iamshack

QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 5, 2012 -> 04:45 AM) How much the Marlina pay these ladies to stay in the pool? Why are all the dudes in the pics looking the other way? What's the blonds phone number? What is the island? Sorry... Yeah, I'd like to see what the ladies there on a random Wednesday night look like... Wow, $10 for a tuna fish sandwich!?!

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 5, 2012 -> 03:01 AM) That guy looks like a total creeper. Like you wouldn't.

I understand the need to cover your own ass, but I also think that the kids need to be afforded a bit of privacy when it comes to relationships occurring outside of school property. High School romances occur between 18 year olds and what are technically "minors" all the time. Are we going to start chasing down all these seniors and accusing them of sexual relations with a minor or statutory rape?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 4, 2012 -> 01:27 PM) The article quotes District Counsel Aceveto as saying that they contacted Child Protective Services and the local police due to the male being a minor. Yeah, but the huge distinction between this and the other case is this happened ON SCHOOL PROPERTY basically. It wasn't a matter of them overhearing about these two dating and then going after them.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 4, 2012 -> 04:48 AM) http://www.themonitor.com/articles/elsa-59...-suspended.html An 18-year-old and a 17-year-old having sex and what did the school district do? Called the police. But they like the coach who was fired. So he has that going for him. Umm, Tex...it happened ON THE BUS! Liability concerns are just a bit different, don't you think?

Of course that fact is not going to be openly celebrated...we'd all like to think that the highest court is composed of only the most objective collection of wise individuals possible... Of course, as Jenks said, FDR tried to add two Justices (and thus amend the Constitution) just so he could get a Democratic majority back in the Court....

Interesting to hear Hawk and Stone compare our farm system to Houston's...

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:45 PM) Wilkins with a very impressive swing off of a big league pitcher. It seems fairly obvious that Santiago is going to be the closer. In a few games where Ventura has managed the bullpen realistically, he had Reed/Thornton setting up for Santiago. I was very, very impressed with what I saw from N. Jones tonight. Thornton looked terrible though, as his fastball seemed way off. Hopefully he was just preserving his arm. I just wonder how many of these decisions Robin is actually making...

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:07 PM) Ha. Haha. HAHAHA. I'm an unemployed college grad. Craigslist is your friend! I think I paid $175 for mine...

Man, I think you guys are selling him short...kid has good hands, can shoot it waaaaayyyy better than Okafor did in college...I really do think of him as a Marcus Camby that can shoot...

Gordon with another hard-hit ball... I'm pretty pleased with what I see out of him thus far...

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 08:47 PM) There's the patented Beckham RCF liner. The pitch before, had his typical troubles with the high fastball he can't seem to lay off or get on top of (few can). Morel not having one of his better days. Nationals sent down John Lannan, that's a pretty big surprise, especially with Chien Min Wang on the DL. That was one of Gordon's better swings in the last year or so though...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 08:01 PM) Thumb surgery for Andrew Bailey, maybe out to around the all star break. The Red Sox have horribly botched their bullpen situation the last two years...

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 08:42 PM) i think they look pretty good from what i've seen in pictures. haven't seen a Volt in person yet though. Our company has one since that's what we do...it looks like a crappy remake of a DeLorean, if you ask me. And that new ad with the dorky guy explaining that he "thinks about the future every morning" is horrible.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 07:17 PM) Still seriously overpriced. Ugly too.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 06:13 PM) Finally got myself an adjustable dumbell set. Gonna go get some extra weight plates soon. Tell me you got the Powerblocks....

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 03:22 PM) Elsewhere it was highlighted that Kennedy made this odd reference in the opinion: Can anyone explain why this helps bolster the case? He's making the point that people arrested for "minor offenses" have the capacity to be just as dangerous as those arrested for more serious offenses, and therefore shouldn't be excluded from the general prison population or from strip searches by default just because they were indeed arrested for "minor offenses."

