Jenksismyhero

Then stop framing the whole issue like the justices are f***ing over everyone by not doing what you want them to do, which happens to be something they're not supposed to do. Stop making it out like Scalia and the like are in Fox News' pockets. The whole thing seriously gets old. "We didn't get what we want so the other guys are obviously doing something wrong." That's essentially the liberal/administrative position in this whole debate.

I'm a huge fan of the liberals on this board arguing that the Court should ignore the text of a bill and decide its constitutionality based on the "oh come on, we all know what they MEANT to do" standard.

I agree with what Soxbadger has said - meet with an attorney and explain the entire situation. Getting little snippets on the internet helps, but isn't a full evaluation of her potential claim. From what you said it sounds very suspicious. Normally an HR person would wait until the person is back from leave at regular duty before firing them, to lessen the chance of an FMLA/age discrimination claim. Here they did it while she was on limited duty. Might be innocent, but the timing does seem strange. These cases are tough for a Plaintiff. You basically have to prove a "read between the lines" situation. Most don't go to trial though. You do discovery, take some depositions, and if you can defeat a summary judgment motion brought by the employer, usually the case settles during a pre-trial. Not saying that's the particular route this will go, but that's sort of what to expect. If I were you i'd talk to someone. There are a gazillion lawyers out there that will spend time with you to go over everything and make a full evaluation of her options/chances.

Caught up on some movies while flying around the last couple of days. Immortals - meh, entertaining romp a lot like 300. Cool visuals though. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - watching this in pieces probably isn't the best way to pay attention, so I had a difficult time following exactly what was going on here. Maybe that's why it didn't do very well at the box office. Seemed like you really needed to pay attention to names in the beginning, otherwise you were screwed.

Been gone for a couple of days so I missed out on the Groce presser. Gotta say, after watching that and listening to him on the radio this morning, i'm impressed. He sounds like a high energy workaholic type guy. As others have already said, I don't think recruiting is going to be a problem. Helps to read this type of stuff too: http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/colleges/p...-a-fan-of-groce Parker/Nunn/Hamilton? Yes please.

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 09:07 AM) Averaging 10 assists a game in college basketball is almost impossible. Add in the fact IU plays in the Big 10 with a lot of quality defenses, and I would say it would be impossible for Ferrell to average 10 assists a game. Kendall Marshall is one of the best passers I've ever seen in college basketball, and he averaged 9.7 assists per game for a run and gun offense with NBA quality players around him. As for the McDonald's game last night, the talent level continues to dwindle it seems. Shabazz was pretty impressive, but after that, the talent level quickly faded. Never seen so many missed dunks by players simply not elevating high enough. Scouts absolutely ripped on this class all week, saying they've never seen so few potential pros on the McD roster. Didn't mccamey average 13 one year?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 28, 2012 -> 11:54 AM) I feel like it's one of those issues that people (especially white people) don't want to touch. It's like pointing out reverse racism and the acceptance of it makes you racist yourself Because if you talk about it you ARE labeled a racist. At this point, it's not worth the effort. In my circle of friends I always talk about how Hollywood makes men look like a bunch of f***ing idiots who are lucky their wives remind them to breathe. The reaction is very much the same - "oh please, historically women have been treated like dirt so it's fine."

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 28, 2012 -> 11:14 AM) Game of Thrones=awesome I'm tempted to get HBO again, but I might just wait, re-up for a month and bust through them marathon style. Since nothing else is on right now, I started up Borgias, the Showtime period drama about the Vatican/Pope. It's basically on the same level as The Tudor's - cool costume's, lots of TnA, some political intrigue. Not great but worth the watch.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:07 PM) These f***ers always get away Any reasonable person would understand that's not a gangsta hoodie.

And this is not at all the first time that we've had a divided court based on party ideology. FDR wanted to amend the Constitution to add more justices because he was tired of the "Republican" justices on the Court striking down his laws.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:03 PM) "Remember, guns don't kill people. Dangerous minorities do." (I've been waiting for the opportune moment to pull that one out. Thanks!)

