Americans spoke loud and clear about what they value sociopolitically and in a presidential candidate on election day

America spoke loud and clear the last 48 hours. The only winners were Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Donald Trump lost first and foremost, it looks like his presidency is all but over. The Democratic Party lost, considering a "blue wave" was expected to surge across the nation and that did not happen. This election was expected by analysts, pundits, and polls to be a runaway for Joe Biden, but it was anything but that. Joe Biden, a milquetoast centrist Democratic candidate who people like to mock, but no one actually hates, couldn't soundly defeat a candidate in Donald Trump who everyone absolutely loathes except his die-hard fans. If you're scoffing at this as a coincidence, a one-off, or purely circumstantial, then you haven't been paying attention. And if you're a Republican or Democrat, then you better hope your party of choice learns from their mistakes made during this election process, because there were many. The last year couldn't have been handled more poorly by both sides of the aisle. I'm going to break down what I think happened to each party, starting with the Democrats.

Roughly 70 million people voted for Donald Trump. He gained in every single demographic except for white males. He gained among minorities. He gained among the LGBTQ community. Donald Trump, a man considered by many to be a vile racist and bigot had the highest non-white GOP share since 1960. That is absolutely fascinating on so many levels. I saw a lot of people stating "This sadly tells us so much about the voters and how racist they are." No. If anything, this tells you much more about what the voters think of your candidate than what it tells you about the voters themselves. This tells you right off the bat that any narrative that all 70 million of his votes were obviously not from only his right wing conservative base. A lot of people voted for Donald Trump. I heard countless social commentators of all backgrounds say they are voting Republican for the first time in their lives. How could that be? Trump is the most hated president of my lifetime. There isn't a ton to hate about Biden, so shouldn't this vote have been a runaway for Biden?

The way things have played out tell me that the non die-hard conservative vote for Trump this year wasn't a vote for Trump but a vote against the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is scaring the hell out of many centrists(dead center, center-left, center-right), who always represent the majority of any electorate. There should be alarms going off in the head of every Democratic politician across the country right now about the message the American people are sending to you.

Americans are extremely pro-cop

 Credit to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, they did not promote much, if any, anti-cop rhetoric during their campaign. Joe Biden has a strong history of being tough on crime(maybe too tough) and the same applies to Harris. Joe Biden even said he wanted to increase funding for the police during one of his debates. However, they still belong to a party that are notoriously soft on crime. And right or wrong, Americans factor in not only the candidate when casting their vote, the party that candidate belongs to is also a significant factor. We saw rioters and looters destroy cities with impunity throughout 2020. We saw insurgents commandeer a section of a city in Seattle, dub it an "Autonomous Zone" and have the mayor joke about it like it was a fun little block party. Business owners were shaken down for money, drug use was rampant, people were assaulted, borders were installed to block out anybody they didn't want to enter freely in their own city, and most importantly people were murdered in its confines. Some of them teenagers.

In Portland, there has been rioting virtually every single night since May. Rioters smash businesses, set fires, beat up people who look at them wrong, and don't allow members of the press to record it so they can continue to commit these acts without repercussion. The District Attorney never presses charges and throws anyone arrested right back out on the street.

Those are just two cities. NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, LA have all experienced this to some varying levels throughout 2020. It has not stopped and has showed no signs of stopping any time soon. Their local leaders are not allowing law enforcement to use the type of force and tactics necessary to put an end to this. Citizens are scared. Business owners are distraught. People want law and order and are seeing Democratic cities overrun by social unrest and have grown tired of it. I can assure you many votes for Donald Trump were a big "F U" to the Democratic Party for allowing their cities to devolve the way they have. Not to mention pushing "defund the police" rhetoric by many Democrats that the far far FAR majority of Americans don't support. You only hear "defund the police" from the left side of the aisle, you never ever hear that from Republicans. In a country that loves law enforcement, including minorities who virtually all support cops(polls and surveys show), if you or your party promote any anti-cop agenda, you're going to lose votes. Period.

Americans do not like identity politics, extreme progressive ideologies, or "wokeness"

The Democratic Party has always been considered the "Progressive Party" and while I think many Americans support some progressive values, the extreme ones turn people off completely. 

• Americans don't want to be told that there are no differences between men and women. 
• Americans don't want to be told that men can get pregnant and get periods. 
• Americans don't want the above two things taught to their children at school.
  
• Americans don't want to be fired for doing an "okay sign" at their job.
• Americans don't want to be told that they're racist if they vote for a certain candidate.
• Americans don't want to be separated at work for training sessions based off skin color.
• Americans don't want to be sent to indoctrination sessions for their job to be told to disavow their ethnic identity and to atone for their skin color and write apology letters to people based on their identity.
• Americans don't want to be told if they question the teachings of certain religions or ideologies it makes them bad people.
• Americans don't want to be told that if they're straight and won't have sex with a trans person they're hateful.
• Americans don't want to have to state their name and say they're racist before entering university zoom sessions during a pandemic.
• Americans don't want to be called a traitor to their party or race if they listen to controversial figures on podcasts.
• Americans don't want to be told they aren't allowed to have opinions others find offensive.
• Americans don't want to be told they're evil for reading JK Rowling's books.
• Americans don't want to be told they're a bigot because they don't want trans men beating the pulp out of biological women in sporting events.
• Americans don't want to be told if they hold on for a second too long on a hug, they sexually harassed that person.
• Americans don't want statues of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln torn down or defaced.
  
• And Americans don't like being talked down to or preached to.

I'm an independent. I've voted Democrat more in my life than I've voted Republican, but I'm sorry, this nonsense only comes from the left these days. I don't like Donald Trump, but I gotta give him credit for one thing. He sniffed out this trend and went hardcore in on it during this election period. He wanted to become the "anti-woke" candidate, and it worked. Without that as part of his campaign, he likely would've have been routed. The Democrats have to understand that by promoting these extreme ideologies, they aren't pandering to their voters, they're pandering to a small slither of crazies on social media. Twitter and Facebook are NOT the majority. 96% of tweets come from 12% of Twitter's user base, and of that user base, that is only a tiny percentage of the American population. In future, Dems, distance yourself from wokeness and identity politics; and don't make half the country feel like they're evil "white supremacist Nazis" for believing certain things and voting certain ways, or I promise you it will cost you the election.

