illinilaw08

Picked up our 8 1/2 week old Vizsla puppy this weekend. He is a sweet guy and has gotten along really well with our two very social cats (cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!). No accidents in the crate yet. He lets us know at night when he needs to go (last two nights between 2 and 3 am). Any advice on housebreaking? He hadn't learned anything prior to us picking him up and has had a number of accidents in the house (hardwood floors thankfully). We've been taking him out about every hour, half an hour after food, or if he starts to get antsy. We have been rewarding him for going outside with training treats (the only way he gets those treats right now) and lots of praise. If we catch him in the act in the house, we take him outside right away. We tried to put down puppy pads in the house, but he thinks they are toys. Any other words of wisdom?

QUOTE (He_Gawn @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 10:17 PM) Fair enough, and I'm sorry. I'm just used to Illini fans and ref complaining. Ref complaining is a function of every single fanbase. You remember a couple weeks ago when Indiana lost to Wisconsin? Well every single Indiana fan I know (and I live in Indy) was b****ing about the officiating after that game. The Illini fans on this board get a bad reputation because there are more Illinois fans that post in this forum than other fans. Anytime the free throw discrepancy is 42-15 there's going to be complaints from any fanbase in the country (to put that number in perspective, IU had the same number of free throw attempts as FG attempts). The refs lost control in the 2nd half. Tough loss. Congrats to IU on a good win. Illini need two road wins and to hold serve at home or they will be in the NIT this year.

Looking for some pet advice. My fiance and I are driving out to Pennsylvania this weekend to pick up a puppy (a Vizsla). It's about a 7 hour car ride out there from Indy. We're expecting to need to stop every hour on the drive back for bathroom breaks and exercise. Any thoughts on what we can/should do to make the ride comfortable for the pup? We also have two cats at home. Any advice on how to make the meeting of the cats and the pup go as smooth as possible? I'll hang up and listen.

There are a lot of issues with the justice system as it's set up. I was once a prosecutor, so I can speak first hand to some of the issues impacting both the State's Attorney and the Public Defender's Office. (1) State's Attorney as an elected official puts too much of the emphasis on arrests and convictions. In every election, your State's Attorney will appeal to the masses, not by saying "we did it the right way" but by saying they are "tough on crime" and touting the high levels of convictions from their office. In a high profile case like the one cited in the article above, there was public pressure to get an arrest and get a conviction. When jobs are on the line, people are more likely to cut corners. (2) Too much of an emphasis on winning (this cuts both ways). The biggest problem I encountered were the prosecutors that thought every defendant was guilty and the PDs that believed every one of their clients was innocent. In both cases, instead of looking for the right result, the lawyers take a "win at all costs" attitude. (3) Policy controls from top to bottom. If the boss tells you not to dismiss or settle a case, you don't dismiss or settle that case... no matter how bad the case might be. I can provide plenty of pieces of anecdotal evidence where the higher ups sent a line prosecutor to look foolish in front of a judge in the name of "policy." In an ideal world, the PD's office should act as a check on the system. Their job is not to pursue innocence at all costs, but rather to make sure that abuses, like the ones cited above, are punished by a not guilty verdict and to ensure that coerced confessions aren't rewarded. On the other side, the DA office would follow up on any and all potentially exculpatory evidence and evaluate that evidence in light of the strength of their case to reach the RIGHT result, not the preferred result (conviction). Stepping off my soap box now...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 10:50 AM) LOL, the NBA is such a joke. Also, f*** the Bulls for not making a splash. So content about "team" and "chemistry" and all that bulls*** that is great. Too bad the ceiling for those teams isn't close to the ceiling of teams with 2-3 superstars. We better hope that Rose becomes the next MJ. Otherwise we're a good playoff team without a real shot at a title. What more could the Bulls have done? They made possibly the best offer of any team for Howard. Howard just doesn't want Chicago. That sucks, but it isn't the fault of management. Jason Richardson is still out there. Rip Hamilton still might be amnestied. Hell, even Jamal Crawford is still out there. Even a pipe dream like Afflalo or Nick Young (no chance of either signing here affordably) hasn't signed yet. The fact that the Bulls didn't pay $8M per year for Caron Butler is smart. The fact that Bradon Roy is retiring is a good thing for the Bulls. What more would you have had them do?

