fishbane

So you're saying the inhabitants of Earth are causing global warming? I thought that was the thing that was up for debate.

The increases you've circled in red coincide with some of the largest mass extinction events in Earth's history. I think that coincidence justifies the concern scientists have with the current rate of increase. It should be pointed out that the time scale on the x axis in the Post graphic is in millions of years and the increase circled in black has occurred over less than 100 years.

Fix has a chance against anyone in this country. He's beaten them all Gilman, Gross, Arujau, Lee, Suriano. I would bet against Fix beating Arujau at 133lbs, but down at 57kg it's different. Fix could get it done there. He could be the rep in 4 years.

I think the why he waited 12 hours was to get a shot at Trump. Why he waited 12 hours to get a shot at Trump probably comes down to him not knowing exactly when Trump would be at the place he had scooted and prepared. If he had known when Trump would show up he might have dropped in 15 minutes before. Or maybe he did know and he though getting in early in darkness would make it less likely to be discovered. How do you know he knew? Didn't this happen Sunday? How do you know he knew? He could have been going there every Sunday until Trump showed up? He could have got lucky. He could increase his chances of running into him by looking at his campaign schedule to see when he is more likely to be in town. Much of his time is public knowledge. I'm sure he usually travels with a significant number of staff and security. He could have surveilled elsewhere to see if they were around Saturday and deduced that means Trump is also around and thus likely to play golf the following day.

My understanding is that he is a registered independent who at times has voted for Republicans and other times for democrats. Seems inaccurate to refer to him as the opposition party. This is because he was caught swiftly. You use the evidence that provides the quickest path to the suspect. Since a bystander saw him and provided the license plate they didn't have to examine the evidence at the golf course to find him. With the number of times this guy has been arrested there is a decent chance that he'd have DNA or fingerprints in the system which could be obtained from the belongings he left behind and used to identify him. This will still be useful to link him to the attempt vs just a guy who happened to be seen by a bystander near the gold course. I wouldn't expect at the secret service to have enough agents with Trump on the golf course to set up a perimeter in time to contain him. It's just not feasible. Golf courses are very large.

Levi Haines and Connor Mirasola were the only PSU wrestlers at the WTT this weekend. That might not mean anything, but maybe it indicates those two are redshirting. Levi Haines had some impressive wins (Keegan O'Toole and Evan Wick so maybe he won't be the odd man out 157-174lbs this year