Don't nominate candidates older than 75 years old

Americans are foaming at the mouth for someone young and vibrant to take the presidential mantle. They don't want to have to worry about health issues, cognitive decline, archaic thinking on policy, and maybe most importantly that candidate not making it a full term and the VP becoming POTUS at some point. The Democrats have some young talent among their ranks like Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang. Get behind them, and let them carry you to victory.

Now, on to the Republicans. Just like the Democrats, you have no one to blame but yourselves for coming up short for the presidency. No, Trump isn't going to lose because the Democrats "stole the election" or anything like that. Are there some ballots here or there that got through as fraudulent? Probably. But time to look in the mirror. You lost because your president couldn't shut his goddamn mouth. He told lie after lie and Americans just grew tired of it. Just like this election could've been a blowout for Biden if the Democrats played their cards right, the came could be said for your side. Joe Biden excited no one. The voters who voted for Biden I guarantee you were turned off by the lawlessness and rioting and identity politics, but they just hated your candidate so much that they still couldn't vote for him. That's saying something.

• Diatribes on Twitter at at 1 am.
• Talking about how COVID is almost over, when it wasn't, and talking about how a vaccine is right around the corner when everyone knew it wasn't.
• Threatening to fire Dr. Fauci.
• Joking about being president for life. Even if that's a joke, you don't even unintentionally threaten the American system.
• Making every issue about him rather than about the people.
• Constantly playing victim. That likely cost him some conservative votes even, conservatives don't like victimhood at any level.
• And his general lack of professionalism on so many issues, like waging war with media people.

All Trump had to do was contain himself for a year and he'd likely have been re-elected because more people than you'd think support his policies. His anti Critical Race Theory policy was very popular, the economy was doing well before COVID, and crime across the country had been down. He brought peace agreements in the Middle East, which may or may not mean much years from now, but it looks good on a resume. Yet, he couldn't do it. Even with COVID and if he handled it better, he might have still won if he just shut his mouth. He could have focused on the fact that Biden and Harris detailed no elaborate plan to contain the virus other than "mask mandates" which is a general term, but he couldn't do it, and now he's going to blame it on a big conspiracy and throw a tantrum over it.

In the end, both parties should have learned a lot from this election process. Democrats need to understand that the American people want crackdowns on crime. Americans don't just want you to say looting is bad, they want you to stop it and stop it immediately. They don't want Critical Theory, wokeness, or identity politics in their institutions or in day to day life. They don't like being talked down to and told they are racists or bigots for believing certain things or thinking a certain way. For their sake, I hope they realize this for the next election or they will lose, because they won't have Donald Trump to pick apart next go around.

And Republicans: you're lucky that the whirlwind of the last several years under Trump will be behind you. Dust yourselves off, don't fuck up healthcare or Roe vs Wade, and you will have a better shot next time too.

As an independent, I hope both parties do the right corrections and nominate the best candidates next time, so we actually have two promising people to choose as our Commander in Chief. Look at yourselves in the mirror instead of blaming the people for why you didn't reach your goals. Dems, don't blame the lack of votes on "ToO mAnY rAcIsTs!!11!" and GOP, don't blame it on "ElEcTiOn FrAuD!11!" Choose better candidates, promote better ideals, and you'll gain the favor of the people. In the areas you fell short, you have no one to blame but yourselves.

Legal analysis on the death of Breonna Taylor. Did the grand jury get it wrong?

 The grand jury's decision today on the Breonna Taylor case has left a lot of people saddened, outraged, and disappointed. Did the grand jury make the right decision here? Is this a case of injustice? Before I get into all of that, a recap of the events that unfolded on March 13, 2020.

On the night of March 13, 2020, multiple officers showed up to the apartment of Breonna Taylor and Kenneth Walker with a search warrant(issued by a judge). I've seen as many reported as 6 officers on the scene, but the officers in question here who engaged in gunfire are Detective Brett Hankison, officer Jonathan Mattingly, and officer Myles Cosgrove. Essentially, it was believed to be a "drug house" by law enforcement. The individuals law enforcement were looking for are reported to be Jamarcus Glover and Adrian Walker, both of whom were not present in Taylor's apartment.

It was first reported that this was a "no-knock" warrant executed by law enforcement, which essentially means officers can just bust into your home at the drop of a hat without announcing themselves to conduct their search and/or make an arrest. The officers have since claimed that they did not execute a no-knock warrant and knocked and announced themselves before entering the premises. At least one witness corroborated this claim, though other neighbors claimed they did not hear this. Upon breaching the apartment, Mattingly, according to Attorney General Daniel Camerson, is the only one who actually entered the apartment. Kenneth Walker fired at him, likely thinking it was a home invasion, hitting him in the thigh. This was confirmed to be from Walker's firearm, as he had 9mm and the 3 officers all had .40 caliber handguns. All 3 officers then returned fire. Officers Cosgrove and Mattingly from the doorway, and detective Hankison from the patio and through the window. Breonna Taylor was killed in the gunfire. There were over 30 shots in total fired from the officers. Attorney General Cameron said Hankison fired 10 shots, Mattingly fired 6, and Cosgrove fired 16 shots. AG Cameron stated their investigation(likely a combination of ballistics and eye witness accounts) found  it was a shot from officer Cosgrove's gun that was the shot that killed Breonna Taylor.

Today the grand jury indicted Hankison on 3 counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree. Officer Mattingly and Cosgrove were not charged. Detective Hankison has long since been let go before being charged.

Okay, so this is a lot to unpack here. I'll start with this. There are questions that are most important in determining should more charges or more serious charges been handed down.

1. Did the officers commit any wrongdoing or commit a criminal act? If so, which?

2. Which officer or officers are responsible for Taylor's death?

3. Can it be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt to convince a jury?

As I've touched on before in several blog posts, this is criminal law we are talking about here. Not morality policing. As shitty of a situation as one is, the letter of the law must be upheld. One can't be arrested or charged based on what one thinks "should" happen morally. Criminality needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. So I'll start by addressing the first question. Did the officers commit wrongdoing or a criminal act?

The officers were there with a search warrant, which means they had legal right to enter the property even if the residents were opposed to it. A warrant is only issued by a judge when law enforcement establishes enough probable cause. Evidently, they did in this case to the judge's discretion. Once they entered the home and were fired upon, the officers legally have the right to return fire. As stated in many blog posts of mine, law enforcement can respond with lethal force if they have strong reason to believe their lives or the lives of civilians are in immediate danger. Being shot at(and struck) certainly qualifies. The question here is, were the responding shots too extreme and reckless?

