PDA

View Full Version : Nice Job Cardinals


getonbckthr
11-09-2007, 08:26 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7423170
Idiots

soxinem1
11-09-2007, 09:17 PM
For the billion dollars they spend between the new stadium and salaries, you think they could at least get a part time person to screen the messages?

What morons!!!

Personally, I'd sue for 10X that much.

Trav
11-09-2007, 10:05 PM
For the billion dollars they spend between the new stadium and salaries, you think they could at least get a part time person to screen the messages?

What morons!!!

Personally, I'd sue for 10X that much.

The article says they did.

thegooch
11-10-2007, 09:47 AM
Inconceivable. What a joke of an organization. Best fans in baseball my ass.

eastchicagosoxfan
11-10-2007, 11:01 AM
Inconceivable. What a joke of an organization. Best fans in baseball my ass.
I don't think it's a reflection of their fans, but rather an immature act by a teenager, and someone, or a group of people in the organization simply going through the motions. I guess it's also possible that the screener had no idea what STD stood for. The organization's class will be demonstrated in how they handle the situation.

Frater Perdurabo
11-10-2007, 12:16 PM
Whoever did this as a prank should be flogged.

The Cards should apologize and perhaps offer season tickets as a nice gesture.

Expecting financial compensation of this magnitude is ridiculous.

Oblong
11-10-2007, 12:21 PM
I'm sure they know who sent the message. Could that person be opened up to slander/libel charges? (Not sure which applies in this case)

I suspect the Cardinals will handle this the right way.

getonbckthr
11-10-2007, 01:27 PM
I'm sure they know who sent the message. Could that person be opened up to slander/libel charges? (Not sure which applies in this case)

I suspect the Cardinals will handle this the right way.
Thats a bit harsh for a prank isn't it?

Oblong
11-10-2007, 02:27 PM
Would you feel that way if it was your daughter that it happened to?

I guess legally it wouldn't hold up because I imagine there has to be a reasonable insinuation that the charge was intended to be taken as fact. But I'm not a lawyer, that's just a guess.

getonbckthr
11-10-2007, 02:36 PM
Would you feel that way if it was your daughter that it happened to?

I guess legally it wouldn't hold up because I imagine there has to be a reasonable insinuation that the charge was intended to be taken as fact. But I'm not a lawyer, that's just a guess.
I would be pissed but I wouldn't looking to send a girl to jail for something like this.

Oblong
11-10-2007, 02:45 PM
well I didn't say they should. I only asked if they could.

DumpJerry
11-10-2007, 02:50 PM
I'm sure they know who sent the message. Could that person be opened up to slander/libel charges? (Not sure which applies in this case)

I suspect the Cardinals will handle this the right way.

Would you feel that way if it was your daughter that it happened to?

I guess legally it wouldn't hold up because I imagine there has to be a reasonable insinuation that the charge was intended to be taken as fact. But I'm not a lawyer, that's just a guess.

The allegation in court would not be slander because there is no economic harm to the girl. The allegations would be Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against the jerkface who sent the message, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress against the Cards, among other counts.
Now, if the girl's name was Meadow, there is another system of justice available to her dad........:cool:

Bucky F. Dent
11-10-2007, 04:56 PM
Somebody in the Cardinals organization lost there job.

Reminds me of the time they played the Whitesnake song at the Cell when Chuck Finley took the mound.

Sophmoric humor and the public address system of a major league stadium do not mix!

HomeFish
11-10-2007, 06:50 PM
Inconceivable. What a joke of an organization. Best fans in baseball my ass.

Nonsense. It's one person who probably isn't even a hardcore fan.

Do you also judge Sox fans by the assorted morons who charged the field?

FarWestChicago
11-10-2007, 10:27 PM
I would be pissed but I wouldn't looking to send a girl to jail for something like this.You wouldn't "look to send a girl to jail" if she was a mass murderer with eyewitness and DNA evidence against her.

getonbckthr
11-10-2007, 10:31 PM
You wouldn't "look to send a girl to jail" if she was a mass murderer with eyewitness and DNA evidence against her.
Seriously the joke is getting a bit old.

