whatdrought

Just because we stop passing doesn’t mean our foot is off the gas. If you get out to an early lead and can run it down their throats, literally everyone would do that. It’s the best way to put games away. Alphadawg drops dead.

It’s not really a risk as the lawyer will be there screening every question. It’s actually likely a positive as it allows for another piece of corroboration (even if it’s just verbal reaffirmation) that’ll be added to the case file. Furthermore, If the lawyer doesn’t like the way it goes for any reason, he can scrap the whole deal and it’ll never see the inside of the courthouse. By going she adds credence to her claims. - at least superficially.

Send her away. I know the guilt of living with this is a punishment in of itself, but she needs to be locked up for a long time. Why are so many people in our society so damn selfish?

2 things: 1- Is this english? 2- If yes, what the hell are you talking about?

The assumption would be that she wouldn't take that meeting without something relatively bolstering for her case.. We'll see what happens.

I wonder what this does for his status now?

He can't talk up any of the QB's other than Mayfield cause they passed on all of them for a runningback...

I wouldn't be shocked if we played them close and beat them. I wouldn't be shocked if we played them close and came short. I wouldn't be shocked if we slapped the hell out of them. I wouldn't be shocked if they made us their B word again. I think it's a good litmus test for sure. I don't know what to make of the Patriots hype... usually when they're more hyped, they're less successful...

Our defense is better than theirs. If Allen plays a perfect game, we can win. (Big big IF)

I agree. Most of our mistakes looked like Rust knockers... that being said, aint no pats team gonna let us squeak out with a 3:1 TO ratio.

I think it could go either way, but that isn’t an overly believable argument against it being a money grab. One reason the timing makes sense is that he’s universally hated right now in a way that he wasn’t before the past 4 weeks. The court of public opinion is definitely willing to give her the benefit of the doubt cause he’s an ####### psychopath. Not saying thats hats what’s happening, but I think realistically, the timing is better now than it was in the spring.

Fixed. I would love a 4-0 start... the team we saw Sunday ain’t beating any version of the patriots from the past 20 years. That being said, Allen has 120 minutes of game time to figure some stuff out and get ready for the game of his life to punch the dynasty in the face and take the crown. Let’s go!!

Patriot fans have sold out their morals years ago for Patriot wins.

I agree, obviously, but I thought her argument was there was nothing consensual? (I haven’t read everything so ignore me if I’m 100% off base)

Well, my very limited understanding is that she insisted there was no relationship- this shows them in flirtatious behavior and in bed together. If she is claiming there was nothing consensual, this might indicate otherwise. - I could be way off on that.

That’s pretty damning, IMO.

Man, you’re confusing my brain. ? this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause to me indicates that PC has more to do with the arresting side, not indicting and trial.

I’d have to look into it more... probable cause for search warrants make sense, even for arrest to some extent because arrest’s have like a 3 day shelf life before they have to present evidence to the GJ, I just don’t see how PC can be used to indict as it’s not evidence. Swerving while driving is probably cause to pull someone over, but it isn’t proof they were drinking and driving. The smell of marijuana is probably cause to search an apartment, but it isn’t evidence that there’s illegal possession. A bomb dog alerting to a persons backpack is probably cause to search the backpack, but short of finding anything in the bag, what charge is there? EDIT: Probable*

Thats the part I’m unsure of. I have a limited (super limited) law background and in all of expierience I have only ever seen PC used and explained as a tool on the front end to allow the gathering of evidence. Do you have an example of PC being used to arrest/take someone to trial/indict someone, without there being evidence present?

Right, but that bar is still based on evidence, not on probable cause. I think it's probably a line that gets blurred far too often and violates peoples rights, but non-the-less, the system is built to protect the individuals rights and their expectation to be treated as innocent- I know that reality looks much different though. Where the system really breaks down is interpretation. And precedent swings back and forth with different court opinions causing lines to constantly be moved and bad actors to thrive. Luckily, I think most (at least in my experience) law enforcement professionals care about justice and fairness and are willing to do things the right way.

Hm.. I'd like to see the laws you're referring to. My understanding (and I may be wrong) is that probable cause only applies to the act of determining if a crime has been committed and who committed it/ obtaining evidence to that end. For instance- A driver smelling like alcohol may be probably cause to toss the car and force a breath test, but finding no alcohol present and the driver passing the test would mean that they can't be arrested for drunk driving. Maybe I've misrepresented my point. What I am saying is that everyone is presumed innocent in the absence of evidence. Police cannot arrest someone without evidence, the GJ cannot indict, the prosecutor cannot prosecute. The existence of evidence is what changes that. We're also drawing a distinction between the system at large, and the individual actors within the system. Obviously police and other members of the justice system may have their own ideas on who did what, but unless they have a minimum amount of evidence required, they can't act on that and that person is presumed innocent by the system. I'm not offended- I simply disagree. If it was not so, you would have police arresting people with no evidence whatsoever. There are probably a lot of police officers who know a lot of criminals and can't do jack about it because they have no evidence, and in absence of evidence, that person is presumed innocent in the eyes of the system and thus is treated as innocent by the police and the GJ.

That I am sure does happen. Unfortunately. Part of the reason it's so important we champion innocent until proven guilty in cases like this.

Based on collected evidence... He isn't presuming guilt outside of evidence. Thus, the presumption of innocence exists for every single person no matter the accusation until evidence is presented showing guilt. How does this work for AB? - We as the spectators have to stand outside of our personal disdain for him as the human, and pressume he is innocent until evidence has been presented that indicates his guilt.

Do you mean how the system is supposed to work, or how it actually does work?

I think we're splitting hairs... The presumption of innocence exists in the absence of evidence of guilt. Until there is a concrete reason to believe someone may be guilty, they are presumed innocent. The innocent until proven guilty exists in the absence of a preponderance of evidence proving guilt.