Soxbadger

Arsenal just decimating Everton. Cesc Fabregas is one of my favorite players.

I think Vick's treatment is some what hypocritical. First of all, im not sure where this "drug" ring idea is coming from. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3148549 I see no mention of vick and drug ring, and I really doubt that the federal govt would not even charge him with those crimes. But Im not an expert on the subject, so I would be interested to see where its coming from. Secondly in regards to vick "ruthlessly killing animals", should Mark Buehrle be suspended from baseball for "ruthlessly killing" deers and other animals when he hunts? Its hypocritical to value some animals more than other animals, so if we are really outraged by the barbaric acts of killing animals, we should be outraged equally by all those who hunt and kill animals. Why do they hunt? For sport and entertainment purposes. Why did vick have dogs fight? For sport and entertainment purposes. I dont think what vick did is right, but I certainly do not think that killing an animal (regardless of how heinous) could ever rise to the level of killing a human. And for everyone who is saying "Oh Stallworth made a mistake, weve all driven drunk" maybe thats true. but if vick said that "oh everyone I know dog fights, it was just a mistake" would it really matter? The answer is no. Stallworth has millions of dollars and access to a program called safe ride where a NFL player can get a ride at any time. He killed a man because he just didnt care about following the law.

Steve needs a secretary worse than me. Nice article and congrats on the fame, not as insightful as my Cromartie article for Talkbears in 2006, but its a good start. (I kid I kid, but im sure you already knew that.) (Second Edit) Chisoxfn I was just wondering if you had a copy of that article, I am interested to see what I said now. haha

My guess is that the law states you can use "reasonable force" to detain. Which would be determined by the circumstances. This is interesting, I dont really know that to be true, but its an interesting opinion. I personally think businesses should have the right to protect themselves from theft, and that once you have committed theft the store can use reasonable force to detain you. I dont like to guess on this stuff, cause its not always logical.

Its hard to tell whats going on here. I think the bigger concern (at least if I was his attorney) would be if he was operating a vehicle with out a valid drivers license or with out a valid taxi operator license. (whatever that may be called) The false imprisonment stuff would be a lessor concern, because I think that its likely Kane or his cousin were intoxicated and therefore there are plenty of different explanations as to why he held them (and it would make them horrible witnesses.)

Iamshack, I actually dont know, which is why I was posing the question. There are a lot of different angles to look at it. I do know there is a merchants exception for a store employee to detain some one for a "reasonable amount of time" so that they can ascertain whether or not merchandise was stolen. I do not believe that there is any requirement of value (ie if I steal a 5cent piece of candy I can be detained the same as if I stole a $1,000 piece of candy.), but Im not going through case law so I could be wrong there as well. The problem with saying that its not that important, is that you can be arrested for failing to pay a fare. The problem is that most people who are going to knowingly skip a fare, do not give the right address, so when they get to the location they get out of the car and run. At that point the cab driver then needs to call the police and tell them that some one skipped a fare (robbery.) Does it protect the cab driver to allow him to lock the doors and call the police if he believes that a passenger is going to skip a fare? I think the answer may be yes. Unlike the shopkeeper who is not sure whether or not the person stole (once they know they stole they can detain them while they call the police), the cab driver immediately knows whether or not the fare is going to be paid and as soon as the fare is paid the cab driver would no longer have any right whatsoever to hold the passenger. I would say there is a good argument to be made that a cab driver should be able to hold a passenger who fails to pay a fare and so they can bring them to a police station so that they can be arrested. Whether or not this is supported by the law, I dont know. I dont try and guess or use logic, because it generally ends up being wrong. Just from doing very brief research I cant really find anything, which is why Im curious.

Rock, Sorry, I thought out of consideration for everyone in this thread you could provide some support for your statements. I just was curious as to what the law was.

Rock, Thanks for taking the time to actually make an argument and then support it. http://www.suntimes.com/sports/hockey/blac...-081109.article I cant find it in the article, and the writer of the article does not seem to be an attorney so Im not sure how much weight his interpretation carries.