When wasn't he complying with that? 3s after the initial statement when he first says he was getting out? When he took his seatbelt off, opened the door, and moved his foot outside the vehicle - was he not complying through any of that? This sound like another way of saying the delay wasn't unreasonably long. Probably means the office should have been more patient as the amount of time it took was reasonable. I realize that then the person you are arguing on behalf of is in the wrong it may be tempting to make any argument that goes your way, but this is incredibly weak. He was not complying with the order to exit the vehicle for 8s during which time he 1) said he was getting out, 2) unbuckled his seatbelt, 3) opened the door, and 4) swung his leg outside the car all whilst talking on the phone with his agent who is also a lawyer. So it wasn't some unrelated call. If the police allowed him to speak with his agent/lawyer it may have mediated the tense situation. The purpose of the detention was to cite and/or warn Hill for the moving violation and to do so in a safe manner. Before the order to exit the vehicle the officers had everything they needed to write him the tickets. They wanted the window down to be able to observe him for reasons of officer safety. Okay fine. He opens it, but they aren't satisfied with how open it is, so they order him to exit the vehicle. Supreme Court case law (Mimms) says they can do this. He takes off his belt and opens the door. As soon as the door opens Hills leg swings outside the automobile as the officer is reaching for him and grabs him. He stops moving or at least slows down after the officer grabs him. Why is the officer grabbing him? Is that justified? I don't think so for a couple reasons. 1) Hill was complying 2) The officer seemed to grab him as soon as the door opened and not in reaction to any delay after the door opened even though Hill is telling him he is getting out 3) There was no officer safety reason for it. If they were satisfied from an officer safety standpoint with an open window an open door provides even greater visibility. If the argument is that Hill was moving slowly after the door was open then there isn't really an officer safety argument for expediting it. The door is wide open they have full visibility of Hill and his movement. The open door negates the threat of him reaching for a weapon they can't see because of tinted windows. The car is surrounded by police. There is no immediate threat. Let him slowly exit. There really isn't any thing Hill could have done differently that would fully satisfy apologists for the Miami police when exiting the vehicle. If swiftly exits the vehicle some would say the police were justified in grabbing him because the swift exit could be interpreted as attempting to run. If he exits slowly and deliberately as he was doing then it's that slow is somehow noncompliance. To me that video had enough before that. He was intent on somehow winning the encounter with Hill and likely made the decisions to put hands on him before the door opened. He forgot what officers are supposed to do on a traffic stop - write the ticket. It takes the officers nearly 20 minutes to write the tickets and only start after some more important looking cops show up and tell them to. That is a creative interpretation. Here is an alternative interpretation. Hill says damn not because he's surprised at the officer's strength and ability to drag him out of the car, but that he's surprised the officer would grab him at all since he is exiting the vehicle on his own. Saying Hill wasn't exiting the vehicle is at odds with Hill statements and actions. Hill says he exiting the car. How can you intelligently argue against his on-site visual record especially when his actions in the video support that? 1) said he was exiting. 2) Removed seatbelt 3) opened door 4) started exiting the vehicle by swinging leg outside of the door 5) grabbed by officer. Finally I am confident in saying if Hill was trying his best to stay in the vehicle he would have stayed in the vehicle longer.

It is may vary by state. The Florida statute specifies the vehicle must be in motion. The officer may have seen it after the vehicle stopped and extrapolated to before the stop. http://leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.614.html Here is an example of an officer erroneously extrapolating to before the stop. It's a good idea to keep it on. Fortunately for the lady in that video she had a dash cam that recorded the seatbelt removal. https://youtu.be/wAqaGewmC70?si=FBDXTckijQ6LLdyp&t=115

Who is talking about lawyers? I bet the officer that pulled him over wouldn't refer to the charge as a crime. He's read the law and knows it's defined as a noncriminal violation. Not all violations of the law are crimes, but all crimes are violations of the law.

Who has made the claim that the seatbelt violation was observed before the stop? I haven't seen that claimed by anyone other than you. Hill's lawyer said “We don’t have any of the official police reports to state as to why he would plead guilty, as to why, whether or not he had his seat belt on. At one point, they were able to visibly see that Mr. Hill didn’t have his seat belt on. Was it at the time of the traffic stop? You can take it off at that point before the officer got to the vehicle. We don’t have any information. So, naturally, he’s going to plead not guilty until we see the police report.” If Hill's lawyer doesn't know I don't know how you know. It's safe to say the officer saw it when he asked and pointed to it. Before the stop making the stop - I'm skeptical and no one is making that claim. It would be a great question to ask the officer. Because it doesn't matter how the officer answers it. Either way it helps Hill. If he says he couldn't see that he wasn't wearing it before making the stop then there is reasonable doubt the violation occurred. If he says he did then show the video and ask the officer to point out where he first spotted the violation. The court can then judge how likely or unlikely his testimony is to be true. Having watched the video I suspect this will hurt his credibility. Not really. We have the officer's body cam. It will tell show you at least the position of the officer and the car for the entire time before the stop. The camera might have a different angle or looking in a different direction, but you can make an educated guess as to what the officer can see from that position. If the officer ultimately says he could see it before making the stop, you and the court wouldn't havee to take what he says as truth. Just use a little critical thinking.

