Messages

Very strange!

I wasn't sure if this was going to be here or on the WTF? Thread.

I can't understand it.

Have we been told who is in ahead of him yet?

Not doubting Belichek's credentials btw. But maybe there was a next in line in place already for many of the voters. Seems like the only plausible out.

There was to be between 1-3 of the following.

Belichek, Robert Kraft, Roger Craig, Ken Anderson and L.C. Greenwood.


The top vote getter was in as were a maximum of 2 others if they got a minimum of 40 of the 50 votes available. Each voter had 3 votes.

Very strange!

I wasn't sure if this was going to be here or on the WTF? Thread.

I can't understand it.

Id like to give this a go please

Down
Armagh
Derry
Kildare
Laois
Wicklow
Leitrim
London
Donegal
Mayo
Cork
Roscommon
Clare
Sligo
Antrim
Meath

Thought Armagh played very well today first half and very professionally second half.  That said Monaghan were extremely poor so hard to gauge how good Armagh were.

1-26 from play from 12 different scorers and 0 two pointers is decent though.

On the hooter issue. I think it has to stay as much as I don't like it. It's the only way to ensure consistent amounts of play. That was the purpose of the rule in the first place. If the hooter goes there's no point with stopping the clock either.

Having watched it again and compared it to both the Bears v Rams game and the Bears Packers a few weeks ago I can't tell the difference between three incidents which look identical but have resulted in three different rulings.

I was thinking that watching it, surely he had it in his hands when his knee hit the ground so it's a complete pass. What does he have to do to have it considered complete?

I thought he still had to survive the ground or complete the process of the catch whatever they call it. They change the rules so often I don't know what a catch is anymore.

2nd best in the Premier League this season comfortably beaten

Last season was a low quality Premier League this season no better when that soulless City outfit are the 2nd best. 

So low quality that the English league has the biggest lead it's ever had over all other leagues using UEFA's results based rankings? 

Last season the 16th and 17th placed teams contested the Europa league final.

For me it's actually a very high quality league.

Good for you.

Well I suppose it is subjective

2nd best in the Premier League this season comfortably beaten

Last season was a low quality Premier League this season no better when that soulless City outfit are the 2nd best. 

So low quality that the English league has the biggest lead it's ever had over all other leagues using UEFA's results based rankings? 

Last season the 16th and 17th placed teams contested the Europa league final.

For me it's actually a very high quality league.

Would like to see the Mount goal offside again, must have been very tight

I was reading on Sky earlier that apparently he was offside on the pass to Cunha. How VAR interpreted that as interfering is beyond me particularly as any decision on interference is supposed to go to the on field referee. Strange Sky didn't show it again.

Legally speaking I think the ICE officer has a workable defence and would even hear. Morally it is absolutely horrible.

I used to dream of living and working in the states. I'm dual qualified over there. I've now cancelled this years holiday to there. I can't see me being back during this term.

Seen a few legal experts based in the states saying that it's unwinnable- if he'd just fired the first shot they'd have a chance of working something, with the second and third shots theres no defence and they say if they were offered anything less than life without parole they'd strongly advise their client to take it.

100% agree on not travelling there, had planned on heading to New York and Nashville at some point but will be putting that off until the orange twat is gone.

I've never defended anyone on a murder charge in America to be fair so I'll bow to their expertise. Here there would be a very workable defence and it would come down to what the honest belief of the ICE officer was as the reasonableness and proportionality of the response has to be judged against that.

My view is that a jury could very well say in the heat of the moment the ICE agent may have interpreted the actions of the deceased as being aggressive and would then give him a considerable degree of latitude

I don't like the honest belief argument. Far too open to abuse for LEOs, or others I suppose, to have a completely over the top reaction and then throw that in afterwards

I wouldn't say it's abused here to be fair. I mean if someone does make it up afterward it's often it's usually easily enough disproved similarly if it's not made up then it's quite compelling usually.

Legally speaking I think the ICE officer has a workable defence and would even hear. Morally it is absolutely horrible.

I used to dream of living and working in the states. I'm dual qualified over there. I've now cancelled this years holiday to there. I can't see me being back during this term.

Seen a few legal experts based in the states saying that it's unwinnable- if he'd just fired the first shot they'd have a chance of working something, with the second and third shots theres no defence and they say if they were offered anything less than life without parole they'd strongly advise their client to take it.

100% agree on not travelling there, had planned on heading to New York and Nashville at some point but will be putting that off until the orange twat is gone.

I've never defended anyone on a murder charge in America to be fair so I'll bow to their expertise. Here there would be a very workable defence and it would come down to what the honest belief of the ICE officer was as the reasonableness and proportionality of the response has to be judged against that.

