NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Apr 17, 2007 -> 10:45 AM) So those 5 rounds fired, keep traveling until their energy is spent at 1000 feet/per second(9mm). Some of them go into a wall, some of them ricochet a bit. But in a crowed area, some of those shots might hit flesh. Their is some romanticism on how quick draw mcgraw can wing a gnat at 1000 yard in the wind blindfolded. But it doesn't work that way. I remember when an officer I worked with shot a guy with a knife. The 22 year old pulled the knife out for what he said was to defend himself against some other guys outside of a bar. The officer came in on the scene, asked him to drop the knife. He didn't, and then proceeded to step in the direction of the officer with the knife, the officer fired and shot him in the stomach. The kid didn't die, wound up suing because in his mind, why didn't the officer just shoot my hand. Well it doesn't work that way. You shoot into the largest target area, the body mass, and then you go for the vital. 2 in the chest, one in the head. All true. Its not known by many, but unlike what Hollywood tells us, shooting someone is ALWAYS deadly force. You aim for center mass, and you'd better be at the right step in the force continuum when you do it. Our rounds were hydrolics (special type of hollow point) to reduce background damage, but that only helps a little bit. Handy to have another ex-cop around, SSI. QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 17, 2007 -> 10:49 AM) How could this situation of an unhindered shooter killing at will be any worse than it was? Honestly, I don't see how armed resistance could make the situation yesterday worse. Because if the would-be hero fails (which is a significant possibility), he probably is dead too, and might have taken others with him accidentally.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Apr 17, 2007 -> 09:17 AM) Guns at home for protection. Excellent. I have no problem. If you break into my home, you will meet the business end of a glock. But that has nothing to do with Jimmy at the library who has a 45 in his pants. I think this is the best point made here. There are a lot of good reasons why people should be allowed to own firearms. But in this type of situation, even if a student had one, there is just as good a chance it ends up making it worse as making it better. One of the scariest stats ever, this from the FBI (got it years ago in training, no link, sorry): in scenarios with 2 or more armed people in a shoot-out, INSIDE 10 FEET, 5 of the first 6 shots MISS, on average. And the percentage for trained law enforecement is only slightly higher than for bad guys. QUOTE(mreye @ Apr 17, 2007 -> 10:25 AM) Wasn't that the Federalist Papers? Among other things. I did a law review of the 2nd amendment in Con Law 2, and the great majority of judicial experts agree that "militia" did NOT mean a standing military. It was an army of the people, to be prepared against a foe which may in fact include the government. The 2nd amendment is not a protection of the standing military. ETA: Another popular interperetation is that even if militia means the standing military, the structure of the words still indicates a check against such a thing. Either way, the 2nd amendment is not a protection for the military, as some have suggested.

You know, I spent a week in France once. 5 days in the countryside (Bretagne), and 2 in Paris. Bretagne felt like France, and I had a wonderful time. Paris, on the other hand, was full of tourists and Parisians. Same goes here. NY, LA, no way. Even Chicago not as much. Small town Iowa is more like it. But if I were recommending a trip to someone from elsewhere, I'd say some of each (city, small towns) would be the best picture.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 16, 2007 -> 06:48 PM) Well that depends on how much action the President takes to influence the economy. Not all fiscal tools are at the disposal of just the federal reserve bank. Things like tax rates are the control of the President and Congress, while things like interest rates, and banking reserve laws are the behest of the Fed Bank. I agree, there is no definitive answer. No President can take all or even a majority of credit (good or bad) for the economy, but they have all had some influence at some level.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 16, 2007 -> 06:47 PM) Dude, you having an AK-47 is not going to stop a government armed with tanks, F-16's, and A-bombs. Of course not. But even today, having an armed public versus an unarmed public does still make a difference in the amount of power the government has. That particular line of argument has to be looked at from the broad view, not the one-guy-with-gun view. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 16, 2007 -> 06:47 PM) It's also worth noting a couple things about the Brits. While yes, the long-term trend of a rise in violence has not seemingly been affected, yet anyways, by the gun ban...they're starting off from a MUCH lower level of violence. From Wikipedia: In other words, it's going to be really hard to compare one side of the pond to the other here, IMO. They're starting off from a place where their largest city sees a factor of 4 fewer gun crimes per capita. I agree the Brits are not really a good parallel. I prefer the U.S. examples - cities with gun bans (or handgun bans) have never had a postive effect in bringing down crime. Crime, however, is not really the key to a 2nd amendment discussion (except in a very indirect way). Neither is hunting. Its a simple weighting of freedom versus public safety. Waiting periods don't restrict freedoms in any meaningful way, but they may reduce crime a bit, so that seems OK. Keeping munitions like bazookas off the street is obviously a good risk mitigation, even though in reality it stands directly against the 2nd amendment. Those are reasonable, and the payoff is worth the price. But bans on certain types of weapons, municipal bans on guns, and registration of weapons have all been proven to do nothing to make the country safer. So why on earth would you do those things, since they infringe on Constitutionally granted freedoms? I'll answer my own question: fear and gut reaction. Guns are scary, and they should be. But that doesn't mean we should let that fear cloud our judgement. The 2nd amendment is there for some very good reasons - so we need some very, very good reasons to go cutting away at it. And I have yet to see anyone make any good, logical (not emotional) arguments for doing that cutting.