Officer Mattingly and Cosgrove were in the doorway. Detective Hankison was outside near the window. Mattingly and Cosgrove reportedly return fire directly, the former firing 16 shots and the latter 6. 6-8 of those shots struck Walker and a reported 6 struck Taylor. AG Cameron stated that it was determined through their investigation that one of the bullets fired by Cosgrove was the fatal shot. I don't know the exact layout of the apartment, but being that an officer was fired on and struck, and at the time remember, the officers entering the apartment were entering it for a reason. They suspected it to be a drug house, potentially with drug dealers inside, I do not consider the amount of shots fired by Mattingly or Cosgrove excessive force. Their lives are in danger, one officer had already been struck. Their goal is to neutralize the target. Unfortunately and tragically, Taylor, an innocent bystander was killed by one of these rounds.

I do not believe Mattingly or Cosgrove committed any crimes here, and the grand jury made the right call not to indict. They had legal right to return fire. This was a horribly sad and tragic accident. There are no indications whatsoever they intended to kill Breonna Taylor or cause her any harm. Intent is everything when trying to prove murder.

Before I get to Hankison, I just want to do a rundown of Kentucky's murder laws. Kentucky has murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and reckless homicide.

To charge Mattingly or Cosgrove with any of these crimes they would either have to prove direct intent to kill Taylor and/or premeditation(Murder); an intent to kill without premeditation, in the heat of the moment(Voluntary Manslaughter); unintentionally killed Taylor while committing a criminal act(Involuntary Manslaughter); knew their acts were reckless and dangerous and didn't intend to kill, but the victim died anyway(Reckless Homicide).

The only one of these Mattingly and Cosgrove's actions would remotely fall under is reckless homicide, but being that an officer was struck and acting in self defense, they had right and precedent to respond with lethal force. They did not commit a criminal act, so involuntary manslaughter would not apply here. The other two, forget it. Remember, when charged, you have to convince a jury that these officers are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and any of these crimes committed here would be virtually impossible.

Now, to detective Hankison, the one who was actually charged with a crime here. Why was he charged and not the others? From listening to AG Cameron today and looking through the details of the case, they determined the extreme nature in which he fired into the apartment based on the position he was in(not in the doorway like the other two officers) was unjustified and reckless. Being that the investigation determined it was not one of his shots that killed Taylor, he was not charged with any murder offenses. He was determined to be guilty in acting recklessly and endangering the lives of others, and showed severe indifference to the well-being of others. Neighbors in nearby apartments were nearly shot by his actions, nearly killing them. Hankison was not in the doorway and he didn't have a clear view of the apartment. He fired recklessly through windows, not having a clear view of any potential targets. That is reckless policing and reckless use of potentially lethal force. The circumstance and positions the officers were in while firing shots into the apartment determine whether the use of force was justified. Being that Mattingly and Cosgrove were in the doorway and Mattingly had already been hit, I'm sure that was a major determining factor in the grand jury finding their actions were justified in comparison to Hankison. Also, Hankison's shots appeared more erratic in nature, and was essentially firing almost blindly into the apartment.

I know what question you're asking. "So, is that it? No one is held responsible for her death?" That's not entirely true, it depends on what you mean by "held responsible." Breonna Taylor's family was awarded a $12 million settlement with the city of Louisville. That settlement shows culpability in what happened to Breonna, as is shown in the settlement which was the largest ever handed out on behalf of the Louisville police. As for criminal charges? Unfortunately, this is probably going to be the end of it. Remember, a crime has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. I just don't see enough here based off the facts and circumstances to prove murder. The prosecution would have to prove that Hankison's gun is the one that killed Taylor, going against an investigation that already took place. Or if they want charges for Mattingly or Cosgrove they'd have to prove the offenses I outlined above. As it currently stands, I don't see any of the more severe charges having any chance of sticking. Trials are expensive and a DA would never sign off on it.

 This was a grand jury decision. A grand jury is presented with mounds of evidence and detail to take into consideration before making its decision. Typically, much more information than the public is privy to. The fact that a grand jury made this decision and not "the establishment" makes me feel even better about it, as tragic as the whole incident was. The fact that people are blaming a "corrupt system" on this decision, shows that people have already made up their minds on this issue long ago, think their feelings supersede that of a grand jury(who had all the evidence and facts at their disposal) or don't understand how the process works. It's an extreme shallow take on an issue that requires a lot of nuance and understanding. Grand juries are there to prevent corruption and tunnel vision, not to reinforce it.

Ultimately, I think this horribly sad story is not one of police brutality. It was a botched police raid that ended tragically. An innocent life was taken that did not have to be, but I do not believe that life was taken at the hands of a criminal act, by definition of the law. I think all that can be done is to push for quality reform(which I touch on in other blog posts) and Senator Rand Paul has already started that by introducing the 'Justice for Breonna Taylor' Act, which would ban no-knock warrants, which turns out according to AG Cameron didn't actually end up occurring in this case, but is a good start to prevent unnecessary death in future law enforcement raids, nonetheless.

My condolences go out to Breonna Taylor and her family. There are no winners here and it is a heartbreaking situation all around.

The top 20 most overrated players in pro sports

This list is entirely objective and accurate. If you disagree with it, you're wrong. On to it...

1. Ozzie Albies - a pencil bat that lacks home run power, a somewhat speedy base runner who doesn't drive in a lot of runs is considered by many for some insane reason as a "very good" 2nd baseman. He's average at best, he's purely a singles hitter, and when you want at a minimum extra base power out of that position, he doesn't bring a lot to the table. Only 8 total minor league home runs.

2. Mookie Betts - once compared to Ben Revere as a prospect, a short, but speedy outfielder who also lacks power, has been a product of the juiced baseballs(like many who will make this list). Under normal circumstances he's a .265/12/70 guy who just became one of the richest players in baseball. For what? Utter insanity.

3. Cody Bellinger - a guy no one had ever heard of before coming into the big leagues, was at no point a top 50 prospect. He posted very pedestrian minor league numbers, and has overachieved in the bigs due to the juiced baseballs. A guy without a position, as a poor defensive outfielder with a weak arm. Might be a future first baseman.

4. Jacob DeGrom - tabbed as a pitcher with a fastball that tops out at 92 as a prospect and a meticulous pitcher as a prospect, he suspiciously had a "velocity increase" in the major leagues. Sources have told me in the past, the Mets juice the radar gun during home games to inflate his velocity. He's good, but he's not great or dominant.

5. Jayson Tatum - a Bonzi Wells clone, he's a solid NBA player who has a ceiling of "good" who some pundits have absurdly put into the NBA's top 10 already. Shows you how much they know about basketball.

