Colin Kaepernick 49ers QB Bad Move

[joeypots]

39 minutes ago, Bohn007 said:

 Won't disagree with some of what you said but in an effort to stay on topic, since we agree that there is plenty of awareness on the subject, what the quarterback did was nothing less than a publicity stunt to bring attention to himself, not to a problem under reported 

How do you know this? Please explain so we can all understand.

[Bohn007]

56 minutes ago, joeypots said:

How do you know this? Please explain so we can all understand.

How do I know what? That there is plenty of awareness on the topic or that this was obviously a publicity stunt for his own benefit? 

[topdiesel]

1 hour ago, Slyclient said:

I find it quite interesting that people who oppose what he has done seem to never bring up the reason for the protest.  I must say, It has been a brilliant strategy by conservatives and people for could care less about the plight of black men and women in America. Brilliant!!!  Instead of addressing the issue, lets cloud the narrative and lets talk about how disrespectful he is being to the flag and the country. 

1 hour ago, Slyclient said:

No, I agree with you, it has gotten plenty of attention. My point is, people who oppose focus on something negative surrounding the situation to drown out the point of the protest. I am sad to say but this strategy has work. The more convoluted the topic becomes, the less chance there can be a solution to it.  I may be wrong but I believe that many of these people want cops killing black people. If they didn't, they would focus on providing a solution to the problem, not doing their best to destroy the message.

 

As a conservative I am appalled by your statements.  Am I to understand that conservatives want black folks killed by cops? Is that how you feel?  Do you want cops killing white folks?  Should I believe that is your perspective without anything to support it?  How can there be any middle ground when you believe that all opposition is evil?  "People who oppose what he has done never bring up the reason for the protest."  Again, another miss.  I strongly disagree with Colin's actions, yet I posted an plan created by the National Urban League Washington Bureau and agreed with a majority of it (please see a copy of that post below). People are tired of constant protest without mapping out a plausible plan to create worthwhile change.  

I will add that calling people names (racist or any other name) when they oppose you is not really an effective tactic to come together with an open mind.  In fact it does the opposite and people shut down and dig in their heels.

I have not really seen any of the folks in favor of Colin's actions proposing any solutions.  It seems like most of the posts in this thread have been to tear down one side or the other, while being deaf to the other's arguments.  Seemingly posts are getting more and more inflammatory. 

 

 

19 hours ago, topdiesel said:

This has been a fascinating thread and great points have been made expressing several different perspectives.  Many folks hear Black Lives Matter and tune out or jump to a conclusion-good or bad.  The name of the organization does not portray the need for law enforcement reform.  Then, for another huge segment of the population the mention of Law Enforcement Reform also causes folks to tune out.

I attempted to learn what the BLM recommendations were to improve the situation.  I went to the BLM website and it did not clearly portray any plan (to me at least and the images chosen for the site seemed divisive).  It seemed to be more activism than problem solving.  So I asked around and tried to discover what types of solutions were being proposed and I was directed to the site linked below.

http://nulwb.iamempowered.com/policies/civil-rights/10-point-justice-plan

The 10 point plan makes a lot of sense.  A majority of the proposed reform seems like it would make communities safer and weed out bad officers without negatively impacting good officers.  That said, 7 & 9 appear to be a little overreaching for the federal gov.  I am a small gov kinda guy.

 

 

[El Presidente]

3 minutes ago, topdiesel said:

Seemingly posts are getting more and more inflammatory. 

 

And that is where it stops. 

 

I love reading the posts of members who can articulate a position blending respect for the right of another's opinion while detailing their own. A post devoid of judgmentalism or harassment to fellow members. The latter demeans the writer and the forum. 

 

 

 

[hjmclain22]

2 minutes ago, topdiesel said:

 

As a conservative I am appalled by your statements.  Am I to understand that conservatives want black folks killed by cops? Is that how you feel?  Do you want cops killing white folks?  Should I believe that is your perspective without anything to support it?  How can there be any middle ground when you believe that all opposition is evil?  "People who oppose what he has done never bring up the reason for the protest."  Again, another miss.  I strongly disagree with Colin's actions, yet I posted an plan created by the National Urban League Washington Bureau and agreed with a majority of it (please see a copy of that post below). People are tired of constant protest without mapping out a plausible plan to create worthwhile change.  

