team first

Pa defense is still looking very suspect. Not a good sign 

He doesn't know what a Vegas is lol 

According to Vegas, the real experts 

School Takeovers on SEC Network, July 18th - 31st


For each school's breakdown, click  
This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  to the SEC Network page. Link defaults to 7/18, just adjust date for your school. I don't see a link for description/year of each game so you might have to google that.

Something EVERYONE ought to try.

Words have impact. When people lie and claim that there is a war, or pretend that cops are gunning down innocent young black men in the streets, events like tonight in Dallas will occur. I have a friend posting on FB tonight about how there have been 116 people gunned down by police this year in America. He's worried about his teenaged black sons! On the other hand, he can't even hazard a guess as to how many black men have been gunned down by other black men this year in Jefferson County, which is where his sons actually live! You're focusing on the wrong problems, my friend. 
The stats are available. Don't quote this, but something like 4400 black on black murders per year on average 2009-2013 per the FBI. Something like 120 cop on black murders per year for the same period. If you want America to take you seriously, start protesting about the thousands of lives lost to senseless black on black violence instead of focusing on the very, very few instances of police killings (most of which were obviously justified). 
But then again, your talking about a group of people who will stand out in the sun and protest an old racist like Paula Deen who admits using the N word in 1987, but then not be bothered by the same word in 2016 when it's laid down over a catchy beat. 
Keep focusing on imaginary damage inflicted by The Man, and just ignore the much greater damage you're doing to yourselves. P

I am sure the investigation is far from over.
What is probably public at the moment from news reports is that the police were responding to a man with a gun and was claimed to be pointing it at the person that called the police. In case that didn't sink in, the police did not initiate this contact. Someone called the police of a many threatening another with a gun. 
Two officers responded and you could hear a pop on the camera that sounded to me like a Taser being fired. The store owner reported to the media that an officer did use a Taser on the man. If the officer did it either did not work or both darts did not hit the target. Tasers are far from foolproof. Then he was ordered to the ground which could be heard on the video. After a couple of seconds of no compliance by the guy, an officer tackled him. During the struggle you can hear an officer that sounded like he said, "He's got a gun.... gun" . 
At that point at least one officer pulled out his firearm. A few seconds of continued struggle (where the deceased could have given up at any time but would not) the shots were fired. The store owner where this happened stated that one of the officers did pull a gun out of the suspect's pocket. 
Were the officers in reasonable fear of their lives from a man that another person claimed was pointing a gun at him? Who then refused officers commands to get on the ground? Who continued to fight after officers claim to have found a gun on the suspect, yelled it out for the other officer but the suspect had to hear that the officers found the gun and after theirs were drawn, he continued to fight? This continued fight made it a risk to officers that the suspect could get the gun, assuming the report of the gun in his pocket are correct.   
The store owner is reported to have said, the suspect didn't have his hand on the gun.... yet. I am guessing that some people think that officers should wait until a suspect actually gets the gun out.... you know, to make it more fair. 
None of the above is proven but it is what has been reported. Hopefully an investigation will get to the bottom of what happened. Looking at it from a video several feet away and viewing it from the eyes of people that were not in a struggle for their own lives, it is easy to blame the officers. Obviously that is easy to do when the video shows very little of anything that is going on while the officers are on the ground struggling. I cannot tell if the officers were correct or not but I know that many people are ready to build the gallows with no evidence needed. 
Like almost every one of these incidents, it could have been completely avoided by simply complying with an officers commands which in a situation like this (reported a man with a gun) are almost always lawful.  If someone reports to the police that a man is waving a gun at people on the street or at an individual, there is almost no court in the land that does not think the officer can restrain that person, with force if needed, to find out if he is a threat to the public. 
 I do not know Louisiana law but I'm sure that is similar to Texas. In Texas law clearly states that you cannot resist even an unlawful arrest. The place you fight whether an arrest was lawful is in court, not on the side of the street. 
In Graham v. Connor the US Supreme Court stated in a rare unanimous decision that use of force by officers must be viewed from the officer's prospective, who have to make a split second decision and not have months to sit back and go over evidence that will come out long after the incident is over. Just for a real quick note on that case, a completely innocent person was detained by officers after it was believed that one of them saw what he believed to be an armed robbery when a guy ran into and a very short time later back out of the store. In fact the guy was having a medical crisis and needed sugar (I think he was going into insulin shock). When officers stopped him, he resisted since he had signs of intoxication which was later found to be the result of the medical crisis. The guy ended up going to the hospital after being injured by the officers but for minor injuries. So we had a completely innocent man who was having a medical issue that had force used against him by officers. The Supreme Court ruled in the officer's favor because even though the facts later came out that the guy was innocent, the officers had no way of knowing that at that moment in time. Their actions were reasonable from their viewpoint. 
Again, it is easy to sit back and criticize when you are not on the ground fighting and a gun is not a few inches from you with a guy struggling maybe to get the gun. People have that luxury of 20/20 hindsight. The Supreme Court says that legally we have to look at it from the eyes of the guy in the fight. 
None of that means the officers were correct and maybe they will be charged with the incident. Neither does a video seen from a different viewpoint mean that they are guilty. 
What is a shame is that no one wants to find out what really happened and simply wants to convict the officers. Much like the Freddie Gray fiasco in Baltimore showed us, a rush to judgment is very easy but may not render the truth.
 Assuming that the suspect really did have a gun, was pointing it at people and had it within reach in his pocket,  who can look at that video and tell me that the officers were not in any danger?  With nothing more than that if video people are demanding a conviction for murder of the officers.  That shows that rational thinking is no longer available in incidents like this. 
 And again and again and again… The blame never seemsto be on the person who violated the law but resisting the officers.  This is the person who was given lawful commands by an officer and refuse to do so.  These people are always made out to be angels and victims of an illegal system.  Do you know why officers almost always are found not guilty  in cases like this? It is because the law is on their side. If an officer tells you to stop then you have to stop. If he believes you have a weapon and orders you to the ground then you had better get on the ground. We can look at some US Supreme Court cases and while they often go against  officers on illegal searches, they almost always side with the police on uses of force or issues of safety. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms they said that an officer  can order a driver out of a vehicle. In Maryland v. Wilson  they extended the officers' authority to ordering passengers out of the vehicle. In Plumhoff v. Rickard a unanimous nearly Supreme Court (2 justices agreed with parts if the ruling)  that officers were not acting unlawfully when they fired several shots into a fleeing vehicle and not only killed the driver but the passenger who was just sitting there.  That case was fairly recent being only in 2014. 
Again and it is so easy,  when the police tell you to stop ..... stop. 