6. Trea Turner - Pronounced Trey-uh(Tre is spelled with no 'a') a defensive-centric shortshop, who comes from a long line of Nationals prospect busts, which finally had a broken trend with the impressive Soto. In fact, I was tempted to put the Nationals' farm system as a whole. Turner, Robles, Taylor... none of them can play.

7. Pete Alonso - a singles hitter in the minor leagues, has been another player aided by juiced baseball and potentially PEDs. He doesn't hit for average and relies on cheap home runs. Interesting stat: he has not hit a home run more than 400 feet in his young career to date.

8. Raine Prescott - a highly inaccurate passer, lacks a strong arm, has been unproductive without an elite offensive line and great receiving weapons.

9.Giannis Antetokounmpo - a career 24% field goal shooter outside of 8 feet, a player who is obviously very good, but proclaimed as "the best in his sport" cannot receive such accolades without winning at the highest level and diversifying his game.

10. Anthony Davis - a very skilled offensive player, who still can't shoot consistently from downtown, Davis' overratedness comes from the defensive side of the ball. A good weak side shotblocker, he doesn't have the body strength to hold up anyone with size or strength out of the paint and in the low post. Arguably the softest big man in the history of the NBA.

11. Michael Conforto - I honestly don't even think highly enough of him to put him on this list, but some people actually think he can play a little, and he's a utility outfielder, Aaron Altherr clone. He does not belong starting on any major league team.

12. Mike Soroka - he's not too overrated yet, because he only has one reason under his belt, but he's a low velocity pitcher who relies on contact to get outs and doesn't have strikeout stuff. Those pitchers are always inconsistent in the major leagues.

13. Rudy Gobert - a nothing offensively who is showing signs of wearing down defensively, he is a guy who will find himself out of the league within 4 years.

14. Stephen Strasburg - a pitcher who was heralded as the "second coming" has never been any more than a #3 starter at any point in his career. A mental midget who doesn't have the mental makeup to handle a big city, he seems right at home with a fan base that doesn't care or can even sell out playoff games.

15. Nikola Jokic - an oafy lumbering center who has offensive skills, but wears down late in games and can't play a lick of defense.

16. Max Muncy - a dude who was waived from the Oakland A's, he's been a product of juiced baseballs and PEDs. Not a single person on the planet knew who this guy was 3 years ago. No one.

17. Draymond Green - I hesitated putting him on this list, because I think people are starting to come to terms with just what this guy is, but he isn't an elite player, he never was. He's a jack of all trades type, who is a liability offensively and some think is a max level player.

18. Mike Stanton - a home run or bust player with no defensive skills whatsoever and a knack for being a horrible playoff and big moment choker, he is vastly overpaid and overrated.

19. Michael Thomas - a very good WR who is more of a product of his system than dominant. Would be productive everywhere, but he is not on the level of Julio Jones, DeAndre Hopkins, and other elite WRs in the NFL/

20. Marcus Peters - a horrible coverage guy who has already been traded twice. He inflates INT because he gambles and gets thrown at a lot because QBs don't respect him.

Legal analysis of the Kenosha shooting incidents

People always ask me whether I’m a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, and whenever I reply with “neither” they say “then what are you?” And I respond the same way: “A seeker of truths.”

When I see incidents like the shooting incidents in Kenosha, I only care about one thing: finding out what happened, who is responsible, and what the appropriate punishment should be. I don’t view these incidents or similar ones with any type of a tribal slant. So in this post I’m going to examine what we know so far, what can be discerned, and who is responsible, and what punishments should be handed out, analyzed from a legal perspective.

Jacob Blake:

According to the latest reports, the police were called to aid a woman who had reported a confrontation with an ex-boyfriend.  That man was Jacob Blake. This man reportedly had previously sexually assaulted her, she claims several times per reports, and he had a history of violent crime and a warrant out for his arrest. Latest reports state she told the officers how much she feared the man due to their history. The police arrived to intervene and place Blake under arrest. A scuffle broke out between Blake and the officers at some point, a failed attempt to taser him was made, and eventually he proceeded to retreat back to his car as officers pursued with guns drawn pointed directly at him. When Blake reached his car, he opened the door, an officer attempts to pull him back from entering the vehicle, and Blake begins climbing or into the driver’s side, an officer yells something at him, reaches around to the opening, and then fire a reported 7 shots into his back.

Officers are legally allowed to use lethal force if they feel their lives or the lives of civilians are in immediate danger. That doesn’t necessarily have to include a direct attempt of lethal force at the officer. That can include potential outcomes should lethal force by the officer not be used. For example, a civilian being asked to comply, refusing, and reaching into his pocket for an object. The reason for this is, if the officer does not act, the individual could pull out a firearm and kill or wound the officer, and hurt any nearby civilians. The officer’s job is to assess the situation and make the best call that protects his life, the life of any accompanying officers, and nearby civilians. This can, at times, lead to subjectivity, as the assessment on what constitutes a potential life and death situation is one’s own judgement. Generally, officers are trained to de-escalate, and attempt to subdue an individual in a non-violent way before resorting to lethal force.

In the case of Jacob Blake, more information needs to come out to make an official determination. Did he threaten the officers? If he said something like “I’m going to my car to get a gun” or he threatened to injure or kill the officers before opening his car door, then by the letter of the law, they could make a good case their lives or civilians were in danger and lethal force was justifiable. No one knows what Blake said, if anything as of yet.

If the situation played out as currently presented, with nothing said, and described above? That is a tougher call to make from a legal analysis perspective. Blake had a warrant out for his arrest. He has a record of violent acts. That factors in when officers asses the threat of danger in a situation. The question here is could the officers have subdued him in a non-violent way and place him under arrest? A case can be made both ways. They tried to subdue him on the ground previously, and tried to taser him, both which failed. There is an argument to be made that he should’ve been detained on the ground long before reaching his car, however that had already been attempted multiple times. Once, on the physical scuffle on the ground, a second with at least one shot from a taser, and a third trying to grab him and pull him back and preventing him from entering his vehicle. Perhaps another attempt would have been necessary. I personally think their multiple attempts would satisfy any investigating body as they adequately followed procedure before resorting to lethal force. One has to also wonder if the death of George Floyd being pinned on the ground had any impact on these officers’ willingness to subdue the subject on the ground.

