Balta1701

Amare Stoudemire has a bulging disk in his back and is out indefinitely. No plans for surgery but rehab is going to be necessary and no time estimate given. Knicks are one possible first round Chicago opponent, they're currently sitting 8th, 1 game in the loss column ahead of Milwaukee and 3 behind the Celtics for the 7th spot.

One of the Honus Wagner cards goes up for auction starting tomorrow.

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 06:36 PM) Stults walking Josh Fields to lead off the 9th can't help his cause. The same Josh Fields we had? I thought he was in Japan?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 06:32 PM) I'm going to outrage about YOU! How about that? I understand your point...but it's all about watching how things are done in Chicago, politically. They're putting up "speed" cameras near every park/school, but high crime areas where they have off the charts gun violence and violent crime...f*** cameras...we need them for speeding tickets! That's the outrage I have. Apparently speeding tickets are far more important. And since privacy violations seems to mean nothing to them with all the traffic cameras they're putting up...I don't see that as an excuse as to why they can't put higher quality cameras in other areas where they can actually catch some people...but hey, at least we'll make more money off of traffic tickets now! How do you think they're going to pay for those other cameras you'd like?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 06:26 PM) I normally pay attention to pitch and innings counts for pitchers because it is like 99% of the time statistically relevant data, but there are certain guys like Justin Verlander who I just stop worrying about it, especially after 2010. I had him pegged for a 4.00-4.50 ERA after Leyland ran him into the ground in 2009. He proceeded to put up a better ERA and WHIP, albeit in 15.2 fewer innings. I don't expect 250 innings of a sub 2.50 ERA, but 230 of sub 3.00 ERA is perfectly reasonable. I know it only means so much, but he put up a .239 BABIP last year with Inge playing a lot of defense at 3b and Peralta having his best season in his career defensively at SS. If those things go the way they're supposed to...with Cabrera taking over 3b and Peralta playing like the Peralta of most years in his career, an ERA like the 3.54 mark he has in his career wouldn't be out of the question. But then again...this is baseball...and stranger things happen than a guy defying the odds.

The odds of being a registered voter in Texas in the 2008 and 2010 elections and having your identity used by someone else who is trying to cast a vote are somewhere worse than 1 in 6,250,000.

Unfortunately the question one runs into there is one of "outrage limits". What's better, that an equal amount of outrage/coverage is imposed on all cases regardless of their impact on societal decisions, and thus no case ever receives enough coverage to force a law to change, or that some cases are left by the wayside but there is fundamental shift in society away from things like having everyone and their grandmother carrying? If you accept the latter, of course, then you also wind up accepting "Blonde white woman syndrome", "Scott Peterson did something", "Nancy Grace has a job", etc.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 05:59 PM) I know if I was on the jury and you told me that Zimmerman, an armed man who was concerned was basically stalking an unarmed citizen, for the sole purpose that he seemed suspicious (of walking while black) an altercation than ensued, and then Zimmerman shot the unarmed citizen in "self defense," there would have to be some pretty darn good evidence for me to believe that the unarmed man was the person who initiated the altercation...much better than what we have here so far. The Jury might well not even be allowed to hear about the buildup to it, given the state of the law.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 05:30 PM) That is the important aspect that is lost here. The outrage isnt about whether he is innocent or guilty, its about the fact that he hasnt even been charged with a crime, it never went to a DA (a lawyer) to actually make the decision on whether there were enough facts to prosecute or not. Of course, if there wasn't a national outrage over this, the state level and now federal investigations would almost certainly have not happened.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 04:42 PM) No, he could be charged today if the prosecutors wanted. Oh, don't give me the "You can get them to indict a ham sandwich" statement, you know what I meant.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 04:39 PM) This thread is as all over the place as all of these "reports" and "eye-witness accounts". We'll never know for sure what happened and what events led up to what happened. The arguments in this thread are ridiculous because no one here has any idea what they are arguing. Whatever the exact events were...the only way that this guy could be charged with murder would be for the Florida stand your ground law to not exist. Thus, either this is what the law writers wanted, or this is collateral damage of a law that is having other positive benefits.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 04:35 PM) Not exactly. The brief witness statements they bothered to take don't contradict Zimmerman's claims, but they don't explicitly confirm them, either. The witness who say Trayvon on top of Zimmerman also doesn't say who initiated the contact. If Zimmerman had come up to Martin and accosted him, Martin had every right to self-defense. And frankly, there's no way the 2 wound up in close proximity unless Martin approached Zimmerman, after the point that Martin was known to be trying to get away from his own phone statements. At some point he gave up the run and decided to turn and act. And from that point...they are both aggressors.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 04:30 PM) http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-0...gated-community Witnesses are saying Martin was the aggressor, not just that he struck him. And frankly, if a guy was following me around in a truck yelling at me or something like that, and I tried and failed to outrun him, that would seem like a reasonable thing to do if he stopped.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 04:26 PM) Supposedly eye witnesses say Martin struck him, but I'm not sure how accurate the report is or isn't. Clearly Martin had to strike Zimmerman at some point, Zimmerman wound up with an injury.

