Mickey

Forsooth! Linguistic history aside, thou knowest well the law as it this day stands instructs all men to the use of "shall" when one tasks to giveth advice and "will" when one tasks to giveth commands. 'Swounds man, cease this philological pettifoggery and to thy senses be called or failing in this, be called at last to the point. If thou wouldst bow would thy not bow though all the world taketh offense? Woulds thou brook others to instruct thee when to bow and when to stand and when to kneel? As would you, so would these men. As you would not, so would not these men.

I haven't read all 45 pages of posts on this so maybe I missed something but in the post I read, you said that "should is about as definitive as must". I said, in sum, that should is most definitely not as definitive as must. So I think that we clearly are not saying the same thing. Glad to help. That will be $500 please.

As a lawyer with 29 years of experience, I think that I can shed some light on the vast, endless complexities involved in defining, in "legal speak" how the word "should" is defined so let me help: "should" means "should" and does not mean "must". The Supreme Court has held that the word "shall", in a statute means "may". The Federal Register instructs that "must" is the only word that, in a statute, creates a legal obligation. The word "should" is never used in statutes precisely because laws are concerned with mandatory actions or omissions, things you must do or that you must not do. It is important to note that many states have First Amendment protections which extend to and include the workplace. Further, the players have a collective bargaining agreement with the NFL and, along with individual contracts, it is the primary if not the exclusive source of the obligations of players and owners.

Ok for Jim to publicly call out Shady but not okay for Jerry to call out Jim? Seems fair. The team had a meeting to decide how to handle this difficult issue, to allow enough room for differing views and yet to remain unified as a team. Not one person on that team publicly expressed their disagreement with any other member of the team. They publicly expressed their differing views on the issue by kneeling, not kneeling and holding hands. They did not do so by dissing any players as Kelly did. It seems to me that what they did was an excellent solution to the problem. They created a way for team members to disagree passionately and yet remain united to accomplish the task at hand, beating Denver.

When was that? I think there was a week or two back in '84 where sports and politics did not mix but I can't be sure as I was on a drinking binge in TJ with some college buddies.

Why should they respond with respect and dignity to a guy who just called them a bunch of sons of bitches? Really, expecting a bunch of football players to take the high road while the honest-to-god President of the United States conducts himself in such an embarrassing manner seems a bit unfair. well said!

At no point in the encounter as related by Bennett did the officers inform him of the basis for their suspicion. An officer can detain a person based on a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime. Reasonable force can be used to detain a person who is resisting being detained. Lastly, an officer is required to use the least amount of force that is reasonable under the circumstances. An appropriate investigation will surely take place and hopefully the facts will emerge and until that time, it is unfair to judge Bennett's complaint or the officer's actions. What worries me is that most normal people would be terrified to have anyone, officer or not, pointing a gun at their head and threatening to shoot them. If a person in that situation makes a single mistake, they could be shot dead. Under that kind of duress, people are bound to make mistakes, especially innocent people with no experience with being forcefully detained. I spent four years investigating cases exactly like this and in almost every one of them, a tragic death and a ruined career hung by the tiniest of threads.

Yeah! And if you don't wear a flag pin you don't love America and you are disrespecting the troops. If you don't have a flag hanging from your porch, a stars and stripes license plate frame and a pack of red, white and blue condoms in your wallet you are an unamerican, unpatriotic, disrespectful, soldier-hating worthless piece of trash who is not half the American I am. Really. I mean it.

Hits guys accurately in stride?? That is not what I saw last night.

To get a backup better than Cardale Jones?

