Jenksismyhero

Terrible defense by the bulls. looks like we're going to have to steal game 4

Boozer misses so many bunnies

Need the bench mob to win the first 5-6 min of the 4th

How many steps did lebron get there? 2 and the jump stop?

Well, here's the run. Gotta weather the storm and keep it close.

Laughable charge on lebron, christ

Gotta feel good being only down three. The heat should be up by about 12

Noah has been terrible on defense this series

How do you grab the ball from a dive, slide 2-3 feet, and not travel?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 22, 2011 -> 07:58 PM) Boy they just aren't going to blow the whistles at all. This is like a Bulls/Pistons series from back in the day. I enjoyed lebrons block on boozer, when he pushed his body down with his left and blocked the shot with his right.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ May 20, 2011 -> 01:15 PM) There are some rumors that the British woman, Catherine Tate, will get the new manager role. She did stick out since all the other guest interviewees were big names (Carrey, Romano, Arnett, Spader), but I certainly hope that's not true because she was awful - probably the worst segment of the entire episode. Spader was good. That episode was terrible. Maybe if the writer's focused on writing good episodes instead of working with tv/movie stars it would have been better. I don't understand why they can't just focus on the characters they have instead of using these stupid gimmicks. I though the Ferrell episodes were terrible as well.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 20, 2011 -> 01:23 PM) He was correct, amazing game. Agreed. It's the Indiana Jones movie you always wanted, but in a game.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:44 AM) But there's always been an exception to that exception if the police themselves create the circumstance. The ruling outlined the test for that, which overrode several State-developed tests and ultimately makes it more difficult to suppress evidence from a warrantless search. My first post was a little too hyperbolic, this wasn't some huge, drastic gutting of the 4th. Just another step in weakening it. This is probably why they decided to take the case - too many districts had different interpretations of this narrow area of 4th amendment jurisprudence. For the sake of future efficiency in these types of cases, they probably wanted to give a clear standard.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:35 AM) No, it restructures the whole "exception to the exception" test of exigent circumstances. The SCOTUS would not take a case if it only applied to this narrow situation. Apparently, a lot of states have taken various approaches to this issue, so the SCOTUS had a good opportunity to clarify and set down ground rules. They weren't in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect. Their probable cause was the smell of pot in the hallway and "noises potentially consistent with the destruction of possible evidence," which was caused by them banging on the door. The dealer really is irrelevant to the ruling here. The smell of pot isn't probable cause that people are using an illegal drug in the apartment? You're ignoring this key piece to the puzzle. They couldn't possibly claim that they believed "evidence" was being destroyed, and thus fit themselves into this exigent circumstance exception to warrants, if there wasn't probable cause to suspect illegal behavior. Edit: and this is why the dealer is important, because that supports their contention that a known drug dealer was getting rid of evidence.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:19 AM) Does this ruling make it easier or more difficult to justify warrantless searches post hoc? And, yeah, according to this ruling, it wouldn't. If the police came to question me for some reason e.g. I was suspected of drug trafficking but they had no warrant, did a knock & announce and then heard "noises potentially consistent with the destruction of possible evidence," they could break down the door. They didn't violate the 4th or threaten to do so before they believed I was destroying evidence, so they'd be good to go. Actually no, because the exigent circumstance is a factual question which SCOTUS deferred to Kentucky for a ruling on the best system for deciding that. They only ruled that WHEN an exigent circumstance exists a warrantless search is not against the 4th amendment.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:19 AM) Does this ruling make it easier or more difficult to justify warrantless searches post hoc? Minimally easier in a unique, factual circumstance. The whole idea is that, based on your probable cause that something is going down inside, you don't have to miss the arrest by having to go get a warrant. This is common sense, real world ruling I think.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:15 AM) That doesn't appear to be directly relevant to the exigent circumstances question that was in front of the court. If the police knock & announce at your door and claim they heard sounds potentially consistent with the destruction of possible evidence, they can enter without a warrant. edit: why does probable cause eliminate the need for a warrant? Smelling pot smoke isn't justification for busting down your door. You really honestly believe that the 4th amendment wouldn't protect you against police knocking on your door and breaking it down with absolutely no probable cause simply because they hear movement inside?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:09 AM) They didn't hear toilets flushing or things being burned, they heard people moving around, noises "possibly consistent with the destruction of possible evidence" after banging on the door and announcing that they were the police. That is enough to legalize a warrantless search now. You're ignoring all of the probable cause part of the equation.