Why do you think that one of the things the defense made sure was leaked was the supposed report about the 2 struggling on the ground? Because as long as Martin took an aggressive action, then that wound justifies the fact that he would have felt justifiably that his health or property would have been in more danger if he didn't take the shot.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 04:21 PM) It's all on him. HE has to prove that he felt it reasonably necessary to use deadly force to prevent serious injury or death. And he has all of the evidence he needs. He was injured. Martin clearly struck him or struggled with him. Barring a whole lot stronger details coming out which would contradict his statements...he has more than enough evidence. This law has been applied in a lot weaker cases than this, bar fights and such, and still held.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 04:00 PM) I don't understand your rationale here. The law does not extend to illegal acts. If Zimmerman initiated something that in the eyes of the law is an illegal act, he has no justification for escalating anything. Maybe I am misinterpreting you, but you seem to be arguing that someone can kill people if he has any right to believe his life is in danger. That is simply not true. One can not hold up a gas station and shoot the clerk if he attempts to defend himself with a weapon of some sort. The stand your ground law only applies if you are in a place you have a legal right to be and you're not committing a crime...Where things get really difficult is if Martin just became frightened and decided to attack Zimmerman without provocation. Jenks, do you think if Zimmerman verbally threatened Martin as the initiating act in the sequence that he would still be able to utilize the SYG provision, or is he already engaged in an illegal act at that point? As I said in that post...the only thing that is a legitimate illegal act in the eyes of the state of Florida is the true initiation of the physical confrontation. If Zimmerman walked up to the kid and then hit him unprovoked, then Martin responded, then Zimmerman is the aggressor. If Martin were to be running down the street trying to get away from the guy in the truck who is chasing him, then turned and threw something or struck Zimmerman when he "Stopped to get out of his car and see what street he was on", then every step from that point is effectively ok under this premise where he is allowed to stand his ground. Which means...the State of Florida would have to actively prove that Zimmerman began the physical confrontation with malice in order to charge him with anything. Basically, it has to establish that Martin, when first contronted by the guy in the truck, responded by laying down and doing nothing, not trying to get away, not becoming belligerent...just taking the instructions of the guy in the truck, and that Zimmerman then made a physical move on him anyway. Outside of actual video coming to light, it seems like a near impossible case to make. Martin is alleged to have struck Zimmerman when Zimmerman got out of his truck. That's Martin escalating the event, and under stand your ground doctrine, he is allowed to respond.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 01:46 PM) What the voters seem to have wanted was . . . A criminal in a hoodie confronts you demanding your wallet. You have an option to turn and run or, just like in the movies, you reach into your jeans to get your wallet and pull out a 9mm. Or you are the Korea War vet who instead of exiting the bus, you beat the crap out of the thug in a hoodie who is intimidating you. What they received was . . . Zimmerman Be careful what you wish for. Actually Tex...I think this is a lot closer to what the intent was. There's a reason why these laws were passed in a ton of states right after Katrina and the supposed looting that never really happened.

Yes of course they are, you just need to replace them in the opening day rotation right now, which you're not going to do, but call me back once I know how the first month of the season develops and then we can start legitimately talking.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 01:14 PM) Hamilton was also mentioned by Thibs as a game time decision. They've each been called that every game that they've missed. I think it's just one of Thibs's things.

