Why is the NFL committing suicide?

Can we all just go back to discussing Jaylon's nerve, or Jonathan Cooper's talent, or Zeke's legal case, or Dak's accuracy issues?

We have all these "Zones". Why not a Protest Zone?

By the way, one zoner has called another a racist... actually several times... but I can't type a couple cuss words...
Hell, I once called Garrett a ginger version of Mike Tomlin, and got benched!?! But now we can personally attack
others on a board that is supposed to unite us as fans of the same team. Total anarchy in the Zone.. lol.. smh.

MichaelWinicki said:

And why would it matter if I do or do not care?

Click to expand...

Are you asking me?

Gosh, if you don't know why it matters, how could I?

FuzzyLumpkins said:

The issue that Kaepernick has raised is not that there are racist cops. His issue has been that organizations and institutions enable and excuse bad cops preventing a solution. He's right.

Click to expand...

FuzzyLumpkins said:

Rice was charged with assault and had to deal with both the US justice system and the NFL's punishment. Carruth is still in jail.

Meanwhile cops avoid similar scrutiny. They get investigated and prosecuted by their friends and coworkers. They enjoy dozens of extra protections in being investigated and prosecuted that Rice Carruth nor Ray Rice nor any other citizen enjoys. They can break procedure, policy, and training, kill you and get off by saying they were scared. They can seize your property and keep it without a trial or conviction.

Click to expand...

It's hard to discuss issues with folks who are ignorant and uninformed so I won't even try. But by many of your comments in this thread, I can tell you that you have no clue about what your talking about. The most scrutinized profession today is that of a law enforcement officer. From the time a person applies, to a routine background check, a credit check, the psychological screening and, in many cases, a polygraph exam. Then, when they are hired, there's a myriad of policies and guidelines they must follow. A violation of these policies can ultimately lead to dismissal.

Then you talk about cops being "investigated and prosecuted" by their friends and co-workers. You lack any understanding of the criminal justice system or how the courts operate so you form your opinions on complete fallacies. I have come to read your posts for the entertainment and comedy value they offer and not for their substance.

Hoofbite said:

1. Who says there is no outcry? Don't see it on the news so it doesn't happen, right?

2. Why is this question such a staple of the discussion? Does it really need to be spelled out? Criminals will do criminal things. Violent people will commit violent acts, regardless of race. Are we not supposed to hold public servants to a higher standard than violent street criminals? This question is such a diversion and is so damned lame it's nearly laughable that people think it's a legitimate talking point. Yes, black-on-black crime is problematic. Yes, it is more prevalent than police violence. That doesn't mean that it should receive equal attention because there is little you can do to counteract criminal behavior aside from imprisoning people after the fact. Police violence shouldn't exist AT ALL and there is much we can do to curb police violence. While I'm no expert, I'd bet the farm that the psychology behind each type of violence is so far removed from the other that it's not even funny.

It's just absurd. Almost like people can't distinguish between criminals, and civil servants who have sworn to uphold the law and protect and serve. Reassess your expectations of both parties and you'll answer your own question.

Click to expand...

Don't think so Hoof.

FuzzyLumpkins said:

The outcry against violence in Milwaukee and Chicago has been widespread for years now. There have been rallies and meetings in both locations over the issue.

I like the philanderer and family deserter stereotype.

Click to expand...

I thought you may.

FuzzyLumpkins said:

I like the philanderer and family deserter stereotype.

Click to expand...

FYI- according to census data, 72% of black children are raised in single family households.

RoboQB said:

Can we all just go back to discussing Jaylon's nerve, or Jonathan Cooper's talent, or Zeke's legal case, or Dak's accuracy issues?

We have all these "Zones". Why not a Protest Zone?

By the way, one zoner has called another a racist... actually several times... but I can't type a couple cuss words...
Hell, I once called Garrett a ginger version of Mike Tomlin, and got benched!?! But now we can personally attack
others on a board that is supposed to unite us as fans of the same team. Total anarchy in the Zone.. lol.. smh.

Click to expand...

A certain amount of political discussion is being allowed ONLY in this part of the forum.

Personal attacks are still not permitted. And hopefully people can get their points across without using profanity.

The discussion should be kept civil.

If you see personal attacks then report those posts.

FuzzyLumpkins said:

Who said the issue was reduced to your lifetime? You said it never happened. That is easily demonstrated to be wrong.

