Taro T

But then JD trumps them all with the crying for a penalty shot. I swear he forgot to take his Midol today.

And then they come back with one that has been called all year. It would be nice if the refs could get on the same page for the 2nd and 3rd.

You've posted 33 posts in this thread and 26 on the one 2 weeks ago about Nance. I fail to see where you are not being allowed to state your opinion.

Because the evidence in question, barring situations where someone flushes evidence down a toilet or burns/shreds it in the 2 minutes or so difference that we are talking about, would have been found LEGALLY and would have been admissible whether the door was opened by the police or opened by the suspect. Why should the evidence which would be perfectly admissible if the police waited another 30 seconds (or some other arbitrary amount of time) to open the door be automatically discarded because the police didn't wait 30 more seconds to open the door? I don't see a reason not to admit the evidence. If the police officer goes overboard, should he be punished? Absolutely. But I truly see these 2 items as being separate issues. As for the "professionalism of police", that was one of several factors cited in making this decision. It was not the only one and to say that it shouldn't be used as a supporting reason is a bit extreme IMHO. The evidence in question would be admissible if the police had waited to open the door. I don't see where them doing something wrong (and deserving punishment for doing that, I might add) should automatically make the evidence invalid. It should be a separate issue and should be treated as such. I don't like the idea of giving people "get out of jail free cards", simply because a police officer was over zealous. ("Yes, he was robbing the orphanage blind for the last 17 years, but we got all the accounting records off his computer after the unlocked door was opened after only a 27 second waiting period. Sorry, all that evidence is non-admissible. Have a nice day.")

But this case IS specific to k&a and SCOTUS is saying that HOW the police enter a residence AFTER a warrant was obtained should not cause all evidence obtained to be inadmissible. I don't interpret this as providing police a blanket right to illegally perform a search and collect any evidence they want. They specifically listed other instances where evidence can't be tossed simply due to the manner in which it was collected and added this specific issue to that short list. This is strictly stating that evidence can't be tossed because the police only waited 1 minute to open a door when clearly decorum would have allowed 2 minutes. Also, are you implying that there is NO personal responsibility for a police officer being a loose cannon and breaking down doors of people for fun (with or without a warrant)? AFAIK, if a police officer does something blatently out of line he or she can be held personally liable for their actions. I would expect that potential personal liability to limit the number of doors that are destroyed while serving warrants to people in most circumstances. And, yes I DO see the potential firestorm of community protest that abuse of this could raise as a deterrent to police abuse of this procedure. If the police start breaking down doors w/out notice as a SOP for "ordinary" criminals, then I will join you in the protests that will be deserved. Breaking down the door of a suspected armed (and dangerous) drug dealer would be a reasonable action under certain circumstances IMHO. Breaking down the door of a guy who failed to pay back child support payments would not be. I don't see where this particular ruling will cause the latter to happen but I do see where it will keep evidence obtained from the former admissible and I see where it may save officer's lives.

But there already are exceptions where k&a isn't required. This is simply stating that you can't throw out evidence because a k&a wasn't given to some arbitrary standard. It doesn't effect any of the conditions necessary to obtain a search warrant. It doesn't preclude civil cases against the police for breaking down the door of the house of someone that turns out to be innocent. (Heck, I didn't see anything prohibiting a criminal with a lot of chutzpah from filing a suit either.) If the cops do break down someone's door, I have to believe there are some pretty talented lawyers out there that will get the victim some serious $'s for his trauma, his girlfriend's trauma, his dog's trauma, his goldfish's trauma, and, oh yes, the door frame's trauma. Few police officers will want to go through the public scrutiny (and potential liability) for doing this in a haphazard manner. If warrants weren't still required, I would probably side more closely with your argument. I simply am not seeing at this time where this particular decision is a horrid thing. In this particular case, the officers DID knock and announce their presence. It's just a matter of them ONLY waiting 5 seconds to open an UNLOCKED door. The bad guy had crack on his person and a gun in the chair he was sitting in. If the police had waited a longer time (and I don't know what would be considered a "reasonable period of time" to wait for the guy to open the door), it is very likely he would have had the gun in his hand and the crack down the toilet. Is that a better or a safer outcome for all involved parties?

If I understand you correctly, you are more concerned that a startled law abiding citizen will end up in a gun fight with police officers than a drug dealer (with ample time to set up) will end up in a gun fight with police officers? That is one warped way of expecting the world to function. I only had time to read the 1st 15 pages of the decision, but nothing in there suggested anything about police having the right to enter a house without following "knock and announce" procedures WITHOUT a warrant. If they don't have a warrant, whether they followed k&a or not, any evidence would be suppressed because they didn't have a warrant and couldn't enter the house anyway.

