases of Mexican nationals not being given these rights. But who cares about facts or the law, the state of texas said Leal murdered some one, the state of texas is never wrong!!!! Or maybe the story of Ruben Cantu will give you pause http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent. And just for fun of the 9 people mentioned, 6 were executed in texas. How do you explain killing an innocent man? (not that Leal was innocent, but the reason why its all important is because it all matters, from the before the arrest, until the execution, it all matters and small injustices can lead to big mistakes)

Jenks, And the Supreme Court also said that Separate but equal was okay and the Supreme Court ruled Dred Scott, and I can name countless other decisions that were flat out incorrect by the Supreme Court. I dont believe that I have ever stated what Texas did was in violation of US law? I said what Texas did was wrong. It was one time okay for a state to say different races couldnt marry, just because that was "legal" didnt mean it was "right". At one time a slave owner could kill his slave, that didnt mean it wasnt wrong. Why was it wrong? Because the US (which Texas to the best of my knowledge is still a part of) has an agreement with Mexico, that the US will grant Mexican citizens access to the consulate. Texas is part of the US, therefore Texas should have to follow the treaties the US signs. Thats your opinion. I feel that if it wasnt a big deal, if it made no difference, why not let him contact the consulate? The obvious answer to me, is that it would have given him more rights and made it more difficult to convict. As explained before, it has nothing to do with the SC ruling, it has nothing to do with the law, the law can be wrong. Its as simple as that. I never said Texas had an obligation, I said that Texas should have done it anyways. Some times doing the right thing, means you do more than you are obligated to do. Where have I ever raised that argument? In fact I explicitly stated that what in this discussion it really didnt matter what the SC ruled, because the SC rule is clearly the law Disregarding the arguments of whether or not a state is bound by the treaty before Congress passes the treaty, what do you think the best course of action is?. The question was, WHAT DO YOU (NOT THE SUPREME COURT) think the best course of action is. If the question was under the law, what does Texas have to do, the answer is simple. But this question isnt about that, its about do we think what Texas did is right. It should be pretty simple to discuss, instead of simply relying on "The Supreme Court ruled this way, so it must be right!" To me human life is worth more than money. No price tag is worth cutting corners. Why? Because she is dead, and no amount of killing will bring her back. Its a terrible tragedy that someone was murdered. In my opinion its a terrible tragedy when anyone is killed, but that is besides the point. I cant go back in time and save her, I cant jump in my TARDIS and stop the events. I can do nothing to help her. What I can do, is I can protect those who are alive. Are more people safe because Texas doesnt give foreign civilians the opportunity to contact their consulate? No Are people less likely to be murdered because Texas doesnt give foreign civilians the opportunity to contact their consulate? No Is there any connection between the victim and what Texas did? No Thats why I dont discuss the victim, because its not germane to this discussion. Because we all know what happened to the victim is beyond words, that it is a terrible tragedy, that it is something I would hope would never happen in civilized society. But 2 wrongs dont make a right. And contrary to your belief, you can follow the law and be wrong, its happened before and it will happen again.

Im busy today, so I cant really give all of your responses the time they deserve, but here goes nothing: The end game is that Leal deserves to be allowed to contact his consulate and then have a trial. If he is convicted in that trial, he then deserves all of the appeal processes. If after that point we is still guilty, Texas can execute him. Imo, the state of Texas cut corners, and I dont think that is fair, at least not to me. So I think the state of Texas should bear the responsibility of fixing their error and going back to the beginning. The point is, we dont know. Maybe it would have changed nothing, but if thats the case, why didnt the state of Texas give him the chance? When you look at the bigger picture, it seems to me that Texas is purposefully not allowing criminals to contact their consulate in an attempt to get easier convictions. To me that is wrong, its not like this is the only time Texas has done this. Leal allegedly had a learning disability and may have suffered brain damage. The state of Texas never made him aware of his right to contact the Mexican consulate. He only learned of that right from another prisoner. Why should Texas get to brazenly disregard a US treaty? Why is Texas more important then the rest of the US? It isnt. We are bound to a treaty, we had the right to not sign the treaty, but we want our citizens to get the benefit of it. So we in turn must give the benefits to others. What happened is wrong. The day we start changing the rules because its easier and takes less time, is the day our justice system loses its credibility. There is no need to rush here, doesnt make a difference if Leal died yesterday, tomorrow or 30 years in the future. I just dont think a mans life is worth Texas saving money because they didnt want to follow the rules.