I will add that calling people names (racist or any other name) when they oppose you is not really an effective tactic to come together with an open mind.  In fact it does the opposite and people shut down and dig in their heels.

I have not really seen any of the folks in favor of Colin's actions proposing any solutions.  It seems like most of the posts in this thread have been to tear down one side or the other, while being deaf to the other's arguments.  Seemingly posts are getting more and more inflammatory. 

 

 

This is a great post as are others by many of you.  I don't think I proposed any solutions in my previous posts either, so I do apologize. The end game is to definitely to work on solutions.  I think it's also critical to understand where each side is coming from, which I appreciate from everyone who has participated.  For the instant issue, discussions between the police commissions and police chiefs and community leaders are necessary to achieve a common ground.  I recognize that police routinely put themselves in harms way to save lives and prevent violence, but is there a less non-lethal weapon available to prevent some of these deadly encounters.  I don't know.  I would think we have the technology available to subdue any suspect/subject rather than inflicting a grave injury.  Maybe someone can enlighten me on that point. 

[planetary]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/us/all-lives-matter-black-lives-matter.html may provide an interesting bit of counterpoint, for those of you who were rebutting with "all lives matter".  Something to consider, especially noting the way this article concludes.  You don't see a lot of attention on conflict resolution today; just conflict.

[NSXCIGAR]

3 hours ago, hjmclain22 said:

This is a great post as are others by many of you.  I don't think I proposed any solutions in my previous posts either, so I do apologize. The end game is to definitely to work on solutions.  I think it's also critical to understand where each side is coming from, which I appreciate from everyone who has participated.  For the instant issue, discussions between the police commissions and police chiefs and community leaders are necessary to achieve a common ground.  I recognize that police routinely put themselves in harms way to save lives and prevent violence, but is there a less non-lethal weapon available to prevent some of these deadly encounters.  I don't know.  I would think we have the technology available to subdue any suspect/subject rather than inflicting a grave injury.  Maybe someone can enlighten me on that point. 

If the issue is simply these police encounters, then yes, I absolutely agree that police training and recruitment in general needs improvement. However, whether cops set out every day with the intention of harassing or killing minorities is highly debatable. This is really the claim made by some of these people, and if true, an awfully bold claim. In many of the individual cases there is not much of a case to be made that race played any part, or that if the race of the person had been different the outcome would have changed.

I put forward that any police officer out patrolling most inner city streets would likely develop some kind of subconscious association between minorities and crime. You and I would as well. They are in the trenches, day in, day out. Not us (well, some of us). And since it is much more likely that a minority is committing a crime in many urban centers (blacks commit roughly 38% of all violent crime [FBI stats, 2013]) it's no surprise that a disproportionate number of these police encounters are between police and blacks.

But the question is, did these incidents occur because the person was of X race, or did they simply happen to be of X race? Was there any evidence of premeditation or a bias throughout the encounter? People don't get shot because of stop-and-frisk--as discriminatory as that may be. They almost all get shot or choked because they first fail to obey a lawful order, and then resist or run, and the police officer lacks the ability to maintain control, communicate, de-escalate or is nervous and jumpy. What we never see are the police officers who successfully deal with these issues every day, who de-escalate and defuse situations, who show respect and maintain control. These certainly describe almost all police encounters.

[jwr0201]

6 hours ago, Slyclient said:

No, I agree with you, it has gotten plenty of attention. My point is, people who oppose focus on something negative surrounding the situation to drown out the point of the protest. I am sad to say but this strategy has work. The more convoluted the topic becomes, the less chance there can be a solution to it.  I may be wrong but I believe that many of these people want cops killing black people. If they didn't, they would focus on providing a solution to the problem, not doing their best to destroy the message

It is surely safe to say that NOBODY wants cops to kill black people...or brown people...or white people...or any people.  To suggest such a thing has the stench of political correctness all over it and it is hard to take the blaming when it happens to everyone.  Most of us were raised to respect police officers.  Perhaps a good dose of respect on the part of ANYONE being stopped for any reason would do a world of good.  It is true that there have been some outright murders occur on the part of the police, but it is not just one group that is involved.  Another thing, why is it that in the communities where they feel agrieved, there are riots and looting and people generally act like animals?  Maybe the BLM movenemt should abandon it's positions that it is only about them and go for a platform more like EVERY Life Matters.  As for being discriminated against, get over it and move on.  Everyone has horrible tragedies occur in their lives, but very few continue to wallow in it.  When everyone views others as equals and can be truely colorblind, this crap will end.  Continuing to wallow in it is only a guarantee it will continue without an end in sight.

