AverageJoesGym

Are we sure that Cal will play that way? He seems to like staying at a 7-8 man rotation.

Staying Alive Contest Week #1 The Staying Alive Contest is sponsored by YOUR BUSINESS HERE!Contact theguru at theguru@fuse.net if you would like to sponsor this contest. We are going to be doing our Staying Alive Contest again this season. As before the concept is pretty simple--but we have made a couple of changes. The object is still to pick the winners of the 6 games every week. This season there will be a $200 prize for the winner! But it's not quite as simple as just picking winners, there is a lot of strategy involved. Here's how it works: There is a major change this season so be sure to READ THE INSTRUCTIONS! Each week you will pick six teams that you believe will win that week. These teams can be from ANY Classification. Teams chosen must be playing a team from their class or HIGHER. EXCEPTION: You may choose 6A teams that are playing other 6A teams OR 5A teams. You may only pick an individual team to win one time. For example, if you pick Trinity to win in Week #1 you cannot pick Trinity again the rest of the season. In past seasons once you missed one game or picked a game that did not meet the contest criteria you were eliminated. This season, however, will be DOUBLE ELIMINATION. It will take 2 missed games to eliminate you. For example if you pick five out of six games in Week #1 you would be eligible to continue on to Week #2. If you miss a second game in Week #2 or any week after that then you are out. Also, if you miss 2 games in one week you are out. If you cannot submit an entry with 6 teams that are playing a team in their class or higher each game that you cannot submit counts as a miss. If you do not submit an entry for any week you are out. Everyone that has one miss or less will be able to advance to the next week. If you are eliminated or do not compete in any week you will not be eligible to continue. This season we will giving a cash prize of $200 to the winner. The contest will run until there is just one winner. Your entry should be in the following format: TEAM TEAM TEAM TEAM TEAM TEAM Do not post anything that is not an entry. If you do so, the post(s) will be deleted. If you are not eligible to participate (eliminated in a prior week), DO NOT POST IN THIS THREAD. The deadline for all entries is 5 pm (EST) Friday. Good luck to all!

The Bushwood Country Club Gophers select EJ Manuel, QB Buffalo Bills.

Happy birthday!

That's what Fox News says. Here's what the Al-Jazeera reporters said (they weren't thanking the police): “This is media over here, we’re trying to cover a story, we’re getting shot at with rubber bullets right now,” screams one of the Al-Jazeera journalists in the clip. “Jesus Christ,” she exclaims as police start shooting more rubber bullets. Infowars.com’s Jakari Jackson and Joe Biggs were also fired at with rubber bullets and tear gas rounds, confirming that police were deliberately targeting media. “We were very close to where those [tear gas] canisters were shot from. We yelled, as you heard there [on the video]. We were yelling that we were press. But they continued to fire. We retreated about half a block into the neighborhood, until we could get out of that situation,” Al Jazeera’s Ash-har Quaraishi told Business Insider. His comments were echoed by field producer Marla Cichowski, who stated, “We were clearly set up as press with a full live shot set up. As soon as first bullet hit the car we screamed out loud, “We are press,’ ‘This is media….They shined a huge flood light at us before firing and I can only imagine they could see what they were shooting at.” Both Jackson and Joe Biggs were also fired at with rubber bullets and tear gas rounds, confirming that police were deliberately targeting media. In a separate incident, police also ordered journalists to turn off their cameras shortly before a subsequent tear gas assault. The SWAT team’s claims were also directly contradicted by a statement put out by Al Jazeera Kate O’Brian, who called the incident an “egregious assault on freedom of the press.”

Then if they plan to execute it as a no knock warrant and use SWAT or even if they don't use SWAT but still decide to execute it as a no knock warrant they should have to be up front about it. They should not apply for a regular warrant and turn it into a no knock warrant because of fear of losing evidence--that is happening far too often.

Why should it bother the police to have to give a reason for a no knock warrant? If they have proper intel they should be able to justify it pretty easily, if not maybe they should wait until they can. I'm not asking then to go in to a known dangerous situation in regular gear. But if they feel that strongly about it why not be up front about it? Especially when there might be children or other innocent people in the house. If the judge isn't willing to risk a no knock warrant then it is on them, not the police.

It was peaceful after the shooting as well. Things did not escalate until 70 officers in riot gear showed and started blocking of the area. Initially people were setting up a memorial.

See my response to JD. If they want a no knock warrant ask for one and justify it. They should not get a warrant and then claim that they are afraid that evidence could be destroyed to turn it into a no knock warrant that might not have been granted otherwise.

