Jenksismyhero

2nd degree is 4-20 years, aggravated battery with a firearm IIRC is 6-30 edit: it looks like 2nd degree you can get out half way through your sentence but aggravated battery has the 85% minimum. The jurors don't know the sentencing guidelines though, so they can't factor that in.

You only need one for a hung jury, but probably not a good sign that the two alternates didn't buy his self-defense argument. I still think they find him not guilty of 1st but guilty of 2nd, or even the aggravated battery (which for some reason carries a higher sentence than 2nd degree according to WGN this morning)

I mean to be fair he's hearing over the radio that the guy is out of his mind and slashing police tires with a knife... I would bet 9 out of 10 times someone getting that close to a cop car with a deadly weapon (and using it) ends up shot. edit: I guess the quote from Van Dyke is "I guess we'll have to shoot him" so...yeah, I think you're right.

That's probably for the better in the grand scheme. Officers put themselves on the line and that's their duty. They can't retreat. So if they end up making a mistake and killing someone because of it, it probably shouldn't be criminal except in extreme cases. Here though, the video is so damn compelling. When it's just witnesses testifying with photographs it's more difficult to decide that the officer is not being honest. Here you're seeing how the shooting played out and it's easier to put yourself in the shoes of the officer and decide if you would have acted in the same way. I thought Van Dyke actually performed reasonably well on the stand. He answered questions, was humble, emotional, vulnerable, etc. I think they did a good job of arguing and providing evidence that the perspective of the video may be misleading. Still, that video. Just rolling up, hopping out of the car and then shooting within six seconds. Not a lot of time to reasonably decide if McDonald is a true danger.

Surprised no one here is talking about the Jason Van Dyke trial. It just went to the jury. I wouldn't be totally shocked if there was an NG or hung jury. The prosecution made a couple of big mistakes, including putting Van Dyke's partner on the stand without knowing what he was going to say. He, predictably, corroborated what Van Dyke is claiming (that the perspective of the video isn't the perspective that he had that night). Not having the actual medical examiner that examined McDonald testify was also very odd and I think allowed the defense to favorably argue that the first or second shot killed McDonald and everything after that was Van Dyke acting as he was trained (to incapacitate the criminal completely). My guess would be he gets an NG for 1st degree but is found guilty of 2nd degree as a compromise.

In fairness, no one has proven that Kavanaugh lied either. There's evidence indicating that he may be lying, but there's evidence that he may not be (at least with respect to his drinking). People are making credibility calls and deciding for themselves that he is. People can (and should) do the same with her.

GMAB. Neither party cares about fair or right. You act like this is some new trend.

1) Yes, and it seems that Ford wasn't aware of this so her lawyers kept it from her 2) They're rushing it because they're about to get a conservative court for the foreseeable future. I'm sure they'll gladly take the short-term PR hit for years of SC control.

It would be one thing if she never flew because of that fear, but she obviously overcomes that fear and flies frequently. So people (not me) claim there is more to why she didn't come to Washington when asked, e.g., because she was being told not to as part of a coordinated effort to delay the nomination, not because she was fearful of a flight.

I think the flying stuff was her claiming she had a fear of flying and couldn't come speak to the committee (or their investigators) in Washington sooner because of that fear. But as she testified at the hearing she flies all the time, all over the place. Some people are taking that to mean she was 1) lying about her fear and 2) playing the game with the Dems and holding off on coming to testify until later in the process (and closer to the mid terms).

I hear you but he had a complete roster turn over in two seasons. He has no bigs. As you say, they'll be relying on young guys in the frontcourt...a sure fire way to lose 10-12 games in the Big Ten. If they make the tournament I'll be stunned. I think a goal this year is to lose close and get close to .500 in the Big Ten. Their non-conference schedule is not going to be easy either.

Ok, so I get where you're coming from and I agree that SC justices should be (though probably never have been) the saints of saints when it comes to morals and ethics. HOWEVER, there's a huge difference between a guy not wanting to admit he's a drunk/alcoholic in front of an entire nation and underplaying how he acted as a 17 year old (still not right mind you!) and a person who has falsely accused someone of a sexual assault.

I'm also not even saying what the Dems did is wrong. It's smart. Like I said, they're playing the game.

I don't follow what you're asking. All i'm saying is the Dems are playing the game here. They were gifted Ford and a potential way to stifle the nomination process and they used her and the timing of the mid terms to their advantage. That part of the "conspiracy," which isn't even a conspiracy, I 100% buy. The idea that the Dem party created all of this from nothing (e.g., found a woman to make fabricated claims to then derail the nomination) is something I don't buy.

Correct, because the benefits well outweigh any damage it's going to cause. I'm certainly not the one saying that. I said they should have immediately removed him and started over so they could still confirm someone in time for the mid terms.

They were given the bullet to fire the gun here. I'm not saying it's a grand conspiracy where they found someone willing to lie and fabricate this story, but they were gifted that person and then used it to their advantage. And the Gorsuch confirmation didn't have the time constraints like this one, or more practically, Gorsuch didn't give the GOP a stacked court and I don't think anyone expected Kennedy to retire so quickly.

I think they could but they don't have time and they risk losing the ability to stack the court for the foreseeable future if they wait.

Then who gave it to her? Three people/offices had possession of that letter - the House Rep, Feinstein's office and Ford and her attorneys; Ford testified that she never gave anyone permission to release the letter to the press. So either Feinstein's office or the House Rep's office leaked it. edit: maybe i'm confusing the timeline. I'm assuming she had lawyered up and gave the letter to the lawyers before it was leaked. Maybe that wasn't the case. Either way, there are only a few people that had that letter.

A lot of the times, yes, they absolutely bring it on themselves. But I hate this trend that any woman making an allegation has to be believed and it's the accused that has to prove his innocence and if you don't 100% believe the woman then that means you hate all women, you're trying to silence women, etc. etc. While I believe Ford to be credible, I don't think it's wholly unreasonable if someone doesn't given some of the inconsistencies/lack of corroborating witnesses/missing details. People can have differing opinions about things and it doesn't make them a bad person who hates women (shock!).

I think both can be true. I think her allegations, true or not, are credible, but the Dems clearly played this all purposefully and methodically because they knew it was a win-win situation; either they derail the nomination and hope that the mid-terms get them the majority and then never confirm a justice until the next election, OR, they make the old white guys on the committee look like they hate women. Once Feinstein and the House rep heard about this they could have immediately taken it to the committee for a confidential investigation. Instead, they waited. And despite Feinstein's denial, this story was leaked ON PURPOSE. Who do you think wanted this out there the most? It wasn't a coincidence. It was all coordinated to maximize the chance that the Repubs would be forced to vote no.

Why? Because he called the whole thing a conspiracy against him? Clarence Thomas made the same accusation (without naming names).

I agree, I'm arguing against this "composure" argument. That has nothing to do with his qualifications/ability to be a SC justice.

If you were testifying? Absolutely nothing unless you started to become hostile to an attorney or to a juror or something.

While Kavanaugh's performance was embarrassing, go into just about any courtroom in America and defy a judge's standing order. You know what you get? The same sort of ridiculous, out of control, immature, irrational, and often times angry person you saw from Kavanaugh during his hearing last week. Judges aren't emotionless monsters. They're human. That doesn't affect their ability to run their courtroom and apply the law to the facts.

She did. Most of this is directly from her questioning/Ford's testimony at the hearing.