Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 10:01 AM) Like Tex pointed out, our nation's existence follows from violence as a reasonable response to certain types of oppression. How many times have we heard about how "Second amendment solutions" are necessary to prevent the tyranny of government helping poor people see a doctor over the past few years? This cuts both ways. "Your Honor, can you please instruct the witness to answer the question." The BTP example is not really comparable, btw. The revolutionaries didn't have much recourse. Who could they complain to? Their local governments were ignored and they had no representation in Parliament. What political route did they have, especially when they're dealing with a monarch? You know what Ferguson people can do? Persuade their elected officials to make changes. They can elect new people if necessary. There are non-violent routes to take. Also, when Ferguson police officers start living with the people of Ferguson, eating their food, using their supplies, etc., then we can talk about whether an armed revolution makes sense.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 04:04 PM) Wait, did she even have a cell phone? I don't remember hearing that she had one but hearing they had to set something in order for the two to talk. If they both had cell phones it would have been pretty easy to call each other. That fact that he was convicted of a murder without physical evidence and only basing it off of one guy who isn't exactly credible is what scares me about our legal system. I can't imagine being convicted of something I know I didn't do. Yeah in the first or second episode she talks about the call log for Lee's phone. There's a call from Adnan sometime before the murder that lasts a few minutes. Adnan said he gave her his new cell phone number, and she wrote the new number in her diary on the day of the call. So clearly they were still on speaking terms and close enough that he wanted her to have his new number. And just so it's said: circumstantial evidence is just as influential and important as hard physical evidence. In fact, it's probably more likely than not that murder cases are resolved by circumstantial evidence, because hard physical evidence usually isn't available. That in and of itself isn't very troubling to me. And I don't think the prosecutors or investigators botched the case or brought a case that was total BS. It's a close call. Adnan is clearly the most likely killer (assuming Don's alibi really did check out). He's got the potential motive, he's not accounted for, and they've got a witness who, inconsistencies or not, tells the same general story that seems to all line up and make sense. As to defendant taking the stand: it's probably more common for defendant's not to, especially in a case like this where the defense isn't really "i didn't do it and here's why," it's more "the state brought this case on bulls*** evidence and there's no proof I did it." He has no obligation to take the stand in his defense. It was probably the right move to not allow a 17 year old to undergo cross examination. Although the way he explains himself to Sarah (obviously 15 years later), he seems like a really smart guy. He might have done well for himself on the stand. But that's a huge gamble. As to Adnan's demeanor, I chalk that up to being in jail for 15 years and accepting that there's a 99.9% chance he'll be there the rest of his life no matter what. He maintains his innocence, both to her and through his appeals. And i'm sure 5 years into his sentence he was much emotional about it. But you'd have to think it's human nature to accept the decision, even if you think it's BS and you want to maintain your innocence.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 09:51 AM) When the canned reaction is to say there's no issue? I don't think that's the canned response, but let's assume it is. You're advocating violence as a reasonable response, is that correct?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 08:10 AM) The Garner video is why a lot of people are skeptical that body cams will make any difference. I haven't read much about that case. I assume there are no charges because of the municipal immunity? Also, liberals, this is the crap I can't stand: http://deadspin.com/the-american-justice-s...oken-1666445407 "This is what American police do." Now imagine someone writes a similar article with 5-10 examples of a black person committing a crime and the author proudly concluding "this is what black people do." (Not saying anyone on the board agrees with this article, but many people here seem to agree with the gist of it.)

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 07:40 PM) Some were, no doubt. But for others it was a protest that would get attention. Frustration from people getting killed without a trial versus someone paying a few extra cents for their tea. Just sitting around discussing and acting nice isn't going to fix anything. So there's no other choice but rioting and violence?

See, I think he did it, or at least played a role in it. My best guess is that both he and Jay did it together. And while I really enjoy the podcast, the reporter/narrator sometimes bothers me with her questions. Maybe she follows up with Adnan, maybe she doesn't, but she seems to let him off the hook with his answers. She's too satisfied with his responses. She's definitely doing this as a reporter (I want to get facts to publish) and not an attorney/investigator (everyone is a liar). She's also not very subjective, admitting that she basically WANTS him to be innocent. Like the innocence project attorney, I think that can really cloud how you ask people questions and do investigations (not saying she's doing anything egregiously bad, but just to point it out).

