Cool story, bro.

Except that in this video the only person in clear and immediate danger of dying is the guy who got sucker punched and took a header into the concrete. Blind guy, meanwhile, barely got rocked by the first punch and is in no immediate danger of dying. The facts, therefore, kind of negate your whole argument while strengthening mine.

Also, I provided ample links to show the relevant laws which come into play here and would force most DAs into prosecuting. Here's another one: take a look at California Penal Code 192(b). It doesn't matter that the kid was engaged in a lawful act (defending someone else). Someone was unlawfully killed and it's the DA's job to do something about it. Your counter-argument was essentially: "Nuh-uh, cuz I say so."

...wut?

I've argued with you about stuff before and you've always been good at using evidence-based reasoning to support your position. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were having an off-day with that reply (pressed for time in responding perhaps).

BTW, I think the fact that we disagree on this is yet another reason why a competent DA would let a jury decide rather than make the call him/herself. Their job is to determine whether there is enough evidence available that someone has broken the law to prosecute them. In this case we would have the video and multiple eye-witnesses showing a killing punch being thrown. Again, I don't see how any decent DA can NOT prosecute at that point. Their job is to represent the state and prosecute those who break the state's laws. It's the defense attorney's job to counter that the law was broken for good reason (self-defense), not the DA's job. It's the jury's job to determine if a killing in self-defense is reasonable under the circumstances, again not the DA's.

DA's do sometimes decide not to prosecute when there is overwhelming evidence that the killing was justified and a trial would be a waste of time and money, but this isn't one of those cases. For example, if the video showed the bully attacking the blind kid with a knife and then getting killed by a sucker punch from someone trying to stop him, it's unlikely any DA would take action.

At the end of the day, while I think if the kid had killed the bully he would have been charged with manslaughter, I also think it would be unlikely to actually go to trial. Especially if the kid throwing the killing punch is a first-time offender, the DA would likely offer a plea deal for a lesser charge.

Anyways, can we at least agree that it is great that no one was seriously injured in this incident?

Whether or not that's true, he won for not throwing punches.

I'm not a big boxing consumer, but I'm much more a fan of MMA where points go primarily to whoever is more aggressive, which is why I, like Manny, was so blown away that his battle to actually carry out a real fight was penalized.

newt,

Paying $500/mo and getting what you want/afford is not the same as getting what we say you can have. Your such a stooge.

Why would anyone want to rely of government if they don't have to? I was taught better than that. Obviously you don't have any self pride or dignity. Your such a stooge.

In essence the VA is a single payer system. The government pays. Not the Veterans. Your such a stooge.

Blah Blah .. military, Interstate Highway department, police,, Public utilities. All proper Government functions , Granted they are slow, inefficient, for good reasons, as intended by the founders. Your such a stooge.

ACA still doesn't cover all. But will penalize and imprison those who fail ( or cant ) pay premiums. Yea for total government control..Hand over total control of you life to them. Your such a stooge.

Once again you prove that Your such a stooge.


Your friend,
bk33

Ok you can un-friend me.

Okay Enzo. I've already been thru this with Newtboy.

I don't want to have another pointless back and forth.

I'm not trying to start a flame war.

So please explain what you're citing as "the truth" in that seemingly bias "rational"wiki page.

[I say that because "hate-train" doesn't seem like very objective or academic terminology]

Please explain away this instance of Sarkeesian's theft and misappropriation of a female artist's work.

http://cowkitty.net/post/78808973663/you-stole-my-artwork-an-open-letter-to-anita

And this instance of fabricated gameplay footage from Hitman: Absolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRSaLZidWI&t=149

The footage she uses in her FemFreq video implies that the ENTIRE point of this section of the game is to brutalize women.

When, in fact, the game penalizes players for killing ANY civilians.

Every other legitimate walk-through of this game & mission clearly shows the player completely avoiding the exotic dancers.

Please do your best to avoid semantics and objectively justify this behavior. Thanks

You almost never hear of an NHL player being upset (in a litigation sort of way) about injuries they got that resulted from fighting (drop the gloves and throw punches).

In general, the one major incident I am aware of that resulted in legal action being taken against a player was when Todd Bertuzzi checked Steve Moore down the the ice from behind and then drove his head/neck into the ice with his stick in some heavy followup hits. This is mentioned in the wikipedia article @eric3579 posted, and hinted at in the article @RedSky posted from the Economist.

