NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 11:36 AM) Ciolli has been a big disappointment thus far. And by the way, IsoOBP is usually just written as IsoD (D for discipline), and K% is typically SO/AB not PA. I sometimes get my stat short-names mixed up. Also, interestingly, I have seen people in here, and on FutureSox, and in other articles, do the K% either way. Of course in Ciolli's case, since he basically doesn't walk, it doesn't make much difference. But I think in the future I'll just not say K% at all, instead specifically state K/AB rate or K/PA rate, to be more clear.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 11:04 AM) What a wonderful law. This is exactly the situation that I think will not stand a court test, nor should it. A guy gets pulled over, shows ID that is OK for everyone else, and yet he's expected to hit a higher bar. He can't, and then he's arrested, without any sort of probable cause (that we are aware of - there may be more to the story). This is embarrasing for Arizona, and this country. It truly is.

There is no player in major league baseball right now, that as a GM, I'd sign to a contract that big (unless I was the Yankees GM and had basically endless money to spend). Its the equivalent of putting a third of your 401k into one stock. Its just stupid for a franchise to put that much stake in one player.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:40 AM) Wrong. Only after "lawful contact" can they then get to the "reasonable suspicion" part. It's not circumventing anything. As written they cannot just simply walk up to every brown person and ask for proof of their status. Wrong? You are ignoring what I was pointing out, and what G&T further described. Its not how they get to reasonable suspicion that is the problem - its what happens after that. No one other than you is focusing here on the reasonable suspicion criteria, because that's not the issue. The problem is the law wants action from police based on reasonable suspicion that normally requires probable cause.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:38 AM) Being that we are now 1100 police officers short of what is considered "fully staffed", and that number is growing -- it's about to get a LOT worse. Oh, and they're not hiring more in 2010 or 2011, either. That is a definite problem, but here is the thing... having more cops will only have a small effect on crime. The tactics the police use, is more effectual. Furthermore, neither of those things has nearly as much effect on crime as do factors beyond the influence of the police entirely: education, poverty, and societal factors. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:40 AM) He's right when he said it's a bad idea. And Daley can forget his gun laws...the supreme court is going to kill those. Besides, criminals tend to not follow the law anyway, so they don't work. The problem I'd see with the national guard here is it would look like a police/military state -- it'd spread fear, if anything. People would feel a lot less "free" if the NG was walking around the streets. That worries me less than the bigger problem - the National Guard don't work for the police, don't answer to the judicial system in the same way, and work under entirely different rules than the police due. There are serious dangers there.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:33 AM) The whole Chicago public school system is still a gigantic mess, and it doesn't seem as Daley has helped it very much. He has helped lower the urban flight, but it still is a problem due to the lack of quality education in the city. Agreed on the schools, though I think that is more about the county and state than the city. Its a major problem every major city is wrestling with (as Balta pointed out). But, I predict a new dynamic occurring very soon in Chicago's city schools. Previously, there was a very typical situation in the city where married couples live in the city, had a kid or two, and then moved to the suburbs when the kids reached school age. Now, those same couples are having a hard time moving out of the city, because of the housing market. So, they are now much more likely to stay in the city. I see this all the time in my neighborhood, many more people are staying. The result will be, the city schools will start to have a mini-boom of enrollment. Eventually, this will mean more money. But short term, it means much more strain on the system.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:29 AM) No, you see, I didn't say that Chicago was a disaster under Daley. You created that and attempted to apply it to me. Now allow me to retort. I said, from the start, that while Daley did many good things for this City, he's also done some VERY bad things. Ignoring corruption just because we've always been corrupt -- also unacceptable to me. So is the ever rising crime rate, which is about to get a whole lost worse. I don't think the crime rate is about to get a whole lot worse. I'd guess its near a level at this point. Interesting related topic - have you seen the recent debate about what to do about the rising crime (which I agree is a serious problem)? You've got some state reps wanting to bring in the National Guard. Then Daley wants more gun laws. I think they're both stupid ideas that will only cause more problems.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:25 AM) yes i meant van. And a passenger van is one thing. Look, we all know what we're talking about here. We all know what looks suspicious and what doesn't. And if you can't then you can't harass those people. That's the point. Sure a small percentage of people will get harassed for no good reason, they'll sue, and they'll most likely get compensated. That's how our system works. No different than any other law out there that cops abuse and enforce illegally. My viewpoint on this is talking with my cop buddies who work in the worst areas of Chicago. They're limited in what they can do despite what common sense would dictate. This legislation should have been worded differently, and should have included more detail as to what reasonable suspicion means. But the intent of the law is good, and I don't see much abuse happening that wouldn't happen with any other law. The flaw is not about detailing what reasonable suspicion means - police understand that test (or should) and use it regularly. The flaw is that the law attempts to force police action normally reserved for situations of a higher legal hurdle (probable cause) to occur based solely on suspicion. That is where it breaks down.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:19 AM) While true, in comparison, the murder rate had dropped to an all time low around 2004 -- and has risen precipitously since. But you have to keep in mind that the murder rate has fallen everywhere (US wide), so those numbers aren't quite reflective of where we were and where we are. We WERE behind New York and LA. Both cities with larger populations, no less. We are now #1. As for him bringing jobs -- too bad they ended up being temporary. His tax break for Boeing was nice, too. Temporary? You really don't seem to have much historical perspective here. Chicago was a broken down, declining steel city, with major urban flight problems, as recently as the early 80's. In the 20 years after that, Chicago rose to the level of being a major global business center, to the point where many global publications called it one of the world's great cities. I realize it fits your narrative nicely to think that Daley's Chicago is some sort of disaster, but that is just not remotely the case. Daley's Chicago is corrupt, just as Chicago has been corrupt since forever. But that doesn't change the fact that Daley's Chicago has been a huge success that saw a 20 year renaissance that rivaled any that any city in the US has seen in modern times. That's isn't entirely Daley, but he helped a lot.

QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:02 AM) 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. 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. I think we're on the same page. I was just thrown off by "seizure" as pertaining to living persons, as I had not seen that phrase used in that frame of reference before. The law is problematic in the leap it attempts to make between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and there are some very obvious potential risks as written (that go well beyond the garden variety risk by enforcement tactics that JIMB is going after).

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 08:35 AM) Tied for last place and 5 games out of first. Prediction: We will be in 2nd place by the end of the week. We're in last but also tied for 3rd at the same time. And 1.5 behind 2nd.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 08:06 AM) It's debatable how good Daley was for Chicago. While the city is pretty -- it's crime rate has never been so high -- including a skyrocketing murder rate. So while in one regard he succeeded, in another, he failed on a massive scale. Not even close. The crime rates even this year, are well below what they were in the 70's and 80's. Look at the homicides per year for Chicago. Its gone back up a bit in the past couple years, due to the same factors you see everywhere right now (economy), but we are still well below where we were at one time. And what Daley has done for the city isn't really about crime anyway, or about beautification. Its about bringing business and jobs to the city, which he has excelled at.

QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 05:05 PM) You are confusing seizure and custody. Yes, the person is seized if they do not reasonable believed that they can walk away, but that does not mean custody. If he were in custody then he would have to be given Mirandas. 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. QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 05:22 PM) The 4th Amendment disagrees. This is Terry stop (essentially, what you can search for is state specific). Also, I am pretty sure a police officer cannot falsely imprison because they have proper authority to do so. 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.

QUOTE (elgonzo4sox @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 08:09 PM) If it brings in some $$$ and sells a few tickets or generates some more interest among the casual fan base, then I'm in favor. In that spirit, it should be called the Veeck Trophy: anything to put some more butts in seats. It won't sell any more tickets, since the Cubs/Sox games all sell out anyway.

