illinilaw08

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 11:14 AM) I think this is all 100% reasonable, but people have been able to conceal and carry in most states (now all states) legally for quite awhile now. So while we're hearing more and more about random incidents, you can't really say that people carrying and feeling emboldened to act are causing more incidents. That's a fair point. I should clarify that this argument is more in response to the Open Carry guys and to the idea that conceal and carry should be made easier - not more difficult - to obtain.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 07:16 AM) What did you want the police to do? Ask him politely to surrender? Give me your recipe for make believe. Over the past fifty years we have become conditioned to fear criminals. To believe that only the police can protect us. We've allowed criminals to walk around without fear while the good people of the world lock themselves behind three locks in their own homes. We're enabling criminals while losing our liberty. Tex, here's my problem with that argument. It assumes that the world is broken down into criminals and good guys. Good guys need guns to protect from criminals. It also assumes that every good guy who has a gun is trained to accurately and safely respond to an emergency. But that's not reality. Everyone is a good guy until they commit a crime. Not everyone who owns a gun is even close to appropriately trained with said gun (unlike the police). In my opinion/experience, guns have a potential to embolden citizens and cause them to do stupid things. Does Zimmerman approach Martin if he's not armed? Does this shoving match at Little Caesar's lead to a death if one of the guys isn't armed? http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/...service/1266589 I'm fine with gun ownership. I see the utility in a lot of respects. I may not buy the home defense argument, but I understand the home defense argument. I don't carry a firearm. I don't know enough about them, don't have enough experience with them, to safely operate one (and I don't have the desire to learn). As a result, the more people who are armed in movie theaters, on the streets, in campsites, and heaven forbid, at bars, the greater the risk (though admittedly that risk remains low) that I become an unintended victim when people get stupid. Like this guy: http://kdvr.com/2015/07/05/man-shot-and-ki...-rainbow-falls/ I acknowledge that the above examples are all anecdotal, but it's a huge stretch to argue (1) that people will conceal and carry responsibly; and (2) that people who conceal and carry are naturally appropriately trained to take out an active shooter without causing collateral damage.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 9, 2015 -> 04:05 PM) You know if it were just people acknowledging that being white helps, that's one thing. But we all know that documentary is about white shamming and white guilt. And s***, how sad is it that in a documentary about "tell me what it's like to be white" people have to DEFEND that, as if it's a BAD thing. It's totally perverse. I'd also like you to acknowledge that it's racist as s***. Because when we all say racism is a terrible thing and shouldn't be a part of our society, that should go for ALL racism, not selective racism. I'm pretty sure this conversation has veered away from the documentary that was its focus, but when talking about race in this country, I think it's important to note that, as Jenks point out, yes, being white provides a certain level of privilege over being black. I presume that everyone in this thread worked hard to be where they are - I certainly know that I did. But I also understand and acknowledge that my background - middle class with parents who valued the crap out of education - gave me a leg up in getting to where I am now. It was only 50 years ago that the Civil Rights Act passed. Policies that directly impacted generations of African Americans were phased out within most of our parents' lifetimes. To acknowledge that it was easier for my parents to obtain middle class success in America than for a large chunk of minorities is simply reality. It doesn't devalue the work that my parents did to be successful, it just acknowledges the reality of race in in the 60s. The point here (before I really start rambling) is that acknowledging that being white helps and having empathy for those who have had to (and still have to) deal with/fight discrimination is a huge and necessary step in race relations.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jun 30, 2015 -> 04:48 PM) his contract is 3.8 mil +/-. i wonder if Bowman think he can replace Bickell. but his production is questionable at best. 2C - he's a replacement for Richards and fills a pretty big need next year. Sucks to lose Saad, but if Saad was going to sign an offer sheet at 6.5M per year for 6 years, the Hawks can't afford him - regardless of what happens with Bickell and Sharp. Optimistic about what I'm reading re: Dano. 21 points in 35 games last year as a rookie, two way forward, not afraid to play in the corners. Hopefully the Hawks added two useful pieces today...