Better to rely on an outlier to prove that guns are dangerous.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:24 PM) There have been plenty of legal scholars that have said the opposite, too. Yes, I can fault them for supporting something. They're job isn't to "support" anything, it's to intrepret the law. And again, you keep pointing to "most constitutional scholars" simply because they happen to agree with your opinion on it, while totally disregarding the OTHER constitutional scholars that said it was unconstitutional. The way I see it, they're basing their opinions strictly on a political ideology. As for the highest court in the land usually voting 5-4 on landmark cases...shows that their opinions are based on political affiliations, not blind interpretation of the law. I find it hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that these huge cases always end up 5-4 and politics aren't playing a role. Our highest court has problem, and that's IMO, they're infected by politics. Your belief systems are tired directly to your ideology. What your suggesting is interpretation based strictly on what? Just whether document X says expressly that you can do Y? If the Framers didn't think about it are we screwed forever? How you view the role of government in your life is going to matter when deciding if X is a power under the Constitution. Personally I think the liberal/conservative leanings of the Court has less to do with which side you're on for various issues, and more about different governmental philosophies, i.e. the role of government and the interplay between local, State and Federal governments.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:51 PM) The cops aren't magic and aren't always within a close proximity. Bingo.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:35 PM) Well they did bring him in and interview him. They then released him. That doesn't mean it's over. Hell, I'm sure he gets arrested any day now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:24 PM) It says presume they acted in self-defense unless you have good reason to believe otherwise. And given that he was tailing the guy and essentially starting a fight, and the call from the gf saying he was being followed - I don't buy that his story is 100% accurate. So I would have brought him in.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:18 PM) Ok then you can never really determine if it's a kidnapping since "the little brat is just lying, he doesn't want to come home for dinner." At what point does it become reasonable to assume that a forcible felony is going on and for you to draw a weapon to stop it? Why do we want individuals with minimal training doing this? Why do we want criminals to get away with crimes without fear that people are willing to defend themselves?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:21 PM) Jenks, The difference is protection the law affords. In Illinois they would clearly charge and let the facts settle it out. In Florida the law puts up a barrier for the police to even charge me. The entire point Im making, is that this is all subjective and based on facts. Why you would ever prevent the police from charging someone and doing a full investigation is mind blowing. Just because the cops and the county prosecutors failed to do their jobs until it became a national story doesn't make the law bad. That's ridiculous. There's nothing in that law that says "if someone claims self defense stop all investigation and believe them without question."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:08 PM) What you would do with the child isn't really the question. What someone might do is. You can't say "well I would act this way" and negate the entire hypothetical. But if you reasonably believed that there was a kidnapping in progress, you'd be legally good to shoot to kill And the teacher is legally required to report that and others are legally required to investigate. Not sure what it really has to do with SYG laws, though! Hey, you can DO anything you want. Whether or not 12 people think it was legally warranted is an entirely different question. And i meant for that to be an example about how kids say some crazy s***. It's not really reasonable to rely on what a kid is screaming on a playground as a basis to shoot someone.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:05 PM) Be consistent, you already established yourself that you were taking a kid. Oh christ. fine, i picked the kid up, i'm not running away like a mad man and i'd stop if someone asked me questions. If you are standing in a playground and you see me pickup a kid it's not reasonable to just shoot me without trying to find out what's going on. That doesn't change my point.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:07 PM) Jenks, Unfortunately my reasonable interpretation of the events was that if I didnt shoot you immediately that you would kidnap the child. /shrugs The bottom line is that it shouldnt even be a question, I should not have a right to intervene. The law is terrible and I cant really see any justification for it. How would this be ANY different if this law didn't exist? You'd then rely upon case law which would have the exact same standards. This argument is dumb. As I've said before, the statute just sought to clarify the situation instead of relying on the 500 examples previously brought to court. I don't see how it's a bad thing, since either way we're going to be debating the particular facts of a situation to determine if the defense applies.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:00 PM) Jenks, What if your kid is yelling "hes kidnapping me". Do I get to shoot first and ask questions later? The law (imo) is terrible. I would think without you attempting to verify the truth of that statement, it's not reasonable to believe what a kid screams, especially since i'm not going to pick him up and run away. I'm going to stand there and let him make a fool of himself and if someone asks questions I'll stick around to answer them. My nephew (5) went to school with a cut on his face from falling on his bike. He told the teacher his mom took a knife to him (saw something on TV about it, thought it would be funny). Kids say the darndest things.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:56 PM) I think we need to be clear when we're being descriptive of the situation that exists and the laws as they are and prescriptive. But I think this flail acknowledges Balta's point. Please. Someone following you doesn't require that you automatically turn and defend yourself. You have no reasonable belief that they mean to do you ANY harm.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:53 PM) Jenks, I believe you are incorrect. From Florida: 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or Kidnapping is a forcible felony. There if I believe force is necessary to prevent the kidnapping of another person, I can use deadly force. That is right from the statute, which is why I created the fact pattern, explicitly based on what the law allows. The law allows me to shoot someone if I think they are kidnapping someone. It would have to be reasonable. Whipping out a gun on a playground (felony btw right?) and shooting me just for seeing me talk to a kid isn't going to fly as "reasonably necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." Moreover you'd have to establish that you know I was about to commit a kidnapping. How are you going to establish that unless I scream "I'm kidnapping this kid and you can't stop me!"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:54 PM) Not in the least. Try to put yourself in that situation. I'd be scared sh*tless having some random dude in a pickup truck following me around for more than a few blocks, accelerating if I tried to run. At that point I'd try to hide, and if the guy got out of his car while I was trying to hide and he approached me without loudly and blatantly identifying himself and what his goals are, I've got the choice between trying to hit him first or having him find me while hiding. In the middle of a strange neighborhood where I don't know anyone. but he has the duty to retreat! run faster!!!