G&T

QUOTE (knightni @ May 2, 2010 -> 07:21 PM) So far, this year is showing that the rebuild while "playing for this year" combo that KW tries to do is in it's 5th year of failing to repeat 2005. They'd be better off slashing payroll in the offseason and playing Hudson, Flowers, Viciedo, Morel etc., next year in Chicago and taking their lumps. If payroll is down, the droves of fair-weather Sox fans that won't show up for games in 2011 won't affect the bottom line as much and they can truly rebuild through high draft picks and youth getting MLB experience. The Sox hadn't done that in their past history until they took a dump from 1986-1989 and got those high draft picks. McDowell, Fernandez, Thomas, and Ventura were cornerstones of a seriously good team from 1990-1995. It would have never happened without those bad years. Back in the winter of 2006-2007, Rosenthal said that retooling on the fly won't work and hasn't worked historically and it would be a mistake. Here we are.

QUOTE (hogan873 @ May 2, 2010 -> 04:01 PM) Well, the idea of acquiring Fielder or Gonzalez is fading for sure. If anything, we'll be trading away "talent". There's no point. If Jones is good you can move him and PK if he stays good, but that's really it. Rios and Peavy aren't going anywhere with those contracts. CQ can't stay healthy. Everyone else is old and bad. So there's no point in moving Beckham or Danks. We are stuck trying to piecemeal this team together year after year and hope for the best.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 2, 2010 -> 03:35 PM) I missed yesterday's game due to a family function but was listening to Ranger's show on my way home. There were a few optimistic people thinking yesterday's win may be the springboard we have all been looking for. I tried to ignore the fact they blew a 4 run lead and had to comeback to win and was hoping they were correct. Now this. Momentum is only as good as your next starting pitcher. And for this team, that's generally a bad thing.

I have friends that are at the game and I am watching their dog. They better leave early.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ May 2, 2010 -> 03:30 PM) this is one of the worst white sox teams in several years. Yeah. And how does the whole move to defense thing look now? The Red Sox, White Sox and Mariners all sacrificed offense for defense this past off season and all of them are under .500.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 2, 2010 -> 03:00 PM) So, I'm to believe it was no where near Cano yet Cano knocked it down? My god, he's a jedi! It was not close to him on the fly. Maybe it bounced and he got there!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 2, 2010 -> 02:57 PM) It was a line drive. He couldn't start running until the ball got past Cano or hit the ground. It was no where near Cano. No good base runner would have held up. Even the Yankees cast was wondering why he stopped.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ May 1, 2010 -> 04:55 PM) I'm pointing directly at the law, "make no law regarding an establishment of religion". I don't see how this is doing that because you can pray (or not pray) to whatever in the world or out of the world that you want. But heck, if you are your own god, give yourself a peptalk that day. The actual face of the law is meaningless in the face of legislative intent. If they mean for prayer to be religious, then it is unconstitutional. On the other hand, read Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow from 2004 about reciting the Pledge. Very interesting stuff.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ May 2, 2010 -> 12:33 AM) You and your anorexic taste can go kick rocks. C'mon Carl, you live in Texas.. you suppose to be doin it big down there. There's a healthy area between anorexic and chunky.

The organization's problem today is the unbelievably bad drafting for most of the decade. Not a single player from the 2006 draft made it to the majors. That's inexcusable. At least some other drafts had some role players like BA, Sweeney, and Fields. It's tough to fill a rosters when you have to always look outside the organization. It will be a waiting game for now to see how the recent drafts help the cause.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 12:51 PM) Because that gorgeous woman's chest actually bounces. So do her cankles.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 01:30 PM) For the statheads, I read that we are leading the league in SLPS (s***ty lineups per season). SAMPLE SIZE!!!

