Jump to content

Skipper

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    6155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Skipper

  1. I never had an ounce of respect for Kansas or their athletic dept to begin with (nor should anyone that has spent time around their fanbase) but if I did this juxtaposed with Beatty would be the tipping point.  I mean, the fact that are trying to screw Beatty from his buyout on the most minor violations imaginable (and as noted above, a report came out the same violations are happening under Miles) while simultaneously defending the blatant massive cheating under Self is fucking rich.   Fuck Kansas.  It would probably happen regardless, but hopefully they get dinged enough by the NCAA that they are untouchable and left out in the next round of realignment.   And if Miles makes them semi-respectable in football I hope he bolts for the next semi-respectful job opening.

    • Like 1
  2. 3 hours ago, tokamak said:


    YouTube TV's interface is better by a mile. Probably the DVR too because Vue's DVR sucks ass. Google tends to do things right.

    Vue has more sports channels. It has LHN which YTTV definitely doesn't have. Not sure about the rest of YTTV's line up but Vue basically has everything - CBS Sports, FS1, NFLN, etc.

    I agree with this.   I had massive problems with Vue but it started working again before my contract lapsed (today) so played with them side by side.  I think YTTV is superior in every way (particularly interface, DVR and picture quality) except for (i) no LHN,(ii) no option for NFL Redzone and (iii) less simultaneous streams (3 vs. 5).  For now at least I'm sticking with YTTV.  

  3. 8 minutes ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

    They've caught her in a lie about entering the parking garage.  There is missing time from when she enters to when she parks, but according to her, she drove straight to her spot with no stops.

    I don't think this is really a relevant issue at all but she testified she parked then stayed on her phone in the garage for several minutes before she left the car.

  4. 1 minute ago, Gene Parmesan said:

    I didn't realize the narrative was that she was on alert before the door opened.  To me that makes her actions after that point swing way to the unreasonable side versus the door opening and the first indication of an intruder was seeing the intruder.

    Agreed.  Not to mention it absolutely raises that by seeing a crack and hearing noises another reasonable reaction if she was "scared for her life" would be to back out (or not open the door at all).   Which would obviously have prevented this tragedy.    I absolutely think she's genuinely remorseful and I don't think she should get 20+ years or anything but she needs to do some time.  It was a mistake but not a reasonable one.

    • Like 1
  5.  If she actually said "let me see your hands, let me see your hands"  that means she made a calculated decision after having a few seconds to realize her mistake.  If she didn't (which I think is more likely) then she would have to admit to shooting in a panic without following procedure.   Regardless, with testimony that she shouted to let me see your hands while also stating he was walking "slowly" toward and not at a fast rate of speed, a reasonable trained LEO wouldn't start blasting.   If I'm on the jury not reasonable without even seeing cross.

        

    • Like 2
  6. 1 hour ago, mdleast said:


    Junior’s point the other day was, as they are going through talking about the big games of the weekend (Texas, Aggie, SMU, etc) they will invariably get complaints from whatever fan base that wasn’t mentioned saying “hey what about our game” and their point is they don’t have time to talk about each and every game and don’t owe every fan base “equal time” for every CFB segment.
     

    As mentioned above, I think they would be surprised that a large chunk of their listeners would be absolutely fine with a ratio of something closer to 75/25 cowboys to college football instead of the 90/10 (or worse) we get now.   I get this is a Cowboys town but there is only so much to analyze.  There really is no excuse for each show not doing at least a few minutes on each Texas, OU, A&M, Tech, Baylor, SMU, TCU game weekly.   I think the bigger problem, as also mentioned, is these guys don't know shit about college football and don't watch the games.   Corby definitely knows and follows the most but we all have full time jobs and know 3X as much as him.   It's absolutely ridiculous that these guys can't find the time to follow college football considering their job description.

    • Like 1
  7. Just now, TXSooner518 said:

    Agree in general with this. I also think if you're a person who zones out and is capable of being oblivious to all of those things, you would have a bit more duty to ascertain what the fuck is actually happening before taking fire. 

