User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.4914 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Esoteric throws a 'hard slider' Posted: May 14, 2012 at 09:45 PM (#4131499)I feel bad for Torii, since I can't even remotely conceive how this is his fault in any way.
Can someone explain why Hunter would be on the "restricted" list, however? That always struck me as a quasi-punitive thing, though I admit I really don't understand how it works.
But now they apparently have a "relatively new rule that players can use when they have an urgent family matter to deal with." So what do they decide to call this new list? The "seven-day restricted list" of course. Not like that could possibly cause any confusion or anything.
Then I checked his age: Hunter was born in July of 1975 - he'll be 37 years old in two months.
So, he was 19 or 20 when he became a father. That's a lot younger than most of my friends have become parents, but I realize that most of my friends did not lock into their current profession six days before their 18th birthday (as Hunter did in July, 1993). For that matter, most of my friends haven't made $116 million through their 36th birthday.
Come to think of it, I think most of us (myself included) would be hard-pressed to remotely put ourselves in the shoes of somebody like Torii Hunter, or his son. And so it goes.
My first reaction to this story was, "Torii Hunter has a son who is 17 years old?! Man, I'm getting old!
Ditto.
2012 - 17 = 1995?
Did Torii name his son after Hootie?
Nothing is too pedantic for this crowd. Nothing.
In the same vain, it's helpful not to get too wrapped around the axle over the language used in the report. A "child" might be another 17-year old and sexual battery seems to be just about anything that makes some random person go "EWWWW" these days. Let's wait to see what the facts of the case are.
The fact that there were five them makes this a lot more serious than something that makes some random person uncomfortable.
Raised his child without a sense of personal responsibility, and with the belief that he could get whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted?
In the same vain...
Actually, it's "vein".
Felonies are the public's business. Hence, "The People vs. XXX".
Subtle snark is the most dangerous kind of snark.
That was an awesome leap off Conclusion Cliff. Enjoy the ride!
I think Fancy was just citing a possible way this could be Hunter's fault, not saying that was actually the case.
Forget the pejoratives of the "restricted list", move past the blame by association he may draw from the son's behavior: this may be the worst thing we learn about Torii today.
I think this is only his 2nd oldest son, he missed a game last season (or it might have been 2010) because he was attending his son's high school graduation. So he was definitely a dad before he was out of high school.
I don't know about that. A similar situation happened with Matt Kemp and Sheldon Williams (the NBA player), where they were part of a travel basketball team. They arrested the whole group for rape and sexual assault despite the evidence that only Sheldon Williams was the only person in the group to allegedly have sex with the accuser.
It still annoys me that Matt Kemp's wikipedia's page still claims he was arrested on a rape charge because he's now the most famous of the group that was arrested.
Don't know about Darius, but he could just be at the wrong place, wrong time and getting swept up into the web.
It still annoys me that Matt Kemp's wikipedia's page still claims he was arrested on a rape charge because he's now the most famous of the group that was arrested.
Don't know about Darius, but he could just be at the wrong place, wrong time and getting swept up into the web.
How do you "just get swept up in the web"? Do you mean he wasn't there? Because, that's a valid defense.
In any other case, being present when a sexual assault is committed (and doing nothing to stop it, or call police) is criminal, even if you just watch.
Why isn't Mike McQueary being arrested then?
Technically, a group of Primates is a "barrel" not a "crowd."
I thought it was "asshat"
Looks like this may be the first application of the BTF backed "He should have his children taken away" statute.
You must not have got the memo:
1. Nothing's anybody's business.
2. Nothing's anybody's fault.
Carry on.
Why isn't Mike McQueary being arrested then?
He didn't stay and watch, he interrupted it, and he reported it (not to the right people).
If you stay and watch a crime being committed, you're going to at least be charged as an accesory, if not a co-conspirator.
If Hunter's son didn't do anything more than watch, he'll be given ample opportunity to roll on his guiltier friends in exchange for a light plea bargain.
Actually, the period should be INSIDE the quotes: "vein."
This is fun!
The period inside the quotation marks is probably a remnant of the printing press with movable block type. Some people advocate that the period should be on the outside to reflect a true quotation of the phrase.
You're an accessory. If you ride along on a bank robbery, and don't do any robbing, you're still an accessory.
Are you claiming you can be hanging out at your friend's house, and he grabs the neighbor, drags her into the living room and starts raping her, and you can just sit there watching, and be free of criminal liability?
If you don't report it, you're at least an accessory after the fact, but probably more, since your silence during the crime will be construed as encouragement. The mere presence of extra people not intervening to help the victim adds menace to the situation.
I'm no lawyer either, but this is what Wiki has to say as to an accessory.
It seems merely knowing a crime has been committed, even if you are not present, can make you an accessory if you don't report it.
If you were present during a sexual assault, and didn't report it, you'd have to be able to convince the jury that you believed no crime had been committed.
What leads you to believe that? I looked, but mine seems to be working perfectly.
