They should lose a draft pick because some of their players happen to agree with the vast majority of people in that town or because they expressed support for a national movement to bring awareness to the disproportionate number of black men shot by law enforcement?

Seriously?

The problem with free speech is that in order for it to work it has to apply to everyone. Not just cops and white folks.

And the incident you compared it to couldn't be more different. The league has endorsement deals with many companies. Kaepernick was fined because he used his nfl position and their brand to promote a competitive product. That had zero to do with politics or free speech. It was all business.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They should lose a draft pick because some of
> their players happen to agree with the vast
> majority of people in that town or because they
> expressed support for a national movement to bring
> awareness to the disproportionate number of black
> men shot by law enforcement?
>
> Seriously?
>
> The problem with free speech is that in order for
> it to work it has to apply to everyone. Not just
> cops and white folks.
>
> And the incident you compared it to couldn't be
> more different. The league has endorsement deals
> with many companies. Kaepernick was fined
> because he used his nfl position and their brand
> to promote a competitive product. That had zero
> to do with politics or free speech. It was all
> business.

RESPONSE: I did my posting because I knew those of lesser reasoning capacity would immediately jump to the conclusion that Treasure was taking a position on the MERITS of the demonstration by the Rams players.

He was not! That's why he stated that he had a bias.

But, of course, if you go around thinking that your views are THE Truth.............

Ahhhh. Best decision I ever made to put him out of my conscious forever Chyrene. you should try it.

One of the things I like about you best Chyrene , is you and I differ on a lot of things, but can discuss it openly and intelligently. And admit when your wrong , as I try to.

As far as the 1969 Olympic incident you describe, it hardly on the same level. Integration was still fresh , we had a much different leadership in the country.

today to see millionaire African American athletes, hardly dealing with the same issues those athletes in 1968 were dealing with , making a mockery of something , at a forum they have no right using , I do find issue with it.

I really hope the NFL comes down hard on them not for the issue. If those NFL players took a moment to think its Law Enforcement in that stadium keeping them and everyone safe.

Hope its expensive and costly for that Team. And yes I admit again , I am openly bias.

GO DOLPHINS!!!!

Truth is silly because he wrote all the above post as if Treasure DIDN'T have him blocked. I know he won't read this because he has me blocked but I'm doing this for the amusement of the rest of the readers. It is so funny because he is telling SOMEONE WHO HAS HIM ON IGNORE how good it is to ignore SOMEONE ELSE all the while that person he is speaking to can't hear him because they have ignored him.

lol. Here's a beer counselor... Spot on.

GO DOLPHINS!!!!

so Chyren and treasure are the 2 most blocked people on the board, hmmmmmmmmm.

thanks for the holiday wishes in that private message, treasure.

tick.. tick.. tick.. tick.. tick..

JoeFootball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tick.. tick.. tick.. tick.. tick..


LOL.

What we all have to understand, is this is America, and have the right to protest, whether it stomps on people's rights and sensibilities or not.

Look at how the city of Ferguson, itself, protested. Cripes, is Ferguson still there?

What the Rams players did is pretty tame, comparatively speaking.

Do I approve of it? No, but that's the way it is.

You are right, Cap. But the key word is "protest." No burn, loot, or fight. As a teenager (albeit visiting from Oklahoma for the summer) in Watts in the summer of 1965 and as a college student at Berkeley in the late 60's, I've seen my share of demonstrations and riots.

The two are different.

Protest was what this country was founded on, ask King George III.

But the Founding Fathers dumped tea in the harbor, they didn't go around burning down their neighborhoods.

But unfortunately, when there are protests, there is no real way to keep the knuckleheads from showing up.

The thing that kind of mildly baffles me is that Trayvon Martin was just a young kid who some security guard did not think "belonged" in the gated community (although he did) and got into a fight with that security guard who followed him and scared him and was shot...no riots

but there were riots as to Michael Brown. Officer Darren Nelson (outside of making the mistake getting out of his car and not waiting for back-up and panicking when a guy he told to stop walking away turned around on him) was confronted by a teenager who was doubtless a big bully and had not only strong armed robbed a store keeper but had minutes earlier reached inside Officer Nelson's car and tried to take his gun as the Officer was still sitting down behind the steering wheel.

Just perplexing to me that in the first case, you have an innocent kid coming back from buying skittles and there was no reasonable justification for the shooting and it was instigated by the shooter himself and no riots and in the second case, you've got a bully (who perhaps was shot by a scared cop) and you've got riots.

Officer Nelson was himself a scared kid who, perhaps, was not really prepared to be a police officer, and he proved that to me by getting out of the damn patrol unit when he was alone to confront two guys who he had just had a robbery report on and one had grabbed his gun.

The civil suit will focus on whether his actions constituted negligence. As a law enforcement officer, it's a matter of a disciplinary hearing as to whether he followed proper procedure but in a civil suit, the allegation will be that he put himself in the position where he had to shoot to save his life. Sorta like jumping over the neighbor's fence knowing he has a deadly pit bull and then firing your gun and killing him.

Of course, the Nelson family will reply with the doctrine of contributory negligence, a old legal doctrine that says that if the Plaintiff (Michael Brown) in any way contributed to the damage (here the death), he cannot recover at all.

But I looked it up and Missouri is a comparative negligence case. That means they apportion the fault between the 2 actors and either split it 50-50 or some other proportion such as 75-25.

But still the "but for" (not the legal doctrine but the common phrase) is irresistible. Civil jurors won't be able to get away from the fact that if Officer Nelson had not got out of his car. If he had rolled up the windows and followed the two guys slowly waiting for back up. There would have been no shooting and no death.

I know it's kind of hard for laymen not to think in basic terms like, "Well, the kid shouldn't have fought him" but that's common folks thinking. That's not the law. It's like not every mistake should cost you your life.

