Connect with us

Published

11 months ago

on

In June of 2022, law enforcement arrived at a modest home on East Calvert Street in South Bend, Indiana. They threw dozens of tear gas grenades into the house, launched flash-bangs through the front door, smashed windows, destroyed the security cameras, punched holes in the walls, ripped a panel and fan from the bathroom wall and ceiling, ransacked and tossed furniture, snatched curtains down, and broke a mirror and various storage containers. The tear gas bombs left openings in the walls, floors, and ceiling. Shattered glass lay strewn across the interior, and a litany of personal belongingsfrom clothing, beds, and electronics to childhood drawings and family photoswere ruined.

Police had their sights set on a man named John Parnell Thomas, then a fugitive, who is now behind bars. But law enforcement didn’t apprehend Thomas at the residence on East Calvert, as he did not own the home, did not have any relationship with its owners, and had never been there.

The actual owner, Amy Hadley, was not a suspect in law enforcement’s investigation. She was, in some sense, punished anyway, as the government left her to pick up the tab after officers dismantled and wrecked much of her home.

A faulty investigation led police to Hadley’s house. An officer with St. Joseph County attempted to locate Thomas via Facebook, concluding erroneously that he was accessing social media from the IP address tied to the Hadley residence.

He was not.

On June 10, 2022, upon surrounding the house, police ordered those inside to exit. Hadley’s son, Noahwho was 15 years old at the timewas the only one home; he came out with his hands up as instructed. Police immediately conceded on the body camera footage that he was not who they were looking for. They placed him in double handcuffs, put him in a caged squad car, and took him to the police station anyway.

A neighbor called Hadley to let her know something dire appeared to be happening outside her home, prompting her to return to the residence. She told law enforcement that Thomas was not inside and that her security cameras, which would be destroyed soon after, would have alerted her if a stranger had forced his way in. A South Bend SWAT team, along with backup from the St. Joseph Police Department, proceeded forthwith. Over 30 officers were dispatched to Hadley’s home.

The result forced Hadley and her son to sleep in her car for several nights as the toxic fumes lingered, while her daughter, Kayla, stayed elsewhere until the space was safe to live in again.

Hadley, who is employed as a medical assistant, does not dispute that police had a valid warrant and a right to search her property. What she does dispute, however, is that the government can leave her to shoulder the financial burden of their mistake. After contacting the South Bend Police Department, the St. Joseph County Police Department, and St. Joseph County, she received a mixture of demurrals and radio silence, according to a lawsuit recently filed in the St. Joseph County Circuit Court.

A year and a half post-raid, those agencies have paid her nothing. Her home insurance helped her in part but declined to pay the full amount, which totaled at least $16,000 in damages, per her suit, leaving her thousands of dollars in the hole.

It’s not the first time the government has destroyed an innocent person’s property and left them to pick up the pieces, both literally and figuratively. Hadley’s experience once again requires that we answer the following: When law enforcement wrecks someone’s house or business in pursuit of public safety, who should bear the cost?

Carlos Pena, a small business owner in Southern California, recently filed a suit that probes the same question, although his attorneys say the answer is clear. In August 2022, about two months after the raid on Hadley’s house, a Los Angeles SWAT team threw over 30 tear gas canisters into Pena’s print shop while attempting to catch a fugitive who had forcefully ejected Pena and barricaded himself inside. His inventory and most of his equipment were ruined, costing him about $60,000 in damages and thousands in revenue from lost clients. After building his business, NoHo Printing & Graphics, for over three decades, he now operates at a much-constrained capacity out of his garage.

Like many policies, Pena’s insurance told him they were not responsible for damage caused by the government. But Los Angeles has, at different times, ignored him or told him they are not liable, according to his lawsuit , which was filed in July in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Whether or not such victims are entitled to relief comes down to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which promises that people are entitled to “just compensation” when their property is usurped, or in this case destroyed, for public use. But various jurisdictions have been able to dance around that thanks to some federal jurisprudence which has held that actions taken under “police powers” are exempt from the pledge in the Takings Clause. “Apprehending a dangerous fugitive is in the public interest, and ‘in all fairness and justice,’ the cost of apprehending such fugitives should be borne by the public as a whole,” says Hadley’s suit, “not by an unlucky and innocent property owner whose property is put to a public use to serve the public’s interest.”

