kfrankie

I'm pretty sure that during their many training sessions they had together prior to the draft, Greg Manusky trained Jamin on how to drop punts, block coverage guys in the back, jump off-sides, and run into the punter on 4th and 4. Also helped him measure 17 yards from the line of scrimmage on 4th down with 16 yards to go, to make sure he knew to stay behind that line at all costs.

This is precisely why i cannot see 21 of the 32 owners voting to force a sale of the team. Every single one of these ownership groups has to be thinking either (1) what happens when a [insert prior incident that was settled/resolved] is brought back to the surface by a bitter [intern, employee, coach, player], or (2) what did we potentially miss in the past? Forcing a sale would not be in their interest. Also, Donald Sterling's forced sale was a much different scenario. Caught on tape by his trophy girlfriend using racially inflammatory language. He left the other owners no choice but to schedule a vote (which never happened, but certainly expedited things), he was suffering from dementia when things came to a head, and he had ultimately lost control whe the decision to sell was made.

So hypothetically, if a pretty good male HS basketball player wanted to get a free education, he could falsely identify as a female and refuse to have the surgery as well (it's not a requirement to identify with the opposite gender). Then he could say that although he identifies as a female, he is actually a lesbian as well (gender and sexuality are not linked) so he would still date and have sex with women. Also, he could continue to dress like a male because that type of thing is nothing more than a social construct anyway (give a boy a truck, he'll play with trucks, give him a doll and he'll play with dolls). So really you would have a dude dunking over women, then showering up with his female teammates after the game, throwing on a pair of jeans and a flannel shirt, and then going home for a romp with his girlfriend. Sounds like an Adan Sandler movie.

My older brother is a physician, and he tells me that a survey was taken at the hospital where he has privileges about six weeks ago re: who is willing to take the vaccine. He said that 100% (or close to it) of the physicians said they would, and about 90% of the NPs and PAs. However, hospital staff was at only about 60%. He actually participated in the Moderna trial in the fall, and then received the first of the two shots for the Pfizer vaccine in December. After the first shot, he was informed by the Moderna trial that he received the real vaccine, and not the saline shot, so he's obviously not going to take a second shot of the Pfizer vaccine. Told me that Moderna has hesitant to release info on who got the real shot during after the trial concluded, but agreed to do it for people that got the placebo (so they'd know to get the real one) and to prevent physicians. etc. who got the real one from doubling up on a second vaccination if they were eligible for a vaccine during the initial rollout in December.

That's a lot of time for Pedro Pasqual's face to get even fatter. Game of Thrones Mandalorian

As for Fett, I think Han Solo might have a few things he wants to talk about. Same thing for Lando. I'd be pretty pissed if someone covered me in tar and nailed me to a wall at some alien whorehouse.

Looked to me like boba fett is going to run a whorehouse and that girl is going to be his bottom ****

Not sure following mando is going to be terribly interesting anymore either. His job is done, does he just go back to collecting metal discs again? Maybe he'll find a baby chewbacca somewhere in season 3.

So book of boba fett now?

If it hasn't been said already, Alex Smith as the starter, and trade up to get Trey Lance in the draft (assuming we pick around #15, may need to move to like #10).

Right, these shows will be lucky to break even, much less make any money. That's what happens when you let John Favreau write his own material and produce it, he's going to blow the budget just like he did for Rudy.

Damn, I was thinking it was a preview for another remastered release. This time when Vader lops off Luke's hand, he could say "Son it's not that bad i too am an amputee and was forced to undergo a hand replacement when I was approximately your age. I can recommend you to a great cyborg/human interface guy. Don't worry, we'll get through this together."

Hold on a second now, I thought liberals weren't supposed to make sweeping generalizations regarding diverse groups... What gives???

It would be cool if they fought like 10 years before AH1 but instead of losing, Obi-1 kills darth vader. But then vader is repaired again and equipped with the final bio-suit that he wears in AH1 during the death star duel. He was pretty awesome. Its a shame they killed him, sort of makes doing a spin off show difficult. But I can suspend my sense of reality.

Just genetically speaking. Explains a bit why the groups seem to always be on the brink of war despite the faux "detente" status.

Maybe original Yoda ("OY") was the father of both Anikyn and Baby Yodes ("BY"), and then Palpatine was the father of Ray's mother, who was also the mother of Ray and the mother of Anikyn and BY, then OY was the father of all three. Pretty obvious that BY and OY's species is somewhat limited, so maybe it's not even a species but more like a mutation. Like Worf, human parents but alien child.

So baby Yodes was born in about 41 BBY. Darth Vader was also born 41 BBY. Same mother or same father maybe? Was the original Yoda the father? Too big of a coincidence to ignore. The mystery grows...

Here's a hint: two of these players each won 4 batting titles during this 6 year block. The other two players each won a single batting title. So these four players accounting for 10 out of the 12 batting titles during this 6 year block (6 in both the NL and AL).

