Originally Posted by banecat (Post 13612480)

Maybe so. But I haven't done anything as ridiculous as what he's done. Several years ago my friend's brother got into similar trouble. He opened up a photography studio in a small town south of KC with a friend of his. They were the only one in town. And obviously technology wasn't anywhere near what it is today

So most of the people in town that wanted professional photography went there if they didn't want to drive closer to the metro. A lot of business from high school students went his way. I'm not sure exactly how many 14 to 17 year old girls he took naked pics of. He was busted by taking a disc of all of the nudes that he had done to someone who he thought could get them either work as models for the ones who would do it, or was trying to sell the pics. However it was the guy asked for a copy of if he could have the disc to show someone to get a deal done. The guy immediately took the illegal material to the police

My friend's brother was arrested. His business partner was lucky enough to prove that he had no idea of what was going on and didn't face any charges. I remember one time we were all having dinner while the trial was going on. I asked how he was doing in jail. The mood in the room shifted. There was silence for a few minutes

Then his dad told me that they didn't know as they did what any person should do in a situation such as that one, and turn their back. At the time and being a lot younger I was kinda pissed that they were so cold about it. The brother had gotten some girl that was still in high school pregnant. She was like 15, 16. They got married. Had a few more kids together

We all thought that it was a little odd. It made perfect sense once he was arrested how bad his issues were. Now that I'm older I understand where his family was coming from a lot better now. And what he did was obviously very wrong. Not to the degree as this ball player. So if a lesser crime gets a family, friends, and everyone else a guys knows to move on, then a much harsher crime deserves at least the same treatment

Originally Posted by ChiTown (Post 13612530)

Haven’t bothered to look, but is this on pace to be the worst run producing Royals team of all-time?

Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 13612538)

Yes. The record for fewest runs during a non-strike season is 586 in 1969, their first year as a team. As of today they're on pace for 562 runs.

You want a really sad stat... that 562 would still be less than the 1994 Royals, who only played 115 games due to the strike.

Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 13612538)

Yes. The record for fewest runs during a non-strike season is 586 in 1969, their first year as a team. As of today they're on pace for 562 runs.

You want a really sad stat... that 562 would still be less than the 1994 Royals, who only played 115 games due to the strike.

Originally Posted by Why Not? (Post 13612535)

Yeah but I'm guessing that guy wasn't a kid himself when he opened the photography shop. Look, don't get me wrong, I'm on record here saying that I think it's very suspicious that he plead guilty to a crime he says he never committed. I tend to think he did something wrong. But I don't think a parent should ever(nor is it legal to, in most situations)turn their back on an adolescent child. You can discipline and make condemning statements about your disapproval of their actions, but you still need to shepherd them as best as possible into adulthood. Then do whatever you need to do.

Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 13612538)

Yes. The record for fewest runs during a non-strike season is 586 in 1969, their first year as a team. As of today they're on pace for 562 runs.

You want a really sad stat... that 562 would still be less than the 1994 Royals, who only played 115 games due to the strike.

Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 13612538)

Yes. The record for fewest runs during a non-strike season is 586 in 1969, their first year as a team. As of today they're on pace for 562 runs.

You want a really sad stat... that 562 would still be less than the 1994 Royals, who only played 115 games due to the strike.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 13612029)

His brother, you mean?

I saw that as well, but it was from an article written from Heimlich’s perspective, I think.