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 12:33 AM) Why the f*** didn't you tell me this before I booked the plane tickets for us? Please still drop that check in the mail. Plus two coach-less teams on top of it. There has to be a better way than this. A plus one at the very least. Just because it's an upgrade over an older system doesn't mean you shouldn't keep striving to perfect it, or even change it entirely if it's causing too many problems. I went from the biggest BCS supporter ever years ago (and seemingly the only one of my friends) to someone that's just said f*** it, we at least need a plus one. Hey now, I was defending the system back in the day as well. The problem with the BCS is that there is no flexibility written into it. In a perfect world, there would be two teams ideally matched for the National Championship game each year. This year, LSU is the only team who is clearly deserving. A plus one creates just as many problems. This year, Stanford would have gotten in ahead of Oregon. Really? That wouldn't have made as many people furious (especially in light of the fact that Oregon would have been penalized for scheduling LSU in week 1)? I agree with Whitesox101 that the best playoff solution is 16 teams, 11 conference champs, 5 at larges. Keep the bowl system in tact for teams that don't make the playoff. That is the least subjective system I can think of in addition to keeping in tact the integrity of the regular season. The only possible issue is conference championship losses impact on at large bids (see Michigan vs. Michigan State this year).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 08:58 AM) thanks for the heads up on that, I'll have to make sure my autopay is still set up correctly. http://www.ed.gov/blog/2011/10/ed-working-...t-loan-website/ Department of Education's "Everything is Ok!" statement about the new site. Good to read if you are planning to use the new Direct Loans site. Some very, very angry comments in the comments section.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 08:29 AM) On a similar note, anyone else been to the new Direct Loan servicing page? They completely f***ed it up. I used to have all my prior e-correspondence, payout schedules and summaries of my loans (letting me know, ya know, when I'm expected to finish paying these things) and now all that s***'s gone. It's the most basic "here are your loans and how much you owe" web page. I can't believe it. I essentially have zero paperwork now for what I owe and what I owe in the future. Yes. It is terrible. I was on automatic withdrawal and it took them until after my payment was due to update (fortunately, I did my homework ahead of time - the DOE said that all payments will be retroactivley applied to the date it should have been pulled). Most concerning to me, however, is that they haven't pulled your payment history from the old site. I assume that this will happen eventually, but it's disconcerting that those records could have been lost (note, that I am hopeful that those records will eventually make their way over to the new site). Poor job by Direct Loans.

QUOTE (FlySox87 @ Jun 26, 2011 -> 05:28 PM) When I got that permit from Georgia, and subsequently bought my first gun, I took up a huge responsibility. It's not something I take lightly, and I don't carry a firearm because I want to be cool or tough. It's because I refuse to ever be a victim. I am very serious about gun safety. For that reason, it bugs me that some people think I'm a danger or a threat for owning and carrying guns. I'm not part of the problem; I'm part of the solution. I have thoughts on gun safety, mostly because this has always made sense to me, and I'm curious what people think (particularly Infantry) - I start with the assumption that Guns are dangerous tools. That means that, in trained, competent hands, they are far less dangerous than they are in, for instance, my hands (did not grow up around guns, have never fired a gun). I'm neither anti-gun, nor anti-the 2nd Amendment, but I think firearm ownership is a huge resposibility because they are dangerous in the wrong hands. With that in mind, would you be against a training class in firearm use being a prerequisite to gun ownership? Makes sense to me, and I don't think it would really be an inconvenience to someone that already knew the basics of firearm safety, but I'm curious about what others think.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Oct 1, 2011 -> 12:14 PM) A few years ago, a friend of mine deployed to Iraq. He was involved in an engagement where he opened up on enemy forces with his M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, killing 34 of them. He was awarded the Silver Star for his actions and he still proudly wears this medal. But if you don't support the war, he killed thirty four people who, whether they were bloody insurgents or not, should never have been killed because my friend never should have been there to confront them in the first place. He supported it though, and to this day, he believes his actions were absolutely just. So where do you draw the line on that one? Are you glad he came home safely but upset that he killed 34 bad people in a war you find unjust? Are you supportive of the fact that he did what he had to do for the survival of his squad? This is why I just think it's difficult to support the troops without supporting their cause. It's a blurry line. He did what he was ordered to do. He did what he needed to do to come home safe. He deserved the Silver Star and the respect that comes with that. I have friends that are active duty military. I want them to do what they need to do to come home safe. That doesn't mean I think American troops should be dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can support the troops without supporting the fact that boots are on the ground in foreign countries.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Oct 1, 2011 -> 11:59 AM) I'll give you policemen and firemen. They risk their lives for the public good. I'll absolutely give you that one. But the others? Where's their sacrifice? How many Peace Corps members have died in the line of duty? Or Americorps members, or TFA, or whatever. Yeah, that's great...they go abroad and build huts for the less fortunate. Awesome. But what risk is there? What sacrifice do they make? It's an acceptable thing to do, but I'm not going to throw them up there on the same level as the armed forces. So yes, not everyone can be a troop. We need members of society to do other things. Teachers, doctors, lawyers, janitors...we need people to do these things. That doesn't mean I'm going to afford them the same respect and level of nobility that I give to Soldiers. I will never apologize for putting the military on a pedestal. Really? Doctors that sacrifice 100k + paychecks to help sick kids in Africa don't sacrifice? That's just "acceptable"? People that accept poor wages to work in the worst schools and communities in the country don't sacrifice? The only sacrifice is putting your own life on the line? Do members of the armed services that are not on active duty deserve less credit for what they do? Is the only acceptable sacrifice being in the literal line of fire?