Two wrongs dont make a right. Im generally one of the most pro-defendant people on this site, but in this case I just cant find it in my heart to exonerate Kane. Yesterday I actually misinterpreted the article and thought that it was Kane's attorney who stated it had been blow out of proportion (the comments just made no sense if he was the Plaintiff's attorney), but once I actually understood the article I told people that the cab driver must either A) Have done something wrong or B) Have already been paid off. I think what the cab driver did though, does not give Kane an excuse to attack him. Care to cite NY case law that states that? Im not a NY attorney so I dont know if thats true or not, I do know that there is a merchants exception to "false imprisonment", so I actually was not 100% sure whether or not the cab driver has a legal right to hold some one if they refuse to pay the fare (in my opinion its the equivalent of theft, and if a merchant can hold some one for a reasonable amount of time if they believe theft occurred, it makes sense that a cab driver can do the same.) But Im just not sure thats accurate. As for not being properly licensed, that would once again be an issue for the State of NY and/or City of Buffalo to decide. At the end of the day there are very few instances where you can legitimately attack some one without provocation. If Kane gets off, he should be thankful. The cab driver made a mistake by driving without a valid license, but that does not mean Kane had the right to attack him. The false imprisonment issue is not as clear as people want to make it out to be, and it would require actually going through NY case law to see if there has been a case where a cab driver has temporarily held the passenger for failing to pay a fare and whether or not that was considered an exception. The next step would then be to see what the law says in regards to self defense in cases of false imprisonment. I think it sets a bad example regardless, but then again I take cabs 5+ times a week and on a $5 fare I generally give at least $1. So maybe its just the cheapness thats bothering me.

Woohoo If Rios can play to his potential this could be a major steal for the Sox.

Kane never had to take any tests because there was no rule that he had to go to college before he entered the NHL. Personally I find theft and assault worse than cheating, but thats just me.

The tribune article implicates that the fair was $13.80, and they were upset the cab driver didnt have 20 cents in change. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/08/post-5.html

Because the last 3 seasons he had an ops of .800 or more (rounding .798) 1 bad season doesnt mean a guy is bad. And I think that its better to give guys rest so that they are all fresh for the next few months.

I think Pods would see plenty of playing time. CQ, Dye, Thome can all sit for a game a week and if Rios sits for 1, thats already for games starting for Pods...

The Sox are the team that makes the most sense when you think about it, as I said earlier: id say that we were 2-1 favorites basically (to be the team the claimed Rios)

They are getting salary relief, if thats not enough to get it done, we can wait till next year and see what options are available for 9mil.

Rios is a CF and would play CF for the Sox. If the Sox were willing to give up Danks, theyd have made a trade before he was put on waivers. If the Sox are taking the contract they better not be giving up any talent.

Looking at how the contract is structured, I actually think there is a pretty good chance that the Sox claimed him. They have a lot of money coming off the books in the next few years and Rios fits a need.

I was talking about the Sox choices for next year in terms of who to bring back if Rios was on the team. Dye, Pods, Thome one of them would have to be gone unless they were willing to take a significantly decreased role.

Well thats the question, where would Rios be slotted? Would they want to bring back Pods in CF and have Rios replacing Dye? Would they have Rios in CF? Rios value as a CF is obviously a lot more.

It does make some sense from the Sox point of view. The real question would be the money and whether ownership felt they could invest in another cheaper player next year and get similar production.

I have no clue how all that stuff works, I just pay a lot of money and expect that every channel will be there.

I cant believe Comcast subscribers are just getting NFL network (I have RCN, so I got lucky.) I also cant believe that the Kevin and Patrick Williams have so far been able to out procedure the NFL in court. I cant imagine that the collective bargaining agreement doesnt have a choice of law provision, but maybe they really dropped the ball.

Nice job by Pods there.

I hope CQ steals my heart again...