buddha

if healthy... they still need some DTs and more DEs....and linebackers...

not a great showcase for sherwood if he was trying to get traded...

i think the people around trump in the doj and the legal community have been very smart. i understand that the twitter idiot sycophants like kash patel, and kristi noem, and (especially) stephen miller and rfk are clowns. worse, evil incompetent clowns. but the solicitor general and the legal people at the doj are very smart and very clever. as for the supreme court, the court must consider what happens post trump. thomas and alito have always been in favor of a more powerful executive (unitary executive theory) and their writings/decisions reflect that. barrett/kavanaugh/chief are more on the fence, but obviously do not appreciate the recent trend (on both sides) of going to favorable courts to get nationwide injunctions to stop any legislation and have moved to stop it. kagan is more center left and usually correct (imo). gorsuch is a libertarian wild card. sotomayor and jackson are far left, especially jackson. and both have decided to wage their twitter battles in their opinions, bringing out the worst aspects of a tradition started by scalia of being derogatory of their opponents, without scalia's flare. in other words, the demonizing of the court on the left as "doing trump's bidding" is overblown and doesnt see the big picture. unfortunately, you have a very bad actor in the white house who uses the ambiguity of the legal world to push the boundaries. but simply pushing boundaries doesnt mean he crosses boundaries, and the court recognizes that. however, imo, the court is still wrong on occasion. most recently kavanaugh's fourth amendment writings that have basically legalized racial stops and arrests. he has tried to walk that back since then, but the mistake is out there and will need more than just footnotes to correct.

my initial thought is yes, however we dont know what the feds will do this time. it feels like uncharted territory, like most of this second trump administration.

correct, sorry for any confusion. because of the politics, i would be surprised if they didnt charge him at the state level. i dont think much of a lot of state level prosecutors who are elected and i certainly dont think much of keith ellison in minnesota. so i expect them to "do something," no matter how potentially futile it is. with that said, even if it is umtimately futile, he SHOULD be charged by someone, imo. and my armchair legal analysis may not be correct, its quite possible a judge finds that the threat was not reasonable and that he should not have immunity. one can certainly make the argument. and more facts/angles/videos/ may come out showing something different. by all means: charge him. and for god's sake, at least put him on desk duty for a bit.

i'm leery about a team in the playoffs with daniss and chaz as your backup pg/outside shooting. otoh, i dont think you'll see either of them in the playoffs. caris and ivey will be backup ballhandlers and outside shooting. which is also worrying...

Now THAT'S what we need to see from Wallinder! get mad! hit somebody! use your size, son! maybe there's hope for you yet?

i dont think we can say there were no better alternatives to paddack and morton. 1) it would hard to be worse; and 2) we dont know who else was ultimately available. part of me misses dombrowski and his ability to find quality mlb players for prospects. part of me also dreads the idea of dombrowski trading mcgonigle for a 37 year old closer with an 89 mph fastball because he has "experience" and knows how to "get the job done." and lets be honest, dombrowski would never have drafted mcgonigle to begin with...

any real officer who had multiple accusations of improper use of force in such a short period of time would be taken off the street at least until an investigation could be conducted.* but again, these arent real peace officers. theyre thugs. * (until the police union gets them reinstated no matter what happened unless it embarasses the union politically)

well....that's not ALL i said. lol. i think its true that if she had not likely panicked and followed direction, this would not have happened. if she's not parked in the middle of the road, this doesnt happen. i also think she panicked because the ICE officer was unnecessarily hostile and it scared her. again, its standard police procedure nowadays to NOT stand in front of a vehicle for this very reason. its also pretty standard now to attempt to de-escalate an emotional situation before other methods of coercion are tried. Sometimes it is impossible for the police to get people to follow direction without some use of force. i get that. in fact, i'm on the side of the police 9 times out of 10. and even if i have seen the video, i wasnt there that day and dont know everything that went on. with that said, it certainly appears that the ICE officers intentionally escalated a situation that need not have been escalated. if he goes to her and says "ma'am, i understand your position on our work. i get it. but we are going to need to proceed down this road. i need you to move so we can get through. if you do not move, i may have to arrest you." this was not a 250 pound linebacker. it was not a drugged out psychopath. this was a woman in a car. let's try talking before escalating. that's what police officers are trained to do. but these arent officers. many simply appear to be thugs with guns. that's how its been here in chicago, and that's how it seems to be in minneapolis. to pfife's earlier point, even if charges are brought, trump will pardon him immediately. because he's a federal officer acting on federal orders, federal law will govern and supersede any state law, so i dont think any state criminal action will be valid so trump's inevitable pardon will let him off.