Every single one of the dissenting justices wrote their own dissent which is kind of crazy. Glad Kennedy got this one right...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 25, 2015 -> 11:03 AM) Scalia's dissent is a great read. Scalia gives good snark and I appreciate him for that purpose (those I strongly disagree with ideology). But I think Posner's take on Scalia is a wonderful take-down of Scalia's brand of textualism... http://www.newrepublic.com/article/magazin...ual-originalism

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 25, 2015 -> 10:33 AM) That's not really what's happening. People are taking issue with the fact it's become a distraction and moved into absurd "overly politically correct" territory. Now we have companies like Apple (amongst others) removing all apps from the app store that contain a confederate flag. This moves the "confederate flag removal" subject into the area of the absurd, and takes it from a serious subject to a trivial one. What if I made a civil war game? How is that not relevant to the subject matter? What if I wrote a book about the confederacy, should we ban it because the book cover is a confederate flag? I don't think anyone here has an issue with removing that flag/symbol from actual state buildings/flag designs. I just have some issues with how it's being done, and in reaction to why. If you really want it removed from official buildings, stop electing racists that 1) vote to put it there, and 2) vote to keep it there, and the flag situation would quickly resolve itself. As it stands now, even if it's removed, it's nothing more than an empty victory since the people that actually want it there are still in elected positions of power. It's an out of sight/out of mind thing, despite the fact that the root of the issue remains in place. I'm just tired of the frivolous distractions. Every heinous act is followed by instant outrage and overreaction to a new icon/symbol/flag. In a country steeped in troubled history, you will never run out of "flags" to remove. To me, it just rings hallow, but I'm not saying you or anyone else here has to feel the same. That's easier said than done when the Voting Rights Act was gutted by SCOTUS.

Over Labor Day, the wife and I are hiking across West Maroon Pass in Colorado between Aspen and Crested Butte. Basically, because of the giant peaks between the two towns, it's about a 3 hour drive between the two towns. But it's just a 12 mile hike between. Supposed to be one of the most beautiful hikes in the state of Colorado as well. I love living out here...