In that incident, Steve Moore (a lower-level player on the Colorado Avalanche) had hit Marcus Naslund (a star level player of the Vancouver Canucks) in a previous game. That hit was a fairly normal hockey hit -- Naslund had the puck, Moore intentionally hit him to try to separate him from the puck, but arguably led with his elbow to Naslund's head. It was a dangerous play, that should have be penalized (it wasn't) -- although I don't think Moore intended to cause injury. It is a fast game, sometimes you can't react quick enough to avoid a dangerous collision like that. Still, I think that kind of play should be penalized to make it clear to players that they need to avoid dangerous plays if possible. Steve Moore didn't have a history of dirty or dangerous play, but still.

Anyway, all of that dovetails in pretty nicely with my previous post, specifically about what leads to a "spontaneous fight". Moore, a 3-4th line guy (lower ranks of skill/ability on the team) hit star player Naslund. In almost ANY hockey game where that kind of thing happens, you can expect that somebody from the star's team is going to go over to the offending player and push them around, probably with the intent to fight them. Usually it happens right at the time of the incident, but here it was delayed to a following game between the two teams.

In the next game between Colorado and Vancouver, Moore got challenged by a Vancouver player early in the first period and fought him. But I guess that the lag time and injury to Naslund (he ended up missing 3 games) had brewed up more bad blood than that so many Vancouver players hadn't gotten it fully out of their systems. Later in the game, Todd Bertuzzi skated up behind Moore when he didn't have the puck, grabbed him and tailed him for several seconds trying to get him into a second fight, and when he didn't respond just hauled back and punched him in the back of the head.

Moore fell to the ice, where Bertuzzi piled on him and drove his head into the ice. A big scrum/dogpile ensued, with Moore on the bottom. As a result of that, Moore fractured 3 vertebrae in his neck, stretched or tore some neck ligaments, got his face pretty cut up, etc. Pretty severe injuries.

So, in comparison:
Moore (lesser skill) hit Naslund (high skill) resulting in a minor(ish) injury, that could have ended up being much worse. But, it was a legitimate hockey play that just happened to occur at a time when Naslund was vulnerable -- arguably no intent to harm/injure.
Bertuzzi hit Moore in a following game, after he had already "answered" for his hit on Naslund by fighting a Vancouver player. Bertuzzi punched him from behind and followed up with further violence, driving his head into the ice and piling on him, initiating a dogpile. Not even close to a legitimate hockey play, well away from the puck, and with pretty clear intent to harm (maybe not to injure, but to harm).


Moore sued Bertuzzi, his team (the Canucks), and the NHL. Bertuzzi claimed that his coach had put a "bounty" on Moore, and that he hadn't intended to injure him -- just to get back at him for his hit on Naslund. Bertuzzi was suspended for a fairly long span of time, and his team was fined $250,000. The lawsuit was kind of on pause for a long time to gauge the long-term effects on Moore, but was eventually settled out of court (confidential terms).

All of this stuff is or course related to violence in hockey, but only loosely tied to fighting in hockey. Some would argue (with some merit in my opinion) that if the refs had called a penalty on Moore's hit on Naslund, and allowed a Vancouver player to challenge him to a fight at that time instead of the following game, it probably wouldn't have escalated to the level it did.

So, at least in my opinion, the league (NHL) needs to be careful, consistent, and fairly harsh in handing out penalties/suspensions to players who commit dangerous plays that can or do result in injuries -- especially repeat offenders. BUT, I think that allowing fighting can actually help mitigate that kind of stuff also -- as long as the league keeps it from getting out of hand and the enforcer type players continue to follow their "code".

Where I live, in California, they shortened the yellow traffic lights by a second or two after installing red-light cameras as a way of boosting revenue by ticketing drivers with slower reflexes who had grown accustomed to the longer yellow lights.

Over the Thanksgiving holiday, I was visiting family in NJ, and learned from a friend's report that the police had started ticketing highway drivers who were in the left-most lane who were not in the midst of passing anyone. Failure to keep right is now penalized with hefty fines.

@lucky760
um...what?
inmates are wild animals?

i guess i could get on board with your opinion if the parameters were exclusively directed toward extremely violent psycho/sociopaths.

otherwise your comment makes no sense.
2.4 million inmates in american prisons.the majority for non-violent offenses (think pot smokers),70% are non-white and to singularly lump them all as somehow being "wild animals" unworthy of participating in normal society,reveals a serious lack of understanding.

the american penal system dehumanizes and has zippo to do with rehabilitation OR corrections.
which is why i referenced the milgram experiment.

treat someone with humanity,even if they are paying a debt to society,and the results will always be a better outcome than what we do to prisoners here in the states.

the american penal system is a racket,a business.it commodifies the poor and those not deemed "of value" and its a travesty.something we should all be ashamed of,not celebrating.

This kind of trickery and subterfuge would be self-policing in a truly market-based penal system.

