Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    702
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sheeeit

  1. Ok. It is very easy for people to disagree on this subject. Currently, the best available science says kids rarely transmit the virus. Virtually every pediatric association is recommending schools opening. I feel pretty certain these pediatricians understand the need to keep the spread down but, based on the actual science, they say the risk of the virus spreading or causing greater harm is very low. I get you now on the articles. Yes the headline said Florida so I went to the source data and found the specific rate for Miami-Dade so I could compare it to the other headline.
  2. This is kind of the rub. Although the science is relatively new, the doctor say transference from kids to adults is very rare. But I understand your point. My question would be what is in the best interest of the whole. If your mom is compromised, she really should not be around them at all right now unless they have been strictly quarantined since February. But is school more important for kids or being able to be hugged by their grandparent? I think that is a personal choice. I think most would say school is more important, certainly in the short term. So maybe grandparents will have to social distance from their grandkids for a period of time. And, again, if the childs primary care giver is compromised then that kid may be best to stay at home. But that is the extreme outlier. It only really applies if that care giver is strictly quarantining. If not, and virtually no one is, then they are at risk everyday for covid in greater percentages than getting it from their child.
  3. As mentioned, I would not fault anyone for keeping their child at home, but I think you probably represent the vast minority. Also, the numbers are just not there to support closing schools. For instance, in California, people under the age of 18 make up 22% of the total population. As of 7/19/20 ZERO people under the age of 18 have died from covid in California. Based on the Texas dashboard (hard to trust it) there have been ZERO covid deaths in Texas under 18. I hate trying to compare covid to the flu because they are different, but people under 18 die of the flu all the time and we do not cancel school during flu season. Right now, no kids have died of covid. I get this angle but it just does not jive with reality. Kids are not staying at home. Kids parents are not staying at home. We shouldn't have lame measures. if we are truly scared of the disease as a country we should shut everything down. But unless every single person obeys and every person from other countries obeys then the virus is going to remain. So have to open cautiously. Opening schools is extremely cautious. The Pediatric Doctor association has no qualms with schools opening. I am quite certain many of those pediatricians have kids of their own. Again, we either trust the science/doctors or we don't. If the pediatricians say open the schools, we should open the schools. According to the pediatricians also, kids are very unlikely to be contagious. Scientifically speaking and medically speaking, teachers and staff are much more likely to get covid from the grocery store than from a kid at school. Thats according to the science. Of course I account for them. Do you think most school staff are currently sitting in their houses? They are not. As I mentioned, if a teacher is worried for themselves or a high risk family member or whatever, then let them stay home. Not sure how I conflated anything. But perhaps it read differently to you?
  4. Not going to go through the entire thread so I apologize if this has been covered. I am sure it has been pointed out that getting real and accurate data on covid is pretty difficult. So there are 2 parts to my post. 1) School's Opening- People are just tearing into politicians about re-opening schools and it just seems completely political at this point. Not a left or right thing, but both sides are total hypocrites when it comes to "trusting the science". The CDC, in the latest update I can find which was July 10, is now estimating that the covid infection fatality rate is .68%. Pretty low number. Further, the CDC acknowledges that older people with preexisting issues skew the number higher and that younger people most likely have a covid infection fatality rate of less than .3%. Obviously, the rate is not zero but it will never be zero even with Covid gone. If a parent is overly concerned that their child might be the unlucky .3% then, by all means, they should keep their child at home. But the vast majority of people will send their kids to school with a fatality rate of just .3%. If we are truly to believe the science, then why would we close elementary and high schools? I understand the possible impact on teachers and staff and do not have an issue with any teacher/staff that is over 60 or has any underlying medical issues being given time off, with full pay, if they choose. But 90% of the school staff can safely return to work. And by safely, I mean they aren't going to die. The may get sick but people miss work for sickness everyday. 2) News Coverage- Please do not turn this into a fox/cnn/msnbc/breitbart whatever debate. It is not that. It is just simply amazing that the reporting is so varied. I am saying all news agencies want to create sensational headlines to get eyes and they all manipulate the data to that end. As an example, I went to one prominent news site and the headline was (paraphrase) Miami-Dade ICU beds over 130% due to Covid. Sounded horrible so I read the article and then clicked on the link they were relying on for their data. It was to Florida's covid dashboard. Nowhere on the link, that I could find, was there anything, at all, that backed up their claim. It was worthless. I did another search and found a headline that read "Florida cases go up but hospitalizations remain steady". Sounded better and I did the same thing by clicking on their link. Their link went to the AHCA Emergency Status System, which I am sure the doctors will attest is a much, much more reliable figure. They show Miami-Dade at 85% capacity and, essentially, unchanged from a month ago. Further, they say the ICU capacity is typically at 90% and since they started elective surgeries again, a large percentage of the current ICU patients have no connection to Covid. It is just getting really, really, hard to get accurate information from news sites.
