Why is the NFL committing suicide?

[65fastback2plus2]

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.



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.



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.

1) If we cant say the cop put it there, based on the evidence, then we cant say the gun was in the car either, based on the same evidence. Just because only A and B make sense, doesnt mean if you reject A that B is automatically the case.

2) If you're going to resist, you must be certain of your actions, for sure.

3) I wouldnt be wrong. No such thing as an unlicensed cigarette. Just because a law exists doesnt make something ACTUALLY right or wrong. Selling your personal property how you see fit is a RIGHT. Which means it naturally exists and a government, nor cop can add or remove it. Police can 100% just walk away, and they SHOULD if they are going to uphold their oaths. I blame the city as well, but everyone involved in the violation gets blamed. I blame the **** soldier for killing Jews, not just Hitler. The **** soldier could have just walked away or even protected the Jews, but they didnt. They are equally as guilty. Just because some authority makes something right or wrong doesnt mean you absolve yourself of a conscience.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

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.



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.



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

I've actually not brought up race once, but the system preys upon the poor, as which has been discussed in here that due to other social issues, often times is people of a certain color or class, but the color itself has nothing to do with it.

Dylan Noble was white and wrongfully killed just the same. The system doesnt care what color you are, only that it can extort you further.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I've actually not brought up race once, but the system preys upon the poor, as which has been discussed in here that due to other social issues, often times is people of a certain color or class, but the color itself has nothing to do with it.

Dylan Noble was white and wrongfully killed just the same. The system doesnt care what color you are, only that it can extort you further.

The poor is where the most crime typically happens. Police go where the crime is or where it's likely to happen. Law enforcement as an institution isn't looking to extort poor people.





YR

 

[MichaelWinicki]

3) I wouldnt be wrong. No such thing as an unlicensed cigarette. Just because a law exists doesnt make something ACTUALLY right or wrong. Selling your personal property how you see fit is a RIGHT.

Correct. Not "unlicensed" cigarettes. Untaxed cigarettes. Meaning they do not carry a tax stamp. Huge illegal business. Folks drive from NYC to our part of New York State and buy large quantities of untaxed cigarettes (that are meant to only be sold to native Americans), take them back to NYC and resell them. Many trucks and such have been picked up between here & there.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

The poor is where the most crime typically happens. Police go where the crime is or where it's likely to happen. Law enforcement as an institution isn't looking to extort poor people.





YR

The government MAKES UP the crime.

Did we not learn from prohibition?

Alcohol ok...little to no killing.
Alcohol banned...tons of killing and mobsters.
Alcohol ok again...little to no killing.

The average good American commits 3 felonies per day without even knowing it.

https://mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-it#.H2NYWcll1

Enjoy that article. I mean, we've had people arrested for feeding the hungry: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-90-arrested-week-feeding-homeless-article-1.2002790

Real crime is when someone's property or they themselves are physically harmed. Outside of that, we need to quit with the myriad of made up crimes for the purpose of extorting people.

 

[toto1939]

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

And that's how it needs to return...don't give any of these pricks the opportunity to protest it (at least, not in front of the fans)

 

[jwooten15]

The protest isn't working. Not even close.

And people do realize they are standing. They hear it announced that the anthem is going to be played when the announcer says 'please rise for our National Anthem' and then they look to find where the nearest flag is located and they face the flag as the anthem is being played.

Nobody expects somebody in the privacy of their own home to stand for the anthem. However, by sitting for the anthem when it's being played and you are asked politely to stand for that anthem is a sign of disrespect for our country.

There are far more effective ways to protest and get things done than to protest the anthem. For instance, if you allege there is systemic racism in law enforcement then protesting the anthem doesn't do one thing to improve that alleged systemic racism in law enforcement. Getting together with community leaders and voting in your community to find leaders that will attack alleged system racism in law enforcement will get the job done.

Instead, you protest the anthem to show disrespect for the country because that grabs headlines. I'd rather not sell out my country for my own political beliefs. And if anybody thinks it is so oppressive to live in the United States that they need to disrespect the country, I suggest moving to a country that appeases more to your sensibilities. We'll start a ******** page to pay for your moving expenses.




YR

AMEN to this!

Very well said.

Theses protests aren't accomplishing any true change. There are measurable ways to go about effecting such change, but kneeling during the anthem/complaining in an interview isn't it.