I mean I could see them saying they were coming from the southwest there and knew he was around the gazebo but didn't know exactly where. When they pulled up he was literally next to them. But you're right, that seems weak. And it's doubly s***ty that they didn't perform any kind of first aid, although is that typical in a shooting situation?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 10:49 AM) Respectfully, I think some of this is too negative of an assessment. 1) We have a large enough sample size to know that Cosby is a good shooter at the major college level. He's in a slump to start the season, but he should get, and make, plenty of shots this year. Didn't have too much of a problem with his shot selection - yeah, there were some bad shots (Starks was the main culprit, but Cosby, Rice and Egwu had some head scratchers as well), but the Illini got a lot of good looks, in rhythm, that they just didn't make. 2) Egwu didn't commit that many fouls last year. He was in foul trouble last night, but it didn't seem to impact his aggression on either end. The bigger issue, to me, with Egwu is that he is always moving on both ends of the floor (setting screens, blitzing ball screens, etc.), so he can't be effective for 35 minutes a night. He was clearly gassed at the end and lost a couple rebounds late as a result. 3) Can't afford ineffective, foul plagued, games from Black. Colbert has looked better thus far this year, so hopefully he can provide solid minutes as the season progresses. But I agree that Illinois needs something, anything, out of Morgbert or they will have too many nights like last night. 4) Thought Hill was very aggressive. He left some points on the court (namely missed free throws), but he attacked the basket pretty consistently. Agreed on Nunn. Hopefully we're just seeing a symptom of his missed offseason. But for that one spurt in the second half, Nunn was largely non-existent. 5) Agreed on Starks being a problem. He's the offensive version of Chester Frazier - namely a guy who would be great as a change of pace, off the bench kind of guy. But his shot selection definitely does need to get better. Ultimately, I didn't see anything last night that changed my overall assessment of the team. It was a road loss against a good team where, despite an absolutely horrible shooting first half, the Illini were within a possession a couple times in the second half. There are obvious flaws here that limit the ceiling, but this feels like Groce's best team yet and I still think it's a comfortable tournament team this year. Yeah you're way higher on them than I am. I thought they were a bubble team before the season began and I haven't seen anything to change my mind. They were lucky to win the Baylor game (and I don't think Baylor is very good), and they should have been blown out last night (I don't think Miami is all the great either). They're a team that will look good if they hit threes, but will be pretty average if they don't. That actually is one of my main complaints of Groce. Every single team so far has been so reliant on the three ball. I guess that's just college basketball these days, but it was driving me nuts that he couldn't or wouldn't call a set play to the post when the threes weren't going. I'm not saying get the ball to Egwu and let him post up (because he tried and it didn't work), but why not set up Hill with a set play to get a 12-14 foot jump shot that he's good at? Why not do the same for Black who appears to be able to hit those shots too? Or even Egwu. I'd take an Egwu mid range shot over a post move. And I know there are different schools of thought, but I also feel like Groce is too hands off. He lets guys play and shoot their way out of slumps, but on some nights you gotta take control and basically force a specific guy to shoot from a set play. Don't leave it up to the players to chuck threes as a heat check. In the 2nd half with like 8 or 9 minutes to go Nunn scores 8 or 9 straight, Rice makes a big 3 point play and they're within 2. Rice immediately comes down the floor and chucks a 3 from 5 feet behind the line, 2 seconds into the shot clock. That was a momentum killing shot. And those shots seem to happen way too often with Groce's teams.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 10:59 AM) I know the other thread was locked, but there's full video available of the Tamir Rice shooting: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2...cer_shot_1.html What stands out to me, similar to the knife-wielding guy in Missouri a few months back, is that the police put themselves in danger with little options from the start. They allegedly didn't receive the information from the caller that it was "probably" a fake gun or that it was just a kid. So why on earth would you drive directly up to the suspect you think is armed and put your partner on the passenger side about two feet away? They shoot and kill this kid within a couple of seconds of arriving on scene. Why not stop farther away (say, in that conveniently located parking lot?) and, using your vehicle for cover, address the kid directly or through the PA speaker on the car? Do they know where he is when they pull up? If not, I guess that's your justification. But it does look like they created the problem by driving and parking where they did.