FarWestChicago
11-10-2007, 11:09 PM
Seriously the joke is getting a bit old.It's not a joke. When you get off the criminal love schtick, it will stop on it's own.

getonbckthr
11-10-2007, 11:18 PM
It's not a joke. When you get off the criminal love schtick, it will stop on it's own.
Please tell me what criminal love schtick? Because when the news tells us someone is arrested I feel they are allowed the proper investigation to guilt instead automatic assumed guilt? You would think society would have learned something from the Duke Lacrosse case that all because guilt is possible doesn't mean its true.

FarWestChicago
11-10-2007, 11:29 PM
Please tell me what criminal love schtick? Because when the news tells us someone is arrested I feel they are allowed the proper investigation to guilt instead automatic assumed guilt?You do the opposite. You assume every accused criminal is a saint, a special human being. You stick to this after their conviction, unless I missed some posts.

getonbckthr
11-11-2007, 12:02 AM
You do the opposite. You assume every accused criminal is a saint, a special human being. You stick to this after their conviction, unless I missed some posts.
I really haven't see a conviction yet. Vick doesn't happen for awhile, OJ is in the early stages. If they are convicted then yes they are useless douchbags that waste my airspace. However until a jury convicts them, not the media, I believe in innocence til proven guilt. I don't get whats wrong with that?

Hunter2sox
11-11-2007, 12:07 AM
Wow. That would really suck to be that girl.

DumpJerry
11-11-2007, 12:18 AM
I really haven't see a conviction yet. Vick doesn't happen for awhile, OJ is in the early stages. If they are convicted then yes they are useless douchbags that waste my airspace. However until a jury convicts them, not the media, I believe in innocence til proven guilt. I don't get whats wrong with that?
Vick pled guilty.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I break out the "redpen" on you? I'm sorry, I'll try to follow your advice and be more like West from now on.

FarWestChicago
11-11-2007, 12:19 AM
I really haven't see a conviction yet. Vick doesn't happen for awhile, OJ is in the early stages.Ummm, your guy Vick already confessed. He's admitted his guilt. He killed and tortured animals. You are the only one who still defends him. As far as you being in OJ's camp. That says much more about you than OJ. I know you think it's cool to be a rebel, but OJ killed people. It's not cool. It's not a game. Your schtick is despicable. You don't seem to be a bad kid. But, your love of murderers, sociopaths and criminals in general puts the lie to that. Birds of a feather flock together.

getonbckthr
11-11-2007, 12:23 AM
Ummm, your guy Vick already confessed. He's admitted his guilt. He killed and tortured animals. You are the only one who still defends him. As far as you being in OJ's camp. That says much more about you than OJ. I know you think it's cool to be a rebel, but OJ killed people. It's not cool. It's not a game. Your schtick is despicable. You don't seem to be a bad kid. But, your love of murderers, sociopaths and criminals in general puts the lie to that. Birds of a feather flock together.
When did I ever say I was in OJ's camp? Everything is speculation right now. As far as Vick I forgot he plead Guilty, which now makes him a gutless scumbag.

FarWestChicago
11-11-2007, 12:27 AM
When did I ever say I was in OJ's camp? Everything is speculation right now. As far as Vick I forgot he plead Guilty, which now makes him a gutless scumbag.There is no speculation about OJ. He killed two people. I guess you missed that part. And of course you forgot Vick plead guilty. You don't care what criminals did. Your schtick is falling apart in front of everybody. Give it a rest. It's silly and stupid. And when you drop the "defender of the guilty" schtick, I'll quit hounding you about it.

getonbckthr
11-11-2007, 12:35 AM
There is no speculation about OJ. He killed two people. I guess you missed that part. And of course you forgot Vick plead guilty. You don't care what criminals did. Your schtick is falling apart in front of everybody. Give it a rest. It's silly and stupid. And when you drop the "defender of the guilty" schtick, I'll quit hounding you about it.
I was speaking about OJ's latest situation. As far as Vick I truly forgot he plead guilty. Out of site out of mind I guess.