What a terrible, trerrible load of shit!
By your logic, the middle ages must've been free of any crime. You know, the time where we did chop off hands of thieves, where we executed people real quick for all kinds of offenses.
You can argue for executions all you want but the terrible truth is that it never worked as a deterrent. When every country in the world had the death penality, people still got murdered and raped. And guess what, today you are less likely to get murdered or raped than in the good old days.
That shit never worked and it doesn't work today.
The only thing you'll achieve by making prison a worse place is making sure you'll release more broken, antisocial individuals into society. I guess that'll make everything better. I don't see how it can backfire to throw people into a terrible place where they'll be traumatized and abused, hammering home the message they're not a part of our civilized society, and then releasing them back into our communities. I mean, surely, they'll be model citizens then.

Why don't you just say it, man? You'd like to have Judge Dredd patroling the streets. If we'd just shoot everybody who might commit a crime, nobody will ever commit one. Right?

Most people commit crimes because they think they can get away with it, not because they think they can do the time. A lot of people commit crimes without thinking about the consequences or simply not caring about them.

"Rugby player does his best to get a penalty called against the other team. I'm surprised teams and or players aren't penalized for faking it."

I'm surprised the guy wasn't penalized for taking a shot, he took it, it doesn't matter that he missed and the guy faked it. The referee used his personalty in this to tell the guy to get up and get on with it. This looks like a professional game with a professional referee that has been in the league for years. Likely knows all the players by name, and chats with them during the game.

It may not be by the book but at the professional level there's a lot of grey areas, the idea is the game is a spectacle and that's what the audience is paying for. Referees are there to make sure the game is fair, and to produce an event. This referee didn't ruin the game, he kept it going and kept the players honest. I say good for him, players respect him and his decision, and we move on.

And I sit here wishing to GOD that I reffed Rugby instead of Soccer. Because if this happened in soccer, both teams would be surrounding me whining constantly and they would never shut up.

Hey yogi question for ya. Just posted this video and it made me ask the question why are players not penalized for faking injury to try and get an unfair foul called against another player? Seems like it only encourages this behavior if there are no reprocusions. http://videosift.com/video/Feigning-an-injury-at-its-finest

Payday loans EDB, in the United States: Fast-money strip-center locations have been popping-up all over in every city now like warts on a leper, for the past 25 years, operating in a regulatory blind spot. They loan you money at an exorbitant, unfair interest rate fully expecting and banking on the person loaned not being able to pay back the loan according to contract then penalize with fines when the debt can't be repaid. Criminal organizations have relied upon USURY as a means of extracting money from helpless or uneducated and desperate people for centuries. Mafia organizations the world over have relied on this practice since they began. I don't expect the federal government to do anything much different as much of their activity has been criminal for quite some time.

Inhumane, predatory, sick.

SO it looks perfectly reasonable at face value??I call bullshit when I see it before it happens usually... Cenk here sees it as a wonderful way to create revenue out of thin air by taking the model of the payday loan places that already exist over, not unlike a mafia organization takes over territory of another criminal's organization.

If you think I'm skeptical you are correct, if you think I am wrong that is your prerogative. If you choose to block my comments or 'ignore' them, I don't care at all-It simply proves the point I make continually here, that those who chose to place their hands over their ears, or their heads in a sand-bucket are minion, and the few dissenting opinions are met with torch and pitchfork, either because of the language used to do so is too caustic, or perhaps that the truths in my babble that are too horrible and painful to consider are much easier to deride and deny or to even consider, to damaged sensibilities combined with an ego the size of Asia.

I also consider that your stance on guns and gun ownership as equally skewed, as is much of your political rhetoric. But hey, there are a lot of folks here who think the way you do. I happen to be one of the other people.

And again, Cenk, yer a pompous git whose ego is also bloated beyond fat, and your smarmy, smug delivery makes me want to hack-up my lunch.

Ahhh, but if we're going to use the 'would it happen in real life?' postulate, I would point out that he was commenting as if he were a commentator, not as a player, so why was one player/team penalized?
I don't know why that would be a decent reason for this kind of thing either, most games are NOT like real life in most ways, even this game has many elements in it that are completely unrealistic in order to make it a fun, playable game. If the Xbox1 is going for this kind of unrealistic realism across the board, I think I'll stick with my ps3. I play games for fun, not to allow the speech police in my home. (That said, I don't play online or use the microphone/speech feature, so this likely wouldn't ever happen to me).
I'm just guessing, but is this a feature of multiplayer meant to keep people from spouting obscenities in quasi-public arenas in order to limit customer exposure to unwanted cursing? That would actually be reasonable, especially if it can be turned off with the agreement of both players in an online game.

I think he should be penalized for being a whiny pansy.

If that happened to me, I'd be dying laughing. Not getting my undies in a wad. Pansy.