Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

    Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
    Not talking to the police, when you're innocent, yet have information, no matter how little, only serves to hinder an investigation. Period.
    A case like this one would scare the h... outta me if I was any of the 'persons of interest'.

    If I was them I'd be glad to tell what I know via an attorney but there's no way I'm sitting there under the microscope, without an attorney, waiting for some movement to be misconstrued as some kind of implication of guilt or to misspeak on some minor point and for that to be the end of my credibility.... let alone every word dissected, context rearranged, inflections speculated upon... etc...

    I can't imagine the pressure the police and other officials are under to name a prime suspect and move this case forward. I just think a person of interest who willingly talks to the police without an attorney present under those circumstances is a fool.

    I'm sure the attorney fees are less at this stage than they'd ever be at trial as well.

    I bet most innocent people who have been wrongly charged with a crime spoke without an attorney present more than any that have had an attorney all along.

    We're all supposed to be presumed innocent. ...And we have a right against self-incrimination. Waiving our rights might make the investigation easier... but nobody said the state's job was supposed to be easy when it comes to preparing a case to take to the prosecutor and seeing someone charged with a crime.

    I always err on the side of rather seeing guilty people go free than seeing innocent people stand accused, let alone wrongly convicted.
    Last edited by Bball; 07-09-2011, 04:26 AM.
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

      Wait......

      Who's said anything about talking to the police without an attorney?

      I mean I did say this multiple times.
      His lawyer would be right beside him the entire time, and unless they arrest him, he's free to leave whenever he wants. But I expect at least some cooperation, and not stonewalling from hundreds of miles away.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

        http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/sto...qp-1404018.sto

        After weeks of clue-gathering and tip-following, more questions than answers remain in the case of missing Indiana University student Lauren Spierer, who was last seen in the early morning hours of Friday, June 3.

        Spierer saw or visited several people that night as she walked from Kilroy’s Sports Bar to her Smallwood Plaza apartment building to the 5 North Townhomes building, including fellow IU students Corey Rossman, Michael Beth and Jason “Jay” Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum is reportedly the last person to see her walking at 4:30 a.m. at the intersection of 11th Street and College Avenue. Spierer’s boyfriend of two years, Jesse Wolff, was the person who reported Spierer missing at 4:27 p.m. Friday, June 3.

        PHOTO TOUR: 'Photosynth' of more than 200 photos retracing last known whereabouts

        While each of these potential witnesses has been interviewed or has provided statements to the Bloomington Police Department in the course of its investigation, each has retained his own attorney and is choosing not to talk further with the press or the public. Their silence has frustrated and perplexed a community hungry for answers.

        Yet to date, none of them has been charged with a crime in connection with Lauren Spierer’s disappearance.

        Why aren’t they talking?

        According to Shawn Boyne, associate professor at Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis whose academic specialties include criminal law and procedure, there are several possible reasons why witnesses might refuse to talk.

        “The primary reason why witnesses remain silent is that they may fear that, by speaking to the police, they may expose themselves to potential criminal and civil liability,” Boyne said. “Although a prosecutor may offer a potential witness immunity in certain circumstances, that immunity only governs criminal actions. In a case where serious injury or death is a possibility, a witness with information may fear the potential criminal and civil liability. A second reason why a potential witness may remain silent is that they fear retribution from the person who actually committed the crime.”

        The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects from self-incrimination through the right to remain silent. Boyne said this means although people might be required to reveal their names to law enforcement officers, they may not be compelled to answer other questions.

        As Harvard professor and criminal justice scholar Alan Dershowitz notes in his book “Is There a Right to Remain Silent?” the Fifth Amendment has been interpreted to include “the right of a criminal defendant not to testify and not to have a fact finder draw inference of guilt from his decision.”

        Attorney-client privilege

        Indiana law (Indiana Code 34-46-3-1) and Indiana attorney rules of professional conduct (Rule 1.6) provide that confidential statements made by clients to their lawyers in the course of their representation are protected from disclosure. As the official comments to Rule 1.6 explain, “... this contributes to the trust that is the hallmark of the client-lawyer relationship. The client is thereby encouraged to seek legal assistance and to communicate fully and frankly with the lawyer even as to embarrassing or legally damaging subject matter. The lawyer needs this information to represent the client effectively and, if necessary, to advise the client to refrain from wrongful conduct.”

        Only the client can waive the attorney-client privilege.

        In the Spierer investigation, not only are the attorneys not required to reveal what their clients have told them, they are prohibited from doing so.

        LAUREN SPIERER PAGE: More on the search for the missing IU student

        Can they be compelled to talk?

        Once a criminal trial is under way, a prosecutor may subpoena witnesses to testify if they are believed to possess relevant information, said Boyne. In Indiana, if a witness refuses to answer a question, the prosecutor can request the court to grant the witness “use immunity.”

