StrangeSox

I wouldn't be surprised to see somebody sign Rice next year as a filler due to an injury or something, though.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 09:10 AM) People have short memories. If Michael Vick has been in the league for several years, I'm sure Ray Rice will be fine with little distractions after serving his time. He plead down to some sort of counseling or something like that. There's no jail time. I think the difference here is that Vick did actually serve time and was out of the league for several years after all of that stuff came out, whereas Rice is really only a few months removed from the release of the video. There was time for it to blow over and for a lot of people to move on. Plus, Rice was less-than-stellar last year at a position that's becoming less and less important in the game, so the risk/reward isn't as high as it was with Vick.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 04:52 PM) I'm not saying we should ignore it. What i'm saying is the emphasis and importance placed on it is equally troubling to me, and I don't really think they're equal in the eyes of the law. Verbal speech is different from internet speech and the Court should say so, even if ultimately it's still left up to a "reasonable person" standard. Is verbal speech different than written speech? Honest question, I don't know how the same threats/harassment made in person versus in a letter versus over the phone would be handled.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 04:17 PM) It doesn't matter if only you are paying attention, others can see and hear about it going on. Why should we accept kids bullying other kids off of the internet and social media, anyway? I mean I'm right there with you on the difficulty of trying to do it through laws, if that even makes sense, but it doesn't seem like a non-issue that no one should care about. Online bullying has literally driven kids to suicide.

You don't have to literally hear or read someone's insults directed at you for it to be damaging. Them spreading s***ty rumors or just collective bullying can still hurt someone.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 09:28 AM) Do you guys have Smashburger there? We did, but the one near me shut down. I ate their a couple of times but I wasn't blown away.

I made these several times last summer: Spicy Chipotle Turkey Burgers They were delicious. I know I made them with turkey, and I think I made them with beef once. Got the idea from Whole Foods who wanted something outrageous for them.

QUOTE (SnB @ Dec 1, 2014 -> 01:11 PM) I LOVE Portillo's burger. The char is perfect. they're pretty solid.

GB is just cruising right now.

If Denver's D/ST can be kept to under 6 points, I should get a 1st round by in my work league. I'll also avoid being the only 2 wins against the worst team in the league who never bothered to change his starting lineup once. If I had a halfway competent QB instead of Cam Newton, I'd be a lock for 1st place in the regular season.

That's a pretty solid start.

Heard another stat on the radio, bears have 18 false starts already versus 9 all of last year. This is with the same 11starters.

I'm still left confused as to how you can argue that the GJ was just political cover but was also totally legit, but I'm going home and probably checking out for the weekend, happy holidays.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 03:13 PM) I don't agree with the bolded. All indications are that he went above and beyond what he needed to do to find a judicious result here. He let people decide whether it was going to be worth bringing a case to trial. The GJ said nope. Dumping a bunch of evidence on the grand jury without even bothering to sort out what's good and what's s*** doesn't scream judicious to me. And it still leaves the grand jury with no coherent argument being made and them left to their own devices to sort it all out. If he thought the case was weak and didn't want to bring charges, why would he go "above and beyond"? Why wouldn't he just ensure that charges in a case he didn't want and didn't think he could prosecute were never brought? Why risk getting this allegedly judicious result and then having to bring the case to trial? And really, if you don't think a case is worth a s***, how good of a job are you really going to do? He could have just said he wasn't bringing charges and explained himself. Nobody who didn't already think charges shouldn't be brought seems to be buying the validity of this grand jury process, anyway. It gained him nothing and just makes him look slimy. Go browse through Wilson's testimony. The prosecution paints him as a baby-saving hero. Then they give him absolutely nothing but softball questions and don't press him or question his story once. Those examples have been given multiple times. Giving "every piece of information possible" when you're the prosecution is not typical, and we don't ask grand juries to make a case for indictment all on their own. Refusing to do his job and determine what evidence was valid and credible and worthwhile before presenting it was not a fair process.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 02:55 PM) And do you know his order of witnesses didn't make sense or was somehow difficult to follow? I just don't get why you think more information means more confusion and a guaranteed no indictment order. I know, and even you agree, that the prosecution had no interest in actually getting an indictment out of this case and presented no coherent argument or interpretation of the evidence to the grand jury. Can you imagine many regular juries ever reaching a guilty verdict if they were presented evidence and testimony in a similar manner? Because it's a s***ty and in my book unethical thing to do, and you were worried about wasting taxpayer money yesterday. Why should this coward use a grand jury as his own personal shield? How can you not find that unreasonable? And it really seems like you're arguing contradictory sides here. On the one hand, you're saying that this was a fair, judicious process and really the best way to go; dump all possible evidence, even crappy evidence, on the grand jury and let them decide, and it'll be a just outcome. On the other hand, you've said repeatedly that you think he didn't want to bring charges and was just trying to cover his ass for a non-indictment. If he wasn't interested in an indictment and having to actually prosecute this case, why do you think he'd do anything but ensure that result from the grand jury? I really don't see how you can argue that it was a fair, judicious use of a grand jury by a prosecutor who didn't want the case and was just covering his own ass.

