• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bearrock

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Redskins Fan Since
    seems like forever
  • Favorite Redskin
    Darrell Green
  • Not a Skins Fan? Tell us YOUR team:
    WHAT!!!!!! Blasphemy
  • Location
    Fairfax VA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. bearrock

    ***2019-2020 NBA Offseason Thread***

    Soooooo, any move to DC in your near future? Blink once for yes, twice for I have to think some more before saying yes.
  2. bearrock

    ***2019-2020 NBA Offseason Thread***

    Ah, I see. Thanks
  3. bearrock

    ***2019-2020 NBA Offseason Thread***

    Ibaka won before KD?
  4. How many times must we say this? This post is worthless without pi... I mean 4k 60fps VR videos.
  5. bearrock

    ***2019-2020 NBA Offseason Thread***

    If I didnt have so much character building as a result of my DC fandom, I would make such a fierce evil eye at you that the chances of your fingers tingling unpleasantly would rise by at least two thousandths of a percent. No! Make that three thousandths! Yes. Yes he would.
  6. bearrock

    ***2019-2020 NBA Offseason Thread***

    But what's to stop LeBron from taking a discounted contract? But I agree, hard cap would be better on putting small market teams on equal footing. I doubt Player's Association would go for it though
  7. bearrock

    ***2019-2020 NBA Offseason Thread***

    Finals was competitive because GSW was missing it's best player for the series and missing Klay for game 3 and crucual stretch of game 6 If KD plays it's a laugher. There are restrictions in pursuing a chosen profession all the time. You may be able to work in a chosen profession for a chosen company in city X, but not city Y. If you view NBA as a corporation and individual teams as the divisions in the corporation (which is the way player movement would be viewed as a league health issue), then any employee may have to decide between working where your employer assigns you and finding another job to go live where you want. If you're miserable living in NO, no one is forcing you to be a NBA player. Also, as I said, if you don't view super team structure that resulted in GSW in five straight finals and LeBron representing the east for nearly a decade as a problem (and I sense you don't), then the sacrifice that would be imposed on the players don't make sense. But I believe the health of the league depends on parity and hope for respective fanbases, long term, which is not possible under the current structure for non-major markets unless they end up getting super lucky with injuries.
  8. bearrock

    ***2019-2020 NBA Offseason Thread***

    At some point there's a trade off between ensuring the best product from a league perspective and player's right to free movement. If you're getting paid max money, it seems like an okay compromise to require that you work at a particular location (of course, from a macro perspective, no one is forcing them to play pro basketball. You can view designated location as the cost of being employed in the NBA as a max player.). It's far less draconian than NFL franchise system. If someone feels super teams are not a problem for the league, that's a different issue.
  9. bearrock

    ***2019-2020 NBA Offseason Thread***

    Why shouldn't all max contracts be restricted contracts? Just institute a rule that allows teams to keep their free agents by offering max contracts. If you're getting the max, what does it matter who you get it from? As it stands, all top picks essentially become a limited stint unless you're in a major market.
  10. bearrock

