J. Lattimer fully reinstated
- Thread starter Istate
- Start date
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.
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?
:twitcy::twitcy::twitcy::twitcy::twitcy:
So much care, lol.
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.
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?
You're treating hypotheticals as reality.
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.
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.
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).
C
CyBer
Guest
The must not, I don't see any of them posting about it. Not here or on their own board.