Regardless, 7 shots feels like excessive force on the surface. Blake’s back was turned to them, and even if they believed he was reaching for a weapon, or had a chance to be(a knife was recovered) 7 shots may seem extreme to many. However, if they reached the point to where they determined lethal force is justified, they are to do whatever is necessary to neutralize the individual and prevent him from harming them or others. Whether that is one shot or 7 shots. For example, to many, one shot would not be considered "excessive" but one shot to the head can easily be more lethal than 7 shots to the torso. In a matter of a few seconds, the officers have to assess the threat level, if they allow him to get into that car, what is the risk someone else, or them could wind or dead or severely harmed. What if he had a gun in the car? If he is allowed to retrieve a firearm, the lives of the officers and anyone nearby would be extreme danger. Given that he already has a warrant out for his arrest, the more trouble he gets himself into, the less he has to lose, given that jail time is already likely a given.  Given his history of violent crime, the fact that they were in a blind spot and couldn't see into the car, the fact that there were several innocent bystanders in the immediate area, and the fact that there were children in the car; having gone over this incident for several days now, I lean toward them making the right call here in the brief number of seconds they have once he opens that car door and tries to enter.

It is a lean for me right now, it is not a slam dunk. This isn't an armed man with an assault rifle coming out from a bank shooting everything in sight and officers needing to take him down without a second thought. Keep in mind that since he had a warrant for his arrest and they were there to arrest him, had they let him get into the car, the situation would have turned into a vehicle pursuit and potential high speed chase to arrest this man... with children in the car. The biggest question overall to me is not were 7 shots excessive, it's could they have peacefully and restrained him prior to reaching his car without using lethal force?

Legally, this is a somewhat difficult call. This will be a tough one to charge the officers with, and in a court of law would be tough to convict. I think the prosecution and defense could both make strong arguments. The defense could argue that there is a man who has a warrant out for his arrest, already resisted arrest, subduing him had failed, he had a history of violent acts, and tried to enter a vehicle creating a blind spot for the officers. The prosecution could argue that they had him outnumbered, could have found a way to subdue him in a non violent manner, and used lethal force irresponsibly.

Regardless, I think anyone who thinks this is a clear cut case one way or another is not viewing this in an objective way. I don’t believe there is enough information to determine either way as we currently stand, and even as currently presented, there are arguments to be made both in support or against the officers from a legal perspective. The question here is legality, not morality. They stand independent in a court of law, and any charge and prosecution has to prove they broke the letter of the law. Unfortunately, there is no body cam footage, which would’ve provided more evidence, and they definitely should have been on. It would have helped clarify some unknowns one way or the other in this case. I will continue to update as more information becomes available. But as of now, again, I do lean that this was a justifiable use of lethal force. Of course he survived, so this is technically attempted lethal force I guess, though the intent when firing that many shots is certainly to shoot to kill.

Lastly, in case you were wondering, yes, with the warrant out for his arrest, the officers there are obligated to place him under arrest. If not, anyone who could potentially be harmed that day by him would be the responsibility of the police department for not doing their job, and the families of anyone he potentially would’ve hurt could sue the department for untold millions in damages.

Kyle Rittenhouse:

Early information indicates that Kyle Rittenhouse traveled from Illinois to Wisconsin with an AR-15 with the intention of protecting public property that was being vandalized and looted. At some point a confrontation with protestors and/or rioters broke out, an individual chased and threw something at Rittenhouse, he turned around and fired on the individual, hitting him in the head and killing him. After this, nearby people gave chase to Rittenhouse as he fled the area, he was eventually struck with a skateboard, fell to the ground and shot two more individuals, killing one and wounding the other. He was ultimately charged with first degree murder.

First of all, a 17 year old kid is not of legal age to open carry a gun in the states of Illinois and Wisconsin, so that is breaking the law right there, and traveling across state lines with a firearm to defend property that isn’t yours is a no-no, and likely was going to lead to something bad. Do I know what his true intent was? No. No one does. Anyone who suggests they do has an agenda. Maybe he was an immature ramped up teenage kid who wanted to see some action. Maybe he truly just did want to do good. I saw a video of him requesting to offer medical aid on someone who was injured, before the shootings took place. Who knows if that was anecdotal or not. Vigilante justice is not ok. He was not a sworn officer or owner of said property, he doesn’t have the legal authority to protect another's property with deadly force, nor is he of legal age to openly carry a firearm to do it even if it were. He does however have the right to act in self defense if his life was in danger. Was his life in danger? Just like the Jacob Blake case, there is a lot we still don’t know. What happened outside of the recorded footage?  Was he threatened to be killed? Was a gun pointed at him during any of the shootings? All 3 individuals shot had criminal records. Two of them some forms of violent crime and another was a registered sex offender. Yes, this matters, in a different way than the Jacob Blake case. It shows a predisposition to criminality. This was of no significance to Rittenhouse, as he didn’t know these individuals, but it could be used in a court of law to argue that these men could’ve very well had nefarious intent to harm this man, given that they had a criminal background, even if he didn’t know their history.

The biggest question here is, did he act in self defense or did he perpetuate the violence? No one can adequately answer that at the moment until more evidence is gathered. The first shooting is far more important than the other two, as that is the one that sparked the sequence of events, and is more questionable with the currently presented evidence as to whether or not it qualifies as self defense. Remove the first shooting, and being chased by a mob of people and subsequently attacked would qualify for self defense in most situations. As it currently stands, it’s very tricky, just like with the Jacob Blake case. Does chasing someone and throwing a flaming object at them give cause to feeling one’s life is in danger? The jury would have to make that call. The defense could argue that people have been shot and killed in other riots and protests across the country, so an individual being chased with an object has cause to fear for his life. The prosecution could argue that throwing an object that didn’t hit him does not qualify as grounds to defend yourself in a lethal manner, and if he could’ve kept running, he would’ve likely been free of any immediate extreme danger.

The first degree murder charge is going to be a tough one to sell in court. They have to prove intent to kill or premeditation. One could argue traveling across state lines with a gun to join a protest/riot is premeditation. Others could argue that he didn’t shoot anyone until chased, attack, or provoked, thus there is no clear sign of any premeditation or direct intent to kill. I personally think any good defense team would be able to convince a jury this was not first degree murder with the current evidence provided. If anything, second degree would have a much stronger case, and even then with an argument of self defense, it would not be a slam dunk.

Personal thoughts:

At a time like the present, sowing division and discord through propaganda is the last thing this country needs. To see journalists and news outlets cast Rittenhouse as a “white supremacist” when there has been no evidence of such and even the Anti Defamation League says through examining his social media they’fe found no evidence of radicalization is both irresponsible and divisive. It’s pushing an agenda to create a narrative that doesn’t exist.