Let's ignore the whole part where they saw a drug deal go down, chased the guys into the apartment building, had it pegged to 2 different apartments, chose one, smelled marijuana, knocked on the door 2-3 times announcing they were police, and then, after hearing rumbling inside (which we all know was "oh s***! the cops! hide the bong!) they entered. Instead, let's assume the cops just started randomly knocking on doors, waited for someone inside to make noise, and then boom, no more 4th amendment.

Dragon Age was great. Good story, likeable characters. It's gonna look better than Oblivion too, which is showing its age a little.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 19, 2011 -> 09:37 AM) Are you going to disregard all of the clutch performances and shots that LBJ/Wade have had before this season? I know this is their first time playing together, but it does take a while to figure it out. And it worked against Boston twice and last night. So you're pointing to three times he's been "clutch" to support your claim, but I can't rely on the 2-15 or whatever they've been this season in the final minutes? I find it telling that Brian Windhorst, Lebron's media mouthpiece, wrote a story this morning about how Lebron is FINALLY starting to become more clutch. He, like you, relies on his performance against Boston (a team that was so clearly overrated and outmatched since they were old and playing with a significant defensive piece with one arm) and this one game (out of four) against the Bulls.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 19, 2011 -> 09:13 AM) Yup, I think too much is made of that. How many times did we hear "Get the ball to Michael, and get the f*** out of the way" or some variation of that at the end of the game? The Bulls didn't run no damn triangle the last two minutes. They had Jordan. Simple as that. I think it's overplayed, but I think you guys are overselling how good LBJ and Wade are. Go look at the stats. They haven't been good this year, especially Lebron. All the talent in the world doesn't matter if you aren't clutch when it matters. Has Lebron been better? Sure, but really, he hasn't been asked to win a game with a shot (like in the final regular season match-up). Last night he hit an open three on Korver, who was 4 feet away, with 2 seconds on the shot clock. He hit a fadeaway spin 18 footer in a bailout. Noah made a dumb foul on Wade that gave him two shots. The rest is history. As Balta said, the way they close games doesn't work the majority of the time. The game changed when Asik got knocked out with the cut on his chin. The Bulls had the momentum. Lebron and Wade couldn't get any penetration because of the help defense that Asik provided. They were standing around taking terrible jump shots. After he left that defensive intensity was gone. Miami (smartly) attacked Korver and took over. I blame Thibs for not adjusting in the 4th. I get that the Bulls need Korver to hit some shots. I get that Korver has to play to get into a rhythm and get out of this funk that he's in. But do that in the 2nd quarter, not the 4th. Why is he in there for extended minutes when it's clear he can't hit a shot to save his life? At that point Bogans is an equal offensive threat but an immense upgrade on defense. I think that was the difference in the game (along with the Bulls shooting terrible overall from all over the court). Also, Spoelstra is a terrible coach. Not taking out Haslem for the first 5 min of the 4th should have been their undoing. He got bailed out by the Bulls playing a terrible quarter.

Bulls shot 34%, took 14 more shots than the heat and were about 20% worse on their ft shooting compared to their average. And yet, they were still tied with 4 min or so to go. That's why this game stunk....it was a game they let slip away. I feel like Miami played it's best game and the bulls played one of their worst

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 18, 2011 -> 09:46 PM) Taj dunked so aggressively he almost didnt put the ball in the hoop. I love the no call on that. Should have been an and one. Haslem knocked his arm out of the way

Yep, and quote where I said they were going to lose as a result of the refs