My view is that a jury could very well say in the heat of the moment the ICE agent may have interpreted the actions of the deceased as being aggressive and would then give him a considerable degree of latitude

Heat of the moment on the first shot you could probably argue (wrongly of course) but what about the shots through the side window when it was clear there was no threat? Surely there's no legal justification for that??

I'm not sure it would be wrong to make that argument. As for the shots through the side window but it looked to me like the guy fired a barrage of shots with adjusting aim or delaying between shots. The different places they entered the car seemed to be caused by the car moving rather than by them being anything other than a heat of the moment response.

I want to be very clear I'm not condoning this. What I am saying is that I think legally there is a good self defence case there or at least would be under the law here. I don't practice law in the States very much anymore and I have never practiced in Minnesota.

Legally speaking I think the ICE officer has a workable defence and would even hear. Morally it is absolutely horrible.

I used to dream of living and working in the states. I'm dual qualified over there. I've now cancelled this years holiday to there. I can't see me being back during this term.

Seen a few legal experts based in the states saying that it's unwinnable- if he'd just fired the first shot they'd have a chance of working something, with the second and third shots theres no defence and they say if they were offered anything less than life without parole they'd strongly advise their client to take it.

100% agree on not travelling there, had planned on heading to New York and Nashville at some point but will be putting that off until the orange twat is gone.

I've never defended anyone on a murder charge in America to be fair so I'll bow to their expertise. Here there would be a very workable defence and it would come down to what the honest belief of the ICE officer was as the reasonableness and proportionality of the response has to be judged against that.

My view is that a jury could very well say in the heat of the moment the ICE agent may have interpreted the actions of the deceased as being aggressive and would then give him a considerable degree of latitude

David, I'd bow to your superior legal knowledge, but surely there's a threshold for interpretation. As in it would have to correlate to the actions. Claiming fear of being killed by the vehicle can't be enough to remove guilt. Otherwise all state murder cases would falter. Surely bringing evidence to show the fear was unfounded and that the actions of the officer were incomparable to the actions of the victim has to play a part. That said, I don't expect that to be the case now as it's gone political and I don't believe there will be a fair investigation either way.
ICE officers must be starting to rethink their career prospects. It's now only a matter of time before this resistance to their presence is increased and their own safety is going to be an issue.

Here the law is that when assessing self defence or defence of another you must act with force proportionate to what you honestly believe is happening. A point reinforced is the Demenezs case of the student shot and killed after July 7th in London by police who honestly believed he was someone else who they thought may have a bomb.

If self defence is raised then it's for the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a two stage process, firstly what was the honest belief of the defendant and secondly were there actions a reasonable proportionate response to that belief. There's no interpretation to it per se. If you honestly believed you were about to be killed killing someone to prevent is likely reasonable and proportionate. If however you thought you were going to receive minor injuries then killing someone likely not.

The reasonableness of the belief doesn't really come into play save that a more reasonable belief is more likely to be an honest belief and vice versa. That said a completely unreasonable belief can still be an honest belief.

Self defence doesn't work if the defendant was the aggressor (unless they withdrew). Or if the threat had ended making the force more retaliatory than defensive. It also doesn't apply if the force was grossly disproportionate

Legally speaking I think the ICE officer has a workable defence and would even hear. Morally it is absolutely horrible.

I used to dream of living and working in the states. I'm dual qualified over there. I've now cancelled this years holiday to there. I can't see me being back during this term.

Seen a few legal experts based in the states saying that it's unwinnable- if he'd just fired the first shot they'd have a chance of working something, with the second and third shots theres no defence and they say if they were offered anything less than life without parole they'd strongly advise their client to take it.

100% agree on not travelling there, had planned on heading to New York and Nashville at some point but will be putting that off until the orange twat is gone.

I've never defended anyone on a murder charge in America to be fair so I'll bow to their expertise. Here there would be a very workable defence and it would come down to what the honest belief of the ICE officer was as the reasonableness and proportionality of the response has to be judged against that.

My view is that a jury could very well say in the heat of the moment the ICE agent may have interpreted the actions of the deceased as being aggressive and would then give him a considerable degree of latitude

Legally speaking I think the ICE officer has a workable defence and would even hear. Morally it is absolutely horrible.

I used to dream of living and working in the states. I'm dual qualified over there. I've now cancelled this years holiday to there. I can't see me being back during this term.

When Donegal played an ineligible player against Armagh two years ago they lost the points but Armagh didn't get them because they didn't lodge a protest.

Does the fact Down got the points mean the rules have changed about requiring protests or did Down protest?