NFL Conference Championships: where the presumed MVP is the least accomplished QB

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

How is this particularly an indictment of Patriots Fans? I mean guess he was dumb enough to get caught, but fire alarms get pulled on visiting teams all the time.

From what I can recall, it happened to the Pats twice before the 2014 Superbowl.

[JonSnow4President]

1 hour ago, Wrl6199 said:

Makes sense. I mean you dint really tend to intend to drive under the influence criminally you just need to get somewhere.

Just looked it up and our state is definitely no intent (and apparently pretty harsh even if you were drugged).  Must have been a slightly different scenario I'm getting my wires crossed with (the guy was a practicing defense attorney, so I doubt he was completely full of shit).

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

How is this particularly an indictment of Patriots Fans? I mean guess he was dumb enough to get caught, but fire alarms get pulled on visiting teams all the time.

From what I can recall, it happened to the Pats twice before the 2014 Superbowl.

Because it's funny

[Joe Pesci]

11 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

3 Things:

1. It's nice to see that @Pony Queen Jace isn't dead.

2. I won Pickem!!! Anyone who says otherwise is using fake news and alternative facts!!!!

3. Ladies and Gentlemen, can we get back to that actual issue?!?!?!?

@Joe Pesci, have you seen the Basketcase movies? That's probably a good starting point for guessing what a Bayless-Coulter love child would look like.

I have not, but a quick google of it strongly suggests that I should. And I'll give you credit for still Trumping till the bitter end in Pick'em

Here's some fun footage of Pacman Jones classing up the backseat of a police car

[Rockroi]

4 hours ago, sperry said:

How is a penalty contemplated by the statute railroading?

The penalty almost assuredly says something along the lines of "A person found guilty of this crime shall serve no more than X and be fined no more than Y..."  Those are maximums and I think fiorst time offenders should not get maximum penalties.

As a general rule, I think we over-punish in the criminal courts.  Mandatory minimums etc don't work; we "throw the book" at too many people etc.  I consider "railroading" to be any punishment that is excessive and, yes, I believe that the penalties in the statutes can, absolutely, be excessive.  

4 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

So, I'm an accountant, not a lawyer, but in one of my law classes in college, I remember the professor using this as a kind of WTF kind of example.

(It's been 6 or 7 years, so I apologize if I miss anything).  The facts were a guy left his car at home, went out and got black out drunk.  However, he was responsible, and arranged to get himself home safely (and did).  However, while black out drunk, he takes his car out and gets pulled over and is given a DUI.  However, in court, he is able to argue that he had no intent to commit the crime, and since he actually did make arrangments to not drive, the prosecutor was unable to prove the general intent required and the guy got off.  

Obviously, it's non specific, I have no idea what jurisdiction this was supposed to be, and I'm not entirely sure if it was intended to be a "what if" example or an actual example of something that had happened. If I remember correctly (and there's a big chance I'm not), it was brought up during the lessons including Mens Rea defenses.  I know we have lawyers here, so I'm sure I"m about to find out exactly how bullshit that is, but take it for what it's worth.  A several year old memory from an accounting student taking an undergrad law class.

So, this is getting way way way wayyyyyyyy off the topic of this thread, but I want to help here. 

The first thing I want to caution you is that many many many of the stories we all heard about the law and about people getting punished or getting off ... they are almost all not true or greatly exaggerated.  I must have heard the "This guy was breaking into a house, fell through the sky-light and sued the person he was robbing ...." and those are almost all not true.

Okay, so just with that as a back drop... 

The story you mention does not make much sense and I know- you were very careful to say that it was a while ago and you are not 100% of specifics.  But you stated that because the Defendant was "black-out drunk" he could not form the "general intent."  This is probably NOT true because alcohol is never a defense for "general" intent; its a defense for "specific" intent.  

So, quickly, GENERAL intent is basically just the crime itself.  IE- Assault is a "general" intent crime- all the state needs to prove is that you were assaulting somebody (and did it on purpose etc).  Assault with intent to injure is a SPECIFIC INTENT crime ie: that you had the required mens rea to formulate that specific intent- ie that you were intending to injure the person.  Alcohol. at least in the common law, is a defense to SPECIFIC intent crimes.

Driving while intoxicated has no "specific intent" component; its all general intent and, thus, alcohol would not be a good defense even to a specific intent issue. 

Now, its possible that the story you were retelling had a specific crime in there; something like "illegal operation of a motor vehicle with intent to commit a crime" or something like that. In that case there WOULD be a specific intent component he could defeat BUT 1) its very unlikely that anyone would bring that charge and 2) there would still be the matter of his alcohol consumption while driving a car that would lead to some sort of criminal charge that would stick.  

 

[sperry]

1 minute ago, Rockroi said:

The penalty almost assuredly says something along the lines of "A person found guilty of this crime shall serve no more than X and be fined no more than Y..."  Those are maximums and I think fiorst time offenders should not get maximum penalties.