Frazier and Ali had an up and down relationship. He certainly was mad at Ali for what he said leading up to the fight after he helped him while he was blackballed. They reconciled later.

Click to expand...

They reconciled so much that right before his death, Frazier told Howard Stern how much he still hated Ali.

The youth who were being drafted and minorities were hugely for Ali. The white establishment was for Frazier. It was the largest sporting event in boxing history at that point. Good demonstration to the falsity of your claim.

Click to expand...

There's so many mistruths here it's hilarious.

There were black people that thought Ali went too far in trying to promote his fight by calling Frazier an Uncle Tom.

And calling it the largest sporting event in boxing history at that point with no way to back that claim. Pryor vs. Zale drew nearly 4 times as many fans as the Thrilla in Manila. Hell, Len Harvey had at least a couple of fights that drew 3 times what the Thrilla in Manila drew. And of course, Schmeling vs. Louis not only drew a far larger crowd than any Frazier vs. Ali fight, but it's impact was felt around the world as WWII was imminent and given the rising tensions between Germany and the US at the time.

Jackie Robinson was integrated when segregation was still in force and before racial discriminations was outlawed. If you cannot see how that was a big middle finger to Jim Crow states is baffling. There are all kinds of stories about athletes from that era dealing with institutional racism. Saying it was not political is just ignorant.

Click to expand...

I feel Robinson's case was more about the rights of blacks than political. With this case, it's very clear that it's about Democrat vs. Republicans. Back in the days of Jim Crow, both Democrats and Republicans were for segregation.

The 1968 protest has been used on promotional material for the Olympics for 50 years.

Click to expand...

So what? Did it increase the popularity of the Olympics? If so, show me some data to prove it instead of making false claims like the Ali vs. Frazier claim.

Nation states are inherently political given that they are political entities. The idea was to promote peace and cooperation between those political entities. Ending war is a political goal given how wars are started and ended.

You completely ignored the Byzantine chariot teams. That was a smashing success considering they rebuilt the wall in 61 days with a groundswell of support. Then there is the whole bread and circuses policies of the Patricians in Rome where the Colosseum was perpetually full.

The national anthem again is inherently political and played at most sporting events. The whole support the troops/police movement is political given that both are instruments of the state.

There is a long history of successful mergers of politics and sport from the beginning of history.

Click to expand...

Just because you say it's inherently political doesn't make it so.

The idea of the Olympics is to remove any politics and any ill will between countries and allow the athletes from all across the world to determine the best athlete in their sport. That's why so many in the world found the US boycott of the 1980 Olympics to be abhorrent and why the Munich Massacre was something that most everybody involved thought would never happen...particularly considering this didn't happen in the 1936 Olympics when Jesse Owens won 4 gold medals in Berlin in front of the ***** and Hitler.





YR

Dodger12 said:

It's hard to discuss issues with folks who are ignorant and uninformed so I won't even try. But by many of your comments in this thread, I can tell you that you have no clue about what your talking about. The most scrutinized profession today is that of a law enforcement officer. From the time a person applies, to a routine background check, a credit check, the psychological screening and, in many cases, a polygraph exam. Then, when they are hired, there's a myriad of policies and guidelines they must follow. A violation of these policies can ultimately lead to dismissal.

Then you talk about cops being "investigated and prosecuted" by their friends and co-workers. You lack any understanding of the criminal justice system or how the courts operate so you form your opinions on complete fallacies. I have come to read your posts for the entertainment and comedy value they offer and not for their substance.

Click to expand...

So you can say, on video "you know we are going to kill this **" and then ACTUALLY kill him. And THEN get off scott free via the courts because a judge ruled and wouldn't let it go to a jury. And that's all fine and dandy? On what planet is that ok?

RXP said:

No.

Political correctness is having a certain group of people dictate to everyone else how to live their lives.

What to say. What car they can drive. Much money they can have. What to eat.

I could go on all day listing things we are allowed or not allowed to do based on what certain people say.

Click to expand...

You would be wrong all day also. No one is forcing you to do any of those things.

Zordon said:

read up on "redlining"/segregated housing in places like chicago, the structural racism within banking institutions - wells fargo, the ferguson report, the countless inequalities in policing and sentencing for the same crimes...you come off as a fairly sophisticated guy on here, there's no way you believe institutional racism is some fairy tale. this country's history (old and modern) is littered with examples of it. it's a big reason why some start on 3rd base while others are born into a situation where they have to dig themselves out of a hole.