The people most responsible for these events and ongoing madness in other cities are at the top. Our nation’s governors and mayors are not doing enough to quell violence and destruction and keep their citizens safe. They’re mandating law enforcement hold back and creating a culture of lawlessness. The only thing proven to ever come from lawlessness since the beginning of time is death, destruction, and chaos. And that’s exactly what you’re seeing in these cities. Several people were killed in the confines of Chaz earlier this year, and already at least 2 people have been killed in Kenosha. Dozens have been injured in Seattle and Portland. This is futile leadership. And we need strength at a time like this. We need crackdowns and we need them yesterday, or more innocent lives are going to be lost.

Did either of these people deserve to die or be severely wounded? No. Few people deserve to die. The question here is were the actions legally justified or not. As it currently stands, I believe there are strong cases for either side of these incidents, and that isn’t always the case. Until more information comes out, and don’t know the full story, it’s impossible to speak in absolutes. Unfortunately, many people have already made up their mind about these cases. Emotionally driven by social media video, which neither provides context or a full story. Through emotion, logic is lost, and we need thinking right now more than ever.

In the fight for justice, Americans must be careful not to destroy progress

As a society, in the realm of crime, we strive for progress, because we understand perfection can never be achieved. Murder, rape, robberies, child abuse, etc... we do our best to ensure crimes like these never take place, but accept that unless you can cure evil, you can never cure violent crime.

Just like violent crime can never be cured, neither can police brutality. As long as evil exists in this world and people openly carry weapons of death, there will be lives lost that didn't need to be. It's impossible to completely eradicate just like any other act of violence. The goal is progress. Continued progress. Charging bad officers when they commit wrongdoing and hoping that the prosecution and juries do their job in the court of law to hold them accountable. Training officers better so poor decision-making is less frequent, and giving greater punishments out so there is a far greater deterrence on any officer acting inappropriately. Advancing toward a place in society our citizens can be proud of. If you read social media and listen to news reports across the country you'd believe progress hasn't been made at all. You'd think that both police brutality and violent crime are worse now than ever before. Many people do believe this.

In a recent poll, 56% of Americans surveyed said gun crimes in the United States are the highest they've ever been. Being inundated with videos on social media and network news pumping it into your pores, it makes sense many would feel that way. However, perception is not reality. The reality is, that couldn't be further from the truth. Gun crimes in the United States peaked way back in 1993. Crime in America has been on a steady decline since the mid 90's. In fact, the 2010 decade(2010-2019) is the best decade in recorded American history(dating back to 1960) in terms of homicide rate per capita. Yes, believe it or not, there were less homicides per 100,000 people between 2010-2019 than there were between 1960-1969. For total crimes per capita it was the 2nd best decade since 1960.

Visual news is more impactful than reading text. When people are hit with a constant barrage of the worst our country has to offer, their perceptions are distorted. People are always going to be more passionate about news video than they are reading a story or hearing it on the radio. So when every few weeks a new video of police brutality hits social media, it's only natural for people to believe that it has gotten out of control and is worse than it has ever been. When in reality, just like people believing recent gun crime is the worst it has ever been, the perception on police brutality couldn't be farther from the truth.

2019 marked the best year in 3 decades for unarmed African American citizens being killed by police officers. About half of them were deemed justifiable, as in an officer's life or the lives of civilians were in immediate danger. Regardless of those determinations or the subjectivity, and whether those were right or wrong, even factoring in the whole number(15) that is a 61% decrease from 2015(38). That is 15 in millions of police interactions with civilians that year. Decreasing any plague on society by 61% is, in my opinion, significant progress. Imagine if in 5 years we cut the number of rapes in America by 61%. Or cut the number of child abuse cases by 61%. This would be celebrated news and politicians and lawmakers everywhere would be praised for the progress they've made. Any innocent life lost is unacceptable, but we have to start somewhere. 2019 felt like a great starting point for tangible and noticeable change.

How come the recognition of improvement doesn't happen for police brutality? For one, as long as when the acts do occur and they're caught on video, emotions will always be rawer and realer. It's hard just to forget something and rationalize it with objectivity when you've seen something so traumatizing and horrific. People are in pain, and during times of strife, the last thing people want to do is think statistically or through data. It's understandable. If someone murdered a loved one of mine, I'd want to kill that person, despite the reasonable thing to do being waiting for law enforcement and the courts to handle it. The other part of this are the news media. They're a business, and just like any other business it's their job to drive ratings and create buzz. Outrage has been proven to generate more views and clicks, and nothing right now is a more hot button issue in society than police brutality. They are sowing division and discord in the name of their bottom line. Don't expect objectivity and nuance from any news network, regardless of your political leanings. Whiteblowers have confirmed that agencies will push whatever the agendas of the higher-ups are of those networks, and those reporting have no choice but to comply or be fired from their jobs. I've learned that years ago, it's why I stopped watching news altogether, and do my own research. It's more time-consuming, but at least I know I'm getting correct information.

This emotion and outrage has manifested into a call to defund police departments across the country. These calls range anywhere from just taking some money away and pumping it back into the communities, to "total abolishing" of both law enforcement and prisons. Regardless of your preferred approach, and how you phrase it, one truth remains a constant: if your goal is progress, and you want actual tangible and noticeable change both in crime in America and in police brutality, there is only one approach that has consistently worked consistently in America--increased funding for police departments.

In the 1990's, when violent crime in America reached its peak, there was a nationwide effort to get crime under control. In the mid 90's sparked a major funding campaign to provide more for police departments around the country, and hire an influx of officers. The result? The first decline in crime in 35 years. Crime started to rise in the United States in the 60's and didn't start to hit steady decline until 1995. Crackdowns, increased funding, more officers, better technology, new specialized units all contributed to this. That is progress.

In the 2010's after some high profile police violence cases sparked national and global outrage, police reform started. Body cams became more commonplace, departments started to increase community relations training, and hold more officers accountable for wrongdoing. The result lead to the previously-mentioned 3 decade low in unarmed black citizens being killed by cops and not just black citizens either. Police brutality across the board was making significant strides. More bad officers were prosecuted than ever before. Significant progress was finally being made, through proper funding and reform. Ideally, we'd all like these problems to go away overnight, but finally there were signs of meaningful progress. Imagine where we could be in a handful of years if we had stayed on that course. Maybe we could have gotten the numbers into single digits. One can dream, can't I?