[jwr0201]

6 hours ago, Slyclient said:

 

[StumpyJoe]

9 hours ago, PigFish said:

Likewise mate, although I never thought much about your political positions. You appear to be more restrained than I... -LOL

I am guilty of 'filtering posts' and I don't read everyone. You are someone that I read often as I dig for truffles here on FoH. I enjoy reading your comments as well. As stated, you got me thinking!

Cheers! -Ray

This exchange between Piggy and DrukenMonkey...this is the example we all should hold to on the forum.  

 

An exchange of ideas and viewpoints without name calling , derision, or insult.  

 

I'm getting a little misty...

[StumpyJoe]

8 hours ago, joeypots said:

It's amazing how the study out of Harvard last spring was grabbed by those seeking to confirm their bias. 

We all use what ever we can find in the media to confirm our bias, that's a large part of why such acrimony ensues on these forums. And no, Prager U is not an accredited University. It is, as one biased headline described it: "Radio Host Dennis Prager's New Online ‘College’ to Combat Liberal Bias and Teach Judeo-Christian Values". 

Those of you who agreed with this videos premise will no doubt be interested in what the other conclusions of Dr. Fryer's study. I mean, now it's an undisputed fact that African American are not killed by police in higher numbers per police encounters than others. What about the rest of his conclusions? I guess the Prager U.  didn't have enough time or money to go into that.

Take a look,

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0

 

 

Hi JoeyPots,

Yes it is interesting where people have bias.  Both sides read what they wanted out of the good Doctor's study.  One side looked at the fact that police officers were less likely to shoot black assailants than other races including whites.  The other side grabbed onto the fact that outside of lethal force, force was applied more often on blacks.

 

And I appreciate what you say about everyone wanting to advance their side of the story.

 

Also, Iisee that you agree with me that Prager U is not an accredited school...of course that's both of us recognizing the facts as they are. 

I think the acrimony is stirred how people look at the good Doctor's study as a confirmation of their beliefs rather than keeping an open mind to the results of the study.  Reading the article it seems the Doctor himself was surprised at his findings of less police lethal force being applied to blacks than other races.  I am impressed how he followed the data although it did not confirm his preconceived opinion.  

 

I did find the statistic as provided by his study of 10,000 incidents in NYC showed  (and this is from memory so excuse me if the numbers are off) that the use of pepper spray/baton was 25% more against blacks than whites.  At the same time the actual numbers out of the 10,000 incidents showed that use of force against 5 blacks and 4 whites.  Interesting reading.  Out of 10,000 incidents I would say that particular use of force is amazingly low...for both races.

 

I am amazed at your description of a "biased" headline describing of Prager U's origin and objectives.  I like you.  You have a big heart.  "I" would admit that the description on the whole is accurate.  Your caution and discretion is greatly appreciated.  Thank you.

 

Prager U videos are kept to roughly 5 minutes.  They cannot encapsulate every part of a single study.  If they did the 5 minute video would be 2 hours.  The video did focus primarily on whether or not the police exhibited a bias in the use of lethal force.  They are also on a budget, as you described, and take donations.

I followed through on your invitation and read the NYT article.  It's good reading.  I would encourage others to do the same.

I thank you for your reply to my post and your courtesy as a fellow BOTL.

[StumpyJoe]

8 hours ago, wabashcr said:

Pretty standard dog whistle diversionary tactics on display in this thread.  Some of my favorites:

• Blacks are responsible for more black deaths than police
• Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime
• There are bad actors in any profession
• Other races have flourished in the face of racism
• I was once profiled and it didn't bother me

Dog whistle tactics...really?  Might I recommend more honey and less vinegar?

 

As to your favorites:

1. Sad but true.

2. Again, sad but true.

3. Especially during Oscar season.

4. Again, true.

5. Anecdotal.  But there may also something to be learned from that.

 

I'm not going to address your last paragraph and left it out of the quote I captured.

 

I do not enjoy any of the above answers that I have listed as true.  However, labeling them as "diversionary tactics" only does one thing...and that is looking away from the truth.  

