Jump to content

Return of the Gaucho

Pure Football
  • Content Count

    2,710
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Return of the Gaucho

  1. 16 minutes ago, Byrdman242424 said:

    .....telling you guys that we better back the truck up to Shanny's house and give him all the money he wants, otherwise we go back to the QB we had for 8 years prior?

    BUT again. Who's in the Top 10 in QBR this year? 

    Uh, who cares?  I'm sure you have a handful of cherry picked stats that could prove your point.  You telling me that the majority of Ryan's picks this year aren't a result of WRs having the ball go off their hands?

    No sane Falcons fan is calling this MR2's best season, or saying there isn't room to improve.  Yet your broken records BS remains.  Either say what you actually want to say or admit your a troll.  Its pretty simple.  

    I will say his QB Rating and QBR are still more than enough to win games, and that isn't even factoring in the things beyond his control.

     

  2. 1 minute ago, Byrdman242424 said:

    ......why is he doing the same stuff we complain about every year....outside of one?

    Because you kids are broken records with unoriginal points?  All you guys do is ask people to prove negatives.  It is pretty transparent but it lets you feel right.  When faced with the overwhelming positives of his career, you delve into logical fallacies and I am starting to get the feeling most of you pocket GMs aren't even bright enough to see it.  

    The fact is that he could be better, but he is in the upper tier of NFL QBs and is more than good enough to take this team where it needs to go.  Interesting to see that you haven't posted much (under this account at least) until this year.  Where were you last year?  

  3. 4 hours ago, uga_falcons_braves said:

    What? You must be blaming the Saints for catching them INTs and compounding his problems. Only one of those INTs weren't on him. The other two were ABSOLUTELY on him. Just dumbass, indefensible decisions. We should've won that game by no less than 10 points last night.

    My comment was about the season, not just this game. Last night he earned 2 of 3 picks. 

  4. 9 minutes ago, Romfal said:

    I'm not here to teach school for the blind but we got a free set of downs on the 1st touchdown, we got away with flagrant hands to the face the drive before I believe it was. Kamara hit was clearly high, I like Debo but that was a ******** hit he could have avoided. Trufant taking Michael Thomas eye out in the 4th was dirty as ****, your hand shouldnt be anywhere close to his face. Ingram got hit in the lower back, nice ******* tacking technique, thats just the **** I remember off the top of my head, I didnt even watch the 3rd quarter after that ******** 3rd interception.  

    Honestly, your memory is **** 50% of these examples. The Kamara hit was waist level til he went down. The ingrahm hit was shoulder to the body, just happened to be the lower rib cage. Tru has never been accused of being dirty and sadly hands to the face happens every game a dozen times without calls. 

     

    Get over yourself man. The game was messy two ways, not just one. The saints 2nd TD was an illegal pick. You can make contact within a yard, as long as you run through the route. That was an illegal block and uncalled. **** goes both ways. 

  5. 3 hours ago, Byrdman242424 said:

    ....can't sell you tickets? I know the feeling. 

    Well that's because your a troll and you don't have any, which doesn't seem to be OPs problem.  Maybe you should go start another Matt Ryan thread before recess is over and you have to put away your phone?

  6. 5 hours ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

    My suspicion would be either the prosecution focused on murder and never touched on IM, or the jury instructions/case law were such that said offense did not qualify here. My guess was that this was not "in the commission of an unlawful act" as, from what I recall, that is typically taken to meant an affirmative illegal act (robbery, assault, etc.). That could totally be wrong but I think thats the only likely answer. 

    Its difficult to say that a given decision is a farce if the jury, after deliberating and weighing all of the evidence, returns a verdict consistent with the instructions they have been provided. 

    Frankly, the narrative of this case since Day 1 has created a presumption that this was just another ILLEGAL ALIEN MURDERING A POOR WHITE GIRL. And it seems very apparent now that said narrative not only worked against prosecutors, it created yet another presumption in casual observers that this was open and shut "justice" rather than a tragic accident. 

    Here's an Op-Ed apparently written by one of the alternate jurors. The questions you've asked are addressed herein: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/06/kate-steinle-murder-trial-jury-didnt-botch-216016

     

     

    That Op-ed is enlightening.  The prosecution chose brandishing as the underlying crime?  I have no idea if being a felon in possession of a firearm is a proper underlying crime for manslaughter, but I do know that the brandishing charge was a reach given what I saw.

