PDA

View Full Version : Ligue interview


Iwritecode
10-31-2002, 10:42 AM
This part was interesting:

Ligue and his son left in a police escort and were taken to jail. Ligue says he was beaten by police, but the police department says it has no knowledge of that happening.

The Chicago phonebook was probably put to good use that night...

Click here. (http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsindex/31-ds1.htm)

NUCatsFan
10-31-2002, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
This part was interesting:



The Chicago phonebook was probably put to good use that night...

Click here. (http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsindex/31-ds1.htm)

Well, from what I remember, there were stories about one of them going after the security guards. If so, then I would believe that Ligue was correct. Not that I disagree with it.

jortafan
10-31-2002, 11:31 AM
What amazed me was his admission that he was both intoxicated and high on about five different drugs at the time. Yet he was the one in charge of taking all those kids out for a night at the ballpark. I wonder what the parents of those kids (his nephews, if I remember right) are thinking now?
And who does this guy think he is, Pete Rose? His "I'm sorry" just doesn't cut it with me.

cheeses_h_rice
10-31-2002, 11:52 AM
I guess it's better that he's apologizing now rather than being a complete a-hole about it. But still, drugs or no drugs, everyone is responsible for their own actions, and this guy should pay the price. I think a year or three in the hoosegow is not uncalled for.

voodoochile
10-31-2002, 11:59 AM
Well, I'm glad he is sober enough now to apologize, but I can't say I believe him. There is no evidence he actually feels remorse. Using his daughters death and his inability to afford a headstone is truly disgraceful, imo. Everybody's the victim these days...

How come he can't remember attacking Gamboa, but he can remember being beaten by police?

Lock his sorry ass up. That will give him something to be remorseful about...

nut_stock
10-31-2002, 12:17 PM
I'd like to know why the 15 yr old son followed him out there. At 15 you shouldn't be dumb enough to jump off a cliff just because your "role model" did. It wouldn't suprise me if he was on drugs as well.

Kilroy
10-31-2002, 01:23 PM
Sorry, but I'm not buying that b.s. Because when this happened, they spoke with his sister (I believe) who said that he'd called her before the game and told her to make sure she watched because he was going to be on. All of that stuff about Gamboa supposedly giving him an obscene gesture, and him just snapping would seem to be a complete and total fabrication. He's being coached on what to say, and they are counting on people forgetting about that little detail...

cheeses_h_rice
10-31-2002, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Sorry, but I'm not buying that b.s. Because when this happened, they spoke with his sister (I believe) who said that he'd called her before the game and told her to make sure she watched because he was going to be on. All of that stuff about Gamboa supposedly giving him an obscene gesture, and him just snapping would seem to be a complete and total fabrication. He's being coached on what to say, and they are counting on people forgetting about that little detail...

He didn't call her before the game; he called about a minute before he and his son went down for the attack. So his story could be true.

Kilroy
10-31-2002, 01:44 PM
Well, that's not the way it was reported at the time. But even still, that kinda blows the "I just snapped" theory out of the water, don't you think? I've snapped, but I'm going to pause while I call my sister and tell her to watch me on TV. Doesn't really seem to hold much water if you ask me...

cheeses_h_rice
10-31-2002, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Well, that's not the way it was reported at the time. But even still, that kinda blows the "I just snapped" theory out of the water, don't you think? I've snapped, but I'm going to pause while I call my sister and tell her to watch me on TV. Doesn't really seem to hold much water if you ask me...

I agree. I mean, the drugs and alcohol definitely played a factor, but him calling his sister a minute before attacking does indicate, oh, just a smidge of pre-meditation, IMO. He's screwed.

duke of dorwood
10-31-2002, 03:52 PM
Charges aside, there may be a civil suit filed by the coach too.

maurice
10-31-2002, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
Charges aside, there may be a civil suit filed by the coach too.

Against Ligue? I doubt he has insurance. If the coach wins, will he place a lien on Ligue's trailer? :?:

Sounds like a waste of time to me. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip. Unless the coach plans on suing the Sox, I don't see any "deep pocket" in this case warranting a lawsuit.

steff
10-31-2002, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by jortafan
What amazed me was his admission that he was both intoxicated and high on about five different drugs at the time. Yet he was the one in charge of taking all those kids out for a night at the ballpark. I wonder what the parents of those kids (his nephews, if I remember right) are thinking now?
And who does this guy think he is, Pete Rose? His "I'm sorry" just doesn't cut it with me.

He was not the only adult. There were 2 others. They are the ones that took the other kids home.

steff
10-31-2002, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Against Ligue? I doubt he has insurance. If the coach wins, will he place a lien on Ligue's trailer? :?:

Sounds like a waste of time to me. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip. Unless the coach plans on suing the Sox, I don't see any "deep pocket" in this case warranting a lawsuit.


He can try to sue the Sox.. but doubt he'll win. Security was there in less than 3 seconds. They were where they were supposed to be.
I doubt he would though. As if baseball isn't in the crapper enough. Guys like him actually care about the game and don't want to hurt it further.

TornLabrum
10-31-2002, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
[B]Well, I'm glad he is sober enough now to apologize, but I can't say I believe him. There is no evidence he actually feels remorse. Using his daughters death and his inability to afford a headstone is truly disgraceful, imo. Everybody's the victim these days...
B]

The thing I find interesting is that rather than saving for a headstone for his daughter, he instead spent his money on drugs, booze, and tattoing his body. I'm sorry that his daughter died, but I'm not sorry for him at all.

BTW, I called the intoxication part right that night.

jortafan
10-31-2002, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by steff3603
He was not the only adult. There were 2 others. They are the ones that took the other kids home.

thank you for answering the one question I always had about this whole affair, "how did those kids get home?" I was not aware of the other adult presence. I only wish they could have restrained him somehow.

