illinilaw08

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 01:19 PM) Well my teen SON knows I have a gun and will shoot to defend myself and them, so when I say "I am armed and will shoot you", he would know from simple self preservation to say "dad, it's me!", or something similar. I had a friend whose house was broken into... by a drunk teen who was sneaking his was back into the wrong house. Unfortunately, drunk teens are difficult to reason with. Fortunately, my friend didn't shoot the kid when he wouldn't leave the house. Like anything else, break-ins involve shades of grey. My personal opinion is that people are too quick to shoot first without attempting to assess the level of the threat. On Michael Brown: (1) to Jenks, if the police can afford a tank, they can afford to put cameras on dashboards. That is in everyone's best interest - both to protect from bad officers who abuse their authority, and to protect the city from frivolous lawsuits. (2) There's a reason that certain neighborhoods have bad relationships with the police. When I was a prosecutor, we received lots of drug complaints - all from one or two neighborhoods - that started with something along the lines of "Suspect failed to signal before changing lanes" or "Suspect riding bike without light." Naturally, those ended with an arrest for drug possession. Strangely, you didn't hear about those types of traffic spots in affluent areas. (3) There are amazing officers who act by the book and selflessly put their lives on the line every single day. But recognize that their are bad apples out there. And, as Jenks said, in a court of law, juries have a tendency to give an officer's testimony greater weight for no reason other than the uniform they are wearing. The point here is simple. Police outreach to communities is huge. As with the second example above, you have a bigger influence on the community when you are working to make things better rather than working to improve stats.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 10:39 AM) Given that cops are being shot at down there (with real bullets), it would seem reasonable to be pissed that media members aren't turning off gigantic flood lights in the area. Sure, it's not the nicest way to tell somebody to turn a light off, but I would have little patience in that situation as well. edit: oh and the molotov cocktails, and a reported "infiltration attempt" of a command post. Right... I get that. I also get that both sides of this issue are extremely on edge. Your earlier post, however, seems to say that because of a single incident where a police office was shot at, the actions of police can now not be criticized. Further, your post is written is a way to make it seem like it's a battleground with police under constant fire. I have seen one incident of shots fired at officers (which is one too many, but also shouldn't rise to the level of no criticizing police). Again, I understand why the police are on edge, but the police arresting and threatening the media is almost always worthy of criticism.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 10:25 AM) I'm sure the media is being 100% compliant. I get that the cops definitely went overboard for a while there, but now the criticism is getting a little ridiculous. Threatening to shoot reporters if cameras aren't turned off seems... very, very worthy of criticism. Not sure why that would be ridiculous.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 01:14 PM) That's terrible if true. But I have a difficult time believing cops would just randomly start beating someone. I'd be willing to bet he resisted, hence the need for more than one officer. I wish some of you guys interned or job shadowed at a criminal courthouse. You're all wide-eyed optimists, and the degree to which people lie is astounding and would shock you. I'm not at all saying that's what happened in this case or the Brown case, but you all seem to discount the possibility. I was a prosecutor in a pretty major city for a year. There are lots of good cops out there, but there are also some really, really bad officers. I'm not going to get into too much detail here, but "resisting arrest" is a very, very subjective term that officers sometimes use as a crutch to act in a way not befitting their uniform...

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 09:06 AM) how dare you. these are all peaceful protests. it's the police actually doing the looting and stuff. i read it on huffington post or somethin. Offered without comment... http://grantland.com/features/ferguson-mis...-murder-police/