So if the other team came out of the tunnel with their hands pointed like fake guns and did the Bang Bang gesture because they agree with the other side of this issue, would everyone thats defending these goons for putting their hands up by defining it as free speech defend them as well? I think not. It's mostly just a bandwagon defense.

I like what Charles Barkley had to say about the issue.



IN BEFORE THE THREAD CLOSES!

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

FootballGod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So if the other team came out of the tunnel with
> their hands pointed like fake guns and did the
> Bang Bang gesture because they agree with the
> other side of this issue, would everyone thats
> defending these goons for putting their hands up
> by defining it as free speech defend them as well?
> I think not.


You think wrong.

Free speech is free speech. Even when it's absurd or incredibly tone deaf as it would be in your example.

The point people are missing is that the "hands up, don't shoot" symbol isn't about the Ferguson incident. Sure, that was the catalyst but, it's meant to be a peaceful way for people to protest and draw attention to the absurd numbers of black men (comparatively speaking) shot by law enforcement officials in this country.

FootballGod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So if the other team came out of the tunnel with
> their hands pointed like fake guns and did the
> Bang Bang gesture because they agree with the
> other side of this issue, would everyone thats
> defending these goons for putting their hands up
> by defining it as free speech defend them as well?
> I think not. It's mostly just a bandwagon defense.


That's probably the dumbest comparison I have heard on the subject.

using the "bang bang" gesture to say way? let's kill black people?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2014 06:43AM by JoeFootball.

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like what Charles Barkley had to say about the
> issue.
>
PRECISELY!



>
> IN BEFORE THE THREAD CLOSES!

Hee, hee.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FootballGod Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So if the other team came out of the tunnel
> with
> > their hands pointed like fake guns and did the
> > Bang Bang gesture because they agree with the
> > other side of this issue, would everyone thats
> > defending these goons for putting their hands
> up
> > by defining it as free speech defend them as
> well?
> > I think not.
>
>
> You think wrong.
>
> Free speech is free speech. Even when it's
> absurd or incredibly tone deaf as it would be in
> your example.
>
> The point people are missing is that the "hands
> up, don't shoot" symbol isn't about the Ferguson
> incident. Sure, that was the catalyst but, it's
> meant to be a peaceful way for people to protest
> and draw attention to the absurd numbers of black
> men (comparatively speaking) shot by law
> enforcement officials in this country.

*********************************************

Does anyone have stats to show both sides, i.e., blacks shot by law enforcement and whites shot by law enforcement?

Just curious.

I would think, Cap, by virtue of the vast overwhelming sheer numbers that Whites outdistance Blacks in population, that there would be more Whites who commit or are arrested for crimes and even shot, but that's not too instructive of anything.

I think the reality is that it is hard to divorce yourself from your upbringing. First of all, we act based on experience, particularly cops. You can say that is wrong but consider this.

I am Black but would I walk down the middle of Crip territory saying "Yeah, I'm bad. I'm retired Department of Justice and I'm bad."

No, that doesn't make sense.

So even ordinary citizens, of whatever color, judge circumstances and govern themselves accordingly.

When a White Cop stops a White Kid, say 16-29, he's probably thinking, "Wonder if he's got some dope stashed somewhere."

He will look at the kid, and from his own experience in High School or College make an assessment of whether the Kid is a Nerd, a playboy, or a Jock, or a Bully. Basically, it's impossible to take that out of a person.

But I have advised White cops to try and take that tendency out of your system because someday a nerdy looking White boy will blow your head off when you turn your head.

On the other hand, a White cop, might when stopping a Black male teenager for a traffic violation, fear like hell "Is this a gang member who is gonna pull a gun on me?" "Does he have a gun in the car?"

Why? Because the odds are he didn't grow up with Blacks and doesn't think that the Black community also has it's nerds and playboys and jocks and bullies. And even as a citizen before he was a cop, he heard positive stories about individual Blacks and thought "hey, they were good people" but unfortunately when he heard a crime story, he thought on a subconscious level "since I haven't had first hand experience with these people, they must all either do it or a great number of them do it."

In short, he does not apply the same criteria when stopping a Black guy and when stopping a White guy. But that only means that the only way you can effectuate change is to have MORE BLACK POLICE OFFICERS and have them ride around with White police officers and teach them.

When the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed, we were no longer a segregated nation. But we reminded segregated societies, in large part. Not segregation by law but segregation by economics which effectively yields segregation by race.

We have to understand each other because ignorance is the life bread of fear and distrust and no, not the definition of "ignorance" meaning you're dumb or stupid but the CLASSIC DEFINITION of ignorance which means lack of knowledge.

We don't know each other. Blacks don't really know Whites and Whites don't really know Hispanics and Hispanics don't really know Asians.

We need to, in the words of the Immortal John Lennon, "Come Together."

Not just mentally, like the Civil Rights leaders say, but really have more day to day contact with each other.

Let's have a nationwide "Blind buddy" program where, voluntarily, every person of one race adopts a buddy of another race and they meet at least one time a month and have lunch and they really discuss their experiences and debunk each other of any false notions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2014 02:01PM by ChyrenB.

Very well said!

You just expressed 90% of my thoughts on the subject. Nothing is ever black and white, so to speak.

If it's you, holic. I would run away from home.

gotcha back. I'm still laughing at both posts.

Time for this to go. Let's see if the moderators are around.

The kid in Ferguson is not Rosa Parks.

The cop at a minimum is unqualified. At max a coward. I'll meet you in the middle, and say both. 10 shots, dude is crapping his pants.

Justice? Cops get time for killing blacks when Catholic priests get time for going after little boys. Just one those unwritten laws.