Plan A: QUOTE(Kalapse @ Apr 16, 2007 -> 06:18 PM) As the starting centerfielder and 9 hole hitter with Erstad coming off the bench, being used as a 4th OF/1B just as he was signed to do. Plan B: QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Apr 16, 2007 -> 06:36 PM) IMO he should be starting and hitting 9th. If not, he should be in AAA getting at bats everyday, this is especially true if he's not even going to get into games as a defensive replacement, in say oh...the 9th inning of a game in Oakland. He is being used so wrong right now, it's ridiculous.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 16, 2007 -> 06:03 PM) Banning guns just leaves guns in the hands of criminals. Look at Britain and Australia. Violent crime has gone up since the bans. And the whole point of the 2nd amendment is that we can't trust the government. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ I was all ready to make one of my lengthy posts in response to this thread, but SS pretty much summed up my views right there.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 16, 2007 -> 04:07 PM) It's f*cking war man, of course it's not all sunshine and flowers. They never came out and said 'hey everyone, we're going to war and guess what, no one will die! Nope, not a single soul. That's right, we're waging a war and can promise that not one person will lose their life, great right?' Just because YOU might have thought that doesn't mean the rest of the country did. So it's ok for normal citizens like yourself or SS or whoever to say that military professionals were wrong in their preperation from the war? Geez, I didn't know you had to be an expert at everything to have an opinion. I mean I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night but... Other than the strawman in the corner, no one is saying we were told this would be a zero-casualty war. But the fact is this administration heard any number of their own experts tell them this war would be a nightmare, that we needed 500k troops and that we couldnt do it while Afghanistan was going on, etc. And they decided to listen to the small minority (led mostly by Rumsfeld) who said it could be done with less and very easily. Military doctrine followed, and the experts we silenced or removed. Just look at Desert Storm. That administration, that JC and that military took the approach of over-preparing, building a real consortium of support, prepared for the worst case scenarios, and told the public to expect the worst. And, they knew better than to invade Iraq proper. And most of the experts agreed with those principles until Rummy and Cheney ovverrode them (Rummy to prove his own points, and Cheney as an easier political sell).

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Apr 16, 2007 -> 03:58 PM) http://www.southsidesox.com/story/2005/12/10/20120/702 These are three year park factors from '03-05.... They shouldn't have changed much from there. Thanks Gene, I appreciate that.

Just curious, as I cannot find this information on MILB or elsewhere... does anyone have some good information on the various parks in our minor league system and their nature for hitters/pitchers? Which ones are bandboxes, which ones are cavernous pitchers' parks, etc. I've seen a few offhand references on here, but just isolated mentions. Just curious as to the effect on various hitters and pitchers as the move up through the system. Thanks in advance!

Through the first couple weeks of play, Lucy leads the entire Southern League in Batting Average (.458, which is 34 points higher than the next hitter), Doubles (7, which make up about two thirds of his hits), and OBP (.567), and is 2 for 2 in SB attempts.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 16, 2007 -> 10:01 AM) Here's a list of accomplishments that I copied from another message board: Yeah, there are plenty of negatives, but since we discuss those all the time I wanted to try for the positives. So far, we have: --The marine sanctuary --Justice Roberts Any others?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 16, 2007 -> 09:18 AM) I wouldn't say we were never there to "win" in the first place. I honestly think they thought they'd be greeted as liberators and that flowers would be thrown at their feet. The military was, literally, told to expect that (read Cobra II or Fiasco). We not only started a really stupid war, we executed it incredibly poorly.

Now this is the McCain I've been waiting to hear from.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Apr 14, 2007 -> 10:25 AM) If some couch made fun my of ethnicity, like terrorist something.... I wouldnt care as long as its comfy. Your ethnicity is terrorist?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Apr 13, 2007 -> 06:49 PM) Rotoworld: Yes, this. Since Ozzie is apparently not going to use him properly or get him any playing time, I have to agree.