QUOTE (farmteam @ Aug 7, 2014 -> 06:36 PM) Yeah, judges aren't a big fan of people representing themselves. There's two main reasons: They tend to do a s***ty job for themselves, and litigation functions better when it has attorneys involved instead of people who don't know what they're doing. This quickly leads into discussing the cost of legal services/access to justice, but that's a separate conversation. In my experience, it depends on the judge. Some judges will give a lot more leeway to an unrepresented party - especially procedurally - because they want to go out of their way to make the proceeding seem fair and balanced. If, however, the unrepresented party is an a-hole, they will get smacked down by the judge quickly. Farmteam is definitely right, however, that judges do not like people representing themselves...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 8, 2014 -> 09:52 AM) I'm saying (1) it's not as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Isreal isn't taking anything and everything it wants without giving up something in return. It might be somewhat lopsided, but hey, "so what," that's what happens when you invade a country and try to kill their people. You lose things you once had. And (2) yes, at the end of the day "so what" again when your people are dying. Cut your losses, take less land, live in peace and eventually the blockades will end. But not until you cut ties with a terrorist organization and not until you can be trusted again. You're basically arguing that they should all fight an unwinnable war instead of taking concessions and living in peace. That makes zero sense. The problem here is that, for the Palestinians, even when the bombings are not happening, the concessions basically turn Gaza into a prison. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22197938 The story linked above from the BBC is indicative of that. Basically, 22 Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip (including a former Olympian) were not allowed to travel to Bethlehem for the Palestinian Marathon in 2013 because the runners would have to travel through Israel to get there, and those trips are allowed "only in exceptional humanitarian cases." The position Israel took during the Dubya peace talks was that Israel would need to maintain a significant amount of control of the Palestinian state (see my earlier post on the subject). Put yourself in the shoes of the Palestinians and you can see why they wouldn't take the "concessions" that Israel is demanding. In the West, we have an easier time putting ourselves in the shoes of an average Israeli (not surprising, they are our allies) than we do the average Palestinian. There is a reason this conflict has been going on for 70+ years and any attempt at resolution falls apart. Israel wants to ensure its security (understandable in light of the history here) and the Palestinians want freedom (again, understandable). With every Palestinian civilian death and with every rocket fired into Israel by Hamas, however, the odds of resolution become more remote.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 6, 2014 -> 02:25 PM) Yeah, they were elected, but they're also a terrorist organization. They don't recognize Israel. They publicly call for the annihilation of Israel and the Jews that live there. They've started 2 wars and invaded Israel twice in the last 70 years. (edit: sorry, they being Palestinians for the wars) I think Israel sorta is in the right in defending itself as it does. It would suck to be a young Palestinian as you've outlined. I'd probably feel the same way. But, ya know, take out your anger out on the older generation and the religious leaders that are continuing the conflict, not the country that is acting in a pretty reasonable manner given the situation. Maybe if Hamas actually cared, they'd tell the North Koreans and Iranians to provide them with food and money and a basis for an economy instead of rockets and guns. edit: keep in mind too that Israel continually acknowledges that Palestinians exist and have a right to a "state." They continue to offer them land. We can talk about the settlement issues, but really there are no borders here. Israel won the war(s), so they get to determine the borders. Jenks, I'm not sure that's accurate. And at best, it's misleading (see the Wikipedia article I linked a couple posts back). Israel's revisions to the last "road map" for peace called for, "The provisional state will be demilitarized, with provisional borders and "certain aspects of sovereignty", and subjected to Israeli control of the entry and exit of all persons and cargo, plus its airspace and electromagnetic spectrum (radio, television, internet, radar, etc.)." That's a pretty tough definition of a "state." And look, Israel has plenty of reason to worry about giving too much control to the Palestinians. But let's not pretend that Israel has been a constant proponent of a Palestinian state. EDIT: That quote came from the Wikipedia article on the last peace talks from a couple posts back...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 5, 2014 -> 12:24 PM) Also, this is what scares me: http://gawker.com/israel-pulls-all-troops-...gaza-1616233024 Look at the comments. Zero understanding. "Oppressor" is always worse than "oppressed" without regard to historical context. Comments sections are always scary and terrible, but those were pretty bad... Jenks, thought you would be interested in this Wiki entry about the proposal and collapse of Dubya's Roadmap. It's Wikipedia and there definitely appears to be some editorializing in there, but thought it was an interesting read... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_map_for_peace