Unless you are a so-called mandatory reporter (which generally applies only to child abuse), you are under no obligation to report a crime. You may not take any steps to conceal a crime, or to aid the perpetrator in doing so or in escaping, but you do not have an affirmative duty to come forward. (Note that the fifth amendment would make it virtually unworkable to make that a crime. If it were a crime to fail to come forward, then when they arrested and prosecuted the rapist, they would have to give all witnesses immunity before securing their testimony against the rapist.)
(*) Of course, don't try that at home, because you're going to be arrested and prosecuted, and you'll end up having to convince a jury that you had no part in the robbery.
Unless you are a so-called mandatory reporter (which generally applies only to child abuse), you are under no obligation to report a crime. You may not take any steps to conceal a crime, or to aid the perpetrator in doing so or in escaping, but you do not have an affirmative duty to come forward. (Note that the fifth amendment would make it virtually unworkable to make that a crime. If it were a crime to fail to come forward, then when they arrested and prosecuted the rapist, they would have to give all witnesses immunity before securing their testimony against the rapist.)
Even if this is technically true, I can't imagine the law actually works like this. If you are present at a crime, and don't report it, you're going to be treated as an accessory. If you ride along on a bank robbery, and don't report it, no jury will ever believe you weren't an accomplice.
And, quite frankly that's the way it should be. Otherwise, it's a horrible law. I see literally no downside to jailing people who witness serious felonies and refuse to report them.
Riding along is a lot farther along the mens rea spectrum than "present". Do you really thing that someone standing on the corner waiting for a bus who witnesses a stranger break into a store across the street, and fails to report it, will be tried as an accomplice?
I'm assuming a relationship to the criminal; that's the situation under discussion. Although, quite frankly, I'd have no problem with failing to report a crime being a crime, in and of itself. Logistically, there's basically no way witnesses unrelated to the perpetrator, and unknown to the victim are ever going to be identified.
People have been known to be killed for reporting crimes. There is a deterrent to doing so.
Sure, which is why society should want to put a deterrent force in the other direction. If people are scared to report crimes, all the more reason to make them scared not to report crimes.
I have less than zero sympathy for people who refuse to participate in the defense of the society in which they live, whether it be through shirking jury service, refusing to report crimes, undermining the right and ability to engage in self-defense, etc.
Yeah, that whole liberty thing; who needs it?
Well that sounds like a pleasant place to live.
Riding along is a lot farther along the mens rea spectrum than "present". Do you really thing that someone standing on the corner waiting for a bus who witnesses a stranger break into a store across the street, and fails to report it, will be tried as an accomplice?
As Kurt correctly implies, a person riding along in a bank robbery generally can be presumed to have known what his fellow passengers were up to before he entered the car. (Not always, but it's a reasonable presumption.) But when a person at a night club sees someone at the next table plugging a band member, it's hard to see how not immediately calling the police makes him any sort of an "accomplice".
That's not liberty. You have less than zero right to assist a criminal in escaping justice.
If you don't want to get involved, too bad. Go live in the woods where you don't depend on the structures of civil society.
Well that sounds like a pleasant place to live.
You think a society where criminals go unpunished b/c people can't be bothered to get involved is pleasant?
In a decent, well functioning society, no one would even consider not reporting a violent crime. A well functioning society would actively shun any neighbor, friend or family member who witnessed a serious crime and refused to come forward.
Edit: I am, of course, not talking about totalitarian states where the governmental structures and laws themselves are criminal.
Duh, Latham v. Seinfeld, Costanza, Kramer, Benes 596 N.E. 2d 401 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992).
Jerry, George, Cosmo, and Elaine got a year for that.
Stating something as fact does not make it so. You're entitled to your opinion on the matter, and I'm entitled to think you're out of your mind.
Also, I think we define the word "assist" differently.
More pleasant than one where I live in constant fear of being punished for inaction, yes.
Since no such society has ever existed, I think you're just fantasizing.
This is the key. Most gang-related crimes, for example, don't occur in decent, well-functioning societies. They occur in crappy neighborhoods where the police can't and won't defend you and you can't defend yourself unless you bunker down inside and sandbag the windows. In this scenario, a law mandating reporting gives witnesses a choice between prison and either leaving town or getting shot.
Well, I can think of two:
1) As I explained above in 41, it's unworkable because of the fifth amendment. You can only "jail people" who you don't want to use as witnesses against the actual criminal. You have to immunize everyone who you do want to use as a witness.
2) Rather than incentivizing people to come forward, what you're actually doing is incentivizing people to say that they DIDN'T see anything. (Go ahead: try to draft such a law.) Consider: you're awoken by loud arguing outside your apartment building late at night. You peek outside, see some people who look like they're fighting. But it's very late, you have an early morning flight to catch, and maybe they're just some drunk friends being boisterous. So you go back to sleep. You catch your flight, come home a week later, and police show up at your door as they're canvassing for witnesses. You (a) tell them that you did see something, thereby confessing to a crime yourself, or (b) claim you were asleep and didn't see anything at all.
1) As I explained above in 41, it's unworkable because of the fifth amendment. You can only "jail people" who you don't want to use as witnesses against the actual criminal. You have to immunize everyone who you do want to use as a witness.