The Nunez starting experiment doesn't appear to be going very well, so far. Speaking of high K numbers, Ciolli with 25 K's and just 1 BB in 66 AB (67 PA) for a 37.3% K rate and a .008 IsoOBP. Not so good.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 05:44 PM) Ricky Brooks did get hurt, he's on the DL. Clevelan Santeliz is also on the DL now. Tyson Corley promoted to B'ham. Corley? thought for sure it would be Bellamy or Remenowsky getting the first bullpen call-up to AA.

QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 04:05 PM) Probable cause is only necessary to satisfy the warrant requirement and to make an arrest. An officer can approach anyone and ask simple questions if they have "reasonable suspicion." From that point, the answers to those questions can result in a more invasive intrusion, but probable cause is not necessary until the handcuffs are applied. The problem here is that we don't know what articulable facts are acceptable to constitute reasonable suspicion in this case. Those are steps, but probable cause still holds to hold someone for a crime. Sure, a cop can ask anyone walking down the street some questions. But said person can also say "no thanks", and keep walking, and that alone is not enough for police custody. You need more. Thus, the intrusion to the point of asking for papers proving they didn't commit a crime (in country illegally), still requires probable cause. And it isn't about handcuffs - its police custody, which is affected not just with phyiscal restraints, but also any condition where a reasonable person would feel they had no right to leave. I'm fairly familiar with the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, particularly as it relates to what actions can be taken by law enforcement. And this law tries to make a bridging leap between them, which will not fly on legal test.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 01:01 PM) That was one game. And Jimmy Rollins is currently on the DL. No comparison to what Ozzie has done so far. Yeah, it was just a lineup giving people some time off. Not that crazy to do occasionally. I do love me some Ross Gload.

Tie breaker sucks. But otherwise I have no problem with it, especially since its another $1M a year to use.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 01:17 PM) While these steps are nice to talk about, the costs of said services are hundreds of dollars per pop. So if you aren't 99% sure you want to make the buy, having to hire such people every time you want to take a serious look at a house will cost you a lot of extra money. Inspections cost hundreds of dollars. Energy audits cost hundreds more. Add in the cost of the appraisal and you are near 1K. Now if any of these "audits" fails, or doesn't live up to your expectations, and you no longer want the home, you don't get a refund for said services. You just lost that money, and get to look forward to spending it all over again when you find another possible buy. I'd further suggest that, inspections aside, you can find out many of these things on your own using the interwebs, particularly in the areas of energy availability and infrastructure, flood risk levels, altitude and relative height of land and home location, etc. Better to do as much of that as possible first, AND be 99% sure you are buying, THEN get the inspector in there.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 12:57 PM) Texas' PA system is also extremely annoying. Can't be as annoying as those stupid cowbells they have going in Tampa.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 01:06 PM) And Dayan says f*** you, J4L. Wow. 3-3, 2 HR, BB

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 01:00 PM) if i understand the law correctly, the following could happen. A hispanic guy is walking back to an apartment building with groceries. A police officer says, hmmm, he may be illegal. He could pull up to the guy and ask him for his papers to prove he's a citizen. Is this correct? There is no "probable cause" just suspicion. That will be a key question in any legal questions. Probable cause still needs to be the rule, so if this law works on "suspicion", it probably won't survive a legal test.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 12:19 PM) I don't like Curt Schilling but heard a good interview w/him this morning and he was discussing the struggles of Javy Vazquez in the American League and said the difference in the two leagues is "night and day" -- the AL is so much harder to pitch in, the hitters are just better and there are 9 of them in the lineup. I think that's some of the trouble with Jake. Some of? Possibly, but only a small part at most. The leagues are not THAT much different, that a guy's ERA goes from 3 to 7.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 11:51 AM) I think he's the defacto closer, even when Santo Luis was on the roster. Which tells me that Bellamy or Remenowsky will probably be promoted and take that role sooner rather than later. Rem got beat up in his last outing, though.