gehringer_2

Oh - you're right!

We're about to find out how good Hinch really is managing a clubhouse because this one has every reason to start falling apart.

When do we start the 2023 draft thread.....

Meadows currently can't stand up without falling over and Paredes homers. Perfect.

right - You would need excess position player strength you couldn't use for a trade for a pitcher to work. I don't see where the Tigers have any, let alone enough.

correct.

I hope they don’t force Brieske any farther, I don’t think he is ready, or at least let him work in relief where he needs better breaking stuff less. Move R Garcia or Peralta to the rotation

Well for certain we don’t do a good job in this system on drilling batters how to get out of the way. Whether there is a gene for fingers that can take a major league line drive might be nice to know.

Or across a Detroit freeway pedestrian bridge

I don’t know if history is predictive of being hit by a line drive, maybe in Pineda’s case we should have predicted it based on his cross-sectional area ⛰

Appears to be the kiss of death for a FA pitcher to come to DET

I think when a starter is hurt in the 1st you should get to start over. It’s only fair isn’t it?

This one is only projecting to 81-0 so far at least it won’t matter when Willi makes his error.

to clarify, I suppose the hate-crime terminology relates to many things that I would not put all in the same basket. I can narrow it down a long way though. Does the 'hate' aspect make some difference in the act itself? So in the case of graffiti, 'Call Doris for a good time' vs a Swastica is a different result and even possibly a different set of social consequences. What I don't agree with is trying to call a 1st degree murder worse based on why the murderer committed it. The person that is dead is just as dead. It makes no difference to me why (again we are already stipulating 1st deg, not args over self defense for example) and in a sense devalues every other murder by singling certain ones out for special prosecution treatment. I don't agree with that, and as I said before, since it doesn't add to deterrence or public safety, I don't see any practical benefit to argue for either. NB. I'm not trying to change your mind, just telling you what I think.

So what is the difference in what sanction the law allows for painting a swastika versus a gang tag? Besides, that is a different situation anyway. If you say "It is illegal to paint a swastika" you have made an ACT with a particular outcome (a swastika on a wall) illegal and are are punishing an a specific that can be separated from painting a gang tag-it's two different outcomes. When a person is dead, you can't separate anything in the character of the deadness based on the whether hate in the perp was personal or otherwise.

The church once said -"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." but as we would more commonly render it in English: "Kill'em all and let God sort 'em out!"

much ado about nothing anyway. Target's report still depicts a plenty healthy enterprise.

Hard to prove is just the practical end, the base objection is that the addition of the hate specification is pointless. Your post about having the law "make a statement" is the core concept I take issue with. You can't/won't punish the buffalo guy any more for this being a hate crime than for it being a multiple 1st degree murder. The 'hate' statue adds nothing functionally and just take the law into an area that is at odds with the US concept that you are responsible for what you do, and free the think anything you want. Now as I said, if you want to change that base assumption, which is not the assumption made in many places in the world, then I think you can make a straighter case for calling something a 'hate crime' To me the law does not have 'instructional' value, it has only deterrent and public safety/order value, that is why I don't see any value in adding a 'hate' specification to something is already illegal and fully punishable.

this is a matter of opinion >Honestly you seem to be suggesting there should be no legal difference between 1st and 2nd etc degree murder as long as all of the little widgets of planning were legal when they were done. Not at all, it's not that hard to see when a specific action is coordinated and contingent to a specific act/outcome - I bought a gun on Monday morning (legal) used it Monday afternoon ( = premeditation).

I don't care if whether the charge is 'accurate', that's fine. I was opining of 'hate crime' conceptually. Writing anything you want is not illegal. To me it's an odd bootstrap to say that something you did which was perfectly legal, basically now becomes part of a crime only retrospectively. While it's true that there a certain aspect of that in conspiracy law, that can get questionable in my view as well. I guess in general I don't see the utility - or should I say attraction, of finding more ways to stack charges onto crimes that already are going to carry the maximum sanction the law is going to allow - whether that be life/no parole or a death sentence. Maybe it's a form of 'virtuous' virtue signalling, but I don't see that it adds any useful or needed function to the law or public safety. Practically speaking society gains no objective value in deterrence, enforcement or safety by charging a murderer with an additional crime for the reason he murdered. Now if you are actually going to make the expression of hate illegal, which many countries do (e.g. Germany) then I think that is at least functional, we just don't agree with doing that in the US.

the problem with state of mind is evidentiary, and as this case shows, even though you may have it in spades, you don't need it at all because there is more than enough to prosecute without it. Thus - legally superfluous.

load the basis with no out - DO NOT SCORE

you were saying?

Fedder: Look - we don't care what you give up - go out there and throw some off speed pitches.

Cameron - noodle arm. Nothing on that throw, and he was shallow enough the assist was there for the taking.