  5. Well if my speculation was based on additional/more information than what your speculation was based on (you apparently did not know Cummings went over her testimony with Hampton prior to the hearing) then I actually think my speculation would hold more weight than yours. Just as your's would potentially hold more weight than mine if you had information that I did not have. You know about these types of hearings. A guy is in prison and he gets this one shot. No continuations. No second bite. No new information after this. This is it. Put yourself in this situation. You have worked for years on this particular case. You have interviewed a very, very key witness for your case and, based on that interview, have formulated your strategy. Then on the day that witness is supposed to testify, they change their story and decide to include things that they never brought up before and that are going to be detrimental to your client. And this is not some jail house snitch or someone not totally aware of the ramifications of their actions. You would rightly be extremely angry and would consider that witness a chickenshit piece of shit. Do you think it is even remotely reasonable/likely for Hampton to have based a large part of his defense strategy on Cumming's testimony if her testimony to him would have been hurtful to his client when they prepared it? Hampton would have to be one stupid lawyer to do that.
  6. Do you know how dumb this sounds? She interviewed Jonathan multiple times? I am shocked in her interview of him he did not admit to the crime. She consulted with Greg? Please show us where she told Greg that her investigator found evidence that Jonathan could be a suspect but she told the investigator to stop looking. How could she even possibly consult Greg about Jonathan without even investigating Jonathon? This is completely nonsensical. See above. Surely you realize that situations change during a case right? Discovering a potential conflict does not always come up when you take the case. I am sure it never even entered Cummings mind that during the course of the defense that the son of the woman that referred her to the case would emerge as a possible suspect. What I am saying is that when Cumming's investigator said they needed to look hard at Jonathan as a suspect based on evidence the investigator found, that Cummings was derelict for stopping him from looking into it. I am further stating that whether or not Cummings stopped the investigation into Jonathon as a result of her relationship with the McCarty family, doesn't matter. I am saying it is a reasonable legal assumption to present to the court. None of us get to be inside Cumming's mind. But that is why conflicts are in place. Cummings does not get to decide if she was conflicted or not, the court does. What I am saying is that if my son were on trial for child molestation and his lawyer's investigator said there was sufficient evidence to look into someone else for the actual crime, then I would fire that attorney immediately if she forbid the investigator from proceeding. You keep saying Cummings thought the other strategy was the best one. How the hell would she know? She forbid her investigator from looking into it. What if they got Jonathon's phone and found pictures of his penis in the kid's mouth? Do you think the defense strategy might change? What if they found links to child porn on Jonathon's phone or computer? You think that might change the strategy? Again, I am not talking about a fishing expedition or some slander campaign against an innocent person. I am saying investigate a known lead fully for the benefit of the client. We aren't talking lots of money and time here. Cummings own investigator said he was fully prepared to subpoena Jonathon's phone and computer and do what investigators are supposed to do and that Cummings told him to stop. Inexcusable. This is the whole point. She could not possibly make that determination without doing an actual investigation of Jonathon.
  7. I have no connection or information other than what was in the documentary and available online. https://www.kxan.com/news/greg-kelleys-former-attorney-at-center-of-tuesdays-hearing/ This is a copy of one of Cummings' affidavits where she tells the judge she met with Hampton previously to answer these questions. I already said that I have no way of knowing what was asked and answered between Hampton and Cummings at the first meeting but it really is impossible to conclude that Cummings gave answers that would be harmful to Greg at that prior meeting because after that meeting between Hampton and Cummings (and obviously others were present) Hampton still planned to call Cummings to testify and his team, as well as the state's team, spent hours and hours preparing to question her.