Something to keep in mind. People have asked why nothing has happened to Jesse or Al over the Duke case comments that were unfounded, or what would happen to them if they said something similarly racist. Thing is, they have. That's why they, like Imus, are assholes. So why was Imus fired, you ask? Because he had a job to be fired from. There is no firing Jackson or Sharpton because... what do you fire them from? Just something to keep in mind. I wish they could be fired, but, they don't work for a major corporation. Also, for all the complaints of manufactured or exaggerated outrage on the part of women on the Rutgers team or other people who are black... I'm seeing an equal amount of manufactured rage about "reverse" racism. I'm pretty sure racism still exists, in both directions, in this country. And yet, while this thread contains any number of people asking, "why is it OK for blacks to be racists?!??!?!!", I have seen zero posts from anyone saying that reverse racism is OK. So who is all the anger directed at? Jesse and Al? Because that's about as pointless as being angry at Imus. They're all shock jocks of one kind or another.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 13, 2007 -> 05:48 PM) So now, I'm going to fire one more bit of reality into this discussion. There is one more key point, and that is that George W. Bush thinks that things over there are doing fine. He has acted this entire time like he has thought everything is great, and all we need are patience. George W. Bush wants us 100% to stay the course, exactly as it currently is. No matter how many great plans we come up with here, no matter how many problems we identify, no matter what people think the solution is, George W. Bush will not accept them, because anything that would acknowledge even the slightest mistake or failure seems anathema to him. Therefore, there are 3 things that can happen. Either we have to take control of this war away from Mr. Bush, which essentially can't happen because he can give orders to the military, or the Congress makes use of its budgetary authority to take the troops out of his hands. Or...we sit around just like this until January 21, 2009, at which point we'll have been nearly 6 years into a civil war, thousands more will be dead, and the situation will be 18 months further into the depths of Hell. Unfortunately, I think that last one is what will happen. I don't see this Congress finding 2/3 of each house willing to pull the financial reigns back on the war.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Apr 13, 2007 -> 04:28 PM) This is the first line from that... He wasn't sober when this happened, he was DRUNK! One reason why this was just battery. Another reason is that he did NOT inflict any serious damage to the victim, but only bruises. He didn't use any weapons either. And he did not know the bartender personally either. You really don't have any understanding of the law. That line you quoted from the ILRS: ...says he did it. Being drunk does not make a person UNKNOWING of what they are doing. That key part, the "intentionally or knowingly" is prescribed to abdacate accidental acts, or acts commited due to some sort of mental defect. Drunkenness is not mental defect. If it was, DUI's would suddenly get really hard to enforce. Do you actually believe that being drunk gives you a magical exemption from legal jeopardy? It sounds as if you do, which is in fact the opposite of how the law works. From a legal standpoint, your arguments are wholly without merit. The law is staring you in the face, and you still won't acknowledge it. And from a personal standpoint, how you can say "so what" or "not a big deal" or anything of the like is staggering to me. I can't remember the last time I was this dumbfounded at someone's posts in here, and in the Buster, that is saying something. If you can't even acknowledge the facts right in front of you, and you actually think that this guy's drunken state was somes sort of excuse, then there is no point having a logical discussion with you on the subject. I'll bow out now.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Apr 13, 2007 -> 04:08 PM) The chick suffered some bruises... so what. A drunk fumbling around trying to beat up a lady. Do you know how many cases there are similar to this, but much worse? Like i stated, the chick's boyfriend beat the hamburgers out of her a week later, breaking her hip. And no one is making a deal about this. And I know plenty of police officers, and they know the law pretty well, I would think. In IL, at least, aggravated battery must include a broken bone or 25-30 stitches. Yes, he should be fired, as police should not be getting drunk, in public at least. But should he be shown to the world as some sort of horrible person? No. I am sure under normal circumstances he wouldn't have tried to beat her up. Here is your answer... Page down or search for "Sec. 12‑4. Aggravated Battery.". There are at least 17 different possible circumstances of aggravation notated for battery alone. You are misinformed.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 13, 2007 -> 04:00 PM) Sorry BearSox. Not too many people are going to sympathize for cops that go around and beat the crap out of people. No s***. And I used to be one. The only way to handle this kind of thing is to break the guy in half. QUOTE(BearSox @ Apr 13, 2007 -> 04:03 PM) In cases of aggravated battery, there must be some type of broken bone, or if there is a cut, there must be at least 25-30 stitches. That may indeed be ONE way for it to become Aggravated. I am going to go break out my Peace Officer's handbook and see what we can find. You are just plain wrong here. QUOTE(BearSox @ Apr 13, 2007 -> 04:03 PM) In cases of aggravated battery, there must be some type of broken bone, or if there is a cut, there must be at least 25-30 stitches. Meanwhile, here is exhibit A, first pop from Google on Agg Bat, for you to chew on...