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 02:51 PM) Weighing in here with my experiences... Once upon a time, I was a state prosecutor in Arizona. I requested dozens of bench warrants. I also worked with a wide array of officers. Most of them were great, some were not (see the officer that stood up under cross examination and accused the defense attorney of committing perjury - that was awesome). Both those topics have been discussed in this thread, but I don't think they are particularly relevant to this holding. The issue before the SCOTUS seems to be whether it is reasonable policy to require everyone entering a jail facility to be strip searched (and note, there is a difference between jail and prison if we are discussing semantcs). The issue is not whether officers should follow policy (they should). Nor is it whether some people will try to bring in contraband in cavities (they will - though Breyer is probably right that that generally occurs infrequently). Cavity searches are extremely invasive. I tend to think that such an invasive procedure should be reserved for situations where there is a reasonable suspicion of contraband (known gang member, metal detector picks something up and you can't find it, I would even concede that a jail with a massive contraband problem might have reasonable suspicion to strip search everyone), rather than as a policy for everyone. I would wager that in most jails, the vast majority of those arrested aren't smuggling contraband. I haven't read the opinion, so I'm not sure how far reaching this holding actually might be, but when there are 5-4 opinions on criminal procedures, I tend to come down on the side of the liberal judges... The majority is basically coming down on the side of the interests of running a safe prison over the right to be free from such an invasive procedure. I can understand both points of view, however, it seems as though there are less invasive procedures that will eliminate the possibility of contraband entering the prison population in all but the most infrequent of cases. Are those infrequent cases enough to justify such an invasive procedure to everyone that gets entered into the general prison population?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 02:12 PM) I bet Nike could pay enough for that to not be true. You can pay enough for anything to be true or not true.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 12:44 PM) The offense underlying the warrant may be minor, but the warrant itself is not "minor", or they wouldn't issue it. If it was for falling behind in his payments for the fine he agreed to in his plea, than I would certainly label that as minor. I don't really have an issue with the ruling here...what shocks me more is that someone could be subjected to this, among other things, being imprisoned for 6 days, over a clerical error.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 12:24 PM) Really? I mean, really? Officer: (After running plates/license) "Oh, wow...this guy has a warrant out for his arrest." Calls in to dispatcher, who double checks, dispatcher verifies warrant is active. Officer: "Sir, step out of the car and put your hands behind your back, you're being placed under arrest for an outstanding warrant..." Innocent Guy With Warrant Out For His Arrest: "Oh, that's for a fine I paid...I even have the receipt! You can trust this is a valid receipt, as I'm sure you know exactly what a valid receipt looks like from every fine paid...please officer, take my word for it, not the federal/state computer system! I swear if you get in trouble for not arresting me because I have a receipt, I'll support your family for the rest of your life when you're fired for not making the arrest now that you've looked up my ID/Plates and spoken with a dispatcher that KNOWS you were supposed to make an arrest!" Ok, I think I made my point. There is the real world...and then there is the fantasy world. The receipt is NOT grounds enough for the officer to NOT make the arrest. I know you don't want to believe that...but that's life. I'm sorry, but 1) my cousin is a police officer and they let people walk for things all the time, certainly without losing their jobs, and the reason they do it is for liability purposes; and 2) having a warrant out for your arrest is not like having an outstanding parking ticket. People are usually pretty aware of why they have them and what they are for. Now notice I didn't have any qualms with the man being arrested. But I've been arrested and jailed before and they certainly didn't strip search me. Whether you choose to believe it or not, there are places you can safely hold people without subjecting them to incredibly humiliating strip searches. Are you honestly going to claim that EVERY person that gets arrested needs to go through the strip search process? And enough with the "Really. I mean, really" incredulous nonsense already.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:07 PM) http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/2...cago-white-sox/ Well then....

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 12:05 PM) This is NOT why. He was arrested and detained because there was an active warrant out for his arrest. Why the warrant is issued is meaningless to the police officer...the officer CANNOT let him go with the warrant outstanding...or the officer could and probably would get fired if this was discovered. I know you don't give a s*** about someone elses livelihood...but losing your job in this regard would pretty much relegate you to being a mall security guard making minimum wage for the rest of your life...so no, officers don't tend to "not care" when warrants are outstanding. It's not the cops fault the warrant wasn't cleared off the computer...whoever failed to clear it is at fault...not the police for doing their jobs. Understood. However, there are issues with warrants all the time. It isn't as though there has never been something in the governmental bureaucracy that was inaccurate due to misfiled or mishandled paperwork. One would think if the guy produced a receipt showing he paid said fine, insisted that said fine was paid, that they could check before they submitted him to the general prison population. I guess I'm not going to go as far as SS here, but I'd award the guy one hell of a recovery (at least mid 5 figures) if I was the judge.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 11:49 AM) Also maybe a bigger issue is that people are detained for such petty offenses in the first place! I think that is where I was going...it's kind of frightening that they would hold you in jail for not having a bell on your f***ing bicycle.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 12:33 PM) BTW, just to help with understanding, gated communities seem to be much more common in the south than in the north. I assume it is in part because of the cost of snow removal. I have not seen any pictures of the neighborhood but here "gated communities" can be anything from very modest (like mine), lower middle class, to the mega millions. I think it has more to do with it being a more recent phenomenon, and most new development has occurred in the South and Southwest. But I could certainly be wrong.