I think I would burn the house down if that happened to me.

Being disobedient to a government you don't trust and burning down your neighborhood and destroying property of other people that have nothing to do with it, are not in the same stratosphere.

It looked to me like Kirk fouled him on the floor. I'm actually very surprised they didn't at least look at it to make sure he was shooting. I assume that's reviewable at the end of the game, but maybe not.

QUOTE (Boogua @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 10:17 PM) I could get behind that. Just let Rice be the primary ball handler. He did it at points last year and he looks even better so far this year. The problem is everyone else on the floor stands around and watches him and it becomes a 1 on 4/5 game. And while Rice is very good, he makes some stupid decisions. Tate at least gets the offense going, even if he's not a major threat. Groce has to tell him to take 2-3 shots a game or they're going to be screwed. My thoughts from last night: 1) Cosby the shooter still hasn't shown up. I mean he clearly takes shots, too many, but he's not making any. If he doesn't this is not a tourney team. 2) Egwu still fouls too much. And most of them are dumb fouls. I knew that would be a problem. 3) Lack of frontcourt depth (also predicted) is clearly the biggest issue this team will have. Colbert is not big enough. Morgan is terrible on defense. They basically have to rely on Egwu and that's it. Thanks Darius Paul for being a moron. 4) Hill and Nunn are too passive. They're too good to be no-shows for 10-15 minute stretches. 5) Starks is the opposite. As noted on Twitter, he's a rec league player, not a major D1 player. I get that he's not a true PG so he's sort of learning on the job, but his shot selection is so awful.

Got my Wii U last night. The ability to control my TV/satellite receiver, and switch between playing a game on the TV or on the gamepad, is amazing. I was rocking the Bulls game, Illini game and Mario Kart all night.

Can't hit a shot. In foul trouble. Terrible half.

Both are covered under Free Speech, but you're going to analyze a reasonable person standard differently. And I assume (though I haven't really read up on it) that this SC case is going to look at that very question.

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.

BRAD STEVENS IS COMING TO ILLINOIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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. That's the same as bullying 50 years ago. It's not anything new or special.

Edit: I'm not saying it doesn't happen. it obviously does. But why do kids let it happen? Why are they so attached to the internet and those mediums that bullies use? Get a different Twitter account, get a new email address. Block people. Ignore people. It literally takes effort to be a victim of a bully on the internet. It takes an action on the victim's part - to engage with the person on the internet. It's not the same as being confronted face to face with it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 04:08 PM) It's the same, it isn't fake people, it is their friends at school. It's no different if someone threatened you over phone vs in front of you. One isn't made up because of the medium. One can be ignored though, that's my point. You being on the internet is a choice. You being physically present at the same school as a bully is not.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 04:09 PM) Kids worlds are so small, and when something is permanently out on the internet its brutal, even driving them to depression and suicide. Bullying could have been limited to one small school in a community and you could have changed schools even to help it out, now there is no escape. They can't hit ignore? Block the email address? Close their facebook? I don't buy it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 03:46 PM) I'm sure you will go far telling middle school kids to care less about their social status. Clearly i'm out of touch with all of this. I just don't see how your social status online is any more important or influential than your social status in the real world. One you can turn off and not pay attention to, the other you can't and is far more meaningful/serious.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 03:04 PM) You cant ignore it when it spills over to their life, reputations and relationships in school and other places. Its horrid to see. Eh, how's that different than actual bullying in school? We all dealt with it at some point. That's part of being a kid. Obviously it can go to far, and people should be protected/punished for it, but if Facebook is your life, you need to get a f'n life. Kids put too much stock on their internet/social media accounts. I'm in favor of breaking that trend, not embarrassing it and nurturing it even more.

I bought the Lego Movie for $3.99 (7 something with s/h). That was the extent of my black friday/cyber monday shopping. I didn't really see any "must have" deals.