 

If we are honest with ourselves and each other and want for all of us to turn this around, let us not turn away from the painful facts as they are.  If we do they will continue.  We cannot construct a solution unless we see the problems clearly.

 

God Bless.

[StumpyJoe]

6 hours ago, hjmclain22 said:

This is a great post as are others by many of you.  I don't think I proposed any solutions in my previous posts either, so I do apologize. The end game is to definitely to work on solutions.  I think it's also critical to understand where each side is coming from, which I appreciate from everyone who has participated.  For the instant issue, discussions between the police commissions and police chiefs and community leaders are necessary to achieve a common ground.  I recognize that police routinely put themselves in harms way to save lives and prevent violence, but is there a less non-lethal weapon available to prevent some of these deadly encounters.  I don't know.  I would think we have the technology available to subdue any suspect/subject rather than inflicting a grave injury.  Maybe someone can enlighten me on that point. 

To your last question, unfortunately there is not a non-lethal device that always works.

 

The police for years have stopped using the term non-lethal...the term used now is less-lethal.  One example for this is a person can have an allergic reaction to OC spray and die from it and there's no way for the officer to know about this beforehand.  On the other side OC spray has negligible effect on other people.  Tasers can be effective, but 50,000 volts hurts a lot.  And some uses of the device has resulted with Medical Examiner's ruling that the use of the device was a contributing factor of death...the high level of narcotics in the assailants system is included but it's the taser part that grabs the headlines.  Even a stun bag can kill...they are not ballistic ally sound and if they strike an eye or throat could cause death.

 

The long a short of it is a physical confrontation between two parties is shocking, violent, hurtful, hard to watch, worse to experience,and sometimes leaves us with unintended consequences.

[PigFish]

14 hours ago, StumpyJoe said:

An exchange of ideas and viewpoints without name calling , derision, or insult.  

 

... you have to admit though, I am pretty good at all three!!! -LOL

Cheers mate! -P

[MahDooRow]

While the NFL QB in question has caused quite a stir, generating a lot of discussion as well as inflaming a lot of feelings/emotions about race relations in the USA, the motivations of police/law enforcement, and the intersection between race and power, I remain a neutral yet very interested sideline observer.  Why neutral?  It's not because I lack strong convictions about any of the above mentioned issues.  I do.  However, I accept that the USA is not just a country of laws... it's an idea.   Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom from government tyranny all rest at the core of the foundation on which the USA was established.  Some may not like what others say or how they choose to say it, but the right to say it should not be in dispute.  On the other hand, it should be duly noted that freedom isn't free... therein lies the rub. 

[khomeinist]

Most notably, this player's jersey is the highest-selling unit in the NFL right now. All proceeds to be donated?  Impossible. That people would be moved by his actions and he would return the love?  Does not fit my callous view of human ethical potential.

Honestly, the antidote to the hate is just honest dialog and compromise at the local and individual level. Protests, while awkward to observe, often help this dynamic, as evidenced here in several instances. 

Peace. 

[PigFish]

39 minutes ago, khomeinist said:

Most notably, this player's jersey is the highest-selling unit in the NFL right now. All proceeds to be donated?  Impossible. That people would be moved by his actions and he would return the love?  Does not fit my callous view of human ethical possibility. 

Honestly the antidote to the hate is just honest dialog and compromise at the local and individual level. Protests, while awkward to observe, often help this dynamic. As evidenced here in several instances. 

Peace. 

Commie, how the hell are ya' brother? Where'ya been hiding? -Piggy

[westg]

4 hours ago, PigFish said:

... you have to admit though, I am pretty good at all three!!! -LOL

Cheers mate! -P

Not really !!

[hjmclain22]

19 hours ago, StumpyJoe said:

As to your favorites:

1. Sad but true.

2. Again, sad but true.

3. Especially during Oscar season.

4. Again, true.

5. Anecdotal.  But there may also something to be learned from that.

 

1. I would surmise that more whites kill whites than police (white or black or whatever color).  In fact 83% of whites are killed by whites per FBI...I'm not even sure what the purpose of number 1 is about.  This statement serves no purpose whatsoever except to incite the reader as wabashcr said.   I would hope that the police kill less people.  Seems like the media or whoever just throws this out to get a rouse.

2.  I think this is actually debatable according to how you want to massage the numbers.  The Department of Justice is available for one take on this.