FarWestChicago
11-11-2007, 12:38 AM
I was speaking about OJ's latest situation. As far as Vick I truly forgot he plead guilty. Out of site out of mind I guess.And I guess OJ's murders were just out of "site" and out of mind, too. OK...

And I'm assuming you still don't get the point here?

getonbckthr
11-11-2007, 12:47 AM
And I guess OJ's murders were just out of "site" and out of mind, too. OK...

And I'm assuming you still don't get the point here?
What I don't get is when someone is guilty in the media and public eye it automatically means he/she/they did it? Like I said earlier didn't we learn anything from the Duke case? The public is very stupid and likes to jump on everyone and everything. What if Michelle were to go missing. Would you find it ok if everyone assumed that you had something to do with it?
As far as the OJ murders in my mind I have no doubt he did it. Unfortunately he got lucky as that case was really messed up and he got off. At the end of the day no matter how much we believe and how strongly we feel that he did the murders the record will show officially he didn't. And the situation he is in now should reflect only upon this case and not a "make-up" call for the horrible job done 10 yrs ago.
I get what your saying, and it appears I side with the alleged criminal. However I can honestly tell thats not true I just don't prosecute them in my head until they are proven guilty.

FarWestChicago
11-11-2007, 12:52 AM
As far as the OJ murders in my mind I have no doubt he did it. Unfortunately he got lucky as that case was really messed up and he got off. At the end of the day no matter how much we believe and how strongly we feel that he did the murders the record will show officially he didn't.OJ lost his ass in the civil suit. Don't forget that.

If Michelle were to go missing, I would hope the cops would look at me and everywhere else.

getonbckthr
11-11-2007, 12:55 AM
OJ lost his ass in the civil suit. Don't forget that.

If Michelle were to go missing, I would hope the cops would look at me and everywhere else.
A) Question. How if he was found innocent in a criminal case could they penalize him in a civil case? Thats the 1 thing I never understood.
B) The missing thing. Ya they should look at you, but that doesn't mean the media and public should prosecute you as a crazed maniac.

FarWestChicago
11-11-2007, 01:03 AM
A) Question. How if he was found innocent in a criminal case could they penalize him in a civil case? Thats the 1 thing I never understood.
B) The missing thing. Ya they should look at you, but that doesn't mean the media and public should prosecute you as a crazed maniac.OJ was obviously guilty. I doubt his own mother believed he was innocent. However, his lawyers were brilliant and the LA county prosecutors were phenomenally incompetent. That got him off. He had no chance in civil court. Civil courts just need a reasonable assumption of guilt, not that innocent until there is no shadow of doubt stuff; which is appropriate for criminal cases.

As far as Michelle goes, she's not disappearing if I'm around. If it were to happen while I'm not around, I should be scrutinized, period.

getonbckthr
11-11-2007, 01:08 AM
OJ was obviously guilty. I doubt his own mother believed he was innocent. However, his lawyers were brilliant and the LA county prosecutors were phenomenally incompetent. That got him off. He had no chance in civil court. Civil courts just need a reasonable assumption of guilt, not that innocent until there is no shadow of doubt stuff; which is appropriate for criminal cases.

As far as Michelle goes, she's not disappearing if I'm around. If it were to happen while I'm not around, I should be scrutinized, period.
Ok I thought they were somehow linked together or something. Are they essentially 2 seperate cases: 1 for jail time and 1 for financial penalty? Also if I were on trial for killing Jimmy Joe Johnson and got off would there be a civil trial as well or was it because of the amount of money involved?

doublem23
11-11-2007, 01:09 AM
As far as Michelle goes, she's not disappearing if I'm around. If it were to happen while I'm not around, I should be scrutinized, period.

Scrutinized, yes, but there's a line between "under investigation" and "presumed guilty" that should not be crossed, at least not by professional detectives investigating a crime. I guess public opinion is free to sway however it will, but innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental right and privilege all free people should hold dear.