Click to expand...

I've read about most of those arguments and I still fail to find institutional racism.

People that are still claiming that Mike Brown was unjustly murdered have ignored all of the concrete scientific evidence that claim differently. Eric Holder went to Ferguson to make sure that the grand jury investigation was justly done and found nothing to show differently. The claims of worst sentencing for the same crimes is much like the gender wage gap study that neglects to understand simple impacts such as the past criminal history of those that have been convicted. Just like the claims that there must be racism due to the lack of black officers in a place like Ferguson when everything has shown that black people tend to not want to be police officers to begin with and thus do not apply to become a police officer.

I've never stated that the country never had institutional racism. I've never said that there are not some issues with institutions like law enforcement. But much of this stuff was built off of lies just like the Mike Brown case. And many times it has nothing to do with racism like Filando Castile who was killed by a hispanic cop after the cop told him 4 times to not reach for the gun. Or more likely than not...it has to do with a cop being bad at their job or doing a bad job like the Eric Garner situation. Of course, that will be more likely to happen when less people want to be police officers because people and politicians will promote false cases like Mike Brown.

Just like redlining did exist at one time. But it's far gone these days and those that believe redlining still exists ignore the factors such as risk, liability, credit scores, etc.

Again, show me specific cases of instutional racism that exist today and we can fight it together. Referencing institutional racism that happened 30,40 or 50 years ago isn't the issue because I'm completely in agreement that there was institutional racism in this country back then.

Instead, I would rather try and find a way to educate and combat the prevalence of black children without a father as that has skyrocketed every since the Civil Rights Movement began. I'm a firm believer in the power of families and having both parents...even if it's a step-parent to helping this country regardless of race, gender or religious affiliation.





YR

Kaiser said:

Couldn’t agree more. If there was a protest by a player on the Walter Scott case or the Tamir Rice case - and it was even remotely articulate – it would be an entirely different matter.

But Kapernick saying “ALLCOPSBADSOALLAMERICABAD” is idiotic, it doesn’t help the issues or the discussion around them.

Trump is playing politics with this, quite obviously. But Trump is a politician and Football should never have been put into the political realm in the first place.

I actually respect what the Oakland A’s Catcher did, he knelt with his hand on his heart, then put out a statement that he supports the issues and opposes Trump. I get the sense its more about endorsement deals in the Bay Area than conviction, but it was done in a much smarter way than what Kapernick did.

Click to expand...

I have more respect for the Steelers' type of action.

When you see somebody sitting out or kneeling during the Anthem while you are standing at attention for the anthem, it's disrespectful from that person to do so. So by not taking the field it's not seeking attention to yourself.

I think it's idiotic. I think it accomplishes nothing towards whatever you're protesting. I think it is completely misguided. But, you have the right to do it and you're not flaunting it in my face.




YR

65fastback2plus2 said:

So you can say, on video "you know we are going to kill this **" and then ACTUALLY kill him. And THEN get off scott free via the courts because a judge ruled and wouldn't let it go to a jury. And that's all fine and dandy? On what planet is that ok?

Click to expand...

So you want a guy to be prosecuted for his words? You want folks to just pretend a gun was never there in the perps car or that he didn't crash into cruisers or try to run anyone over trying to escape? I wonder what we say when we get angry.

Hey, I have no issue taking the cops words into consideration. The cop was charged after all. But I'd bet the fact that the guy fleeing rammed police cruisers, led police on a high speed chase and went for his gun when the police finally caught up to him had more to do with his death than the cops words he uttered when he was angry and in a stressful situation.

Dodger12 said:

So you want a guy to be prosecuted for his words? You want folks to just pretend a gun was never there in the perps car or that he didn't crash into cruisers or try to run anyone over trying to escape? I wonder what we say when we get angry.

Hey, I have no issue taking the cops words into consideration. The cop was charged after all. But I'd bet the fact that the guy fleeing rammed police cruisers, led police on a high speed chase and went for his gun when the police finally caught up to him had more to do with his death than the cops words he uttered when he was angry and in a stressful situation.

Click to expand...

I think him being prosecuted for premediation is HIGHLY important here. Civilians are prosecuted under such, no reason they should be any different.

