CelticsStrong

Other Discussions => Off Topic => Topic started by: Eja117 on December 18, 2009, 08:54:22 AM

Title: Hypothetical legal questions (looking in Roy's general direction perhaps)
Post by: Eja117 on December 18, 2009, 08:54:22 AM
So I heard on the radio today that one of Tiger's girlfriends told an aunt she took pics of him naked while he was sleeping and may release them to the tabloids. If she did, wouldn't she get in trouble for that? Isn't there a consent issue there? Doesn't Tiger own his image on some level?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Greenbean on December 18, 2009, 09:18:15 AM
I think if he wanted that picture taken and consented to it, then she can publish it. Im not really sure though. I think it has to do with whether or not the person was expecting a level of privacy at the time of the photo. In other words if the girlfriend snuck into the bathroom and snapped a picture of him in the bath, there is no way she could get away with that. If he was posing for her goating her to take pics, then yes I think she could publish them. Then again, with the lawyers Tiger could afford I'm sure there is no way she would get awwy with this!
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Fan from VT on December 18, 2009, 09:39:43 AM
I think it should be illegal to publish or sell any photos like that without permission.  not sure that's the case though, as there's a weird thing about public entities being newsworthy and thus a public interest in their images...it's basically the paparazi loophole, which i'm not sure i agree with.


Mostly i come from this from the angle of teenage domestic/sexual abuse, which is rampant right now: some douchy guy convinces a girl to take a nude picture, then sends it to all her friends and everyone calls her a Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline. even though she sent pictures to her boyfriend and never wanted those to get distributed. It's clearcut sexual harrassment by the boy and should absolutely be illegal. Thus, in the interest of fairly applying that theory, yeah, it should absolutely be illegal to publish nude images of tiger without his consent, EVEN IF he wanted her to take them; without explicit permission there's an implicit understanding that those pictures stay between the two of them.

I think that this has been the case with celebreties banning distribution of consensual sex tapes; the sex tape was consensual but distribution is completely different.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Redz on December 18, 2009, 09:49:39 AM
I think there should be a law about us knowing a lot less about Tiger.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Birdbrain on December 18, 2009, 10:10:40 AM
If you send someone a pic of your privates you are dumber than someone who sleeps with 100 prostitutes while you are married so I'll be hoping for the worst.

Does his free fall ever hit the bottom?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on December 19, 2009, 09:13:58 AM
Ok, so here's the question today

My understanding is that during the late 70s occupation of Wounded Knee by members of AIM when the federal government changed negotiators one of the first things he did was to get rid of the news reporters and tv crews and disallowed them on the scene.

Now wait a second. Don't we have freedom of the press? In the Constitution? If your country is theoretically being attacked or occupied by another foreign country or a group of terrorists don't you have a right to see that on TV if at all possible? If your country is negotiating with another group doesn't the press have a right to report on that? If your country is going to use your tax dollars to kill someone don't you have a right to see that? At that point we had seen tv reporters in Vietnam for almost a decade, but they couldn't film this?

It just strikes me a little like Tianemen Square when the Chinese sent the reporters home and rolled in at night and about 300 people were gone the next day. Not cool.

Also didn't they fly a Native American negotiator to DC to negotiate and arrest him during this? Isn't that on the unprecedented side? Sort of unusual?

How did this go down? I assume there were lawsuits filed, but I have no idea what the resolution was. Did any change occur?

I'm not trying to stir up anything here, just get some perspective.

I'm trying to imagine a similar scenario happening today and I can only think of a few possibilities
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on July 02, 2010, 02:49:42 PM
Hey Roy. Do you have any comments on the Kagan hearings?

Also what happens to you legally if you're lost at sea for a long time like Tom Hanks in Castaway and then get rescued? That must be a legal nightmare.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on December 23, 2010, 10:38:53 AM
http://gawker.com/5715821/couple-on-game-show-loses-800000-for-answering-question-correctly

hey. Does anyone know if answering a question correctly on a game show constitutes a contract?

Can a show just pronounce something wrong and not give you the money?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Roy H. on December 23, 2010, 11:01:40 AM
Jeez, I've missed this thread for over a year, huh?

Regarding the game show stuff, I'm sure that contestants sign some sort of a contract that deals with stuff like this, but I otherwise have no idea.  I vaguely remember here in some other context where something similar happened on a game show (maybe Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?) that they invited the contestant back on for another show, but I don't know if that was a contractual remedy or otherwise.

No idea about the pic of Tiger.  It would depend upon the state law, I would imagine.  Generally, whoever takes a photograph owns the copyright to that photograph, but presumably many states make it illegal to take or sell nude photos without somebody's knowledge.

Regarding Kagan...  eh.  Those hearings are a joke, and has turned into "just don't say something stupid".  The last nominee to give candid answers was Bork, and his nomination was defeated.

No idea regarding the AIM stuff, either.  I'm sure there are court cases on it, and it's important to remember that most Constitutional rights aren't absolute.  It could be that the press "voluntarily" stayed away, or that the government was using authority under the Espionage Act.  Again, no idea.  (The reporters in Vietnam were there with the permission of the U.S. government, and could be removed at any time.)
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: stoyko on December 23, 2010, 11:55:33 AM
I was on Jeopardy a few years back and they have independent lawyers on hand to make sure everything is fair and on the level. If you do have an objection, they investigate the issue, and if they find any gray area invite you back to play again.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: mgent on December 23, 2010, 01:45:39 PM
Once while watching Family Feud I saw them invite back a family for losing when the winner was wrong but the judges gave it to them anyway.  It was a sudden death (only one answer) and the survey was something that is transplanted.  The guy said a brain (idiot) and the board read "heart/organs".  Technically the brain is an organ, but I've always found it hilarious.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: guava_wrench on December 23, 2010, 02:22:45 PM
Once while watching Family Feud I saw them invite back a family for losing when the winner was wrong but the judges gave it to them anyway.  It was a sudden death (only one answer) and the survey was something that is transplanted.  The guy said a brain (idiot) and the board read "heart/organs".  Technically the brain is an organ, but I've always found it hilarious.
I think that would actually a body transplant, not a brain transplant.

The dude must watch too many movies.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on December 24, 2010, 11:48:55 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usdiplomacywikileaksinternetmilitaryrights

doesn't this violate the guy's right to a speedy trial?   Or maybe military courts work different?

Also I admit I missed the part in the Constitution that said military courts can be totally different
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: hwangjini_1 on December 24, 2010, 11:59:24 AM
I think there should be a law about us knowing a lot less about Tiger.

Thank you. And have a tp.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on December 24, 2010, 10:00:49 PM
This might be a little more of a history question than a legal one, but I was under the impression that the rules of NATO state an attack on one is an attack on all.  So why didn't NATO respond to the Falklands Invasion by Argentina
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: dlpin on December 25, 2010, 12:02:13 AM
This might be a little more of a history question than a legal one, but I was under the impression that the rules of NATO state an attack on one is an attack on all.  So why didn't NATO respond to the Falklands Invasion by Argentina

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

"Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

In other words, that provision only applies in Europe and North America. The wording of things like that was done explicitly as to exclude any wars and disputes over territories from the deal. Remember, this was signed in 1949, and so most of those nations still had colonies, and most nations didn't want to be obligated to go to war over colonial squabbles and wars of independence.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on December 25, 2010, 08:55:18 PM
This might be a little more of a history question than a legal one, but I was under the impression that the rules of NATO state an attack on one is an attack on all.  So why didn't NATO respond to the Falklands Invasion by Argentina

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

"Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

In other words, that provision only applies in Europe and North America. The wording of things like that was done explicitly as to exclude any wars and disputes over territories from the deal. Remember, this was signed in 1949, and so most of those nations still had colonies, and most nations didn't want to be obligated to go to war over colonial squabbles and wars of independence.
Woah.  So Guam doesn't count? Is Hawaii North America?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on January 07, 2011, 04:08:49 PM
I guess I have slightly mixed feelings on this one

http://rivals.yahoo.com/highschool/blog/prep_rally/post/Teen-kicked-off-basketball-team-for-hairstyle?urn=highschool-304424

basically an 8th grader got kicked off the team because he wouldn't cut his hair....seems like it opens a can of worms.....seems equally as arbitrary as if they kicked kids off the team if they did cut their hair
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on January 07, 2011, 10:18:02 PM
Hey. In the event of war between the US and Iran does the player on the Grizzlies (Hammadi or something) have to go back to Iran?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on September 29, 2011, 10:17:25 AM
Roy and others. Please discuss when it's right to recuse yourself. Should Kagan and Thomas have to recuse themselves? Why? Why not? Because they have opinions? I'm not sure I understand this as well as I'd like.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Roy H. on September 29, 2011, 10:31:49 AM
Roy and others. Please discuss when it's right to recuse yourself. Should Kagan and Thomas have to recuse themselves? Why? Why not? Because they have opinions? I'm not sure I understand this as well as I'd like.

There are rules of judicial ethics that all judges are supposed to follow.  I haven't reviewed them in years (since the time I was a judicial law clerk).  Some of the big ones:  recusing yourself when a family member is involved in a case, or when you have a personal / financial interest in the outcome of a case.  This has led to a lot of judges divesting themselves of stock holdings, etc.

In the health care case, there are questions about Kagan because she was the Solicitor General during her time in the Obama Administration.  She's allowed to have an opinion on health care policy, but if she actually provided guidance on the legality of the bill itself, it's my understanding that she should have to recuse herself.  As soon as Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court, she put up a "wall" between herself and any discussion of Obamacare.  However, there are emails floating around that suggest that she attended meetings regarding the legality of the bill, which would generally be a no-no.  Kagan has recused herself from something like 11 challenges to laws she worked on, but has not indicated that she feels any conflict here, and has said that she never substantively discussed health care law with the administration.  Conservatives are skeptical (http://www.judicialnetwork.com/?q=news/recuse-me)

Regarding Thomas, from what I understand, the ethics rules don't require recusal by him.  His wife is active in the Tea Party / anti-Obamacare movement, but her actions aren't imputed to him.  However, a lot of people think he should step down, due to the appearance of impropriety and the unlikelihood that he would rule directly against an issue his wife is so emotionally and financially involved in.  Here's some more background. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/07/anthony-weiner/rep-anthony-weiner-law-clear-clarence-thoma/).

Most likely, neither recuses themselves, and a full nine Justice court hears the case.  It will be interesting seeing the political bomb-throwing on both sides, though.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on September 29, 2011, 10:35:32 AM
Leeeettttt's just say a judge like Kagan doesn't recuse themselves from a case like this and later on it can be proven she lied. What would happen?   If Thomas' wife is financially involved does that meet the criteria?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Roy H. on September 29, 2011, 10:49:34 AM
Leeeettttt's just say a judge like Kagan doesn't recuse themselves from a case like this and later on it can be proven she lied. What would happen?   If Thomas' wife is financially involved does that meet the criteria?

I'm not an expert, so I honestly don't really know.  From what I've read, Thomas' wife's financial interest isn't enough to force recusal, according to most experts.  As for Kagan, my guess would be that if she sat on the case, and it later came out that she should have recused herself, she would be censured in some manner, but that the results of the case would stand.  However, it may be appropriate in those circumstances for the Court to grant a re-hearing if Kagan's vote would have made a difference.

As an aside, recusal would be a mess.  A 4-4 decision in the Supreme Court would basically preserve the status quo of whatever the lower court's ruling was.  Here, there will be numerous cases in various Federal Circuits impacted by whatever the Court does.  If there was a 4-4 tie, that means that the status quo -- and the conflicts in interpretation -- in the different Circuits would be preserved, meaning that Obamacare could be Constitutional in certain states, but Unconstitutional in others, depending upon which Federal Circuit that state falls into.

It's doubtful that happens, but it would be crazy if it did.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Moranis on October 24, 2011, 02:43:24 PM
I have a new one.  I couldn't find any case law exactly on point, so I thought I would ask other attorneys/law students, to get their take.  I have drafted the scenario in a neutral manner so as to indicate which party I represent.

There is a discovery dispute.  The answering party was asked to identify (in an interrogatory) all documents that support its argument that the requesting party's mortgage is invalid.  The answering party provided complete access to its clients project files (thousands of documents).  The requesting party contends that that response is not sufficient and has asked for the ieentity of just those documents that support the argument that the mortgage is invalid.  The answering party objected in part on the grounds of attorney work product.  The theory being that the actual selection of the 20 documents (or how many ever it is) that support its legal argument, is the attorneys opinion and thus covered by the work product doctrine.  All 20 of the documents are contained within the documents already produced so nothing was withheld.  Setting aside the overly broad/unduly burdensome argument, is that attorney work product?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on November 11, 2011, 07:45:22 AM
Ok. The cat's outta the bag.  I'm a PSU alum (of course). See ya Saturday Faf.  I'm also a Roman Catholic.  All I need now is to find out I'm a distant relative of Michael Jackson so I can get the frickin trifecta.

For one very very brief moment the PSU scandal actually registered on the wanting to kill myself scale. Not very high, but when you have a very very strong identity attached to something and it becomes this nasty and you find out it was so long and you fear the next thing....your head does weird things.  I have a pic of Paterno in my 4 year old's room. I have another of him on the way down to the basement. I have another poster on the way down that brags I was at his 300th win. I am close to finishing my college scrap book and Joe is in there more than anyone.  I imagine there are other alumni who named their kid's middle names Paterno. In my yearbook there's a huge thing about Sandusky's retirement.

I heard these rumors months ago. Me. I'm just a guy. And I heard them. I never thought it involved this many people for so long.

I went to an interview yesterday and wanted to hide my face. In another interview on Monday a guy held my official PSU transcript in front of him to read every class I took.

My brand has been forever dented and this has definitely caused me some minor pain and suffering. (Obviously nothing compared to the victims, but you see what I'm saying). Every year the school raised my tuition and they did it again to my brother, all the while calling me to ask for more money while I was buying PSU memorabilia, like mugs and jackets (can't wear that for a while, and forget the hat).

I feel entitled to a partial refund. I clearly don't stand as good a chance in an interview now, which is something they advertised to me.....PSU...#1 with corporate recruiters.

The recruiters won't come to campus nearly as much now. I won't get as many interviews now.

I've been damaged.