I can tell by your posts you didn't actually read the report. In there it have examples of law enforcement agencies getting a warrant, not a no knock warrant, a regular warrant. They then turned it into a no knock warrant and used SWAT because of the fear that evidence would be destroyed. That's not okay. If you're planning on kicking in the door tell the judge you're planning on kicking in the door and why. Some of these warrants might not be signed if the judge knew that the police were going in like that. I'm fine with police having whatever protective equipment they need to do their job. I'm not okay with them busting down a door and throwing a flashbang into a crib abs calling it an accident when it was to serve a warrant over a $50 drug transaction to a CI who wasn't even aware that the suspect did not lI've there but 4 small children did. If got need to go in like that apply for that kind of warrant.

Wasn't talking about you in particular. You know you've heard the Reds fans making those excuses though. And it was 86 years, not 96.

It isn't about the type of rifles used. It is about the fact that once the departments are given this equipment they seem to feel compelled to use it in cases where it was not used in the past. That is why SWAT use has spiked off of the charts in recent years. It is simple math, the more SWAT usage the more accidents will happen. If you have an accident in 1% (and that number is probably high, I'm just using it as an example) of all cases and SWAT usage goes from 4,500 times in a year to 80,000 in a year you have 800 people injured/killed instead of 45. Departments largely have to answer to no one as to when they do or do not use SWAT and they largely did not keep detailed records of the times it was used--that needs to change, wouldn't you at least agree on that point?

Sure. Whatever you say. Just remember that is 2025 when you guys are saying, "If it weren't for injuries the Reds would have won 2-3 Series in the 10's.

Or this from a SWAT training program: The militarization of policing culture is also apparent in the training that tactical teams receive—SWAT team members are trained to think like soldiers. The ACLU asked hundreds of law enforcement agencies to submit copies of SWAT training materials. One response from the Farmington, Missouri, Special Response Team consisted of a piece written by Senior PoliceOne Contributor Chuck Remsberg for Killology Research Group. The piece summarizes a presentation given at a conference of the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors and warns that “preparations for attacks on American schools that will bring rivers of blood and staggering body counts are well underway in Islamic terrorist camps.” It further states that “police agencies aren’t used to this…We deal with acts of a criminal nature. This is an act of war, but because of our laws we can’t depend on the military to help us…[T]he U.S. in [sic] the one nation in the world where the military is not the first line of defense against domestic terrorist attack. By law, you the police officer are our Delta Force.” It provides “‘4 Ds’ for Thwarting Terrorists’ Plans to Massacre Our School Children” and concludes with an admonition to “Build the right mind-set in your troops." The problem with training like this is not how they respond to school shootings, it is that training like that becomes part of their every day dealing with the public.

Or this: The Department of Defense operates the 1033 Program through the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO), whose motto is “from warfighter to crimefighter.” According to LESO, the program has transferred $4.3 billion worth of property through the 1033 Program. Today, the 1033 Program includes more than 17,000 federal and state law enforcement agencies from all U.S. states and territories. The amount of military equipment being used by local and state police agencies has increased dramatically—the value of property transferred though the program went from $1 million in 1990 to $324 million in 1995 and to nearly $450 million in 2013. Notice the motto: From warfighter to crimefighter. Seems pretty clear.

Here's a good quote from the report to illustrate it: As the saying goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Likewise, if the federal government gives the police a huge cache of military-style weaponry, they are highly likely to use it, even if they do not really need to. Gwinnett County, Georgia, for example, received at least 57 semi-automatic rifles, mostly M-16s and M-14s, through the 1033 Program during the relevant time period. 66 A third of Gwinnett County’s SWAT deployments were for drug investigations; in half of them, the SWAT team broke down the door to get inside, and there was no record in any of the reports that weapons were found. In several of these cases, damage resulted to people’s homes; in one case, the SWAT team deployed tear gas into a home in order to serve an arrest warrant, knowing there were people inside who were not subjects of the warrant. It is not possible to prove definitively that the weapons procured through the 1033 Program incentivized these deployments in Gwinnett.

My point is that in many of those cases there was no resistance given by the people who were injured/killed. In several of the cases there was little reason to believe that officers were going to be met with violence. Heck, in one of the cases the suspect had already been arrested and they burst in and killed a Grandfather. Using force like that to ensure that evidence doesn't get flushed is only going to ensure that these "accidents" continue to happen--it isn't going to win the war on drugs. It's an accident when you're walking down the street and a piano hits you on the head. It is not an accident when armed men with guns throw stun grenades into a house that they know contains children and people who are not suspects. That is taking a calculated risk. In many cases I don't feel it is warranted--especially when the initial warrant was not a no knock warrant and the police decided to bring SWAT in on their own. If they want to use SWAT they should have to get a warrant saying so.