Every employer in every industry is expected to take reasonable precautions for the safety and welfare of their employees to protect against known risks of the work they perform. The NFL should be held to the same standard. Under the law, "assumption of risk" cannot be applied to the negligence of another. If you go horseback riding, you do not assume the risk that the vendor negligently and improperly secured the saddle. An owner of an amusement park ride cannot absolve himself of responsibility for ensuring that the ride is safe and in good working order by printing an assumption of risk clause on the back of the ticket. The fact that you might know or be aware of the general possibility that the ride operator wasn't properly trained or that the saddles are sometimes in disrepair doesn't excuse another's negligence. Simply fulfilling the duty to warn of an inherent risk is not always determinative of liability. The NFL's responsibility is to provide the best equipment and medical treatment available. Further, they have the responsibility to make whatever rule changes need to be made given the risks involved. Belatedly but thankfully, that is what the league is doing. The long term concern is that the CTE problem may not be fixable with rule changes, equipment changes or improved medical treatment. If that happens, football may go the way of cockfighting, dogfighting, base jumping, street racing and dueling. It will be outlawed. Parents across the country have already made this decision by signing their kids up for little league...soccer. I love football so I hope it never comes to that but it isn't hard to imagine that it could.

It was painful enough when it actually happened, why on earth would anyone want to go through it again? I'd rather have ear lice.

A problem easily avoided by refraining from spending time smelling your own pee...and/or by flushing.

I think the Bills organization owes it to the fans to show us exactly how every decision is made. They need to end their obsession with secrecy and lift the curtain on the whole shebang so that all the fans, all the oh-so-fair-reporters and all the other NFL teams we compete against know all there is to know about this team, how it is run and how its decisions are made. Public information dumps are the cornerstone of NFL success! Just look at how open and honest the Patriots have been. Oh....wait...

I said "violence against women", not "domestic violence". Get your reading right. Of all the people killed by an intimate partner, 70% of them are women. Women are killed by intimate partners at a rate double that of men (1.07 per 100,000 vs. .47 per 100,000) A 2008 study showed that 551,590 women vs. 101,050 men experienced violence (rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault and simple assault). In 2010, 4,362 men were murdered, only 405 of them were murdered by a woman (9%). However, of the 1,864 women murdered in 2010, 1,698 were killed by men (91%). https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl06.xls

I am an attorney, I have dated a lot. Never been accused of rape. Never. But then again, I never slithered about looking for a stranger I could talk into joining a foursome. The stats on violence against women seem to overwhelmingly demonstrate that men are far more of a problem in the !#$!#$ed up department than women are.

"This is unlikely to get worse"

Yeah, the weenie couldn't even play with a fractured foot, what a baby. Funny, hardly missed a game in college, I guess he was tough then and suddenly not tough when he came here. Makes sense.

New injuries are random events. Going a year without injury does not make it more likely that he will go without injury the following year. Pre-existing injuries and chronic conditions are predictable but apart from those, its a roll of the dice.

I don't trust Whaley and the scouts to find a gem late in Round 1 so I would rather we stick at 10 unless the trade down is just a few picks back. If Adams, Hooker or Reddick are there at 10, I'd definitely prefer they stick. I could probably be talked into Mahomes or Trubisky as well and not because they are likely franchise QB's but because we need a backup for Tyrod. He is a QB who runs a fair amount, is on the small side, missed some games in 2015 and had to have off-season surgery after 2016. Oh, and he plays behind a line that includes one of the worst RT's in the league. We need a backup.

1. Malik Hooker 2. Jamal Adams 3. Mitch Trubisky 4. Patrick Mahomes 5. OJ Howard

Obi Melifonwu S, UConn, 6-4, 4.4 = a guy who can cover the Gronkowski's of the world.

Exactly. Every year, one genius after another comes up with fairy dust scenarios where we trade down for a raft of picks. And it never happens because of the plain and simple fact that everyone wants to trade down and hardly any one wants to trade up. What player is good enough to attract a trading partner who, despite his greatness, is still around at the 10th pick and coincidentally, is not good enough for us to take him?

Sure I like Cahones but not as much as I like Glitch Mywhiskey and I hear lots of good things about Dayone Rizer. I'd stay away from Bad Kaarma though, he seems too unlucky for me. Nathan Betterman is my sleeper pick and for nostalgic reasons, I would be happy if we could nab Rad "future inmate" Kelly in the later rounds.

Great idea. No better way to cash in our ticket to the bigs then signing a fading vet looking for one last paycheck. See: Harvin, Percy.