Just like anything else in this world, to build it better, money needs to be put into it. To improve your home, business, car, school, it needs funding. Defunding police departments is a punishment, not a solution. It's akin to banning your child from eating junk food for a week after you caught him stealing chocolates from the cupboard after dinner. Except, in the case of defunding the police, it's much closer to banning your child from eating entirely. That isn't going to get your child to stop stealing junk food. It'll just make them hungry and more desperate to do it more. You'd be making it more difficult for over 800,000 officers to do their jobs to the utmost effectiveness for the crimes of less than 1% of them.

It comes down to one simple question: what is your goal? Do you want to lower crime? Do you want to decrease the amount of bad cops in our nation's departments? Do you want to lower police brutality? Then you need a practical and rational solution, not an emotional one. Funding is the one stream that allows departments to improve to achieve these goals. Things like better training, better technology, better pay for officers to attract more people to the job, higher morale, specialty units that can divvy up responsibility, and mental health care for our officers, and effective reform. All of these things require money, and if you want things to improve, these areas need advancements. We've all seen the steep rise in crime in cities that have removed specialty units and decreased funding. We've seen businesses start to relocate from some of these cities. All of this has the potential to lead to long-term damage to these cities. Not just in the form of crime, but poverty, and as desperation increases, typically does drug use and gang activity to capitalize on the drug demand.

Taking away some funds to put back into the community sounds thoughtful and logical, but it has never been proven to work effectively in terms of crime. Our nation's major cities have had millions of dollars pumped into them many times over the decades. Those dollars are typically wasted, as it's attempting to treat the outcome, not the source. The end result is the same cities today are impoverished that were decades ago. Parts of Philly, Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, LA, NYC have been riddled with impoverished neighborhoods for as long as I've been alive and many of those cities had money invested in them. It's not until crime is lowered that neighborhoods can reach sustainable improvement long-term. There is no cure-all for these major cities, but they can be improved. Completely wiping out crime and poverty in these cities is about as realistic as wiping out viruses and bacteria. There's too much of it and too many causes to totally eradicate it. It can, however, be lessened. The only solution proven to consistently work long-term in this regard is increased funding of the police departments. Increased funding leads to more officers on the streets, which leads to less crime, which leads to more businesses moving into these neighborhoods, which leads to property value and revenue streams increasing.

We've seen the improvements to parts of Camden, which started with a rebuilding of its police department by the county sheriff's office taking over, providing better funding, more officers, and better training. The result was decrease in crime, safer neighborhoods, and the construction of the Camden Waterfront, which even has the Philadelphia 76ers taking their practice facility to its confines. Just here in Philly, we've seen parts of the city like Fishtown improve greatly over the last decade as crime has decreased. You would be hard-pressed to find any major city that thrived long-term with decreases in police funding. It doesn't happen. You may be able to get away with it in some small South Dakota town that has about 120 people, gets one homicide every 5 years, and officers spend their days escorting the elderly across major intersections. Good luck getting away with it in major cities. We're seeing the results this year with defunding as crime rises. We saw the results in the other direction in the mid 90's when crime finally lowered after 30 years with better funding.

We know what works. History and data show will always be there to show us this. We need to be vigilant and logical, not emotional in our decision-making... as difficult as that is during these times. I, like everyone else, just want violence decrease as much as possible. Whether it be from civilian or police officer. We were well on the way to making significant long-term progress in 2019, and I fear all of that has been thrown off the rails. Cities are burning, departments are being defunded, cops are resigning, crime is rising, and civil division grows ever wider. We must fight for justice without destroying progress. We must not punish hundreds of thousands of officers for the actions of the few, or the end result will be the suffering of more civilians. It's a lose-lose. Those in charge of spreading and reporting news need to be more responsible in the messages they deliver and the data they withhold. If not, we could find ourselves down a slope, which could take us right back to the way things were in the 90's. Rampant crime, bitter and jaded cops with no morale, police brutality on the rise, and neighborhoods unsafe for our families in children. That's not the country want to live in and I don't think it's one you want to live in either.

I hate the Philadelphia 76ers

I hate the Philadelphia 76ers. Not the brand or the logo, that I'll always love. I hate this iteration of the franchise. The 76ers led by Joshua Harris, David Blitzer, Scott O'Neil, Brett Brown, Elton Brand, and Bryan Colangelo's staffers who are somehow still hanging around.

I hate that Joshua Harris allowed Adam Silver to make him force out Sam Hinkie when the Sixers broke no rules and did nothing wrong.

I hate how Harris allowed Jerry Colangelo to hire his incompetent son as GM.

I hate how Bryan Colangelo said he would bring credibility and connections to the front office and they couldn't lure any big name players to the organization.

I hate how they rushed their rebuild because they got tired of sticking with a plan they chose to enact in the first place.

I hate how they sell 2nd round picks every year.

I hate how they traded up for Markelle Fultz.

I hate how they forced Hinkie into drafting Jahlil Okafor.

I hate how every single year they always botch an injury situation with one of their key players.

I hate how they allowed Joel Embiid to play a game with a bone bruise and meniscus tear because it was on national TV.

I hate how they got a once in a lifetime mulligan from the sports gods in BurnerGate, and instead of using that gift to right a wrong, they waited 2 months to hire a GM, went into the draft and free agency without a GM, and then hired a dude from the Delaware Blue Coats with zero NBA GM experience... when they had the most coveted GM job in sports.

I hate how they took Zhaire Smith(or Bridges) over Michael Porter Jr. and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander.

I hate how they arrogantly allowed themselves to wait for LeBron James in free agency 2018 when the basketball world knew he was going to sign with the Lakers.

I hate how they overpaid in trade compensation for Tobias Harris, to give them the rights to have to overpay him monetarily in the summer of 2019.

I hate how they gave a declining big man who is a backup center a mega contract.

I hate how they traded for Jimmy Butler, who was their best scorer and shot creator from the guard/wing position since Allen Iverson, only to not want to bring him back after coming one bucket away from beating the NBA champion Toronto Raptors.

I hate how they decided to build a 90's era roster with no shooting or shot creation in the summer of 2019.

I hate how they always get duped by Danny Ainge in trades no matter who is GM.

I hate how they always manage to find a way to alienate their best player.

I hate how Joshua Harris also owns the New Jersey Devils.

I hate how Joshua Harris talks.

I hate the way Joshua Harris looks.

I hate Scott O'Neil's stupid overly gelled hair style.