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Oct 1, 2011 -> 12:03 PM) Hoping I don't get my head blown off is all it takes to support me? I'm glad you don't want me dead. Hell, I don't even think Maoist Rebel News wants me to get killed. But that doesn't mean either of you support me. You cannot recognize the fact that supporting the war does not necessarily = supporting the troops? Doesn't mean I want your mission to fail. Doesn't mean that I'm not rooting for the success of American troops. It means I don't think you should be there in the first place. If you don't recognize that distinction then there is honestly no reason to discuss this with you. What do you think equates to supporting the troops? What should I do to support the troops to have you accept that I support you?

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Oct 1, 2011 -> 11:31 AM) They're allowed to be against the war. I have no problem with that. But you simply can't claim to support us while refusing to support the cause for which we are prepared to give our lives. Support who we are but not what we are doing? Yeah, right. If what we are doing and signing up for is wrong, then why do you support us in the first place? Is there an actual reason for it? Or is it just the politically correct thing to do? Take it from guy. Yeah, he's a pompous, twatty Mao-wannabe who spouts unfounded bulls*** and taunts internet critics while hiding in his ridiculously decorated bedroom, but he's picked up on the concept of not supporting the troops if you don't support the war they are so eagerly fighting. Don't take that as me putting that guy on a higher level than you. I'd feel bad about that. I mean, I really, really f***ing hate that guy. I'm just curious how people claim to support the troops and don't support their causes. Really, why is it? Is it because bashing the troops is such a quick way to receive vitriol and bile from other citizens? It just confuses me. On another note, I want to talk about how much I hate that f***ing guy. He's a fat 30 year old loon who lists Miley Cyrus and Avril Lavigne amongst his favorite musicians. He bashes militarism and sits there in his bedroom wearing a fake Soviet military uniform. He bashes capitalism and preaches communism as the true path while feeling to realize that communism murdered 100,000,000 people in the past century. He comes up with some bogus number of people killed by capitalism, including in it 60,000,000 from WWII for some inexplicable reason and 306,000,000 killed by smoking since 1960, as if those are somehow capitalism related and Fidel Castro isn't famous for chomping on huge cigars. He preaches the awesomeness of North Korea where people starve to death daily under an insane dictator, all while he lives comfortably in Canada. You'd think if the DPRK rocked so much, he'd f***ing live there. This FARC guerrilla poser dips*** probably works as a barista at Starbucks. f***ing loser. Ridiculous statement. I can support our troops (and their sacrifice) and hope they come home safe while disagreeing with our reason for being in a foreign country. That doesn't mean that I hope that troops die (as you seem to indicate), but rather it means that I don't believe that we should have ever been engaged in said foreign engagement. As I have mentioned before with you, though, you put the military on a pedestal and seem to believe that it is the only noble service to country. Without discounting your service, or the service of your brothers, I would like to see you acknowledge that there are plenty of people that work at home (Teach for America, Americorps, Policemen, Firemen) who sacrifice for their community and Americans that work abroad (Doctors Without Borders, Peace Corps, etc.) that sacrifice for the greater good. I respect the military. I don't support all the decisions that those in the upper levels of command make. But that doesn't mean I don't support the troops.