THE_HOOTER
10-31-2002, 09:29 PM
I think Voodoochile has it perfect.

This guy made a mistake or whatever, but he did it and don't make excuses.

If you lose your head and do something this dumb, don't make excuses or use your daughter's death as a reason or excuse.

I don't know what I would if I had a daughter and I lost her, butI know for sure I wouldn't run on the field and attack a coach.

If it was Bevington maybe, but thats about it.

Well, maybe Higginson from the Tigers, but I;m afraid he would prolly end my existance!

Seriously, just a dumb thing done by a dumb person. :(:

guillen4life13
11-02-2002, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by THE_HOOTER
I think Voodoochile has it perfect.

This guy made a mistake or whatever, but he did it and don't make excuses.

If you lose your head and do something this dumb, don't make excuses or use your daughter's death as a reason or excuse.

I don't know what I would if I had a daughter and I lost her, butI know for sure I wouldn't run on the field and attack a coach.

If it was Bevington maybe, but thats about it.

Well, maybe Higginson from the Tigers, but I;m afraid he would prolly end my existance!

Seriously, just a dumb thing done by a dumb person. :(:

i admire the guy for having the balls to come out and say that he made a mistake.

as for the self pity thing... i dont know what to say. i'm not a father, but if any of the fathers on this board think the same way i do, i would get pretty depressed about my baby dying. depression often leads to drugs, and when you're addicted to a hard drug (cocaine), it's really hard to kick it and resist the temptation. but of course, i've never done cocaine so how the hell should I know.

what i can say though is that as he said himself, he needs help kicking his habits. maybe they should (if they can) give him a sentence in a detox center, and once he's kicked his habits, send him back to the slammer, and keep an eye on his behavior.

whenever he's eligible for paroll, if he earns it... let him out i guess.

TornLabrum
11-02-2002, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
i admire the guy for having the balls to come out and say that he made a mistake.

as for the self pity thing... i dont know what to say. i'm not a father, but if any of the fathers on this board think the same way i do, i would get pretty depressed about my baby dying. depression often leads to drugs, and when you're addicted to a hard drug (cocaine), it's really hard to kick it and resist the temptation. but of course, i've never done cocaine so how the hell should I know.

what i can say though is that as he said himself, he needs help kicking his habits. maybe they should (if they can) give him a sentence in a detox center, and once he's kicked his habits, send him back to the slammer, and keep an eye on his behavior.

whenever he's eligible for paroll, if he earns it... let him out i guess.

Of course, the day after the interview appeared in print, Ligue was arraigned and pled "not guilty." I guess being sorry and taking responsibility for one's actions only goes so far.

guillen4life13
11-02-2002, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Of course, the day after the interview appeared in print, Ligue was arraigned and pled "not guilty." I guess being sorry and taking responsibility for one's actions only goes so far.

was it a straight not guilty or was it a not guilty by reason of insanity?

TornLabrum
11-02-2002, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
was it a straight not guilty or was it a not guilty by reason of insanity?

From what I heard, a straight "not guilty."

jortafan
11-02-2002, 05:50 PM
In Ligue's defense, the only plea he could have entered on Friday was a "not guilty." The purpose of arraignment is for him to enter that plea and have his case assigned to a judge for trial. It is before that new judge that Ligue would enter his real plea. My point? He always can, and likely will, change the plea to "guilty" once a plea agreement is reached. I really doubt this guy will go to trial. He'd have no chance of beating the rap or gaining a jury's sympathy.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-03-2002, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
i admire the guy for having the balls to come out and say that he made a mistake.

as for the self pity thing... i dont know what to say. i'm not a father, but if any of the fathers on this board think the same way i do, i would get pretty depressed about my baby dying....

As a father of two, permit me to answer your question.

Losing anybody in your immediate family is a huge loss. Believe all the excuses you want for why Ligue acted out. Somebody will agree he deserves sympathy in spite of his irresponsibility, though I'm certainly not one of them.

What NOBODY in their right mind can EVER excuse is Ligue chaperoning a group of young adults and THEN LEADING THEM TO ACT UP WITH HIM! This is the height of irresponsiblity and clearly marks Ligue as no kind of father. The fact this guy's wife and sister have shut this idiot out of their lives speaks volumes about this idiot's lifestyle.

Don't buy a word of this guy's bull****. He is a father only in the legal sense of the word. He has abdicated every bit of his parental responsiblities and only a civil judge (thinking about the best interests of Ligue's children, NOT Ligue) would ever permit such an irresponsible individual to have regular contact with his kids.

There are a lot of jerks in this world. Some of them are dads; Ligue is one of them.

This is spoken as another father. Ligue is the type that gives the rest of us a bad reputation.

Kilroy
11-03-2002, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Don't buy a word of this guy's bull****. He is a father only in the legal sense of the word.

I agree. The baby-daughter-that-died aspect of this story is only being brought up in hopes of finding sympathy in those that will sit in judgement of this puke.