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 01:57 PM) I think the whole idea of participation awards making kids ok with losing is BS to begin with. I'm almost 40 and we had those awards back when I played. It's not a "new" thing. The thing is, kids aren't stupid. They know what those trophies are. They know that they aren't nearly as good as the first place trophies the other kids are walking around with. Often times we would get ice cream or some other treat after the game even if we lost but it didn't make us want to win any less. Honestly, I think the bigger problem is the kids that are getting pushed by their parents who are trying to re-live their failed sports aspirations through their kids. I have 3 girls and only the youngest had/has any interest in playing any kind of sport. She's not the worst, but she's not the best either. If she wants to continue to try and get better I'll support her but I'm not going to push her thinking she'll be the next Cat Osterman or Jennie Finch. Yep. Sports are good for kids, with plenty of value outside of winning and losing. Getting a kid who is terrible at soccer to run around for a half hour game is a win for that kid. Rewarding a kid who is terrible at sports for seeing a commitment through to the end is a win for that kid. Psycho sports parents are a bigger problem than participation trophies. I ump'd park district baseball games and reffed park district soccer and basketball. I've never in my working career had to deal with as many psychotic people as parents during those games - and I was a prosecutor in one of the largest cities in America. With youth sports, yeah, at some point the emphasis should move toward winning vs. losing. But at the early stages, it should be more about keeping kids active and teaching them the skills of the game than winning.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 19, 2015 -> 12:57 PM) But the flag didn't cause this, that's what i'm responding to. Having that flag isn't some sign that the south or Charleston in particular approves of this kind of behavior or even of racism itself. A flag didn't create his hatred/racism just like a video game or tv show doesn't cause kids to be more violent. If you go ask southerners now the confederate flag is all about southern pride, not racism/slavery (though i'm 100% in agreement that it's moronic that they'd be so proud of that). I hate when these events result in blaming something else as the cause. That's bulls***. This dude has a mental imbalance and a f***ed up view of the world. Plan and simple. The confederate flag didn't provide his moronic justification that black people rape white women and are taking over the country. If you ask African-Americans in the South about people who fly the Confederate flag, you might get a different response. No one is saying that the Confederate flag made this guy commit this atrocity, but to enough people it represents the same set of beliefs that caused this guy to commit this atrocity. The fact that a state in the south continues to fly that flag is really bad in that light.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 19, 2015 -> 11:44 AM) Shoot, you might as well say let's take the American flag down then. That's why I think it's a dumb argument, not to mention you're providing an object to blame here, instead of the sick f*** that did this. Also, the obligatory "movies/games/music/tv with violence caused this" argument can go here. Same poor logic. Come on now, Jenks. Surely you can see why people would make a link to a symbol of oppression of African Americans since 1861 (and particularly during Reconstruction and the Jim Crow South) and this horrible incident (particularly since reports indicated this guy had the Confederate flag on his license plate and the crime appears to have been explicitly racially motivated). It's a symbol of a racist past. It's associated with Jim Crow, the Klan, lynchings, attacks on churches. It might not mean that to everyone in the South, but it certainly means that to enough people that it's nonsense it still flies above the South Carolina statehouse. The historical meaning behind that flag is sufficiently related to the apparent motivation behind the shootings that it seems to be a pretty apt source of discussion here.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 03:34 PM) Wouldn't it be enough for the cop to explain some of the police procedures he's been trained on, how many of X accidents or crime scenes he's worked over the years, best practices for when cops get on scene, etc. I have to imagine there's enough material out there on police procedure that you'd be able to say that a cop has more training than the average joe and thus has some sort of expertise on the matter, just like you would any other "expert." I'm not sure I understand that argument. The officer certainly has knowledge on procedures regarding a crime scene. What does that have to do with laying the foundation that their memory recall is better than the average joe? I would think that to show that the particular officer was more reliable than an average joe on accurate eye witness recollection, you would need to show reliable training that improved that recollection. But I'm not comfortable inferring that some amount of training actually accomplishes that goal in light of all the science regarding how unreliable eye witness testimony is generally. Additionally, let's say that an officer's recollection is better than an average joe, but that, because of the way the brain works, it is STILL not particularly reliable. Are you comfortable with giving greater deference to a better, but still unreliable, methodology? Doesn't that tilt the playing field in every single case in favor of the officer?

http://www.si.com/nhl/2015/06/18/chicago-b...eilly-minnesota Bowman getting right to work...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 12:02 PM) That navy/marine officers in high stress interrogations had poor memory recall, but officers in survival training and cops aren't exactly in the same line of work. They site to a study about cops failing at a 51% rate but don't really discuss it. Perhaps that study would show what you're saying, but this one doesn't. Fair enough. I think the premise - that the officers in high stress (and low stress) interrogations, who were trained in memory recall, had poor recall (I consider 76% recall to still be pretty poor under the circumstances) to be a fairly on point comparison, but I see the argument to the contrary. What's your position on the foundation argument I raised above? Namely, if eye witness recall generally is unreliable, shouldn't the burden be on the prosecutor to establish that the officer's recollection is sufficiently more reliable? I mean, if I have a doctor on the stand, I don't get to call a podiatrist an expert on head trauma just because he has an MD behind his name.* * Note, I acknowledge that example isn't perfect, but we don't just get to assume that someone is more reliable because of their profession without establishing foundation in support of that contention.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 11:43 AM) Not sure that's the take-away there, but regardless, what's the comparison to average joe's? What's the take-away from that section of the article then? My point - you are arguing that officers are experts at identification (or at the very least are better than the average joe) because they receive general training on the subject. But we don't require prosecutors to lay that foundation at trial. And even if we did, there doesn't seem to be any science to support the conclusion that the training has a substantial impact on the reliability of eye witness recollection. And even IF you are correct that the officer's recollection is better than the average joe's, if it's still inherently unreliable, why are we giving greater weight to that testimony in the first place? Shouldn't the conclusion then be "all eye witness testimony is unreliable, particularly in high stress situations - even if the individual has received training on the subject?"