Another plaintiff, Vicki Baker, sued the city of McKinney, Texas, in 2021 after a local SWAT team caused tens of thousands of dollars in damage to her home and rendered her daughter’s dog deaf and blind. Again, a fugitive had barricaded himself inside; again, Baker was not suspected of any criminal wrongdoing; again, her insurance declined to pay. When she sought assistance from the government, they told her they weren’t liable and that she didn’t meet the definition of a “victim.” “I’ve lost everything,” Baker, in her 70s and struggling with cancer, told me shortly after filing her suit .

Following a lengthy court battle, a federal judge allowed her to proceed before a jury, characterizing the law that threatened to block her suit as “untenable.” That jury awarded her about $60,000 in June 2022. And then in October of this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed that, somewhat begrudgingly, ruling that current precedent foreclosed relief on the basis that police acted by “necessity during an active emergency.”

“For future victims, [this] would mean that you’re probably out of luck under the federal Constitution from the 5th Circuit, unless this case gets reversed,” Jeffrey Redfern, an attorney for the Institute for Justice which represents Baker, told me in October. “It’s a pretty big deal.” Fortunately for Baker, he added, the jury’s award should survive under the Texas Constitution, as opposed to the U.S. Constitutionalthough she only got that judgment after government stonewalling and a protracted court battle, which not everyone has the time and resources to finish.

As for Hadley, it remains unclear if she will receive compensation after the government acted on its error-prone investigation and left her home a shell of what it once was. But one thing is almost certain: There will be more innocent people like her in the future whose lives are upended by the state, only to be told that’s just their tough luck.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Sports

CFP Anger Index: Better call Paul — the committee is disrespecting the SEC

Published

3 hours ago

on

November 13, 2024

By

CFP Anger Index: Better call Paul -- the committee is disrespecting the SEC

  • David Hale, ESPN Staff WriterNov 12, 2024, 09:05 PM ET

    Close

    • College football reporter.
    • Joined ESPN in 2012.
    • Graduate of the University of Delaware.

The committee has released its second crack at the top 25, and it’s (almost) all Big Ten at the top.

That might seem a bit strange to the conference that boasts the most playoff-caliber teams and the most nonconference wins against other Power 4 leagues, and also has Paul Finebaum there to remind everyone just how angry they should be at this affront to good judgment.

With that, we’ll handle much of Finebaum’s homework for him. Here’s this week’s Anger Index.

1. The SEC

Eleven weeks into the 2024 season, and one thing seems abundantly clear: The SEC is the best conference in college football. Take a look at Bill Connelly’s SP+ rankings, for example, where nine of the top 17 teams are from the SEC. Or use ESPN’s FPI metric, where the SEC has spots 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9. Consider that the team currently ninth in the SEC standings, South Carolina, has three wins over SP+ top-40 teams and losses to the committee’s No. 10 and 22 teams by a combined total of five points.

Yes, the SEC’s dominance and depth seem obvious.

So, of course, four of the top five teams in the committee’s rankings this week are from the SEC.

Wait, no, sorry about that. We’re getting late word here that, in fact, it’s the Big Ten with teams No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in this week’s rankings.

It’s not that those four Big Ten teams aren’t any good. Oregon (No. 1) has chewed up and spit out nearly all comers this season. Ohio State (No. 2) is the best squad the gross domestic product of Estonia can buy. Penn State (No. 4), well, the Nittany Lions still haven’t beaten Ohio State, but we assume the rest of the résumé is OK. Indiana (No. 5) is blowing the doors off people.

But that’s it. The rest of the Big Ten is a mess. You need a magnifying glass to find Michigan‘s QB production. Iowa finally learned how to score and somehow has gotten worse. Minnesota looked like the next-best team in the conference, and the Gophers have losses to North Carolina and Rutgers.

A lack of depth does not inherently mean the teams at the top are not elite. Indeed, the other teams in any conference remain independent variables when addressing the ceiling for any one team. If the Kansas City Chiefs joined the Sun Belt, Patrick Mahomes would still be a magician and Andy Reid would still be saying “Bundle-a-rooskie-doo” in your nightmares.