Thanks to the Hillary Clinton investigation, I've finally witnessed white privilege 

Thanks to the Hillary Clinton investigation, I've finally witnessed white privilege 

Thanks to the Hillary Clinton investigation, I've finally witnessed white privilege 

Good, now stop stereotyping and answer the mans question, can you back you assumptions up....or just spewing white hate.

you need a dictionary...calling out your stupidity and call you stupid are not the same....which shows your ignorance of the difference....see how that works...using and understanding words in their context and definition. 

Help me understand why he's a racist. His stance on illegal immigration is simple. We need borders. Every other nation in the world has borders. It's just practical.  We can't fit all 7.5 billion earthlings within our borders and give them healthcare and free college. It's not possible.
Otherwise, i can't see anything that would qualify as "racist" about his positions.  I mostly see a lot of "people of color" don't intend to vote for him... So they call him a racist. 
The word "racist" has been hijacked. It used to mean when somebody felt that one particular race of people were superior to the others by virtue of their genetic makeup at birth. Nowadays it is used to describe someone whondoes't embrace the liberal/progressive viewpoints in their entirety. If I think that a lot a racial group "B"s problems are, well, kinda self-inflicted and not solely the responsibility of the white man and his "white privilege," then I'm a racist. If I disagree with the current president on any issue, the I am, you guessed it, a racist. The term is used to minimalize and marginalize any viewpoint that is contrary to the left's narrative. "Don't listen to him.... He's just a racist. He doesn't understand things the way that I do." 
So I ask you, without trying to start an argument, what EVIDENCE do you have that this man feels that white people are superior to other races?

Wow, I really saw nothing wrong with what Trump said. The people who attacked him sure have no answers, except maybe to blame guns. When a certain race or religion screams death to America or Allah Ackbar (sp.) while slaughtering Americans, why is it that no one else can see that for what it is? Have we become so compassionate that we allow people that hate us to enter our country just to show we have political correctness? How stupid! It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.
Blaming Trump for the murder of these people? I blame it on the politically correct. Before you remind me of how he was born here, remember, we dont know the bad from the good. Hopefully they don't massacre someone near and dear to you. 

Which begs the question, did he buy his AR15 while he was on the terrorist watch list?   I've already heard several "blaming the gun".   Yep, that rifle jumped right off the shelf and shot those people all by itself.  And that rifle will get the blame from the left.   Gun control will be their solution, when the answer is "Muslim Control".

She gone 

That would be 5.   Out of 8

7

Minorities use the excuse of skin color on a daily basis. "I can't get a fair trial because too many white people are on the jury." "I can't get a job because too many white people are on the hiring committee." "The system is unfair because it is controlled by white people." Now that a white person uses the same excuse, somehow he is the racist.

Lil Boutte ???

Boutte??? 

You can't do both??

Fits you to a tee.

Good post but have to disagree on the last comment. Coaching talented teams compared to less talented may be equally as difficult to coach, but not as  equally difficult to win , sorry. I've seen plenty of teams win with superior talent when they play teams w less talent and still win.  Problem is sooner or later those same coaches end up playing teams with equal talent!