    The Official Washington Wizards Thread: The JOHN WALL ERA

    Another thing I wonder about is how Ted would even know that this is an offer that Ujiri would even consider? Has he interviewed him? (Why would the Raptors give permission?). What if Ujiri just laugh at Ted and says what have you been smoking?
  11. Meanwhile at my therapist's office: "Show on this doll where PleaseBlitz hurt you"
  12. I'll agree with this in that miniseries is a tv show, nothing more, nothing less. To get at the reality and the evidence, we need to delve deeper into it, beyond one filmmaker's presentation of the story. I do think that the miniseries presents a lot of things correctly and the shoddy police and prosecutorial work, should give people a lot of food for thought. At the end of the day, five people spent years in prison for something that they never would have been convicted of if all the gatherable facts were presented. To me, that's enough for anger even without the racial overtones. You're right, it was not across the board 7 hours straight interrogation without parents or counsel. CENT PK CASE COLLPSD.1st To me, the fact that the three teenagers didn't admit to anything while parents were present (who were not allowed to coach the teens according to the detective in the article you previously posted) but then made damning confessions after the parental figures were no longer present makes the confession very suspect. I have to wonder what happened during that period of absence and that skews my entire view of the confession.
  13. There's a distinction between "improperly" and "racial bias/discrimination". They could have (and in my opinion did) act improperly by interrogating five teenagers for 7 hours without counsel or parents and then building an entire case off that. They did act improperly by failing to look into other possibilities, which may have led them to Reyes, who committed rape in Central Park two days before the incident in question, which could have led them to connecting Reyes with the crime based on physical evidence. This doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that the police/DA were engaged in overt or implicit racial discrimination. Civil trial on wrongful conviction, malicious prosecution, and racial discrimination has no bearing on criminal conviction of the accused. Jury may decide that they see insufficient evidence to conclude that the state lacked probable cause to prosecute or that they don't see the state engaging in wrongful actions. Or that any wrongdoing by the state was a result of good faith mistake and not a result of racial animus. Jury does not have to conclude that the convicted are actually guilty by preponderance of the evidence to decide for the state in these civil actions. I will say that in light of Reyes' confession and DNA evidence linking him to the rape (the sole DNA evidence in the case), that no reasonable prosecutor would have decided to prosecute at the time and no reasonable jury could conclude that the five are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It's a TV show. This isn't news or even a documentary. The chances of actual dialogues throughout the show being true to any high degree is slim to none. As to actual things that were done (centered in episode 2 about conspiracy between prosecutor and police), I have to assume there's a lot of dramatic license there (simply because none of the involved have admitted to any conspiracy and that's how lot of TV shows are). At the same time, proving a conspiracy in court is always difficult unless somebody rolls or people involved are stupid. Two people can look at the same instance of police and DA ignoring conflicting evidence and inconsistent timeline and one may conclude railroading due to racial discrimination, the other may conclude shoddy policy work. I think we have enough for the shoddy police work. As to racial bias, I don't know enough about the case to conclude on that. We'll probably get a better picture as all the materials eventually get unsealed. Marty Tankleff case took about 7 years to settle after vacating the conviction (well, state portion. The suit against county and police was settled 11 years later. State was over 3 million, local was over 10 million). I don't believe there was any political outcry over his case to be resolved. I don't think most attorneys would view lengthy litigation and eventual settlement as a weakness in a plaintiff's case. For example, the central park five case sued for 250 million and sought damages for both wrongful conviction and racial bias. They are entirely different ball games. Racial bias is going to entail looking at the history of the officers and prosecutors involved, which the defense is going to strenuously object to as a fishing expedition. Evidences that filmmakers used to craft their story may not be admissible in court, so the plaintiff's attorney has to try to get at the proof another way. There are a myriad of things that can delay a case. What I can say is that a case brought in Federal Court in 2003 won't get delayed for 10 years just because plaintiffs feel their case isn't strong and they need more time to dig around, hoping to land on a smoking gun. Judges and courts, especially at the federal level, get evaluated on various metrics and length to resolve a case is very high on the list. Unless the judge was hellbent on pissing off every colleague in the building, you wouldn't let a plaintiff drag out a weak case for 10 years while they go blindly fishing for evidence. The document release is a result of agreement resolving a lawsuit by the New York Times for access. It's not two chummy lawyers holed up in a conference room agreeing to keep things out of public light. If prosecutors and defense were