under fourth amendment case law, whether an officer used unreasonable force is judged by an "objective reaaonableness" standard. in general, it is unreasonable for an officer to kill someone; however, where an officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. that's the law. does it apply here? up to your interpretation. she accelerates her car directly toward the officer. that's likely enough evidence to give the officer qualified immunity for using deadly force to stop the car. i - like i think almost everyone else on this board - think ICE officers started this, exacerbated it, handled this extremely poorly, and should not have shot her. period. the officer should not have been standing in front of the car and the other officer should not have approached her in such a belligerent manner. to me, ICE caused this. 99% (the other 1% is that she shouldnt have disobeyed the officer, no matter if he was being an ass hole or not). but legally, i think the officer is probably going to be immune from prosecution or liability. my only question is concerning the subsequent shots. the car is past him. does he have reasonable cause to fire two shots into the car at that point? his argument will be that he can use deadly force to stop a fleeing person who is a reasonable threat to others, and that since she drove her car directly at him, that gives him the authority to use such force because she continues to be a threat. i dont know if that argument is a good one or not, but i suspect it likely will be. the "shoot out the tires" argument is a non-entity. you dont shoot out the tires, you ONLY use force if you think your life or the lives of others are threatened. if not, you dont pull the gun at all. you never "shoot out the tires." shoot to kill or dont shoot at all. its different than a pit manuever or putting spikes on the road (and those are constitutionally questionable at this point too).

i'm excited to have a coaching staff that will use underwood's two legs as well as his right arm. he should be a running threat on every play.

great trade for the hawks in getting anything for young. however, the low value for young - who was once a star - isnt good. selling low on an asset just to get rid of it.

getting sprague and guanara back are big. the oline is the area where sherrone did his best work.

good win considering how short handed they were. even if it was against the bad bulls team without its two scorers.

To me, acquiring paddack and morton is perfectly in line with harris' philosophy: trying to find players who have an underlyinng characteristic or talent that is being ignored or obscured by present results, then buying low on that player and counting on your coaches to use them in the most advantageous positions to get the most out of them. it worked with finnegan. it didnt work with everyone else. after the failures of morton and paddack, i would hope the tigers' brass was reviewing their process to determine what went wrong so they dont repeat the same mistake. after this offseason so far, i dont think they feel the need to change course. jansen is just another example.

ivey is not stepping up so far.

strayhorn went to alabama.

all the talk about bowls going away is crazy. TONS of people watch bowl games. any time you can get two blue bloods like michigan and texas together, its going to get eyeballs.

hallelujah.

cole sullivan leaving hurts.

depends on the wording of the contract, counselor. a journalist may hear that he is prohibited from entering the "transfer portal" and print it. maybe the contract says that. but maybe it says he "cannot transfer to another school and participate in athletics" or be "compensated to participate in athletics" or something more concrete? if it is a contract put together by the big ten, one would imagine it is more careful about verbiage. but who knows? if it just says "transfer portal" that seems pretty easy to get out of.

i cant imagine ron holland has too much of a market right now. maybe because he's still young? at least ivey has shown the ability to score at an nba level in the recent past.

soldier field sucks, and as soon as they move to a new stadium the better off they'll be. its impossible to get to. its hell to get out of. its a long ass walk to the train - unless you go the back way and then its still long. its small for an nfl stadium. it looks like a toilet bowl on top of the old stadium. the bears dont even own it and have to deal with the chicago freaking park district (which, because it is run by the city of chicago, is a complete mess that cannot function without corruption and lunacy). if the bears were a competent organization, they would have had shovels in the ground in arlington heights two years ago, but because they are the bears currently led by charlatan kevin warren, theyre still dicking around saying they might move somewhere else. the newest lie being northwest indiana. if the state of illinois or the city of chicago were run by competent people, they would have come up with a comparable site in the city years ago. but we are not a competent city. we are a banana republic. good riddance to the bears. the smartest thing that idiotic franchise ever did will be moving to the burbs. seeing as they are the bears, they are in the process of ****ing that up too.

trap survived. take that admiral akbar.