also:

Close-up of Odell Beckham's hand during the catch

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 02:40 PM) Why do you keep saying disorganized? Do you have any evidence that this was the case? It was not organized in a manner that a typical case is i.e. by someone making a specific argument in favor of a specific conclusion. Am I wrong to assume that prosecutors and defense attorneys each choose to introduce evidence and present witnesses in scripted order to build their story in the most effective way possible? And that, since nobody was actually advocating anything here, this wasn't done? Do you think we should always ask grand juries to sort through all possible evidence when there's an issue of facts, or isn't that normally left to trial juries?

No, not at all! thanks.

Need to decide if I start Netwon, Orton or one of these guys I can pick up off the scrap heap: Flacco Bortles McCown Bridgewater McCoy I'm leaning cam but I'm not happy about it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 02:05 PM) Because I don't think that people should be charged without sufficient proof to do so? I don't think "unarmed black teen dead + white cop = murder" like some people? But a grand jury's job isn't to get buried under a mountain of disorganized evidence and sort it out. That's an impossible task to ask of them. More frequently, their job is to rubber-stamp indictment requests, sometimes at the rate of one every 52 seconds. Again, if we see a radical break away from overzealous prosecution as a result of this, awesome, but I'm doubtful.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 02:04 PM) i wonder what the racial breakdown of the Grand Jury is. 9 white 3 black, need 9 to indict. I don't think we know what the vote was, though.

Some countries e.g. France don't have an adversarial system but I'm pretty sure they don't just dump a ton of information on a bunch of jurors and expect them to sort it out.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 01:46 PM) Sort of a tangent, but... on this stat, it was talking about minor traffic infractions. The reason they have so few in that group is that many of them live on and spend most of their time on reservations. Those are patrolled generally by some sort of tribal police force, and those forces usually to next to no traffic enforcement on local roads. The reasons for that are many, but just wanted to point the likely reason for that particular anomoly. Yeah I don't actually know native american prosecution/incarceration rates off the top of my head or if they're substantially different from other groups, but I figured that if they were, "tribal police system" would be the obvious answer. Do you know if tribal arrests show up in federal crime statistics at all?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 01:44 PM) He made it seem like the majority of those witnesses who claimed to see the surrender changed their stories. I don't know if that's true or not. He doesn't know if it's bad. He might think that, but again, he's not a judge or the defense attorney. And again, you're arguing that he should have not put people on the grand jury stand to testify what they heard, hearsay or not, when that evidence supports efforts to bring charges. You want him to put on a less than stellar case from the get go. I don't know why you think that makes sense. Putting up crappy witnesses who change their story or who aren't actually witnesses is what makes a less-than-stellar case. You seem to be saying that a prosecutor is just a complete dunce who has no discretion on what evidence to present and its validity. Like I said before, if the ultimate outcome of this situation is that prosecutors across the country take a more skeptical view of charges against everybody, not just police officers, going forward, that'll be fantastic. But I don't think the days of ham sandwich indictments are really going anywhere.