  8. I get where you are coming from and I did not go this route to try and put you on the spot at all. Just appreciate your insight as someone that does this for a living. Having the client sign a waiver is obviously the prudent thing to do. But, can you imagine any possible scenario where you would go to your client and say- my investigator on your case has come to me and has some raw evidence that possibly shows that your best friend is the one that may have committed this crime but I am forbidding him to look into that evidence any more. As a result, I want you to absolve me from any conflict claims since I know his mother, I represented his brothers and she is the woman that referred me to you. That just seems ludicrous. Is there any reason whatsoever, for the attorney to prohibit her investigator from investigating another viable suspect? Isnt that kind of defense 101? Again, she doesn't ultimately have to use it but to not even investigate seems criminal to me. And, with the benefit of hindsight, it would almost have certainly resulted in her client getting off.
  9. I believe he was victimized by all 3. As to Cummings, first when she told her investigator to not investigate a possible other suspect after the investigator ALREADY found enough evidence to warrant a deeper dive. Absolutely zero excuse for this. Second, when she changed her approach to her testimony on the day of the actual hearing. Absolutely no excuse for this. You keep missing the point. She had no conflict when the defense started. She had no way of knowing where the evidence would lead her in her defense. But when it did lead her to the son of the woman that referred her to the case and the brother of people she had defended in the past, then she absolutely had a conflict. I think this is horseshit. Of course the prosecution could and would argue that the kids should know the difference between Greg and Jonathon. But that actually weakens their case. You keep ignoring (intentional?) that one of the boys named Jonathon twice in his CAC interview as the one that abused him. Twice. Impossible for the prosecution to argue that the victims knew the difference between the 2 teens and also argue that one of the boys got the 2 mixed up in his interview. That is completely nonsensical.
  10. Again, you are the attorney, but in Cummings affidavit she states that she had met with Hampton at least once previously to discuss the case. Obviously, you would met with your witnesses prior to the hearing to know what they are going to say and prepare your case. Of course we do not know exactly what transpired at the previous meeting but we do know that Cummings did not have an attorney present and that after the meeting, Hampton fully prepared to call her to testify based on the answers she gave. According to Hampton, on the day of her testimony Cummings suddenly had an attorney and the affidavit Cummings wanted to introduce at the hearing was much different than what she had said in their previous meeting. Hampton called Cummings to testify based on what she said at the previous meeting. Suddenly on the day of her testimony, she is changing her story. Or, perhaps more accurately, she is adding to and enhancing her story in a way that would be harmful to Hampton's client. Cummings is smart and is certainly aware of how her testimony will be received by the judge and appellate court. Certainly way more aware than a lay person. She does not want her reputation tarnished in public and she absolutely knows that if she files this last second affidavit that Hampton will likely have no choice but to not call her. As I have been saying, Cummings could have been completely truthful about what she was willing to say at the hearing at the very beginning. Hampton could have then proceeded with his strategy accordingly. But she did not do that in the beginning. She played along and offered help right up until the very day she was called to testify. Chickenshit at best.
  11. If I recall you are an attorney? If a person that you were just friendly with, not close, and was someone that you had worked for in the past representing their family members (assume you did a good job for them since they are referring you) and in the course of your investigation it became clear that one of their kids might have actually been the perp, what would you do? I would guess that you would investigate that angle aggressively. Perhaps assign another attorney in your firm or your investigator to do it so that there is not even the slightest hint of a conflict. The one thing I would not think you would do, would be to shut down your investigator from even looking into that angle. I agree of course that hindsight is easy, but, as we have come to find out, when they got Jonathan's phone there were pictures of naked little boys on it. Jonathan admitted it but said it was his cousin or something. But, as the defense attorney for Greg, wouldn't you consider that evidence to be extremely strong and extremely beneficial to your client? This was not some fishing expedition either where it had the potential to smear an innocent kid. Cummings own investigator found the evidence that Jonathan might be a suspect. At a very minimum, she should have told her investigator to get everything he possibly could on Jonathan. Doesn't mean she had to use it or that it would have been found. But to stop it in its tracks( again even if it were in her best professional judgement that it would not help her client- which is absurd since she did not allow the investigation to continue) just looks horrible based on her previous relationship with the family.