Roy et all....what would be the chances of a successful class action lawsuit on behalf of students and alumni alleging damages and the need for settlement?  Pretty low, huh.  But seriously. A PSU diploma with Spanier's name on it is a little like saying "I went to KKK University".   I feel I should compensated for that.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 11, 2011, 07:53:39 AM
I would think there could be a class action lawsuit, saying that the people that knew and covered up the scandal should have forseen the damages it could cause to their graduates.  I guess you just have to prove the actaul damages it causes.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on November 11, 2011, 08:04:02 AM
They don't have enough money. Maybe it could be like one of those cease and desist type things, where they have to do some things. I can't believe they have McQueery still around and haven't attempted to settle with victims immediately and offered to pay for their treatment and therapy
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on November 11, 2011, 08:46:21 AM
Also PSU definitely gets some fed funds. The FBi, the Secretary of Education, and the President of the US have to become involved. PSU is the educational equivalent of too big to fail. But the PSU administration can't possibly be left to their own devices. McQueery is still there. Sandusky was there last week.  Guys accused of perjury are being defended by the school.  The school is being run by mob bosses that are terrorists against justice.  This is beyond PSU and an incident.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on November 11, 2011, 09:03:03 AM
They need suicide watch type stuff at PSU right now. In other cultures those guys would get a pistol with one bullet. They better write everything down and email it to CNN, FoxNews etc first
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 11, 2011, 09:18:54 AM
Money is something they do have, their endowment is like 6.5 billion.  You can bet lawyers will be setting up shop on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Pennsylvania

Already it is projected that this will cost them about 200 million in costs.  That is lawsuits, defense costs and reduced fund raising.

http://www.centralpennbusiness.com/article/20111111/SPORTS/111119962/PSU-scandal-likely-to-cost-hundreds-of-millions&template=sports

No amount of money is going to fix what happened though.

p.s.  We didn't need to help Britain with Argentina, Eja117.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

But if you read that we supplied them with missles, air tanker support and supplies.  The French helped them too.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080713025643AA4YjqI
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on November 11, 2011, 09:42:21 AM
Money is something they do have, their endowment is like 6.5 billion.  You can bet lawyers will be setting up shop on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Pennsylvania

Already it is projected that this will cost them about 200 million in costs.  That is lawsuits, defense costs and reduced fund raising.

http://www.centralpennbusiness.com/article/20111111/SPORTS/111119962/PSU-scandal-likely-to-cost-hundreds-of-millions&template=sports

No amount of money is going to fix what happened though.

p.s.  We didn't need to help Britain with Argentina, Eja117.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

But if you read that we supplied them with missles, air tanker support and supplies.  The French helped them too.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080713025643AA4YjqI
Falklands? U Penn?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: PosImpos on November 11, 2011, 09:54:13 AM
I think there should be a law about us knowing a lot less about Tiger.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 11, 2011, 10:37:54 AM
quote]Falklands? U Penn?[/quote]

You had asked earlier about the Falklands and Nato.  I attempted to help with both sorry for the confusion.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Roy H. on November 11, 2011, 11:11:22 AM

Roy et all....what would be the chances of a successful class action lawsuit on behalf of students and alumni alleging damages and the need for settlement?  Pretty low, huh.  But seriously. A PSU diploma with Spanier's name on it is a little like saying "I went to KKK University".   I feel I should compensated for that.

I'm sure some clever lawyer could come up with something.  Sue the university for fraud in the inducement, suggesting that you paid tuition under the understanding that the university was running a clean, moral program.  Or something like that.  Intentional / negligent infliction of emotional distress.

I don't think any lawsuit would be particularly successful, but it's probably possible to file something in good faith.  As for a class action, I don't do them, so I don't know all the requirements; no idea if this would pass muster to get a judge to certify it as a class.  Lastly, I know a lot of state universities are immune for being sued in a lot of instances, although I have no idea what Pennsylvania state law is.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on November 11, 2011, 12:23:33 PM
quote]Falklands? U Penn?

You had asked earlier about the Falklands and Nato.  I attempted to help with both sorry for the confusion.
[/quote]Oh thanks. I forgot about that question. My mind has been elsewhere lately
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: dark_lord on November 11, 2011, 02:22:32 PM
Ok. The cat's outta the bag.  I'm a PSU alum (of course). See ya Saturday Faf.  I'm also a Roman Catholic.  All I need now is to find out I'm a distant relative of Michael Jackson so I can get the frickin trifecta.

For one very very brief moment the PSU scandal actually registered on the wanting to kill myself scale. Not very high, but when you have a very very strong identity attached to something and it becomes this nasty and you find out it was so long and you fear the next thing....your head does weird things.  I have a pic of Paterno in my 4 year old's room. I have another of him on the way down to the basement. I have another poster on the way down that brags I was at his 300th win. I am close to finishing my college scrap book and Joe is in there more than anyone.  I imagine there are other alumni who named their kid's middle names Paterno. In my yearbook there's a huge thing about Sandusky's retirement.

I heard these rumors months ago. Me. I'm just a guy. And I heard them. I never thought it involved this many people for so long.

I went to an interview yesterday and wanted to hide my face. In another interview on Monday a guy held my official PSU transcript in front of him to read every class I took.

My brand has been forever dented and this has definitely caused me some minor pain and suffering. (Obviously nothing compared to the victims, but you see what I'm saying). Every year the school raised my tuition and they did it again to my brother, all the while calling me to ask for more money while I was buying PSU memorabilia, like mugs and jackets (can't wear that for a while, and forget the hat).

I feel entitled to a partial refund. I clearly don't stand as good a chance in an interview now, which is something they advertised to me.....PSU...#1 with corporate recruiters.

The recruiters won't come to campus nearly as much now. I won't get as many interviews now.

I've been damaged.

Roy et all....what would be the chances of a successful class action lawsuit on behalf of students and alumni alleging damages and the need for settlement?  Pretty low, huh.  But seriously. A PSU diploma with Spanier's name on it is a little like saying "I went to KKK University".   I feel I should compensated for that.

sue them based on what?  you paid for your education and they provided the education to you.  
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 11, 2011, 02:25:37 PM
Ok. The cat's outta the bag.  I'm a PSU alum (of course). See ya Saturday Faf.  I'm also a Roman Catholic.  All I need now is to find out I'm a distant relative of Michael Jackson so I can get the frickin trifecta.

For one very very brief moment the PSU scandal actually registered on the wanting to kill myself scale. Not very high, but when you have a very very strong identity attached to something and it becomes this nasty and you find out it was so long and you fear the next thing....your head does weird things.  I have a pic of Paterno in my 4 year old's room. I have another of him on the way down to the basement. I have another poster on the way down that brags I was at his 300th win. I am close to finishing my college scrap book and Joe is in there more than anyone.  I imagine there are other alumni who named their kid's middle names Paterno. In my yearbook there's a huge thing about Sandusky's retirement.

I heard these rumors months ago. Me. I'm just a guy. And I heard them. I never thought it involved this many people for so long.

I went to an interview yesterday and wanted to hide my face. In another interview on Monday a guy held my official PSU transcript in front of him to read every class I took.

My brand has been forever dented and this has definitely caused me some minor pain and suffering. (Obviously nothing compared to the victims, but you see what I'm saying). Every year the school raised my tuition and they did it again to my brother, all the while calling me to ask for more money while I was buying PSU memorabilia, like mugs and jackets (can't wear that for a while, and forget the hat).

I feel entitled to a partial refund. I clearly don't stand as good a chance in an interview now, which is something they advertised to me.....PSU...#1 with corporate recruiters.

The recruiters won't come to campus nearly as much now. I won't get as many interviews now.

I've been damaged.

Roy et all....what would be the chances of a successful class action lawsuit on behalf of students and alumni alleging damages and the need for settlement?  Pretty low, huh.  But seriously. A PSU diploma with Spanier's name on it is a little like saying "I went to KKK University".   I feel I should compensated for that.

sue them based on what?  you paid for your education and thy provided the education to you. 

I respectfully disagree, you are getting an education yes, but you are paying for a degree and the doors that open because you have that degree
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: dark_lord on November 11, 2011, 02:26:44 PM
Ok. The cat's outta the bag.  I'm a PSU alum (of course). See ya Saturday Faf.  I'm also a Roman Catholic.  All I need now is to find out I'm a distant relative of Michael Jackson so I can get the frickin trifecta.

For one very very brief moment the PSU scandal actually registered on the wanting to kill myself scale. Not very high, but when you have a very very strong identity attached to something and it becomes this nasty and you find out it was so long and you fear the next thing....your head does weird things.  I have a pic of Paterno in my 4 year old's room. I have another of him on the way down to the basement. I have another poster on the way down that brags I was at his 300th win. I am close to finishing my college scrap book and Joe is in there more than anyone.  I imagine there are other alumni who named their kid's middle names Paterno. In my yearbook there's a huge thing about Sandusky's retirement.

I heard these rumors months ago. Me. I'm just a guy. And I heard them. I never thought it involved this many people for so long.

I went to an interview yesterday and wanted to hide my face. In another interview on Monday a guy held my official PSU transcript in front of him to read every class I took.

My brand has been forever dented and this has definitely caused me some minor pain and suffering. (Obviously nothing compared to the victims, but you see what I'm saying). Every year the school raised my tuition and they did it again to my brother, all the while calling me to ask for more money while I was buying PSU memorabilia, like mugs and jackets (can't wear that for a while, and forget the hat).

I feel entitled to a partial refund. I clearly don't stand as good a chance in an interview now, which is something they advertised to me.....PSU...#1 with corporate recruiters.

The recruiters won't come to campus nearly as much now. I won't get as many interviews now.

I've been damaged.

Roy et all....what would be the chances of a successful class action lawsuit on behalf of students and alumni alleging damages and the need for settlement?  Pretty low, huh.  But seriously. A PSU diploma with Spanier's name on it is a little like saying "I went to KKK University".   I feel I should compensated for that.

sue them based on what?  you paid for your education and thy provided the education to you. 

I respectfully disagree, you are getting an education yes, but you are paying for a degree and the doors that open because you have that degree

the school doesnt do job placement, they educate.  going out and getting a job is on the individual
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 11, 2011, 02:29:37 PM
I respectfully disagree, you are getting an education yes, but you are paying for a degree and the doors that open because you have that degree

You aren't paying for a degree, you're paying to attend and have the opportunity to, among other things, get a degree.  You don't get a refund if you fail or drop out.

The degree and the opportunities might be what motivates you to go somewhere, but that's not what you're actually buying from them.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Chris on November 11, 2011, 02:33:34 PM
Ok. The cat's outta the bag.  I'm a PSU alum (of course). See ya Saturday Faf.  I'm also a Roman Catholic.  All I need now is to find out I'm a distant relative of Michael Jackson so I can get the frickin trifecta.

For one very very brief moment the PSU scandal actually registered on the wanting to kill myself scale. Not very high, but when you have a very very strong identity attached to something and it becomes this nasty and you find out it was so long and you fear the next thing....your head does weird things.  I have a pic of Paterno in my 4 year old's room. I have another of him on the way down to the basement. I have another poster on the way down that brags I was at his 300th win. I am close to finishing my college scrap book and Joe is in there more than anyone.  I imagine there are other alumni who named their kid's middle names Paterno. In my yearbook there's a huge thing about Sandusky's retirement.

I heard these rumors months ago. Me. I'm just a guy. And I heard them. I never thought it involved this many people for so long.

I went to an interview yesterday and wanted to hide my face. In another interview on Monday a guy held my official PSU transcript in front of him to read every class I took.

My brand has been forever dented and this has definitely caused me some minor pain and suffering. (Obviously nothing compared to the victims, but you see what I'm saying). Every year the school raised my tuition and they did it again to my brother, all the while calling me to ask for more money while I was buying PSU memorabilia, like mugs and jackets (can't wear that for a while, and forget the hat).

I feel entitled to a partial refund. I clearly don't stand as good a chance in an interview now, which is something they advertised to me.....PSU...#1 with corporate recruiters.

The recruiters won't come to campus nearly as much now. I won't get as many interviews now.

I've been damaged.

Roy et all....what would be the chances of a successful class action lawsuit on behalf of students and alumni alleging damages and the need for settlement?  Pretty low, huh.  But seriously. A PSU diploma with Spanier's name on it is a little like saying "I went to KKK University".   I feel I should compensated for that.

sue them based on what?  you paid for your education and thy provided the education to you. 

I respectfully disagree, you are getting an education yes, but you are paying for a degree and the doors that open because you have that degree

the school doesnt do job placement, they educate.  going out and getting a job is on the individual

I also am not so sure that it will have much of an effect on recruiters.

In general, unless you went to someplace like Harvard or Stanford, or the alma mater of the hiring manager, the school you went to will not have much of an effect on your ability to get a job. 
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 11, 2011, 02:36:04 PM
I respectfully disagree, you are getting an education yes, but you are paying for a degree and the doors that open because you have that degree

You aren't paying for a degree, you're paying to attend and have the opportunity to, among other things, get a degree.  You don't get a refund if you fail or drop out.

The degree and the opportunities might be what motivates you to go somewhere, but that's not what you're actually buying from them.

Right now Im going to Umass Boston for my Masters, my brother is going to BC for his MBA.  I have actually really enjoyed several of my teachers and have thought they were some of the best I have ever had.  My brother has been very dissapointed in his teachers at BC and overall much of the stuff we are learning is the same, when comparing our classes and exams.  

We are both paying for an education yes, but the premium that he is paying over me, (about 3 grand more per class) is being paid for the degree, and notariety that comes with it.  Which I think was EJA's point
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: indeedproceed on November 11, 2011, 02:59:18 PM
I respectfully disagree, you are getting an education yes, but you are paying for a degree and the doors that open because you have that degree

You aren't paying for a degree, you're paying to attend and have the opportunity to, among other things, get a degree.  You don't get a refund if you fail or drop out.

The degree and the opportunities might be what motivates you to go somewhere, but that's not what you're actually buying from them.

Nailed it.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: indeedproceed on November 11, 2011, 03:11:47 PM
I respectfully disagree, you are getting an education yes, but you are paying for a degree and the doors that open because you have that degree

You aren't paying for a degree, you're paying to attend and have the opportunity to, among other things, get a degree.  You don't get a refund if you fail or drop out.

The degree and the opportunities might be what motivates you to go somewhere, but that's not what you're actually buying from them.

Right now Im going to Umass Boston for my Masters, my brother is going to BC for his MBA.  I have actually really enjoyed several of my teachers and have thought they were some of the best I have ever had.  My brother has been very dissapointed in his teachers at BC and overall much of the stuff we are learning is the same, when comparing our classes and exams. 

We are both paying for an education yes, but the premium that he is paying over me, (about 3 grand more per class) is being paid for the degree, and notariety that comes with it.  Which I think was EJA's point

But FWF's point is still valid. You pay money to the school, but they don't guarantee a degree. If you don't work hard enough, or aren't smart enough to get through, you don't get one, even if you can pay for 4 or 5 years of undergrad.

All the tuition guarantees is the opportunity to pursue an education. That could end up in a degree, or it could not.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Moranis on November 11, 2011, 03:19:37 PM
I certainly believe someone could argue that you pay a premium for the name on the diploma and that the school has intentionally depreciated the name on that diploma by its actions.

I don't believe that is a winning argument and I would certainly never take that case, but as Roy says it probably doesn't get an attorney sanctioned for making it (which is perhaps the best advice I could give a new attorney - do not do anything that you think will get you sanctioned).
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 11, 2011, 03:23:30 PM
I respectfully disagree, you are getting an education yes, but you are paying for a degree and the doors that open because you have that degree

You aren't paying for a degree, you're paying to attend and have the opportunity to, among other things, get a degree.  You don't get a refund if you fail or drop out.

The degree and the opportunities might be what motivates you to go somewhere, but that's not what you're actually buying from them.

Right now Im going to Umass Boston for my Masters, my brother is going to BC for his MBA.  I have actually really enjoyed several of my teachers and have thought they were some of the best I have ever had.  My brother has been very dissapointed in his teachers at BC and overall much of the stuff we are learning is the same, when comparing our classes and exams. 

We are both paying for an education yes, but the premium that he is paying over me, (about 3 grand more per class) is being paid for the degree, and notariety that comes with it.  Which I think was EJA's point

But FWF's point is still valid. You pay money to the school, but they don't guarantee a degree. If you don't work hard enough, or aren't smart enough to get through, you don't get one, even if you can pay for 4 or 5 years of undergrad.

All the tuition guarantees is the opportunity to pursue an education. That could end up in a degree, or it could not.

Right but unfortunately, if you go through a couple years and drop out you are pretty much wasting your money. 

My main point is that the most valuable asset that you attain from going to college is the degree.  Education without a completed degree holds little to no future economic benefit. 

Yes tuition allows you to sit for classes, but if Penn state made statements regarding the value of a penn state education, you can see something like this class action law-suits against Law schools for misrepresenting life after law school

http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/2011/10/15-more-aba-approved-law-schools-to-be-sued/
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Roy H. on November 11, 2011, 03:25:25 PM
I respectfully disagree, you are getting an education yes, but you are paying for a degree and the doors that open because you have that degree

You aren't paying for a degree, you're paying to attend and have the opportunity to, among other things, get a degree.  You don't get a refund if you fail or drop out.

