5 hours ago, SkippyX said:

The Royals 3 starters in this series are something like a combined 3-26 with ERAs of 6.75, 6.15, and 5.32.

Tonight's tomato can has given up 5+ runs 9 times this year.

It should be a sweep and batting practice. Good luck on those players being the stars.

 

Well, he gave up his 5 but Nola gonna Nola sometimes.

Stout raved about Cam in his PC today. He's not one to blow smoke, Cam is the real deal.

We're fine there at RG.

6 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Absolutely he is "innocent of the crime”.   They say not guilty to state that the state has failed to prove the charges.  Since the Constitution prohibits double jeopardy (being tried for the same charges twice), there can be no second trial.  Since innocence is presumed a failure by the state to prove guilt does not cause a relinquishment of that legal status.  If the woman should prevail in a civil suit, he remains "innocent of the crime” but liable for damages.  

Next week, we’ll discuss the difference between a nolo contendre plea and a guilty plea.

This is simply not correct, I don't know how else to say it. Innocence = whether or not the person actually committed said crime.

I think where your confusion lies is with the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.

For one, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not declared innocent. Innocent isn't really an official legal status.

In a court of law, prosecution has the burden of proof. Therefore, that's why someone like Sills was declared "not guilty" instead of innocent. But innocent isn't a legal status, like I said. And it's presumed. But objective innocence is whether or not a person committed said act. You can be not innocent of a crime and also not guilty. If the criminal justice system finds someone not guilty, there isn't some "innocent" label placed on them. They are just recognized legally in the system as not guilty of the crime.

Random question of the day:

Is Jake Elliot a better kicker than Dallas Goedert is a TE?

33 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Random question of the day:

Is Jake Elliot a better kicker than Dallas Goedert is a TE?

No

32 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Random question of the day:

Is Jake Elliot a better kicker than Dallas Goedert is a TE?

Not even close.  Goedert is a top 5 NFL TE.  Not sure I’d put Elliott as a top 10 FG kicker or not, but he’s not top 5

8 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

He looks really out of shape. IF they keep him I wouldn’t be surprised if they IR’ed him for the year. 

He can start out on the PUP and then later in the season they will have to decide whether to IR him or activate him.

8 hours ago, RLC said:

He's still in a civil suit.

Sills could end up facing one of those.

6 hours ago, SkippyX said:

The Royals 3 starters in this series are something like a combined 3-26 with ERAs of 6.75, 6.15, and 5.32.

Tonight's tomato can has given up 5+ runs 9 times this year.

It should be a sweep and batting practice. Good luck on those players being the stars.

You forgot to factor in that they have won their last six games in a row.

3 hours ago, Sack that QB said:

Strong disagree here. If the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, he is not innocent of the crime, he is not guilty. Innocence in itself means the charges are false and the alleged crime didn't happen. That's why they say not guilty instead of innocent when they read a verdict. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt, if they can't prove guilt that just means not guilty. It doesn't mean innocent.

And why is that important?

1 hour ago, Sack that QB said:

This is simply not correct, I don't know how else to say it. Innocence = whether or not the person actually committed said crime.

I think where your confusion lies is with the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.

For one, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not declared innocent. Innocent isn't really an official legal status.

In a court of law, prosecution has the burden of proof. Therefore, that's why someone like Sills was declared "not guilty" instead of innocent. But innocent isn't a legal status, like I said. And it's presumed. But objective innocence is whether or not a person committed said act. You can be not innocent of a crime and also not guilty. If the criminal justice system finds someone not guilty, there isn't some "innocent" label placed on them. They are just recognized legally in the system as not guilty of the crime.

Again, why does that matter?  You are fighting this fight for a reason.  Do you care to enlighten us as to the reason?

Fun joke of the night:

'You down with OCD?

Yeah, you know me

Yeah, you know me

Yeah, you know me

Yeah, you know me

Yeah, you know me

Yeah, you know me.'

