Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 23, 2012 -> 04:33 PM) No I'm not. I'm asking you to recognize well-documented problems with eye witness testimony because you keep hand-waving it away as "not a big deal" despite the people in legal academia saying that, yeah, it is a big deal. You're arguing something that's basic common sense and an issue that has been handled by attorneys in trials forever. Eye witness testimony can be faulty, and SOME jurors are terrible jurors. What's your solution? Exclude all eye witness testimony? Do you seriously believe that the average juror ignores credibility issues when a witness claims they're 100% certain about what they saw?

And this: Those are things that a good defense attorney would bring up to the jury in order to discredit what a witness says they saw. It's up to the juror to decide if they think that's important or not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 23, 2012 -> 03:47 PM) That simply isn't true and what you're claiming is 100% the opposite of what the research shows. It's been shown that juries place an undue weight on eyewitness testimony even if it contradicts physical evidence. The case I already referenced, Ronald Cotton, had a man sentenced to Life + 54 years based mainly on the victim's testimony, which turned out to be wrong. You can read an interview with Jennifer Thompson, the victim who wrongly identified Cotton despite going to great lengths during the crime to try to commit her assailant to memory. If you're dead wrong about seeing me at X place, the jury doesn't know that if you're a great liar or earnestly believe I was there. Here's another article that's a couple of years old from Scientific American. Of course eye witness testimony is important. It's the best evidence available, even if it CAN BE, but is not ALWAYS unreliable. Lots of evidence can be unreliable in your distorted view of how jurors analyze evidence before them. s***ty cops screw up investigations. Numerous cases have been overturned because cops were found to have done illegal things with evidence/witnesses/whatever. Does that mean all evidence in the hands of the police is unreliable? That all facts discovered by the cops are unreliable? No. It means that jurors should be - and are - skeptical of that evidence, but not necessarily to the point of not believing that evidence. It's a weighed opinion in their minds as to how credible they think the cop (witness) is and they weigh that determination with other evidence in the record. Again, you're asking for 100% CSI-level certainty in a system where 100% certainty is impossible.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 23, 2012 -> 02:58 PM) I dont trust you because i've done the books for parties like that. They dont often lose money but they can. We usually would serve the booze we got for free for those parties and limited the beer to gross old keg bud light. Still the fine ruins all of that if someone from the board deems it against the ordinance. Thats a major reason that only a few places (mostly lincoln ave) does it and the others dont. The funny thing is that you can just add in free food in your "happy hour" offering and there is no big deal of that bringing in people to drink. I still wish we could have a true happy hour like when I was in boulder a few weeks ago and basically everything was a dollar the entire night, f***ing great. There must be something else going on (little traffic) or the wristband was at the wrong price. Basically only guys drink to the limit on those deals (and even then it's usually weak pours on already over-priced drinks). Out of 100 people, i'd bet no more than 25 would actually "beat" the deal, while the other 75 paid for 5-6 drinks and ended up drinking only 2-3. Add to that food costs from people coming in and the amount of people that stay after the deal and keep drinking. I shouldn't say it's 100% fool proof, but if done right and you get a decent stream of people it's an easy night for making money. Edit: and yes, a fine would obviously kill a lot of the revenue. But there are so many of those wrist deals I find it hard to believe that it's illegal. It's a pretty heavily regulated industry here in the city as you pointed out. People are waiting and bribing for a while to get a liquor license. Our guys overpay to buy a place just to get the liquor license and then they close the bar. That's how valuable they are.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 23, 2012 -> 03:01 PM) Good defense attorneys are aware of the decades of research on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, but jury members often are not and place a lot of weight on it. As in the Robert Cotton case, the victim can be 100%, absolutely certain and still be wrong. Are you saying that all of the academic background on the reliability of eyewitness testimony is bulls***? No, i'm saying that the average person is going to have many experiences in life where their own recollection is not 100%, so they will take that information into account when rendering a verdict, and they'll accurately and reasonably understand the level of importance eye witness testimony provides. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. Eye witness testimony doesn't do much in 99% of cases without other corroborating evidence. If i'm dead wrong about seeing you at X place other evidence needs to actually establish that you were at X place in order for you to be found guilty.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 23, 2012 -> 02:50 PM) You can pop on over to google scholar and browse a bunch of the studies on this. Eyewitness testimony really is generally unreliable under some circumstances but not all. Obviously you're not likely to mis-remember or mis-identify your mother, but if it's a random stranger that you witnessed, it's pretty likely. edit: As usual, Frontline has an excellent episode on one of the most prominent cases of the failure of eyewitness testimony, Robert Cotton. A good attorney would be able to punch holes in the reliability of eye witness testimony if it was that questionable. And i'm sure most of the time people testifying would readily admit they are not 100% certain if they're not 100% certain.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 23, 2012 -> 02:46 PM) Yes, but bars can lose money on those deals and if they are found out to be doing that "party" with the general public for specific time frames they can be fined. Any "happy hour" type specials or parties can get you in deep s***. Losing your liquor license in Chicago is the kiss of death. I have clients who are bar owners. Trust me, they NEVER lose money on those deals.

I have no doubt that people misconstrue what they see. But a juror is informed of this. It's their job to determine if what the person saw is what they saw based on how they explain it, if there's any doubt in their minds, etc. It's one of MANY pieces of evidence used at a trial. The fact that eye witness testimony by one witness is unreliable does not mean eye witness testimony generally is unreliable.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 23, 2012 -> 02:43 PM) Illinois law requires the same prices from when you open to when you close. Easily avoidable with the wristband deal since it's not a per drink payment system. Again, dumb law.

