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 travmil View Post
    Anthony could have had one if she wanted to but she waived her rights. Hard to enforce your right to a speedy trial when you willingly sign it away with your lawyer's blessing.
    And the fact that she was given bail, and was even bonded out of jail TWICE during that time.

    She chose the path they took. But then again, it's all the damn court systems fault....

    http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news...rom_jail_again
    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 really think a jury would have convicted her, after her defense showed them the records?

      I seriously doubt it.

      And once again, you're using a case where the defendant was either found NOT GUILTY or didn't even have the charges pressed against them, in order to show how screwed up our legal system is.

      That's one of the dumbest pieces of "proof" ever. What court case are you going to bring up next, OJ Simpson?
      The case just shows how easily the system can be manipulated when the police and prosecutor focus in on one subject. She spent a large portion of time in jail for a crime she didn't commit, with exonerating evidence out there and accessible (cellphone records) and an informant who obviously knew the truth was lurking. Since the police and prosecution were sure she was guilty I don't think it's impossible a jury would've found her guilty either. Especially if she couldn't afford a really good attorney who could really attack the case and had the means to investigate some other avenues.

      Once the police and prosecutor say 'you did it' some people are fairly convinced that must be the case. So leaving her fate in the hands of a jury isn't exactly a sure fire way to be sure an innocent person would go free. And we know juries have convicted innocent people before so I don't know how you could say with certainty that a framed person who the system had charged and locked up with an unobtainable bail and were to the point of overlooking exonerating evidence would be set free by a jury.

      That case shows that the system really does presume you guilty at a certain point. You lose the benefit of the doubt. Exonerating evidence gets explained away or ignored (or never even bothered to chase down). You become the focus and other possibilities are excluded. That's what happened in this case.

      But when she insisted to the authorities that he had set her up, they belittled her claims.
      She gave them the key to what was going on and they obviously didn't bother to give it the weight it deserved because they'd already focused on her.

      That part dissolves your entire argument right there IMHO.
      Last edited by Bball; 07-29-2011, 10:46 AM. Reason: typo
      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
        You really think a jury would have convicted her, after her defense showed them the records?

        I seriously doubt it.

        And once again, you're using a case where the defendant was either found NOT GUILTY or didn't even have the charges pressed against them, in order to show how screwed up our legal system is.

        That's one of the dumbest pieces of "proof" ever. What court case are you going to bring up next, OJ Simpson?
        This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard, and you've used it twice now. Its like being behind bars for a considerable amount of time just doesn't matter to you if they are ultimately found not guilty or their charges are dropped. I really hope you never have to be sitting in jail for months at a time for no legit reason. This lady lost her house and job, and now her only recourse is to try and sue the police, and if she is lucky she might get enough money to help put her life back together.
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

          She'll walk away from it with money. She will end up suing both the Police department, and the man who set her up. Let's not pretend like she's screwed over for the rest of her life.

          Are there mistakes in the system? Most certainly.

          But you're aruging against ALL police officers and prosecutors. You really don't see the slight problem in ALL? I mean my God, you haven't even said, "No, I don't mean all. I mean most."

          You've not once stepped away and admitted that there is even ONE single good police officer out there.

          THAT is the dumb argument. THAT is what I'm arguing against.

          You've ruined this thread long enough.

          EDIT: And it still doesn't address the bail/bond angle. Both Casey, and the above mentioned woman, don't have to spend that time in jail. The article states that she had a 6 figure income, I'm pretty sure she could have came up with the 10% bond to get out. I really doubt they held her, without bail, for armed robbery.

          Can it be expensive? Yes. But guess what. When/if charges are dropped or if/when you're found not guilty, you get that money BACK.

          So even the arugment of, well they sat in jail for that long blah blah blah doesn't even hold water.

          Does it suck? Sure does, but it's not like you're screwed over and you get to rot in a jail cell for the end of time.

          Is it perfect? Hardly. But you can't put a price on freedom, and having the system end up working out for you.
          Last edited by Since86; 07-29-2011, 12:21 PM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

            Her bail was one million dollars. And her business was allegedly floundering and that is what the police believed gave her motive. She apparently couldn't afford bail.

            I'm not saying the police or system were crooked... I'm saying they were wrong. And once they were wrong they were too stubborn to step back and see the bigger picture and admit that. They couldn't be bothered to followup on exonerating evidence because they had their person as far as they were concerned. Exonerating evidence just needed to be explained away somehow. Which is apparently what they did until an informant came forward and forced them to rethink their case.
            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

              EDIT: And it still doesn't address the bail/bond angle. Both Casey, and the above mentioned woman, don't have to spend that time in jail. The article states that she had a 6 figure income, I'm pretty sure she could have came up with the 10% bond to get out. I really doubt they held her, without bail, for armed robbery.

              Can it be expensive? Yes. But guess what. When/if charges are dropped or if/when you're found not guilty, you get that money BACK.

              So even the arugment of, well they sat in jail for that long blah blah blah doesn't even hold water.

              Does it suck? Sure does, but it's not like you're screwed over and you get to rot in a jail cell for the end of time.