And as you can see, there's people out there that have rationalized some of this behavior.

guillen4life13
11-03-2002, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


And as you can see, there's people out there that have rationalized some of this behavior.

hey... i'm not rationalizing the behavior. i just think it could have been a lot worse considering the circumstances. if the guy's mental problems are as severe as he makes them seem... i think we're lucky he didn't kill himself or anyone else. a few punches to a first base coach isn't so bad. i understand the setting a bad example thing. i'm just saying we're lucky no one is dead yet because of it. it's just my opinion.

and phg also said "in their right mind." make no mistake that i dont agree with you on everything you said (that he had no business chaperoning that party, etc.)... but i still stand by my statement that the guy needs help for his drug problem... and possibly additional psychological/psychiatric help. he wasn't in his right mind, and maybe getting detoxed etc. will get him into his right mind again. many people turn to drugs when times get bad for them. few even take their own lives. quite a few depressed people try to lash out at society and take out their anger. this guy has a drug problem, possibly severe clinical depression, and there's a good possibility that he has a few other mental disorders. i just dont think the slammer is the right place for him until he has been deemed legally sane. in my humble, honest opinion, when you have a drug addiction (including alcoholism), you are not sane. this man fits the profile, provided he wasn't lying and he does in fact have a drug problem.

the only reason i'm saying this is because i know depression leads to all sorts of problems. one of my heroes took his own life because of his depression and disillusionment (kurt cobain). many rock stars turn to drugs because of depression, and the drugs more often than not take them deeper into depression (anthony keidis- front man for red hot chili peppers).

now... if the guy is in fact lying, then i feel he deserves everything they have waiting for him.

as for the kid... he just needs to stay away from this guy, at least until the guy is fit to see him.

these are all only my opinions.

TornLabrum
11-03-2002, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
in my humble, honest opinion, when you have a drug addiction (including alcoholism), you are not sane. this man fits the profile, provided he wasn't lying and he does in fact have a drug problem.

The legal definition of insanity is the inability to distinguish right from wrong. Period. This guy apparently knows the difference between right and wrong because he apologized in the Chicago Freakin' Sun-Times.

Alcohol or drug use is also not a legal excuse for the commission of any crime.

Kilroy
11-04-2002, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
hey... i'm not rationalizing the behavior.

Actually, you are. You're saying: 1. He did this because he has a mental problem, i.e. depression; 2. He did this because he has drug and alcohol problems. You aren't defending the acts, but you're allowing that if not for this and not for that, this guy wouldn't have done these things. And like I said, the only reason these things are being mentioned is so that all the potential jurors out there have a chance to digest them and have a whole belly full of sympathy when they hear the case.

Its not about guilty or not guilty any more. Its about getting this guy the least possible punishment they can, hopefully keeping him out of jail. The defense lawyer is hoping for about 7-8 people who think just like you.

steff
11-04-2002, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Actually, you are. You're saying: 1. He did this because he has a mental problem, i.e. depression; 2. He did this because he has drug and alcohol problems. You aren't defending the acts, but you're allowing that if not for this and not for that, this guy wouldn't have done these things. And like I said, the only reason these things are being mentioned is so that all the potential jurors out there have a chance to digest them and have a whole belly full of sympathy when they hear the case.

Its not about guilty or not guilty any more. Its about getting this guy the least possible punishment they can, hopefully keeping him out of jail. The defense lawyer is hoping for about 7-8 people who think just like you.

Well... Susan Smith - guilty by reason of insanity. The mother in Naperville - guilty by reason of insanity. The mother in Texas - guilty by reason of insanity (btw, insanity = ppd or depression). And they KILLED their kids!! What he did is NOT right.. but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Did anyone here really think he was going to plead guilty? I didn't. He did exactly what was expected.

Cheryl
11-04-2002, 09:16 AM
I feel sorry for the guy and his girlfriend over the loss of a child.

Which has nothing to do with what I think of him as a human being nor my opinion about how long he should be locked away for what he did. He's a miserable excuse for a human and should be in jail for a long, long time. Extra long just for trying to gain sympathy by talking about his dead daughter.

Also, that part about how Comiskey was the scene of happier times, or whatever it said. Right after it happened, his sister said he didn't like baseball and only rarely went to the ballpark.

steff
11-04-2002, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Cheryl

Also, that part about how Comiskey was the scene of happier times, or whatever it said. Right after it happened, his sister said he didn't like baseball and only rarely went to the ballpark.

My grampa didn't care for baseball either.. and even though they had season tickets for well over 20 years, he rarely went. But the times he did, we had a great time and he often said those were some of his fondest memories. Don't have to like the game to have a good time.

steff
11-04-2002, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Cheryl
I feel sorry for the guy and his girlfriend over the loss of a child.

Which has nothing to do with what I think of him as a human being nor my opinion about how long he should be locked away for what he did. He's a miserable excuse for a human and should be in jail for a long, long time. Extra long just for trying to gain sympathy by talking about his dead daughter.




Also.. this is the first time we heard from him although the story about his daughter has been out there since days after the incident. The sister mentioned it. The tatoo parlor owner mentioned it. The mother mentioned it. My point is that he didn't start it.

guillen4life13
11-04-2002, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13


hey... i'm not rationalizing the behavior. i just think it could have been a lot worse considering the circumstances. if the guy's mental problems are as severe as he makes them seem... i think we're lucky he didn't kill himself or anyone else. a few punches to a first base coach isn't so bad. i understand the setting a bad example thing. i'm just saying we're lucky no one is dead yet because of it. it's just my opinion.

and phg also said "in their right mind." make no mistake that i dont agree with you on everything you said (that he had no business chaperoning that party, etc.)... but i still stand by my statement that the guy needs help for his drug problem... and possibly additional psychological/psychiatric help. he wasn't in his right mind, and maybe getting detoxed etc. will get him into his right mind again. many people turn to drugs when times get bad for them. few even take their own lives. quite a few depressed people try to lash out at society and take out their anger. this guy has a drug problem, possibly severe clinical depression, and there's a good possibility that he has a few other mental disorders. i just dont think the slammer is the right place for him until he has been deemed legally sane. in my humble, honest opinion, when you have a drug addiction (including alcoholism), you are not sane. this man fits the profile, provided he wasn't lying and he does in fact have a drug problem.