    I don't think the duty lies with the fact she zoned out. I think the duty lies with the fact that she's an LEO and should be better trained to assess a threat before firing.    That's why I disagree with the person that posted a few pages back that thinks she will get off because she's a cop and not a normal CHL owner.   I think it's the opposite.   If I'm in the jury and there is a normal petite female CHL owner that has never been in a situation where there has been a threat before, I MIGHT be able to get there that firing was a panic response.    As a cop, she's TRAINED to assess the risk before firing a weapon.  It's going to be very hard to convince me she acted reasonable as a trained law enforcement officer.   I agree it will help if they show she didn't follow procedures, but I don't think I would even need that.  She should be held to a higher standard because of her experience and training compared to someone that has never faced a threat or trained for that scenario. 

  8. Considering the constant arguing in this thread between people that can't fathom missing all of the cues she missed to go to the wrong apt. vs. the people that zone out and could absolutely see themselves making the same mistake, I can only imagine the jury deliberations.  Neither side is going to convince the other they are right because neither side is right.   My wife would likely never make the mistake Amber did.  I absolutely could.   People are wired differently.  It's really that fucking simple.   So the jury is going to have the same mix of people.   That's why I continue to think it's going to be all about whether her actions were reasonable the second she opened the door.

    • Like 3
  9. 5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Pfft.  You don't try a case by just coming in and saying "mmmm, she's bad, ok, convict her for killing this dude."  The facts have to be fit to the law and a jury has to agree with your theory of the case to convict or acquit.

    I don't care if they were both black civilians or both white nazi cops or any combination thereof, this was going to be a tricky fucking case from jump street.

    I think it's best to just ignore Vic's rants and whoever the dude is that's convinced this was some elaborate hit from political enemies

    • Like 1
  10. 2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I'm not sure reasonableness of her actions comes into play once she's "reasonably" in the apartment, as I think the self-defense statutes make it presumptively reasonable to waste someone in your own place.  But it's been a while since we ran those traps.

    Also, we haven't heard much from either side in the case on the "self defense" issues.

    Well this is what we need to nail down as I'm under the impression it does matter.  But it's been like 15 years since I took crim law.     Based on testimony so far I would be shocked if jury unanimously dismisses mistake of fact.  I think it's absolutely plausible (and frankly likely) that at the moment she opened the door in her mind she was opening her apartment.  But if I'm on the jury I'm going to have a hard time being convinced she acted reasonably from that point on absent evidence he flashed a weapon or was charging her (and we know at this point zero evidence of either).

    • Like 1
  11. 4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    That there is so much disagreement right on this thread about floormats, apartment numbers, and card keys, etc. just shows it's a jury question and a really close one at that.

    And then, if you are the sort that wants the jury to apply reasonable doubt strictly, even if most of the jurors don't believe it was reasonable according to their own perceptions, if they think it's reasonably possible that someone else could have missed it, they must acquit.

    That's why I think the prosecution's focus should be that a reasonable trained LEO doesn't walk in blasting outside of a clear overt threat.  The red doormat and apartment numbers, etc may be enough for some jurors.  But I have to think most have an issue thinking a reasonable response is to shoot first ask questions later.  Especially if/when it clearly goes against your training.  It's why I kind of think the defense may need to put her on the stand to see if she could convince otherwise (obviously depending on how good of a witness they think she is).

  12. 13 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    That means even more that if you don't have a floormat at all, you'd notice a bright red one as you approached the door and said "wft is this thing? Oh, I'm on the wrong floor. What a moron I am."

    I have zero idea if I currently have a doormat on my front door.  It's fucking red for all I know.   It just isn't the smoking gun the handful of people in this thread that are ultra-observant by nature are making it out to be.   It is plausible IMO if she was looking at her phone she never would have looked down or noticed a mat at all.   Just don't think that's where this case is going to get won.  

×
×
  • Create New...