3.   K.

4.   I don't believe this statement has any place in the context of this thread.  The only race that has arguably endured what blacks have in the US are Native Americans.  This contention omits two factors: 1. how wealth and power is created and sustained and 2. the power of generational racism.  Many groups of immigrants and white Americans were encouraged to participate in federal programs during the New Deal and LBJ whereas a large part of blacks were denied participation in the same.  So I'm not sure what other races are being referred to but they did not experience what blacks cumulatively have.  I will add blacks were not paid any form of reparations to supposedly make things right.  

5.   If you want to acquiesce to the trampling of your rights so be it, black or white or somewhere in between.

Lastly, if anyone participates in a cigar trade with me they will be receiving a Kap jersey.   

 

 

[hjmclain22]

23 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I put forward that any police officer out patrolling most inner city streets would likely develop some kind of subconscious association between minorities and crime. You and I would as well. They are in the trenches, day in, day out.

It's my understanding that many of the beats in the "inner city streets" were/are referred to as pejorative, if not racist terms, by the men and women in blue.  So they might well be preconditioned to engage with someone in a discriminatory manner.  

[MaxG]

5 hours ago, khomeinist said:

Most notably, this player's jersey is the highest-selling unit in the NFL right now. All proceeds to be donated?  Impossible. That people would be moved by his actions and he would return the love?  Does not fit my callous view of human ethical possibility. 

Peace. 

 

His jersey is being purchased to be set aflame in effigy.  

 

- MG

 

[hjmclain22]

6 minutes ago, MaxG said:

 

His jersey is being purchased to be set aflame in effigy.  

 

Maybe you're right the buyers are burning them, or conversely people are inspired by his actions.  Either way if he follows through on his word, he will donate the proceeds to his cause.  

[MaxG]

7 minutes ago, hjmclain22 said:

Maybe you're right the buyers are burning them, or conversely people are inspired by his actions.  Either way if he follows through on his word, he will donate the proceeds to his cause.  

 

I hope he does.

 

- MG

 

[NSXCIGAR]

1 hour ago, hjmclain22 said:

It's my understanding that many of the beats in the "inner city streets" were/are referred to as pejorative, if not racist terms, by the men and women in blue.  So they might well be preconditioned to engage with someone in a discriminatory manner.  

Sure, I don't doubt that happens among some percentage of cops, but I'd say that a potentially discriminatory attitude doesn't necessarily translate into shooting an undeserving person and/or planting evidence. That's rooted in police recruiting, training, and culture. Those things happen to whites as well. Ultimately, being professional means not letting your bias affect your behavior. Police work often attracts some very depraved and damaged individuals, and that's something that needs to be addressed and rectified, somehow.

While I have the opportunity, I wanted to address an earlier comment that I was somehow defending or am wistful of the Jim Crow era. I am not. It was a terrible environment, to be sure. My point is that even knee-deep in the Jim Crow era, the blacks were, so to speak, putting up better numbers that they have since Jim Crow. I am not saying bring back Jim Crow! No. I am saying that there doesn't appear to be a correlation between racism OR discrimination and most of the critical socio-economic metrics. The Asians largely followed the same pattern during what could be considered their mini-Jim Crow-like era of 1945-1990. One might ask if there was anything else that occurred at the almost exact moment (1965-1970) that the socio-economic indicators began turning down and staying down that could account for the change? 

I'd also be interested to hear what your explanation is for the socio-economic metrics for African-Americans being much stronger from 1900-1965 than they have been after. I am absolutely open to another theory if it makes more sense. Perhaps there is something I'm failing to recognize.

[hjmclain22]

18 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

 

While I have the opportunity, I wanted to address an earlier comment that I was somehow defending or am wistful of the Jim Crow era. I am not. It was a terrible environment, to be sure. My point is that even knee-deep in the Jim Crow era, the blacks were, so to speak, putting up better numbers that they have since Jim Crow...

I'd also be interested to hear what your explanation is for the socio-economic metrics for African-Americans being much stronger from 1900-1965 than they have been after. I am absolutely open to another theory if it makes more sense. Perhaps there is something I'm failing to recognize.

I'm not even sure if this premise is correct.  There are articles/studies by Gavin Wright out of Stanford that indicate since 1965 and the advent of the civil rights act that these metrics have improved.  

I want to mention that it took an Australian website about Cuban cigars for me to have this long of a discussion about a race-related issue with fellow Americans for the first time in a long time.