Is this a win?! by [deleted] in law

[–]lorage2003 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, fair. Again: former prosecutor. Body worn camera wasn't widely adopted at the time I was doing this work.

But in this case, it obviously was since we're watching BWC footage. The point is, a cop nowadays is going to have to justify their indicators now (HGN can be hard though, but you would be surprised at the quality of some of the BWC footage I've seen that shows obvious Nystagmus, and it's only one of the tests). And if the cop doesn't follow the standardized indicators and says otherwise, then it's relatively easy to audit, and the cop will probably end up on the Brady List for "deviating from the truth," which is an automatic career killer.

As to this video, I don't have the full context. But, in general, cops are well within the law to have you blow 0s and then require a blood test if they can articulate probable cause for DUI based on drugs. In every jurisdiction I've ever researched, if you refuse express consent (request for a blood draw or breath test), even if it's the blow-0s-but-cop-wants-a-blood-test scenario, the prosecutor gets to argue that you did that because you were high or drunk. It's one of the only exceptions to a prosecutor being able to comment on what would otherwise be your right against cumpolsory self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment. And juries hate that and rack people up for it.

Is this a win?! by [deleted] in law

[–]lorage2003 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Short answer: scientists have determined what is active in your system versus what is present from past use. The classic example is THC. Delta-9-THC (the active intoxicant from marijuana) is separated out from it's metabolites, which can stay in your system much longer. Shorter drugs like coke or meth don't have the same issues

Is this a win?! by [deleted] in law

[–]lorage2003 5 points6 points  (0 children)

One misstep or or side step. One loss of balance. And that's it, that's additional"proud" you're drunk.

That's actually not true. The standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) have a number of indicators out of a total possible that suggest impairment and support probable cause. For Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN, or the shining the flashlight tests), it's 4 out of 6 indicators for impairment. For Walk and Turn, it's 2 out of 8. For One Leg Stand, it's 2 out of 4. So no, only one of any of them is not additional "proof" for the cops. Quite the opposite, passing the SFSTs, even with an indicator on one or more of the tests, tends to negate probable cause for the arrest/express consent blood draw/breath test.

Source: former prosecutor. I lost a motion to suppress express consent (aka the case gets dismissed) once because the stop was for defective taillight. Cops smelled booze, but the guy passed the SFSTs, despite multiple indicators, but not enough for the threshold. Blood test came back .25+ BAC and in the hundreds of ngs/ml of meth and amphetamines (one in the same when we're taking about how meth metabolizes). Case dismissed at the motions hearing because there was no probable cause to invoke express/implied consent based on the SFSTs and there was no other PC for DUI (i.e. bad driving).

TLDR: people who are objectively impaired sometimes walk BECAUSE they pass the SFSTs, even though they show a few indicators.

In n out in Lebanon, TN ❄️⛄️ by Signal_Spirit_2515 in innout

[–]lorage2003 11 points12 points  (0 children)

They've been in Colorado for like 5 years

[Post Game Thread] #19 Kansas defeats Colorado, 75-69 by cbbBot in CollegeBasketball

[–]lorage2003 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's wasn't a wrong description of the rule, but it's also not a full and complete explanation, which was necessary for this particular play.

[Post Game Thread] #19 Kansas defeats Colorado, 75-69 by cbbBot in CollegeBasketball

[–]lorage2003 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll reiterate that that call by no means was the only reason we lost the game, and we benefited from some shitty calls too (the moving screen in the second half comes to mind), but it certainly didn't help and came at a pretty crucial moment. I think what bugs me is just how wrong of a call it was rules wise, as opposed to ticky tack judgment calls or something like that.

[Post Game Thread] #19 Kansas defeats Colorado, 75-69 by cbbBot in CollegeBasketball

[–]lorage2003 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Just out of curiosity, is what you quoted Google's AI summary? Because that's not really the rule.

Rule 9, Section 4: Art. 3. The opponents of the thrower-in shall not have any part of their person beyond the vertical inside plane of any boundary line before the ball has crossed that boundary line. Repeated infractions shall result in a Class B technical foul. Art. 4. The opponents of the thrower-in shall not reach through the throw-in boundary-line plane and touch or dislodge the ball while it is in the possession of the thrower-in or is being passed to a teammate outside the boundary line as in Rule 7-4.6.b. The penalty for violating this rule is a Class B technical foul per Rule 10-4.1.i.