Not here. Minor non-criminal violation. The actual criteria from Supreme Court case is "whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others." I think it's hard to argue that any point during the stop there was an immediate threat You use immediate and threat in this bullet, but then your description of the behavior is aggressive repeated questioning. That isn't illegal and it isn't a threat. It's nothing. Hill telling the officer not to bang on his window is irrelevant. The window being tinted and Hill not wanting it to roll it down all the way or keep it down does pose a threat to the officers but not really an immediate one. Weapons are potentially part of any police interaction, but the police did not see any weapons when the window was open. They also didn't pat him down or check him for weapons after pulling him out, which makes me think they weren't too worried about weapons I agree that the police were justified in issuing him a command to exit the vehicle. The Graham factors address use of force not having him exit the vehicle. Three seconds from the time he was told to exit the vehicle he said he would exit the vehicle. 8s after the initial command he was exiting the vehicle. We agree any delay was a reasonable amount of time. Under Graham the court looks at what a reasonable officer would do under the totality of the circumstances. Yeah a reasonable officer might ask him to exit the vehicle. But the use of force as he is exiting is unreasonable. What can you point to in the Graham factors or otherwise justifies the use of force on a man exiting a vehicle like that?

The only command he needed to comply with was the one to exit the vehicle. I don't think anyone could watch that video and conclude he was not exiting the vehicle. So you think one of those officers is more likely to get hurt just standing there and watching him slowly exit the vehicle than grabbing him pulling him out and jumping on him? Yeah okay. Not true. The police accused careless driving. Hill says he didn't do anything. Sounds like conflicting reports.

I said I don't know, but it's more that I don't believe that the officer saw it before stopping him. Sure we can comment on it. Hill said "He didn't do nothing." How could you possibly comment on that? Take his on-site visual record at face value. Neither of us were there. This and the semantics surrounding the word crime/criminal all goes back to your original statement An even handed rephrasing would be that. A Miami police officer saw a car driving a speed that appeared in excess of the posted speed limit. A traffic stop was initiated. Upon approaching the vehicle the officer noticed the driver was not wearing a seatbelt. Subsequently two citations for minor traffic violations were issued.

OSU was coole with John Smith wrestling at worlds on 1991, the Olympic trials in 1992, and the Olympics in 1992 when he was head coach. Not sure why this would be a problem. That was Smiths first year as head coach too.

Sounds like you don't have the temperament to be a police officer. It's kind of difficult to lose your temper quicker than the officer that made the stop, but if you think you're up to the task lol. How would you go about it? Would you order him out of the car sooner? Would you threaten to break his window 2s after telling him to get out instead of 4?

Why do you keep referring to him as a criminal when no crime has been alleged? Any car could contain a gun. This doesn't mean that its reasonable for an officer to use force on any alleged speeder with tinted windows and a negative attitude. Lots of people have a negative attitude when they get pulled over. It might be rude but it's not illegal. Lots of people have tinted windows. Also not illegal. He should have been given more time than he was. Might have had to turn the car off, pit the car in park, or apply a parking brake. He had to take off his seatbelt and he probably wanted to grab his cell phone before exiting the vehicle. It takes a few seconds. If you are going to play the what if game with handguns in the car then why not do it in the other direction? If the officer doesn't know who he is or anything about him then maybe the "leisurely" speed he is moving is not by choice. Perhaps he is injured, recovering from surgery, or just crippled up. Also known as escalating the situation unnecessarily. The person is complying then let them comply. Why use force when it isn't necessary? That sounds like it only increases the chances of someone being hurt. I suspect the feelings of the officer were hurt as much or more than Hill's. But feelings really don't matter here. What matters is if the use of force was reasonable and the test for that is the Graham factors which are 1) Severity of the crime at issue Really minor. Noncriminal civil infractions are alleged. 2) Threat to the safety of the officers and others There are a few things the officer could point to here. Hill not wanting to open the window with tinted windows are a risk. Hill is a professional athlete and probably more of a physical threat than say an old lady. Still he hasn't said or acted in a threatening manner. There were no weapons mentioned or visible. There isn't an immediate threat to anyone. 3) Level of Resistance Low to nonexistent. He is not actively resisting nor actively fleeing nor was he at any point during the stop. He is not really passively resisting either. Remaining in the car would be passive resistance. He is exiting the vehicle. He said he is getting out. He has removed his seatbelt, opened the door, and is stepping outside when he is grabbed and thrown to the ground. Let's be real these guys weren't thinking of Graham factors when they pulled him out. They were put off by Hill's attitude. It's reasonable that they dislike being talked to like that, but it's not a justification to use force.