But the cold, hard facts are these: Indiana’s best win came last week against Michigan (No. 40 in SP+) by 3. Penn State’s best win (by SP+) came by 3 against a below-.500 USC team that just benched its QB. Ohio State is absolutely elite on paper, but on the field, the Buckeyes’ success is entirely buoyed by a 20-13 win at Penn State, a team we also know very little about.

The SEC gets flack for boasting of its greatness routinely, and to be sure, that narrative has often bolstered less-than-elite teams. But this year, every reasonable metric suggests the SEC’s production actually matches its ego, and when Ole Miss (No. 11), Georgia (No. 12), Alabama (No. 10) and Texas A&M (No. 15) — all with two losses — are dogged as a result of playing in a league where every other team warrants a spot in the top 25, it undermines the entire point of having a committee that can use its judgment rather than simply look at the standings.

Let’s compare two teams with blind résumés.

Team A: 8-1 record, No. 14 in ESPN’s strength of record. Best win came vs. SP+ No. 20, loss came to a top-10 team by 3. Has four wins vs. Power 4 teams with a winning record, by an average of 14 points.

Team B: 8-1 record, No. 11 in ESPN’s strength of record. Best win came vs. SP+ No. 28, loss came to a top-15 team by 15. Has one win vs. a Power 4 team with a winning record, by 3.

So, which team has the better résumé?

This shouldn’t take too long to figure out. Team A looks better by almost every metric, right?

Well, Team A is SMU, who checks in at No. 14 in this week’s ranking.

Team B, though? That’d be the Mustangs’ old friends from the Southwest Conference, the Texas Longhorns. Texas checks in at No. 3.

Perhaps you’ve watched enough of both Texas and SMU to think the eye test favors the Longhorns. That’s fair. But should the eye test account for 11 spots in the rankings? At some point, the results have to matter more.

Or, perhaps it’s the brand that matters to the committee. If that same résumé belonged to a school that hadn’t just bought its way into the Power 4 this year, it’s hard to imagine they wouldn’t be in the top 10 with ease.

Let’s dig into three different teams still hoping for a playoff bid, even if the odds are against them at this point.

Team A: 7-2, 1 win over SP+ top 40. No. 28 in ESPN’s strength of record. Losses by a combined 18 points.

Team B: 7-2, 1 win over SP+ top 40. No. 25 in ESPN’s strength of record. Losses by a combined 13 points.

Team C: 7-2, no wins over SP+ top 40. No. 24 in ESPN’s strength of record. Losses by a combined 21 points.

You could split hairs here, but the bottom line is none has a particularly compelling résumé, and they’re all pretty similar.

So, who are they?

Team B is Iowa State, which plummeted from the rankings after losing two straight. But the committee isn’t supposed to care when you lost your games. Losing in September is not better than losing in November. At least that’s what they say.

Team A is Arizona State. Its 10-point loss to Cincinnati came without starting QB Sam Leavitt and was due, at least in part, to a kicking game so traumatic head coach Kenny Dillingham held an open tryout afterward. The Sun Devils and Cyclones are two of three two-loss Power 4 teams unranked this week (alongside Pitt), but unlike Iowa State and Pitt, Arizona State isn’t coming off back-to-back losses. The Sun Devils’ absence seems entirely correlated to the fact that no one believed this team would be any good entering the season, and so few people have looked closely enough to change their minds that the committee feels comfortable ignoring them.

The team the committee can’t ignore, however, is Team C. That would be Colorado. Coach Prime has convinced the world the Buffaloes are for real, even if nothing on their résumé — a No. 77 strength of schedule, worse than 7-2 Western Kentucky‘s — suggests that’s anything close to a certainty.

The Big 12 remains wide open, but it’s to the committee’s detriment that it has so eagerly dismissed two of the better teams just because they’re not as fun to talk about.

Has Missouri played with fire this year? You betcha. Just last week, the Tigers were on the verge of falling to Oklahoma before the Sooners’ woeful QB situation reared its ugly head again and the game ended in a 30-23 Tigers win.

But here’s the thing about playing with fire: So long as you don’t turn your living room into an inferno, it’s actually pretty impressive.