 

[jjtrcka22]

I wonder what the response would be if NFL players protested abortion, say after scoring a touchdown? Would they be applauded as courageously exercising their first amendment rights? I remember when a certain QB that played for the Broncos would take a knee in prayer, a lot of people tended to respond that his personal beliefs should not be put on display like that.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that everyone has many different issues that I am sure they would like to see addressed. What makes one issue more important than another? I guess we should just have nonstop protests at all of our workplaces until every issue in this nation is resolved how we all see fit (which will never happen, because everyone has different viewpoints on what is an actual issue and the right way to go about solving it).

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I wonder what the response would be if NFL players protested abortion, say after scoring a touchdown? Would they be applauded as courageously exercising their first amendment rights? I remember when a certain QB that played for the Broncos would take a knee in prayer, a lot of people tended to respond that his personal beliefs should not be put on display like that.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that everyone has many different issues that I am sure they would like to see addressed. What makes one issue more important than another? I guess we should just have nonstop protests at all of our workplaces until every issue in this nation is resolved how we all see fit (which will never happen, because everyone has different viewpoints on what is an actual issue and the right way to go about solving it).

Agreed.

OK, so the players are protesting this... What are they actively doing to help improve things? I mean if they feel that strongly about it, then lets see them support their convictions through action (other than resting on one knee during the anthem) that brings forth positive change.

 

[jwooten15]

I wonder what the response would be if NFL players protested abortion, say after scoring a touchdown? Would they be applauded as courageously exercising their first amendment rights? I remember when a certain QB that played for the Broncos would take a knee in prayer, a lot of people tended to respond that his personal beliefs should not be put on display like that.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that everyone has many different issues that I am sure they would like to see addressed. What makes one issue more important than another? I guess we should just have nonstop protests at all of our workplaces until every issue in this nation is resolved how we all see fit (which will never happen, because everyone has different viewpoints on what is an actual issue and the right way to go about solving it).

Right! That QB was run out of the league because of his beliefs (and also that he couldn't play QB ).

It's just ironic that the NFL cherry picks causes that they allow players to protest/speak up on.

 

[jwooten15]

Agreed.

OK, so the players are protesting this... What are they actively doing to help improve things? I mean if they feel that strongly about it, then lets see them support their convictions through action (other than resting on one knee during the anthem) that brings forth positive change.

Just my opinion here. And I know it doesn't apply to all the "kneelers".

But, I think a lot of these guys enjoy giving off the perception that they care about supposed injustices, etc. But at the end of the day, other than kneeling and giving an interview condemning police and the President, they don't do anything to create change in this "broken system".

Nope. They go home in their $100k+ vehicle, to their multi-million $ home, and don't give the "issue" a second thought.

Now, if they wanted to take tangible steps, in the legal system or by starting an awareness campain, etc - great! Even if I disagree with their opinion on the matter, at least they're standing up, and doing something, about what they believe in.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Just my opinion here. And I know it doesn't apply to all the "kneelers".

But, I think a lot of these guys enjoy giving off the perception that they care about supposed injustices, etc. But at the end of the day, other than kneeling and giving an interview condemning police and the President, they don't do anything to create change in this "broken system".

Nope. They go home in their $100k+ vehicle, to their multi-million $ home, and don't give the "issue" a second thought.

Now, if they wanted to take tangible steps, in the legal system or by starting an awareness campain, etc - great! Even if I disagree with their opinion on the matter, at least they're standing up, and doing something, about what they believe in.

THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT!

They do it because it makes them look morally upright and they support the injustices to the less fortunate than themselves... And then what do they do?

 

[Kaiser]

Now, if they wanted to take tangible steps, in the legal system or by starting an awareness campain, etc - great! Even if I disagree with their opinion on the matter, at least they're standing up, and doing something, about what they believe in.

Exactly. There are a dozen posters in this thread that have made the case for the issue better than Kaepernick ever did, even if I disagree with them. Kaepernick has been national news for a year and still hasn't made any kind of coherent argument.

Kaepernick made 43 Million dollars before this stuff started without ever giving a penny to victims or advocacy groups. Its all "Look at Me" self indulgence that is counterproductive to addressing the real issues.

And Kaepernick could have had several jobs in the NFL this year if he was willing to work for the "insulting" rate of 1 Million dollars. He won't, because he would rather babble incoherently than make the money and donate it to the cause.

 

[Denim Chicken]

THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT!

They do it because it makes them look morally upright and they support the injustices to the less fortunate than themselves... And then what do they do?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

AMEN to this!

Very well said.

Theses protests aren't accomplishing any true change. There are measurable ways to go about effecting such change, but kneeling during the anthem/complaining in an interview isn't it.