Flysox, Im not sure how its relevant what happened to Ms. Sauceda, Im not sure there is any law that states we suspend certain rights "if the crimes are bad enough". What I do know is that there is a question of whether the Defendant received a fair trail. Pursuant to US treaty he as a citizen of Mexico had the right to contact his consulate. The state of Texas denied the Defendant that right. After that point the entire process is tainted. If you cheat at the beginning of the game to win or cheat at the end of the game to win, its still the same. If we are going to hold the high ground in terms of "fair", we need to be fair. We cant withhold information from Defendants so that we can convict them easier. Thats not fair, it just isnt. Fair is letting the Defendant contact his consulate and then convict him. If he is so guilty, why did the state of Texas need to cheat? How do you know he is a murderer before he is convicted? In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. When the state of Texas denied the Defendant his rights he was innocent. It doesnt matter if the American is tried fairly if his rights are denied from the beginning. You cant use hindsight to say that the original action is okay. You have to look at the original action and ask, was it okay. The ends do not justify the means. That is fine, I think that the US is free to sign those type of treaties and agree with this treaty. I think that foreign nationals should have the right to contact their consulate. I think thats a good policy for US citizens abroad, just as much as I think its a good policy for other nationals. I believe that all people have the right to counsel and fair trails, I think for a foreign national the first step is to get in contact with your consulate to see what services they can provide. It works both ways. I am, and if there is a god, I think hell be cool with the life I have lived. Im in no way perfect, but I help a ton of people, Im not greedy and I do my best to make sure that other people get treated as good or better than I do. That being said, its not just atheists who dont believe in hell, a variety of religions do not really recognize it. If there is a hell, hes going there anyway and its for eternity, so does killing him 100 years to early really mean anything? No. but if being killed is awesome and he gets a better life, we let him off the hook. I just cant rationalize that. Im just not willing to let a truly heinous criminal get out of jail free because Im so impatient that I cant wait for his death. So for the record I dont believe in murder, I think we should treat others as one would like to treat oneself and I believe that humans are imperfect and capable of error and therefore do not believe they should condemn another man to death. If the court system convicts an innocent man and the state puts him to death, we are murderers. If there is a god, I hope you will be able to explain why it was okay for an innocent human to die. I cant explain it, therefore I no longer believe in the death penalty. Alpha, He would have received a fairer trial in potentially 169 other countries. Those are the countries (like the US) who have agreed to allow foreign nationals contact with a consulate. Id love to say the US was the fairest and most just system, but today it is not. But thats what Im fighting for, for the day I get to say that there is no other country that is as fair as the US. (We are close, but I just dont think most civilized countries would let this happen.) Flysox, Dont worry, Im not really concerned. If we all go before god, I cant really imagine that hes going to care if we believed in him or not. If I had to go in front of him I think my answer would be, I erred on the side of caution. I didnt see any evidence, so I tried to do good things just to make a better world for others, not because I was hoping to get into heaven or not go to hell. If thats not good enough, whoops.

And every once and a while its up to the few to stop the many. Trials are about what can be proven by the evidence, its not about sensational theories. The burden of proof on the prosecution in a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt". If you had any doubt about the evidence you had to acquit. For all we know the Casey's father killed the granddaughter and tried to set up Casey. Casey was arguably a bad mother, but that doesnt mean that the burden of proof changes, that she had to disprove the allegations.

Damn we are back to playing games on paper. Do you think that the Twins 1's and 0's are more grindy?

You fail to see any sadness in the fact that the US has an agreement with Mexico and the US failed to honor that agreement? At the end of the day, I take my word seriously. If I tell you that we have an agreement, that means something. As an United States citizen I am ashamed that we told 170 countries that we would abide by a treaty and we failed to do it. Not only that, but after we were told we were in the wrong, we didnt even change our actions, we just went on our way acting like it doesnt matter, that somehow vengeance is more important then our word. That makes me sad, it makes me sad because we are supposed to be a country where there is liberty and justice for all. And that means we treat the worst of society with the same respect and decency we treat the best of society. I wonder what the people of the great state of Texas would say if an American civilian was denied rights in Mexico and executed. Would we merely say "Well Mexico has that right" or would we expect more? Would we expect that our citizen be given the rights and treatment that Mexico agreed to give them when they signed the treaty? So today I am sad, not because of the death, but because we were so hellbent on killing this man that we had to break our word to do it. And unlike you, I dont believe Mr. Leal will be going to hell, I dont believe hes going anywhere. Dead is dead.

You arent going to axe Kenny for going big on Rios and failing. They all played a part in that decision, at the end of the day Reinsdorf shares responsibility as well, because he could have said no.