NFL Kneeling

[wufan]

It's in the data sets supporting that article.

I would disagree with that. Unless I'm misinterpreting the data, it is only instances with force was used. It doesn't examine if it was appropriate force. No?

[ShockCrazy]

I would disagree with that. Unless I'm misinterpreting the data, it is only instances with force was used. It doesn't examine if it was appropriate force. No?

There are like 3 links in that article. one does a study on excessive force.

[wufan]

There are like 3 links in that article. one does a study on excessive force.

I'm totally missing where it says that excessive force is more pronounced in one group. Would you please link it directly? Thanks in advance!

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

To protest the fundamental values of the United States is to stand up against the United States as an enemy of the people.

Who is protesting the fundamental values of the US? Police brutality isn't a fundamental value. Even if you believe police brutality is less common than some of these folks claim (I would agree), your dispute is with the statistics, not with the "anti police brutality" message.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

If I were a manager or owner of a Walmart, I wouldn't allow an employee to engage in a personal protest at my store or while clocked in -- even if I agreed with the purpose of the protest.

But if another business manager chose to allow his employees to protest, he is free to do that as well.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

In all this back and forth, I've found a very simple truth.

People are imperfect, but that doesn't always mean we should get angry at them.

People with good motives sometimes are imperfect in the execution of their actions. That doesn't mean what they are trying to do isn't completely noble. Complain about whether or not kneeling is effective in raising awareness toward police brutality. Fine. But be willing to admit that imperfect as the actions may be, it might just be that some of the protestors aren't master strategists, are doing what they believe is the best they can, and most importantly, are doing what they are doing for noble reasons.

This whole issue has brought about way more anger, and way less attempted understanding, than it should have.

[shockfan89_]

In all this back and forth, I've found a very simple truth.

People are imperfect, but that doesn't always mean we should get angry at them.

People with good motives sometimes are imperfect in the execution of their actions. That doesn't mean what they are trying to do isn't completely noble. Complain about whether or not kneeling is effective in raising awareness toward police brutality. Fine. But be willing to admit that imperfect as the actions may be, it might just be that some of the protestors aren't master strategists, are doing what they believe is the best they can, and most importantly, are doing what they are doing for noble reasons.

This whole issue has brought about way more anger, and way less attempted understanding, than it should have.

In general I agree, but my question, which I will probably never get the answer for, was Kaepernick just misinformed in thinking that police kill black people at a higher rate than white people, or did he know the truth and move forward with the protest knowing that he was incorrect?

Which leads me to the next question and the one I feel is more applicable. What liability does the news media have in all of this? The media has obviously moved from reporting on facts and letting the viewer decide, to slanting their reporting to fit what they want their audience to hear. This is done by both sides. Obviously the news media knows that police are not out targeting black people and for sure not killing black people at a higher rate than white people, but they continue to push these false stories or give half-truths when they know it will spark outrage. At what point do these news organizations lose their press passes if they continue to promote half-truths and slant stories, and collude with one candidate or one party? To me they are no longer independent news organizations, but instead they are a mouthpiece for a political party.

Remember back in 2012 when this new racial divide started, one of the major networks edited the 911 tape so it seemed like Zimmerman was anxious to identify Trayvon as black. In reality Zimmerman (who wasn't white) was asked by the 911 dispatcher what race Trayvon was. I'm sure everyone also remembers the false narrative of "hands up, don't shoot" which was proven over and over to be false. Also, remember the shock when the police officers in the Freddie Gray case were identified and half of them were black. Surely many people knew this well in advance and just chose not to report it? Who is the group that is trying to create this divide and what is their motivation? It is obviously being encouraged and aided by the left-leaning media. It seems like every major story has some media involvement pushing a false aspect or half-truth. But why? Is it only ratings or is there something larger going on here?

I would think the media would quit trying to write the story, and just report the story. If the facts actually show a racial bias I think almost everyone will come to the same agreement that it is wrong!

[CBB_Fan]

In reality Zimmerman (who wasn't white) was asked by the 911 dispatcher what race Trayvon was.

Zimmerman wasn't white, but he also wasn't a police officer. My main gripe at the time was about that. He was a part of the Twin Lakes Neighborhood Watch, which was not registered with the National Neighborhood Watch Program. The National Sheriff's Association had this to say:

The purpose of the Neighborhood Watch Program is to enable citizens to act as the “eyes and ears” within their community and alert law enforcement immediately when they notice suspicious activity. However, the Neighborhood Watch Program does not in any way, shape, or form advocate citizens to take the law in their own hands.

