1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

2017 NFL Preseason Thread: Ki-Jana Carter edition

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!, Aug 3, 2017.

  1. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    What's more all-American than that?
    sgreenwell likes this.
  2. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    I may have been broke, too.
  3. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

  4. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    I'm an admirer of train wrecks, but the replay of the Titans-Jets game from tonight ought to carry a parental advisory warning.

    Jets win 7-3, despite having 56 rushing yards on 31 attempts and 251 total yards.
    The Titans played three quarterbacks were were a combined 14-for-31 for 87 yards and got sacked eight times. They had 223 total yards.
    Combined for the two teams, there were 24 first downs and 20 punts. And only three turnovers, so it's not even like there were plays on defense.

    If you were one of the 77,000-plus that allegedly attended that game in person you should get a prize. Or seriously question your life choices.
  5. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    Every section of seats they showed looked at least 2/3 empty. Every Titans O-lineman looked 2/3 interested.
    Batman likes this.
  6. franticscribe

    franticscribe Well-Known Member

    Hate to be a little vague, but usually when a prosecutor decides not to prosecute it is because the prosecutor does not believe the case can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes the prosecutor thinks they can prove the case, but uses prosecutorial discretion and chooses not to in the interests of justice.

    In a domestic violence case that usually means one of about four things: 1. the prosecuting witness (victim) is no longer cooperating and there are no independent witnesses (this is by far the most frequent), 2. prosecution would put the prosecuting witness in a significantly worse position such that the consequence outweighs the benefit of conviction (this is an extremely rare circumstance), 3. the prosecuting witness is cooperative, but there is no corroborating evidence and there is reason to be concerned the fact finder (judge or jury) will not be able to determine the truth in a "he said, she said" case (most prosecutors offices move forward in this scenario knowing that a not guilty verdict is possible or even probable, but some will drop the case out of concern for their conviction rates), 4. the prosecuting witness is not credible (this happens in a small percentage of DV cases).

    The first scenario often is a result of the cycle of violence in domestic violence cases. There are distinct phases (tension building, abuse, honeymoon) that the relationship goes through repeatedly. Often, by the time a case makes its way to court, the victim is back in the honeymoon phase with her abuser and so she is uncooperative with the state. I've heard it said over and over - though don't really know the background research or if it is accurate - that it typically takes seven times before a victim is ready to break that cycle of violence. My own experience with the same couples coming to court repeatedly roughly falls in line with that. Often in the days immediately following a violent episode, a victim is incredibly cooperative and ready to proceed, but by the time the case is ready for trial three to six months later, she is back under his sway.

    All that is to a long-winded way of saying what others have already said: Just because charges weren't filed does not mean that the prosecutor thought she was lying. Could be that, but also could be they did not think they could prove the case even with truthful testimony from her.
    LongTimeListener and heyabbott like this.
  7. jr/shotglass

    jr/shotglass Well-Known Member

  8. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

  9. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    How is this stirring the shit?

    Colin Kaepernick is getting blackballed for sitting during the anthem. Lynch sat -- and then tells his coach he's been doing it for 11 years. Apparently no one noticed until now.

    Is that not noteworthy?
  10. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    I understand that Philip Rivers and Aaron Rodgers take six plays in the first preseason game.

    Why does Jared Goff play in six plays?
    LongTimeListener and dixiehack like this.
  11. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    I lived in Oakland for a year in 1973-74. Maybe one-third of the crowd at A's and Raiders games failed to stand for the anthem, more out of drunk/stoned apathy than politics, I think. Nobody cared. It didn't become a big deal at all
  12. jr/shotglass

    jr/shotglass Well-Known Member

    ESPN became cognizant of its power a long time back: It can create news where there is none.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page