On April 10 2015 13:13 Shellshock wrote: It'll be weird not having him in the league but I'm glad he's not trying to string out his career a little longer on other random teams.
I thought he still had a few years on his contract...
I remember reading something earlier in the offseason that the Steelers were done with him though and were hoping he would retire rather than pursue another team. He might have had years left but I guess he was going to be cut? He's actually younger than I thought.
On April 10 2015 13:13 Shellshock wrote: It'll be weird not having him in the league but I'm glad he's not trying to string out his career a little longer on other random teams.
I thought he still had a few years on his contract...
I remember reading something earlier in the offseason that the Steelers were done with him though and were hoping he would retire rather than pursue another team. He might have had years left but I guess he was going to be cut? He's actually younger than I thought.
That's correct. He moves like a mummy nowadays and it was pretty widely publicized that he was going to be cut if he didn't retire.
Yeah, I may hate the Steelers but Polamalu was amazing to watch back then. Was definitely one of the most entertaining players to watch during his peak. Dude was just everywhere on the field.
I actually ended up re-installing 08 for PC this fall (in large part cause you can create your own plays and I could capture and share with the team I coach). I finally ended up picking up the "new" one when it went on sale for 25€ (timed well with when the season ended for the Lions).
I'm giving it less than 24 hours before GreenHorizons has made the conviction of Hernandez into either institutionalised racism, police abusing power to bring down the minorities, or some other conspiracy. The only minor question in this case from the beginning was who actively fired the shots - that Hernandez was deeply involved was clear.
Interviewing the jurors is uninteresting unless they break out and tell us what too so long. Whether it was actual guilt, or if it was deciding to go with Murder 1/2.
On April 16 2015 20:01 Ghostcom wrote: I'm giving it less than 24 hours before GreenHorizons has made the conviction of Hernandez into either institutionalised racism, police abusing power to bring down the minorities, or some other conspiracy. The only minor question in this case from the beginning was who actively fired the shots - that Hernandez was deeply involved was clear.
EDIT: I'm already too late... That blog!
For the record my issues with it have nothing to do with race. I think it's weird there were no black jurors but I imagine his lawyers went for the stacking Hispanics route instead? What bothered me is how clueless many of them seemed. Just not the group of people I would trust making a decision on whether I would ever breath free air again. Particularly when they are talking about how they got to murder 1 (automatic life sentence without a chance of parole) without a murder weapon or much for motive. They may have made the right decision (I didn't follow the trial) I just don't get the impression that several of them got to that decision through a strict legal interpretation of their role.
As someone who has been falsely arrested (and just got lucky as shit I was with someone who could afford a lawyer) it's terrifying knowing that, if your innocent, but a prosecutor has decided you are guilty, one's decisions are to either plea to something one didn't do, or let a group like those jurors decide ones fate. I'd rather have a Jury of 12 lawyers in most cases. Unless it was a crime normal people don't really think of as a crime, like if I was one of the kids facing life in prison for pot brownies. In such a situation ignorance of the letter of the law would/could be beneficial. Whereas in a murder trial, making sure everyone got to a murder 1 based strictly on the evidence would in most cases be better.
On April 17 2015 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote: I'd rather have a Jury of 12 lawyers in most cases.
The appellate system is supposed to solve any issues pertaining to mistaken conclusions of law. The jury system is there to serve as fact-finders. Some situations even allow the appellate courts to review jury findings as issues of first impression with no deference given. You don't need to be highly educated to listen to evidence and come to a factual conclusion though, and one of the main points of a jury is to represent societal judgment of a guilty defendant.
i'm just waiting for the draft! schedule doesn't even interest me that much since opponents are known and living overseas the only games i could attend are already announced (london)
On April 18 2015 15:27 DannyJ wrote: Basically the only thing that could possibly peak my interest with the schedule is what teams are playing on Thanksgiving.