QUOTE(BearSox @ Apr 13, 2007 -> 03:53 PM) Actually, after looking at the whole story and talking to someone I know who is a cop, it isn't as bad as you think, the media just makes it look worse. He barely beat her, and didn't cause any serious damage. Basically, it was a drunk person attacking a girl, causing little damage. If it wasn't a cop but just some random drunk, I am sure that this wouldn't be a big deal to the media. Do I think he should be fired, probably, as he is a police officer and shouldn't be getting drunk and starting fights. But he is going to get away without getting any charges. They first charged him w/ battery and aggravated battery, but they have dropped the battery charge, and no way he gets convicted of aggravated battery. For those of you who don't know, aggravated battery is where you brutally hurt someone, such as breaking a bone, or causing a wound that needs 25-30 some stitches, whereas regular battery is just basically punching someone, and causing a bruise. Also, what makes this comical is that her boyfriend beat the crap out of her the week after this fight with the cop, breaking her hip, and getting charged with only a misdemeanor. Now, how is it fair that a no-good beats the crap out of her girlfriend and gets charged with a less serious crime then a drunk who barely hurt the girl? Also, how come the media makes no big deal out of her scumbag boyfriend? Again, this is a case of the media making the police look like the bad guys... Even though that this cop is a prick... 1. You are incorrect as to what "aggravated" means. See my earlier posts. There can be various different circumstances of aggravation to elevate a charge like battery to aggravated battery. This includes but is not limited to special authorities (police officers - and in their case it works both directions), use of a weapon, age or gender differentiation (sort of the unfair fight concept), and yes, brutality. To me, this one qualified for Agg Bat on numerous of those circumstances. Now I am not an expert on Illinois criminal statues particularly (I worked in law enforcement but in a different state), but it should be pretty much the same stuff. 2. Not as bad as I think??? Are you serious? A guy beats up a women half his size?! He deserves to not only have his badge stripped, but to go to jail for a while (which will be particularly fun for a cop). And it isn't just the act itself and its brutality - its what it does to the cops who AREN'T slimeballs. It makes them all look bad, and worse, takes away some of their dynamic authority. This guy deserves the book.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 13, 2007 -> 02:12 PM) Yea, that's true... but why? Why is Dubai so different then the rest of the Middle East? The following countries have tens or hundreds of millions of muslims, have at least partially democratic and/or capitalistic societies, and are neither cesspools of debilitating violence (Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine) nor promoters of said violence (Iran, Syria, etc.)... India Turkey Jordan Egypt U.A.E. Bahrain Kuwait Qatar Oman Bangladesh (though they have many other problems) Indonesia*** Pakistan*** *** = countries teetering on the edge There are some others too that may fall in this category, I'd need to research further. Those are the ones I know for sure. The point is... Islam doesn't conflict with democracy or capitalism directly as a religion in an absolute way. They can coexist. Some of those countries (Turkey and India for example) have large populations of multiple major religions intermingled, and make it work. It is not impossible.

QUOTE(danman31 @ Apr 13, 2007 -> 02:21 PM) Suzuki has outhit Lucy at every level by a solid amount so far. I've heard Suzuki may not be a great defensive catcher and that was one of the plusses of Lucy. Lucy's numbers were very average in college. You have to factor in that there is more offense in college because of the aluminum bats and .313 his junior year is far from dominating. Most pros will hit .350+ in college or have lots of power to go with a slightly lower average. Thanks for the info everyone. Suzuki's offensive numbers definitely appear higher in the minors offensively, though Lucy does seem superior defensively and shows some speed. Lucy was behind Garko in college, so his he really only played a year as a starting catcher at the collegiate level, so I think his college numbers may not be a great indicator of his potential. I haven't much of a clue about Suzuki obviously, but I have studied Lucy a bit and seen him play, and looked at other catchers in our system, and I think Lucy's the best catching prospect we have. He's a plus defender at his position, his hitting numbers have gotten better each year as he's progressed through the minors, and he's tearing it up in B-Ham to start this season. He impresses me a lot more than Gustavo or Wiki do, and I think he has MLB starter potential.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Apr 13, 2007 -> 12:30 PM) You can go back to Lucy vs. Suzuki too. Suzuki? Which Suzuki did we pass up? I personally think Lucy has a shot to do well still (why I picked him up as an AAP), especially with Wiki and Gustav as the only people ahead of him. Nevermind, found him - Kurt Suzuki. His offensive numbers look similar to Lucy's, but Lucy's defensive numbers look better. I don't see anything in the few scouting blurbs I can find that are anything special. Why would Suzuki have been a better choice?