What a worthless law. Someone define happy hour. A designated time where prices are reduced? I've been to HUNDREDS of bars with wristband deals, how is that not a happy hour?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 23, 2012 -> 02:30 PM) Which is why this would be something entirely reasonable for a government entity to do if it is in a city of moderate size with limited, focused areas containing restaurants. I want a private taxi. The government should provide me with that. Free of charge. Just raise the taxes on other people.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 23, 2012 -> 02:23 PM) Define "Problem"? The "Problem" is that eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable, and this is just a symptom of that. It's not unreliable. CSI has warped your people's minds about the requirements of evidence.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 23, 2012 -> 02:21 PM) In many of these rural areas, there are like 4 total streets. The bars could pay a driver to take people home when the bar closes or something. The cops, who otherwise are sleeping probably, could also shoulder some of this burden. There's zero incentive for a bar to front that cost. They have no liability whatsoever to a drunk driver unless the person is overserved. That sort of program would probably just open them up to more liability.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 23, 2012 -> 02:20 PM) How many beers do you generally have if you are at a game at the Cell? If you leave right after the game and drive, would you be over the limit? 4-5, but my wifey drives me home

I don't see a problem really with these changes, except for the first (when she originally said two people were running and now just one). The one where the person changed her opinion as to who was the aggressor was aided by "new" information (the coverage of the Zimmerman/Martin on TV). She admitted with her first statement that she wasn't sure.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 23, 2012 -> 02:16 PM) Chicago is actually the 19th worst offending city, so I think the public transportation does help. Not arguing it wouldn't help, but it won't solve it either.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 23, 2012 -> 02:16 PM) Actually, most cities have some level of public transportation systems, they just don't do them very well, and they absolutely don't work well enough with local establishments to make public transit home from a restaurant/bar a legit, reasonable option. You are ignoring geographic realities. Having a few bus routes to take you to/from certain dense hubs (i.e. apt complexes to commercial strips) doesn't really help if your town is 90% neighborhoods. It's practically impossible in rural towns.

QUOTE (Tex @ May 23, 2012 -> 02:09 PM) No one is advertising drink to excess and drive yourself. Laws have restricted advertising of alcohol. Bars have had restrictions on happy hour drinks. Why should there be any infrastructure for being drinking too much? Know when to say when. Have a designated driver. Don't order six drinks. And society has offered a ton of warnings and deterents. I believe you would have a better case if DUI was cheap. That would be society saying hey it's no big deal. Instead the penalties are plastered on bill boards and everyone knows. Have you watched a sporting event in the last 20 years? Most of the ads are for alcohol, and most are showing a group of people at one place enjoying said alcohol. Advertising is absolutely part of the problem here. Drinking is now a requirement to having a good time apparently.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 23, 2012 -> 02:06 PM) (Of course, if society were to choose to provide better public transportation options, then people like me who would like to have a few drinks at a restaurant but still be able to get home would be likely to purchase more products at those establishments as there was a safe path home, thus providing a significant boost to that sector of the local economy, and the failure to do so thus is a negative impact on those businesses, on the local economy, and on tax revenues in general) Yeah, because for the majority of American cities a massive public transit system is financially feasible. Also, I'd imagine you can look at the numbers and find that Chicago has quite a number of DUI offenders out there. I'd say the City does a pretty good job providing public transit to just about anywhere you want to go. Having a system in place isn't stopping people from drinking and driving.

QUOTE (G&T @ May 23, 2012 -> 01:54 PM) People using resources should be paying for the resources. First, there are plenty of court impose rehabs. There really isn't much else the government can do. Second, getting a cab is perfectly possible for almost everyone. I've lived in places were cabs are hard to get, and those that are around aren't regulated. But they exist and I've used them for weddings, parties, etc. and so did everyone else that attended. Oh, and if you live in a place with no cabs, how many cops do you think are waiting to pull people over? Probably none. Third, and probably most important to your point, is that our society is one of the few that revolves around drinking at home more so than in public. I drink a lot. More than most people in this country, but I primarily do it at home. If I want to go out, I don't drink much. Fourth, a .08 isn't as easy to hit as you think. It would probably take 3-4 glasses of wine for an average male to hit the limit. The government is plenty lenient in allowing you to go out and partake and get home safely. Agreed. My buddy bought a breathalyzer as a semi-joke once (and to check himself before getting behind the wheel) and I have been pretty tipsy before while only blowing a .05-.06. As the bad but true ads go - buzzed driving is just as dangerous as drunk driving.

QUOTE (Reddy @ May 23, 2012 -> 01:08 PM) watch out y'all - i'm about to say something all the conservatives on this board will agree with. personal f***ing responsibility. it's not the governments job to say "stop advertising alcohol, stop trying to sell your products" and it's not the governments job to babysit full grown adults. make your own damn decisions and pay for them. Welcome to the light! Why doesn't this same mentality work for something like pregnancy or drug use? If you choose to do it, deal with the consequences....not societies responsibility to pay for it...

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 21, 2012 -> 08:59 AM) <!--quoteo(post=2604286:date=May 21, 2012 -> 07:57 AM:name=Balta1701)-->QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2012 -> 07:57 AM) <!--quotec--> fap fap fap The last few have been so disappointing. This'll be a renter for me.

In fairness, a lot of the design changes are because capacity has changed. It used to be you needed a huge 12v brick. Now they have little slim 18v packs

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 21, 2012 -> 11:39 AM) Yes and? It hurts the redistribution of wealth/left behind message when you have trust fund kids at the forefront of the "movement."

My wife and I have one and I haven't see a bug yet. Occasionally an app will shut down for no reason, but I get the same thing on my phone. For $200 it's a great little device to read books, surf the web and watch netflix/hulu/prime movies/tv shows.