Author Topic: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)  (Read 35612 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #75 on: November 13, 2011, 06:29:23 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14891
  • Tommy Points: 946
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.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #76 on: November 23, 2011, 09:52:21 AM »

Offline thirstyboots18

  • Chat Moderator
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8752
  • Tommy Points: 2565
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?
Yesterday is history.
Tomorrow is a mystery.
Today is a gift...
   That is why it is called the present.
Visit the CelticsBlog Live Game Chat!

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #77 on: November 23, 2011, 12:02:01 PM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11445
  • Tommy Points: 1249
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.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #78 on: December 07, 2011, 03:44:43 PM »

Offline eja117

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17832
  • Tommy Points: 1144
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.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #79 on: May 02, 2012, 11:54:41 AM »

Offline eja117

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17832
  • Tommy Points: 1144
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.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #80 on: May 02, 2012, 11:59:02 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17145
  • Tommy Points: 816
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). 
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #81 on: May 02, 2012, 12:34:00 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7493
  • Tommy Points: 795
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.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #82 on: May 02, 2012, 01:35:29 PM »

Offline eja117

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17832
  • Tommy Points: 1144
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

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #83 on: October 12, 2012, 07:52:25 PM »

Offline eja117

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17832
  • Tommy Points: 1144
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.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #84 on: April 19, 2013, 07:58:44 AM »

Offline eja117

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17832
  • Tommy Points: 1144
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.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #85 on: April 19, 2013, 08:14:39 AM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18087
  • Tommy Points: 8807
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.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #86 on: April 19, 2013, 08:16:19 AM »

Offline Rondo2287

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12976
  • Tommy Points: 814
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?
CB Draft LA Lakers: Lamarcus Aldridge, Carmelo Anthony,Jrue Holiday, Wes Matthews  6.11, 7.16, 8.14, 8.15, 9.16, 11.5, 11.16

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #87 on: April 19, 2013, 08:21:30 AM »

Offline eja117

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17832
  • Tommy Points: 1144
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".

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #88 on: April 19, 2013, 08:31:50 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17145
  • Tommy Points: 816
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).
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #89 on: April 19, 2013, 08:33:47 AM »

Offline eja117

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17832
  • Tommy Points: 1144
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
« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 08:46:30 AM by eja117 »