        “If the court grants the witness this immunity, the court will then instruct the witness that the state may not use any evidence that the witness provides on the stand to prosecute the witness in a criminal proceeding,” Boyne said. “The grant of immunity does not apply if the answers provided by the witness are unresponsive or do not address the question posed by the prosecutor or if the witness volunteers information. ... If the court grants a witness use immunity and the witness still refuses to testify, the court may hold the witness in contempt of court.”

        If a witness lies under oath, the prosecutor may prosecute the witness for the crime of perjury.

        What about a grand jury?

        While grand juries may be used — for example, in the recent felony voter fraud case against Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White — Boyne said prosecutors are most likely to call them in special circumstances, such as the following:

        The case involves complicated white-collar crimes.

        The victim or a key witness might be traumatized by cross-examination by the defense, such as in rape or child abuse cases.

        The prosecutor thinks calling a witness before a grand jury will increase the likelihood that the witness will tell the truth.

        The prosecutor is facing public pressure and wants to be seen as doing something. Boyne said this can backfire, as in the case of the rape and assault charges against the Duke University lacrosse players that were later determined to be unfounded.

        In the Spierer case, it’s not clear whether a grand jury would help move the investigation along.

        “The difficult fact to accept is that missing persons cases are extremely difficult to solve if evidence does not surface early in a case,” Boyne said. “Although it is natural for the public to feel concern and empathy for the victim, public pressure to do something can be counterproductive if that pressure forces law enforcement and the prosecutor’s office to take actions that may in the long run diminish the chances of solving the case.”

        But once a grand jury is called, witnesses who testify do so under oath, and the proceedings sometimes produce useful information.

        “However, if key witnesses have lawyered up, it may reduce the chance that an unexpected comment will lead the grand jury to decide that there is sufficient probable cause to indict a suspect,” Boyne said.

        What searches are allowed?

        During the extensive public searches for clues about Spierer’s disappearance, Bloomington citizens, including residents and business owners in the downtown area, were encouraged, but not compelled, to search their own private property. As Boyne noted, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects people from “unreasonable searches and seizures,” which means if police intend to search private property, they must obtain a proper warrant issued by a judge.

        Boyne said “to obtain a search warrant, the police must have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the search will produce evidence related to that crime.”

        There are limited exceptions to the warrant requirement, which require special circumstances.

        “For example, once police have probable cause to arrest an individual, they may search that person without a warrant to protect their own personal safety,” Boyne said.

        Last week, Bloomington police and search dogs were seen entering the 5 North Townhomes apartment building where Rossman and Rosenbaum lived. It is unknown whether any potential evidence was obtained during these entries.

        Monroe County private landowners have been “very receptive” to allowing police, professional search teams and volunteers on their land during thorough 5- and 10-mile radius searches, Bloomington police Capt. Joe Qualters said in an interview late last week. Some even contacted police directly, inviting them onto their land. Qualters said he couldn’t think of one example where a private landowner gave resistance to a search for Spierer.

        Reporter Abby Tonsing contributed to this report.

        Reunion Saturday for volunteers

        Volunteers who have helped search for missing Indiana University student Lauren Spierer are invited to attend a reunion from 4 to 6 p.m. Saturday, July 9, at the Woodlawn athletic field off Woodlawn Avenue, between Ninth and 10th streets on Indiana University’s campus.
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Wait......

          Who's said anything about talking to the police without an attorney?

          I mean I did say this multiple times.
          I bet the police can submit questions anytime they want and get them answered within 24hrs. I understand why the police would prefer a face to face but I also understand why a person wouldn't want their reactions being scrutinized and interpreted let alone speculated upon. I can also understand how they'd prefer to think about their answers, proofread them, etc. before realizing they misspoke on an issue or answered something before considering how some other piece of info might've made them realize they were recalling something wrong (classic example: You think something occurred at a certain time and then later realize you turned the TV on and a scheduled show was coming on that means your time estimate could not have been correct for example).

          What they'd like to do is ask some profiling questions I bet.... And the atty isn't going to allow that. "Not Relevant"

          ...Although I suppose they might be refusing to answer any drug use/supply questions.
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

            You don't have to answer any question that you don't want to answer. The right to remain silent???

            EDIT: I should have read your article before I posted that response.

            The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects from self-incrimination through the right to remain silent. Boyne said this means although people might be required to reveal their names to law enforcement officers, they may not be compelled to answer other questions.
            And regardless, I seriously doubt they're going to hang you because you screwed up the time, without any other evidence.

            There's a reason why 90+% of all felony charges get settled before they ever go to court.

            While our legal system is flawed, and there are some pretty ****** people in the system who only care about winning, the odd's of getting railroaded are pretty slim.

            Just tell the ****ing truth. It's a pretty simple concept to understand.
            Last edited by Since86; 07-11-2011, 01:16 PM.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              Waiving our rights might make the investigation easier... but nobody said the state's job was supposed to be easy when it comes to preparing a case to take to the prosecutor to ensure that an innocent victim receives justice.

