OleMissCub
-
Posts
38,741 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by OleMissCub
-
Look, i'm not saying he's guilty of aggravated assault or whatever. I'm saying that he can be CHARGED with this crime given the circumstances. Your "case-by-case basis" scenario arises when it goes before the fact-finder, either the judge or the jury.
-
For the purposes of assaulting someone, a bat is a deadly weapon. So is your leg by the way.
-
How little you obviously know on the subject. No offense. There is only one instance in the ENTIRE Beatles recording sessions over 7 years where one of them was on LSD. That was Lennon who was promptly dismissed by the producer. It seems like a lot of Beatles fans deny their drug use for some reason. Deny it nothing. They did marijuana, cocaine, heroin, lsd. But NOT in the studio. How is that sooo difficult to believe. No doubt it had an influence on their lives and the lyrics they wrote. However, everything they did IN the studio, especially with sgt. pepper, was sober and changed the way people made music forever. They spent 15 hours a day in the studio making their records. To try and downplay their creativity as music makers is ludicrous. There are reasons why Music Schools have entire classes devoted to the study of the Beatles. Did you know that they invented distortion on guitars? Did you know that they were the first to ever play backwards loops, which is so frequently used now. Did you know they were the first band to use sampling i.e. Puff Daddy.
-
Eh, he flipped a bat at him, so what the hell....He didn't flip his bat. Goodness, are y'all watching the same video as I am?? Anyways, yes, if someone really wanted to go after him they could charge him with aggravated assault...which in the Model Penal Code reads: And yes, a bat is considered a deadly weapon.
-
Perhaps. If someone really wanted to go for Delmon's blood they could charge him with aggravated assault, which usually has a max of twenty years.
-
Ummmm...yes. This is potentially a felony. And the only reason he can't be charged with assault is because the umpire probably didn't see it coming. How can you turn a blind eye to the seriousness of this?
-
He potentially committed a FELONY on the baseball diamond. A ban is hardly excessive.
-
How little you obviously know on the subject. No offense. There is only one instance in the ENTIRE Beatles recording sessions over 7 years where one of them was on LSD. That was Lennon who was promptly dismissed by the producer.
-
You do see the difference in "battery" and "attempted murder"? Nobody is saying he was trying to kill him. However, Delmon HIMSELF said he was trying to hit the umpire. So you can stop with the "accident" crap. Have you even watched the video??? He threw his freaking bat at an umpire. This wasn't some underhanded, excuse me flip, toss of the bat. He THREW his bat at another person. I seriously wonder about you sometimes dude.
-
What ethical difference are you talking about?? The law recognizes that intent can be "intent to do harm" OR "knew with a substantial certainty" OR "acted in a reckless or in a grossly negligent way". It DOES NOT matter if Delmon wanted to hurt the guy or not. He oughta know that if you throw a bat at someone it could hurt them, AND flinging a bat with that velocity is acting recklessly.
-
It's far from clear that Young acted with "intent to do serious bodily harm", and, yes, intent absolutely matters. In civil terms, intent is one of the defining features of battery. But beyond even that, it's the difference between being a jerk with a bad temper and actually being a threat. Intent is different in legal circumstances than how we perceive the word in common life. Intent in a legal sense doesn't require that the actor intend to HARM the person. Intent can be quantified by the fact that the actor should have known with a "substantial certainty" that his actions could have manifested in either harm coming to the victim OR that his actions could have caused the victim to fear that harm could come about. Throwing a bat at someone following an altercation with that person is certainly enough to quantify Battery, such as in this case. If the ump wanted to file a criminal charge for battery against Young, he'd have the requisite circumstances for that motion.
-
What difference does it make whether he wanted to hurt the guy? It's still recklessly dangerous conduct (which can make someone criminally liable for something, regardless of their intent).
-
Oh, Son....no no no no. You may personally feel that way, but critically you are just dead wrong. Just take a look at Rolling Stones Magazines Top 500 albums of all time, which was made over years using numerous musicologists. The Beatles have 6 albums in the top 50 and the Stones have only 2....with 37 more years to work with. The Beatles' solo careers just proves that they were had something special "together" and not alone. John needed Paul and vice-versa. The only one whose solo stuff I listen to regularly is Lennon's. He's the only ex-Beatle with a solo record listed in Rolling Stones top 100, with 2.