I'm not sure that it matters, but someone's going to post it anyway.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 12:34 PM) First, it CAN be a crime under certain circumstances to specifically disobey a 911 operator. That can be interference with official acts. Btw, after second though, I'd like to know any legitimate situation where this would be applied, because that would be the worst possible thing you could imagine for emergency response. The absolute last thing you want in any sort of emergency situation is a delay in calling 911. If you are calling 911 and you think you can intervene in a situation before the police can arrive, but you suspect that the 911 operator will tell you not to intervene and you could face charges if you didn't listen...you won't call 911. Which is of course, what darn well might have happened here if there was a next time. He already grumbled that these guys always get away. Next time, if the 911 operator says don't intervene...then why restrict your rights by calling 911?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 12:41 PM) The bolded is simply not true. That is not, at all, what the law states. He could have been injured any number of ways. This is entirely you making a big leap. And though I do not know the intricacies of Florida criminal law, I can certainly tell you that partaking in acts which lead to a confrontation can, and sometimes do, result in prosection and conviction of defendents for the consequences of those actions. QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 12:49 PM) How do you know his injuries weren't caused by Martin's self-defense actions? Maybe Martin tried to defend himself, and in doing so, Zimmerman was injured? That does not give him the right to then shoot Martin. By that logic, I could create a situation by which I was legally allowed to shoot almost anyone merely by engaging them in some attack and sustaining injuries myself. Jeesh, all they have to do is call Dexter. He'd figure it out in 3 minutes based on the blood spatter analysis. QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 01:58 PM) Absolutely. I'm just arguing the application of the law we've been discussing. Balta seemed to imply that if Zimmerman was injured, he therefore had the right to shoot Martin because presumably he was acting in some form of self-defense. I don't pretend to know what happened and I certainly have made no statements as to what I believe should happen to Zimmerman. I'm just debating the law as it would theoretically be applied. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 02:04 PM) Yeah, there's the reasonable person standard to be met here. The problem is that, more often than not, these scenarios have two witnesses, and one of them is dead. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 03:02 PM) I would guess though that if it's just people in an empty room and one person is dead and the other argues self-defense that a typical juror is going to be biased towards the shooter than the dead guy. Unless there's some evidence otherwise (like injury that isn't self-inflicted). But even then this situation is rare. In some of the cases you were talking about last week they were fights in bars and whatnot. Here's one of my key legal points. Even if Martin's actions were self-defense...that does not mean that Zimmerman's response wasn't self-defense as well. Whatever happened wound up injuring Zimmerman. Zimmerman was thus in a position where he had every rational, legal reason to believe that he was in more jeopardy if he didn't take the shot. He had no duty to withdraw...and as others have noted in this thread, once a confrontation was initiated...if he were to withdraw, that could have put him in greater jeopardy by the fact that he'd be turning his back. Even if Martin were also trying to withdraw...if Zimmerman attempted to let him flee he could have plenty of reason to think that would put him in further jeopardy because he could have attempted to obtain another weapon, whether it was just a rock to throw or more. The only things that could plausibly be a crime here are the purported racial slur or the actual initiation of the physical confrontation. And if Martin threw the first punch at the guy stalking him, or escalated the situation in any way other than by basically lying on the ground the moment Zimmerman first approached him...without a duty to retreat, Zimmerman is justified in escalating in response.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 12:34 PM) What this case comes down to, in my view, is what happened in the direct confrontation. Whatever evidence they can find about that is going to be the key to the case. Self defense is still a possibility, regardless of the changes to the law everyone is arguing about. But there is no doubt in my mind that the confrontation itself was caused by Zimmerman's actions, which a jury will most likely find to be inappropriate. And the simple, undeniable fact is that Zimmerman was injured in that confrontation. Thus, by the laws of that state, he was fully legally allowed to pull the trigger in self defense. The only thing you could get him on is a vague concept of starting the confrontation by following the kid. Is it a crime to follow a kid down the street and harass him because you don't want him in that area? I sincerely doubt it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 12:28 PM) Im not sure neighborhood watch is going to help him, here is an example of a neighborhood watch packet in Florida: http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/onr/reso...trev610.pdf.pdf Youll notice it specifically states that they are not to take action themselves. They are only to report the observation. But obviously, that's not a legal document and is in no way instituting a legal requirement upon the members. The only legal statute cited in that document makes it a crime to harass neighborhood watch participants. There are no legal requirements hoisted upon neighborhood watch members by that document. If the State of Florida wanted to institute such a requirement, saying that if instructed to stay away by an authority it was a crime for them to disobey, that might well be within their rights, but unless someone can prove otherwise, they appear to have nothing even close to resembling that kind of statute. The guy felt like he'd reported things and had nothing happen before to people he felt should have been arrested, so this time, he wasn't going to wait on the slow or inadequate police response.