That was a legitimately bad call on the TD at the end of the half. Huge kick by Dimke to salvage points though. And agreed, Jason Ford is not good.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 04:33 PM) The problem is that this places an awfully difficult burden on juries, above and beyond simply determining if someone is credible and telling what they honestly believe is the true version of events without coercion or suggestion. That's the whole point of juries though. They weigh the evidence and determine if it's credible. If it is, they convict. If it isn't, they acquit. Example, in a DUI trial where the officer used a breathalyzer instead of a blood draw, the defense attorney will call a witness who will tell the jury that the entire science of breathalyzer technology is flawed (and it's true that it isn't as accurate as a blood draw). It is then up to a panel of people who may or may not have a science background to determine if the State's expert is more credible than the defense's expert as to the science involved. Likewise, in a murder trial where the defendant has someone testify as to an alibi. The jury has to weigh the credibility of that person's statements. Polygraphs aren't admissible as evidence, so the jury has to become the polygraph and determine who they believe.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 04:21 PM) The standard is "reasonable doubt" though. If you told me on a jury that eyewitness id had a 10% failure rate and the case was eyewitness based, that's reasonable doubt o me. No, that's not reasonable doubt. A 10% failure rate of eye-witness testimony does not mean that there is a 10% chance the person on the stand is lying or remembering incorrectly. You, as a juror, would take the facts as presented and give that testimony its weight (more credibility if they knew the person, less credibility if it comes from a lineup and the person was wearing a mask when the attack occurred). But to stand up as a juror and say "I'm sorry, eye-witness testimony is flawed! Reasonable doubt!" is just an incorrect interpreation of that legal standard.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 04:21 PM) If the best evidence available is questionable and based solely on the frailties of human memory, I'm going to have a hard time voting to convict. Then you would acquit in the vast, vast majority of cases that are not related to DUIs (where there is always physical evidence - but, but there's a statistical rate of error in breathalyzers so... unreliable!) or capital cases (where the State will pursue all manner of physical evidence). The problem I have with your stance is that you are using an idea, that eye-witness testimony is always questionable, and making it a general rule. Obviously not all eye witness testimony is accurate. But again, that doesn't make every eye witness testimony inaccurate. But, then again, if you answered honestly in voir dire that you would have a hard time convicting in an eye-witness case because of "frailities of human memory" you would never reach the jury box in the first place.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 04:00 PM) Juries should be more educated on the reliability of witness testimony and that an eyewitness saying "that's the guy!" doesn't necessarily mean that that is, in fact, the guy, even if that person earnest believes it. And yeah, if the state can't compile a strong enough case on solid evidence, sorry victim of a crime, we shouldn't try to push a weak case on someone who has a good chance of being innocent. What do you think the state should have to convict? If there is no physical evidence (and I just explained why, in the vast majority of cases, there is no physical evidence), isn't eye-witness testimony the best evidence available? Yes, lineups can be unreliable. Yes, eye-witness testimony can be unreliable. Neither of those statements mean that eye-witness test is ALWAYS unreliable or even that it is unreliable in a significant percentage of cases.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 03:46 PM) And now you've gotten onto another major issue in the unfairness of the death penalty as currently used in this country...the fact that quality of representation varies hugely, and lower quality initial representation is directly correlated with increased use of the death penalty. Now this is a good topic for discussion. Lots of states have minimum certification requirements to defend an indigent defendant in a capital case. That's the only real solution to that problem is try to ensure that the best of the best are defending capital cases.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 03:20 PM) I will dig up the several studies I've read on eye-witness testimony that indicates it is pretty much worthless. That's fine; you can believe eye witness testimony is unreliable (and you're right... it can absolutely be unreliable - I remember reading a federal prosecutor's book and him saying something along the lines of "in 90% of cases, the police officer is lying and the defendant is guilty"). But that wasn't my point. In the vast majority of criminal cases, there just isn't physical evidence. In most cases, it is cost prohibitive (if every criminal case had to have some sort of DNA evidence to get a conviction, the system would literally fall apart). Ergo, eye witness testimony is, literally, the best evidence. My question for you is if eye-witness testimony is "worthless" and hard, physical evidence just doesn't exist most of the time, how is the State supposed to try a case? Do we just assume everyone is innocent? I'm sorry victim of a crime... eye witness testimony is unreliable and I have STUDIES that back this up so unless you managed to swab some DNA off your attacker, there's nothing we can do for you. Again, the burden is on the State to prove its case, and a good defense attorney will poke holes in unreliable testimony on cross examination.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 12:46 PM) notice that the burden of proof is shifted from the state to Davis, though. If the state convicted on a weak case that later falls apart, Davis has to prove his innocence, the state doesn't have to justify their case. eye-witness testimony is pretty much s*** regardless of whether the person giving it honestly believes it, and it's especially useless when it is later recanted or contradicted. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of our justice system. As a former prosecutor, I can say that: (1) In the vast majority of cases, all you have is eye witness testimony. A generation of CSIs and Law and Orders make people believe that, without DNA evidence, a case is bad. That is patently not true. (2) Can eye witness testimony be unreliable? Hell yes! But it is the job of the defense attorney to point out how unreliable the testimony is at the actual trial - the one you are guaranteed in front of a jury of your peers. But you also should recognize that eye witness testimony becomes less reliable the further removed you are from the actual event. Thus, putting the burden on the State to prove its case again, rather than the burden on Troy Davis to show new evidence that supports his innocence, puts an undue burden on the State. (3) I believe that Troy Davis' execution should have been stayed and he should be spending life in prison right now. But that's mostly because I think some people have a far too cavalier attitude toward the death penalty.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 01:38 PM) Yeah, I'm off topic, sorry. This is pretty much the exact opposite of a whole lot of people's experience the last 3 years. Especially in the HAMP program. Well, as I addressed above, I only practice in this area in Indiana (both sides, I do lots of creditor's rights work with banks in addition to doing some debtor work) so my experience is tempered by that. And I have absolutely acknowledged that certain banks (see BofA) have abused the system. With that being said, everything I said is still true. Most banks are going to wait months and months before that get the lawyers involved and foreclose. It's common sense. If person A loses their job and misses four mortgage payments, then calls the bank and says they are working again, would the bank rather take back the property that is worth less than the debt or tack 4 months on to the end of the mortgage. Now, I'm sure you can find examples of banks being unreasonable (I've run into those as well), but, at least in Indiana, they aren't the majority.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 02:33 PM) And most importantly it would open the door to denying mortgages based on those same factors (age, mental health, lazy/stupid kids) This. We want to make it easier for money to come off the sidelines than harder. Banks have to take potential legal costs into account when making loans.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 02:04 PM) I don't know where you draw the line, I'm asking open-ended questions. I would argue that there should be a line and that circumstances should be taken into account. Defining that line is a much more difficult problem than saying it should exist and how it should function. I addressed this question in my last post, but it merits its own response. First of all, there are practical issues with having a line. If the 65 year old son is the name on the note and mortgage, how is the bank supposed to know they are evicting a 101 year old. The issue with a line is that I don't see how you can make a line black and white. When there are shades of grey involved, you have huge problems for banks, homeowners, and the courts. Second of all, the cost of preventing banks from foreclosing has to be taken on by someone. I would rather government step in (Medicaid and nursing homes above) then have the cost be higher costs of borrowing because banks have difficulty getting their collateral back. Third, it's important to recognize that the process is not "I miss one payment, bank forecloses, kicks old lady out." In consumer foreclosures, the reality is that the banks don't want those properties back because they are all under water. They would rather work something out with the home owner and get value from their collateral than foreclose, sell at sheriff sale, and chase debtors for a deficiency. My experience is that banks don't even consider FC until you are, at minimum, 6 months down on your mortgage. So based on the above, no, I don't think you can take external circumstances into account when determining whether a bank can foreclose. Whether the bank SHOULD foreclose is a different issue.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 02:02 PM) Isn't that the point of judicial review on these sorts of things and why BoA is getting hammered for their robo-signing? The robo signing was a completely different issue. When a bank files a foreclosure suit (and my expertise in this area is limited to Indiana which does require each foreclosure suit to proceed in front of a judge - but in a lot of cases, the homeowner never responds to any of the notices, doesn't respond to the Complaint and FC is obtained by default or summary judgment without the homeowner ever appearing) they are required to attach an affidavit indicating that the bank owns the debt, that the owner of the real estate made their last payment on date x and that they are in arrearage of $Y. The point of the affidavit is that the person signing reviewed the books and records of the bank, and reviews the business records in teh regular course of business thereby making the testimony in the affidavit admissible pursuant to the Rules of Evidence. My understanding of the BofA issue is that via the robo-signer, no one was actually reviewing the affidavits. As a result, BofA was foreclosing on RE people either (1) were not behind on or (2) did not actually own. As a disclaimer, I didn't follow the BofA issue that closely, just my understanding of what the issue was. FDCPA is the Fair Debt Collection Act. They set up the rules that say when are where debt collectors can contact individuals, how often they can contact you, that they have to identify themselves as debt collectors, etc. The point of the above is that a rep of the bank cannot just show up at a home to see how many kids live there, or whether a 101 year old lady is living on the premises. Unless you want to allow debt collectors to show up on someone's doorstep, you do not want factors like age or mental health to be a requirement to completing a foreclosure (banks would rightly argue that if those factors were relevant, they needed to know that before paying the legal fees to pursue a foreclosure).