I hate how they always made Brett Brown answer for the injury situations instead of sending front office people out there to do it.

I hate how they got rid of the red Sixers jerseys alternates they introduced a handful of years ago.

I hate how they blew confetti prematurely like a bunch of amateurs against the Celtics.

But here's what I hate most of all. When most parents raise their children, they teach us to hate the usual stuff. Rapists, murderers, child abusers, etc. One thing parents never think to teach their children is that the people in our lives who we are likely going to hate most of all are the ones who break our heart. The ones who hurt us. We can talk about how much we hate people we don't know, but true genuine hatred is spawned from emotion only a personal connection can generate.

Most of all I hate that the Sixers betrayed me. Not me, the person, me the fan. The Sixers were my first love. I wanted to see an NBA championship for most of my life even more than an Eagles Super Bowl. There wasn't a single time in my entire life where I ever felt the Sixers were going to win a championship. Even in 2001, I think most fans knew they weren't going to beat the Lakers. Sure, we had our moment in game 1, but that didn't last long. 2019 was the closest the Sixers ever got. I truly believe if they had beaten the Raptors, they'd have gone to the Finals and possibly won. All they had to do was run it back and they'd have had a great chance to do it again in 2020. Instead, they decided to go in another direction. The wrong direction. And they completely boxed themselves into a corner that's almost impossible to get out of.

The Sixers have no cap room, they have no assets, they have no elite young talent they can flip in a package for a superstar. They have no draft picks. Most importantly though, they have neither the owner nor the GM to acquire those things and figure it out. What the Sixers did was rob me, and every other fan of a chance at a championship. A feat fans have waited close to 40 years for, and through several years of tanking and horrible basketball only to squander in a couple years everything they built. They stole my love from the game from me, and they stole any desire I had to watch something I love. They broke my heart and ruined my first sporting love. Yeah, I hate the Celtics, and the Lakers. I hate the Cowboys and the Giants. But none of those teams ever broke my heart. They have annoyed the shit out of me and nagged me, but never hurt me. The Sixers hurt me. They ripped my heart out. And I'll never forgive them. At least not under this ownership, and I absolutely hate them for it.

I don't think aliens ever came to earth and why I doubt they ever will

Following the Pentagon's declassification of videos revealing unknown flying objects, speculation has run rampant on whether or not alien life is indeed out there, and if aliens have ever came to planet earth. Following that up with intel which suggests future reveals may show materials found that are "not of this planet" and the madness has caused everyone's collective minds to run wild.

I will never dismiss the idea that aliens have been on planet earth or that UFOs were truly alien spacecrafts. However, I think it's unlikely, and I'll detail why I don't think it's likely aliens have ever been to planet earth and why I feel it's also likely they never will(if they are out there in the cosmos).

First off, scientists estimate that 95% of the observable universe is unreachable from planet earth and vice versa. The reason for this is because the universe is expanding. The farther space is from a given point, the faster it expands from that point. Get far enough from that point in space and it expands faster than the speed of light. As we currently stand, no form of matter can travel faster than the speed of light. However, space is not matter. Space does not follow the rules of matter. Space can expand as fast as it chooses to. So, based off this knowledge, scientists have estimated that 95% of the universe is unreachable from earth even if you could somehow impossibly reach the speed of light in space travel. It would be like driving a race car at 100 mph while the finish line is moving away from you at 150 mph. You will never be able to reach that finish line, and it will just increase its distance from you.

Factoring this in, I'm going to immediately remove 95% of the observable universe out of the equation. That leaves only 5% of that universe left with the potential for alien life that could find earth, lowering the likelihood right off the top. Now, let's try and get into the minds of an alien race. For starters, I think it's reasonable to assume that any alien species with the capability to reach distant planets possesses much greater technology than we humans have. With that assumption, if you are an alien race advanced enough to travel to distant planets and galaxies, hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of light years away, wouldn't it make more logical sense to travel to a planet that could help advance you as a species than one which is behind you technologically?

Some may argue that humans are interesting creatures and we would be interesting to observe and study as a species to aliens. Let's explore that logic. As a comparison, if humans could travel to distant planets right now, would you want to travel to a planet that may have the key to extending human life, curing cancer, teaching us teleportation... or would you want to travel to a planet with dinosaur-like creatures to merely observe and then trek all the way across endless space back to your home planet? An advances species will almost assuredly prioritize logic and efficiency in anything they do, and any plan of travel through the universe is a safe bet to have something of significance gained for that species.

Others have speculated about sliens coming here and targeting our natural resources. Yes, planet earth is rich in resources. We have planet full of water and minerals. So does basically everywhere else in the universe, and hell, even our very own solar system. If aliens wanted to scour the universe for natural resources, they need only go to Jupiter's moon Europa which is believed to be rich in water, an infinite number of comets floating aimlessly out there, which also contain water. If it's minerals the aliens might want, the Kuiper Belt is full of asteroids far more rich in minerals than our planet. Oh, and they can do it without having to exterminate billions of living beings and engaging in planetary warfare with earth to boot.

So, we've eliminated the likelihood of specifically targeting earth for resources and for observation or advancement. What about accidentally stumbling upon earth during their travels? This I find the most unlikely of all. The possibility that a spacecraft would be traveling through a virtually infinite space and accidentally just finding earth is less likely than you finding one specific grain of sand in the entire Sahara Desert.

In general, I don't think our species or planet would have very much to offer an alien species that other planets and potentially living species can't. And it's an incredibly long way to travel for organisms that would likely want to be as efficient as possible. In fact, because of this, I think the most likely scenario if aliens do ever reach earth is doing so in the form of an advanced machine and artificial intelligence. Think about it. If you have the technology to travel insane distances and to other galaxies, you almost definitely have the technology to build advanced machines who can think, deduce, operate spacecrafts, interpret language, and communicate for them. Hell, we are well on our way of doing that and we haven't even landed humans on Mars yet. If you're going to be wasting ridiculously long periods of time in space travel, have machines, which can theoretically live forever, do it for you, while the living organisms can spend their time doing far more important things.

If one day we do, finally, do get a confirmed indisputable UFO landing on earth's soil for all to see, expect that what steps out of the cockpit isn't a big-headed, big-eyed looking freak; or massive creatures with long faces, sharp teeth, long spear-like tails that bleed acid. Expect advanced machines to step out, and probably greet us kindly, as any advanced species would know that no reasonable communication is made through hostility. Hell, they may even look like us, at least on the outside, to make us less fearful of them.