unreasonably dragging their feet, I would imagine NYT would have no qualms about suing again. That the partial release of documents (I believe that was 200K pages?) took 3+ years speaks to the sheer volume of material involved in the case. You may be justified in saying you are not certain that they are as biased as shown in the miniseries (again, it's a TV show). I can't speak to what the evidence is until all the material gets released. Even then, what an admissible evidence would show in court and what a reasonable person would conclude based on all credible information are not necessarily the same. While they may both be theories, Reyes' confession and Manhattan DA's conclusion are supported by physical evidence and lengthy independent corroboration, where the DA's office had every motivation to conclude that Reyes was lying. Armstrong report extrapolates from the fact the original five knew too much details of the crime to saying they are probably guilty and there are some possible ways that places both them and Reyes as the perps (some of these ideas are outright rejected by the DA in their motion to vacate). The extrapolation ignores the key fact that original five were interrogated for 7 hours by the police without any counsel. I may theorize that Snyder is a terrible owner and also that he's an alien from Krypton. But one theory is lot more likely than the other.
  14. 1. If you want to say that none of us know enough about her to conclude whether or not her false accusation was racially motivated, that's fine. But just as I don't know her background to say what she would have done, studies that show that lineup accuracy dropping from 60% to 45% when involving a different race are hardly sufficient reason to dismiss the possibility of a person's racial bias. Especially so where the person is accusing a random passerby and not inaccurately picking a suspect out of a lineup. 2. This is what you wrote I'll take your word at face value that you are not suggesting that the original five are guilty. The length of time it takes to litigate is not indicative of the strength of the plaintiff's position. Especially, where as here, the question of discrimination and bias would have to be decided by a fact finder. It took the city and the plaintiffs' attorneys 3+ years to review and release the first batch of documents after agreeing to unseal the records following NYT's lawsuit for access. That alone should give you some idea as to the depth of discovery involved. Proving actual racial discrimination by a police department is a monumental task and was always going to require lengthy litigation (I assume the Bloomberg administration had no interest in speeding things along either). As to the Armstrong report, well it's simply an insult to the Manhattan DA's office. Prosecutors are not in the habit of admitting fault in one of the most high profile cases in the city's history and opening up the city and department to huge liability. They don't go believing every jail house snitch, especially those who have nothing to lose like Reyes. DA's motion to vacate spells out in detail the steps they took to corroborate Reyes' confession with respect to not only the central park case, but how Reyes' confession solved another cold case. How details of the rape matched with Reyes' calling card methods. Why substance of central five's confession could not be true if Reyes' was involved in the rape. DA's office underwent extensive corroboration of the substance of Reyes' confession as well as psychological review of Reyes himself before concluding that not only did Reyes did commit the rape, but also that he did it alone and he was telling the truth. Armstrong report isn't a report so much as it is a theory (charitably).
  15. Yeah @Califan007. Don't take it personally. That woman didn't have anything against you specifically. Just young black boys in general. Different races may increase eye witness error, but somehow I don't see that same woman pointing the finger at a random model minority asian boy as the perpetrator if she thought she saw an asian boy break the window (did she really see a black boy or just a random dark figure?) @PeterMP Is it your position that the original defendants are guilty? Their video confession was obtained after 7 hours of interrogation, for which we have no record of. They were minors who did not have the benefit of counsel or parents during those 7 hours. Manhattan DA's office, long before De Blasio came into office, concluded that the confessions were inconsistent and unworthy of belief. (As an aside, 30% of convicted exonerated by the innocence project confessed to their crimes). Jurors from the original trial said they were not convinced by the confessions, but were impressed by the physical evidence (that two strands of hair found on one of the defendant likely matched the victim based on hair profile, not DNA. After Reyes' confession, the hair was tested for DNA, which was too degraded for a definitive result, but testing showed that it likely did not belong to the victim). You have group of five kids that were very likely involved in somekind of activity in central park that night. The convictions for low level crimes were set aside due to prejudicial effect of the rape case, not exculpatory evidence. Then you have them being interrogated by the police for 7 hours, after which they come out with confessions. And there's not a single iota of physical evidence linking them to the crime (despite the fact that career serial rapist seems to have left plethora of physical evidence, we're to believe that these teenagers were super criminals who left a gang rape crime scene squeaky clean?). I certainly hope we require a lot more to conclude that someone is guilty of a crime.