The degree and the opportunities might be what motivates you to go somewhere, but that's not what you're actually buying from them.

Right now Im going to Umass Boston for my Masters, my brother is going to BC for his MBA.  I have actually really enjoyed several of my teachers and have thought they were some of the best I have ever had.  My brother has been very dissapointed in his teachers at BC and overall much of the stuff we are learning is the same, when comparing our classes and exams.  

We are both paying for an education yes, but the premium that he is paying over me, (about 3 grand more per class) is being paid for the degree, and notariety that comes with it.  Which I think was EJA's point

But FWF's point is still valid. You pay money to the school, but they don't guarantee a degree. If you don't work hard enough, or aren't smart enough to get through, you don't get one, even if you can pay for 4 or 5 years of undergrad.

All the tuition guarantees is the opportunity to pursue an education. That could end up in a degree, or it could not.

I agree, but think about this hypothetical:  if a university promised you that it was an accredited university, and then it lost that accreditation through negligence or fraud, would there be some recourse?  Presumably, you're relying upon a promise of a credible degree.

In the Penn State case, somebody could argue, at least, that the university negligently or fraudulently devalued its degree by engaging in a cover up.  Now, a plaintiff would have to prove, at the very least, that there is now an actual stigma attached to a Penn State degree, that is resulting in actual damages.  I doubt that evidence is out there.  However, I think there's a colorable argument that a school promises you more than just an opportunity to earn a diploma; with that diploma comes certain implicit promises, almost like a fiduciary duty.  Failure to deliver on those promises is a breach of fiduciary duty, which could potentially be actionable.

Boom.  File the complaint.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Chris on November 11, 2011, 03:30:45 PM
I respectfully disagree, you are getting an education yes, but you are paying for a degree and the doors that open because you have that degree

You aren't paying for a degree, you're paying to attend and have the opportunity to, among other things, get a degree.  You don't get a refund if you fail or drop out.

The degree and the opportunities might be what motivates you to go somewhere, but that's not what you're actually buying from them.

Right now Im going to Umass Boston for my Masters, my brother is going to BC for his MBA.  I have actually really enjoyed several of my teachers and have thought they were some of the best I have ever had.  My brother has been very dissapointed in his teachers at BC and overall much of the stuff we are learning is the same, when comparing our classes and exams. 

We are both paying for an education yes, but the premium that he is paying over me, (about 3 grand more per class) is being paid for the degree, and notariety that comes with it.  Which I think was EJA's point

But FWF's point is still valid. You pay money to the school, but they don't guarantee a degree. If you don't work hard enough, or aren't smart enough to get through, you don't get one, even if you can pay for 4 or 5 years of undergrad.

All the tuition guarantees is the opportunity to pursue an education. That could end up in a degree, or it could not.

I agree, but think about this hypothetical:  if a university promised you that it was an accredited university, and then it lost that accreditation through negligence or fraud, would there be some recourse?  Presumably, you're relying upon a promise of a credible degree.

In the Penn State case, somebody could argue, at least, that the university negligently or fraudulently devalued its degree by engaging in a cover up.  Now, a plaintiff would have to prove, at the very least, that there is now an actual stigma attached to a Penn State degree, that is resulting in actual damages.  I doubt that evidence is out there.  However, I think there's a colorable argument that a school promises you more than just an opportunity to earn a diploma; with that diploma comes certain implicit promises, almost like a fiduciary duty.

Yeah, that makes sense.  I just don't think that Stigma exists.  We will see what happens over the next year or two as more of this breaks, but I have a hard time to believe, even something this big, could actually take down a university like that to the point it would need to for any tangible change.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: indeedproceed on November 11, 2011, 03:32:41 PM
I respectfully disagree, you are getting an education yes, but you are paying for a degree and the doors that open because you have that degree

You aren't paying for a degree, you're paying to attend and have the opportunity to, among other things, get a degree.  You don't get a refund if you fail or drop out.

The degree and the opportunities might be what motivates you to go somewhere, but that's not what you're actually buying from them.

Right now Im going to Umass Boston for my Masters, my brother is going to BC for his MBA.  I have actually really enjoyed several of my teachers and have thought they were some of the best I have ever had.  My brother has been very dissapointed in his teachers at BC and overall much of the stuff we are learning is the same, when comparing our classes and exams. 

We are both paying for an education yes, but the premium that he is paying over me, (about 3 grand more per class) is being paid for the degree, and notariety that comes with it.  Which I think was EJA's point

But FWF's point is still valid. You pay money to the school, but they don't guarantee a degree. If you don't work hard enough, or aren't smart enough to get through, you don't get one, even if you can pay for 4 or 5 years of undergrad.

All the tuition guarantees is the opportunity to pursue an education. That could end up in a degree, or it could not.

I agree, but think about this hypothetical:  if a university promised you that it was an accredited university, and then it lost that accreditation through negligence or fraud, would there be some recourse?  Presumably, you're relying upon a promise of a credible degree.

In the Penn State case, somebody could argue, at least, that the university negligently or fraudulently devalued its degree by engaging in a cover up.  Now, a plaintiff would have to prove, at the very least, that there is now an actual stigma attached to a Penn State degree, that is resulting in actual damages.  I doubt that evidence is out there.  However, I think there's a colorable argument that a school promises you more than just an opportunity to earn a diploma; with that diploma comes certain implicit promises, almost like a fiduciary duty.  Failure to deliver on those promises is a breach of fiduciary duty, which could potentially be actionable.

Boom.  File the complaint.

I love the phrase 'a colorable argument'. Makes me think of a really sketchy paint by numbers.

To the actual point, yeah I guess there is some logic there, but where does it end? Everyone who got a degree? Everyone who attended classes?

Just seems really thin.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on November 11, 2011, 03:41:42 PM
If this doesn't devalue my degree and brand what would? Funneling money to a terrorist group? Let's say I want to work with kids.  Maybe be a preschool teacher. It's clear I was there while this was happening.  You don't think this raises an eye brow? What if I want to go into law, politics, or law enforcement? Doesn't raise an eye brow? Then I'm up against some kid who went to UVA who has that famous honor code?  There is just no way on Earth my degree is worth what is was. First word that used to enter people's minds when I said "PSU" was "awesome" or "cool" or at least "fun".  Now it's this. That has a value that the University didn't protect.  I feel worst for the PSU kids trying to go into young education. For them that would be like a guy who went to Mike Vick University trying to get into animal protection
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: indeedproceed on November 11, 2011, 03:46:00 PM
First word that used to enter people's minds when I said "PSU" was "awesome" or "cool" or at least "fun".

I always thought 'Linebackers'.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 11, 2011, 03:48:01 PM
First word that used to enter people's minds when I said "PSU" was "awesome" or "cool" or at least "fun".

I always thought 'Linebackers'.

I always though Turfgrass management.  They have a pretty kickbutt program
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Chris on November 11, 2011, 03:51:55 PM
If this doesn't devalue my degree and brand what would?

That's the point, not much would.  Recruiters care much more about what your degree is in, and your experience, then where your degree is from (unless it is from an ivy league school, or Stanford, MIT, etc.).  I think you are worrying for nothing.

Now, if PSU loses accredidation, you have a problem.  And, if they suddenly fall off a cliff academically, you have a problem.  But those are a long way from happening.

At worst, you might just have to deal with an awkward "so, what do you think of this whole Paterno situation" question.  But if you aren't hired, it is going to have nothing to do with your school.

And I would also add, that you weren't getting interviews, or getting hired because you went to PSU before this as well (unless it was by another PSU alum).  That's just not how it works in the real world...it is just what colleges want you to think, so you will pay the premium.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on November 11, 2011, 04:04:19 PM
If this doesn't devalue my degree and brand what would?

That's the point, not much would.  Recruiters care much more about what your degree is in, and your experience, then where your degree is from (unless it is from an ivy league school, or Stanford, MIT, etc.).  I think you are worrying for nothing.

Now, if PSU loses accredidation, you have a problem.  And, if they suddenly fall off a cliff academically, you have a problem.  But those are a long way from happening.

At worst, you might just have to deal with an awkward "so, what do you think of this whole Paterno situation" question.  But if you aren't hired, it is going to have nothing to do with your school.

And I would also add, that you weren't getting interviews, or getting hired because you went to PSU before this as well (unless it was by another PSU alum).  That's just not how it works in the real world...it is just what colleges want you to think, so you will pay the premium.
I see what you are saying but a school's reputation definitely matters. I'm sure on some level some of the antics at the University of Miami mattered. When schools have reps of party U or crime U it matters.

Think about running a company. Now you're only allowed to go to say three schools to recruit. What three schools do you go to?  Just the fact that you have an answer in your head says something. The school's rep matters.  My school had a great rep. Now it has the worst. It matters. Maybe not lots but I think it does. 

There are other things schools can do to affect this. Coming out really strong for or against a specific stance....let's say gay marriage or something.  Harvard wanted to clone a human being.  Princeton was protested for supporting Israel (it was sorta convoluted, but still). I have to wonder if scientists want to recruit at schools that deny evolution happened.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Chris on November 11, 2011, 04:14:27 PM
If this doesn't devalue my degree and brand what would?

That's the point, not much would.  Recruiters care much more about what your degree is in, and your experience, then where your degree is from (unless it is from an ivy league school, or Stanford, MIT, etc.).  I think you are worrying for nothing.

Now, if PSU loses accredidation, you have a problem.  And, if they suddenly fall off a cliff academically, you have a problem.  But those are a long way from happening.

At worst, you might just have to deal with an awkward "so, what do you think of this whole Paterno situation" question.  But if you aren't hired, it is going to have nothing to do with your school.

And I would also add, that you weren't getting interviews, or getting hired because you went to PSU before this as well (unless it was by another PSU alum).  That's just not how it works in the real world...it is just what colleges want you to think, so you will pay the premium.
I see what you are saying but a school's reputation definitely matters. I'm sure on some level some of the antics at the University of Miami mattered. When schools have reps of party U or crime U it matters.

Think about running a company. Now you're only allowed to go to say three schools to recruit. What three schools do you go to?  Just the fact that you have an answer in your head says something. The school's rep matters.  My school had a great rep. Now it has the worst. It matters. Maybe not lots but I think it does. 

There are other things schools can do to affect this. Coming out really strong for or against a specific stance....let's say gay marriage or something.  Harvard wanted to clone a human being.  Princeton was protested for supporting Israel (it was sorta convoluted, but still). I have to wonder if scientists want to recruit at schools that deny evolution happened.

Yes, reputation does matter to a point.  But there is a big difference between not wanting to hire someone from Arizona State because it is known as a party school, and not wanting to hire someone from PSU, because the athletic program was run by criminals. 

I just think you are overreacting to what the school's rep is.  Now, it could change as more information comes out, but right now, I don't think the rep of the school, as an academic institution has changed dramatically. 

Now, in 5 years, if the school's academics suffer, because of this, then you could have a case, but right now, I think the vast majority of recruiters would look at a resume with Penn State the same way they looked at it before...Not Harvard, and not a community college, so what other experience does the person have?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: bdm860 on November 11, 2011, 04:35:59 PM
I think you're running from one extreme to the other.  Before all this, most people probably didn't think Penn State was this great school.  If it wasn't for sports, most people would have never heard of it.  Not saying it's bad, just nobody cares.

Also you're assuming everybody loves Penn State college football.  While this is a big story, outside of the sports world, 99% of Americans outside of Pennsylvania probably aren't following it, they don't really care.

What kind of jobs are you applying for?  You really think the non-football fan recruiter/hiring manager in California, Texas, New York, DC, Chicago, Boston, Atlanta, etc. or any other major city really cares about this?  Let me tell you, they don't.  Even if they did, you think that they think this really reflects you? 

If anything it gives you something to talk about at an interview.  And if you really have skill, you can make it positive by showing your character, or how you thrived in a state of adversity.

99% of the US doesn't care about this and won't even remember it in a month.  The US is bigger than Penn State football.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: indeedproceed on November 11, 2011, 04:40:05 PM
If this doesn't devalue my degree and brand what would?

That's the point, not much would.  Recruiters care much more about what your degree is in, and your experience, then where your degree is from (unless it is from an ivy league school, or Stanford, MIT, etc.).  I think you are worrying for nothing.

Now, if PSU loses accredidation, you have a problem.  And, if they suddenly fall off a cliff academically, you have a problem.  But those are a long way from happening.

At worst, you might just have to deal with an awkward "so, what do you think of this whole Paterno situation" question.  But if you aren't hired, it is going to have nothing to do with your school.

And I would also add, that you weren't getting interviews, or getting hired because you went to PSU before this as well (unless it was by another PSU alum).  That's just not how it works in the real world...it is just what colleges want you to think, so you will pay the premium.
I see what you are saying but a school's reputation definitely matters. I'm sure on some level some of the antics at the University of Miami mattered. When schools have reps of party U or crime U it matters.

Think about running a company. Now you're only allowed to go to say three schools to recruit. What three schools do you go to?  Just the fact that you have an answer in your head says something. The school's rep matters.  My school had a great rep. Now it has the worst. It matters. Maybe not lots but I think it does. 

There are other things schools can do to affect this. Coming out really strong for or against a specific stance....let's say gay marriage or something.  Harvard wanted to clone a human being.  Princeton was protested for supporting Israel (it was sorta convoluted, but still). I have to wonder if scientists want to recruit at schools that deny evolution happened.

Yes, reputation does matter to a point.  But there is a big difference between not wanting to hire someone from Arizona State because it is known as a party school, and not wanting to hire someone from PSU, because the athletic program was run by criminals. 

I just think you are overreacting to what the school's rep is.  Now, it could change as more information comes out, but right now, I don't think the rep of the school, as an academic institution has changed dramatically. 

Now, in 5 years, if the school's academics suffer, because of this, then you could have a case, but right now, I think the vast majority of recruiters would look at a resume with Penn State the same way they looked at it before...Not Harvard, and not a community college, so what other experience does the person have?


and in a few weeks when the news cycle resets, the only people who really care about it will be the victims, the football fans, and the penn state alumni.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Moranis on November 11, 2011, 04:56:58 PM
If this doesn't devalue my degree and brand what would?

That's the point, not much would.  Recruiters care much more about what your degree is in, and your experience, then where your degree is from (unless it is from an ivy league school, or Stanford, MIT, etc.).  I think you are worrying for nothing.

Now, if PSU loses accredidation, you have a problem.  And, if they suddenly fall off a cliff academically, you have a problem.  But those are a long way from happening.

At worst, you might just have to deal with an awkward "so, what do you think of this whole Paterno situation" question.  But if you aren't hired, it is going to have nothing to do with your school.

And I would also add, that you weren't getting interviews, or getting hired because you went to PSU before this as well (unless it was by another PSU alum).  That's just not how it works in the real world...it is just what colleges want you to think, so you will pay the premium.
I see what you are saying but a school's reputation definitely matters. I'm sure on some level some of the antics at the University of Miami mattered. When schools have reps of party U or crime U it matters.

Think about running a company. Now you're only allowed to go to say three schools to recruit. What three schools do you go to?  Just the fact that you have an answer in your head says something. The school's rep matters.  My school had a great rep. Now it has the worst. It matters. Maybe not lots but I think it does. 

There are other things schools can do to affect this. Coming out really strong for or against a specific stance....let's say gay marriage or something.  Harvard wanted to clone a human being.  Princeton was protested for supporting Israel (it was sorta convoluted, but still). I have to wonder if scientists want to recruit at schools that deny evolution happened.