2) Rather than incentivizing people to come forward, what you're actually doing is incentivizing people to say that they DIDN'T see anything. (Go ahead: try to draft such a law.) Consider: you're awoken by loud arguing outside your apartment building late at night. You peek outside, see some people who look like they're fighting. But it's very late, you have an early morning flight to catch, and maybe they're just some drunk friends being boisterous. So you go back to sleep. You catch your flight, come home a week later, and police show up at your door as they're canvassing for witnesses. You (a) tell them that you did see something, thereby confessing to a crime yourself, or (b) claim you were asleep and didn't see anything at all.
1) Of ocurse. You always give a break to those who testify, even if they are real accessories or accomplices. I don't want to put them in jail, I want them to testify against the actual doers.
2) In your case it wasn't clear you witnessed a crime. I'm perfectly happy to limit it to people who know, and/or are in company of the perp.
Let's take a hyporthetical case that sounds like what may have happened here. 4 or 5 teenagers are together, when one more more of them committs a sexual assault in the presence of the others (can be either a forcible rape, or an underage girl). The ones who are not physically involved in the assault should be criminally liable, unless they report the incident, even if they only watch silently.
It sure didn't help that their lawyer slept with the big-breasted witness.
And the response to any such neigborhoods should be a massive application of police force, until people no longer fear the gangs. I don't care what the cost (cut social security, welfare, defense-hell depoly the military, schools, whatever), you keep adding police force until law and order are restored.
If you have to put an APC and squad of Marines at every corner and stop and frisk every single person in the neighborhood, every block, you break the gangs. If you have to try known gang members in absentia, and put "dead or alive" bounties on them (like the Old West) you break the gangs.
I'm pretty much a absolutist nutjob on preservation of basic law and order. If you are not safe in your person and your property, all your other rights are meaningless. I'd much rather live under a Monarchy that ensured basic public safety than live under a "democracy" that allows violence like you see in Northern Mexico today.
And with all that, all you will have done is replaced one or more gangs with an even more powerful gang; one that will be committing the same (or worse) crimes as the gangs that they replaced. Or do you think that because someone wears a certain type of uniform or other garb that they are immune from committing criminal acts?
DB
They are, if they were part of the conspiracy that agreed to do it (or any crime, really), or if they were present and encouraged it in any way. The odds are extremely low that this case will actually fit your hypo of happening upon a crime, standing there mute and still, and not reporting it.
If there's a conspiracy, you're guilty even if you're silent. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy to commit the precise crime committed.
Wouldn't it make more sense to look at how places with low violent crime rates achieve that objective? Take Hong Kong for example. Any man, woman or child can walk drunk off his/her ass from one end of town to the other with the only risk being traffic accident or falling in the ocean. Violent crimes just aren't tolerated outside of triad societies, and they stay away from civilians for the most part...unless you fail to pay your bar bill or something.
FTFY.
EDIT: OK, that was snarky, but seriously, a monarchy that destroys liberty but preserves total law and order is a horrifying thought to me. Clearly, not to you. I don't think there's any point in continuing the discussion, because we're so far apart we'll never get close.
Not really, we're trying to do this in Afghanistan and Iraq, and their gangs and killers still get to murder and threaten people.
I expect that you would at least insert the word "knowingly" here, especially for underage girls. I doubt you're suggesting that a group of teenagers have the responsibility to verify the age of everyone that each of their friends hooks up with in their presence.
How about non-violent crimes like drug use or underage drinking? Would you feel obligated to call the police if your neighbor is smoking a joint on his terrace or his 20-year old son is drinking a beer?
If you have to put an APC and squad of Marines at every corner and stop and frisk every single person in the neighborhood, every block, you break the gangs. If you have to try known gang members in absentia, and put "dead or alive" bounties on them (like the Old West) you break the gangs.
Really? Unlimited suspicion-free stop-and-frisks? That sounds like a recipe for a bit of civil unrest.
As for reporting a crime - depends on the act in question, doesn't it? Where do you personally draw the line? For myself, I probably should've reported some things that I haven't...
Actually, the period should be INSIDE the quotes: "vein."
This is fun!
Like a moth to the flame...
Or maybe there was a 17 y.o. girl at the party that willingly had sex with one of the guys and her mother heard about it, was upset, and convinced the daughter to say it was forced. And the other guys who were at the party got caught up in the whole thing because they were there. Are the guys responsible? They didn't think a crime happened at the time, what would they report? What I described DOES happen.
The main question I have is when did a 17-year-old become an adult, either for purposes of criminal law or for reporting their names in the newspaper?
"Sexual assault of a child" sounds pretty bad, but this is a situation where I want to wait for all of the facts to come out.
I believe that the girl is 16 and the boys are 17. The term "child" seems like a little over the top.
When I hear "sexual assault of a child," I imagine a 40-year-old molesting a 7-year-old. Assuming for the sake of argument that consensual sexual behavior between teenagers should be criminalized, we still should have a different name for that crime.
This might not be consensual behavior, though, since one of the five boys is charged with unlawful restraint.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main