(I have real bad OCD. So I'm only making fun of myself 😎)

1 hour ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Random question of the day:

Is Jake Elliot a better kicker than Dallas Goedert is a TE?

Not even close.

2 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Not even close.

To expand on that for a moment (because I can), I have statistical data which ranks Elliott 11th, 16th, and 16th in three different measuring systems. In other words, he's above average but probably in the second quadrant of starting kickers. Goedert is better than that (IMO).

2 hours ago, D-Shiznit said:

Stout raved about Cam in his PC today. He's not one to blow smoke, Cam is the real deal.

We're fine there at RG.

So draft another C? It keeps working I guess 

48 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Again, why does that matter?  You are fighting this fight for a reason.  Do you care to enlighten us as to the reason?

It's not a fight lol. I made a slight correction to a Tolentino tweet and he tried to correct my correction. So it led to a back and forth.

For the Eagles it doesn't matter. Situation is resolved on their end.

Eagles 14% chance of winning Super Bowl

Thieves 13% chance

40Whiners 11% chance 

According to ESPN analytics

5 hours ago, D-Shiznit said:

Stout raved about Cam in his PC today. He's not one to blow smoke, Cam is the real deal.

We're fine there at RG.

Wonderful, let‘s keep him there and draft a third center??

Third time is the charm! 😁

7 hours ago, mattwill said:

Again, why does that matter?  You are fighting this fight for a reason.  Do you care to enlighten us as to the reason?

The team has more info than us. If they don't feel comfortable with their own investigation, they'll cut him. If not, he's an Eagle.

9 hours ago, BigEFly said:

Absolutely he is "innocent of the crime”.   They say not guilty to state that the state has failed to prove the charges.  Since the Constitution prohibits double jeopardy (being tried for the same charges twice), there can be no second trial.  Since innocence is presumed a failure by the state to prove guilt does not cause a relinquishment of that legal status.  If the woman should prevail in a civil suit, he remains "innocent of the crime” but liable for damages.  

Next week, we’ll discuss the difference between a nolo contendre plea and a guilty plea.

This isn't even close to being accurate.

10 hours ago, BigEFly said:

Absolutely he is "innocent of the crime”.   They say not guilty to state that the state has failed to prove the charges.  Since the Constitution prohibits double jeopardy (being tried for the same charges twice), there can be no second trial.  Since innocence is presumed a failure by the state to prove guilt does not cause a relinquishment of that legal status.  If the woman should prevail in a civil suit, he remains "innocent of the crime” but liable for damages.  

Next week, we’ll discuss the difference between a nolo contendre plea and a guilty plea.

He should get some sort of compensation for having his life uprooted and wrecked for nothing. 

10 minutes ago, Uscg-green said:

He should get some sort of compensation for having his life uprooted and wrecked for nothing. 

He could sue or counter sue in civil court. 

2 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

He could sue or counter sue in civil court. 

I know you can sue the person who accused you but I wonder if you can sue the county DA that charged you? Not personally because they are protected from that, but the office itself. 

IMO, the biggest potential stumbling blocks that could wreck the season this year:

1. OL health.

2. OL health.

3. CB decline.

4. New blood at safety failing to be supported by top end CB play due to #3.

5. Lack of deep threat or deep passing game on offense.

 

I think everything else is locked and loaded.  I'm not worried about losing Hargrave, LB, or RB.

36 minutes ago, Uscg-green said:

I know you can sue the person who accused you but I wonder if you can sue the county DA that charged you? Not personally because they are protected from that, but the office itself. 

Only if he can prove they acted with malice (e.g. the charges were based on evidence fabricated by them) which is extremely unlikely. If there was enough evidence to present to a grand jury to move forward with charging him, the chances he has of winning a lawsuit against the DA are almost zero. 

There's a massive chasm between actual innocence and being proven guilty of a crime in a court of law. Sills very well could have committed a crime, but avoided conviction for a variety of reasons. Criminals walk free out of a courtroom every single day in this country.