Originally posted by TornLabrum


The legal definition of insanity is the inability to distinguish right from wrong. Period. This guy apparently knows the difference between right and wrong because he apologized in the Chicago Freakin' Sun-Times.

Alcohol or drug use is also not a legal excuse for the commission of any crime.


Originally posted by Kilroy


Actually, you are. You're saying: 1. He did this because he has a mental problem, i.e. depression; 2. He did this because he has drug and alcohol problems. You aren't defending the acts, but you're allowing that if not for this and not for that, this guy wouldn't have done these things.


The defense lawyer is hoping for about 7-8 people who think just like you.

ok. I used the wrong word. instead of "rationalizing" i should have said "condoning." what the man did was wrong... and I am not saying he did anything close to the right thing. Here's what I am saying though (and most of my knowledge of the law comes from "law and order" so it's definitely going to be suspect): temporary insanity can mean that he was intoxicated by some substance or another. the insanity wears off, and he later realizes that what he did was wrong.

I did not say he doesn't need to get punished (believe me: i think he does). I just said that the best place for him, AS OF NOW, is a drug rehab facility. And as for all of the other people with drug problems and addictions: they need rehab facilities also... not friggin jail cells. just my honest opinion.

i'm just saying what i think, and it's open to criticism... but i dont think this site was created for us to exchange insults to each other.

steff
11-04-2002, 08:17 PM
Guillen4life13, I'm with you. What he did was so wrong. But he did it. It's over. What's done is done. He made the apology everyone knew he would. He took responsibility for his actions. And now he'll face the music. Nothing in his past will get him serious jail time (maybe 180 days excluding time served) and hopefully drug treatment. In a society where the more $$ you have the less "time" you do, it's ironic he's not loaded (with $$) or the relative of a public official. If he was, we'd have heard not a peep of this beyond the week it happened. Look at R. Kelly... money, fame, donates butt loads of $$ to public officials. He's charged just short of raping a child.. and he walks around free. Don't take my comments as meaning he should be freed. He shouldn't. He should be punished. But he should also be helped. If this was your brother or father or son, wouldn't you want him to get help?

OneDog
11-04-2002, 08:47 PM
I agree steff3603, there was absolutely no excuse for what he did. He did it, and he must be punished. However, if people like this don't get the help they need, then things like this are still going to happen.

Kilroy
11-04-2002, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13







ok. I used the wrong word. instead of "rationalizing" i should have said "condoning." what the man did was wrong... and I am not saying he did anything close to the right thing. Here's what I am saying though (and most of my knowledge of the law comes from "law and order" so it's definitely going to be suspect): temporary insanity can mean that he was intoxicated by some substance or another. the insanity wears off, and he later realizes that what he did was wrong.

I did not say he doesn't need to get punished (believe me: i think he does). I just said that the best place for him, AS OF NOW, is a drug rehab facility. And as for all of the other people with drug problems and addictions: they need rehab facilities also... not friggin jail cells. just my honest opinion.

i'm just saying what i think, and it's open to criticism... but i dont think this site was created for us to exchange insults to each other.

Well let me say that I did not mean to say anything that you'd take as an insult. When I said "think just like you", I just meant that a defense laywer in this case would be looking for someone open to the ideas that depression or addiction played the most prominent role and would take that into consideration when judging. I really don't think I said anything that was insulting, and if you took something that way, again, it wasn't meant that way.

Originally posted by steff3603
... Look at R. Kelly... money, fame, donates butt loads of $$ to public officials. He's charged just short of raping a child.. and he walks around free.

All I can say about this is that if Ligue had the money to post bail, he'd be walking around free too. R. Kelly didn't get special treatment in that respect. Most people have the chance to be post bail and get out of jail w/ certain exceptions where people are held w/out bail because they'd flee. Example? O.J. Simpson. He was in jail about a year before his trial started, yet he obviously could have posted just about any bond the court could have set.

steff
11-05-2002, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
All I can say about this is that if Ligue had the money to post bail, he'd be walking around free too. R. Kelly didn't get special treatment in that respect. Most people have the chance to be post bail and get out of jail w/ certain exceptions where people are held w/out bail because they'd flee. Example? O.J. Simpson. He was in jail about a year before his trial started, yet he obviously could have posted just about any bond the court could have set.


You just agreed with my point. If he had money...
As for OJ.. (or anyone suspected of brutaly murdering two people).. should be denied bail. Just like Robert Blake.
R. Kelly got tons of special treatment. Being allowed to stay in Florida while the investigation went on. 4 days to get back once indicted. Continual unsupervised contact with those under 18. Good grief.. he's accused of participating in CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!! He should be locked up. But hey.. $$ buys all kinds of things.

Kilroy
11-05-2002, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by steff3603
You just agreed with my point. If he had money...
As for OJ.. (or anyone suspected of brutaly murdering two people).. should be denied bail. Just like Robert Blake.
R. Kelly got tons of special treatment. Being allowed to stay in Florida while the investigation went on. 4 days to get back once indicted. Continual unsupervised contact with those under 18. Good grief.. he's accused of participating in CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!! He should be locked up. But hey.. $$ buys all kinds of things.

I did not agree with your point. Saying "if he had the money" doesn't mean that those who do have the money got special treatment. Ligue's bond was set at $200,000. so he has to post 10% which means 20K. Honestly, I'd bet against that guy coming up with 2K, never mind 20. Kelly's bond was set at $750,000. Why was his so much higher? Certainly not because one crime was so much worse than the other.