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 12:24 AM) why not D.C., btw? It was created specifically to house the federal government. When created, I think the point was to keep it away from state influences. Of course, all of that is moot today.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 08:37 AM) Eww, totally over the top on the bacon in the bourbon. Going to have to cut that back by at least 2/3 to make any sort of balanced drink with it. Tried out the PTD Old Fashioned and it has a lot of promise but the bacon has to be tamed quite a bit. That sounds gross. In college is believed that everything was better with bacon, but in the last couple years I don't care for adding bacon to much of anything. Most recently it was a chicken liver dish. Chicken liver and bacon is a very common preparation, but the bacon was just too much.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 03:46 PM) You are missing G&T's point. Bad faith is more than just failing to enforce some specific law. Those cases just don't fly, they can't possibly, otherwise you could sue every cop in the country for things they do every day. The law not specifying indemnity to individual officers isn't there because it is about protecting the agency. The officer needs no protection here because he's not liable in the type of situation you mention. Yeah that about covers it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 03:18 PM) Actually, there's a "Bad faith" exemption that would allow a specific officer to be the target of a lawsuit. Which could easily mean that he or she are subject to a lawsuit if his jurisdiction mandates some level of checking detail and he or she does not do the full check, or something along those lines. Bad faith requires acting without any reason or justification based on fact. The real purpose of the exception is provide a remedy for legals who are detained despite showing proper ID. The provision has nothing to do with the mandate of an agency.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 02:31 PM) Certainly true that there won't be a lawsuit filed against a single police officer for not checking that. However, the individual police officer is going to have to do the checks that his municipality insists upon, correct? If the city/county/state puts out rules saying that the officer doesn't have to do a detailed check, that opens them up at that level to legal action. On the other hand, if the city/county/state puts out the most stringent rules possible, then either the officer goes forward in all cases with a full, detailed check of all documents or the officer is violating his rules. I don't think these policies are that specific and aren't generally written. As a practical matter, the lawsuit provision is for show. Try proving that there was an unwritten policy. It could take years of data to know whether a policy is being enforced.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 02:14 PM) And they can be potentially sued if they don't push for more. I think you are misreading that section. It states "adopts or implements a policy." That requires either an official act from the police chief, for example, or a tacit disapproval of the law leading to it not being enforced. I base my interpretation on the language of the remedy because the remedy is determined based on days that policy remained in effect. A citizen cannot, by my reading, sue a police officer for not arresting someone.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 11:47 AM) Visa, that is valid? Yes. Passport? Not necessarily, if they can't check it through the immigration systems. And last I know, cops ont he street don't have passport scanners on the MCATs. They'd have to call INS or whomever. It won't go that far. For example, under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, employers are only required to check citizenship documents to determine if they are facially valid. The document need only reasonably appear to be valid on its face. That's about as far as any police officer should be required to go.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 08:46 PM) Yes, but we all know the numerous ways they accomplish that. Burnt out taillight, tinted windows, etc. Cars are a bad example because you have to have a valid driver's license or passport (if not a US citizen) to drive here legally. So if you can't show ID, you get arrested, the police figure out the guy is illegally in the US without breaking any law. The issue is more problematic when talking about the average guy on the street.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 10:36 AM) The thing that bothers me is that a doctor could get test results showing something bad and then decide on his or her own not to tell me about it. Yeah, I find it wrong ethically for a doctor to withhold information. Generally, these laws are meant to protect doctors who act negligently from having to pay exorbitant malpractice claims because the child is born deformed and they have to cover the excessive child care expenses. I don't think intentionally withholding information would be covered in any other state (except maybe that Idaho law), but since proving intent is so difficult it might not matter.

Only abut 20 states in the country permit wrongful birth causes of action according to an American Jurisprudence survey. So you might want to avoid a lot of states. Of course, for the most part it isn't by statute (except Idaho), but courts were afraid to recognize it 20 years ago without a law and legislatures haven't done anything.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 12:25 PM) For everyone crying about having ailens carry thier 'papers', this is right from the US Code concerning Aliens and Nationality. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/us...8&TYPE=TEXT That's a federal law. The feds should be adminstering it, not state police.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 12:04 PM) What a wonderful law. It failed to occur to me that this could impact interstate commerce. That doesn't bode well for the law. Meanwhile, that case shows that the legislature will have to declare certain documents presumptively valid to establish citizenship.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 08:59 AM) No, I really am not confusing them, though its possible there is a subtle difference in definition here where we are talking past each other. Custody and arrest are NOT the same, though they usually end up both occurring. And in all the training I ever had, the word "seizure" was never used in reference to a living person. I think we're just using different words here. Also, you can arrest someone, or take them into temporary custody, with out police arrest, and without issuing a Miranda warning. Its just that those situations are rare, and its not recommended if you plan to actually arrest them and charge them for something. My point was, and still is, that this law is attempting to bridge the gap between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, which are two different legal hurdles. My example earlier is what I mean - if you ask for someone's papers and they say "no habla" and walk away, that might pass reasonable suspicion, but it does NOT pass probable cause. So if you then stop them from leaving - which is polic custody, and effectively in that case, an arrest - you have made an arrest purely on suspicion. This will not survive a court test, mark my words. The bolded is absolutely true, I messed up that one. I never said this law is Constitutional. This law has jurisdictional issues and constitutional issues. All I'm doing is giving you the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 4th Amendment. I don't know how police are trained, all I know is how the law is interpreted and, yes, there is a difference between seizure and custody. And under the law, it is permissible to request identification with reasonable suspicion. I am not talking about practicalities of the real world. But I think the issue might be moot for other reasons. Under the current law, it is not illegal to fail to possess identification if you are walking down the street. Under this law it basically would be for illegals. As a result, this is not a mere stop on the street, but a warrantless search for contraband or the lack thereof because failure to possess the papers would result in arrest. Asking for papers under this law is essentially an arrest, interrogation, and search. What's worse is that if the police ask and they consent by answering the question (no i have no papers) it could be viewed as an exception to the warrant requirement. This is just rife with problems. QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 08:59 AM) A police officer can definitely falsely imprison someone, in the same sense that a police officer can act illegally. They could take someone into physical custody for no legal reason, for example. Police arrest powers are not boundless, therefore, they can be abused. I honestly have no idea. I didn't know whether it was a tort of false imprisonment or some other action under USC 1983 for deprivation of civil rights.