Further...remind me who they had proof had touched the gun that was found? *hint* it wasnt the guy shot and killed.

And thats just one story, we can bring up Philando. Where the cop said "Dont reach for it dont reach for it"....then told his fellow officer on camera he never saw a gun and didnt know where it was, THEN under examination said he saw the gun and the barrel just looked like it kept "coming and coming".

Or eric garner...choked to death for selling cigarettes.

Or...the list is exhaustive.

And tax payers keep footing the bill to pay out in every single case because of the gross mishandling and negligence of these situations.

65fastback2plus2 said:

I think him being prosecuted for premediation is HIGHLY important here. Civilians are prosecuted under such, no reason they should be any different.

Further...remind me who they had proof had touched the gun that was found? *hint* it wasnt the guy shot and killed.

And thats just one story, we can bring up Philando. Where the cop said "Dont reach for it dont reach for it"....then told his fellow officer on camera he never saw a gun and didnt know where it was, THEN under examination said he saw the gun and the barrel just looked like it kept "coming and coming".

Or eric garner...choked to death for selling cigarettes.

Or...the list is exhaustive.

And tax payers keep footing the bill to pay out in every single case because of the gross mishandling and negligence of these situations.

Click to expand...

The prosecutor charged the cop and accused him of planting a gun with no evidence what so ever. If you're going to make that accusation and have it be a basis of of your prosecution, then you need to prove it. The cop was found not guilty but, guess what, he's out of a job and a livelihood, just as the Baltimore officers who were charged on a complete politically motivated farce.

But there is also one common theme in all the situations you mentioned: the "victims" were killed when they were non-compliant with police. That started a chain of events that ultimately led to their deaths. If Eric Garner would have just walked away when he asked to by police who were called there by a business owner, no one would would have ever heard of him. Or if Eric Garner would not have resisted arrest, he'd still be alive. Lastly, Eric Garner died of a heart attack on the way to the hospital. Certainly, the choke hold may have contributed to his death but the fact he was 350 lbs. with a variety of health problems didn't help either. In any event, he wasn't choked to death for selling cigarettes. He was put in a choke hold for resisting arrest. There's a difference. It's not all black and white (no pun intended).

Dodger12 said:

The prosecutor charged the cop and accused him of planting a gun with no evidence what so ever. If you're going to make that accusation and have it be a basis of of your prosecution, then you need to prove it. The cop was found not guilty but, guess what, he's out of a job and a livelihood, just as the Baltimore officers who were charged on a complete politically motivated farce.

But there is also one common theme in all the situations you mentioned: the "victims" were killed when they were non-compliant with police. That started a chain of events that ultimately led to their deaths. If Eric Garner would have just walked away when he asked to by police who were called there by a business owner, no one would would have ever heard of him. Or if Eric Garner would not have resisted arrest, he'd still be alive. Lastly, Eric Garner died of a heart attack on the way to the hospital. Certainly, the choke hold may have contributed to his death but the fact he was 350 lbs. with a variety of health problems didn't help either. In any event, he wasn't choked to death for selling cigarettes. He was put in a choke hold for resisting arrest. There's a difference. It's not all black and white (no pun intended).

Click to expand...

Lets address a couple of this:

a) ONLY the officer had touched the gun at the scene. ONLY his DNA was on the weapon. The man that was killed had zero DNA evidence on the weapon. Now, if someone handles a weapon once and their DNA is found on the weapon, how can an owner who handled the gun countless time have their DNA magically not exist.

b) If an officer assaults you and harms your rights, you are FULLY and legally authorized to resist that force.
b1) Exhibit A:
b1a) Article on exhibit A: http://www.thedailybeast.com/georgia-cops-tase-the-wrong-man
b2) http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
b3) It is your right to sell your own personal possessions as you please, including cigarettes.

c) There is ZERO evidence that Philando was not complying. ZERO. Well, outside the surviving cops lying...didnt see a gun but saw a gun.

sunbum said:

FYI- according to census data, 72% of black children are raised in single family households.

Click to expand...

And every scientific study that has focused on the relationship between single parent households have shown that there is strong correlation between single parent households and subsequent poverty of the children going into adulthood, crime and subsequently having offspring that grow up in a single parent household regardless of race, gender, religious affiliation or even country.