I heard a lot of excuses about how a healthy Votto would have maybe won the 2010 playoff series with the Phillies...wasn't there some injury that cost them the 2012 playoff series as well?

Going back to the incident in Somerset: How do you think that would have turned out for the man if SWAT had busted down his door unannounced? It is very likely we'd be reading about how he was killed in a shootout with police. Sounds like the deputies involved did an excellent job to prevent needless loss of life in a tough situation--they should be commended for that. In several cases, however, the use of SWAT just ensured that what might have been a delicate situation turned into a deadly situation. We've got good cops in Pulaski County. I'm very glad for that and respect the job that they do. Nationwide, however, a hard look needs to be give to the militarization of the police. There needs to be more accountability and transparency in operations. Two things that the report shows to be lacking.

Seems pretty clear to me he was taking about his officers: Ferguson chief tells me @WesleyLowery and @ryanjreilly's arresters were "probably somebody who didn't know better." Didn't know better, but hey, lets give them rifles and send them out to deal with protestors--that should work out well.

The reporter was a customer at the McDonalds yet was charged with trespassing there? Isn't that a tad ridiculous? If they were actually doing anything why were quickly released? The POLICE CHIEF HIMSELF even said that the officers that arrested the reporters "probably did not know what they were doing". The probably did not know what they were doing but they're given riot gear and assault weapons? Nice.

I don't know how that is avoiding the question. I said I'm fine with evidence being destroyed in cases where the police don't have reason to believe that there is a high probability of violence. If they ask for, and are given, a no knock warrant then fine, use SWAT. If they are bringing in SWAT on their own because they don't want to lose evidence then I'm not okay with even one "horrible accident". SWAT team use has went up to around 80,000 incidents in the last few years, mostly in response to the War on Drugs. How have they helped? Are there any less drugs on the streets than there were 30 years ago? Did you even read the report? It is very sobering. I know you have a vested interest in justifying the actions of the police and I understand that. However, if you try to read it with an open mind and pay attention to the actual statistics I think you'll see that we are moving in a dangerous direction in regard to our civil liberties. If an accident happens during an incident that SWAT was designed for: hostage situation, barricaded suspect, active shooter etc. then I'm more likely to understand it. But when something like this happens I'm not okay with it: A 26 year old Iraqi was veteran and father was shot 22 times because his wife mistook the flashbangs that were set off in his back yard for gunfire. She saw the silhouette of someone outside of her window. She informed her husband, who had her and their son take cover in the closet while he grabbed his rifle and went to investigate. When he was spotted by SWAT through the window they opened fire, 71 rounds were fired, 22 hit him. He wasn't even the subject of the warrant--just defending his home. That one cost the taxpayers $3.4 million and a son his father. I'm not okay with SWAT being used for everyday warrants to prevent destruction of evidence. You should really take the time and read the article. It should give you pause.

That's lower than the % of US households that have guns in general. It is estimated that 39% of US households have guns. So should SWAT be used to serve every warrant?

It is if it prevents a flashbang being thrown in the crib of a 19 month old baby because a CI told them that he purchased $50 worth of drugs from a suspect that didn't turn out to live at the house and wasn't there--but that 19 month old and 3 other kids were. Or the Grandfather of 12 that was killed while already on the ground with his hands behind his head when a nervous SWAT member accidentally discharged his weapon--even though they had already arrested the suspect in the parking lot prior to the raid. Or the 7 year old who was killed when a flashbang landed in her bed, caught it on fire which caused her to run out of the room where she was immediately shot and killed. Yes, I'm fine with none of those happening.

It is estimated that 39% of US households contain at least one firearm. That means that statistically they were found at a lower rate in the households raided by SWAT in the study. You would think if they were considered that dangerous they would have been found at a rate of AT LEAST the national average. Perhaps this means SWAT should serve every warrant? The problem is that in many of the cases the justification for the use of SWAT teams was to prevent destruction of evidence. And in many cases in the reports regular warrants were turned into "no knock" warrants by the SWAT team on their own for this very reason. THEY, not the courts made the decision to breech by breaking down the door. Yes, I see that as a violation of rights. If you have a high suspicion that the suspect is violent, then fine, use force to enter. Since the SCOTUS has ruled that evidence found in instances where forcible entry was made to prevent loss of evidence even if it wasn't pre-approved these types of raids have become more and more common.