They are protests built on false pretenses. That is why the protests won't accomplish anything.

There are undoubtedly people in law enforcement that are racist. There are undoubtedly people in law enforcement that break the law in the name of race.

Nobody here has denied that.

But, the idea that law enforcement, nationwide, is practicing institutional racism is a farce. And the idea that the unjust, illegal murders of blacks from cops is so widespread that it should be a top priority that would help blacks in this country is very bad prioritization of helping resolve the plight of black people in this country.

I saw on Sunday Night Football they were trying to brag about how the Dolphins players who protested got a meeting set forth where cops were getting to meet with inner city children and one of the children said that the only time she ever sees cops is when they come to arrest her dad. What the Dolphins and NBC miss out on is that the cops were all for getting together with people from the community. Cops don't want to be at war with the entire community. But they also fail to see the point that even getting together with the community does not mean that this girl's father will stop getting arrested. And that's the far bigger issue here.





YR

 

[Kaiser]

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.

The system is set up to avoid Type II error. For every Philip Castile case where the burden of proof on a cop isn't met, there are 20 cases where a gang banger walks after murdering someone. That doesn't make it institutional racism.

A woman named Justin Damond was shot and killed by a cop who fired from inside his vehicle (across his partner) without any apparent justification. I'm sure you will follow that case and let us know how institutional racism protects that racist cop.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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



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.



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.



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.



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

Ali vs Frazier is the most famous fight in US boxing history and you want to claim that it was unsuccessful. Then you use the dishonest metric of crowd size to measure its success when it was the largest TV spectacle of its time. More people watched it than the moon landing.

Each man was guaranteed $2.5 million dollars, the largest single payday for any entertainer or athlete at the time. Tickets to the Garden would be made available to the general public by mail on a first come first served basis. Prices in the arena ranged from $20 for a balcony seat to $150 for ringside. Hundreds of other locations throughout the U.S. and Canada would screen the fight via closed circuit television to fans paying $5 to $15.

Interest in the event was incredible. Radio, television, and the print media were filled with stories discussing the upcoming fight. Few athletic events, be it World Series, Super Bowl or World Cup, had come even close to generating the type of excitement and attention that this prizefight was getting.

Fifty countries had purchased rights to the telecast. The fight was broadcast from ringside in 12 different languages. When the final tallies were added up, it was estimated that 300 million people around the globe had watched the fight. It was the largest audience ever for a television broadcast up to that time. More people had tuned into the fight than had watched the moon landing two years before. In the end, the fight grossed between 18 and 20 million dollars world-wide.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Joe_Frazier_vs._Muhammad_Ali_(1st_meeting)

And you have the gall to call me a liar.

Human rights are a political issue and its been that way since the magna carta. Locke talks about them extensively in his two treatise on government and then of course there is the bill of rights and the 14th amendment. The 900 lbs gorilla that you are being obtuse to was the political reality of segregation that was plaguing the US in the 40s and 50s. The stated goal of the civil rights movement was the end of segregation. Brown vs the Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act came in Robinson's wake.

And the stated goal of the GOP was the end of the oppression of African and asserting that their was not a political divide between the north and south over the issue of race since before the Civil War is just ignorant. The people that were for racial equality were called radical republicans. Even if that was not the case seeking to change the policy of a government and institute racial equality is a political aim whether or not a political party is involved.

A nation state is a type of state that joins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state.

Nation states must be entertainment!

Further when you look at how nations sponsor their games as host and teams every year it becomes obvious the link between the Olympic Games and politics.

People found those abhorrent because the games were to promote peace. And the 1936 games were political out the wazoo considering how Hitler used it to promote his regime. You keep saying that because the games are centered around peace that it cannot be political. That is nonsense. There have been peace parties and movements forever.

You completely dropped the use of sports by the Roman and Byzantine Emperors to great effect.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Ali vs Frazier is the most famous fight in US boxing history and you want to claim that it was unsuccessful. Then you use the dishonest metric of crowd size to measure its success when it was the largest TV spectacle of its time. More people watched it than the moon landing.

I never claimed it was unsuccessful. I'm saying that it didn't draw more people to the sport. And I'm also saying it wasn't the biggest event in boxing history.

Back in the days of Dempsey or Louis vs. Schmeling, we didn't have TV's. However, it was the largest audience for a single radio broadcast.

So again...you're wrong.

And you have the gall to call me a liar.