As a general rule, I think we over-punish in the criminal courts.  Mandatory minimums etc don't work; we "throw the book" at too many people etc.  I consider "railroading" to be any punishment that is excessive and, yes, I believe that the penalties in the statutes can, absolutely, be excessive.  

 

 

 

I think we overpunish a lot of stuff, and dramatically underpunish some shit. I have no problem throwing someone in jail for a month for blatantly being a shithead and doing something they know is both wrong and illegal for nothing other than shits and giggles. In general, I think we underpunish crimes like that.

[Nictarion]

2 hours ago, Joe Pesci said:

I have not, but a quick google of it strongly suggests that I should. And I'll give you credit for still Trumping till the bitter end in Pick'em

Here's some fun footage of Pacman Jones classing up the backseat of a police car

He's a total POS, and I'll have a hard time rooting for the Bengals if he's back next season. 

[Joe Pesci]

19 minutes ago, Nictarion said:

He's a total POS, and I'll have a hard time rooting for the Bengals if he's back next season. 

I originally thought some of the details coming out about his arrest may have been over exaggerated as they often are when athletes/celebrities get arrested, but after seeing this there's no way I'd give him the benefit of the doubt about any of it now. Maybe the Bengals would've kept him if this video didn't get out, but no way they will now. He's done, the league is gonna come down on him hard I think.

[Guest]

Heard a stat that Green Bay has given up 44+ in three playoff losses in the Rodgers era and Brady has never had his team give up that much in any playoff loss.

[Week]

Tom Brady GOAT

(Sean Spicer)

Free Safety in the NFL

/lazySpicerMeme

[JonSnow4President]

3 hours ago, Rockroi said:

The penalty almost assuredly says something along the lines of "A person found guilty of this crime shall serve no more than X and be fined no more than Y..."  Those are maximums and I think fiorst time offenders should not get maximum penalties.

As a general rule, I think we over-punish in the criminal courts.  Mandatory minimums etc don't work; we "throw the book" at too many people etc.  I consider "railroading" to be any punishment that is excessive and, yes, I believe that the penalties in the statutes can, absolutely, be excessive.  

So, this is getting way way way wayyyyyyyy off the topic of this thread, but I want to help here. 

The first thing I want to caution you is that many many many of the stories we all heard about the law and about people getting punished or getting off ... they are almost all not true or greatly exaggerated.  I must have heard the "This guy was breaking into a house, fell through the sky-light and sued the person he was robbing ...." and those are almost all not true.

Okay, so just with that as a back drop... 

I am well aware.  Like I said though, practicing attorney and law class at a respected educational institution.

3 hours ago, Rockroi said:

The story you mention does not make much sense and I know- you were very careful to say that it was a while ago and you are not 100% of specifics.  But you stated that because the Defendant was "black-out drunk" he could not form the "general intent."  This is probably NOT true because alcohol is never a defense for "general" intent; its a defense for "specific" intent.  

So, quickly, GENERAL intent is basically just the crime itself.  IE- Assault is a "general" intent crime- all the state needs to prove is that you were assaulting somebody (and did it on purpose etc).  Assault with intent to injure is a SPECIFIC INTENT crime ie: that you had the required mens rea to formulate that specific intent- ie that you were intending to injure the person.  Alcohol. at least in the common law, is a defense to SPECIFIC intent crimes.

All I really remember was thinking that guy should be thrown in jail.  It might have even been something about civil law (possibly with an insurance agreement or something, I don't remember) which obviously is an entirely different set of worms.  To use your assault example, I won't be convicted of assault if I jump for joy at the Cowboys winning the Super Bowl next year and accidentally break someone's nose with my elbow (although it will probably be one of the university's basketball players at that height).  The guy up to the point of consciousness clearly had no intent to drive drunk, nor any recklessness in how he was going about his night.  It was only once he became too intoxicated to do about anything else legally that he decided to drive. I think that was the point being made.  Everything I've seen tonight says that would be for a DUI (it may have been manslaughter or something else after an accident, who knows). 

Honestly, I've just had the realization how scary that is.  I have gotten black out drunk once before (and swore never again, and have maintained that for a year).  Dipshit me decided to say some incredibly nasty things, throw all my clothes in the kitchen sink, and ended up naked on top of the covers with the air on 60.  What if I had decided to drive?  I don't drive after 2 beers without at least an hour wait, but the thought of being able to get a DUI for something I would never consciously do is scary.  

 

On a football related note, who is everyone hoping their team realistically drafts (obviously I want Garrett as a Cowboys fan/Aggie, but that ain't happening)?  Personally hoping the Cowboys either land Harris out of Mizzou or Lawson out of Auburn in the first.  Need a pass rusher (or 7) badly.

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

I think it would be neat if the Lions would actually draft an NFL caliber RB that can play more than 3-4 games without needing extensive rehab (for a change). Wonder how long that LSU back will last in the draft (Fournette (sp?)? Seems like RB's dont get picked in the lottery picks that often anymore, maybe we would have a shot at him?