YR

65fastback2plus2 said:

a) ONLY the officer had touched the gun at the scene. ONLY his DNA was on the weapon. The man that was killed had zero DNA evidence on the weapon. Now, if someone handles a weapon once and their DNA is found on the weapon, how can an owner who handled the gun countless time have their DNA magically not exist.

Click to expand...

I get it but that's not how it works. The cop's DNA was on the weapon because he removed the gun from the car. The fact that the cop's DNA is on the gun doesn't prove that he planted it there. And the fact that the "victim's" DNA was not on the gun didn't mean that he didn't have access to it or it wasn't in his car.

65fastback2plus2 said:

b) If an officer assaults you and harms your rights, you are FULLY and legally authorized to resist that force.

Click to expand...

This is real slippery slope territory. I've been stopped by police for something I felt I didn't do. Sure, it was relatively minor but, in my mind, I wasn't guilty of what I was accused. My response was not to become belligerent and resist the officer. Sometimes you don't know initially why you're being stopped or approached. Maybe you match the description of someone who just committed a crime and the cop is within his rights conduct a routine investigation. But if you feel the need to resist, go ahead and do so but it probably won't end well.

65fastback2plus2 said:

b3) It is your right to sell your own personal possessions as you please, including cigarettes.

Click to expand...

And you'd be wrong. Garner was selling unlicensed cigarettes. The guy had a history of more than 30 prior arrests to include assault. At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with, you guessed it, illegally selling cigarettes among other crimes/charges. Hey, I think the law is stupid and it's probably there to make sure the City of New York gets its tax money from those sales. But police can't just walk away when a citizen calls to make a complaint of a crime being committed. You want to blame someone? Blame the city for these stupid laws that are meant to ensure their pockets are lined with cash so they can blow it on stupid **** as most politicians do.

65fastback2plus2 said:

And thats just one story, we can bring up Philando. Where the cop said "Dont reach for it dont reach for it"....then told his fellow officer on camera he never saw a gun and didnt know where it was, THEN under examination said he saw the gun and the barrel just looked like it kept "coming and coming".

Click to expand...

The officer was hispanic and the officer told Castile to not reach for 4 different times. When the officer first pulled Castile over, Castile informed him that he did have a firearm and the officer responded, in a matter of fact type of fashion 'okay, just don't reach for it, then.'

My belief from watching the video is that Castile was likely reaching for his registration and insurance as the officer requested it. I believe that when Castile was reaching for his registration, the officer thought he was reaching for the gun. When the officer told him to not reach for it, again...there was miscommunication between the officer and Castile...Castile not understanding that the officer didn't want him to reach in that general direction, period. And the officer not understanding that Castile wasn't reaching for the gun and instead reaching for his insurance and registration. But, the officer doesn't know what Castile is doing and in the matter of 4 seconds and having told him 4 times to not reach for the gun the officer shot and killed Castile. I think it's terribly unfortunate, but I don't think it was based off of racism because I don't believe that hispanic police officers are racist against blacks and the officer was put in a bad situation as well.

Or eric garner...choked to death for selling cigarettes.

Click to expand...

Garner wasn't choked to death for selling cigarettes.

First, Garner wasn't selling cigarettes. There was no report of such happening at the time. There was a fight between two black teens and Garner broke up the fight. The police had come over right as the fight was happening and having seen Garner before because he had a past history of illegally selling cigarettes it eventually came to the police wanting to arrest Garner.

The officer that applied the chokehold on Garner was found innocent by the grand jury because the officer's defense team was able to prove that Garner died of a heart attack and not from choking. And across the country officers are protected from deaths like that in the midst of an arrest. Also, the choke hold was only against the regulations of the officer's precinct, it was not against New York State Law.

I think the officer's handled Garner in a poor fashion. They got the wrong guy and they could have done a better job of convincing him to comply with their orders. But it wasn't some evil, racist plan to kill him just because he was black and the grand jury, which included black members, didn't find the officer innocent because they were also racist.

Or...the list is exhaustive.

Click to expand...

It really isn't. And it applies to whites unjustly killed by cops as well.

Of course, for this supposed institutional racism in law enforcement the Asian population is still far less likely to be killed by cops than whites. Must be selective racism of white cops hating other whites more than they hate Asians.






YR

And to think a decade ago the anthem was played before the teams even came on to the field.