Rob's House

Because some of us aren't crazy about the trend of ad hoc penalties being handed out at the whims of social media mobs. It's bigger than these incidents. Hell, it's bigger than the NFL, ESPN, or professional sports in general. The problem is the societal attitude towards seeking punishment for bad behavior by any means possible. Really?

They're really taking the thumb screws to him. I need to find a job where not having to show up and still getting paid is considered punishment. I'd walk in the bosses office and piss on his desk just to be punished.

Ah, to be fair I can see how you read it that way. I wasn't agreeing to the conviction rate being low, I was agreeing that it's true that there are abused women who are afraid to testify and/or call the cops, but then argued that most of the time the reason the victim doesn't testify is because she and the defendant have reconciled. Conviction rates are misleading because they don't account for cases that are nolle prossed (charges dropped) which happens fairly often in these cases. Even if you don't let the vic choose to drop the case, there's not much you can do when her testimony is 90% of your case and her story changes the morning of trial. Hope that clarifies things.

Oh, if only I had said DV cases have low conviction rates you wouldn't look like such a fool. Run along Chester. You're embarrassing yourself.

No. He's just a troll who's been banned under his other name(s). He won't fess up to who he is/was. Unlike Crayonz, his comic relief is unintentional.

You're the one that claimed you had legal credentials. And the substance of what you presented does not address that which you responded to. I guess even simple concepts are too nuanced for you. But for my amusement, can you link the stats that differentiate between scared victims and reconciled victims and the respective conviction rates of both? If not, what was your point again? Thanks in advance, Chester.

Where was it you said you got your law degree, Chester?

The second part of his quote is the more telling and disturbing part: The constitution sets out the basic framework that defines how the government is to be structured and administered, its powers, and restrictions upon those powers. Nowhere does it demand the "participation, responsibility, and service" to the country. It does quite the opposite. It demands that you be given the freedom from having those things imposed upon you by the state. This is the talk of nationalism. Nationalism is the authoritarian cousin of patriotism. It was the underlying theme to the fascism of 1930s Europe, which was the militaristic cousin of Russian socialism. This ultimately calls for individuals to be subject to active obligations to the state for which non-compliance is punishable. We've long since wandered into this territory. The income tax laws impose a duty on citizens to monitor, record, and report any property they acquire. Obamacare puts an affirmative duty on citizens to maintain health insurance. Now he wants to continue down that path of charging citizens with affirmative duties. His view of the world is one where the state oversees the people. The people are to serve the state and in return the state will take care of them. In his view, the society at large takes priority over the individual, who by comparison is of little importance. Thus, individual rights take a back seat to the greater good. In short, it's an ends justify the means philosophy. The problem for him is that the constitution, and our society generally, are based on the philosophy that the use of proper means is is the greater end.

I know more about them than I'd like to. Anyone who prosecutes these cases will tell you the same thing.

I'd say that's almost a certainty.

The dirty little secret is that it's actually the other way around. While the media obsession with DV in sports is only a few minutes old, it's been going on in the justice system for years. The stories about people that methodically beat women who live in constant fear are true. They're dangerous men who belong in prison and are one of the greatest fears of anyone with a daughter. They're hard to convict because the women are afraid to call the cops or testify. The problem is, in order to keep these guys from slipping through the cracks, we now cast a broad net. For every guy that fits that description there are 5-10 who are before a judge for a minor scuffle or straight up bull ****. There's not really an easy answer for it. It's already become overly politicized and the policy is typically crafted by ideologues. This approach often does more harm than good. This is largely why I think the NFL should avoid taking on a judicial role and why responsible fans shouldn't call for them to.

It's true that this happens occasionally, but the overwhelming majority of the time it's because they've made up, she's no longer mad, and she doesn't want him to get in trouble.

You might be surprised what can lead to a DV conviction.

What's funny is that none of us know which of those scenarios is accurate, but many have already picked the one that fits our prejudice.

I love how she takes it as a given that the NFL should seek to purge its ranks of anyone classified as a "domestic abuser." One must wonder if abusers of the non-domestic variety are acceptable. And what level of "domestic abuse" triggers the "zero tolerance" policy. They've painted themselves into an unworkable corner with knee jerk reactions to overhyped stories and it's looking like it's soon to hit the fan.

I figure it's a win-win situation. Either the Bills shut him down or I get points. Unless of course they shut him down and Allen & Floyd tear it up. Then it's more of an insult-injury situation.

No sir. We may have our share of inbred mountain folks, but WVA takes the heat for it, and I intend to keep it that way.

No way. We're not annexing all the incest jokes.

Sometimes you have to tolerate the dregs to keep the beach. You drive a hard bargain, but I'll take it.

So should I start Gates in fantasy?

I don't know how much faith I should put in Murphy, but if he's right this is cause for concern. If EJ can't manage the game we need to find someone who can.

I feel like we shouldn't take shots at him for trying to be responsible. If you don't intend to put boots on the ground it's important to let the enemy know so they can plan accordingly. It's all about keeping the lines of communication open.

Had a sour beer the other night called Petrus. It was amazing. My go to when Lite isn't in a throw back can. Now I know where to go for a cold beer and a hot shower.

Anyone who makes this argument is immediately and forever classified by me as a bag of vinegar and water.

Sorry I haven't been able to weigh in on this today, but I've been busy. I heard through the grapevine that the manager of my local Food Lion got in a heated argument with his wife and things got physical. I don't know the details, but I herded up a half dozen other douche bags who also have really strong opinions about situations they don't know much about to picket the store. We won't stop until he gets what he deserves, and that's to be fired, because we decided that's what he deserves. It's getting a little tense because his wife and kids are up here asking us to stop because if he gets fired he can't provide for them, but we know better than they do. I took a pop psych course in college and watched an episode of Oprah about this, so I know. Anyway, I gotta get back to doing God's work but I'll keep you guys posted.