Yes, reputation does matter to a point.  But there is a big difference between not wanting to hire someone from Arizona State because it is known as a party school, and not wanting to hire someone from PSU, because the athletic program was run by criminals. 

I just think you are overreacting to what the school's rep is.  Now, it could change as more information comes out, but right now, I don't think the rep of the school, as an academic institution has changed dramatically. 

Now, in 5 years, if the school's academics suffer, because of this, then you could have a case, but right now, I think the vast majority of recruiters would look at a resume with Penn State the same way they looked at it before...Not Harvard, and not a community college, so what other experience does the person have?

Apparently the entire university was run by criminals, not just the athletic department.  I'm not sure that really matters to an individual, but I could see where it might play some small role.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on November 11, 2011, 05:15:34 PM
If this doesn't devalue my degree and brand what would?

That's the point, not much would.  Recruiters care much more about what your degree is in, and your experience, then where your degree is from (unless it is from an ivy league school, or Stanford, MIT, etc.).  I think you are worrying for nothing.

Now, if PSU loses accredidation, you have a problem.  And, if they suddenly fall off a cliff academically, you have a problem.  But those are a long way from happening.

At worst, you might just have to deal with an awkward "so, what do you think of this whole Paterno situation" question.  But if you aren't hired, it is going to have nothing to do with your school.

And I would also add, that you weren't getting interviews, or getting hired because you went to PSU before this as well (unless it was by another PSU alum).  That's just not how it works in the real world...it is just what colleges want you to think, so you will pay the premium.
I see what you are saying but a school's reputation definitely matters. I'm sure on some level some of the antics at the University of Miami mattered. When schools have reps of party U or crime U it matters.

Think about running a company. Now you're only allowed to go to say three schools to recruit. What three schools do you go to?  Just the fact that you have an answer in your head says something. The school's rep matters.  My school had a great rep. Now it has the worst. It matters. Maybe not lots but I think it does. 

There are other things schools can do to affect this. Coming out really strong for or against a specific stance....let's say gay marriage or something.  Harvard wanted to clone a human being.  Princeton was protested for supporting Israel (it was sorta convoluted, but still). I have to wonder if scientists want to recruit at schools that deny evolution happened.

Yes, reputation does matter to a point.  But there is a big difference between not wanting to hire someone from Arizona State because it is known as a party school, and not wanting to hire someone from PSU, because the athletic program was run by criminals. 

I just think you are overreacting to what the school's rep is.  Now, it could change as more information comes out, but right now, I don't think the rep of the school, as an academic institution has changed dramatically. 

Now, in 5 years, if the school's academics suffer, because of this, then you could have a case, but right now, I think the vast majority of recruiters would look at a resume with Penn State the same way they looked at it before...Not Harvard, and not a community college, so what other experience does the person have?


and in a few weeks when the news cycle resets, the only people who really care about it will be the victims, the football fans, and the penn state alumni.
The Catholic Church still hasn't recovered and I fear it could be years for PSU to recover. Also the northeast isn't a huge college football area, but up here I'm hearing things like "Biggest American sports scandal ever".  A lot of that is coming out of Bristol CT.

I'll admit a lot of the recruiters that came to PSU were from PA and were PSU alums and they'll probably come. But there was a lot from DC and NYC and whatnot as well and I'm not sure they will
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: indeedproceed on November 11, 2011, 05:24:22 PM
If this doesn't devalue my degree and brand what would?

That's the point, not much would.  Recruiters care much more about what your degree is in, and your experience, then where your degree is from (unless it is from an ivy league school, or Stanford, MIT, etc.).  I think you are worrying for nothing.

Now, if PSU loses accredidation, you have a problem.  And, if they suddenly fall off a cliff academically, you have a problem.  But those are a long way from happening.

At worst, you might just have to deal with an awkward "so, what do you think of this whole Paterno situation" question.  But if you aren't hired, it is going to have nothing to do with your school.

And I would also add, that you weren't getting interviews, or getting hired because you went to PSU before this as well (unless it was by another PSU alum).  That's just not how it works in the real world...it is just what colleges want you to think, so you will pay the premium.
I see what you are saying but a school's reputation definitely matters. I'm sure on some level some of the antics at the University of Miami mattered. When schools have reps of party U or crime U it matters.

Think about running a company. Now you're only allowed to go to say three schools to recruit. What three schools do you go to?  Just the fact that you have an answer in your head says something. The school's rep matters.  My school had a great rep. Now it has the worst. It matters. Maybe not lots but I think it does. 

There are other things schools can do to affect this. Coming out really strong for or against a specific stance....let's say gay marriage or something.  Harvard wanted to clone a human being.  Princeton was protested for supporting Israel (it was sorta convoluted, but still). I have to wonder if scientists want to recruit at schools that deny evolution happened.

Yes, reputation does matter to a point.  But there is a big difference between not wanting to hire someone from Arizona State because it is known as a party school, and not wanting to hire someone from PSU, because the athletic program was run by criminals. 

I just think you are overreacting to what the school's rep is.  Now, it could change as more information comes out, but right now, I don't think the rep of the school, as an academic institution has changed dramatically. 

Now, in 5 years, if the school's academics suffer, because of this, then you could have a case, but right now, I think the vast majority of recruiters would look at a resume with Penn State the same way they looked at it before...Not Harvard, and not a community college, so what other experience does the person have?


and in a few weeks when the news cycle resets, the only people who really care about it will be the victims, the football fans, and the penn state alumni.
The Catholic Church still hasn't recovered and I fear it could be years for PSU to recover. Also the northeast isn't a huge college football area, but up here I'm hearing things like "Biggest American sports scandal ever".  A lot of that is coming out of Bristol CT.

I'll admit a lot of the recruiters that came to PSU were from PA and were PSU alums and they'll probably come. But there was a lot from DC and NYC and whatnot as well and I'm not sure they will

Well, the Catholic Church's scandal was big huge stinking news. Priest jokes still abound. But, I think its recovered, at least in terms of where it was before the scandal (I'm not talking like..pre-80's levels or anything). Still the biggest religion in the United States, and while in the short term I think a sizeable amount of people turned away, its not like people don't trust catholics or anything.

I can see the reason for your concern, and I can't completely sympathize with it (because I didn't go to PSU), but I think it'll blow over faster than you think. When people talk about this scandal in 10 yrs, it'll be about JoePa, not PSU.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on November 11, 2011, 05:30:19 PM
I guess part of my concern is I have no faith in the school to do the right thing. The school's stance right now is....."We covered up heinous acts for a decade....now trust us to make this right".

Actually I think PSU has the benefit of the Catholic thing to try to show them the way. 
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: indeedproceed on November 11, 2011, 05:37:20 PM
I guess part of my concern is I have no faith in the school to do the right thing. The school's stance right now is....."We covered up heinous acts for a decade....now trust us to make this right".

Actually I think PSU has the benefit of the Catholic thing to try to show them the way. 

I was about to say that I agree (that the Catholic thing showed that running from it, or covering it up means way worse repercussions), but turns out its exactly what they did. I don't think you can equate the two scandals due to the just systemic nature the catholic church covered up decades and decades of abuse and hundreds (or even thousands) of victims, but you can definitely compare them.

In the short term I think its only gonna get worse. There is still the trial, and all the blowout as more things become public and more victims come forward, but like I said..in 10 yrs it'll be more about how this severely tainted JoePa's legacy than it is about PSU's utter and unforgivable handling of it.

But then, JoePa has been bigger than PSU for a good 20 years now, right? Its shocking that the evil actions of one man could have such staggering resonance within a program.

Yeah man, the more I think about it, this is really awful. You might be on to something.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Chris on November 11, 2011, 05:40:13 PM
I think you're running from one extreme to the other.  Before all this, most people probably didn't think Penn State was this great school.  If it wasn't for sports, most people would have never heard of it.  Not saying it's bad, just nobody cares.



To me, this is the key, and something that kids should learn about most schools.  If you aren't going to Harvard or Princeton, then what you are getting from whatever school you go to is an education, not a resume. 
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on November 11, 2011, 05:40:42 PM
Yeah. I guess I need to start thinking of ten years from now. Maybe then I can wear my hat again and brag about where I went to school again.  Yeah. Ten years. That's my time frame. Juuuusssttt in time for my kid to start thinking about schools.

Hogwarts got through a war. They had an alumni that cannot be named. I can get through this.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on November 11, 2011, 05:41:29 PM
I think you're running from one extreme to the other.  Before all this, most people probably didn't think Penn State was this great school.  If it wasn't for sports, most people would have never heard of it.  Not saying it's bad, just nobody cares.



To me, this is the key, and something that kids should learn about most schools.  If you aren't going to Harvard or Princeton, then what you are getting from whatever school you go to is an education, not a resume. 
I'll agree to disagree and see the logic of the premise.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: BASS_THUMPER on November 11, 2011, 08:33:07 PM
I think you're running from one extreme to the other.  Before all this, most people probably didn't think Penn State was this great school.  If it wasn't for sports, most people would have never heard of it.  Not saying it's bad, just nobody cares.



To me, this is the key, and something that kids should learn about most schools.  If you aren't going to Harvard or Princeton, then what you are getting from whatever school you go to is an education, not a resume. 
I'll agree to disagree and see the logic of the premise.



yes..

your hypothesis dont match with the equation of fig newton's law of physics..
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: hwangjini_1 on November 12, 2011, 03:18:11 AM
First word that used to enter people's minds when I said "PSU" was "awesome" or "cool" or at least "fun".

I always thought 'Linebackers'.

I always though Turfgrass management.  They have a pretty kickbutt program

Though Michigan State's may be better... Must have something to do with being land grant universities. :)

Also, for the arguments above, please prove that your under/non hiring was due to the scandal and not your own shortcomings.

I really don't think psu grads are suddenly facing a dramatic reduction in their employment opportunities, or a reduction in promotions for those already employed.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on November 12, 2011, 07:26:05 AM
First word that used to enter people's minds when I said "PSU" was "awesome" or "cool" or at least "fun".

I always thought 'Linebackers'.

I always though Turfgrass management.  They have a pretty kickbutt program

Though Michigan State's may be better... Must have something to do with being land grant universities. :)

Also, for the arguments above, please prove that your under/non hiring was due to the scandal and not your own shortcomings.

I really don't think psu grads are suddenly facing a dramatic reduction in their employment opportunities, or a reduction in promotions for those already employed.
Well I guess one thing to look at would be how many recruiters come to campus.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on November 12, 2011, 07:56:11 AM
I definitely think PSU will see a lot less applicants in coming years. They'll lose a lot of good students, which may drop the scores/rankings of the school. Then the school really will have a worse rep. The school really would be considered a less good school, because it would be.  I also expect a lot of good faculty to leave if they can. I definitely expect a brain drain, which really would hurt the school
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: guava_wrench on November 12, 2011, 10:12:26 AM
I think you're running from one extreme to the other.  Before all this, most people probably didn't think Penn State was this great school.  If it wasn't for sports, most people would have never heard of it.  Not saying it's bad, just nobody cares.



To me, this is the key, and something that kids should learn about most schools.  If you aren't going to Harvard or Princeton, then what you are getting from whatever school you go to is an education, not a resume. 
Depends upon your major. If you are a software engineer, MIT beats the crap out of Harvard.

This also depends upon the job. Some jobs will only take from TOP schools. Others from top 100 schools.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: 18isGREATERthan72 on November 12, 2011, 07:20:54 PM
I think you're running from one extreme to the other.  Before all this, most people probably didn't think Penn State was this great school.  If it wasn't for sports, most people would have never heard of it.  Not saying it's bad, just nobody cares.



To me, this is the key, and something that kids should learn about most schools.  If you aren't going to Harvard or Princeton, then what you are getting from whatever school you go to is an education, not a resume. 

Agreed.  Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Dartmouth.  Those are schools that resonate in an interview, or on a resume.  Anything else, you're paying for more, but it really won't have as big of an impact in getting a job as you THINK it will.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on November 13, 2011, 09:34:07 AM
I want to sorta point this out and get the media pecking order straight

If you raise mean dogs and kill them you go to jail for years and go bankrupt, but you get to redeem yourself and resume your career.

If you commit no crime and actually report a possible crime to your supervisor within 24 hours you get to lose your 60 year rock solid career and get vilified by the press.

If you get accused of raping women twice and clearly had sex with one in a locked bathroom with  a guard in front of the door and her friends went to the police that same day...you don't get arrested and after some counseling you get paid to play in the Super Bowl.

Let's get it straight now.  Who's the more heinous PA QB?  McQueery or Rothlisburger?

Lesson....if Sandusky had just raped young women instead of very young boys he could say it was consensual get paid to coach in the Super Bowl.   Hooray media.  Placing rights of women lower than animals and rumors!


I wish you could sue for trial by media. Not sure how Sandusky ever gets a fair and impartial trial now
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: BUTerrier on November 13, 2011, 11:29:58 AM
If you commit no crime and actually report a possible crime to your supervisor within 24 hours you get to lose your 60 year rock solid career and get vilified by the press.

I understand your point, but come on. I'm not suggesting Paterno should be charged criminally by any means, but no one can argue that Paterno shouldn't have done more than he did. Maybe not in 2002, no, but to suggest that Paterno didn't know Sandusky was still on campus and using the facilities? And if the rumors about using Sandusky? to help recruit players over the past 5 or 10 years is proven true, it doesn't paint a rosy picture of Paterno. Even Paterno himself admits he should have done more. So you don't charge him criminally, but he had to lose his job here. I'm not saying that Paterno should be black-listed from all coaching jobs (though, honestly, if I were him I'd call it a career at his age; why start from scratch?), but to suggest he shouldn't get punished based on Vick? I mean, Vick went to prison, man.

Quote
I wish you could sue for trial by media. Not sure how Sandusky ever gets a fair and impartial trial now

This assumes Sandusky is going to go to trial, which is far from a safe assumption. Even if the media never got on this story at all, you have eyewitness accounts of his molestation of children and his admission to concerned parents that things happened. No lawyer in his right mind would let him go to trial on that; I'd bet anything he cuts a quick and quiet deal for 15-20 years in prison, minimum. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if it's more.

Agreed.  Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Dartmouth.  Those are schools that resonate in an interview, or on a resume.  Anything else, you're paying for more, but it really won't have as big of an impact in getting a job as you THINK it will.

I think it depends on what you're applying for. I went to BU undergrad and Marquette Law. Practicing law in Wisconsin -- where you're really only competing against students from UW, Marquette, Chicago, John Marshall, and maybe Minnesota -- you'd be surprised how valuable a resume and transcript from MU Law can be when I'm applying to an alumnus's firm. I once got a call back for a second interview specifically because I took my Evidence and Criminal Procedure classes with professors the guy knew were the best at the law school, and he figured I must know my stuff if I learned it from them. And while I may lean more on my law school connection than my undergrad, coming out of law school I was VERY close to getting an Assistant DA Position up in a county an hour north of Milwaukee specifically because the DA there went to BU undergrad and law and liked the idea of having a fellow Terrier in his office. So you never know what doors might open based on your school's name.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 13, 2011, 12:17:27 PM
I think Paterno is clearly the fall guy.  He did what was necessary under the letter of the law.  But as it was said I think society expected more would be done.  This stuff happened under his watch so he is paying for it.

These are some  great articles to explain how we got here:

http://www.ajc.com/sports/how-a-scandal-brought-1224099.html

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_penn_state_child_sex_case_110511

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=6270

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-pennstateex-coach-allegations

I feel bad for Joe Pa.   But I think we need to remember he is not the victim here.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on November 13, 2011, 04:16:30 PM
I definitely don't think Joe can be around kids/young men at this time.  I definitely think he should be on suspension/leave till things are figured out.