I don't need to watch it again. I saw it. It just isn't as significant as you're trying to make it sound. It's the classic conundrum that anything you do could be seen as suspicious by the police. He doesn't have his seatbelt on. Cop asks "Why aren't you wearing your seatbelt?" Hoping he will admit to driving without it fastened. He doesn't take the bait and puts his seatbelt back on. Now it's "Why did you put on your seatbelt? Not thinking of running are you?"` Or he put it on so that it would be on when he drove away after the stop was over. All that was left to do was for the officer to go back to his bike, run his information, and write whatever citations he was going to write.

I don't know how the police would have seen him driving without his seatbelt on when he was allegedly speeding and his windows are tinted. And as for speeding they didn't measure his speed, so this is a pretty weak observation - visual estimation. No it doesn't. Both of the alleged laws there were broken are noncriminal civil infractions. Florida code defines them as "noncriminal violations." Are you trying to say that because he is alleged to have committed two noncriminal violations that makes him a criminal? That makes no sense.

I don't know where you are going with this. You said he was being pulled over for "criminal behaviour." That is not true. He was being pulled over for speeding. Both things he received tickets for were noncriminal civil infractions. It is unclear from the video that was is guilty of either. How it looks on camera might be different than it appears to the officer. It is my understanding that he was released and drove away after the stop. I am sure he thought he was going to drive away from the stop when he was putting his seatbelt on after receiving a citation. Not sure of the relevance. The court decide guilt and the penalty. The police decide what to cite him with and they decided to cite him for two minor violations. Which laws? It is unclear to me that he is guilty of either citation. The video did not show him driving without his seatbelt on. His speed was not measured in the video. How so? Hill gave him the documents necessary for the officer to issue the citation. I don't know that an officer has the right to demand how open the window must be for a traffic stop. But if the officer wants it down and you don't want to do it. Either the window or the door must be open enough for the driver to give the officer the required documents and the officer to give the driver any ticket. He did reopened the window. It took him 10s to do so and apparently the officer was dissatisfied with how much he had opened it. The officer might have been justified in asking him to exit the vehicle. He was complying with that command. Where is the justification to use force and put him in handcuffs?

Anyone? Obviously the officer knows. Other people can infer from his actions. The officer seems willing to proceed with the stop with Hill inside the car, before Hill closed the window as the officer began to walk away to presumably write the citation. Then the window dispute occurred. The officer demanded the window be rolled down. Hill didn't immediately rolled it down. It took him about 10s to open his window and the officer unsatisfied with how much he rolled it down told him to exit. With the window tint I think he had a reason to have him exit the vehicle, but it's how the cop acts after that take makes me think it's not officer safety. Let him exit the car. He said he was exiting. He started exiting. Why pull him out, throw him own the ground, and handcuff him? I don't see a safety reason for any of that. Do you? Then how they treated him after handcuffing him. Why make him sit on the curb? Safety issues the officer may have dealt with in the past? That's of limited applicability. There needs to be some fact particularized to this stop to justify the use of force. Otherwise any police officer that's experience a dangerous traffic stop could handcuff everyone traffic stops going forward.

If you have trouble understanding why 500,000 years ago CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was 20x current levels it could be that 500,000 years ago CO2 concentration was not 20x.

