Pure Football
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pzummo

  • Rank
    Pro Bowler

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

11,207 profile views
  1. The proper method of measuring the area of an aortic valve is with a banana for scale. Everyone knows that.
  2. http://www.nfl.com/voting/clutch-performer/2017/reg/10#playerId:0ap3000000876100
  3. Got it. Thanks. My original understanding was anything said out of court would be considered hearsay until that person made the statement allowing for cross examination, such as in a legal proceeding or sworn testimony that is admissible to legal scrutiny. In hindsight this was an oversimplification of the definition, which is very situational. That's why I thought statements claiming rape from something that happened in the past would be considered hearsay. I thought the statements were credible due to the cross references checking out, and didn't realize it was diminishing credibility the way it came across. I just didn't understand why they wouldn't be considered hearsay. Honestly, I still don't fully understand it. I understand enough to know that I would rather just defer to the resident lawyers if it ever comes up again. And I'll try to avoid situations where I will need to understand it in real life.
  4. Thank you. At this point, I understand it enough for my purpose in life. My purpose in life will hopefully never lead me to a situation where I am going to need to fully understand this definition.
  5. So if it's taped (video/audio), it can be submitted into evidence because there isn't another person relaying what she said. If it's transcribed by anyone, it's hearsay unless she's willing to say it in court. Correct?
  6. Ok. I'll take your word for it. I stand corrected. Would you help me understand the scenario where a victim's comments are disallowed from submission as hearsay if they are not willing to testify for cross-examination? I read a couple of scenarios, and they were indicated as first person. I don't want to take up a lot of your time for it, so I think we can just get through one scenario to clarify the condition. If a victim says her boyfriend beat her up, but then won't testify in court or under sworn testimony, her initial statement can be disallowed as evidence due to the hearsay rule. What other condition is required for that to be considered hearsay? If she is recorded saying it, can it still be hearsay or is that evidence regardless of her availability in court? If she is not video or audio recorded with her statement and it's only transcribed by a police officer or clerk, is that when a first person account would be considered hearsay since a 3rd party transcribed it? The part that is throwing me off is where a battered woman would tell the police her boyfriend beat her up, having a verbal statement in combination of the physical evidence. Yet those cases are thrown out when she's unwilling to make the statement in court due to the hearsay rule making her statements inadmissible. If her statement is evidence the moment she makes it, it seems like it should always go to court regardless. The police would have physical evidence in combination with an eyewitness testimony submitted into evidence without having to call her as a witness.
  7. Are you an attorney? I’ve looked it up in multiple legal references and there is no definition stipulating third person communication. One example they gave of hearsay is a firsthand witness saying out of the courtroom, “That is the murder weapon.” What you are describing is a rumor, which is a less reliable source of hearsay, and probably a more common use of the term. I read the hearsay rule and there are both admissible and inadmissible stipulations for declarant hearsay. There is even a very specific statement that hearsay may be inadmissable even if the declarant is available for cross examination depending on the situation that the declarant made the statement. I’ve even read descriptions clarifying confusion because a victim’s own statements about themself is considered hearsay. A victim’s statement about a perpetrator is also considered hearsay. There is a lot of legal precedent that completely contradicts your definition. Victims claim rape, domestic abuse, and any number of things outside of court. They make statements directly to the police. If it goes to court and the victim refuses to testify under oath, the claims they made outside of court are inadmissible due to the hearsay rule and not allowed into evidence. I need an attorney to chime in on this one. The way it reads, any statement outside of court is considered hearsay until a declarant makes the statement in court while available for cross examination. That includes any statement by a victim about their perpetrator.
  8. Honestly, at this point, it looks like I’m trying to defend Roy Moore and I don’t want to be associated with that. That was not my original intent. I said the hearsay seems credible, and was not intending to diminish the likelihood that he is guilty. I even said as much in my post. I may have misused the term hearsay, but I would like to understand the legal difference. The way I understood it, any claim is hearsay until it is legally substantiated. If I claim you stole something from me, that would be considered hearsay, and it would not be considered evidence unless I made a formal declaration or a sworn testimony. Is this accurate?
  9. Anything said outside of a courtroom is hearsay. I did note it seems "credible" so that my statement wouldn't be taken out of context. As of right now, none of their statements are under oath and have not been put under any scrutiny as to validate whether or not they can be submitted as evidence. You are correct, if the women make official statements to a court, they would then become evidence. That doesn't change the fact that as of right now, everything outside the note is hearsay.
  10. The entire situation is really f'd up. The statute of limitations has passed, which creates so many problems for both the accusers and the accused. I generally think if there's smoke, there's fire. If that ends up being the case, he can't even be prosecuted for anything, so we might not ever know what the evidence against him is. That also means he'll never get his day in court to try and prove his innocence if he didn't do it. If I had to place a bet, I'd bet against Moore. I do think he's probably guilty, but I also don't think we should rush to convict him without expecting irrefutable evidence from his accusers. In his defense, the timing is pretty suspect. Nobody brought allegations over the past 40 years, and they bring them out a few weeks before an election, with a signed note as the only evidence (the rest is heresay, though the accusations do have credible cross-references, so it's more credible than rumor). I view this situation very similarly to how I viewed the Cosby situation. I became more convinced with Cosby after it came out that he paid hush money to an accuser years earlier. Before that I had my doubts due to the possibility of extorting for money or other motivations. It seems a bit far fetched that somebody would counterfeit a note in a yearbook, which is why I think he's likely guilty, but he should still get a chance to prove his innocence.
  11. Thank you. Helluva block.
  12. I already showed what happened in the Dolphins game. When the Falcons O was rolling in the first half, our D gave up 0. Miami had 134 yards of offense. Our D shut them down. In the second half our O and D both collapsed. Our D gave up one big drive in the 3rd quarter. They played it soft protecting a 17-0 lead, and it wore them down. They got winded and our O sent them right back out responding to that drive with a 3 and out. And our ST’s gave Miami a short field, ball at the 49 yard line. They gave up the 2nd TD on that short drive. So what does our O and ST do to help out the D? They give Miami the ball at midfield again where they only went 20 yards before adding 3 more. Then our O has another 3 and out, giving Miami the ball at their own 34, which is still good starting field position for them. Our D holds on for another FG. Our offense gained 90 total yards in that 2nd half. That’s not a typo. 90. Total. We averaged more than that per quarter last season.
  13. That’s not how football works. If the offense scored 0, Dallas would’ve been running the ball a LOT and Clay never would have been able to tee off the way he did. They ran the ball a grand total of 15 times, not counting Dak scrambling. And before anybody says it was because we shut down the run, I agree we did a good job in the first half. But Morris averaged 4.8 and Smith averaged 4.7 ypc overall, we didn’t shut it down, they had to abandon it. After our INT, Dallas scored the TD. Our offense ate up 14+ minutes on our next 3 drives while scoring twice. What happens to our defense if we don’t answer the TD and give them the ball right back? They run the ball and get our DL to bite on the playaction whenever they want to pass it, severely limiting our passrush effectiveness. 3 scoring drives starting the 2nd half controlling 15 minutes of the clock kept the defense rested while Dallas was falling further into the ditch having to pass to get out of it. Football is the ultimate team sport. Each phase feeds off another. If our offense scores 0, their O wouldn’t become one dimensional and our D would eventually wear down. Our D making stops and TO’s keeps the entire playbook open with better field position for our O. And ST’s converting stalled drives into points/FG’s and changing the battle for field position compliments the O and D.
  14. Witten caught all 7 of his targets for 59 yards. He didn’t have a bad game.
  15. I noticed we did spy Dak on a couple of plays, but didn’t note the number of who we put on him.