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 5, 2014 -> 11:37 AM) 70 years of action have proven that this is 100% true though. Israel does not deny that Palestinians should have their own state and have offered land many times in an attempt at peace. Palestinians have done the opposite. Palestinians could be controlling the majority of modern day Israel had they taken the UN deal, but they decided they wanted it all instead and attacked. They did the same thing (with other Arab-country support) in the 60's and lost again. Yes, it's wrong to say "they" as if 100% of the population thinks that way, but they did just vote in Hamas so at least the majority of them think this way. Also, I find it interesting that you're almost blaming Israel for the plight of the Palestinians - which I sort of can see - but we have to keep in mind they brought it on themselves and they continue to do so. They're being "occupied" because they can't be trusted. And what the world appears to be asking is for Israel to just ignore that very real threat and play nice when decades of action have proven that's now what the Palestinians want. Israeli policies in Gaza since 1967, based on my limited knowledge and research, appear to have largely been about securing Israel (understandable), but that occupation has had very, very negative consequences on the Palestinian economy and the quality of life for those living in Palestine. Think Germany after World War I and World War II. Germany was treated punitively after World War I which created a Germany ripe for Hitler's ascendancy and World War II. After World War II, the Marshall Plan rebuilt West Germany and Germany is a prosperous, stable country. So yes. Israeli policies play a role in the current situation in Gaza. So, too, does anti-Israel sentiment generally in the Arab world (see the 1948 and 1967 invasions). And the Palestinians have, obviously, contributed to their own plight by supporting Hamas who does have a mission statement to eliminate Israel. My point in this entire thread is that the conflict is significantly more complex than what we generally see and hear... Finally, on the two state solution. Both sides have pursued a two-state solution. Neither side can come to an agreement because there are disputes about borders, settlements, refugees, and security (obviously a huge issue for Israel and rightfully so). It's tragic that the Arab invasion in 1948 destroyed the best possible peaceful resolution here (and created all these ensuing issues). And it's tragic that there is no end in sight for this conflict as a whole...