And now, I am getting the hell out of the way. :duck:

Crede_Fan
11-11-2007, 01:16 AM
Where's the popcorn guy when you need him? :wink:

doublem23
11-11-2007, 01:16 AM
Ok I thought they were somehow linked together or something. Are they essentially 2 seperate cases: 1 for jail time and 1 for financial penalty? Also if I were on trial for killing Jimmy Joe Johnson and got off would there be a civil trial as well or was it because of the amount of money involved?

Yes, the first case was in criminal court and O.J. was on trial for the double homicide of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. The 2nd case was a civil suit, he was found liable for the wrongful death of Goldman. As FWC already stated, wrongful death suits are usually much less intense than criminal cases.

As for if you would be hypothetically charged, that would probably be up to the relatives of the deceased. A criminal case is brought by the state, civil cases are between two private parties, so it's not a guarantee. But you can believe if you were a high profile athlete with some money on trial for the murder of two people, even if you were acquitted of criminal penalties, you would wind up in civil court.

getonbckthr
11-11-2007, 01:22 AM
Yes, the first case was in criminal court and O.J. was on trial for the double homicide of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. The 2nd case was a civil suit, he was found liable for the wrongful death of Goldman. As FWC already stated, wrongful death suits are usually much less intense than criminal cases.

As for if you would be hypothetically charged, that would probably be up to the relatives of the deceased. A criminal case is brought by the state, civil cases are between two private parties, so it's not a guarantee. But you can believe if you were a high profile athlete with some money on trial for the murder of two people, even if you were acquitted of criminal penalties, you would wind up in civil court.
Interesting, thank you. I never new any of that.

Michelle
11-11-2007, 01:27 AM
If Michelle were to go missing, I would hope the cops would look at me and everywhere else.
Yes, like the mall :lol:

I almost went missing in Toronto today. I saw a Sephora store and it was all he could do to catch up with me. There's been some discussion of wearing a cowbell :D:

getonbckthr
11-11-2007, 01:31 AM
Yes, like the mall :lol:

I almost went missing in Toronto today. I saw a Sephora store and it was all he could do to catch up with me. There's been some discussion of wearing a cowbell :D:
I know you love the attention you got in this thread.:D:
I'm a little scared that if you do go missing WEST will be on the "Find BCKTHR its his fault" march.

Michelle
11-11-2007, 01:33 AM
I'm a little scared that if you do go missing WEST will be on the "Find BCKTHR its his fault" march.
I'll try to stay put, for everyone's sake :wink:

StillMissOzzie
11-11-2007, 01:38 AM
A) Question. How if he was found innocent in a criminal case could they penalize him in a civil case? Thats the 1 thing I never understood.
B) The missing thing. Ya they should look at you, but that doesn't mean the media and public should prosecute you as a crazed maniac.
OJ was NOT "found innocent", he was found "not guilty". They are NOT the same! It's all about the burden of proof in a criminal case.

Just my $0.02

SMO
:gulp:

doublem23
11-11-2007, 02:38 AM
Yes, like the mall :lol:

I almost went missing in Toronto today. I saw a Sephora store and it was all he could do to catch up with me. There's been some discussion of wearing a cowbell :D:

Cowbell? I'm shocked that FWC would be so low-tech. I bet if you put a couple drinks into someone, it wouldn't be to hard to sneak one of these in (http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2002/01/50004).

Bucky F. Dent
11-11-2007, 07:15 AM
A) Question. How if he was found innocent in a criminal case could they penalize him in a civil case? Thats the 1 thing I never understood.
B) The missing thing. Ya they should look at you, but that doesn't mean the media and public should prosecute you as a crazed maniac.


Lower burden of proof in the civil setting. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. Proof by a preponderance of the evidence in civil cases. Plus evidentiary restrictions are likely different in the civil court, so more/different evidence is admissible - I am speculating on this last part as I have never practiced in the California courts.

Bucky F. Dent
11-11-2007, 07:17 AM
Ok I thought they were somehow linked together or something. Are they essentially 2 seperate cases: 1 for jail time and 1 for financial penalty? Also if I were on trial for killing Jimmy Joe Johnson and got off would there be a civil trial as well or was it because of the amount of money involved?