What are you talking about? He carried DC. OH, you meant the state that he was a Senator for.

That criticism is slightly unfair, in that every season (at least in the dozen or so years I've been a STH) the attendence goes up significantly after the 1st of the year. This is true when the Sabres have a very good season (2001, 2006) and when they have poor seasons (2003, 2004). This is probably due to the Bills season being in full stride during the Fall, people (for whatever reason) not really getting into hockey fully in the Fall, and due to people not really thinking the early season games are as important as late season ones (although had the Sabres beaten the Caps and Panthers in October, the Sabres would have had home ice throughout) due to the length of the season. Yes, the more "casual" fan was probably louder this year than in past years, but attendence picking up in the 2nd half of the season isn't fully indicative of people hopping on the band wagon.

I don't believe that Holcomb will win the starting job, but I expect that he will be the #2. If JP wins the starting job, I'd expect to see Holcomb as the backup and Nall as #3. Should JP end up ineffective or injured in a game, Holcomb would come in, but the following week Nall would be the starter and Holcomb would go back to being #2. If JP does reasonably well this season, then I'd expect Holcomb to be released this off season and Nall would move into the #2 role. Whichever one of the camp fodder arms that wins the practice squad job this season would then have the inside track on the #3 job next year. Considering expectations for this team are extremely low and there are a ton of WR's in camp, nearly all who appear to be reasonable and need to get the ball to show what they can or can't do, I don't see a problem with the team getting an early look at who may be the #3 next year. If JP stinks, then I'd expect to see him gone and depending upon what Nall does this year, either he has the inside track at #1 with Holcomb backing him up or the Bills go to the draft looking (once again) to find their starting quarterback of the future on draft weekend. If Nall wins the competition this preseason, I'd expect to see JP on the trading block or cut outright. Marv and Dick have nothing invested in JP, so if they feel he can't get the job done there is no reason to think that they wouldn't get rid of him. If JP is gone, then they definitely keep Holcomb. Holcomb is a very serviceable backup and is the only experienced quarterback on the roster. IIRC, he's not making a ton of money, so I don't think there would be huge cap savings if he was cut. He was brought in to be the backup, so if he doesn't win the starting role, I don't see him causing problems. I actually like the idea of having the guy coming in off the bench having a different style than the #1 as the D has game planned all week for the #1 and may have a difficult time adjusting to the #2 guy's style.

Gee, if they like Mularkey and really like Bennie, wouldn't Jerman look great in orange and teal.

Marginally, my butt. That was Recchi, the all time reigning supreme king of the dive. He was spinning before the stick even touched his leg. Then Staal trying to dive in the corner when Peca touched him set the tone for Staal not breaking on Stillman's bad pass quick enough. If Staal fights for the puck the 1st time, Carolina might have been able to work the puck all the way back into the Eulers' end. I realize the SOB's are in all likelihood going to win one of the next 2 games, but I just absolutely loved the way how the completely injury-free team finally had to face adversity and fell short.

What's wrong with Sabres related avatars? Some of us have had them since we started posting on this board. (Me, a whole 10 months ago, but you get the idea.)

Which is why the "debates" about making non-English speaking kids learn English or allow them to be taught in their native language or about making English the official language are so bizarre. The "racists" (such as myself) in this country that want everyone to be able to speak English do not wish this to destroy anyone's cultural heritage or any other silly reason such as that. We want Americans to be able to speak English because they will have significantly more opportunities open to them by being able to converse with and understand the majority of people in this country.

Well, when the guy turns down offers to coach in the NHL it isn't quite that amazing. "Why won't anyone hire me? It's because of my race, isn't it?" "Either that, or MAYBE it's because you keep turning down offers to coach."

Well, it was in the '90's last week, so I needed a couple of nice holes to get a good breeze blowing through. I'll probably replace the broken panes in September or October.

Well, if your friend is correct then either JP will be the starter (which isn't a bad thing IMHO provided he actually goes out and earns it) or Kelly will be the starter in which case the Bills are DOOOOMED. My gut feel is that JP or Nall will be the starter (which fits with your friend's version - JP starting) and Holcomb starting out as the #2. If JP succeeds, I'd see Nall as the #2 next year and Holcomb gone. If JP can't get it done (due to his own limitations or the OL's) then I see the team trying to give Nall a chance to lead the team and if he is successful then JP is gone. If Nall and JP both can't get it done and the powers that be determine it to be on their heads, then we're looking at the Bills having a very high draft pick next year that they are seriously considering wasting on another QB.

