J. Lattimer fully reinstated

[MilehighClone]

That helps our defense. I guess you have to trust coach on this one.

Trust CPR over the APD? Blasphemy!

[ClimbIowa]

Hypotheticals dont matter after the fact... do they?

Yes they do. The whole point of a hypothetical is that it didn't actually happen. If it had, we wouldn't need a hypothetical. What fact ate you convinced I'm ignoring?

[CyDude16]

Yes they do. The whole point of a hypothetical is that it didn't actually happen. If it had, we wouldn't need a hypothetical. What fact ate you convinced I'm ignoring?

So what if that one punch Clayborn threw at the cab driver killed him?

Exactly. Hypotheticals are pointless unless you want to get hard over a possibility about something that didnt happen.

[tazclone]

Oh I am. No worries about that guy. Im glad he didnt get suspended.. And the coaching staff agrees.

And I agree with that 100%. What's your problem? I was just correcting someone that misrepresented the facts. You drunk or just can't read?

[weR138]

Cyclone fans would be applauding Fran if his convicted felon was put back on the team (assuming Latt and Hubbard switched places for this criminal activity) with no meaningful, institutional punishment. At least we can all agree on that.

Absolutely. You're simply not giving credit to Lattimer for intentional acts that could easily have killed the victim and did result in serious injury.

No. It was a hypo. And one that probably nobody here will answer honestly.

That's a terrible argument. What actually happened was a felony because it involved a serious bodily injury. You don't get to pretend that felony assault is anything close to misdemeanor assault because it's not. Hubbard got a stiffer sentence because firearms require it. Lattimer got a felony because he put his victim in the hospital with a host of injuries that were individually enough for a felony charge. Clayborn could have been charged with a felony, but he stopped after injuring the victim. Lattimer decided he should body slam the guy a few times after knocking him out. Not quite the same thing.

And the previous poster is right about what could have happened mattering. Hubbard got 4 years because of the gun his partner in crime carried. That penalty is stiff exactly because of what can happen.

You're bad at arguing.

Part of you problem stems from misunderstanding what constitutes assault in Iowa. You can beat some unconscious in Iowa without being guilty of assault. You can also not touch a person and be found guilty.

Hpyothetical question aren't some sort of gimmick and I accepted all the facts. Other than those mistakes, you made a fine rebuttal.

So much care, lol.

[Al_4_State]

Absolutely. You're simply not giving credit to Lattimer for intentional acts that could easily have killed the victim and did result in serious injury.

And you accuse people of exaggeration.

[Al_4_State]

Hpyothetical question aren't some sort of gimmick and I accepted all the facts. Other than those mistakes, you made a fine rebuttal.

You do realize that ignoring reality and telling others that they're bad at arguing isn't the same thing as being good at arguing, right?

You can tell yourself you're a great arguer until you're blue in the face. If you aren't persuading anyone, then the proof is in the results.

[Tre4ISU]

I think what we all need to take away from this is that Hawk fans dont care about ISU

[ClimbIowa]

You do realize that ignoring reality and telling others that they're bad at arguing isn't the same thing as being good at arguing, right?

You can tell yourself you're a great arguer until you're blue in the face. If you aren't persuading anyone, then the proof is in the results.

Please tell me what reality I'm ignoring. You'll fail, but you can try. And the probative value of a sound argument will always depend on the willingness of the audience to hear it, as opposed to pretending that the argument ignores facts.

[ClimbIowa]

And you accuse people of exaggeration.

Are you really taking issue with my belief that striking someone who isn't fighting you 20+ times including bodyslamming them while breaking their jaw in multiple places doesn't carry a very real risk of death? That's hardly an exaggeration.

[Al_4_State]

Are you really taking issue with my belief that striking someone who isn't fighting you 20+ times including bodyslamming them while breaking their jaw in multiple places doesn't carry a very real risk of death? That's hardly an exaggeration.

There's a very real risk of death whenever someone gets in a car. It doesn't mean that engaging in that behavior is actually putting someone on the verge of death. There's a difference between beating someone up and nearly killing them.

How do you feel about Antwan Allen breaking a kid's jaw and then serving no suspension? I'm sure you were just as outraged by Ferentz's lack of punishment in the matter, right?

Please tell me what reality I'm ignoring. You'll fail, but you can try. And the probative value of a sound argument will always depend on the willingness of the audience to hear it, as opposed to pretending that the argument ignores facts.

You're treating hypotheticals as reality.

[CycloneWanderer]

Are you really taking issue with my belief that striking someone who isn't fighting you 20+ times including bodyslamming them while breaking their jaw in multiple places doesn't carry a very real risk of death? That's hardly an exaggeration.

Hitting someone one time carries a very real risk of death. The courts don't deal in "what-ifs," they only care about what actually happened. The dude survived and the people responsible paid a "very real" price for doing what they did.

[ClimbIowa]

There's a very real risk of death whenever someone gets in a car. It doesn't mean that engaging in that behavior is actually putting someone on the verge of death. There's a difference between beating someone up and nearly killing them.

How do you feel about Antwan Allen breaking a kid's jaw and then serving no suspension? I'm sure you were just as outraged by Ferentz's lack of punishment in the matter, right?



You're treating hypotheticals as reality.

There is simply no comparison between the possibility of dying in a tragic accident and death that can result from an unprovoked beating. A more apt comparison is with someone that was actually injured in a violent crash. I'm dealing with actual injuries and concluding that it was an extremely dangerous situation for the helpless victim. Feel free to believe that the victim wasn't in much danger when he was getting pummeled, bodyslammed, and bones were breaking in his face.

And Antwan certainly should have been suspended. But again, i think felons like Lattimer and Hubbard should have a short leash (a simple one game suspension would suffice).

I'm not treating hypos as reality. My hypo involved Hubbard. My belief that violent assaults like this fact scenario carry a serious risk of death is not a hypo.

Finally, I'm not the least bit upset about Lattimer's reinstatement. I find his felony to be absolutely disgusting, but Im not advocating that the kid be removed for what in all likelihood was little more than a nervous officer misinterpreting some action as threatening.

[ClimbIowa]

Hitting someone one time carries a very real risk of death. The courts don't deal in "what-ifs," they only care about what actually happened. The dude survived and the people responsible paid a "very real" price for doing what they did.

Kinda. As I already mentioned, Hubbard got 4 years because sentencing guidelines consider the things that can happen when a firearm is involved. The courts penalize people for the likelihood that the gun will be used whether it is fired or not.

I know why, but it's a little sad that people are so focused on the tangential argument over whether or not serious injury requiring hospitalization carries a significant risk of death. It was simply a response to an argument that believed that Lattimer's crime wasnt as big of a deal as Hubbard's since Lattimer got a decent plea deal and Hubbard got a stiff penalty (which is stiff because of the possible dangers that result from carrying a firearm regardless of any actual harm it causes).

[CyBer]

I think what we all need to take away from this is that Hawk fans dont care about ISU

The must not, I don't see any of them posting about it. Not here or on their own board.