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 5, 2014 -> 10:51 AM) OK, what is wrong? All you did was play the race card hard and fast there. "he's a bigot! OMG!" The basics of the video are that JEws are there, and all the neighbors want to kill them. They tried a few times and lost. They have made peace agreements and had them broken. What's wrong is that it starts and stops the conversation with Palestine hates Israel because Israel. It does not discuss the settlement issue. It does not address the rampant unemployment in Gaza, or any of the reasons that the Palestinians might have allowed a terrorist organization like Hamas to come into being. And it does not distinguish between Hamas and Palestinians that want peace. It's an overly broad, one-sided description of the conflict. There are no shortage of Palestinians living peacefully as Israeli citizens (per Wikipedia, around 21% of Israel's population are of Arab descent). What is the difference between those Palestinians and the ones in Gaza? Israel has a real, functioning economy and is a fairly prosperous place. The civilians that die in Gaza are not Hamas. It's reprehensible that Hamas uses civilians as shields. The point of the difference in civilian deaths is that it illustrates that these conflicts disproportionately impact the innocents in Gaza vs. anyone else. Hamas will survive this conflict (and probably grow stronger given the conditions in Gaza). Iron Dome will make Israeli civilian casualties very, very low. And the cycle will continue. It's a tragic situation on both sides.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 5, 2014 -> 09:28 AM) No, it's displacement, which is also bad, but looking at the history I wouldn't blame Israel for doing it. They're surrounded by people who don't recognize them as a legitimate state and want them annihilated. And yet you want them to play nice with those people? Why? Displacement led to some of this in the first place didn't it? The 700,000 Palestinians who fled in 1948 or whatever and have never been allowed back. Pushing refugees into Syria, Egypt, whatever probably leads to worse, direct conflicts for Israel with those states. It's in the best interest of Israel to have a happy and prosperous Gaza because happy and prosperous people are more likely to condemn terrorist organizations like Hamas rather than embrace them. Again, this isn't to say that Israel doesn't have a right to protect itself. Israel doesn't have to roll over and take Hamas shooting rockets into their territories. But this is a much more nuanced conflict than it is often reported as...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 4, 2014 -> 01:00 PM) Sure, but the counter is what else is Israel supposed to do? Hamas purposefully puts their weapons and people in large public places like schools and hospitals SPECIFICALLY so that when Israel knocks them out they can tell the world how awful Israel is. And the world eats that crap up and they forget Hamas started the whole thing by kidnapping and killing Israeli citizens and/or launching rockets. edit: and the disproportionate numbers just comes down to military strength and sophistication. It's getting mad at the 10 year old for being more physical than the 4 year old. Hamas (and Palestinians who support Hamas) picked the wrong fight and they're hoping the world takes pity on them. If Hamas could they'd go back to their car/bus bombing days. But security is too good for that now. When there is fighting like this, I don't really know what else Israel is supposed to do to avoid civilian casualties. But that doesn't mean that we should overlook the massive amount of civilian deaths. As far as what can Israel do generally? My understanding is that Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have had a pretty awful time over the last several decades. Their economy is beyond awful. They deal with checkpoints and Israeli soldiers everywhere. Palestine has been referred to as the largest open air prison in the world. Generally speaking, it's a lot easier for extremism to take root and take hold when people are living in squalor. Between that and the settlement issues, Israel could certainly do more to facilitate resolution of the conflict. Note, that I certainly agree that Israel is in a pretty crappy situation, that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and that Israel has a right to protect itself from rocket attacks. That establishes the rationale behind Israel's actions. But I think we need to recognize that there are shades of grey to this conflict beyond one side wants to destroy the other, and one side wants to survive.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 4, 2014 -> 10:19 AM) Terrorist group/governing body A bombs country B. Country B says "oh no you didn't" and defends itself. Country B is in the wrong. How do smart people come to this moronic conclusion? The massive disparity in civilian deaths between the two sides certainly leads to a more nuanced review of the conflict than Israel good, Palestine bad. You can certainly be pro-Israel, pro-Israel's right to peace and prosperity, anti-Hamas, and still condemn certain actions of Israel.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 4, 2014 -> 12:03 PM) The problem is that it's the 4 year old picking fights with the 10 year old. And when the 10 year old goes "too far" you punish him, not for responding, but for going "too far" with it. And this despite the fact that the 4 year old is the real s***head and started the whole thing. I don't recall some of the past conflicts, but does Israel ever start/provoke the conflict? Seems to me these last few conflicts we've had post-2000 were all responses to some unprovoked attack/kidnapping. http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5902177/9-que...ct-you-were-too I thought this was an interesting read on the conflict. I'm not well versed on the conflict myself, so I won't speak to the bias or lack thereof of the writing. This is a terrible conflict on both sides - neither side has clean hands - and every civilian that dies on both sides makes peace that much less likely...

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 25, 2014 -> 01:15 PM) I just laugh at the way some Sox fans on here want the Sox to have a payroll of about 10 million bucks total and the way they are so inconsistent. There's outrage on here over Danks, but so little over Dunn's deal. People say, "the deal made sense at the time." Sometimes I think people hated Ozzie so much now that he's gone they are so happy they give Hahn, Kenny, everybody a free pass. I laugh at baseball for giving a guy like Danks what he makes but when the Sox payroll is so low, I could give a s***. I don't want to dump him just because of what he makes. The Dunn and Rios contracts are so laughable. The Fielder contract. On and on. I'm talking about baseball as an industry. You can't deny football is awesome the way they can dump players at any time and not pay them any more. I can absolutely deny that...

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 17, 2014 -> 02:23 PM) I guess you are right but maybe this is a generational thing. With the unemployment rate so high and people losing their homes, etc., it makes me think people like my cousin who have put themselves thru school and gotten educated and now make a huge buck should just get used to the fact work is not fun. I am assuming when he's not traveling lawyers at least get weekends off most of the time. I haven't asked him. Maybe I'm mistaken. It seems like the way the job world works today, he's entering his prime money making years from 30 to 60. I'd assume law is different from many fields in which people over 50 aren't getting hired anymore. I'd guess a good lawyer can work til he dies in his 80s. My concern is in today's job climate, how bad can being a six figure lawyer really be? It's not a sweatshop. He's positioned himself to start raking in the money and chugging along the next many years to retirement. Starting over having to educate himself in a new field at 29 seems silly in today's horrific job environment. Lots of big law firms, especially in cities like New York and Chicago, are sweatshops. Just sweatshops that pay well. Lawyers working 80 hour weeks are definitely in on weekends. Big law, in big cities, rarely cares for "work life balance."

