Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Is Suh guilty?

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2012 8:22:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.ucsusa.org...

It looks pretty... funny... to me. Schaub didn't defend him after the game either.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2012 8:25:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That was NOT a Suh groin-kick video...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2012 11:41:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'd say innocent. It does not appear that Suh is looking at where he is kicking, meaning that he probably isn't aiming.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 12:10:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I just learned the other day that NFL players don't wear cups
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 12:23:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
He's guilty. When he goes to the ground his foot moves at an extremely unusual arc, meaning he extended his leg, whether to intentionally kick matt schaub in the groin, or just kick someone in general. Suh's guilty, fine him, but don't suspend him.
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 12:23:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
His leg is catapulted, at an extremely fast rate. He obviously added momentum to his leg.
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 12:09:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think a lot of people who claim Suh as guilty, right away, might be thinking of the event with his past in mind. Looking at it, as objectively as I can, I would say he did not do it intentionally. Would the objectionable reasonable person look at the event and give Suh the benefit of the doubt? I think yes.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 12:59:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'll take street smarts over objectivity any day. Suh is the precise type of person that can take advantage of objectivity, by feigning innocence and trying to gain an advantage in reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is removed upon applying the person's history to the situation.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 2:21:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 12:59:14 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I'll take street smarts over objectivity any day. Suh is the precise type of person that can take advantage of objectivity, by feigning innocence and trying to gain an advantage in reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is removed upon applying the person's history to the situation.

That is such a horrible way to prove culpability. You bring a large level of subjectivity to the event ("street smarts") and indict Suh based largely on his history- that is an unconscionable way to convict someone. We would never ask a 12 man jury to convict someone based on pure subjectivity- or street smarts; but rather on an objective reasonable person standard. That is the standard at which Suh should be held.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 4:45:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 2:21:10 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 11/25/2012 12:59:14 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I'll take street smarts over objectivity any day. Suh is the precise type of person that can take advantage of objectivity, by feigning innocence and trying to gain an advantage in reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is removed upon applying the person's history to the situation.

That is such a horrible way to prove culpability. You bring a large level of subjectivity to the event ("street smarts") and indict Suh based largely on his history- that is an unconscionable way to convict someone. We would never ask a 12 man jury to convict someone based on pure subjectivity- or street smarts; but rather on an objective reasonable person standard. That is the standard at which Suh should be held.

Your reputation is an extremely useful collection of information about you - especially when you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (by stomping the sh!t out of Evan Dietrich-Smith last year in front of a national audience). I don't think that a jury would fail to consider prior convictions when deciding guilt. Even if the law precludes it, the jury would find it impossible to avoid.

When I was younger, my friend's house got broken into. This one guy had a reputation for breaking into houses (at the time he was actively doing it) and they rounded him up and jumped him. Reasonable doubt was not even close to being approached, yet his reputation alone got him beat down. SHOULD he have been beaten up? Even if he was innocent (which was overwhelmingly likely) he had it coming nonetheless in the same way Suh does. This is part of the package of repercussions that comes with immorality.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 5:50:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't know anything about suh or his past but it would be a crazy odd coincidence if he just accidentally extended his foot in that unnaturally fashion.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 9:28:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 5:50:09 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I don't know anything about suh or his past but it would be a crazy odd coincidence if he just accidentally extended his foot in that unnaturally fashion.

The force of that particular move thrusted him into the ground harder. When you're hitting the deck, you are naturally trying to do the opposite thing.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 10:08:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ya if he had swung at the leg or knee it would be more questionable, but he extended his foot and football players don't do that for no reason.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 10:52:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 12:09:28 PM, comoncents wrote:
I think a lot of people who claim Suh as guilty, right away, might be thinking of the event with his past in mind. Looking at it, as objectively as I can, I would say he did not do it intentionally. Would the objectionable reasonable person look at the event and give Suh the benefit of the doubt? I think yes.

I just asked my wife, and she also declared him guilty with no hesitation, despite not knowing about his history at all
#BlackLivesMatter
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 1:31:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 10:52:53 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 11/25/2012 12:09:28 PM, comoncents wrote:
I think a lot of people who claim Suh as guilty, right away, might be thinking of the event with his past in mind. Looking at it, as objectively as I can, I would say he did not do it intentionally. Would the objectionable reasonable person look at the event and give Suh the benefit of the doubt? I think yes.

I just asked my wife, and she also declared him guilty with no hesitation, despite not knowing about his history at all

Obviously she's racist.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 1:50:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The dead give away is that when he was going down he kept his weight and balance on his right knee. When you're going down or getting tackled you more or less let the cards fall where they may. The only reason he had for keeping his balance on one knee was to kick schaub.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 2:37:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/26/2012 1:31:37 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/25/2012 10:52:53 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 11/25/2012 12:09:28 PM, comoncents wrote:
I think a lot of people who claim Suh as guilty, right away, might be thinking of the event with his past in mind. Looking at it, as objectively as I can, I would say he did not do it intentionally. Would the objectionable reasonable person look at the event and give Suh the benefit of the doubt? I think yes.

I just asked my wife, and she also declared him guilty with no hesitation, despite not knowing about his history at all

Obviously she's racist.

Haha yeah she is. She literally only with me because I'm black. She prefers me not to mention being part Asian. But seriously though, that foot jab looks suspicious.
#BlackLivesMatter