Missouri is 7-2 with wins against SP+ Nos. 26 and 28, and its only losses are to the committee’s No. 10 and No. 15 teams. SP+ has Missouri at No. 17, though we can chalk that up to Connelly’s hometown bias. But No. 23? After a top-10 season in 2023, don’t the Tigers deserve a little benefit of the doubt? They currently trail three three-loss teams (Louisville, South Carolina and LSU) and are behind Boise State, Colorado, Washington State and Clemson, who, combined, have exactly one win over SP+ top-40 teams.

There’s a good chance that, should Brady Cook not return to the lineup, Missouri will get waxed at South Carolina on Saturday, and then the argument is moot. But the committee isn’t supposed to look ahead and take guesses at what it believes might happen (Florida State’s snub last year notwithstanding). It’s supposed to judge based on what’s on the books so far, and putting Missouri this far down the rankings seems more than a tad harsh.

The committee threw a nice bone to the non-Power 4 schools this week, with four teams ranked, including No. 25 Tulane Green Wave. That seems deserved, given Tulane’s recent run. But what is it, exactly, that puts the Green Wave ahead of UNLV?

UNLV has the No. 31 strength of record. Tulane is No. 32.

UNLV has the No. 98 strength of schedule played. Tulane is No. 96.

Tulane has a one-possession loss to a top-20 team. UNLV has a one-possession loss to a top-20 team.

The key difference between the two is UNLV has wins against two Power 4 opponents — Houston and Kansas. Houston, by the way, just knocked off Kansas State, a team that beat Tulane.

So perhaps the committee should spread a bit more love outside the Power 4.

Also Angry: Pittsburgh Panthers (7-2, unranked), Duke Blue Devils (7-3, unranked), Georgia Bulldogs (7-2, No. 12), Utah Utes AD Mark Harlan (the Utes would be ranked if Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark hadn’t rigged the system!) and UConn Huskies (7-3, unranked and thus prohibiting us from Jim Mora Jr. giving a “You wanna talk about playoffs?!?” rant).

Continue Reading

Environment

Elon Musk Tapped to Lead New ‘DOGE’ Department—Despite the Government Already Having One for Efficiency

Published

4 hours ago

on

November 13, 2024

By

Elon Musk Tapped to Lead New ‘DOGE’ Department—Despite the Government Already Having One for Efficiency

Elon Musk embarassed court

Tesla CEO Elon Musk is to officially join Trump’s administration as the co-head of the new US Department of Government Efficiency – a second federal department with the goal of making government spending more efficient.

You can’t get more ironic than that.

Throughout the elections, Musk, who is already CEO of Tesla, and SpaceX, a well as the defacto head of X, xAI, Neuralink, and the Boring Company, has been floating the idea to add to his workload by joining the Trump’s administration to lead a new department aimed at making the federal government more efficient.

He has been calling it the “Department of Government Efficiency”, which spells out ‘DOGE’, a meme that Musk appears to enjoy.

Well, now Trump appears to want to be going through with this idea.

He announced the new department and Musk as head, along with Vivek Ramaswamy, in a statement today:

I am pleased to announce that the Great Elon Musk, working in conjunction with American Patriot Vivek Ramaswamy, will lead the Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”). Together, these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies – Essential to the “Save America” Movement. “This will send shockwaves through the system, and anyone involved in Government waste, which is a lot of people!” stated Mr. Musk.

What’s most ironic is that there’s already a federal department with the goal of cutting government waste and ensuring efficiency: the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The GAO’s main objectives are:

  • auditing agency operations to determine whether federal funds are being spent efficiently and effectively;
  • investigating allegations of illegal and improper activities;
  • reporting on how well government programs and policies are meeting their objectives;
  • performing policy analyses and outlining options for congressional consideration;
  • issuing legal decisions and opinions;
  • advising Congress and the heads of executive agencies about ways to make government more efficient and effective

It sounds similar to what Musk described when talking about his DOGE, but Trump hasn’t gone into many details other than it will “cut waste.”

He also has a confusing message as he compares the initiative, which is supposed to cut government spending, to “The Manhattan project”, a massive and expensive government project.

Trump said that DOGE will help the government “drive large scale structural reform”:

It will become, potentially, “The Manhattan Project” of our time. Republican politicians have dreamed about the objectives of “DOGE” for a very long time. To drive this kind of drastic change, the Department of Government Efficiency will provide advice and guidance from outside of Government, and will partner with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to drive large scale structural reform, and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before.

