lol cops execute black people all the time for starting to drive away from the scene and call it use of a deadly weapon because it was in gear. major props to the officer on the scene for not emptying his firearm through the front windshield, but it's hard to imagine this going down exactly the same way if the suspect was a 20-something black male. especially in gastonia
i don't think the nfl is actively deciding that these actions are equivalent. the penalty probably encompasses a wide variety of offenses and penalizes them uniformly, regardless of where on the scale of bad to awful the offense actually falls. maybe the nfl should review that policy though.
one of the (perhaps unintentional) results of the southern strategy was the courting a fundamentalist evangelical bloc that prior to the 1980s had very little expression politically. combined with a post-vietnam malaise that he reached critical mass by the time reagan took office, it helped spark a religious and patriotic fervor in the 1980s as a backlash to everything that'd come out of the 60s: social upheaval, sexual immorality, post-nationalism. crusaders from lynn cheney to ronald reagan demanded returns to an older image of america, and as part of this crusade they appealed to the evangelical base and integrated them into the GOP constituency. they haven't looked back since, and the explosion of evangelical affiliation (the church is growing, not dying, contrary to popular beliefs) has led to an increased presence in the voting power of fundamentalist christians, as seen with the rise of the tea party, a movement that aligns itself with theologies and doctrines that insist its political values are scriptural. in turn, the movement itself (and its kin movements) help inform the nature of religious belief in an ever-evolving, symbiotic relationship. there's no other way to explain someone as patently dumb as ben carson developing such deep base of supporters. no breadth, just depth. barry goldwater was right.
the one thing you've posted in this entire exchange that matters is that coverages can be a combination of both man and zone coverage, so they're not mutually exclusive. but i never suggested anything to the contrary. whether the linebackers are in zone or man isn't as relevant as what the corners are doing, and a safety dropping into the box can also indicate a cover one, which is a combination of man and zone, with the corners and box safety playing man and a deep safety and the linebackers playing in zones. here is a source on how safeties can be used to disguise cover three as a cover one: http://www.catscratchreader.com/2012/8/11/3234761/how-to-read-coverages-pre-snap-and-post-snap here is a source on diagnostics of cover one. here is a good introductory article on cover three for dumbasses. by reading it, you will learn that cover three zones are often diagnosed by the presence of a high free safety and a strong safety closer to the line of scrimmage. dropping the free safety into the box is not a feature of the cover three, or any zone defense, but it is definitely a hallmark of the cover one, which is primarily man-to-man. here's another nice source that breaks down coverage disguises using safety position near the LOS to make a cover three look like man coverage, and the schematic breakdowns pre-snap and post-snap are identical to the one run on the play in question. additionally, here is a source on how dropping a safety in the box can be read as a blitz with an OLB dropping into coverage (basically a cover one safety blitz) and while the play call is actually a cover two or cover three, telegraphed at the last second by the safety's retreat. here's another one just for the hell of it.
jackson goes into motion before the snap dumbass. and yes, based on the nickel defense and positions on the right wing of the formation the free safety's position near the LOS across from the back could indicate man coverage.
once again, i said that six hours ago, well before you started shitposting in this thread
i am not crediting coleman for the interception, i'm crediting coleman's versatility for better selling the coverage disguise, which helps lead into coverage misreads, which result in interceptions, like the play highlighted in the original post. i can't possibly be more clear about this, and you couldn't possibly be more inept at reading words and meaning. quit posting unless you have something useful to say