I just think there was a huge and fast rush to judgement on him and McQueery while everyone looked the other way on Rothlisburger who did, or was at least accused of doing (twice) a far worse thing.

I just think it speaks to the way the media does stuff
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Chris on November 13, 2011, 05:31:17 PM
I definitely don't think Joe can be around kids/young men at this time.  I definitely think he should be on suspension/leave till things are figured out.

I just think there was a huge and fast rush to judgement on him and McQueery while everyone looked the other way on Rothlisburger who did, or was at least accused of doing (twice) a far worse thing.

I just think it speaks to the way the media does stuff

Well, I think a lot of people would disagree about which is worse. 

Of course, there is still a question of what Paterno actually did, but the perception among the people who are condemning him is that he knowingly looked the other way, in order to allow a friend/colleague pray on young children in a sickeningly systematic way.

Now, I am not sure I agree with that point of view (still waiting to find out more), but if that is what people believe Paterno is guilty of, I don't think it is very cut and dry that his crime is any worse than Rothelisberger's.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 13, 2011, 06:29:23 PM
I lost a lot of respect for Ben.  Anytime you have buddies watching the door something bad is going on.   This Penn State stuff went back a ways.   I feel bad for Joe Pa because of his age but I have lost some respect for him also.  He was on the Mt. Rushmore of College Football.   I fear this will be his legacy now. 

We think of bad stuff with Coach Knight too.   He had a lot more issues on the court than Joe Pa in the public eye.  He too was a great coach who played by the rules and made men with a high graduation rate.   Now he is remembered as a loose cannon ( can't argue with that) who abused his players.  Any good he did is tarnished by his actions.  Here any good Paterno did will be tarnished by his inaction.

Personally, I think the gate take from the rest of the Penn State games this year should have been donated to advocacy groups for sexual abuse.  Maybe all the gate take next year too.

The media doesn't care about anything but the story.  They will ride it out as long as it gets ratings.  They love dirt and they love it when someone falls from grace.  It's just the way it is in the media.  For example, I felt bad for Rick Perry when he had his 53 second brain cramp at the debate.  But I have seen it about 100 times on the news.   I didn't think he was presidentially worthy after one debate personally.   But I do not enjoy watching people suffer and let alone to bake.

I have read some very [dang]ing articles about Joe Pa lately.  Ones that said he was very aware of his legacy and would have done anything to protect it.  While I do not know if it is true, I think that could be said of most of us if we had a legacy to protect.

Paterno is more like the guy at the door watching for Ben than Rothlesburger in this case.   They are apples and oranges.  I recall once in the service a guy mentioned raping a young girl to me once at a disco tek in Germnay.   I told him immediately that even if looked at the girl again that I would cripple or kill him.   I had a fearsome reputation in my unit as a man who once fought 20 men single handedly.   It wasn't true ( I had fought five once but people believed the legend more than the truth) but I used it for good when I could.   It is our duty to not look the other way when others are in trouble.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: thirstyboots18 on November 23, 2011, 09:52:21 AM
I lost a lot of respect for Ben.  Anytime you have buddies watching the door something bad is going on.   This Penn State stuff went back a ways.   I feel bad for Joe Pa because of his age but I have lost some respect for him also.  He was on the Mt. Rushmore of College Football.   I fear this will be his legacy now. 

We think of bad stuff with Coach Knight too.   He had a lot more issues on the court than Joe Pa in the public eye.  He too was a great coach who played by the rules and made men with a high graduation rate.   Now he is remembered as a loose cannon ( can't argue with that) who abused his players.  Any good he did is tarnished by his actions.  Here any good Paterno did will be tarnished by his inaction.

Personally, I think the gate take from the rest of the Penn State games this year should have been donated to advocacy groups for sexual abuse.  Maybe all the gate take next year too.

The media doesn't care about anything but the story.  They will ride it out as long as it gets ratings.  They love dirt and they love it when someone falls from grace.  It's just the way it is in the media.  For example, I felt bad for Rick Perry when he had his 53 second brain cramp at the debate.  But I have seen it about 100 times on the news.   I didn't think he was presidentially worthy after one debate personally.   But I do not enjoy watching people suffer and let alone to bake.

I have read some very [dang]ing articles about Joe Pa lately.  Ones that said he was very aware of his legacy and would have done anything to protect it.  While I do not know if it is true, I think that could be said of most of us if we had a legacy to protect.

Paterno is more like the guy at the door watching for Ben than Rothlesburger in this case.   They are apples and oranges.  I recall once in the service a guy mentioned raping a young girl to me once at a disco tek in Germnay.   I told him immediately that even if looked at the girl again that I would cripple or kill him.   I had a fearsome reputation in my unit as a man who once fought 20 men single handedly.   It wasn't true ( I had fought five once but people believed the legend more than the truth) but I used it for good when I could.   It is our duty to not look the other way when others are in trouble.
Let me get this straight...you didn't either report this to your supervisor or to the authorities?  This makes you different or better how?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Neurotic Guy on November 23, 2011, 12:02:01 PM
I lost a lot of respect for Ben.  Anytime you have buddies watching the door something bad is going on.   This Penn State stuff went back a ways.   I feel bad for Joe Pa because of his age but I have lost some respect for him also.  He was on the Mt. Rushmore of College Football.   I fear this will be his legacy now. 

We think of bad stuff with Coach Knight too.   He had a lot more issues on the court than Joe Pa in the public eye.  He too was a great coach who played by the rules and made men with a high graduation rate.   Now he is remembered as a loose cannon ( can't argue with that) who abused his players.  Any good he did is tarnished by his actions.  Here any good Paterno did will be tarnished by his inaction.

Personally, I think the gate take from the rest of the Penn State games this year should have been donated to advocacy groups for sexual abuse.  Maybe all the gate take next year too.

The media doesn't care about anything but the story.  They will ride it out as long as it gets ratings.  They love dirt and they love it when someone falls from grace.  It's just the way it is in the media.  For example, I felt bad for Rick Perry when he had his 53 second brain cramp at the debate.  But I have seen it about 100 times on the news.   I didn't think he was presidentially worthy after one debate personally.   But I do not enjoy watching people suffer and let alone to bake.

I have read some very [dang]ing articles about Joe Pa lately.  Ones that said he was very aware of his legacy and would have done anything to protect it.  While I do not know if it is true, I think that could be said of most of us if we had a legacy to protect.

Paterno is more like the guy at the door watching for Ben than Rothlesburger in this case.   They are apples and oranges.  I recall once in the service a guy mentioned raping a young girl to me once at a disco tek in Germnay.   I told him immediately that even if looked at the girl again that I would cripple or kill him.   I had a fearsome reputation in my unit as a man who once fought 20 men single handedly.   It wasn't true ( I had fought five once but people believed the legend more than the truth) but I used it for good when I could.   It is our duty to not look the other way when others are in trouble.
Let me get this straight...you didn't either report this to your supervisor or to the authorities?  This makes you different or better how?


Another question would be; Would you deal with it differently now?   

Hopefully, we as a society can learn from the horrific examples of cover-up and protection of perpetrators to know that we need to ALWAYS go to authorities when we are aware of such a crime. I also hope that 'authorities', whether that be police or work supervisors, are from now on mandated to do the right thing -- get the police and child protective services involved.   Telling a rapist that they'll get beat up if they do it again doesn't stop a rapist.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on December 07, 2011, 03:44:43 PM
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7327280/penn-state-nittany-lions-scandal-jerry-sandusky-arrested-new-sex-abuse-charges

Sandusky was arrested at home.  Quick. Someone fire a football coach. That'll help.

Roy. Paterno has a good case if he wants to sue PSU right? He had a contract, so I'd assume he should be in a decent situation if he wants.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on May 02, 2012, 11:54:41 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/those-missiles-roof-185734358--abc-news-topstories.html

So if I understand this correctly the British military in London chose to put dummy missles on an apartment complex in preparation for the Olympics as a practice, and haven't decided where to put them later this summer.

In America if they tried this we could sue under the 3rd Amendment giving us the right not to quarter troops, right?

Technically this is an apartment complex so I guess maybe the apartment owners would have to sue as opposed to the tennants, but still.

Plus I guess there might be a difference between quartering and the army using your roof for immediate defense needs, but ummmm...still.

Any legal thoughts? I'm not seeing eminent domain here. For one thing, nothing is being built or developed.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Moranis on May 02, 2012, 11:59:02 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/those-missiles-roof-185734358--abc-news-topstories.html

So if I understand this correctly the British military in London chose to put dummy missles on an apartment complex in preparation for the Olympics as a practice, and haven't decided where to put them later this summer.

In America if they tried this we could sue under the 3rd Amendment giving us the right not to quarter troops, right?

Technically this is an apartment complex so I guess maybe the apartment owners would have to sue as opposed to the tennants, but still.

Plus I guess there might be a difference between quartering and the army using your roof for immediate defense needs, but ummmm...still.

Any legal thoughts? I'm not seeing eminent domain here. For one thing, nothing is being built or developed.
It would seem to me that if the apartment complex owner signed off on it there wouldn't be much the actual tenants could do without something in their specific leases (and then the language would have to be construed broadly because no lease will contain something pertaining to this exact situation).  Of course even if there was something in the lease, it would likely just be a breach which would entitle the tenant to move and the damages associated with it (that would be the best case). 
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eddie20 on May 02, 2012, 12:34:00 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/those-missiles-roof-185734358--abc-news-topstories.html

So if I understand this correctly the British military in London chose to put dummy missles on an apartment complex in preparation for the Olympics as a practice, and haven't decided where to put them later this summer.

In America if they tried this we could sue under the 3rd Amendment giving us the right not to quarter troops, right?

Technically this is an apartment complex so I guess maybe the apartment owners would have to sue as opposed to the tennants, but still.

Plus I guess there might be a difference between quartering and the army using your roof for immediate defense needs, but ummmm...still.

Any legal thoughts? I'm not seeing eminent domain here. For one thing, nothing is being built or developed.

Moranis is correct. But to elaborate further, remember that the soldiers are not entering any residential dwelling. According to the article, they are on the roof top. This would be no different then a building manager hiring security guards to patrol the building. As long as they don't enter a persons home, it's a non-issue other than the "private" community not being so private anymore.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on May 02, 2012, 01:35:29 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/those-missiles-roof-185734358--abc-news-topstories.html

So if I understand this correctly the British military in London chose to put dummy missles on an apartment complex in preparation for the Olympics as a practice, and haven't decided where to put them later this summer.

In America if they tried this we could sue under the 3rd Amendment giving us the right not to quarter troops, right?

Technically this is an apartment complex so I guess maybe the apartment owners would have to sue as opposed to the tennants, but still.

Plus I guess there might be a difference between quartering and the army using your roof for immediate defense needs, but ummmm...still.

Any legal thoughts? I'm not seeing eminent domain here. For one thing, nothing is being built or developed.

Moranis is correct. But to elaborate further, remember that the soldiers are not entering any residential dwelling. According to the article, they are on the roof top. This would be no different then a building manager hiring security guards to patrol the building. As long as they don't enter a persons home, it's a non-issue other than the "private" community not being so private anymore.
That's interesting due the privatization of our army. I would think there is a difference between a government troop with missles and a security guard. Now if the security guard were paid by the government I'd think that would actually make him a government troop. If he's paid by a firm being paid by the government...sticky.

At any rate I agree the tennants may not have much recourse, but that in America the building owner might...might not.

I could see it getting more sticky if the army troops were to then set up TSA style checkpoints in the building requiring you to be submitted to drug sniffing dogs, xrays, etc. That would be an interesting aspect of the lease
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on October 12, 2012, 07:52:25 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/woman-forced-live-squatter-detroit-home-170128148.html


Please comment Roy. Personally I think I'd probably beat the person to a bloody pulp with a baseball bat and when the police come claim self defense.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on April 19, 2013, 07:58:44 AM
Hey out of curiosity how do search warrants work on a day like today? What happens if an officer goes to a house and says "Can we check your house" and the owner is like "No way."?

Not trying to make a point here at all.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: slamtheking on April 19, 2013, 08:14:39 AM
Hey out of curiosity how do search warrants work on a day like today? What happens if an officer goes to a house and says "Can we check your house" and the owner is like "No way."?

Not trying to make a point here at all.
bad day for meth labs and basement pot farms.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Rondo2287 on April 19, 2013, 08:16:19 AM
Hey out of curiosity how do search warrants work on a day like today? What happens if an officer goes to a house and says "Can we check your house" and the owner is like "No way."?

Not trying to make a point here at all.
Im wondering if this is almost a Marshall law situation?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on April 19, 2013, 08:21:30 AM
Hey out of curiosity how do search warrants work on a day like today? What happens if an officer goes to a house and says "Can we check your house" and the owner is like "No way."?

Not trying to make a point here at all.
Im wondering if this is almost a Marshall law situation?
Yeah this is a national emergency similar to if troops were landing on the beach, not a time for paperwork.  If I'm the chief I'm like "Find em. Arrest people. I got your back".
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Moranis on April 19, 2013, 08:31:50 AM
Hey out of curiosity how do search warrants work on a day like today? What happens if an officer goes to a house and says "Can we check your house" and the owner is like "No way."?

Not trying to make a point here at all.
There has to be an imminent danger type situation to search a house without a warrant (or permission).  The police could do it anyway, but they run the risk of having all of the evidence tossed out and certainly open themselves up to potential liability by the home owner.  Now in the situation where you are looking for a person (and not evidence) the risk of getting evidence tossed out is diminished, but is still there (like say the person has a bunch of evidence on him).
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on April 19, 2013, 08:33:47 AM
This guy is on facebook posting! Kind of.  I gotta wonder if you friend that page how fast the FBI shows up at your house. He probably has an iphone5
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on April 19, 2013, 08:35:40 AM
Hey out of curiosity how do search warrants work on a day like today? What happens if an officer goes to a house and says "Can we check your house" and the owner is like "No way."?

Not trying to make a point here at all.
There has to be an imminent danger type situation to search a house without a warrant (or permission).  The police could do it anyway, but they run the risk of having all of the evidence tossed out and certainly open themselves up to potential liability by the home owner.  Now in the situation where you are looking for a person (and not evidence) the risk of getting evidence tossed out is diminished, but is still there (like say the person has a bunch of evidence on him).
Well the danger is very very imminent. This is the single most wanted alive man in the history of the country essentially. Other than maybe Jefferson Davis and John Wilkes Booth, but those guys weren't suspected of wearing suicide vests
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on April 19, 2013, 08:39:54 AM
Hey out of curiosity how do search warrants work on a day like today? What happens if an officer goes to a house and says "Can we check your house" and the owner is like "No way."?

Not trying to make a point here at all.
There has to be an imminent danger type situation to search a house without a warrant (or permission).  The police could do it anyway, but they run the risk of having all of the evidence tossed out and certainly open themselves up to potential liability by the home owner.  Now in the situation where you are looking for a person (and not evidence) the risk of getting evidence tossed out is diminished, but is still there (like say the person has a bunch of evidence on him).
Well the danger is very very imminent. This is the single most wanted alive man in the history of the country essentially. Other than maybe Jefferson Davis and John Wilkes Booth, but those guys weren't suspected of wearing suicide vests
I wonder what the entrapment laws are in this case. Like all taxi service has been stopped. What if the police drive like 7 taxis under cover and pose as taxis and he gets in one?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Moranis on April 19, 2013, 09:09:59 AM
Hey out of curiosity how do search warrants work on a day like today? What happens if an officer goes to a house and says "Can we check your house" and the owner is like "No way."?