The statement also noted that DOGE will only operate until July 4, 2026.

Musk has previously claimed that he could cut at least $2 trillion dollars of the $6.5 trillion dollar US federal budget.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Oil could plunge to $40 in 2025 if OPEC unwinds voluntary production cuts, analysts say

Published

4 hours ago

on

November 13, 2024

By

Oil could plunge to in 2025 if OPEC unwinds voluntary production cuts, analysts say

A pump jack in Midland, Texas, US, on Thursday, Oct. 3, 2024. 

Anthony Prieto | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Oil prices may see a drastic fall in the event that oil alliance OPEC+ unwinds its existing output cuts, said market watchers who are predicting a bearish year ahead for crude.

“There is more fear about 2025’s oil prices than there has been since years — any year I can remember, since the Arab Spring,” said Tom Kloza, global head of energy analysis at OPIS, an oil price reporting agency.

“You could get down to $30 or $40 a barrel if OPEC unwound and didn’t have any kind of real agreement to rein in production. They’ve seen their market share really dwindle through the years,” Kloza added.

A decline to $40 a barrel would mean around a 40% erasure of current crude prices. Global benchmark Brent is currently trading at $72 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures are around $68 per barrel.

Stock Chart IconStock chart icon

hide content

Oil prices year-to-date

Given that oil demand growth next year probably won’t be much more than 1 million barrels a day, a full unwinding of OPEC+ supply cuts in 2025 would “undoubtedly see a very steep slide in crude prices, possibly toward $40 a barrel,” Henning Gloystein, head of energy, climate and resources at Eurasia Group, told CNBC. 

Similarly, MST Marquee’s senior energy analyst Saul Kavonic posited that should OPEC+ unwind cuts without regard to demand, it would “effectively amount to a price war over market share that could send oil to lows not seen since Covid.”

However, the alliance is more likely to opt for a gradual unwinding early next year, compared to a full scale and immediate one, the analysts said.

Should the producers group proceed with their production plan, the market surplus could nearly double.

Martoccia Francesco

Energy strategist at Citi

The oil cartel has been exercising discipline in maintaining its voluntary output cuts, to the point of extending them.

In September, OPEC+ postponed plans to begin gradually rolling back on the 2.2 million barrels per day of voluntary cuts by two months in an effort to stem the slide of oil prices. The 2.2 million bpd cut, which was implemented over the second and third quarters, had been due to expire at the end of September. 

At the start of this month, the oil cartel again decided to delay the planned oil output increase by another month to the end of December.

Oil prices have been weighed by a sluggish post-Covid recovery in demand from China, the world’s second-largest economy and leading crude oil importer. In its monthly report released Tuesday, OPEC lowered its 2025 global oil demand growth forecast from 1.6 million barrels per day to 1.5 million barrels per day.

The pressured prices were also conflagrated by a perceivably oversupplied market, especially as key oil producers outside the OPEC alliance like the U.S., Canada, Guyana and Brazil are also planning to add supply, Gloystein highlighted.

Bearish year ahead for oil

The market consensus is that there’ll be a “substantial” oil stock build next year, said Citibank energy strategist Martoccia Francesco.

“Should the producers group proceed with their production plan, the market surplus could nearly double… reaching as much as 1.6 million barrels per day,” said Francesco. 

Even if OPEC+ doesn’t unwind the cuts, the future ofl prices is still looking break. Citi analysts expect Brent price to average $60 per barrel next year.

Further fueling the bearish outlook is the incoming administration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, whose return is associated by some with a potential trade war, said analysts who spoke to CNBC.

“If we do get a trade war — and a lot of economists think that a trade war is possible, and particularly against China — we could see much, much lower prices,” said OPIS’ Kloza.

Trump has also touted a “drill baby drill” policy for U.S. producers, vowing to cut energy prices in half.

For that to happen to retail gasoline prices, oil would need to drop to “below $40” per barrel, said Matt Smith, Kpler’s lead oil analyst.

Right now, retail gasoline prices are at a “sweet spot” at $3 per gallon, where consumers do not feel the pinch and input prices are still sufficiently high for producers, Smith added.

Continue Reading

Trending