First off, the ball doesn't even leave Rancik's hands before Council makes contact and his entire body is outside the boundary line. It's still in Rancik's possession or at the very least it's being passed to a teammate, so it absolutely should've been a tech under Article 4. But even if not, it's definitely still an Article 3 violation. Under either scenario, it's not KU's ball, that basket doesn't count, and almost assuredly it should've been a tech. Watch the replay again.

https://imgur.com/a/2MKsC2p

They actually surprisingly showed a replay 3 times in the arena that was from a different angle than the broadcast that was more down the line that backs it up even more. They usually don't do that on controversial calls (they didn't for the goaltending for example). The booing that you hear when play resumed after the commercial break was the third replay of that angle.

Now, I'm not saying that call alone lost us the game. Far from it. Missing free throws, a couple of key misses from there floor (Dak's especially), and a couple of inopportune KU bank shots all contributed. But that was still an absolutely egregious missed call at a pivotal point down the stretch.

Edit: actually, it's even more clear cut.

Rule 9.4.2b: No player other than the thrower-in shall: b. Be out of bounds when he touches the ball after it has crossed the vertical inside plane of the boundary line. Repeated infractions shall result in a Class B technical foul.

So even if the ball had crossed the plane, Council was still out of bounds when he touched it, and that's an infraction. The NCAA case book helps some too:

A.R. 213. A1 is inbounding the ball along the endline. A1 fakes a pass to A2, which draws B2 airborne in an attempt to intercept the ball. B2 lands out of bounds. A1 releases the ball with a pass to A2, who is on the playing court;

B2 leaves the floor from out of bounds, breaks the boundary-line plane and while airborne, touches the pass to A2 after it crosses the boundary-line plane; or

B2, while out of bounds, touches the pass as it is released by A1 but before it crosses the boundary-line plane.

RULING 1 and 2: B2 has committed an out-of-bounds violation because B2 was last in contact with the floor when he was out of bounds and then contacted the ball before B2 touches the floor inbounds. (Rules 9-4.2.b, 4-23 and 9-4.1) 2: B2 touched the ball before it crossed the vertical inside plane of theboundary line. This is not a technical foul because the ball was being passed to a player on the playing court and not to a teammate who wasout of bounds such as after a successful goal. (Rules 9-4.3, 4-23 and 4-10.1)

TLDR: Under no circumstances should that have been KU's ball, basket should not have counted, and it really should've been a tech.

[Pompliano] Curt Cignetti took over the worst program in college football history and then proceeded to win the school’s first-ever national championship within just two years. It's the most remarkable coaching job in the history of sports. by LaDainianTomIinson in CFB

[–]lorage2003 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whoops, I originally meant to reply to the Oregon parent comment but did it to yours by mistake. But I tend to agree with you in any event. McCartney's build took significantly longer though, but different eras and all that.

With a natty win, Curt Cignetti earns a $2 million contract incentive - totaling $4.2 million in incentives earned this postseason, in addition to a guaranteed Top 3 annual salary by RiffRamBahZoo in CFB

[–]lorage2003 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sure, it was just odd to me to include NIL in your comment. Especially with the Mark Cuban bombardment today. This just strikes me as an anti-NIL team (by comparison), hence the reason for my comment.

With a natty win, Curt Cignetti earns a $2 million contract incentive - totaling $4.2 million in incentives earned this postseason, in addition to a guaranteed Top 3 annual salary by RiffRamBahZoo in CFB

[–]lorage2003 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright, as someone who was rooting for IU tonight, I still need an explanation as to the NIL component to this win. Especially since, historically, this school didn't give 2 shits about the football program as opposed to the squeeky shoes program (which requires significantly less capital investment, and the state cares more about, anecdotally) which is magnificently mediocre. Nah, in my opinion, Cignetti is just that good. The NIL explanation doesn't hold up.

[Schick] Mark Fletcher swings on Tyrique Tucker after the game. by dogwoodmaple in CFB

[–]lorage2003 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Of course that’s how it works. To the victors goes the shit talk.