  12. Well I am sure that distinction is a great relief to the guy that sat in prison for 3-4 years. Again, how would anyone feel if their kid was on trial for child molestation, and their attorney failed to pursue a potential alternative suspect, and you later found out that your attorney had previously (even if it was years ago) defended members of the family, was recommended to you by that family and had an admittedly "friendly" relationship with them? I would certainly think that any reasonable person would realize that it would be very hard for Cummings to aggressively go after the kid of the family she was friendly with and that had recommended her for the job. Again, we are talking about the defense strategy. It does not matter one bit if Cummings thought that Jonathon had anything to do with the crime. Not one bit. It only matters if pursing the angle helps her client. You will never convince me, or any rational person, that if there was another person that had the exact same access to the kids as Greg, was present at the house when the crimes likely occurred (especially since your client was not present at that time), that looked similar to Greg and that one of the actual fucking victims named directly 2 times in their interview as the one that did it, that that would not be incredibly powerful to the defense. I assume you saw the video interview of the kid who said Jonathan did it? Said it twice. That is probably reasonable doubt all by itself. Not innocence necessarily, but certainly enough doubt that, absent of any physical evidence (or really any evidence) other than the word of a child, that the child may have gotten it wrong.
  13. Maybe you are just being obtuse, but you are completely either ignoring my point or just do not understand it. I clearly stated that Cummings was well within her right to not want her reputation tarnished. I would not do it that way but I can understand why someone would. What is impossible to understand is the fact that Cummings worked with the defense team over a large amount of time and actively participated with the defense team on the case. She was a huge part of their legal strategy and she knew it. She then sabotaged them right before the hearing which prevented them from using a different strategy. That is text book chickenshit behavior. Further, her lame excuse that she would have to divulge certain things that might be harmful to greg is also ridiculous. She only had to answer the questions she was going to be asked. Both the prosecutor and defense were on the same page and both wanted the conviction overturned. No one was going to ask any questions that would require her to tarnish her former client.
  14. We have conflict causes for very good reasons. I believe that most people can do their job without the necessity of being conflicted out. But human nature is human nature. Cummings admittedly and clearly had a professional and personal relationship with the McCartys. She admitted on the stand that they were "friends" before this ordeal. How can you not see that if a "friend" recommended you to defend someone else and in the course of that defense there existed evidence that would require you to essentially accuse your "friends" son of being a child molester that there might be a conflict? This isn't even a close call. How would you feel if your child was on trial for child molestation and you found out after the fact that there was credible evidence that another person may have been responsible but your attorney decided not to pursue that angle and then you found out your attorney was friends with the family of the other person? I would hope you would be so mad you would have to be restrained.
  15. This line of thinking is completely ridiculous considering how Cummings changed her entire approach the day of the hearing. It is inexcusable. She leads them on for hours and hours and hours of work and prep time and strategy etc preparing for the hearing. She is a huge part of their case. She knows this and is helping all the way up to the end. Then at the last minute decides her professional reputation is more important than her client getting out of prison for a crime he did not commit.
  16. Pretty good show. I have to really disagree with people defending Cummings. If the following is correct (hard to remember everything) then she absolutely should have withdrawn. The McCarty's, apparently, recommended Cummings to Greg. This seems fine and logical as the McCarty's had used her before. Nothing sinister. However, when Cumming's own investigator said they needed to look at Jonathan, she should have recused herself. The argument that she asked Greg about that approach is not credible. He is not an expert in criminal law and criminal defense techniques. At one point in the interview with the second victim the victim actually said the person that he was with was "Jonathan". He was asked again and said the same thing. A decent defense attorney could get that tid bit in while still claiming the acts did not happen. It just shows how tenuous the memories and testimony of small children can be. It also gives the jury a possible other suspect if they believe something did happen but not sure it was Greg. No reason at all not to get it on the record. Conflict is not always obvious but it helps to look at it from the other perspective. If it were found out later that the prosecutor had a personal relationship with the McCartys and had evidence that Jonathan could be involved and buried that evidence, everyone would rightfully be outraged. The timeline is also something she should have gone after. By seemingly all accounts, a sexual assault crime reported in mid July was almost certainly to have occurred recently. This should have been pressed much harder. Again, it can be easily incorporated into the "no crime occurred" angle. The boy accused Greg at a time when Greg was no longer there. The thing about juries, and people in general, is that everyone has their own opinion about things and different evidence is viewed differently by different people. As a result, every potential angle that sheds doubt should be included. Lastly, to me, the really shitty thing Cummings did was her testimony at the hearing. People are now saying she neeeded to preserve her reputation etc. Those are not invalid points. However, she was interviewed by Hampton many, many times about what she would testify to. There was a clear understanding of what she would say. Then, on the day of or day before the hearing, she changed her tune. That is bullsht to me. If she did not want to get involved or wanted to protect her image then say that in the beginning. Not after hours and hours of prep work by all involved. Total chickenshit move.