Zimmerman had no training on how to handle the situation, no authority, no reason to be in that situation at all. The sad thing is, Zimmerman almost certainly would have been worse off if Trayvon Martin lived to give testimony. A dead man tells no tales, nor do they give eyewitness testimony.

Oddly enough, the reverse happened. A man shot George Zimmerman and claimed that he was following Florida's "stand your ground" law. He claimed that Zimmerman (who had a gun with him) was the aggressor, and that he shot Zimmerman after seeing the gun; Zimmerman received minor injuries from flying glass. That man, Matthew Apperson, received a 20 year jail for attempted murder and aggravated assault.

So shooting and killing an unarmed person while acting as a pseudo-police officer was fine because no one could prove it wasn't self-defense. But don't leave a witness, or you might find yourself up against contradicting testimony.

There's a lot more messed up about that story than what the media focused in on. It is bad enough when people get paralyzed by actual cops after being stopped as a "suspicious person," we don't need armed neighborhood watchmen acting on their own.

[shockfan89_]

I don't disagree with anything you said, but my point was the media manipulated the 911 tape to make things appear racially motivated when race had nothing to do with it.

[ShockingButTrue]

Who is protesting the fundamental values of the US? Police brutality isn't a fundamental value. Even if you believe police brutality is less common than some of these folks claim (I would agree), your dispute is with the statistics, not with the "anti police brutality" message.

Lord have mercy... SMGDH :boxing:

[Kung Wu]

But if another business manager chose to allow his employees to protest, he is free to do that as well.

Absolutely.

[wufan]

Who is protesting the fundamental values of the US? Police brutality isn't a fundamental value. Even if you believe police brutality is less common than some of these folks claim (I would agree), your dispute is with the statistics, not with the "anti police brutality" message.

Protesting anything during the National Anthem is a protest against the US in my mind in so much as they are acting as if the country supports whatever they oppose. In this case its systematic law enforcement racism. i.e., it is America that allows/promotes the racism; therefore they are protesting America by kneeling for the National Anthem. A peaceful march against racism, though I probably wouldn't agree with in generalities, is not symbolic of a protest against America.

[ShockerPhi]

This appears to be going in a positive direction. As much as I hate the Denver Broncos, I think this is a great move. Here's a statement from their players.

https://twitter.com/Broncos/status/913467164593504257

They start by saying that they are not protesting the flag or the military, which a lot of us were trying to argue that this was the case. So to fix that, they are all choosing to kneel BEFORE the anthem, and then stand in unity during it. Just like the Dallas Cowboys did on Monday Night earlier this week. So far, it appears the Saints will be doing this as well.

https://twitter.com/drewbrees/status/913705957351403520

As a way to show respect to all, our #Saints team will kneel in solidarity prior to the national anthem & stand together during the anthem.

Good for the Dallas Cowboys for starting this and good for the Broncos and the Saints. I hope this catches on.

[ShockCrazy]

This appears to be going in a positive direction. As much as I hate the Denver Broncos, I think this is a great move. Here's a statement from their players.

https://twitter.com/Broncos/status/913467164593504257

They start by saying that they are not protesting the flag or the military, which a lot of us were trying to argue that this was the case. So to fix that, they are all choosing to kneel BEFORE the anthem, and then stand in unity during it. Just like the Dallas Cowboys did on Monday Night earlier this week. So far, it appears the Saints will be doing this as well.

https://twitter.com/drewbrees/status/913705957351403520

Good for the Dallas Cowboys for starting this and good for the Broncos and the Saints. I hope this catches on.

I do think it is a great idea as a whole, the unfortunate consequence and the reason it was done during the anthem initially is that it will make much easier to ignore. I expect if it becomes the norm, very soon, we will see none of the players prior to the anthem and it will be brushed aside.

[WuShock16]

I have heard a lot of people mention that it has only been in the last ten years that the NFL even had the anthem with players on the field. Many former players remember just hanging out in the locker room to prepare for the game.

In 2009, the Department of Defense startedpaying millions of taxpayer dollars to the NFL in exchange for patriotism-type activities. After scrutiny for such activities occurred in recent years, it was publicized that the payment of these funds would be discontinued.