He's not even on the list. His first full year was in 1980

Its a shame we don't have a random sports trivia thread. Anyway, here's one. Below are the stats of four major league baseball players for the first 6 years of their careers. The first full season for each was 1984, with the exception of one whose first full season was 1983. With a couple exceptions, the stats are amazingly similar. Guess which is which without going to any outside source (i got this easily from baseball reference). Year G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS 1984-1989 924 4093 3844 542 1243 197 38 96 506 84 49 187 488 0.323 0.357 0.469 0.826 1984-1989 926 4305 3614 672 1269 256 28 54 405 10 19 627 282 0.351 0.446 0.482 0.928 1984-1989 917 4105 3731 581 1219 257 11 160 684 8 7 293 206 0.327 0.372 0.53 0.902 1984-1989 920 3984 3584 550 1205 168 47 43 362 206 77 345 196 0.336 0.394 0.445 0.84

If you are charged with a misdemeanor, you can pray for a jury trial and you will be given an attorney. Before you are interrogated, if you request an attorney you can hire your own or someone from the public defender's office will be assigned to you. Public defenders are underpaid and run thin, but so are State's Attorneys. If the cops don't read you your rights, the confession is not admissible if given in a custodial setting. Cops are not authorized give plea deals, that can only come with approval from a State's Attorney. And then the deal must be approved by a Judge, who in open court questions the Defendant to ensure that he understands what the plea entails and the consequences. A defendant can back out at any point before this final step. A defendant will not sit in his cell for days and days at a time until he agrees to talk. He will be provided a bail hearing within no more than about 48-72 hours, and rarely are suspects held on secured bond. The exceptions are if you are charged with serious sex crime, a violent offense, or you are a flight risk. Courts even hold bail review hearings at night to ensure that no one is held longer than absolutely necessary. If for some reason a defendant doesn't have an attorney at your bail review (normally because he refused assistance of counsel), and end up held on secured bond, he'll have a right to a second review hearing once you have an attorney. I've never said that its not a big deal to be innocent and arrested. i'm talking about the issue from the angle of a Police Officer's responsibility. A police officer is not responsible for arresting an individual if there is probable cause to make an arrest. If an individual matches the description of a suspect, that constitutes cause to stop and hold that individual for a reasonable period of time, and coupled with an identification of the individual by the victim shortly after the incident, that satisfies probable cause to make an arrest. if a suspect attempts to flee or refuses to stop, that constitutes grounds to physically detain the suspect. If a person is wrongfully identified, and then is forced to go through to the end of the judicial process to obtain an acquittal, it ranges from unfortunate to devastating, but that's a consequence of the system of justice that has been established and has evolved over centuries in this country. Its not perfect, and never will be perfect. And more to the point, it's not the police officer's fault if he's acting in good faith and relies upon a description and ultimately an identification of the defendant by the victim. If this wasn't enough, the police would never have grounds to make an arrest, and if we were allowed to evaluate things in hindsight, every defendant acquitted at trial would have a cause of action against his arresting officer. Law enforcement would cease to exist. Remember, an acquittal is not the equivalent of an exoneration. It only means that the State could not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a defendant committed the offense. That is considered roughly a 90% evidentiary burden, and a strong presumption of innocence which has long been established in this country (and which I happen to strongly agree with). There are plenty of guilty defendants that walk away out of Court with an acquittal, or don't even make it to Court because the State doesn't have the resources to prosecute even every "solid" case through to trial, must less all of the closer cases.

Ok. Now for hypotheticals #1, #2, modify the fact patterns so that the suspects each were found with handguns, instead of being unarmed or carrying a knife. Assume the facts are exactly the same otherwise. Does the fact that both were found to have handguns change your answer? Edit: FYI, #3 is based on a real occurrence. In my opinion, the final officer that arrived on the scene escalated the situation because the suspect only moved for his gun when he arrived. Now, that doesn't mean that that officer should be thrown in jail, but in my opinion it would justify termination of his employment. For hypothetical #4, why is the beginning of fact pattern "terrible?" Officers are constantly called to the scene of recent crimes and provided with a description of a suspect that has "just fled" the scene. Sometimes the description may be somewhat generic, i.e. "male with white shirt and shorts, and he ran off to the east." Does that mean that a male wearing white shorts and shorts shouldn't be stopped if he spotted 200 yards from the scene, heading east within 3 minutes of the report? People will refuse to stop for police officers, with the misunderstanding that the police have no right to stop them. If the police stop an innocent man because they reasonable determine that he matches the description of a suspect fleeing the scene of a crime, its not an illegal stop. These matters can be sorted out quickly. The victim may be present to "identify" the suspect or confirm that the person stopped is not the suspect, or some other information may be disclosed eliminating that person at the scene. There's no handgun in this hypothetical. On the other hand, the victim could mistakenly confirm that the man is the one that broke the window, which would result in an arrest. At that point, the State's Attorney will be given the available evidence, and make a determination on whether to prosecute. The innocent man is then given an attorney if he cannot afford one, and has his day in court. Hopefully it doesn't get to that point, but the police officer is still not civilly liable to the man for stopping and ultimately arresting him. For hypothetical #5, change the fact pattern so that the officer yells "stay back," but does not attempt draw his handgun on the man. The man then grabs his own knife and stabs his girifriend/wife while she's handcuffed on the ground. Should the officer be liable to the woman if she lives, or to her family if she dies, because he had the opportunity to end the threat but instead just dodged the man?

