Jump to content


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ncates00 last won the day on December 2 2019

ncates00 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

235 First-Ballot Hall of Famer

About ncates00

  • Rank
    Swing the clubhead

Personal Information

  • Your Location

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
  • Handedness

Recent Profile Visitors

5,431 profile views
  1. Fair enough. Nonetheless, your answer is why we don’t need intent involved in rules of golf. We don’t look at intent very much in most other sports. Even with intentional grounding in football we don’t ask what the quarterback’s intentions were.
  2. I never said this. I’m referring to “why.” Again, intent can be inferred. It’s done in court all the time and is treated as proven intent.
  3. Which is why intent can be inferred based upon the circumstances.
  4. “Deliberately” is the intent part. consciously and intentionally; on purpose. "the fire was started deliberately" I’m not sure 1) what is wrong or 2) why it’s not enough.
  5. Intent can be inferred from the circumstances and that is treated the same as “proving” it. Here, he hit a poor shot, watched his ball, walked briskly over toward where his ball is rolling back, saw the divot, and put his foot on it. I’d say that’s enough to infer intent and a breach of the new rule. That said, I don’t agree with your assessment of changing “to” to “that.” You can do a simpler change by simply deleting “deliberately.”
  6. I don't know. I didn't serve on the grand jury. Testimony of a grand jury is not discoverable unless a witness testifies at trial or the requesting party shows a particularized need for release of the transcript. Fed. R. Crim. Pro. § 6(e). Reforms have been sought but none have been heeded by Congress or the SCOTUS: right to counsel in grand jury proceedings, Prosecutors advise grand jury of any known exculpatory info, Prosecutors not allowed to present to grand jury inadmissible evidence, targets given right to testify, witnesses given transcripts of their testimony, and not naming pe
  7. And there is your mistake. That’s why we go by evidence and what the law says instead of some video you saw on the internet. That’s the same reason why we don’t blindly believe Trump won the election without any proof. Come on man. (I know that last part was off topic but I was trying to make a point). That's why we get paid what we do. 🙂
  8. Says who? You? I think I’ll go with what the law actually said, not you. I took criminal procedure in law school. Did you? @mclaren4life even this article which argues that the warrant was illegal states that the warrant obtained was a “no knock” warrant. Opinion | Breonna Taylor’s death was the result of Louisville police’s illegal no-knock warrant - The Washington Post She's just the latest casualty of a judicial system that refuses to protect the Fourth Amendment. You’re getting off track here and talking about things it appears that you don’t und
  9. No it doesn’t make sense. Who cares what the witnesses say if the law holds that no knock warrants are legally permissible. The whole point about what the witnesses say does not matter one iota in this case. However, because of Breonna’s Law, which bans no knock warrants moving forward, in future cases such testimony would matter. Both you and Erik are discussing a point that does not matter in this case; that’s why I called you both out on it.
  10. Then why say this? 🤦‍♂️ Apparently you do because 178 posts in on this forum, and you have forgotten how to use the @ symbol. 🙂
  11. First, if you want to discuss reply to someone, please use the @ to tag a person or quote them. False. No knock warrants were valid under KY law prior to this case and the subsequent new law banning no knock warrants. Moreover, no knock warrants, like all warrants, must be obtained from a judge.
  12. Because the grand jury did not choose to indict. I answered above. Maybe, but what does qualified immunity have to do with this case? As stated, the case didn't even make it past the grand jury hearing, so the discussion of immunity is moot. Perhaps. There are good arguments on both sides, but I tend to agree with you. That's not the reason for qualified immunity. Read some law review articles on the pros and cons and rationale of the immunity doctrine. Since when is following the law "damning?" Prior to this case
  13. If the recreation is accurate, then that’s very sad. However, it’s difficult to pierce the police’s qualified immunity. The case didn’t even make it past the grand jury to even consider that point. Moreover, prosecutors have a lot of discretion. It’s a tough situation with no clear answers unfortunately.
  14. I agree with you there. However, I’m not going to be so quick to judge a person whom I don’t know just because they play slow, the media portrays him as a “mad scientist,” or he screwed up once in how he dealt with a camera guy. To me, it’s no different than that one guy at the drive thru that got your order wrong once or like a poster on this forum, like me 😂, who went off and got warning points. Haha. I’d hope we have a little more compassion, or at least patience, for each other than that.
  15. I doubt that’s the most important skill he needs to learn.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...