And speaking to the special treament: R. Kelly was in Florida because he happens to have a home there. He was able to be there while the investigation went on because he had not been charged with any crime. When he was finally charged, he was arrested IN FLORIDA. He stayed in jail in Florida until bond was set at $750,000. He posted bond, but was required to return to the Chicago area turn himself into police and post bond a second time. So when he was returning to Chicago to turn himself in, he was actually out on bail at the time. Where's the special treatment in that?

As for whether Kelly has continued unsupervised contact with those under 18, in this country the law provides that you are innocent until proven guilty, and at this point, unless I've been under a rock somewhere, Kelly hasn't been proven guilty of anything. That being the case, the law has no grounds on which to restrict him.

steff
11-05-2002, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
I did not agree with your point. Saying "if he had the money" doesn't mean that those who do have the money got special treatment. Ligue's bond was set at $200,000. so he has to post 10% which means 20K. Honestly, I'd bet against that guy coming up with 2K, never mind 20. Kelly's bond was set at $750,000. Why was his so much higher? Certainly not because one crime was so much worse than the other.

*snip*

As for whether Kelly has continued unsupervised contact with those under 18, in this country the law provides that you are innocent until proven guilty, and at this point, unless I've been under a rock somewhere, Kelly hasn't been proven guilty of anything. That being the case, the law has no grounds on which to restrict him.

Here's my initial comment.. It's got nothing to do with having $$ = special treatment. I stated that having $$ means you get out of jail faster.

"Guillen4life13, I'm with you. What he did was so wrong. But he did it. It's over. What's done is done. He made the apology everyone knew he would. He took responsibility for his actions. And now he'll face the music. Nothing in his past will get him serious jail time (maybe 180 days excluding time served) and hopefully drug treatment. In a society where the more $$ you have the less "time" you do, "

We completely disagree on the R. Kelly issue. He "fled" to Florida the second he heard they were close to indicting him. His attny withheld his location until he was sure that he would be able to "surrender" under his clients terms versus getting taken against his will. Real honorable. Indicted for CHILD PORN should at the VERY LEAST restrict contact with minors. And I honestly can't believe anyone would use the "innocent until proven guilt" crap regarding that. But then again.. you think assault & battery is the same degree of "bad" as child molestation... which, it just plain sickening.
Thus, agree to disagree.

Back to baseball. Sorry all.

Ol Aches & Pains
11-05-2002, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
ok. I used the wrong word. instead of "rationalizing" i should have said "condoning." what the man did was wrong... and I am not saying he did anything close to the right thing. Here's what I am saying though (and most of my knowledge of the law comes from "law and order" so it's definitely going to be suspect): temporary insanity can mean that he was intoxicated by some substance or another. the insanity wears off, and he later realizes that what he did was wrong.

I did not say he doesn't need to get punished (believe me: i think he does). I just said that the best place for him, AS OF NOW, is a drug rehab facility. And as for all of the other people with drug problems and addictions: they need rehab facilities also... not friggin jail cells. just my honest opinion.

i'm just saying what i think, and it's open to criticism... but i dont think this site was created for us to exchange insults to each other.

The medical definition of insanity and the legal definition are two very different things. In the eyes of the law, you can be as crazy as a rat in a coffee can, but if you can distinguish right from wrong, you're guilty.

And while Mr. Ligue would certainly seem to be a candidate for rehab, there is the other little matter, that he and his son assaulted a man in front of about 20,000 witnesses. I think the state might have a pretty good case for locking this mope up and losing the key for a couple of years.

guillen4life13
11-05-2002, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Well let me say that I did not mean to say anything that you'd take as an insult. When I said "think just like you", I just meant that a defense laywer in this case would be looking for someone open to the ideas that depression or addiction played the most prominent role and would take that into consideration when judging. I really don't think I said anything that was insulting, and if you took something that way, again, it wasn't meant that way.

that's cool. yea i was just getting a lil bit defensive because i saw two of the posts that I interpreted to be aimed at me. but my fault. thanks for clarifying though.

ok in response to Ol Aches:
you say that the legal definition of insanity is the ability to be able to tell right from wrong. to that I add (to my knowledge, what i'm saying is correct) "at the time the crime was committed."

If someone is intoxicated with alcohol and therefore does not have the capability of knowing that beating on someone because he thought he saw the bird directed at him (and of what i've heard, being drunk includes having severely blurred vision and distorted memory during the intoxication) lets the suspect plead not guilty by reason of temporary insanity.

It's one thing to know that what you did was wrong after you've done it... but at the time of the crime if you don't know right from wrong, then, to my knowledge, the insanity plea is valid.

I haven't taken any law classes at all, so all of the stuff i'm saying is stuff i've either heard, read, or seen on law and order.

in response to steff: you said it perfectly: treatment is the best way to prevent further crime and what have you from Ligue, and any other drug offenders.

but now, it's my bedtime, and I have school tomorrow morning, so I'll talk to you guys later.

TornLabrum
11-05-2002, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
ok in response to Ol Aches:
you say that the legal definition of insanity is the ability to be able to tell right from wrong. to that I add (to my knowledge, what i'm saying is correct) "at the time the crime was committed."

If someone is intoxicated with alcohol and therefore does not have the capability of knowing that beating on someone because he thought he saw the bird directed at him (and of what i've heard, being drunk includes having severely blurred vision and distorted memory during the intoxication) lets the suspect plead not guilty by reason of temporary insanity.

It's one thing to know that what you did was wrong after you've done it... but at the time of the crime if you don't know right from wrong, then, to my knowledge, the insanity plea is valid.

I haven't taken any law classes at all, so all of the stuff i'm saying is stuff i've either heard, read, or seen on law and order.

The use of alcohol or any other intoxicating substance has never been a legal defense for the commission of a crime. Period.