There could be a civil trial. Not necessarily though. Criminal case is prosecuted by the State. Civil case is prosecuted by the estate of the persons who were killed.

Michelle
11-11-2007, 09:48 AM
Cowbell? I'm shocked that FWC would be so low-tech. I bet if you put a couple drinks into someone, it wouldn't be to hard to sneak one of these in (http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2002/01/50004).
Well that would cast a pall on my shopping expeditions :(:

Tragg
11-11-2007, 11:20 AM
Interesting, thank you. I never new any of that.
But sometimes the defendants are prosecuted under state charges; and if that fails, the feds will move in and prosecute under new federal charges. See Rodney King, where the cops were found not guilty under California statutes, but prosecuted successfully under federal civil rights statutes.

That practice, while legal, is of questionable constitutional spirit.

32nd&Wallace
11-11-2007, 08:38 PM
The allegation in court would not be slander because there is no economic harm to the girl. The allegations would be Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against the jerkface who sent the message, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress against the Cards, among other counts.
Now, if the girl's name was Meadow, there is another system of justice available to her dad........:cool:Economic harm does not matter. Its slander per se and damages are presumed. She does not have to presume the damages because the statement imputed the woman's chastity.

DumpJerry
11-12-2007, 12:44 AM
Economic harm does not matter. Its slander per se and damages are presumed. She does not have to presume the damages because the statement imputed the woman's chastity.
I love law students. It's not a slam dunk per se case.

SoxandtheCityTee
11-12-2007, 01:43 AM
It's not a slam dunk per se case.

Perhaps not, ultimately, but it's pleadable as one, with a solid chance to get past the motions. The point that he raises is a big part of why it was filed.

FedEx227
11-12-2007, 01:56 AM
I love law students. It's not a slam dunk per se case.

per quod?

rdwj
11-12-2007, 10:19 AM
St. Louis Circuit Court, claims the 17-year-old girl was so traumatized by the message last year during a class trip that she stayed out of school the rest of the semester and took her finals in a school office to avoid ridicule.

Does this seem silly to anyone else. Honestly, who hasn't had a joke played on them before. That's no reason to hide at home for the rest of the year. Seems like people trying to create damages and hoping the Cards pay up to avoid bad PR.

skottyj242
11-12-2007, 10:52 AM
Are they going to make her go to the doctor and take all sorts of tests to prove she doesn't have an STD(s)?

soxfanatlanta
11-12-2007, 10:58 AM
Does this seem silly to anyone else. Honestly, who hasn't had a joke played on them before. That's no reason to hide at home for the rest of the year. Seems like people trying to create damages and hoping the Cards pay up to avoid bad PR.

Thank you.

It's not like the Star Wars Kid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPPj6viIBmU)thing.

SoxandtheCityTee
11-12-2007, 12:11 PM
It's not like the Star Wars Kid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPPj6viIBmU)thing.

I don't understand the comparison you are making . Are you saying that this video was taken of this kid as a joke on him? It looks as though he is aware of the camera running.

DumpJerry
11-12-2007, 12:35 PM
Are they going to make her go to the doctor and take all sorts of tests to prove she doesn't have an STD(s)?
That's irrelevant. Even if she did have an STD or two, it's wrong to publicize it in that (or any) manner. Also, a test now will not confirm her STC status on the date of the incident if it comes back positive.

SoxandtheCityTee
11-12-2007, 12:37 PM
Highly unlikely that the Cards will push this point or assert truth as a defense, as it's no help on the other counts and private medical info cannot be published on a Jumbotron anyway.

soxfanatlanta
11-12-2007, 02:04 PM
I don't understand the comparison you are making . Are you saying that this video was taken of this kid as a joke on him? It looks as though he is aware of the camera running.

Background info. This kid taped himself doing these...er...maneuvers and somebody got their hands on it; the boy was internationally ridiculed to the nth degree and basically had to drop out of school/public life to avoid the taunts and jokes.

This girl, who certainly was publicly embarrassed, did not need to drop out of school. Her humiliation was nothing compared to the Star Wars Kid. (read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Kid))

I was agreeing with rdwj's earlier post.