Not trying to make a point here at all.
There has to be an imminent danger type situation to search a house without a warrant (or permission).  The police could do it anyway, but they run the risk of having all of the evidence tossed out and certainly open themselves up to potential liability by the home owner.  Now in the situation where you are looking for a person (and not evidence) the risk of getting evidence tossed out is diminished, but is still there (like say the person has a bunch of evidence on him).
Well the danger is very very imminent. This is the single most wanted alive man in the history of the country essentially. Other than maybe Jefferson Davis and John Wilkes Booth, but those guys weren't suspected of wearing suicide vests
This is imminent danger as such that would allow the police to forego the constitution.  Imminent danger, means immediate, like a fire, an assault, a weird chemical smell, medical emergencies, etc.  Hunting down a fugitive is not imminent danger unless said fugitive is taking hostages (which by all accounts these guys were not doing - though they did commit a robbery).

Say you are a homeowner minding your business and the cops ask to search your home for this person.  You don't have the person there, but maybe you have some pot out or maybe you have a sick child sleeping or maybe you just don't want a bunch of cops going through your house opening doors and looking for someone that just isn't there.  What if the cops damage your property, track mud all through your white carpet, etc.  How would you feel?  Your rights have been violated without cause and you could and many would sue. 

The U.S. is not a police state.  The law must and will be followed even when tracking down a fugitive.  And let's be clear this guy is a sick twisted individual, but he is no where near the most wanted fugitive in the history of the U.S.  That is such a gross exaggeration of the highest order.  I mean the kid in the Colorado shooting killed far more people and that was just last year.  McVeigh caused far greater damage and a much higher death toll with the OKC bombing in the 90's.  Don't get me wrong it was a horrific event, but the hyperbole is just crazy.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on April 19, 2013, 09:16:50 AM
Hey out of curiosity how do search warrants work on a day like today? What happens if an officer goes to a house and says "Can we check your house" and the owner is like "No way."?

Not trying to make a point here at all.
There has to be an imminent danger type situation to search a house without a warrant (or permission).  The police could do it anyway, but they run the risk of having all of the evidence tossed out and certainly open themselves up to potential liability by the home owner.  Now in the situation where you are looking for a person (and not evidence) the risk of getting evidence tossed out is diminished, but is still there (like say the person has a bunch of evidence on him).
Well the danger is very very imminent. This is the single most wanted alive man in the history of the country essentially. Other than maybe Jefferson Davis and John Wilkes Booth, but those guys weren't suspected of wearing suicide vests
This is imminent danger as such that would allow the police to forego the constitution.  He isn't running around shooting people and as far as I know there aren't any additional bomb plots.  Imminent danger, means immediate, like a fire, an assault, a weird chemical smell, medical emergencies, etc.  Hunting down a fugitive is not imminent danger unless said fugitive is taking hostages or something like that.

Say you are a homeowner minding your business and the cops ask to search your home for this person.  You don't have the person there, but maybe you have some pot out or maybe you have a sick child sleeping or maybe you just don't want a bunch of cops going through your house opening doors and looking for someone that just isn't there.  What if the cops damage your property, track mud all through your white carpet, etc.  How would you feel?  Your rights have been violated without cause and you could and many would sue. 

The U.S. is not a police state.  The law must and will be followed even when tracking down a fugitive.  And let's be clear this guy is a sick twisted individual, but he is no where near the most wanted fugitive in the history of the U.S.  That is such a gross exaggeration of the highest order.  I mean the kid in the Colorado shooting killed far more people and that was just last year.  McVeigh caused far greater damage and a much higher death toll with the OKC bombing in the 90's.  Don't get me wrong it was a horrific event, but the hyperbole is just crazy.
I only want to speak to the legal aspect. I'm sorry but I don't think a sleeping kid is reason to stop police from looking for this guy. The threat is extreme due to his brother being found with explosives on his body. This guy HAS to be taken alive or at least in tact as much as possible.  It's the equivalent at least of when there were active German spies in America during WW2.  This isn't a guy that just stole a car or something.  I'm not measuring the significance of this guy by how many people he hurt.

Legally I just don't know much about suspending the Constitution but this seems as close as you can get to that without troops being landed on the beaches
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on April 19, 2013, 09:19:36 AM
Is it legal to cut a deal on TV where if he gives himself up and cooperates we won't execute? .....that would be a legal oral contract, right? If initiated by the authorities?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on April 19, 2013, 10:13:05 AM
If the media tried to help the police purposely leak misinformation to help the search I have to wonder to what extent that's ok. I mean if they say "They are looking over here" and actually he's over there I wonder if that creates danger to citizens and you can't do that or if under the circumstances it's legit. This is pretty uncharted waters.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Fafnir on April 19, 2013, 10:18:38 AM
If the media tried to help the police purposely leak misinformation to help the search I have to wonder to what extent that's ok. I mean if they say "They are looking over here" and actually he's over there I wonder if that creates danger to citizens and you can't do that or if under the circumstances it's legit. This is pretty uncharted waters.
Law enforcement can lie to both the media and suspects if they choose. Not uncharted, but overall they avoid it due to bad PR.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on April 19, 2013, 10:21:32 AM
If the media tried to help the police purposely leak misinformation to help the search I have to wonder to what extent that's ok. I mean if they say "They are looking over here" and actually he's over there I wonder if that creates danger to citizens and you can't do that or if under the circumstances it's legit. This is pretty uncharted waters.
Law enforcement can lie to both the media and suspects if they choose. Not uncharted, but overall they avoid it due to bad PR.
I can totally understand lying about something like "he's Chechen" but if they said "He's not armed" when he is...wow.  I can't imagine that happening but this whole thing is hard to imagine
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Roy H. on April 19, 2013, 06:55:09 PM
Is it legal to cut a deal on TV where if he gives himself up and cooperates we won't execute? .....that would be a legal oral contract, right? If initiated by the authorities?

Only if it's extended by a prosecutor, I believe.  Promises made by the police to coerce surrender or a confession generally aren't enforceable.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on April 19, 2013, 07:01:02 PM
Is it legal to cut a deal on TV where if he gives himself up and cooperates we won't execute? .....that would be a legal oral contract, right? If initiated by the authorities?

Only if it's extended by a prosecutor, I believe.  Promises made by the police to coerce surrender or a confession generally aren't enforceable.
Soooo...in this case...that would be...the Attorney General of the US?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Roy H. on April 19, 2013, 07:12:38 PM
Is it legal to cut a deal on TV where if he gives himself up and cooperates we won't execute? .....that would be a legal oral contract, right? If initiated by the authorities?

Only if it's extended by a prosecutor, I believe.  Promises made by the police to coerce surrender or a confession generally aren't enforceable.
Soooo...in this case...that would be...the Attorney General of the US?

Yeah, or somebody from his office.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on April 19, 2013, 07:17:26 PM
Is it legal to cut a deal on TV where if he gives himself up and cooperates we won't execute? .....that would be a legal oral contract, right? If initiated by the authorities?

Only if it's extended by a prosecutor, I believe.  Promises made by the police to coerce surrender or a confession generally aren't enforceable.
Soooo...in this case...that would be...the Attorney General of the US?

Yeah, or somebody from his office.
Bery bery eenteresting. Thank you very much
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Fan from VT on April 19, 2013, 09:25:18 PM
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/04/boston_bomber_manhunt_is_the_watertown_door_to_door_search_by_police_for.html
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on March 20, 2014, 10:27:09 AM
If I'm out for a walk on a public trail and I find a historical artifact that's kinda cool and unique (but not George Washington's teeth or anything) can I sell it legally, or is that a no-no?  Thanks
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on August 17, 2014, 07:38:35 AM
Does anyone know the legality of a Ferguson style curfew?  Don't you have a Constitutional right to assembly and to protest that is 24/7?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: mgent on August 17, 2014, 10:40:12 AM
If I'm out for a walk on a public trail and I find a historical artifact that's kinda cool and unique (but not George Washington's teeth or anything) can I sell it legally, or is that a no-no?  Thanks
Yeah, why not?  Unless it was stolen or a relic.  Finders, keepers.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on October 22, 2014, 06:58:20 PM
for all the lawyers out there....did they ever discuss super stare decisis in law school? Is there a general feeling about this in the legal community?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on October 22, 2014, 07:00:42 PM
Also....in the recent non - ruling of all the gay marriage cases....would the court have been required to go state by state? Or did every single state say basically the exact same thing?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Roy H. on October 22, 2014, 07:06:54 PM
for all the lawyers out there....did they ever discuss super stare decisis in law school? Is there a general feeling about this in the legal community?

I don't know if there's a consensus.  I'm of the Scalia / Thomas mindset:  precedent should be respect, but not when the original case was clearly wrongly decided.  The Supreme Court has made some massive mistakes in its history; there's no reason to give unconstitutional decisions validity just because it would be hard to overturn them.

I'm mindful of the practical effects of my philosophy.  A commerce clause case like Wickard v. Fillburn was, in my mind, decided horribly wrongly.  There have been dozens of cases that have been decided on its precedent.  Thomas has advocated overturning that decision (I believe in a concurrence in U.S. v. Lopez), and philosophically, I agree with him.  As a practical matter, I'm not sure how the economy could adjust.

The best answer?  Overturn it, and stay the decision to give Congress and the States time to pass a Constitutional amendment. 
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on October 22, 2014, 07:39:21 PM
for all the lawyers out there....did they ever discuss super stare decisis in law school? Is there a general feeling about this in the legal community?

I don't know if there's a consensus.  I'm of the Scalia / Thomas mindset:  precedent should be respect, but not when the original case was clearly wrongly decided.  The Supreme Court has made some massive mistakes in its history; there's no reason to give unconstitutional decisions validity just because it would be hard to overturn them.

I'm mindful of the practical effects of my philosophy.  A commerce clause case like Wickard v. Fillburn was, in my mind, decided horribly wrongly.  There have been dozens of cases that have been decided on its precedent.  Thomas has advocated overturning that decision (I believe in a concurrence in U.S. v. Lopez), and philosophically, I agree with him.  As a practical matter, I'm not sure how the economy could adjust.

The best answer?  Overturn it, and stay the decision to give Congress and the States time to pass a Constitutional amendment.
It would seem a bit of a silly concept to me actually. I mean if there was ever a super precedent it was Dred Scott, right? Glad they sorted that out
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Roy H. on October 22, 2014, 07:46:37 PM
for all the lawyers out there....did they ever discuss super stare decisis in law school? Is there a general feeling about this in the legal community?

I don't know if there's a consensus.  I'm of the Scalia / Thomas mindset:  precedent should be respect, but not when the original case was clearly wrongly decided.  The Supreme Court has made some massive mistakes in its history; there's no reason to give unconstitutional decisions validity just because it would be hard to overturn them.

I'm mindful of the practical effects of my philosophy.  A commerce clause case like Wickard v. Fillburn was, in my mind, decided horribly wrongly.  There have been dozens of cases that have been decided on its precedent.  Thomas has advocated overturning that decision (I believe in a concurrence in U.S. v. Lopez), and philosophically, I agree with him.  As a practical matter, I'm not sure how the economy could adjust.

The best answer?  Overturn it, and stay the decision to give Congress and the States time to pass a Constitutional amendment.
It would seem a bit of a silly concept to me actually. I mean if there was ever a super precedent it was Dred Scott, right? Glad they sorted that out

Lots of terrible precedents out there.  Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson (which stood for over 50 years), Korematsu v. United States (which still hasn't been formally overturned).
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on February 19, 2015, 09:35:21 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/mike-huckabee-gay-marriage-supreme-court_n_6512042.html

woah woah woah.....What's Huckabee talkin bout Willis?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: D.o.s. on February 19, 2015, 09:38:09 AM
Splitting hairs to rouse rabbles.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Roy H. on February 19, 2015, 09:41:06 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/mike-huckabee-gay-marriage-supreme-court_n_6512042.html

woah woah woah.....What's Huckabee talkin bout Willis?

The time for Huckabee's argument was over 200 years ago.  Judicial review isn't necessarily explicitly in the Constitution, but it's been settled since Marbury v. Madison.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on February 19, 2015, 09:44:19 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/mike-huckabee-gay-marriage-supreme-court_n_6512042.html

woah woah woah.....What's Huckabee talkin bout Willis?

The time for Huckabee's argument was over 200 years ago.  Judicial review isn't necessarily explicitly in the Constitution, but it's been settled since Marbury v. Madison.
Ok. That's what I thought give or take. I mean I knew Andrew Jackson ignored the court, but that's the only major successful example I can think of
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: PhoSita on February 19, 2015, 10:01:57 AM

Lots of terrible precedents out there.  Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson (which stood for over 50 years), Korematsu v. United States (which still hasn't been formally overturned).

Lochner was a fun bit of legal sophistry.  A lot of those late 19th / early 20th century decisions were.

Adamson v. California is a fascinating read, in which the court goes into a lengthy rationale justifying allowing the states to basically undermine the 5th Amendment right to not be compelled to testify at ones own criminal trial.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: PhoSita on February 19, 2015, 10:06:19 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/mike-huckabee-gay-marriage-supreme-court_n_6512042.html

woah woah woah.....What's Huckabee talkin bout Willis?

The time for Huckabee's argument was over 200 years ago.  Judicial review isn't necessarily explicitly in the Constitution, but it's been settled since Marbury v. Madison.
Ok. That's what I thought give or take. I mean I knew Andrew Jackson ignored the court, but that's the only major successful example I can think of


It's emphatically the role of the judiciary to say what the law is.


Great quote. (Paraphrasing)


Technically, Huckabee U.S. correct in the sense that the states don't have to accept what the Supreme Court rules as the final say on the law of the land ... They just need to get together and pass a Constitutional Amendment.

(Or they can wait to have a Republican President in a position to replace a couple liberal seats on the Court -- then the balance will be utterly destroyed and all kinds of crazy decisions can come down).
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: CeltsAcumen on February 19, 2015, 10:42:37 AM
for all the lawyers out there....did they ever discuss super stare decisis in law school? Is there a general feeling about this in the legal community?

I don't know if there's a consensus.  I'm of the Scalia / Thomas mindset:  precedent should be respect, but not when the original case was clearly wrongly decided.  The Supreme Court has made some massive mistakes in its history; there's no reason to give unconstitutional decisions validity just because it would be hard to overturn them.

I'm mindful of the practical effects of my philosophy.  A commerce clause case like Wickard v. Fillburn was, in my mind, decided horribly wrongly.  There have been dozens of cases that have been decided on its precedent.  Thomas has advocated overturning that decision (I believe in a concurrence in U.S. v. Lopez), and philosophically, I agree with him.  As a practical matter, I'm not sure how the economy could adjust.

The best answer?  Overturn it, and stay the decision to give Congress and the States time to pass a Constitutional amendment.
you are going to have to explain Citizens United to me and how Scalia and Thomas follow precedent.

Scalia is one of the most activist justice to sit on the court, he is a Federalist who has forced his agenda on most of America since his confirmation.  I wonder how many times has Thomas voted against Scalia since he was confirmed.

 
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on February 19, 2015, 10:45:11 AM
for all the lawyers out there....did they ever discuss super stare decisis in law school? Is there a general feeling about this in the legal community?

I don't know if there's a consensus.  I'm of the Scalia / Thomas mindset:  precedent should be respect, but not when the original case was clearly wrongly decided.  The Supreme Court has made some massive mistakes in its history; there's no reason to give unconstitutional decisions validity just because it would be hard to overturn them.