Kilroy
11-06-2002, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by steff3603
We completely disagree on the R. Kelly issue. He "fled" to Florida the second he heard they were close to indicting him. His attny withheld his location until he was sure that he would be able to "surrender" under his clients terms versus getting taken against his will. Real honorable. Indicted for CHILD PORN should at the VERY LEAST restrict contact with minors. And I honestly can't believe anyone would use the "innocent until proven guilt" crap regarding that. But then again.. you think assault & battery is the same degree of "bad" as child molestation... which, it just plain sickening.

Whether Kelly "fled" to Florida or not is a matter of opinion. But the FACT of the matter is that we were both completely wrong about any restrictions placed on Kelly. See for yourself. (http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,10061,00.html)

I did not state anywhere that I thought those two crimes were on the same level, but I'm sure you'd be willing to show me where you think I did.

MarqSox
11-06-2002, 10:46 AM
Ligue's not asking for forgiveness, not denying he screwed up, bigtime ... He knows he screwed up, and he should pay the price for it.

That said, this is a person with serious problems who had the guts to admit that and ask for help. Ideally, he would have asked for help before beating the crap out of an old man, but better late than never.

After reading the profile piece in the Daily Southtown, I feel like I better understand what led him to do what he did. It's indefensible and uncondonable, but the man's human.

One can be both a tragic figure and an a--hole at the same time, and that's how I view Ligue. Get him treatment, lock him up and straighten out his kid.

steff
11-06-2002, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Whether Kelly "fled" to Florida or not is a matter of opinion. But the FACT of the matter is that we were both completely wrong about any restrictions placed on Kelly. See for yourself. (http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,10061,00.html)

I did not state anywhere that I thought those two crimes were on the same level, but I'm sure you'd be willing to show me where you think I did.

Here ya go... from up above.

"... Ligue's bond was set at $200,000. so he has to post 10% which means 20K. Honestly, I'd bet against that guy coming up with 2K, never mind 20. Kelly's bond was set at $750,000. Why was his so much higher? Certainly not because one crime was so much worse than the other."

Sounds like you don't think R. Kelly's crime is any worse than Ligue's.

And no opinion on his fleeing and his lawyers negotiations with the authorities. My neighbor's brother was one of the lead investigators. They knew the day he chartered the plane and left from Meigs Field, at 2:30 in the morning.
And thanks for the clarification on the restrictions.

TornLabrum
11-06-2002, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Ligue's not asking for forgiveness, not denying he screwed up, bigtime ... He knows he screwed up, and he should pay the price for it.

That said, this is a person with serious problems who had the guts to admit that and ask for help. Ideally, he would have asked for help before beating the crap out of an old man, but better late than never.

After reading the profile piece in the Daily Southtown, I feel like I better understand what led him to do what he did. It's indefensible and uncondonable, but the man's human.

One can be both a tragic figure and an a--hole at the same time, and that's how I view Ligue. Get him treatment, lock him up and straighten out his kid.

We have a bus driver in our school district whose daughter was killed in a car crash last year. He is raising her young son who is severely mentally retarded. Today another of his grandchildren died of SIDS. As far as I know he hasn't resorted to any of the actions that Mr. Ligue did.

Everyone has tragedy in their lives. Some make the best of is. Others use it as an excuse.

Ol Aches & Pains
11-06-2002, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
ok in response to Ol Aches:
you say that the legal definition of insanity is the ability to be able to tell right from wrong. to that I add (to my knowledge, what i'm saying is correct) "at the time the crime was committed."

If someone is intoxicated with alcohol and therefore does not have the capability of knowing that beating on someone because he thought he saw the bird directed at him (and of what i've heard, being drunk includes having severely blurred vision and distorted memory during the intoxication) lets the suspect plead not guilty by reason of temporary insanity.

It's one thing to know that what you did was wrong after you've done it... but at the time of the crime if you don't know right from wrong, then, to my knowledge, the insanity plea is valid.



If that logic was applied, every drunk driver who kills someone on the road would get off scot free, because he was too drunk to know he shouldn't be driving!

guillen4life13
11-06-2002, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
We have a bus driver in our school district whose daughter was killed in a car crash last year. He is raising her young son who is severely mentally retarded. Today another of his grandchildren died of SIDS. As far as I know he hasn't resorted to any of the actions that Mr. Ligue did.

Everyone has tragedy in their lives. Some make the best of is. Others use it as an excuse.

some are much, much more unstable in the mind. i'm sure this guy has some other mental conditions that need to be taken care of. as for the excuse thing... i think the fact that he's using this as an excuse is sleazy, but i'm saying that jail probably isn't going to solve the problem. treatment definitely (imo) has a better chance of reaching that goal.

Originally posted by Ol Aches & Pains
If that logic was applied, every drunk driver who kills someone on the road would get off scot free, because he was too drunk to know he shouldn't be driving!

point taken.

Kilroy
11-07-2002, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by steff3603
Here ya go... from up above.

"... Ligue's bond was set at $200,000. so he has to post 10% which means 20K. Honestly, I'd bet against that guy coming up with 2K, never mind 20. Kelly's bond was set at $750,000. Why was his so much higher? Certainly not because one crime was so much worse than the other."

Sounds like you don't think R. Kelly's crime is any worse than Ligue's.

As is so often the case, something doesn't read the way it was thought. instead of going on with this, I'll just say that I don't think the two crimes are comparable at all, and I agree with you in that respect.

