Jump to content

Warcodered

Community Member
  • Posts

    31,924
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Warcodered

  1. 37 minutes ago, wppete said:

     

    27 minutes ago, H2o said:

    This is not good. Rashee Rice is about to be suspended indefinitely and his playing career may be over depending on how this plays out in court. 

    Yeah if how those things lines up is a felony that requires jail time, that's probably what's going to happen I'd think. Whatever DA is over this isn't going to want to look like they're just letting him off because football, especially when he doesn't even play for a Texas team.

     

    The only defense I can think he'd be able to argue is that he wasn't driving, yeah sure 🙄, but I don't know if that'd be enough to keep them from wanting to seem tough on this. Though I guess it gets tough on whether the prosecution thinks they could lose or not.

  2. On 4/13/2024 at 1:34 AM, GunnerBill said:

     

    And in fairness he didn't totally suck at it. Although think the usage was influenced by Knox missing time. It is a decision for them this year though. Because I think Josh looks better with us in pure 11. I would expect other than in the redzone where Knox is very good they dial the 12 back somewhat this year.

    So he was supposed to be bad at blocking but managed to trend closer to average in his rookie season....is it really that ridiculous to think he might continue to improve in that area?

  3. On 4/13/2024 at 1:44 PM, BillsFooteball said:

    As they should. It’s a miracle nobody was killed or severely injured from this 

    Yeah going back and looking up what happened with Henry Ruggs and he got an indefinite suspension, and while it's clearly not an excuse he was at least extremely impaired when he decided going over 100mph was a good idea, Rice was either sober or avoided being caught not and facilitated not one but two vehicles going 100+ down the road right next to each other. But it's not as bad because nobody died, just like Russian Roulet is only stupid when you lose.

    20 hours ago, Beck Water said:

     

    Oh, now THAT'S serious. 

     

    Throw your pregnant girlfriend around 'like a ragdoll', punch her in the face, repeatedly punch her in the stomach, and choke her?  "Tyreek Hill, you're going to be a Kansas City Chief!"  Allegedly break your son's arm?  "This is our year, just catch the ball and run fast, fella."

     

    Leave a bar, get in your car, drive 50 miles over the speed limit, cause a multi-vehicle pile-up and injuries, leave the scene, and get charged with 8 felonies - No Big Deal.

     

    Leave your Chiefs team playbook in the wrecked car?  CUT THE BASTARD!

     

     

    Recklessly endanger peoples lives meh sounds like a fine, risk the team playbook fire that bastard into the sun!

  4. Yeah definitely take it with a grain of salt. Will say that with the player recruitment it amounted to wishful thinking and trying to will two sides to being closer to the same page, with this all he'd need is to just have an idea of what Beane is thinking. Which in previous seasons he did shadow him at the combine at they definitely seemed pretty close, who knows if that's really the case or still true.

  5. 4 hours ago, H2o said:

    People would like to drop out of Round 1, 13 total spots, to move up 2 spots in Round 2 and then get the 24th pick of the 3rd Round? That would put GB @ #28 and then the rest seen below before we pick. You still think we would get an impact WR at that point? I don't. 

     

    image.thumb.png.e05d199208ba025f615453e72b02c356.png

    Yeah trading back made sense since it seemed like one of the guys they were looking at WR would still be there so do it and improve your position/get more capital in the draft deeper in. But moving back 13 feels like you're really flirting with missing one of the guys you're looking at.

    • Agree 1
  6. 9 minutes ago, muppy said:

    if any good can come from this thread and death it is to encourage men to get their prostate checkups as recommended by your Dr.

     

    As far as cancers go I am told this one is very treatable if caught early.  

     

    **** Cancer

    But how was OJ to ever expect his own body to kill him, he's the last person anyone would ever suspect.....

  7. 1 hour ago, Logic said:

    I know it's easy to cast aspersions at Mr Simpson, but...

    Who among us has not murdered our wife and her waiter friend a time or two, and then, after acquittal, written a book called "If I Did It"? 

    Let he who has not committed a double murder and then brazenly mocked the justice system via a cheeky, taunting book publication cast the first stone!

    I do still find it amusing that he made that book and because he'd lost the civil case he then lost control of the rights to it and they then changed the cover to this.

     

    61APIeH8ihL._SY425_.jpg

    • Agree 1
  8. 36 minutes ago, mannc said:

    And yet, under our binary system, "not guilty" is the only available verdict besides guilty.  So, even a person who is 100% verifiably innocent of a crime cannot obtain a verdict that is more favorable than "not guilty", at least in a criminal trial.  FWIW, it's my understanding that a person who was wrongly convicted of a crime can later be set free based upon a showing of "actual innocence", but that's not what we're talking about here.    

    That's because the system isn't for proving innocence, it's for punishing criminality while protecting people's right to presumed innocence. I know the process of getting cleared/retrial or however it is, is more difficult not sure if it's the same as being proven innocent, don't know not as familiar with that concept, just think I remember it being more difficult due to a loss of the presumption of innocence or something, not sure there is anything that proves innocence in our system not really what it's built for.

    • Like (+1) 1
  9. 6 minutes ago, Another Fan said:

    I mean I’m not one to speak of ill of the recent departed but I mean he did indirectly introduce us to the Kardashian family.  

    To be fair to them they market themselves well, have to give them credit for that if nothing else.

  10. 1 minute ago, st pete gogolak said:

    Not really if you put numbers on it.  Preponderance of the evidence you need 50.1% for verdict.  Beyond reasonable doubt? No one puts a number on it but assume it’s around 90% - 95% sure person is guilty. So not guilty in criminal case but guilty in civil case, juries believed defendant was between 50.1% and 90% - 95% guilty. Kind of crazy but that’s the system.

    Yes the point was being made that it's not "proven innocent" it's "not guilty" I was saying that it'd be strange for it to be "proven innocent" and then lose the liable case, because it'd essentially be like you said that 90-95% but going in the opposite direction for innocence.

  11. 3 minutes ago, mannc said:

    Semantics.  What is the practical difference? Under our system, “not guilty” is the only available “vindication” for someone wrongly accused of a crime. No one has ever been found “innocent”.

    The practical difference is it's not about you being innocent, not guilty just means they haven't done enough to prove that you're guilty, that's the point, if you had to prove yourself innocent it would be much higher burden because you'd have to actually prove it there wouldn't be an automatic assumption of innocence.

  12. 11 minutes ago, mannc said:

    Ok, he was found not guilty.  Can you explain the difference?

    The difference is very obvious "not guilty"- means they didn't find enough to say that you are guilty. "Proven innocent"- means they found enough to say you are innocent.

×
×
  • Create New...