I'm mindful of the practical effects of my philosophy.  A commerce clause case like Wickard v. Fillburn was, in my mind, decided horribly wrongly.  There have been dozens of cases that have been decided on its precedent.  Thomas has advocated overturning that decision (I believe in a concurrence in U.S. v. Lopez), and philosophically, I agree with him.  As a practical matter, I'm not sure how the economy could adjust.

The best answer?  Overturn it, and stay the decision to give Congress and the States time to pass a Constitutional amendment.
you are going to have to explain Citizens United to me and how Scalia and Thomas follow precedent.

I would really love to read the case where they can justify a citizen v. corporation.
Could you please be ever so slightly more clear?  I'm sure there have been many cases where citizens and corporations were in court and the corporation won correctly. Technically citizen vs corp is just citizen vs other citizens
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
Post by: Roy H. on February 19, 2015, 10:47:57 AM
for all the lawyers out there....did they ever discuss super stare decisis in law school? Is there a general feeling about this in the legal community?

I don't know if there's a consensus.  I'm of the Scalia / Thomas mindset:  precedent should be respect, but not when the original case was clearly wrongly decided.  The Supreme Court has made some massive mistakes in its history; there's no reason to give unconstitutional decisions validity just because it would be hard to overturn them.

I'm mindful of the practical effects of my philosophy.  A commerce clause case like Wickard v. Fillburn was, in my mind, decided horribly wrongly.  There have been dozens of cases that have been decided on its precedent.  Thomas has advocated overturning that decision (I believe in a concurrence in U.S. v. Lopez), and philosophically, I agree with him.  As a practical matter, I'm not sure how the economy could adjust.

The best answer?  Overturn it, and stay the decision to give Congress and the States time to pass a Constitutional amendment.
you are going to have to explain Citizens United to me and how Scalia and Thomas follow precedent.

I would really love to read the case where they can justify a citizen v. corporation.

I don't mind Citizens United.

The basic holding is that groups of people have free speech rights as much as individuals do. 

Can you imagine if they didn't?  Should the government be able to tell groups they can't speak?  What if the government stifled the collective speech of the ACLU?  The Sierra Club?  PETA?  The Teamsters?  One of the Teachers' Unions?

If folks don't like Citizens United, pass a Constitutional Amendment regarding campaign finance reform.  Until such point, though, there's no reason to treat corporations any differently than other groups / collectives.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: D.o.s. on February 19, 2015, 10:50:07 AM
One of the best descriptions that I've read on the issue came out shortly after citizens united -- at least as it relates to campaign financing (which is, after all, what the case was about).

Quote
On one side are those Justices who view the world of politics as fraught with corruption and undue access for the wealthy; they worry that voter confidence gets shaken by each new campaign finance scandal. On the other side are those Justices who see any limitation on money in politics as overt government censorship that violates the First Amendment; they fear that incumbents will squelch criticism in a replay of the Alien and Sedition Acts
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2010/07/01/what-the-court-didand-why/
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on February 19, 2015, 10:51:46 AM
If PETA can spend money to influence an election than so can Nathan's Famous Hot Dogs.  It's that simple.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on February 19, 2015, 11:04:14 AM
undue access for the wealthy? I have missed the part of the Constitution that deals with that.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: D.o.s. on February 19, 2015, 11:19:04 AM
Is that because you skipped over the part where only white landowners could vote? :D
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on June 07, 2015, 07:47:13 PM
I was in a restaurant/bar today and ordered with food a beer cocktail and their weakest beer and the guy came out to tell me they couldn't do that because according to a 100 year old MA blue law which also exists in CT it's against the law to serve someone two drinks at a time. He stated it would be legal to serve a beer and wine but they would never do that. I think he's full of it. I have researched pretty hard on that. Does anyone know if this is really a law and exactly what law he's referring to?

All my research is pointing towards it being against the law to serve someone MORE than two drinks at a time. Also you can't serve a pitcher of beer to a single person. Has to be a party of at least two
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Roy H. on June 07, 2015, 08:16:18 PM
I was in a restaurant/bar today and ordered with food a beer cocktail and their weakest beer and the guy came out to tell me they couldn't do that because according to a 100 year old MA blue law which also exists in CT it's against the law to serve someone two drinks at a time. He stated it would be legal to serve a beer and wine but they would never do that. I think he's full of it. I have researched pretty hard on that. Does anyone know if this is really a law and exactly what law he's referring to?

http://www.mass.gov/abcc/pdf/faqfinal_2013.pdf

See #27 and #28. This link says it's illegal to sell more than two drinks at a time (excluding wine).
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on June 07, 2015, 08:17:46 PM
Thank you. That's what I thought
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Roy H. on June 07, 2015, 08:19:08 PM
Here are the regs.

http://www.mass.gov/abcc/regs/reg2040403.htm
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Csfan1984 on June 07, 2015, 08:19:43 PM
I was in a restaurant/bar today and ordered with food a beer cocktail and their weakest beer and the guy came out to tell me they couldn't do that because according to a 100 year old MA blue law which also exists in CT it's against the law to serve someone two drinks at a time. He stated it would be legal to serve a beer and wine but they would never do that. I think he's full of it. I have researched pretty hard on that. Does anyone know if this is really a law and exactly what law he's referring to?
This is a weird one cause I have and seen other people order shot and beer or mixed drinks and beer. But never wine and beer at same time. However I have been told can't order two beers at one time for myself but could buy a pitcher. Go figure
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: JohnBoy65 on June 07, 2015, 08:22:16 PM
Sort of on the same topic. I'm from New York and am 22. I've been to TG Garden twice since I turned 21. They won't sell me a beer because I'm out of state and not over the age of 25. Not sure what that's about.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: jpotter33 on June 07, 2015, 08:41:28 PM
Sort of on the same topic. I'm from New York and am 22. I've been to TG Garden twice since I turned 21. They won't sell me a beer because I'm out of state and not over the age of 25. Not sure what that's about.

Same exact thing happened to me when I visited in 2012. The guy said it was a TD Garden policy not a law, iirc.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: jambr380 on June 07, 2015, 09:22:31 PM
Sort of on the same topic. I'm from New York and am 22. I've been to TG Garden twice since I turned 21. They won't sell me a beer because I'm out of state and not over the age of 25. Not sure what that's about.

Same exact thing happened to me when I visited in 2012. The guy said it was a TD Garden policy not a law, iirc.

Man, now that I've lived in Florida for a few years, I have forgotten all about Massachusetts' strange alcohol laws. It wasn't too long ago that Sunday sales were off-limits.

I am not a heavy drinker, but I really appreciate happy hours and drink specials that other states have, especially Florida. It seems so arbitrary.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on March 26, 2016, 05:06:06 PM
So if it can proven that Roger Goodell knowingly and purposely lied about the danger of concussions to his players that's essentially no different from lying to a miner about the danger of a mine right? And that's essentially highly illegal right? So Roger can go to jail for that right? Is there something I'm missing?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Ogaju on March 26, 2016, 05:24:27 PM
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on March 26, 2016, 05:36:33 PM
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.
You're saying there is no possible crime here? Like if you're at work and your boss hands you a stick of dynamite and tells you it's a perfectly safe thing, and please light it up if the lights go out....that's a crime right? This is obviously not as extreme as that, but if he withholds serious information about their bodily danger....I'm just not sure I understand the difference here. Are you saying it's not like the dynamite thing and more like...something far less extreme like ...having a slippery floor and declining to put up one of those wet floor signs?  Concussions seem like a pretty dangerous deal to me, and if the players have been led to believe it is safe, when they knew it wasn't...that doesn't just sound like fraud.  It seems in your view the bar is really high to send someone to jail for creating a very unsafe work place and then lying about it.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Csfan1984 on March 26, 2016, 06:39:05 PM
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.
You're saying there is no possible crime here? Like if you're at work and your boss hands you a stick of dynamite and tells you it's a perfectly safe thing, and please light it up if the lights go out....that's a crime right? This is obviously not as extreme as that, but if he withholds serious information about their bodily danger....I'm just not sure I understand the difference here. Are you saying it's not like the dynamite thing and more like...something far less extreme like ...having a slippery floor and declining to put up one of those wet floor signs?  Concussions seem like a pretty dangerous deal to me, and if the players have been led to believe it is safe, when they knew it wasn't...that doesn't just sound like fraud.  It seems in your view the bar is really high to send someone to jail for creating a very unsafe work place and then lying about it.
I think employers are protected to some degree but they can be sued and be made to pay fines. Believe jail time only comes when they actually break laws and not simply violating buiness practices. Of course there are always exceptions.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Ogaju on March 26, 2016, 07:22:17 PM
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.
You're saying there is no possible crime here? Like if you're at work and your boss hands you a stick of dynamite and tells you it's a perfectly safe thing, and please light it up if the lights go out....that's a crime right? This is obviously not as extreme as that, but if he withholds serious information about their bodily danger....I'm just not sure I understand the difference here. Are you saying it's not like the dynamite thing and more like...something far less extreme like ...having a slippery floor and declining to put up one of those wet floor signs?  Concussions seem like a pretty dangerous deal to me, and if the players have been led to believe it is safe, when they knew it wasn't...that doesn't just sound like fraud.  It seems in your view the bar is really high to send someone to jail for creating a very unsafe work place and then lying about it.

well the more facts you add to make the conduct egregious I believe you can make a crime out of it. If Goodell had incontrovertible evidence about defective helmets for example and he knew that the defect was so bad that it could lead to serious injury or death, if he then deliberately buries the information and a serious injury or death occurs, I can see a criminal charge from that -- negligent homicide in the case of a death occurring.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on March 26, 2016, 08:34:07 PM
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.
You're saying there is no possible crime here? Like if you're at work and your boss hands you a stick of dynamite and tells you it's a perfectly safe thing, and please light it up if the lights go out....that's a crime right? This is obviously not as extreme as that, but if he withholds serious information about their bodily danger....I'm just not sure I understand the difference here. Are you saying it's not like the dynamite thing and more like...something far less extreme like ...having a slippery floor and declining to put up one of those wet floor signs?  Concussions seem like a pretty dangerous deal to me, and if the players have been led to believe it is safe, when they knew it wasn't...that doesn't just sound like fraud.  It seems in your view the bar is really high to send someone to jail for creating a very unsafe work place and then lying about it.

well the more facts you add to make the conduct egregious I believe you can make a crime out of it. If Goodell had incontrovertible evidence about defective helmets for example and he knew that the defect was so bad that it could lead to serious injury or death, if he then deliberately buries the information and a serious injury or death occurs, I can see a criminal charge from that -- negligent homicide in the case of a death occurring.
I see what you're saying. But he does have players dying young on him now and donating their brains to science. Junior Seau. Kevin Turner. I think the list will grow. And these aren't just a bunch of dumb guys the way maybe some people think. They are absolutely able to hire some very good investigators and lawyers.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Roy H. on March 26, 2016, 08:48:32 PM
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.
You're saying there is no possible crime here? Like if you're at work and your boss hands you a stick of dynamite and tells you it's a perfectly safe thing, and please light it up if the lights go out....that's a crime right? This is obviously not as extreme as that, but if he withholds serious information about their bodily danger....I'm just not sure I understand the difference here. Are you saying it's not like the dynamite thing and more like...something far less extreme like ...having a slippery floor and declining to put up one of those wet floor signs?  Concussions seem like a pretty dangerous deal to me, and if the players have been led to believe it is safe, when they knew it wasn't...that doesn't just sound like fraud.  It seems in your view the bar is really high to send someone to jail for creating a very unsafe work place and then lying about it.

well the more facts you add to make the conduct egregious I believe you can make a crime out of it. If Goodell had incontrovertible evidence about defective helmets for example and he knew that the defect was so bad that it could lead to serious injury or death, if he then deliberately buries the information and a serious injury or death occurs, I can see a criminal charge from that -- negligent homicide in the case of a death occurring.
I see what you're saying. But he does have players dying young on him now and donating their brains to science. Junior Seau. Kevin Turner. I think the list will grow. And these aren't just a bunch of dumb guys the way maybe some people think. They are absolutely able to hire some very good investigators and lawyers.

Players know they are participating in an inherently dangerous sport.  I can't imagine any criminal culpability found simply because an executive has been slower than he should have been to acknowledge a links between concussions and long-term brain injury.

If no tobacco executives ended up in jail, there is pretty much no chance of Roger Goddell ever being indicted, let alone convicted.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: hwangjini_1 on March 26, 2016, 08:55:42 PM
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.
You're saying there is no possible crime here? Like if you're at work and your boss hands you a stick of dynamite and tells you it's a perfectly safe thing, and please light it up if the lights go out....that's a crime right? This is obviously not as extreme as that, but if he withholds serious information about their bodily danger....I'm just not sure I understand the difference here. Are you saying it's not like the dynamite thing and more like...something far less extreme like ...having a slippery floor and declining to put up one of those wet floor signs?  Concussions seem like a pretty dangerous deal to me, and if the players have been led to believe it is safe, when they knew it wasn't...that doesn't just sound like fraud.  It seems in your view the bar is really high to send someone to jail for creating a very unsafe work place and then lying about it.

well the more facts you add to make the conduct egregious I believe you can make a crime out of it. If Goodell had incontrovertible evidence about defective helmets for example and he knew that the defect was so bad that it could lead to serious injury or death, if he then deliberately buries the information and a serious injury or death occurs, I can see a criminal charge from that -- negligent homicide in the case of a death occurring.
I see what you're saying. But he does have players dying young on him now and donating their brains to science. Junior Seau. Kevin Turner. I think the list will grow. And these aren't just a bunch of dumb guys the way maybe some people think. They are absolutely able to hire some very good investigators and lawyers.

Players know they are participating in an inherently dangerous sport.  I can't imagine any criminal culpability found simply because an executive has been slower than he should have been to acknowledge a links between concussions and long-term brain injury.

If no tobacco executives ended up in jail, there is pretty much no chance of Roger Goddell ever being indicted, let alone convicted.
and therein lies a fundamental shortcoming in the US legal system. folks such as them, and the oil industry, and tobacco, and so many corporations should inside prisons today. but then, how much of the US legal system takes as its unspoken assumptions the values and priorities of capitalism and western enlightenment?

thank goodness god has special places in hell for these folks.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on March 26, 2016, 08:56:39 PM
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.
You're saying there is no possible crime here? Like if you're at work and your boss hands you a stick of dynamite and tells you it's a perfectly safe thing, and please light it up if the lights go out....that's a crime right? This is obviously not as extreme as that, but if he withholds serious information about their bodily danger....I'm just not sure I understand the difference here. Are you saying it's not like the dynamite thing and more like...something far less extreme like ...having a slippery floor and declining to put up one of those wet floor signs?  Concussions seem like a pretty dangerous deal to me, and if the players have been led to believe it is safe, when they knew it wasn't...that doesn't just sound like fraud.  It seems in your view the bar is really high to send someone to jail for creating a very unsafe work place and then lying about it.

well the more facts you add to make the conduct egregious I believe you can make a crime out of it. If Goodell had incontrovertible evidence about defective helmets for example and he knew that the defect was so bad that it could lead to serious injury or death, if he then deliberately buries the information and a serious injury or death occurs, I can see a criminal charge from that -- negligent homicide in the case of a death occurring.
I see what you're saying. But he does have players dying young on him now and donating their brains to science. Junior Seau. Kevin Turner. I think the list will grow. And these aren't just a bunch of dumb guys the way maybe some people think. They are absolutely able to hire some very good investigators and lawyers.

Players know they are participating in an inherently dangerous sport.  I can't imagine any criminal culpability found simply because an executive has been slower than he should have been to acknowledge a links between concussions and long-term brain injury.

