Yes, but to be fair, the Ninth Circuit is not exactly known for “practical but simultaneously whip smart” judges.

Nobody cares about your lack of humor.

They are different. That’s why I said plausible scenario, and said that it was in any event unlikely. If all of those possibilities I discussed were to happen — even though I doubt they will — in that scenario, a Rivers to NYG move would be plausible.

The first factor I mentioned is a fact, and the rest of the factors I mentioned are always possible. The chances of it happening are virtually nonexistent, but that doesn’t mean it’s not possible.

Who thought they were ready for runs in 2007 and 2011? Why would you be willing to dismiss out of hand, in April, the notion that any given team could win the Super Bowl in 2015, let alone what might happen in the following 3-4 years?

Note that I qualified that with “not very likely.” But if you really need it spelled out, here are the factors at play: Eli and Rivers both have contracts that expire after this season; Rivers may have a good season while Eli does not; Eli may suffer a severe injury; Eli may have a great season and Rivers does not,…

I’d love for Eli to finish his career in NY (and get a couple more Super Bowl rings in the process), but it’s crazy to think that there’s now a plausible (if not very likely) scenario in which he’s not resigned and Rivers is brought in for the 2016 season.

And by the way, in the US we have 90 guns per capita.

Generally speaking, yes, anyone has the right to use deadly physical force against someone if they reasonably believe that person is about to use the same against them or someone else. I never said that anyone has the right to shoot someone they deem a "scary person," but nice try.

This isn't really a discussion worth…

1. Cops in the UK don't carry guns because virtually no citizen in the UK is allowed to carry a handgun, and the rest of their gun laws are far more restrictive than ours. And, as I've now said 3 times in these threads, the UK is not the US is not Japan is not France is not Sweden. You can't just compare one isolated…

That is an absurd conclusion if you're just relying on data about their fatality rate, since police officers often do have to use physical force or deadly physical force to deal with violent suspects and prisoners [and most of those situations do not result in their death].**

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just pointing out certain assumptions in your argument that you're not recognizing. You're relying on data about the current fatality rate for police officers and stating that "the danger one faces simply are less than many other jobs in this country." That is an absurd…

See one of my other comments. You can't just compare police fatalities/fatalities by police here with similar figures in the UK, France, Japan, Sweden, etc. The US is not those countries. You need to account for differing levels of inequality, geographic distributions of the different economic classes, respective laws…

Accidents/negligence on your job site =/= dealing with intentional acts of violence from suspects.

You seem to be the one who needs the education, even though this would seem to be fairly obvious. If a garbage collector gets killed on the job, it's likely an accident or due to some form of negligence. If a police officer is killed on the job, there's a much greater likelihood of it being due to someone's…

No, I would not care to, because that would be a disingenuous comparison, or at least it would be if any of us attempted to do so in an internet comment by citing just the isolated rates of police fatalities and fatalities committed by police.

Uh, you're the one who's trying to prove a negative by arguing that police don't need to use physical force because of their current fatality rates. You're suggesting that absent current usage of physical and deadly physical force, their fatality rate would remain the same — but you're relying on data that only…

Now there's some terrible logic. A more revealing statistic would be the fatality rate for law enforcement if their ability to use physical force in the face of a threat is removed. It's incomprehensibly stupid to use the current fatality rate as evidence for your argument. What's next? If it's shown that the…

Accidental double-post.

Yes, because only millennials use the singular "they," and it is of course wrong to do so.