    In any event, if that op-ed is accurate, the prosecution let the people down here, not the jury...

     

    Also, thanks for posting the op-ed.  Very informative.

  7. On 12/4/2017 at 1:19 PM, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

    We should definitely embrace the judgment of a random message board user over the multiple days of deliberations of a jury exquisitely familiar with the evidence and testimony of the case in question. 

     

    (no we shouldnt) 

    I don't get this contention.  He was convicted of being a felon in possession of a handgun.  As a result of his posession of said gun, whether intention or not, a human being died.  California Penal Code Sec. 192(b) outlines Involuntary Manslaughter as:

    Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:

    (a) Voluntary...

    (b) Involuntary—in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.

    (c) Vehicular...

    The jury convicted him of the underlying unlawful act, then decided not to hold him responsible for the death that resulted from it.  I just can't see how they could do that aside from either a) absolute complete incompetence or b ) the prosecution focusing so hard on murder that they didn't touch this lesser included offense.  Either way, both parties failed.

    I am not going to assume the jury was made up of San Franciscans trying to make a political point, but this decision was a farce.  I am frankly a little embarresed for the city I live in right now.  

     

    *I will admit that I have never actually shepardized the Penal Code applicable here to determine if the underlying unlawful act has to be of a certain category, but the plain meaning seems clear enough to me

  8. 20 hours ago, WalkingTheDawg said:

    I'm not sure what else the jury could do. The prosecution didn't really deal them a fair hand in this one. I don't know if I agree with some of the facts being withheld from the jury, either. The fact that the guy had already been deported and illegally re-entered the country 5 times may not be relevant to the case but I would have thought that the knowledge of his 7 previous felony charges would have been available to point to a pattern of behavior. I'm not a lawyer, though, so I'm not sure how that works. It seems like about 80% of the folks on this board ARE lawyers, so maybe somebody can explain it to me. 

    Generally, you can't introduce evidence of prior bad acts to prove a defendant was likely to act similarly in the present case.  There are limited uses for that type of evidence, but none really applied in this case.

  9. On 12/1/2017 at 10:37 AM, mdrake34 said:

    @WhenFalconsWin told us last night the jury failed Katie.  I happen to agree with you after reading into it that the prosecution failed Katie, not the jury.

    They both failed Katie.  The prosecution shouldn't have pushed for Murder.  They could never have proved intent without a witness.  There was never enough evidence to convict and it was an over-reach. 

    They did include the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter, which the defense admitted to as part of their defense to the murder charge.  They said he found the gun, picked it up, and it went off (initially the defendant said he shot at a seal not a person).  California's involuntary manslaughter statue allows for conviction even when the death arises while committing a misdemeanor.  This defendant was a felon in possession of a handgun the moment he picked it up, and someone died.  The jury should be ashamed.  

  10. 8 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

    I'll grant, the kind of a-hole who would hit on teenage girls might also be the kind of a-hole who signs "D.A." or "Esq." or have "lawyer" in his personal email address.

    The only thing worse than signing Esq. is putting J.D. in your signature.    

  11. I don't really ever overreact to this stuff, but this team looks awful and the playcalling is beyond pathetic.  Running some cutsey trick play with 4th and half a yard to go?  GTFO.  

     

    The Ravens fired Cam Cameron and promoted Jim Caldwell during their 2012/13 Superbowl run.  I don't know who on the Falcon's staff would replace Sark, but he needs to be gone, or I will find better things to do with my Sundays...

  12. 5 hours ago, mdrake34 said:

    I chuckled at Summer farting and Rick and the president brawling and dropping GD's on one another, but it was a little disappointing for a season finale.  Didn't get any resolution of the building Rick and Morty rift, Bird Person, evil Morty, etc . . .

    Overall fantastic season though.  It just seemed to go out with a whimper over the last few episodes.  Pickle Rick is peak television. 

     

    Pretty much my thoughts exactly.  Was a great episode, but not a great finale. Good to know that Rick thinks he's autistic though...

×
×
  • Create New...