If no tobacco executives ended up in jail, there is pretty much no chance of Roger Goddell ever being indicted, let alone convicted.
I see what you mean. Just understating a level of danger isn't exactly the same thing as telling a coal miner a very dangerous mine is safe. 
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: hwangjini_1 on March 26, 2016, 10:02:37 PM
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.
You're saying there is no possible crime here? Like if you're at work and your boss hands you a stick of dynamite and tells you it's a perfectly safe thing, and please light it up if the lights go out....that's a crime right? This is obviously not as extreme as that, but if he withholds serious information about their bodily danger....I'm just not sure I understand the difference here. Are you saying it's not like the dynamite thing and more like...something far less extreme like ...having a slippery floor and declining to put up one of those wet floor signs?  Concussions seem like a pretty dangerous deal to me, and if the players have been led to believe it is safe, when they knew it wasn't...that doesn't just sound like fraud.  It seems in your view the bar is really high to send someone to jail for creating a very unsafe work place and then lying about it.

well the more facts you add to make the conduct egregious I believe you can make a crime out of it. If Goodell had incontrovertible evidence about defective helmets for example and he knew that the defect was so bad that it could lead to serious injury or death, if he then deliberately buries the information and a serious injury or death occurs, I can see a criminal charge from that -- negligent homicide in the case of a death occurring.
I see what you're saying. But he does have players dying young on him now and donating their brains to science. Junior Seau. Kevin Turner. I think the list will grow. And these aren't just a bunch of dumb guys the way maybe some people think. They are absolutely able to hire some very good investigators and lawyers.

Players know they are participating in an inherently dangerous sport.  I can't imagine any criminal culpability found simply because an executive has been slower than he should have been to acknowledge a links between concussions and long-term brain injury.

If no tobacco executives ended up in jail, there is pretty much no chance of Roger Goddell ever being indicted, let alone convicted.
I see what you mean. Just understating a level of danger isn't exactly the same thing as telling a coal miner a very dangerous mine is safe.
but neither is a substitute for all parties being concerned with the general safety of fellow human beings, in this case workers.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Ogaju on March 26, 2016, 10:30:55 PM
the issue here is exactly what Roy suggests, there is a choice here. The players chose to play this sports with knowledge of its inherent danger. They are not unwilling participants, I bet there is also the element that that they paid very well to play. To get close to criminal culpability, you will need some serious malfeasance by Goodell such as hiding or altering damaging scientific evidence. It has to be pretty egregious to get a criminal indictment.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on April 02, 2017, 07:06:40 PM
I can't believe it's been a year since we used this thread.


Anyway....at the end of the film Gran Torino.

Is there sorta a plot hole there? It makes it seem a gang sorta gets tricked into committing a violent crime against a good guy in full view of witnesses and that they'll all go to jail and that will allow other good people in the neighborhood to grow up well and in peace.

But wait a second.

Realistically there is some time before the police get there. I think plenty of time to get rid of the weapons.

Next....the dude came onto their property at night and essentially provoked/threatened them.

Does stand your ground apply here? (It takes place in Detroit.) Could it in some places?

Next....if I'm the lawyer I mean you can be all like "Did this guy ever call you anything racist? Did he have a history of waving guns around? Did he ever hit any of you or point a gun at you?"

Next...I mean...is there a way for a lawyer to be like "My client was in a well armed home. He was behind a window. He shot at the guy's feet to scare him away and had every good reason to. My guy is totally innocent, or perhaps guilty of protecting himself and his friends."

I mean what if they do an autopsy and determine only one or two bullets actually killed him but there were 9 gang members.

I mean how exactly does this all sort itself out?  Plea deal for involuntary manslaughter? Attempted murder?

It seems almost the whole case is based on eye witness account. Will the gang members most likely point fingers at each other?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: More Banners on April 02, 2017, 07:23:00 PM
I can't believe it's been a year since we used this thread.


Anyway....at the end of the film Gran Torino.

Is there sorta a plot hole there? It makes it seem a gang sorta gets tricked into committing a violent crime against a good guy in full view of witnesses and that they'll all go to jail and that will allow other good people in the neighborhood to grow up well and in peace.

But wait a second.

Realistically there is some time before the police get there. I think plenty of time to get rid of the weapons.

Next....the dude came onto their property at night and essentially provoked/threatened them.

Does stand your ground apply here? (It takes place in Detroit.) Could it in some places?

Next....if I'm the lawyer I mean you can be all like "Did this guy ever call you anything racist? Did he have a history of waving guns around? Did he ever hit any of you or point a gun at you?"

Next...I mean...is there a way for a lawyer to be like "My client was in a well armed home. He was behind a window. He shot at the guy's feet to scare him away and had every good reason to. My guy is totally innocent, or perhaps guilty of protecting himself and his friends."

I mean what if they do an autopsy and determine only one or two bullets actually killed him but there were 9 gang members.

I mean how exactly does this all sort itself out?  Plea deal for involuntary manslaughter? Attempted murder?

It seems almost the whole case is based on eye witness account. Will the gang members most likely point fingers at each other?

First of all, great movie.

Second, if I remember correctly, Eastwood was in the street. And unarmed.

Next, I don't think cops and courts appreciate the judicious use of warning shots like a naval shot over the bow. Any discharge of a weapon is an extremely risky business thing to do, legally speaking, which is why it needs to be a legit life or death self defense situation in any place, including in ones own home. If someone walks into your house, grabs a can o suds, sits in YOUR chair and starts watching a LAKERS game, you can't shoot him even though, obviously, being a Lakers fan and drinking your beer should be enough justification.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Csfan1984 on April 02, 2017, 07:33:57 PM
I can't believe it's been a year since we used this thread.


Anyway....at the end of the film Gran Torino.

Is there sorta a plot hole there? It makes it seem a gang sorta gets tricked into committing a violent crime against a good guy in full view of witnesses and that they'll all go to jail and that will allow other good people in the neighborhood to grow up well and in peace.

But wait a second.

Realistically there is some time before the police get there. I think plenty of time to get rid of the weapons.

Next....the dude came onto their property at night and essentially provoked/threatened them.

Does stand your ground apply here? (It takes place in Detroit.) Could it in some places?

Next....if I'm the lawyer I mean you can be all like "Did this guy ever call you anything racist? Did he have a history of waving guns around? Did he ever hit any of you or point a gun at you?"

Next...I mean...is there a way for a lawyer to be like "My client was in a well armed home. He was behind a window. He shot at the guy's feet to scare him away and had every good reason to. My guy is totally innocent, or perhaps guilty of protecting himself and his friends."

I mean what if they do an autopsy and determine only one or two bullets actually killed him but there were 9 gang members.

I mean how exactly does this all sort itself out?  Plea deal for involuntary manslaughter? Attempted murder?

It seems almost the whole case is based on eye witness account. Will the gang members most likely point fingers at each other?
Prior records, illegal gun charges, as well as its an old guy means they are all done. How is an old man provoking, is what a procecutor will say. If they lash out at an old man in such a drastic way they are threats to society.

And I honestly hope they were not locked up for life but got rehabilitation and became changed people. Too many youths make dumb mistakes and choices when in a bad environment. A lot of times they are just immature and acting out then things escalate.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on April 02, 2017, 08:01:38 PM
So if we remember he moved his hands extremely fast at night. If various witnesses and defendants are like "I thought for 100% sure he was pulling a gun".....stand your ground?

He wasn't exactly a boy scout.   If the gang members have no priors?

Granted I suppose we have to get past the part where they had fired at his neighbors the night before and had beat up that girl.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Eja117 on April 02, 2017, 08:11:40 PM
omg.....remember the scene where the Asian girl is walking with the white boy and the 3 black guys start harassing the two of them and Clint drives up in his Ford and is like "Ever notice how sometimes you bump into someone you should never have messed with? I'm that guy." and then he pulls out a gun and then he looks at the white boy and is like "What the hell you doing? These guys don't want to be your bro and I don't blame them. Get your fake paddy azz outta here puzzy"

That kid...that's Scott Eastwood ...that is Clint's illegitimate son via a flight attendant. He first acted with Clint in Flags of our Fathers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8coq2cUn1U

I kid not
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
Post by: Chief on April 02, 2017, 08:34:57 PM
omg.....remember the scene where the Asian girl is walking with the white boy and the 3 black guys start harassing the two of them and Clint drives up in his Ford and is like "Ever notice how sometimes you bump into someone you should never have messed with? I'm that guy." and then he pulls out a gun and then he looks at the white boy and is like "What the hell you doing? These guys don't want to be your bro and I don't blame them. Get your fake paddy azz outta here puzzy"

That kid...that's Scott Eastwood ...that is Clint's illegitimate son via a flight attendant. He first acted with Clint in Flags of our Fathers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8coq2cUn1U

I kid not

Yes, my wife has The Longest Ride on our dvr.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (looking in Roy's general direction perhaps)
Post by: Eja117 on January 20, 2018, 02:53:04 PM
So first of all I have no strong opinion about this at all and no agenda here.


Historically black colleges....aren't they like 99% black?  Um....

(https://media.giphy.com/media/hEtI7mFD2Gpa/giphy.gif)


Is it because they're 100% private? What if some other minority applies there?

What if I wanted to make an all Irish school.  Let's call it Boston Col...errr...Notre D...errr  Celtics University.

Is that legit somehow? I sorta thought you can't do that
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (looking in Roy's general direction perhaps)
Post by: nickagneta on January 20, 2018, 03:03:18 PM
So first of all I have no strong opinion about this at all and no agenda here.


Historically black colleges....aren't they like 99% black?  Um....

(https://media.giphy.com/media/hEtI7mFD2Gpa/giphy.gif)


Is it because they're 100% private? What if some other minority applies there?

What if I wanted to make an all Irish school.  Let's call it Boston Col...errr...Notre D...errr  Celtics University.

Is that legit somehow? I sorta thought you can't do that
Historically black colleges accept everyone.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (looking in Roy's general direction perhaps)
Post by: bdm860 on January 20, 2018, 03:13:24 PM
So first of all I have no strong opinion about this at all and no agenda here.


Historically black colleges....aren't they like 99% black?  Um....

(https://media.giphy.com/media/hEtI7mFD2Gpa/giphy.gif)


Is it because they're 100% private? What if some other minority applies there?

What if I wanted to make an all Irish school.  Let's call it Boston Col...errr...Notre D...errr  Celtics University.

Is that legit somehow? I sorta thought you can't do that

White people can and do attend HBCUs.  They're just institutions tailored to meet the needs of blacks.

Just like non-Catholics go to historically Catholic schools all the time (Georgetown, Providence, Notre Dame, Villanova, St. Johns, Seton Hall, etc.).

Many times organizations that sound exclusive to a certain minority demographic, are actually open to everybody.  White people can even join many things like the "Black Student Union" if they wanted to.  Here's an example of one I found through a quick Google search, (https://www.whitman.edu/student-life/student-clubs-and-organizations/black-student-union) though I definitely know of others.

Quote
Black Student Union is a safe space in which students can discuss topics of race and other areas of social justice. The club serves as a support group for students of color but is not exclusive to non-white students. Students of all backgrounds are welcome to attend meetings and events.

You can even watch BET if you want to!  Being tailored to something, is not the same as being exclusive to something.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (looking in Roy's general direction perhaps)
Post by: Roy H. on January 20, 2018, 03:15:44 PM
So first of all I have no strong opinion about this at all and no agenda here.


Historically black colleges....aren't they like 99% black?  Um....

(https://media.giphy.com/media/hEtI7mFD2Gpa/giphy.gif)


Is it because they're 100% private? What if some other minority applies there?

What if I wanted to make an all Irish school.  Let's call it Boston Col...errr...Notre D...errr  Celtics University.

Is that legit somehow? I sorta thought you can't do that
Historically black colleges accept everyone.

Yeah, three of my white friends went to HBCs, and it wasn’t a problem. 

It would be illegal if they set quotas, but they don’t.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (looking in Roy's general direction perhaps)
Post by: Eja117 on January 20, 2018, 03:15:52 PM
Are there such things as all women's schools any more or are there just schools....um...."tailored" to women now?
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (looking in Roy's general direction perhaps)
Post by: Eja117 on January 20, 2018, 03:16:55 PM
Out of curiosity why do some of these HBCs have 90% African American enrollment and some have I think 12%? I can only guess that in some cases it has to do with where they are
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (looking in Roy's general direction perhaps)
Post by: KGs Knee on January 20, 2018, 03:27:31 PM
Out of curiosity why do some of these HBCs have 90% African American enrollment and some have I think 12%? I can only guess that in some cases it has to do with where they are

Location is probably part of it,but my guess is also there isn't a great deal of desire on the part of most Caucasian people to attend.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (looking in Roy's general direction perhaps)
Post by: nickagneta on January 20, 2018, 03:28:12 PM
So first of all I have no strong opinion about this at all and no agenda here.


Historically black colleges....aren't they like 99% black?  Um....

(https://media.giphy.com/media/hEtI7mFD2Gpa/giphy.gif)


Is it because they're 100% private? What if some other minority applies there?

What if I wanted to make an all Irish school.  Let's call it Boston Col...errr...Notre D...errr  Celtics University.

Is that legit somehow? I sorta thought you can't do that
Historically black colleges accept everyone.

Yeah, three of my white friends went to HBCs, and it wasn’t a problem. 

It would be illegal if they set quotas, but they don’t.
Good friend of mine went to Howard and met his wife there. He is hispanic but white hispanic.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (looking in Roy's general direction perhaps)
Post by: Eja117 on January 20, 2018, 03:38:35 PM
This has all been very informative. I didn't realize there are HBCs that are actually majority white now.

I wonder if historically women's schools have gone through something similar. As far as I can tell schools like Vassar totally integrated but I'm not sure Wellesley did.

Also I'm not sure how the Radcliff vs Harvard thing shakes out....granted they merged but still
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (looking in Roy's general direction perhaps)
Post by: Roy H. on January 20, 2018, 03:45:30 PM
So first of all I have no strong opinion about this at all and no agenda here.


Historically black colleges....aren't they like 99% black?  Um....

(https://media.giphy.com/media/hEtI7mFD2Gpa/giphy.gif)


Is it because they're 100% private? What if some other minority applies there?

What if I wanted to make an all Irish school.  Let's call it Boston Col...errr...Notre D...errr  Celtics University.

Is that legit somehow? I sorta thought you can't do that
Historically black colleges accept everyone.

Yeah, three of my white friends went to HBCs, and it wasn’t a problem. 

It would be illegal if they set quotas, but they don’t.
Good friend of mine went to Howard and met his wife there. He is hispanic but white hispanic.

Yeah, one friend went to Howard and two went to Southern.

From what I hear, skin color doesn’t mean a lot there, but politics does. Just like a liberal won’t fit at BYU or (less so now) Washington and Lee, conservatives should steer clear of Howard.
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (looking in Roy's general direction perhaps)
Post by: Eja117 on January 20, 2018, 03:51:07 PM
Wow. I hadn't even considered where conservatives are...."safest" in upper academia today.

The fairly ignorant stretching for it eja nominees....

BYU
Ole Miss
Yeshiva
BC
Kansas
Texas
TCU
Baylor
any school in Texas
Alabama
Georgetown
Liberty "University"
Bob Jones "University"
schools in Georgia
schools in South Carolina

that's all I can come up with...not an overly appealing list actually
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (looking in Roy's general direction perhaps)
Post by: Moranis on January 20, 2018, 05:20:45 PM
There are conservative schools all over the country.  Many of them are Religious based, but some of them aren't. 
Title: Re: Hypothetical legal questions (looking in Roy's general direction perhaps)
Post by: tarheelsxxiii on January 20, 2018, 08:45:48 PM
I was hoping a question posted here on a Saturday morning would be a little more colorful, desperate, highly concerning, etc.