So, is this idiot saying she knew her daughter was going to stick her head inside a helium filled balloon or merely trying to justify it? Either way, wow, I'm starting to understand why her daughter didn't have enough sense to NOT stick her head inside a helium filled balloon.

Before Kentucky's governor got involved, Paul Snyder had already sold off Bob McAdoo and tried to sell the team to a guy that was going to move them out of town. Snyder had already put the Braves into the guillotine, JYB just threw the lever. Actually, I'm not even positive that he is the one that officially moved the team as he traded the Braves franchise for the Celtics franchise. I squarely put the blame for the Braves leaving town on Snyder. Although basketball would be an easier sport to start up, I don't see enough interest in the pro game for Buffalo to ever get an NBA team. The city doesn't support the minor league pro team it has and IIRC TV ratings for pro games in Buffalo aren't exactly high. I definitely don't see what the league gains (or think it gains) by going back to a small market in Buffalo (or an even smaller market without a viable building - Ra-cha-cha, sorry the BC Arena at the War Memorial does not cut it as a major pro sports building). Heck, unless things have changed drastically in the last year or 2, the city doesn't typically sell out the local colleges even though there have been some good teams recently. Buffalo is much more of a baseball town than a basketball town. But with no salary cap and several big league teams being essentially glorified AAA teams (KC, Tampa Bay, and Pittsburgh), I don't see people paying big league prices to watch a AAA quality expansion team get crushed by the Braves and the Mets and everyone else. Since there is little likelihood under the current economic system in baseball for a team to be successful in Buffalo, I see no possibility of MLB returning to Buffalo in the foreseeable future.

With changing the rule on icing to one where the offending team can't make a player change on the ensuing faceoff, this rule was put in place to prevent teams from "accidentally" throwing the puck into the stands to be allowed to get the change. Not only that, but by throwing the puck out of the rink "accidentally", the team could get a better faceoff location if the puck was launched from the half wall or higher in the zone. "Deliberately" sending the puck out of play has always been a penalty for all players and anytime a goalie sends the puck cleanly out of the rink has been a penalty for the past several years. The league this season put in rules to increase scoring chances, "penalizing" icing is one of the ways the league did this as additional scoring chances have been generated this season by teams trying harder to skate the puck out of the zone and over the red line (especially at the end of long shifts). There are more chances for a team to steal the puck on a forecheck if the other team is working the puck out of the zone vs launching it out of the zone. Likewise, there is a better chance of generating a scoring chance by intercepting a clearing attempt through the middle of the ice vs one that is simply launched over a corner of the boards or up off the very top of the glass. While it is possible that the league may change the sanction for "accidentally" throwing the puck over the boards to be identical to that of icing, I don't expect that as it's pretty obvious that the league wanted to reduce the incentive to clear the puck by launching it high. One additional reason they put that rule in for is to limit the number of faceoffs per game and to speed up the game. Every time the puck goes out of play, the game gets lengthened by ~15 - 30 seconds. The league has been trying to not only increase scoring opportunities and bring more speed to the play, they also wanted to make sure calling increased #'s of penalties did not significantly lengthen the time it takes to play the game. The Sabres have now taken it on the chin from that rule being called hard and fast (and actually enforced) this past Thursday, and also from leaving discretion to IDIOTS like Koharski (May 10, 2001) who let Kasparaitis grab the puck and throw it into the crowd without calling any penalty (although he could have gotten 4 minutes for violating 2 separate rules). I would not mind seeing the play dealt with the way icing is now, but definitely do not want to give any more discretion to the Koharski's and Fraser's of this world than is absolutely necessary. It stinks that the rule cost the Sabres the powerplay that eventually decided the game, but the Canes could just have easily been called for a penalty like that if the Sabres forecheck was more effective and the "quirkiness" of the call didn't keep Rory from looking for the puck before Brind'Amour shot it.

Stanley Cup: 2 Caro-whine-a vs 8 Edmonton - Eulers in 6.

He's back in the NFL? Really? I thought the article said he was with the Giants.

That "facemask" happened in the 1st quarter. IIRC, that kept the drive where Smith got injured alive. After he messed up his leg, he was a shell of himself. The 2nd huge call against the Bills was the phantom personal foul call on Burroughs that let Cincy go up 21-10 rather than try for a field goal.

That would be sweet. Any confirmation on this from Mr. Clutch?