dc.

I won't click on a link from NewsMax, but I guess I'll take your word. How is Batts any more powerful in swaying opinion than the local and national media? How are people in Baltimore any more tainted by his words than the millions viewing them online? Again, the question is can you find people who can choose to be impartial... not can you find someone uninformed, who hasn't followed or simply doesn't know... I also think any respectable judge would be very hesitant to move a case about a municipal agency out of the municipality. "This is about the governance of Baltimore... but Baltimore isn't allowed to be the purveyor of justice."

Tim - Two added thoughts: 1. Maybe false imprisonment stems from a faulty stop followed by a faulty arrest, not just the faulty arrest. It would be one thing to accidentally stop, but nit arrest... Or stop justly, and then start in error. But to do both? I still age it's not going to work. 2. What other make car has Mosby lost? She's only been in office four months. Bernstein, her predecessor, lost a few big ones. I still like him. I have a friend in the office who liked Bernstein a lot and believed fine if those losses were systemic flaws, including a poorly trained police force

But Batts comments go towards a flawed investigation, not a flawed jury pool. It could happen, but the question becomes where do you find a pool that can be impartial? In a major city, it's hard to make the case that you can't find 12-20 people who aren't able to disinterest themselves enough to be fair.

Re: Change of venue - heard many so far say it won't happen because social media, etc is making that a less and less acceptable choice. Everyone hears everything. There is no rule or right that says people can't have heard of the crime or even have heard a lot about it any perhaps have "preconceived notions" about it. You simply have to be able to reasonably put those notions aside to hear the case. Judges are more and more saying, 1. that you can find the right mix of people who can put those notions aside anywhere and 2. given social media, finding anything beyond that is no more likely in another venue.

Two addendums: First, the sequence of events I posted there is the one outlined by Mosby. I am not asserting it as fact, but as what we are told. If that sequence can be proven with any certainty, it fits the bill for the crimes. Second, the depraved heart second degree murder could stick. I think it won't, but it could. The definition here: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-overview.html... " a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life" This goes beyond the involuntary "negligence" to say that there was some conduct that was probably known to cause harm and just didn't care. The driver got this because of his multiple stops and checks, without changing his behavior. I don't think this will stick, but it could under a strict reading.

I think they can get at least two on involuntary manslaughter, maybe three. They won't get a change of venue. They do know how the injury occurred, Max: he was put face down on the floor of the van for 45 minutes, handcuffed and shackled. They stopped the van 4 times to check his condition. He requested medical assistance multiple times - prompting the stops and during the stops - until during the last stop (and perhaps one prior) he was completely non-responsive. They have this in police officer statements and on video. At no point after the first stop did they even attempt to get in the van to check on him. At the last stop, the sergeant charged was advised he had been complaining and seeking medical attention, she spoke to the back of his head, they didn't touch him or attempt to render aid when he was unresponsive and likely not breathing. They drove away again. I see involuntary manslaughter all over that. There is a legitimate amount of negligence in those actions, gross negligence, that led directly to his injuries and death. Involuntary manslaughter is the same charge you could get for texting and driving. If you are responsible for the health, safety, well-being of an individual... placing them in shackles, face down in a van and driving around for 45 minutes and ignoring their pleas is 100% gross negligence. Many of the other charges - from assault to even false imprisonment I don't see sticking. The Supreme Court even ruled this year that an officer who makes a "reasonable mistake" about what the law is in making a stop or arrest is not violating the law himself. Misconduct in office is probably a 100% for all of them though for not responding to pleas for medical attention.

Jimmy Paredes could wind up being HUGE for this team - especially with injuries to Schoop and Flaherty (well, Flaherty's play in general) and the lack of production from Pearce. The guy is still young and fairly new to MLB... I am thinking/hoping this could be a Buck/Duquette magic type of guy. His spring was astounding.

Definitely could play worse, so don't jinx us. But not fun to watch right now. I'm most worried about our bullpen - walks and big his. ODay hasn't gotten his groove back since the end of last summer, lots of hrs. Worst is that all the big his and takes list night started with two out and no one on... Then three run home runs!

Ejection was sad. I agree with Buck, more than last night it hurts the entire series by draining the pen. Still sad we couldn't do more though and that our pen keeps collapsing... Great read by Napoli n that bloop to end the game, couldn't believe he scored so easily.

The Bellevederes are another one I caught at that WTMD concert. Good retro stuff - some very rare. But my favorite part is their hypeman Velvet Johnson. Not his best work here, but a little taste... and he just stands around and claps for the rest of the show.

Bosley! A local boy. Nice choice. Have you heard his cover of Beck's "Debra?" Can't find it online right now... but so good. Meanwhile, I saw him at WTMD's 24 Hour concert at their new venue a few years ago. Walked in as he started this song. The intro, in person, is pretty epic. It just builds and builds. Not quite captured on the track as well.

Hunter. On June 15 last year, in the midst of his worst stretch with the O's, he gave up 2 runs and raised his season ERA to 6.50. From June 15 to season end... he pitched to a 1.30 ERA in 41+ innings. Opponents batted .188 against him. He walked 4 batters in 40+ innings (less than 1 per 9, which is stellar). He ended the season with a 2.97 ERA even after his rough start. In 2013, he pitched to a 2.81 ERA and WHIP UNDER 1.00. Outstanding numbers. Which is why he was given the closer's role in 2014 to start the year. But hard to shake the image people have once it's created and embedded.

Hunter has not been that bad. In fact, he got the worst of his rep last year - when he started as closer and struggled. People just think it's been so much longer than that. It hasn't. He is certainly a pain now. Meanwhile, it's only 7 (now 8) games. The Jays are a good team. The Yanks are not great but you'll play the occasional slugfest. Snider's error didn't help either. And would everyone love to have Andrew Miller? Of course. I'd love Andrew Miller, Rivera in his prime, Britton, Wade Davis... But if you think we had 12m a year to give to a set-up man, you're crazy. We just don't have that cash. We couldn't compete with that. So it goes. By comparison, O'Day is making about $3m this year. Is Miller worth 4 O'Days? Would having Miller be worth giving up O'Day? It would put him on par with Adam Jones - top 3 salaries on the team. Is that where he ranks as a 1-inning per game guy to put IN FRONT of Britton? Moving on. We'll be fine.

The other one in my head this week...

Future People - Alabama Shakes. The two tracks above are good. This is the track that makes my jaw drop sometimes, thinking this is the same band as 3 years ago. And thinking damn, Brittany can sing.

Two groups that are evolving in a big way... First, all signs point to these guys absolutely DESTROYING IT with their new album. I was on board when they just had the EP with Hold On a few years ago - but these new tracks are just unreal. https://youtu.be/_sNNTpORtDQ Then, these fellas... well, they are definitely evolving and re-inventing. I like this version of the tune on SNL a lot more than I like the actual track. It just sounds muddy to me. Not sure how I feel on this change. I respect their comments, though, where they pretty much said, "We had a lot more in us than our first albums; we didn't want to remake that." I am hoping the rest of this album maybe has some middle ground because as I said, not sold on it yet. And yes - Garfunkel and Oates are hilarious. I love Kate Marcucci (is she G or O?) from her roles with Scrubs and Raising Hope.

Spen - back down to 81-81. Crap. I usually hate when our homer announcing crew, especially post-game, says things like, "Man, just one of those days when the Jays couldn't be stopped..." Today I'll say was an exception and I kind of agree. The Jays were good, for sure, BUT man oh man did it feel like they were finding every hole with their hits. The Batista single in the 4th over the head of Schoop who was playing in? That would have hit him in the chest if he wasn't playing in. The single THROUGH the shift? When do you see that happen? Not sure what was up with Bud, but I don't know if I've ever seen as many opposite field "dink doubles" against one pitcher in a long time. I feel like the Jays knew what was coming - not in a cheating way, but in a "we're way too predictable way" Oh well... on to another day. Maybe Ubaldo will find it tomorrow.

I actually can see Cash too... I just couldn't place it. Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs has been on TV a lot lately and I just kept seeing a really bad pic of Harvey Keitel.

Self portrait? Or one of the guys from Reservoir Dogs?

Sad thought: I've seen far worse tattoos, both in concept and execution. At least the artist captured the whole spirit of the show.

Here we go again. Buck has a great MLB promo running now: there are no Cinderellas in baseball, over 162 games, the real teams and who you really are always show up.

I guess I was confused because technically you were the TE so you had to report as INeligible to be the snapper, right? Is it legal for the QB to give the ball to a lineman? I guess so if it touches the ground - then its a fumble? Besides the point, ultimately. Anyway - I don't entirely disagree with your gist. But I think it becomes harder when the whole D knows not to lineup against #12, a receiver who can't touch the ball. But in the midst of a play, when #12, who can't touch the ball, runs all the way across the field and pretends to catch the ball, does anyone on the D even see that it's #12? I mean, how is Suggs on the far side of the field supposed to not get drawn into a run fake on that?

Previous post should have said Tim, not Max. Gettin' the old folks mixed up... must mean I'm becoming one of them. ;) I get your example, but also a bit confused - what position were you? Wouldn't the fullback have been eligible already? Is it legal for an eligible player to snap the ball? Or an ineligible player to be the recipient of a "handoff" (fumble?) And doesn't your consistent success with the play show that it was hard to follow? Separate - do I think these plays would have become incredibly common? Not really, but maybe. Belicheck dropped them once the Ravens were granted the time to sub a bit in repsonse to Harbaugh's PF, but they still worked for one try after that. But I do think that they are not in the spirit of the rules of the game. I'll go back to my thoughts from the day of the game: The point of marking eligible and ineligible - and using numbers to make those distinctions clear - the point of all the substitution rules is to create a level playing field for the defense, who is already at a significant disadvantage in trying to keep up with who is who. The plays run by Belicheck & Co were wonderfully thought out, planned and executed. But they also intentionally subverted and attempted to avoid all of that spirit. People who have compared the plays and the idea of this kind of "deception" to a playfake or a pumpfake are morons. The play was as legal but as "fun" and fair as the old "QB walks away from the ball looking confused and pretending to maybe call a timeout while someone else takes a snap" play. In short - not the kind of game I'm interested in watching.

Max, I have to disagree. I make no bones that the play they ran was illegal, but it was beyond the spirit and the correction was needed. To review: they lined a right end as a lineman, a running back as a receiver, called the RB ineligible only after breaking the huddle, then intentionally ran the back on a reverse route to fake a handoff while the lineman/tight end ran a route. In one breath, brilliant. In another, sad. To me, the key was Vereen running the route faking the reverse. Even if our team knew the guy was ineligible and opted not to guard him, in the midst of the play, it's hard to imagine that anyone could keep track of that as he made his way into the backfield and fake a handoff while wearing an eligible number. The rule is simple and fair. No effect on most plays despite BBs comment, if any really. Only keeps the games looking like the games we know. Jmho

Officially illegal now: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12556985/new-england-patriots-formation-now-ruled-illegal-substitution