              Is it perfect? Hardly. But you can't put a price on freedom, and having the system end up working out for you.
              You get that money back if you pay the full bail of 1 million dollars. You don't get any of it back if you utilize a bondsman and pay the 10% or whatever it is. And 10% of a mil is still a chunk of change to come up with. Especially when you have to pay a lawyer too.

              The system has a major flaw and this woman is proof. It shows nothing but that fact.
              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

                She'll get that money back when she sues. Any settlement, or judgement, is going to include her 10% bond fee and lawyer costs.

                And at the end of the day, she's still free. The system WORKED. It might have hit some snags along the way, and she might have to deal with a headache for a few years, but guess what......she's NOT serving time for crimes she didn't commit, and that's the end game when discussing whether or not the system handed out justice or not.
                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
                  She'll get that money back when she sues. Any settlement, or judgement, is going to include her 10% bond fee and lawyer costs.

                  And at the end of the day, she's still free. The system WORKED. It might have hit some snags along the way, and she might have to deal with a headache for a few years, but guess what......she's NOT serving time for crimes she didn't commit, and that's the end game when discussing whether or not the system handed out justice or not.

                  We've discussed this framing case to a meeting of the minds... which is to say we'll have to agree to disagree... I can't see any way that this was a win for the woman or the system. This was a blackeye for the justice system IMHO. I can't see how you could come to a differing conclusion... but obviously you did. Let's go have an iced tea...
                  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

                    Because she's free? That's a win. The goal of our legal system is either to convict or to set free. She's free. She entered the legal system but she didn't go all the way through it. She didn't even make it to trial.

                    I'm not saying what she went through is acceptable. I'm saying at the end of the day, she won.

                    And for the record, I don't like tea. Although, considering how this week has gone, a nice cold beer would be more than enough.
                    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
                      Although, considering how this week has gone, a nice cold beer would be more than enough.
                      we finally agree on something.


                      ...
                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      She'll get that money back when she sues. Any settlement, or judgement, is going to include her 10% bond fee and lawyer costs.
                      i should say however, that such suits against the police and prosecutors rarely succeed, b/c of qualified immunity for government officials performing official duties. For a recent supreme court case that speaks to the issue (and suggests that such suits will succeed even less in the future) see Connick v. Thompson.


                      Summary, by Jessica Fitts, Scotusblog
                      On March 29, 2011 in Connick v. Thompson, the Court – by a vote of five to four, in an opinion by Justice Thomas – reversed a fourteen-million-dollar award in favor of John Thompson, who served eighteen years in prison for murder and armed robbery before his convictions were vacated. The Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office conceded that prosecutors failed to turn over, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, evidence to Thompson’s defense team that would have been exculpatory, but it maintained that it could not be held liable under Section 1983 for failing to properly train its attorneys. The Court agreed, holding that the district attorney’s office cannot be held liable under Section 1983 for failure to train its prosecutors based on a single violation of Brady.

                      To prevail on his failure-to-train claim, Thompson bore the burden of proving that (1) District Attorney Harry Connick, Sr., as the policymaker for the DA’s office, was deliberately indifferent to the need to train his prosecutors on Brady; and (2) the lack of training actually caused the Brady violation in Thompson’s case. The Court began by emphasizing the rigorousness of the “deliberate indifference” standard, which requires proof that the municipal actor disregarded a “known or obvious consequence” of his action; the contours of this deliberate indifference standard were the central issue in Thompson. In Canton v. Ohio, the Court held that deliberate indifference is ordinarily proven by showing a pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees that is subsequently ignored by policymakers. However, the Court also hypothesized in Canton that there might be a situation in which the need for training was so obvious that failure-to-train liability could be premised on a single violation – for example, if a city were to arm its police and send them out into the community to capture fleeing felons without training them on citizens’ constitutional rights. Although the Court has never recognized such a situation in practice, Thompson argued that his case fit squarely within the Canton hypothetical: the violation was such an obvious consequence of failure to train on Brady that it substituted for the ordinarily requisite pattern of violations.

                      The Court roundly rejected the comparison of the Canton hypothetical to Thompson’s situation, emphasizing that the Canton example is fundamentally different from an alleged deficiency in Brady training of prosecutors. Rather, the Court explained, the Canton example was meant to illustrate a situation in which the need for training in constitutional requirements is so obvious ex ante that failing to train employees amounts to deliberate indifference to constitutional violations. First, the Court reasoned, while there is no reason to assume that police academy recruits are familiar with the constitutional restraints of the use of deadly force, a district attorney is entitled to rely on prosecutors’ professional training and ethical obligations unless there is specific evidence (e.g., a pattern of violations) which alerts him to the need for training. Second, the Canton hypothetical assumes no knowledge whatsoever of the constitutional limits of deadly force, while in the instant case, the prosecutors were demonstrably generally familiar with the Brady rule, even if they were ultimately incorrect in their application of it. Third and finally, unlike police officers, attorneys are trained during and after law school to “find, interpret and apply” legal principles. Just because some Brady decisions are difficult or even unsettled does not make it “so obvious” that violations will occur without certain training. Thus, absent a pattern of violations, Connick was not on notice that such violations were “highly predictable.”