  17. Might be a bit high but high five for “the cream and the clear” reference. Can’t stop laughing
  18. Not to derail too much but I was curious too and read the DA report. I am not sure you really did read it. They literally have a picture captured from the cop cam before the shooting that shows the air rifle between the guys legs. I am not sure it matters if he reached for it or not. If anyone, regardless of race, is sitting in a stolen car at night with a weapon between their legs and the cops come up, you will get shot if you do not tell the cops it is there. As for the Minn case, I am glad they have charged the cop with murder and glad they charged the other cops at the scene. Maybe this will deter cops for covering for each other in the future.
  19. Pretty good debate. Lots of good suggestions. To me, there is really only one bottom line- the union. Cops are human and human nature is always going to be human nature for all of eternity (with exception of true sociopaths etc.). The union set up has made the policing of their own detrimental to the ones doing it. No system is ever going to work if it requires people to do things that are against their own self interests. That is just human nature. If a good cop sees a bad cop doing something wrong and reports it, the union is going to defend the bad cop and make a pariah out of the good cop. A system like that will always fail. I read on here the cop in Minn had 18 complaints filed against him. As mentioned, hard to know If that is a lot but it seems like a lot. However, he obviously was never fired. It is really, really hard to fire a police officer. Really hard. And it should not be but the union has tremendous power. Everyone who has had kids go through school knows who the bad teachers are at the school. Everyone. But we just hope our kids dont get them because they almost can not be fired. Cops are the same way. In every precinct everyone knows who the bad actors are. Everyone. Yet, they cant say or do shit because the union will protect the bad apples and then the good guys get shit on. We need to have a 3-5 person panel made up of the police chief and a group of officers that are elected by their own. That group should have 100% power to fire anyone on the force. No questions asked and no appeal. Its certainly possible someone could get fired unjustly but life sucks sometimes. I would also have no problem with all of the transcripts/evidence from these hearings reviewed by the DOJ. Although it may be unpopular right now, we do need to consider what we are asking of cops. The pay is terrible. The hours are long. The stress is high. They deal with an underbelly that is psychologically demoralizing. And there is no doubt it attracts a certain personality type. I would advocate for a much more tiered pay scale for cops. Start lower but have the ability to get much higher. Use the initial years to weed out the bad apples and then retain the quality ones and pay them to stay. Not an apples to apples comparison but you will get the gist. I worked for years with trade unions- carpenters, welders, electricians, plumbers etc. You would have 5 guys on a line and 1 would be worthless, 3 would be adequate and 1 would be a stud. Yet, you could not fire the worthless one and you could not pay/reward the stud more than the others. In the end, the studs go do something else and everything gets dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. It is the same currently with cops.
  20. This is just fun debate and obviously very subjective, but I do not think you ever played hockey or watched much hockey, certainly not live. How would 5 180 pound guys that are phenomenal skaters and puck handlers etc ever stop another team from scoring? Do you know how physical hockey is? They would beat the 180 pound guys down to a pulp. The 180 guys might not even come out for the 3rd quarter. The college guys could hang out in front of the goal and not one of the 180 guys could move them. Every time a puck went into the corner (which happens 50+ times a game) the 180 guys would get bludgoned. Well it kind of does. When you say NOBODY, I will agree that NOBODY says Gretzky is not the greatest offensive player of all time. NOBODY disputes that. But for the GOAT of all of hockey, you just ignore defense and physicality. This debate was whether or not MY was a bigger GOAT in basketball than Gretzky in Hockey. I am arguing that Jordan was the very best offensive player in the game. Still holds the highest season scoring average (in an era where total scoring was much lower), holds the highest playoff average all time, holds the highest finals average all time, etc. Plus he is included on almost any list of greatest nba defenders. Holds the record for most 1st team all defense. No one comes close to those combinations.