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 06:36 AM) That was very disappointing but Belgium clearly deserved to win. I don't understand the shell the US played in the entire 2nd half. The tactics employed by Klinsmann again leave a lot of questions and head scratching. First of all, he plays a 4-3-3 and puts Zusi and Bedoya on the forward wing? Huh? They aren't forwards and it showed. Both were completely terrible. Losing Fabian Johnson was awful, as he'd been one of ou rbetter players all tournament but Yedlin man, that kid was great. Really bright future for him and I'm sure Euro clubs start calling about him now. That miss from Wondo is going to be so hard to forget. We did not deserve to be in that position, but we were, and a decent touch from Wondo would have put us through. I hate constantly bringing it up, but we would have been a completely different team, for the better, if there was a certain someone not sitting at home. Anyways, 2018 definitely looks bright. Julian Green, Yedlin, Fabian Johnson, Johannson, Mix, Jozy, Bradley, Besler, Howard/Guzan, Agudelo, Gil, Gyau, Flores, Gatt, Cameron, Zelalem?, Jack Mack, Agudelo, JAB, Okugo, Joya, Arriola, Packwood, Pfeffer, Canouse and more represent young talent that'll comprise probably our deepest and most talented pool ever. I'm really looking forward to next year's U20 WC and the Olympics and Copa America in 2016. We have a lot of burgeoning talent to look forward to Agreed all around. Especially on '18. Going into this cycle, there were question marks about every single spot on the backline. Now you have 7 young defenders who Klinnsman should feel confident in (Cameron, Gonzalez, Besler, Brooks, Johnson, Yedlin, Chandler) without even taking into account young talent. Plenty of attacking talent is back with a lot more being developed (hopefully - this is a critical four years for Mix and Luis Gil). The next four years should be fun. The level of improvement in US soccer since returning to the international stage in 1990 is nothing short of incredible. We are at a point where the US should expect to beat most second tier Euro sides and, well, basically everyone else (Mexico, Costa Rica, and the top African side in a given cycle potentially excluded). MLS has so much to do with that.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 30, 2014 -> 05:25 PM) Disagree. This is a closely held corporation. They don't have hundreds of subsidiaries or sister-companies or anything like that. It's one company that happens to have a lot of stores. It's the same as a mom and pop shop in that respect. I think it's crazy that anyone would think that a person or business like this would have to pay for something that directly contradicts their religious beliefs, especially when it's not a health risk or a life and death situation. You want birth control or the morning after pill? Go pay for it yourself. Vaccines would work the same way, assuming you have a company that is in a similar situation. I mean at some point when you start implementing policies and laws that force people to give up their own rights in favor of someone else's, you all realize that's LESS democratic and LESS progressive, right? You guys don't see that as at least a fundamental diversion from liberalism, even if you don't ultimately agree with the result here? A closely held corporation is still a separate entity from that of the owners, with separate assets and liabilities. And that specific corporation is not a sentient being. Hobby Lobby doesn't go to church. Its owners do. What you are saying is that you are ok with the owners' beliefs equating to that of the separate corporate entity. Purely hypothetical, but from a legal standpoint, this decision, it could be argued, pierces the corporate veil by putting the religious beliefs of individuals onto that of the closely held corp. If Hobby Lobby defaults on any debt, could a creditor argue that they can get to the individual owners because their religious beliefs have pierced the corporate veil? I mean, I get that the above is kind of an extreme and unlikely argument, but one of the benefits of forming a separate corporate entity is to keep liabilities separate. Why should Hobby Lobby's owners get to say that they are the corporation when it benefits them but not when it would harm them? Edit: Apparently the corporate veil argument was discussed in the months prior to the decision. http://americablog.com/2014/03/corporate-w...n-aca-suit.html I'm sure that courts would find a distinguishing factor here, but it's certainly an interesting rabbit hole for creditor's attorneys to head down...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 30, 2014 -> 11:15 AM) Good decision. I don't think it's right to force a company to provide things to its employees that religiously they do not agree with. Two points... (1) You haven't weighed in on the JW blood transfusion issue. Is it your position that a closely held corp owned by JW's can refuse to provide insurance that covers blood transfusions? (2) I think this quote from Ginsburg sums up my thoughts on the issue: "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community." I really, really do not like this decision...