                      Justice Ginsburg authored (and read from the bench) a dissent that was joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The dissent countered that Thompson’s case actually does fall under the Canton example for single-incident failure-to-train liability. Much of the dissent is dedicated to discussing the record and the multiple ways in which the DA’s office failed in its constitutional obligations. Contrary to the majority’s view, the dissent contended, there are many ways to demonstrate deliberate indifference short of an established pattern of violations, and the evidence presented at trial was more than sufficient for the jury to find deliberate indifference. Connick did not ensure that new prosecutors knew about their obligations under Brady, he did know of the need to train and monitor on Brady, and his “cavalier” approach to his staff’s Brady knowledge led to a “culture of inattention” to Brady in his office. These factors, according to the dissent, easily rise to the level of deliberate indifference.

                      Justice Scalia authored a brief concurring opinion that was devoted primarily to addressing and refuting several points made in the dissent. In particular, he complained about the dissent’s “lengthy excavation of the trial record,” emphasizing that the question presented was a legal one. He also contended, however, that Thompson had failed to meet the “rigorous” standard of causation required by Section 1983, reasoning that no amount of training would have prevented the prosecutor’s willful suppression of the Brady evidence. Finally, Justice Scalia contended, it is possible that there was no Brady violation at all; the blood evidence in question was untested, and this type of evidence, which is “on the frontier” of the court’s Brady jurisprudence, is not subject to obvious training standards. Thus, if there were a Brady violation, Justice Scalia would not have found the causation necessary to assign liability.


                      ...


                      also, if Det. Stryder is reading this, don't you think its strange that the fake eyewitness would identify the robber as an Indian woman? Isn't that kind of suspiciously "too specific?" I'm imagining getting robbed at night (don't know when it took place), and I think it would be implausible that I could identify the woman as Indian per se (picture in original NYT story).

                      Comment


                      • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                        The way I'm reading it, is that this specific case doesn't follow in the hypothetical case, because the specific case was centered around DNA evidence, when DNA evidence was just getting started.

                        In order to be found liable, they had to prove that it was an on-going problem that had been ignored. In that particular case it couldn't be proven because the DNA procedures were new.

                        Obviously I'm no lawyer, but that's how it reads to me.

                        If that's true, then there wouldn't be this issue. Police would have pretty strict rules to follow when following the evidence. They obviously didn't check into her phone records, nor did they really investigate the vehicle being retitled, but rather just dismissed it before looking all the way through it.

                        That's lazy police work. There's no bones about it. They were lazy, and didn't want to actually do their job, but take the easy route and just get it away from their desks.

                        But I still say one part of the system failed her, not the whole thing.

                        EDIT: Man, that's confusing to write, and read. Let me put it his way. Say I get convicted of a murder. Then two years later they come out with a time machine and are able to go back in time and watch crimes being committed. They go back and see that I wasn't the murderer. I can't sue for damages, because the technology being used to clear my name wasn't in practice at the time of the conviction.
                        Last edited by Since86; 07-29-2011, 02:30 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
                          Because she's free? That's a win. The goal of our legal system is either to convict or to set free. She's free. She entered the legal system but she didn't go all the way through it. She didn't even make it to trial.

                          I'm not saying what she went through is acceptable. I'm saying at the end of the day, she won.

                          And for the record, I don't like tea. Although, considering how this week has gone, a nice cold beer would be more than enough.
                          I'm drinking the tea but you can have a beer if you want.
                          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

                            Without knowing all the facts is pretty hard to tell, but the hurdles in recovering anything in a lawsuit against the state are significant.

                            Under 42 USC 1983 she will have to show the following:

                            (1) There was an actual violation of her federal or Constitutional rights. If the framing evidence created probable cause, there is no violation and she loses.

                            (2) The violation was perpetrated under the color of law. This is the "knowing indifference" thing. It must be super obvious that she was being deprived of rights and the folks in charge ignored it OR there was a history of these violations that were ignored.

                            I don't think she can show either of these things, and there are plenty more hurdles as well.

                            Comment


                            • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                              Any time you're taking on the state you better be prepared for a long ride and to have a fighter in your corner. It's not hard to fall into a situation of "Who watches the watchers?". You might be totally in the right but if someone in the state wants to rubber stamp the state's motions while finding fault in your's (whether by ignoring issues or not giving your arguments enough thought or weight... or being biased for the state) where do you turn? How far can you bump it up the foodchain? It's a tough row to hoe when you're in the right but you're in a cause that has you swimming upstream in the system.
                              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

                                http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-john-...0,194954.story

                                Seymour DARE officer accused of driving drunk
                                A DARE officer was arrested Thursday for allegedly driving drunk.


                                By News Staff Fox59

                                9:38 a.m. EDT, July 29, 2011
                                Washington County, Ind.—

                                A DARE officer was arrested Thursday for allegedly driving drunk.

                                John Newcomb, 38, is with the Seymour Police Department. He was arrested in Washington County while hauling the department’s DARE trailer. DARE is a drug abuse education program.

                                According to state troopers, Newcomb sideswiped a vehicle before running off the road.

                                State troopers said Newcomb’s blood alcohol was 0.14.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X