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 11:23 AM) Training. For the 10th time. They get training. And they have more experience and exposure to it. That's justification enough. It's not like i'm making this up out of thin air. No, I don't have a study to back me up. But I think it's a logical assumption to make. Or literally any other aspect of life wherein training and repetition occurs. It's a safe assumption that someone who does something more often is going to be better at it than someone who doesn't. Jenks, according to the linked paper below, training has limited impact on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony (see pages 273 and 274 of the linked study). https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ilr/pdf/vol40p271.pdf EDIT: I'm not arguing that eye witness testimony is entirely unreliable or that it should not be used. I'm merely arguing that there should be a greater hurdle to reach the conclusion that "police officers are better at recollecting things" than "it's a logical inference to make."

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 11:14 AM) How much different is it to assume that the judges and lawyers know the law better then other people because that is what they are trained for? Let me put it this way: in a courtroom, I am required to lay foundation that someone is an expert - training, experience, publications on the subject, recognition in that community. If I was testifying as an expert on the law, the lawyer would have to ask questions regarding my three years of law school, 7 years of practice, etc. in order to establish that I was an expert on that subject. I don't have to do that regarding officers and observation. It's a much more subjective area. When I was a prosecutor, I would rely on the fact that the badge carried a certain amount of weight in the courtroom, and anything specific to that incident that might make it more memorable. But I'm not aware of any training or science that makes an officer better at accurately remembering a crime scene than a random lay witness. I don't really have an answer for this one. I think it's an interesting subject, and I'd be interested to see if education or experience have a meaningful impact on the reliability of eye witness testimony.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 17, 2015 -> 10:55 AM) Who's going to take the time to do a study on that? Why don't you think that's a logical assumption? Cops are trained on how to deal with emergencies, are they not? They're trained on the best way to analyze situations as they come upon them and/or as they happen, are they not? You don't think it's a logical assumption that that training would make them better equipped in those situations than everyday Joe Schmo? I'm not talking 100% of the time, i'm talking generally. Let's put it this way, if cops aren't better, we have a serious issue with our training practices. They absolutely should be given that criminal convictions are predicated on their reports and recollections and testimony in court. That's a fundamental aspect of our judicial system. Isn't this thesis - cops have better powers of observation than lay people - a dangerous thesis without empirical evidence supporting that conclusion? I'd be willing to wager that many people on juries come in with that same bias. If true, that means that jury are predisposed to trust an officer over a lay witness based on a thesis that hasn't been proven. Honestly, I think that's actually a real issue. When I was a prosecutor, in bench trials, judges were far more likely to give weight and credibility to an officer's testimony than the other side. In jury trials, the jury was more likely to find the officer more credible. That's a problem when eye witness testimony is inherently unreliable to a certain degree. There are facts and circumstances that can give weight to the testimony (I once had an officer testify that he remembered a specific incident from two years prior because his mom was on a ride-along with him). But I find it hard to believe that there's a profession that is inherently better at eye witnessing without some foundation being laid...