Calling you out for being wrong versus calling you a liar are two different things. Just like you claimed that my dad was a football coach (wrong) or that I rooted for Frazier against Ali (wrong) and the numerous other things you have been so wrong on that it crushes your credibility.





YR

 

[Trouty]

Agreed.

OK, so the players are protesting this... What are they actively doing to help improve things? I mean if they feel that strongly about it, then lets see them support their convictions through action (other than resting on one knee during the anthem) that brings forth positive change.

Isn't kneeling "an action"? Hell, it even has the president talking, and it's leader out of a job. That's action to me. Said player also donated a million bucks to his cause. That's action. One of the biggest platforms in the world, the NFL, and these players are kneeling front and center. That's pretty huge.

Disappointing post, Mike. Whether you care or not. Just disappointing to read that from you.

I'm not a political person -- but if I had to pick -- I'm all aboard Noam Chomsky's train (socio-anarchy). When the sky is blue, it's blue. These dude's are taking a stance. A stance that is full of substance for their views.

It is what it is, fellas. Sorry.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The system is set up to avoid Type II error. For every Philip Castile case where the burden of proof on a cop isn't met, there are 20 cases where a gang banger walks after murdering someone. That doesn't make it institutional racism.

A woman named Justin Damond was shot and killed by a cop who fired from inside his vehicle (across his partner) without any apparent justification. I'm sure you will follow that case and let us know how institutional racism protects that racist cop.

I never said it was racism I said that cops have extra rights. I will articulate specifically because you fail to see the point.

While Biaggi's bill never made it through Congress, police unions didn't wait for city managers or police department higher-ups to write their own. Benevolent associations in Maryland successfully pushed for the passage of a police bill of rights in 1972; Florida, Rhode Island, Virginia, New Mexico, and California followed suit before the 70s were over. The 1980s, 90s, and 2000s saw still more states adopt police bill of rights at the behest of police unions.

The rights created by these bills differ from state to state, but here's how a typical police misconduct investigation works in states that have a law enforcement bill of rights in place:

A complaint is filed against an officer by a member of the public or a fellow officer. Police department leadership reviews the complaint and decides whether to investigate. If the department decides to pursue the complaint, it must inform the officer and his union. That's where the special treatment begins, but it doesn't end there.

Unlike a member of the public, the officer gets a "cooling off" period before he has to respond to any questions. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is privy to the names of his complainants and their testimony against him before he is ever interrogated. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is to be interrogated "at a reasonable hour," with a union member present. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can only be questioned by one person during his interrogation. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can be interrogated only "for reasonable periods," which "shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary." Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation cannot be "threatened with disciplinary action" at any point during his interrogation. If he is threatened with punishment, whatever he says following the threat cannot be used against him.

What happens after the interrogation again varies from state to state. But under nearly every law enforcement bill of rights, the following additional privileges are granted to officers: Their departments cannot publicly acknowledge that the officer is under investigation; if the officer is cleared of wrongdoing or the charges are dropped, the department may not publicly acknowledge that the investigation ever took place, or reveal the nature of the complaint. The officer cannot be questioned or investigated by "non-government agents," which means no civilian review boards. If the officer is suspended as a result of the investigation, he must continue to receive full pay and benefits until his case is resolved. In most states, the charging department must subsidize the accused officer's legal defense.

A violation of any of the above rights can result in dismissal—not of the officer, but of the charges against him.

Because of these special due process privileges, there's little incentive for police departments to discipline officers. In most cases, it's more financially prudent to let a District Attorney or outside law enforcement agency do the heavy lifting, and then fire the officer if he's convicted. This is the only "easy" way, under police bills of rights, for departments to get rid of bad cops--which essentially means the only way to get rid of bad cops is if some other law enforcement agency can make a felony charge stick.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/19/how-special-rights-for-law-enforcement-m

We don't get those specific rights that cops do. It is the reality we live in. You can make up anecdotes and baseless stats all day long but it is what it is.

Then of course there is the inherent conflict of interest in local cops being investigated by their local cops and prosecuted by the DAs who they work with. "Thin" Blue Line my ***.

The racism comes in with specific policing policies that are rampant still like Stop and Frisk and Broken Windows policies. You ask the cops on those beats and they will claim they are not racist but when you look at the data invariably target minorities even after you control for population makeup.

That is what makes the conversation going on here so entertaining. YR and Mike are pointing to the finding of the investigation and ignoring the issues with how these investigations are conducted in the first place. Other than the DoJ's of Michael Brown they are at best suspect.