Anyways Detroit will probably draft another TE or LB that is too slow to be effective on the next level.

Also another good reciever and good O-lineman would help, we need lots of help.

[JonSnow4President]

16 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I think it would be neat if the Lions would actually draft an NFL caliber RB that can play more than 3-4 games without needing extensive rehab (for a change). Wonder how long that LSU back will last in the draft (Fournette (sp?)? Seems like RB's dont get picked in the lottery picks that often anymore, maybe we would have a shot at him?

Anyways Detroit will probably draft another TE or LB that is too slow to be effective on the next level.

Also another good reciever and good O-lineman would help, we need lots of help.

I don't think they stand a chance in hell at 21. The only thing that would make me remotely hesitant about taking Fournette top 10 is his injury history.  The guy is a flat beast. 

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, JonSnow4President said:

 

On a football related note, who is everyone hoping their team realistically drafts (obviously I want Garrett as a Cowboys fan/Aggie, but that ain't happening)?  Personally hoping the Cowboys either land Harris out of Mizzou or Lawson out of Auburn in the first.  Need a pass rusher (or 7) badly.

 

I'd love a RB who is both talented and not fifty years old, haven't had one since 2007 version of Joseph Addai. And another lineman would be great.

But after another year of absolute suck and only the 16th pick to show for it, I think the move has to be for a pass rusher.

I hate mid 1st picks, all the sensational talents are gone but something good has to come out of the disastrous season.

[dbunting]

5 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

On a football related note, who is everyone hoping their team realistically drafts (obviously I want Garrett as a Cowboys fan/Aggie, but that ain't happening)?  Personally hoping the Cowboys either land Harris out of Mizzou or Lawson out of Auburn in the first.  Need a pass rusher (or 7) badly.

 

As a fellow Cowboys fan I am hoping for best DL available 1st round and Jake Butt 2nd-3rd round to replace Witten in 2018

5 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I think it would be neat if the Lions would actually draft an NFL caliber RB that can play more than 3-4 games without needing extensive rehab (for a change). Wonder how long that LSU back will last in the draft (Fournette (sp?)? Seems like RB's dont get picked in the lottery picks that often anymore, maybe we would have a shot at him?

Anyways Detroit will probably draft another TE or LB that is too slow to be effective on the next level.

Also another good reciever and good O-lineman would help, we need lots of help.

You do know WR Mike WIlliams is available in this draft right!

Perine out of Oklahoma fits your bill for what you want, and likely will be there in 2nd or 3rd round, except Detroit has a long history of not drafting people with character issues. Well, unless you are a WR (Rogers, Williams  or Young)!

[lancerman]

10 hours ago, sperry said:

 

I think we overpunish a lot of stuff, and dramatically underpunish some shit. I have no problem throwing someone in jail for a month for blatantly being a shithead and doing something they know is both wrong and illegal for nothing other than shits and giggles. In general, I think we underpunish crimes like that.

See you say that but the result is something like

-he loses his job for not being able to work for a month 

-because he swerved time he will have serious trouble finding a new job in the immediate future.

-he spends a month networking and living with criminals of varying degree and that behavior becomes normalized.

-he probably is isolated from a good portion of his social group. 

- he has a record that follows him around the rest of his life. 

Because in one moment he did something really stupid that didn't hurt anybody and at most inconvenienced a lot of people. 

I mean talk about a net negative for him and society. This isn't a guy that needs to be removed from society because he did something incredibly dumb. Give him some type of fine or probation with community service. But it really helps nobody to send him to prison. That really should be for people you can't risk being around law abiding citizens because they might be dangerous or can't help themselves. 

 

 

[Rockroi]

Lancerman is my Spirit Animal.  

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Where's the love for Matty Ice around here? MVP!!!!

[Jaime L]

2 hours ago, Suzanna Stormborn said:

Where's the love for Matty Ice around here? MVP!!!!

Think everyone here pretty much agrees Matty Ice is the MVP this year. You must've missed the entire discussion earlier where folks were debating whether is now on a Hall of Fame trajectory or not. My take: considering his career passer rating is exactly equal to Kirk Cousins (i.e.: 93.6), I'm not there yet. But, hey, a Superbowl win would immediately enter him into the conversation Kurt Warner style. 

[sperry]

1 hour ago, Jaime L said:

Think everyone here pretty much agrees Matty Ice is the MVP this year. You must've missed the entire discussion earlier where folks were debating whether is now on a Hall of Fame trajectory or not. My take: considering his career passer rating is exactly equal to Kirk Cousins (i.e.: 93.6), I'm not there yet. But, hey, a Superbowl win would immediately enter him into the conversation Kurt Warner style. 

When you consider that that 93.6 career passer rating is bracketed by Kurt Warner and Joe Montana on the all time list (it ranks 11th all time), I don't htink that's exactly a strike.