QUOTE (zenryan @ Jun 10, 2015 -> 07:22 PM) Team looks real dynamic right now. This team looks good when Bradley is on. Hopefully the bunkering of CONCACAF opposition in the Gold Cup doesn't give this team too many fits. The US has a couple players who, when on form, are capable of carrying the roster and playing with the big countries. Bradley is absolutely one of those guys (see the win @ Italy a couple years back for another example). Jozy carried the US through a tough qualifying stretch in '13. Dempsey is obviously Dempsey. The problem for the US, at the moment anyway, is that unlike the countries above them, there aren't enough guys like Bradley/Altidore/Dempsey to step up when any of them are off form (the Altidore injury in Brazil was a killer). The good news is that the talent pool continues to expand and there are some really promising youngsters.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 10, 2015 -> 01:52 PM) I thought the US was in a group with Nigeria, Sweden, and Australia? Men's friendly vs. Germany today.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 9, 2015 -> 01:26 PM) Just got around to viewing this. IMO the cop was overzealous in a typical napoleon-complex, authoritative dick cop way. People were running from him (has to be the explanation for the barrel role and the subsequent orders to the black kids on the sidewalk). And with the girls he was trying to get them to leave and they wouldn't and then they kept running their mouths. Is that worthy of being forced to the ground? No, but he's a dick cop who let his emotions get to him. He's to blame for riling things up, but when people respond stupidly to cops, they should expect potentially stupid/extreme reactions. The cop should absolutely be fined and suspended but termination seems extreme. As does any civil suit. That was a bunch of nothing and she didn't appear to be hurt at all. Regarding the gun situation, those kids were coming up from behind him quickly and screaming. All he was doing was trying to cuff someone who wasn't following his orders and then a crowd starts to gather and scream around him. He was outnumbered, regardless of the cops in the area, and I have zero qualms with him pulling out his gun. You'll notice he never aimed it at them but always kept it down to the ground. Balta, i'm not aware of any police protocol that requires a cop to be 100% certain he's going to use his weapon before he can take it out of the holster. It shouldn't be used as a show of force in most situations, but you can clearly tell the guy felt in danger because of his body language. He has that right. If you're stupid enough to charge a cop, you're stupid enough to get shot. Why don't people think that's a logical way for both parties to act? This is, once again, the media trying to capitalize on a white cop/black victim story when in reality it's a cop going a bit too far with a non-compliant person. Isn't this the crux of the issues we've seen played out in the media lately? A cop going too far with a non-compliant (and non-violent) person can end up with that person being seriously injured or dead. To me the fallout of all these incidents should be (1) body cameras for officers; and (2) a greater emphasis on non-lethal force with suspects.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 1, 2015 -> 08:27 AM) What got me was a combination of the two: thousands of white walkers running towards them, they finally run, arrive at the dock, hop on the boat and then NO ONE PADDLES AWAY. Still, amazing episode. Maybe the best in the series. Sensational episode. But I've got to say I agree - I laughed out loud at no one on Jon's boat paddling. I also thought it was kind of funny that the Others were stymied by a very small distance of water... But that's nitpicking what was, start to finish, an amazing episode.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 29, 2015 -> 11:26 AM) Is it possible/plausible for some countries to join together and hold a soccer tournament opposite the World Cup? There's a ton of money tied up in the World Cup, so you would need a massive breakaway of the major federations to make things work. If UEFA (Europe's federation) split from FIFA, I think you could see South and North America follow suit. But I don't think any of that is very plausible. UEFA holds a large amount of bargaining power (in my opinion) - a huge percentage of FIFA's revenue comes from World Cup TV contracts - and the largest of those are in the US/South America/Western Europe. If UEFA even threatened to walk, they could get FIFA to clean up.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ May 28, 2015 -> 07:03 AM) Ian Darke was on this morning and said that there is support in Europe to break away from FIFA if necessary. That may be the only way to get away from this catastrophe. If UEFA left then CONMEBOL and CONCACAF would surely follow suit, leaving everyone else no choice but to do the same. Putting the catastrophe of the Qatar World Cup in greater context... http://screamer.deadspin.com/chart-the-qat...ning-1707286095

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 21, 2015 -> 09:42 AM) Well f***. Not getting a PG is going to destroy the Groce era at Illinois. Withholding comment on this one until we see if Lovett actually qualifies next year. If he can't get eligible through the Clearinghouse, then no loss. Hopefully one of the PGs Groce is after in '16 pull the trigger quickly. A healthy Abrams is fine this year.