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 27, 2014 -> 08:22 AM) I thought he was back in, I could be wrong. Tough to tell with a hamstring... really, really hope he can go. Even if it's just 50-60 minutes, he adds so much to the US attack - notably: (1) hold up play; (2) drawing fouls in dangerous spots; and (3) letting Bradley play in a less advanced position. Of the group winners, outside of Costa Rica and maybe France, Belgium is the best matchup for the Americans. Getting out of the group makes this a successful World Cup (and should be the expectation going forward), but reaching the quarterfinals is within reason. First day at a new job is July 1... don't think I'll be able to take time off to watch live (2 pm start out here), so I'm going to need to completely avoid all technology to not have the result spoiled before I get home from work...

Rough first ten minutes or so. Switching Zusi and Davis settled the backline down quite a bit. Some good stuff going forward, just haven't had that final ball (Zusi was very, very close though). There's definitely been space on the wings. Need to be precise in the final third because Germany has looked really dangerous when they have had an opportunity to break on the counter. Lucky that Gonzalez has the only American yellow in that first half. Very glad to see the early Portugal goal. If this match is still scoreless in the 80th minute, might see both teams take a foot off...

Omar Gonzalez getting the start instead of Cameron... I don't mind Bard Davis for Bedoya, but Gonzalez has not been great lately (granted Cameron had two huge mistakes vs. Portugal, but he was a rock vs. Ghana). Conditions favor a sloppy, low scoring match. Get a point today, render the other match irrelevant, and let's start thinking about Belgium...

A Costa Rica-Greece matchup in the Round of 16 is a real thing... Hoping for a long suspension for Suarez. That guy is the worst (3rd biting incident on top of an 8 game suspension for racial abuse of Patrice Evra).

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 09:16 AM) When you are arguably the team's best player and have a game-deciding ball on your foot twice and don't make the play, you are gonna get scrutinized. Were they easy plays? No. Is it completely fair? No, but when the spotlight is only on you once every four years, that's gonna happen. If he puts the ball past the Portugal defender or doesn't lose it at the end, the US wins. Other players are definitely to be blamed, but he was still directly involved with two huge moments. It's one thing to be scrutinized and another to be tarred and feathered. Bradley was significantly better v. Portugal than he was against Ghana. If his shot in 51st minute isn't cleared off the line, he's potentially the Man of the Match (or at least in the discussion with Jones, Besler and Johnson). We clearly disagree on the ball that was cleared off the line (it was absolutely not a sitter like most detractors claim). And I agree that Bradley deserves his share of blame for the last goal. But there are plenty of other guys who deserve blame as well. Bradley, for me, was probably a 6 vs. Portugal. He controlled the midfield in the first half. Combined dangerously with Dempsey throughout the match. Kept alive the play that led to the second goal (fortunate bounce off a defender that fell to Zusi, but plenty of guys would have hit that ball twenty rows deep). He also ran over half a mile further than any other US player. He could have done better with the ball that was cleared off the line. He should have done better at 94:24, but, again, lots of blame to go around there. And he should have picked a better ball when the US had a promising break in the second half. Overall though, he put in a pretty strong shift. Bottom line, Bradley wasn't terrible in the Portugal match, and the US is going to need a huge effort from Bradley on Thursday if they want to keep their fate out of the hands of Ghana-Portugal.