Ol Aches & Pains
11-08-2002, 07:27 PM
According to the Sun Times today, Mr. Ligue used to get his kid drunk, then burn him on the arms with lit cigarettes, saying "If you cry you're not a man". How ironic is it that this information is made public at the same time as the news that Ligue's bail was deemed excessive and reduced by half? I have no sympathy whatever for this guy. He was a dirtbag before his infant daughter died, and he's a dirtbag now.

guillen4life13
11-08-2002, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Ol Aches & Pains
According to the Sun Times today, Mr. Ligue used to get his kid drunk, then burn him on the arms with lit cigarettes, saying "If you cry you're not a man". How ironic is it that this information is made public at the same time as the news that Ligue's bail was deemed excessive and reduced by half? I have no sympathy whatever for this guy. He was a dirtbag before his infant daughter died, and he's a dirtbag now.
man now that is low.

now he can have a child abuse count added. i still think he needs treatment but you guys are slowly converting me.

Ol Aches & Pains
11-09-2002, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
man now that is low.

now he can have a child abuse count added. i still think he needs treatment but you guys are slowly converting me.

And today's Sun Times reports that Ligue sent his son out to sell drugs for him, and forced him to fight with other people before the Comiskey incident to "prove his manhood". This guy's the early favorite for Father of the Year!

TornLabrum
11-09-2002, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Ol Aches & Pains
And today's Sun Times reports that Ligue sent his son out to sell drugs for him, and forced him to fight with other people before the Comiskey incident to "prove his manhood". This guy's the early favorite for Father of the Year!

So the $64,000 question is, "Has anyone bailed this creep out yet at the reduced cost?"

idseer
11-09-2002, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
As is so often the case, something doesn't read the way it was thought. instead of going on with this, I'll just say that I don't think the two crimes are comparable at all, and I agree with you in that respect.


your quote was ...
""... Ligue's bond was set at $200,000. so he has to post 10% which means 20K. Honestly, I'd bet against that guy coming up with 2K, never mind 20. Kelly's bond was set at $750,000. Why was his so much higher? Certainly not because one crime was so much worse than the other."

to which steff replies ... "Sounds like you don't think R. Kelly's crime is any worse than Ligue's. "

your quote made perfect sense to anyone who understand the english language.
... "Certainly not because one crime was so much worse than the other." ...
clearly this means one crime being so much worse was not the reason for the bond difference. in no way does it suggest it means you think the crimes are comparable.

Ol Aches & Pains
11-09-2002, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
So the $64,000 question is, "Has anyone bailed this creep out yet at the reduced cost?"

I've got a great idea! Let's start a "bail out Ligue" fund here at WSI! This poor man has been failed by society. I just know that with the right combination of love and compassion, we can get both Mr. Ligue and his son back on the straight and narrow. Why, I'll bet in no time at all, they'll both be valuable citizens of the community, and everyone will forget this silly little prank ever happened.

Since they'll need a place to stay away from the evil media that has blown this story all out of proportion, I will volunteer to take these two scamps under my wing and let them stay with me until they're back on their feet and contributing to society again.

So let's all dig deep, and make it a happy Thanksgiving for the Ligues. Come on, everybody, group hug! :)

voodoochile
11-09-2002, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Ol Aches & Pains
I've got a great idea! Let's start a "bail out Ligue" fund here at WSI! This poor man has been failed by society. I just know that with the right combination of love and compassion, we can get both Mr. Ligue and his son back on the straight and narrow. Why, I'll bet in no time at all, they'll both be valuable citizens of the community, and everyone will forget this silly little prank ever happened.

Since they'll need a place to stay away from the evil media that has blown this story all out of proportion, I will volunteer to take these two scamps under my wing and let them stay with me until they're back on their feet and contributing to society again.

So let's all dig deep, and make it a happy Thanksgiving for the Ligues. Come on, everybody, group hug! :)

Well, I've got some used chewing gum you can try to sell. EBay probably gives you the best price option for it. If that doesn't work, you can try to sell this weeks used cat litter. I'm sure my contributions by themselves won't get it done, but if everyone chips in their trash then hopefully we can mail it to him care of county jail and he can see exactly what we all think of his sorry ass...

RedPinStripes
11-10-2002, 12:27 AM
i havent read this whole thread and i dont plan on reading everything on this piece of ****. I hope this scumbag got his ass beat severly by chicago's finest, and never shows up at Comiskey because he gives bad name to sox fans no matter how much his appointed lawyer tells him to apologize.

Scum of the earth!

guillen4life13
11-10-2002, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
i havent read this whole thread and i dont plan on reading everything on this piece of ****. I hope this scumbag got his ass beat severly by chicago's finest, and never shows up at Comiskey because he gives bad name to sox fans no matter how much his appointed lawyer tells him to apologize.

Scum of the earth!

*****!

steff
11-11-2002, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by idseer
your quote was ...
""... Ligue's bond was set at $200,000. so he has to post 10% which means 20K. Honestly, I'd bet against that guy coming up with 2K, never mind 20. Kelly's bond was set at $750,000. Why was his so much higher? Certainly not because one crime was so much worse than the other."

to which steff replies ... "Sounds like you don't think R. Kelly's crime is any worse than Ligue's. "

your quote made perfect sense to anyone who understand the english language.
... "Certainly not because one crime was so much worse than the other." ...
clearly this means one crime being so much worse was not the reason for the bond difference. in no way does it suggest it means you think the crimes are comparable.

OK jerk... I stated what made me misinterpret the quote, and he clarified it. No need to be an ass.

guillen4life13
11-11-2002, 07:26 PM
cool down man.

steff
11-11-2002, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
cool down man.


No offense guillen4life, but I won't. The remark about the comment "making sense to anyone who can understand the english language" was ignorant and unnecessary. I disagree with a lot of things said here yet I don't stoop to childish and rude remarks to bash them. I might have expected this from a new poster.. or maybe even a youngster. If I don't like something, I simply don't respond. Maybe idseer should take a refresher course in manners or learn to stay out of others conversations. Clearly, since the subject was dropped DAYS ago, it was resolved and no more comment was necessary. Especially by someone who was not even involved.