What if a police officer sincerely believes that a person has a firearm, and is about to, or already has, used it. For instance take these hypotheticals: (1) A suspect has a metallic object in his waistband that appears to be a firearm from 40 feet away, he starts walking toward police yelling "**** you," when asked to get on the ground by the police and reaches for his waistband? Officer shoots him dead. Turns out it wasn't a gun, but was instead a knife. (2) An officer is called to a scene on a report that a suspect is armed with a handgun and threatening a woman. The officer arrives on the scene, identifies the suspect threatening the woman, the suspect is told back off and get on the ground, but instead advances on the woman while reaching into his jacket? Police officer fires his weapon and kills the suspect. It turns out he was unarmed and its unclear why he was reaching into his jacket. (3) An officer arrives on scene after being dispatched for a suspect in a wheelchair appearing to be under the influence, acting erratically, yelling that he's going to shoot someone. Five officer arrive on the scene, observe the suspect in the middle of the road with what appears to be a handgun on his lap, barricade themselves behind a jersey wall, and try to convince the suspect to throw the gun on the ground. He refuses and continues to act erratically. There are pedestrians walking on the sidewalk on either side of the street, and two of them have stopped to film the incident with their cell phones. A sixth officer arrives on the scene 5 minutes later, yells at the suspect to place his hands in the air. instead the suspect reaches for his waistband where the handgun is located, and the 6th officer shoots him dead. (4) Two officers are called to the scene for a report of destruction of property (breaking a convenience store window), and are given a detailed description of the suspect (white shirt, jean shorts, average size black male) and information that he may be traveling eastward on a nearby sidewalk. The officers arrive on the scene 3 minutes later and observe an individual walking down the sidewalk eastward about 200 yards from the scene. As they approach him in their cruiser, they determine that he matches the description of the suspect. The officers turn on their lights, get out of their cruiser, and ask him to stop and tell him that an individual matching his description has just reportedly broken a store window, and ask for his identification, with the intent to hold him until the store owner can arrive at the scene and identify him. He says "what for, i know my rights and i'm just walking" and refuses to stop. The officers ask him to stop again, he refuses again, and tells them this time to **** off, and starts to run. One of the officers catches up with him, and tackles him about 100 feet away. The suspect wrestles with the officer, punches him, and tries to get away again. The second officer approaches, attempts to incapacitate the suspect with her stun gun, but it has no effect and the suspect begins advancing on her. She pulls out her firearm and tells him to get on the ground. He refuses, continues to advance on her, and she shoots him dead, while the first officer is unable to intervene. It turns out that the suspect was not armed, was not the actual perpetrator, but instead had a warrant out for his arrest and did not want to be taken in. (5) A single officer in a small town is called to a residence for a report of domestic violence. He arrives at the residence, can hear a woman screaming/panicking inside, knocks loudly on the door, and announces his presence. After 15 seconds, no one comes to the door, so he opens it (its not locked) and enters the residence. He then observes a woman sitting at the kitchen table sobbing and screaming "he's going to hit me again," and a man on the other side of the kitchen telling her to "calm the **** down." He appears to be drunk. There's also 5 year old child sitting at the table. The officer tells the man to exit the kitchen through the door into the nearby living room, which he does. The woman then gets up, grabs a nearby vegetable knife, and yells to the man to get out of her house. He refuses, says he pays the rent, and she then starts walking toward the living room entrance with the knife. The officer is in between the two, tells her to sit back down and drop it, but shes unresponsive. The officer then grabs her, disarms her, and takes her to the ground to place her in handcuffs. As the officer is cuffing the woman, the man becomes incensed, yells "get off my woman," from behind the officer and begins walking back into the kitchen. The officer then turns toward the living room, draws his weapon and shoots him dead. Are these hypotheticals really guesses? Should a police officer be convicted and sent to prison under and of these circumstances? My point here is that there's a continuum. Not every "unarmed" police shooting (I know #4 involves a handgun) is the result of a bad guess or bad training. Nor is every one of them justified. Opportunities for deescalation may or may not be available, particularly during the course of an ongoing incident.

I don't think that figure is accurate. I don't believe think a Police Chief in a major city, such as D.C. or Baltimore makes that much, much less a Sheriff's deputy. Regardless, it looks like the guy has no interest in being in law enforcement and is trying to fabricate a disability claim. It happens all the time in law enforcement.