  21. Perhaps you just don't look very hard. You can google many, many experts that think Orr was better. Don Cherry- Hard to find more of an expert (played professionally and watched more games than anyone alive)- He says it is Orr. He is certainly "somebody". More: https://puckprose.com/2016/07/23/bobby-orr-is-greatest-hockey-player-of-all-time/, Steve Simmons- Arguably the greatest hockey sports writer of all time. Ranked the 100 best in NHL history and has Orr 1 and Gretzky 2. https://nationalpost.com/sports/hockey/nhl/wayne-gretzky-was-great-but-bobby-orr-is-the-greatest-steve-simmons-ranks-the-nhls-100-best-players Obviously these are just opinions but when you said NOBODY (3 times) thinks anyone else is the goat I gave you 2 unquestionable hockey experts (as opposed to dorks like me who's opinion is just that) that publicly state Orr was better. The point being, there is certainly a debate. Personally, I think gretzky is the GOAT but , again personally, I think Orr has a better argument for GOAT than any other basketball player has to MJ.
  22. I believe it. They would all be injured in the first quarter. Seriously though, in his heyday Gretzky was maybe 180 lbs? A team of all Gretzkys could never dig the puck out of the corner. Could never move people out from in front of the goal. Teams would score at will against them. On defense, the other team would just sit back a bit and mug. Games would be like 10-4 against. Hockey is incredibly physical and a team of Gretzkys just could not compete physically. Gretzky had decent speed but was very, very quick and one of his biggest attribute was his agility, in that he could get to a top speed and not lose any agility. He also had incredible hands and an innate feel for the game. But no hockey team ever could compete with just guys like Gretzky. No Houston Rockets/ Golden State Warrior small ball teams. The game is just to physical.
  23. At the risk of being booted, I kind of liked the Dr Beeper arguments and kind of agree with him. If say Emmit Smith or Deion Sanders or Christian Mcaffery or any 100 or so world class football, basketball players decided at age 15 to quit their sport and focus entirely on cycling, I think it is very, very likely they would have been a world class cyclists. If Lance, or any great cyclist, quit cycling at 15 and focused on literally any other sport, they likely would not even be good enough to be a college standout. Not to say they are not great athletes and they certainly dominated their sport but they did not compete against the greatest athletes in the world. On the actual show, I was a big Lance defender until the bitter end but when he said he basically sleeps well at night then it is obvious he still does not get it and is not the least bit sorry for his actions.
  24. Not getting into this fight but I will take exception with your point above about Gretzky. I think Gretzky is the GOAT in hockey but it is not nearly as clear cut as MJ in basketball. Gretzky was the all time GOAT of GOATS offensively in hockey but he was, self admittedly, a liability on defense. Tom Brady can be argued as the GOAT in football but was he really better than say Lawrence Taylor? Impossible to know. But we do know that Gretzky sucked at defense. Bobby Orr was a great offensive player. He is still 4th all time in points per game average and Gretzky is number 1 but the spread between the two is not that big (1.4 to 1.9) but Orr is considered the greatest nhl defender ever. He was NHL defensive POY 8 times, still a record. He also won the scoring title a few times in his career. The delta between the offensive greatness of Gretzky and Orr is way, way smaller than the delta between them as defenders. Orr is in the top 15 of offensive hockey players ever but Gretzky cant crack the top 500 defenders. All of that to say that Gretzky is still the GOAT but there are very good arguments for others. During his run, MJ won both scoring titles and defensive titles. It is not even close. 6-0 in finals and mvp all 6 times. Only player in leauge history to win a scoring title, finals, finals mvp and 1st team all defense in the same year, and he did it 4 times. Think of it this way, a 5 man team of all Jordans probably still wins an NBA championship. A 5 man team of Gretzkys couldnt beat a college team.
×
×
  • Create New...