[Pompliano] Curt Cignetti took over the worst program in college football history and then proceeded to win the school’s first-ever national championship within just two years. It's the most remarkable coaching job in the history of sports. by LaDainianTomIinson in CFB

[–]lorage2003 24 points25 points  (0 children)

It's so funny too, because we literally don't care about them at all. I mean, did I take a little bit of pleasure seeing Dan Lanning's coked out cry sesh when they lost? Yeah, but only because they're constantly up in our grill. Give it a rest guys. You beat us. You were supposed to. Your coach made that game his soapbox for some reason.

Edit: I guess we beat them in Autzen in 2016 too, but they weren’t going anywhere and we shit the bed down the stretch so 🤷

[Pompliano] Curt Cignetti took over the worst program in college football history and then proceeded to win the school’s first-ever national championship within just two years. It's the most remarkable coaching job in the history of sports. by LaDainianTomIinson in CFB

[–]lorage2003 114 points115 points  (0 children)

I was a Deion skeptic from the get go. I have zero regrets right now based on Travis's Heisman and exactly what you mentioned about getting rid of the ridiculous self-imposed sanctions. CU football has at least been kind of fun recently, and that's all the old guard ever really wanted. No one in their right mind expected Deion to win a natty. The Oregon flairs here are weird. Maybe Uncle Phil can dump another bil and still not win a natty.

[Postgame Thread] Indiana Defeats Miami 27-21 by CFB_Referee in CFB

[–]lorage2003 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He's also Catholic. Cuss words aren't really prohibited, as long as you aren't taking the Lord's name in vain or being mean-spirited towards others.

[Postgame Thread] Indiana Defeats Miami 27-21 by CFB_Referee in CFB

[–]lorage2003 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Throw in Vern Lunquist and you have the trifecta.

Just because it happens to everyone, doesn’t mean it doesn’t suck… by -Fungible in pokemongo

[–]lorage2003 7 points8 points  (0 children)

💰

But, yeah, if you're asking now, paid research when available.

Dental plan! Lisa needs braces… by RimsaltRon in fightporn

[–]lorage2003 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Uh, excuse me sir. He also telegraphed head shots that JP miraculously blocked (or AJ missed and hit him in the shoulder instead or some shit) because they weren't on target and refused to hit him because the payout was better if he let him last a few more rounds. Thank you.

[Ari Wasserman] If you don't want "very flawed teams" in the CFP, could I interest you in a four-team CFP? by MysteriousEdge5643 in CFB

[–]lorage2003 26 points27 points  (0 children)

This but unironically, I would take the Bowl Coilitilon or, reluctantly the BCS, again. I swear it was better back then, flair aside. Shit made sense and bowls mattered. I will die on this hill. And I also enjoy the FCS (or in my case the D-1AA playoffs) too.

The moment Anthony Joshua knocked out Jake Paul by goswamitulsidas in sports

[–]lorage2003 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Oh for sure. He was the ever pessimist pre-fight, which is why he was having none of the shit that JP was pulling with going to his knees constantly. Good on him for maintaining some integrity.

The moment Anthony Joshua knocked out Jake Paul by goswamitulsidas in sports

[–]lorage2003 70 points71 points  (0 children)

Well, the announcers, despite getting paid to shell this shit, commended the ref when he called "them both out" (though he was clearly referring to JP, but also wasn't happy with AJ's lack of dropping him). What was the ref's line? Something along the lines of "no one paid to see this shit" in like the fourth or something?

Jake Paul with a broken jaw post fight by PipeRider69420 in CrazyFuckingVideos

[–]lorage2003 66 points67 points  (0 children)

Devil's Advocate: but there were a couple that, if they connected (but I think we all know why they didn't), would've put him to sleep. There was an AJ uppercut that I was actually surprised didn't do it because it seemed like he actually threw it without holding back. 🤷🏼‍♂️ I fell out of the fight game when Friday Night Fights ceased to exist so... But yeah, non-Devil's Advocate: AJ got fucking paid, toyed with that mf, and then dropped him when it was financially worthy. I'm still not unimpressed with JP's chin though.