-
Well then that's my whole point. They diluted their good material by continuing to put out crap in the 80's and beyond.
-
I dunno, Artest at least had SOME sort of excuse through provocation i.e. someone threw something at him. (disclaimer: not saying I agree with Artest .001%)
-
You are right Rocket. Allen has only been convicted (felony wise) for the racial fight that almost got him kicked out of school after he took a chair to a girls head. He was also charged with trying to kill his cousin and his roomate with a gun during a domestic arguement. I am sorry, he really isnt violent. *rolls eyes* Hahaha, sorry for asking a legit question. Jesus Christ, are you this much of a jerk in real life too? alot of snideness going around on this message board lately unfortunately.
-
agreed, this would be much more acceptable if an established major leaguer did it Who said anything about major leaguers? I'd ban a major leaguer too for this conduct.
-
Honky Tonk Woman was from 1969 and Wild Horses is 1971. That's about 35 years ago, hardly later in their career. And no disrespect to the Stones, but I think Led Zeppelin are a better rock band and were far more influential than the Stones were. All modern heavy rock is pretty much derived from Zeppelin. p.s. Just to show i'm not a Stones hater...just a recent Stones hater...i've got a collection of mint LP's framed on the wall and Sticky Fingers is one of them.
-
http://www.nbc10.com/news/9049470/detail.html That site has video too. He needs to be gone for the year if not banned from baseball. That is ridiculous. Some punk drafted high out of highschool thinks he has the world on a silver plate. F that. This is unacceptable.
-
My coaches tried to make me a pitcher in high school, on account of my height and especially the fact that i'm left-handed. Freshman year in the pre-season I learned how to pitch and all that, but couldn't throw very hard, maxed out at like 73....one of the unfortunate aspects of playing 1B your whole life is that you don't get to use your arm as much as other positions. Anyways, my first game to pitch, the first inning, and the first batter I faced, hits a comebacker at me right in the shin and boy did I go down yelping. I absolutely refused to play or even try to play pitcher again. To this day I beat myself up about it, because I know lefthanded pitchers who I played against who SUCKED and they got drafted and some are even in AAA now.
-
That's pretty much what i've been getting at, but in the opposite approach. If the Stones had quit, say in 1970, I still don't think their work would be as popular, innovative, and influential as the Beatles was, but I think their status from a musicology standpoint would be higher than it is today. And indeed, the short lifespan of the Beatles certainly helps their cause. With the exception of Let it Be and perhaps Beatles for Sale, every album of theirs was tremendous and an event in of itself every time one was released. I give them a pass on Beatles for Sale because it was recorded in late 64 after their American and World tours, so fatigue was clearly an issue. Let it Be is definitely their weakest album. I think they were just massively distracted with other things when making it...Yoko/Linda. Add on the fact that it was their only album not produced by George Martin (the REAL fifth Beatle, in my opinion) and it was doomed to be substandard. However, i recall one rock critic who said that while Let it Be is the Beatles weakest album, it's still better than the best work of most other bands.
-
Anyone else remember this? Rick Monday saves the flag
OleMissCub replied to Cubfanintheknow's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
It surprised you that Sully would feel that way?? Where've you been bro? -
John and George probably aren't too beautiful right now either. Re: The Monkees, I quite like I'm not your steppin stone. actually, they don't look like anything. Both were cremated.
-
naw, the Lovin Spoonful was better.
-
Still, you named 8 or so songs they've done in the past 35 years, none of which are as popular as their early stuff. 35 years is about 5 times as long as the Beatles were recording material. Bottom line from a musicology standpoint, in my opinion, is that the Stones should have hung it up when Jones died. That way, they'd have an easily defined canon of material much like the Beatles. Nearly every Beatles album is an "essential" of anyone's record collection. The Stones have diluted their canon to such an extent over the past 35 years that it's hard to define essential Stones records.