              Fixed!
              Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

              Comment


              • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                After the Casey Anthony verdict

                I dont blame people involved or with knowledge of a situation talking to the police.


                Innocent till proven guilty. I am sorry the police have to do some work b/c face it if it wasnt for informants doing their work for them our prisons would not be 1/2 full.

                Comment


                • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                  Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
                  Go get'em, Since86!

                  I've got to agree with Since86's sentiment.

                  For those who don't know, I've been a police detective for 25 years. A face to face witness interview is invaluable.

                  There have been times I've been conducting an interview, asking some innocuous basic questions and a little snippet of information comes forth that I had no idea existed and points me in a new, fresh direction, or the interviewee innocently provides me with some information that unknown to them, totally clears them of any wrongdoing.

                  I need to talk with someone face to face so i can get a read on their personality and body language. I'm trained to pick up on certain body cues that I can't get from a lawyer filtered response. You can't get the give and take of a verbal exchange that way. You can't pick up on arrogance, or secretiveness or simply lack of comprehension without actually SPEAKING with someone.

                  A good detective doesn't "look to implicate someone" as was said early. (Matter of fact, I found that statement extremely insulting and ignorant.) A detective's job is to collect facts. That's it. We don't get extra pay for locking people up.

                  Not talking to the police, when you're innocent, yet have information, no matter how little, only serves to hinder an investigation. Period.
                  Why would anyone voluntarily talk to an entity like the police when they are allowed to lie to us during an interrogation? They are allowed to just make up facts about an investigation to bait you into wrong answer.

                  How many nervous twitches have you took as, oh man this guy is hiding something better put the pressure on. When really they might just be really nervous at talking to the police.
                  You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                  Comment


                  • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                    Please cite an example of someone being convicted because of a nervous twitch.

                    Casey Anthony just got aquitted on murder charges and she lied about EVERYTHING, and you're going to try to say that a nervous twitch will hang you? Get real.

                    Watch out, the boogey man is going to creep out from under your bed.

                    Keep living in your fantasy world that all policemen and DA's are the scum of the earth. For your sake, I hope that you're never in need of their services.
                    Last edited by Since86; 07-12-2011, 12:33 PM.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Please cite an example of someone being convicted because of a nervous twitch.

                      Casey Anthony just got aquitted on murder charges and she lied about EVERYTHING, and you're going to try to say that a nervous twitch will hang you? Get real.

                      Watch out, the boogey man is going to creep out from under your bed.

                      Keep living in your fantasy world that all policemen and DA's are the scum of the earth. For your sake, I hope that you're never in need of their services.

                      See this is what you love to do. You take one thing and apply it to the most extreme example. I never said anybody would be convicted over a nervous twitch. But He did say that body language is extremely important in an interview. At what point does a nervous twitch mean that they are just nervous and when does it mean they might be hiding something.
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                      Comment


                      • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                        You've argued for how long that they shouldn't talk to the police because they'd be railroaded and now you're going to try and claim that I'm the one taking things to the extreme?

                        Oh good Lord.

                        I've been arguing that they should atleast sit down and give their statement in person, instead of hiding in NY. I've been saying they don't need to answer every question, I've said they should have their lawyer present, and you're telling me I'm the extreme one?
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          You've argued for how long that they shouldn't talk to the police because they'd be railroaded and now you're going to try and claim that I'm the one taking things to the extreme?

                          Oh good Lord.
                          Indeed.
                          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                          Comment


                          • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                            So please explain what a nervous twitch would lead too, if not conviction?

                            EDIT: Common sense tells me that almost everyone would be nervous talking to the police. So I seriously doubt that being nervous is going to get the police very far.

                            Let me let you in on a little secret. People get nervous everyday over the smallest things. When you learn to take people's blood pressure, they tell you about White Coat Syndrome. People will get so nervous about just getting their blood pressure checked, it will cause them to have elevated blood pressure, higher than normal.

                            So if doctors/nurses/techs are told about the severity of nervousness over the most basic tests, don't you think police officers/detectives would be informed that people get nervous over the slightest things?

                            I mean come on. They're not going to start prosectution because of a nervous twitch. It would get thrown out of court.

                            But then again, that's just my extreme position.
                            Last edited by Since86; 07-12-2011, 01:20 PM.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                              Body language is only one reason the police would rather have face to face interviews. They also don't want to give the person they are questioning any time to think about the way they want to answer.

                              Comment


                              • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                So please explain what a nervous twitch would lead too, if not conviction?
                                Who knows? Maybe it leads to nothing more than more questions that eventually rule somebody out as a suspect. Maybe it does lead to charges being brought. If the nervous twitch gave police some indication that they thought the POI had something to do with a theory they have already been working on, Then who know where that theory will lead them. Mabye sometimes the theory of what happened trumps everything and influences how a person's answer to questions will be interpreted?

                                Probably best not to put yourself in that situation.
                                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X