What are the laws he broke? He received two tickets. One for a seatbelt violation and the other for careless driving. These are minor traffic violations that have civil penalties. They are noncriminal infractions under Florida law. It is also unclear that he did either of these things. The police officer wrote on the ticket "visual estimation of 60 mph" to justify the careless driving. There isn't anything to suggest his speed was actually measured. From the video the seatbelt violation appears to have been observed after the car was stopped. It would only be a violation to not have a seatbelt on whilst the car was moving. He may have taken it off after he stopped to be able to reach and get the documents needed. The officer asked him about the seatbelt. Hill did not respond to this and instead repeatedly told him not to knock on his window. I suppose you're correct since if all but admit includes didn't admit any way shape or form. Should we be imagining the white driver telling the police officer not to knock on his window? I think that was the problem with this stop, which though disrespectful isn't illegal. If the police officer saw something that was a safety concern in the car the order to exit the vehicle would have come before he started to walk away presumably to write the citation and the window went back up. Even then it was only after Hill didn't roll the window down fully after he told him to roll it down again. It is a potential reality, but not actual reality. The police officer did not see any safety concern in the car. If the decision to have him exit the car had any basis in officer safety it was that they couldn't see as clearly through the tinted windows. That's a reason to have him exit. What's the justification to handcuff him? Why didn't they check him for weapons? The situation was a minor traffic violation. It seems obvious from the video police acted the way they did because they felt disrespected by Hill and not because of any genuine concern for officer safety.

I don't think deducting all attendance related expenses from NIL earnings would fly. 1) NIL earnings that are tied to attending a specific university are against NCAA rules. Courts in a couple of states have ruled that the NCAA cannot restrict this and I think those are being appealed. It's also part of that lawsuit settlement that hasn't been approved yet. So though it's unsettled it's still against NCAA rules and the NCAA would like to keep it that way. It stands to reason that NIL agreements being signed today avoid spelling out that attendance at a particular university is required. 2). Even if they put in the contract that it's required then it probably fails the IRS test. It would fail the first test as doesn't really serve a "bona fide business purpose." I think it likely fails the second test too as attending a particular university isn't what I would a skill. Even if it somehow it meets one of those two requirements it could fail from the last bullet point.

Why wouldn't they bet on themselves, take the $100k and transfer to a Group of 5 school, and then after a year see if they couldn't get a $500k transfer offer to a Power 5 school? I think "top programs" is being used loosely here. Over the past two seasons, 3 NDSU players have transferred to Power 5 conferences and their destinations have been Kansas State, Kansas, and ISU. One guy is the starting Safety for K-State, another plays DL and isn't a starter at Kansas, and the last one is the #3 WR at ISU. Apart from the safety who transferred before this new NDSU head coach was hired anyway, these guys are role players at teams in the 15-30 range of the polls, with football revenue that probably ranks a somewhat lower than that. This isn't Alabama or Michigan money. The football players also transferred via the portal and play a sport with a scholarship limit of 85, so there is a good change they have a scholarship. It also could mean that if these guys were offered that sum in NIL, that $500k in NIL is going out to around 80 guys at these programs. This would be several levels of spending above above what we are hearing out of Iowa. Five hundred for a single year for a wrestlers sounds crazy, but we're likely talking guys getting NIL in lieu of a scholarship and only a handful of guys at top programs vs possibly every guy on the team in addition to a scholarship at every team in Power 5 football. Buchanan and Teemer are preseason #1s at their respective weights. It might be inflated, but I don't think it is impossibly high for a few programs (Iowa/OSU/PSU).

Haines has only won 1 NCAA title. Wrestlestat currently has him listed at 165 and redshirting this year. Flo has him ranked #2 at 174lbs behind Keegan O'Toole. Haines lost the best of three to make the Junior World team a couple years ago to Mesenbrink 2 matches to 0. He lost to Facundo at the Olympic Trials in April. Crazy to think he could be the odd man out.