Daver
11-11-2002, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by steff3603
No offense guillen4life, but I won't. The remark about the comment "making sense to anyone who can understand the english language" was ignorant and unnecessary. I disagree with a lot of things said here yet I don't stoop to childish and rude remarks to bash them. I might have expected this from a new poster.. or maybe even a youngster. If I don't like something, I simply don't respond. Maybe idseer should take a refresher course in manners or learn to stay out of others conversations. Clearly, since the subject was dropped DAYS ago, it was resolved and no more comment was necessary. Especially by someone who was not even involved.

You also did a fine job of not going off on him for calling you a man,well done Steff,I'm impressed.

:)

steff
11-11-2002, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by daver
You also did a fine job of not going off on him for calling you a man,well done Steff,I'm impressed.

:)



ROTFLMAO Daver!!!

Here's the punishment!! :kermit

Ol Aches & Pains
11-11-2002, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by steff3603
Maybe idseer should take a refresher course in manners or learn to stay out of others conversations. Clearly, since the subject was dropped DAYS ago, it was resolved and no more comment was necessary. Especially by someone who was not even involved.

Steff,
idseer may not have the best manners, but let me point out that this is an open discussion board on the Internet. Anything we post here is fair game for anyone else to comment on, right? If you want to have a private conversation, there's a PM feature for that purpose. I have no opinion on the issue of which crime was worse, a dirtbag is a dirtbag, whether he's trailer trash poor or a wealthy music star, but I might have an opinion on something else someday, and I'm not going to hold back because somebody's using a public board for a "private" conversation.

steff
11-11-2002, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Ol Aches & Pains
Steff,
idseer may not have the best manners, but let me point out that this is an open discussion board on the Internet. Anything we post here is fair game for anyone else to comment on, right? If you want to have a private conversation, there's a PM feature for that purpose. I have no opinion on the issue of which crime was worse, a dirtbag is a dirtbag, whether he's trailer trash poor or a wealthy music star, but I might have an opinion on something else someday, and I'm not going to hold back because somebody's using a public board for a "private" conversation.


And I don't have an issue whatsoever with someone jumping in on a conversation, or disagreeing with something I say at all. It's happened many times over the years. But to insult me personally, which is exactly what he did, was OUT OF LINE . With all the trolls, wars, and attacks that have taken place on this board resulting in people getting banned, etc.. I have never, EVER been involved in ONE of them. If he didn't like my comment he could commented on it or passed it up. He didn't pass, and chose to comment. The issue, to me, is that he chose to comment ignorantly to it directed towards me.
As I said.. maybe he should take a refresher course in manners OR stay out of it. One or the other. It's called common courtesy.

Ol Aches & Pains
11-11-2002, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by steff3603
And I don't have an issue whatsoever with someone jumping in on a conversation, or disagreeing with something I say at all. It's happened many times over the years. But to insult me personally, which is exactly what he did, was OUT OF LINE. With all the trolls, wars, and attacks that have taken place on this board resulting in people getting banned, etc.. I have never, EVER been involved in ONE of them. If he didn't like my comment he could have passed it up. He didn't, and commented ignorantly to it, and I responded.
As I said.. maybe he should take a refresher course in manners OR stay out of it. One or the other. It's called common courtesy.

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying.

guillen4life13
11-11-2002, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by daver


You also did a fine job of not going off on him for calling you a man,well done Steff,I'm impressed.

:)

i'm the young one on this board i guess, and i do say man to pretty much everyone, so idk. do you guys get pissed off when i say that because if you do i can stop. if u guys think it's funny then i'll keep doing it.

i'm just a lil lost... is it an inside joke or something?

but anyways we know idseer was out of line and everything but at the same boards aren't made for insults and potshots at each other. maybe idseer should have been warned (don't ask me, all i know is that i've been warned before for profanity, and i've cleaned up since then, and i've also blown feuds out of proportion, and still do every once in a while because i misinterpret statements). i'm just saying yea he might have taken a pot shot at you, but i don't know if calling him a jerk, etc is going to do any good or not. but i'm not a mediator or anything and i know you guys are more than 10 years older than me and most likely a helluva lot more mature than me. i'm just sayin.

Soxheads
11-11-2002, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
i'm the young one on this board i guess, and i do say man to pretty much everyone, so idk. do you guys get pissed off when i say that because if you do i can stop. if u guys think it's funny then i'll keep doing it.

i'm just a lil lost... is it an inside joke or something?

but anyways we know idseer was out of line and everything but at the same boards aren't made for insults and potshots at each other. maybe idseer should have been warned (don't ask me, all i know is that i've been warned before for profanity, and i've cleaned up since then, and i've also blown feuds out of proportion, and still do every once in a while because i misinterpret statements). i'm just saying yea he might have taken a pot shot at you, but i don't know if calling him a jerk, etc is going to do any good or not. but i'm not a mediator or anything and i know you guys are more than 10 years older than me and most likely a helluva lot more mature than me. i'm just sayin.

I think daver was just joking around. :smile:

guillen4life13
11-11-2002, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Soxheads
I think daver was just joking around. :smile:

phew! lmao. thanks, man. :cool: now let me let my teenage self pop a zit. hold on.... there we go.

good times.

Daver
11-11-2002, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Soxheads
I think daver was just joking around. :smile:


I think it has been well documented that I have no sense of humour......

steff
11-11-2002, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
phew! lmao. thanks, man. :cool: now let me let my teenage self pop a zit. hold on.... there we go.

good times.

Yes guillen.. it was a joke. No harm, no foul. :D: