Bennett is asking athletes to promote social change

[monkey]

Absolutely, it isn't like he's as well informed or intelligent as the media personnel that make their livings ( incredibly privileged and wealthy livings) regurgitating whatever inaccurate, half truth or outright lies happens to fit their propaganda side of the aisle ,that their personal network happens to lean towards....

Get over yourselves. Bennett has as much right, information, and intelligence ( not to mention INTEGRITY) as 95% of the "television journalists" currently deluding the media with their take on the world's issues, racial tensions, class disparity etc... If nothing else, at least he's LIVED through some of those issues first hand something I seriously doubt a majority of the others have.

Many on this board have no issues expressing their views, beliefs, and positions on the same things Bennett's talking about, and it certainly isn't all that surprising to me, that some of the most vocal in that regard feel that while they are intelligent enough to do so, Bennett isn't because "he's a football player"... Same ol' same ol'... Certain people's opinions "matter" and they are the only ones in their world's that do...

Dude, he's AT WORK!
He's using an NFL sanctioned press conference to do this!
HUGE difference!!! He most certainly does NOT have the right to say whatever he wants, not at a Seahawks press conference, not while acting as a representative of the Seattle Seahawks, and the NFL.
Your entire argument falls apart by me just pointing out that, what if this was Aaron Rogers using his platform to call on other white athletes to speak out against Black Lives Matter?

The people on this board expressing their views is in no way even remotely comparable to Bennett using a Seattle Seahawks press conference to endorse a political group! That is a straw man argument if ever there was one!

You should rethink what you said, because, while you may have the right to say whatever you like at your job, and not have to fear government reprisal, you would still be subject to whatever penalties your employer deemed adequate, if they didn't like what you had to say.
So can we stop acting as if this is a first amendment thing? It's not.
Heck, even on his own time, Bennett cannot just spout off about whatever he wants to spout off about, because the NFL can still fine him, suspend him, and even dismiss him outright if they want to.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Bennett's intelligence, or integrity as compared to a journalist, (straw man alert!). Bennett is NOT A JOURNALIST! He's a football player, and he was using the platform the NFL provides him to speak out on matters that the NFL may or may not endorse.
I am not even sure what that comparison was supposed to mean.
Journalists, whether you believe they have integrity or not, are acting within the specifications of their employment when they say what they do.
That is hardly the realm of an NFL player. So no...he actually does NOT have as much "right as 95% of the "television journalists" etc...

[monkey]

A person with fame, and hence access to a mic, can say what they want.

Again, that is simply false.
Michael Bennett DOES NOT have the right to say what he wants, at a Seattle Seahawks/NFL sanctioned press conference.
No, he absolutely DOES NOT.
No more than Russell Wilson can use his press conferences to show the pictures of aborted fetuses, or you can stand up in the middle of your office/work space/cubicle/ whatever, and start spouting racist propaganda, or talking about the Communist Manifesto etc...

Again, this is NOT a first amendment issue. The first amendment protects his right to say what he wants, without fear that the GOVERNMENT will come down on him.
His employer, however,...that is an entirely different story.

[NorthHawk]

Do you really think the NFL or the Seahawks are going to make a big or even little deal about what he said?
That would spread across the league like wildfire and cause too much distraction not to mention possible negative opinions of the league. Players will continue to spout non football and social opinions as they wish.

[monkey]

The reporter asked him about his shirt, (and would have been remiss had he not), totally appropriate on both sides.

Balogna!
That reporter mentioned his shirt because HE WANTED TO mention his shirt! He couldn't WAIT to mention his shirt. This is what the media does, they stir up controversy, they take everything and twist it into politics*.
So, if Russell Wilson were to wear a shirt featuring the picture of an aborted fetus, at a Seahawks press conference, and a reporter who happens to be anti abortion (yeah right *) should ask about his shirt, then the Seattle Seahawks/NFL sanctioned press conference should get derailed into politics, by a football player and a "journalist" who are both pushing an agenda?

* 93% of journalists identify as Democrat or Liberal. But yeah, there's no bias there. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/8/republicans-media-bias-claims-boosted-by-scarcity-/

[monkey]

Do you really think the NFL or the Seahawks are going to make a big or even little deal about what he said?
That would spread across the league like wildfire and cause too much distraction not to mention possible negative opinions of the league. Players will continue to spout non football and social opinions as they wish.

No I don't because they don't want that kind of heat. For one thing, the media would ROAST them alive, and they are already head hunting *pun intended, over the concussion issue.
Not sure what that has to do with this though. I guess I am not quite following.

[HumanCockroach]

I get it. Of course no black man from a poor background should discuss being black or poor....

Let's just cut to the chase. I'm personally not in the least offended as a white American male by "Black lives matter" anymore than I would be by you or anyone else saying their son out daughters life matters as saying that doesn't in the least imply that my son or daughters lives don't... Nor am I offended by blue lives matter despite not being a police officer...

I'm not entirely sure at what point people made this an "us or them" argument, nor do I give a sh#t. The truth is, I don't feel slighted or offended because they are RIGHT. Their lives matter as much as my own, and while it seems many are capable of ignoring, turning a blind eye or professing ignorance about how this country works, I don't. You are welcome to ignore it, claim the slights you have manufactured, or spew incorrect or incomplete statistics until the messiah returns. I don't bury my head in the sand, and I'm not starting with this.

[monkey]

I get it. Of course no black man from a poor background should discuss being black or poor....

At work?
AT WORK???
HC, this is a straw man argument. It's a non starter. It's NOT what this is about, and you know it.

Again, he can say what he wants, without fear of government reprisal, but while he is representing the Seattle Seahawks organization and the NFL, he takes his chances if he wants to ramble on about being black or poor.
The NFL fined Marshawn Lynch for not saying ANYTHING.
So apparently, you don't get it. This isn't about silencing the poor black man, it's about the appropriateness of using his platform as an athlete, during a sanctioned press conference, to push an agenda that at best can be described as being, highly charged politically.
And the reason I brought it up, is because, I find it annoying. I find it annoying when celebrities of any stripe, use their popularity to try to politicize otherwise politically neutral events.
If I were watching the Oscars, (I would never watch the Oscars) I would find the politicizing of the event extremely annoying.
If I were watching a NASCAR event, I would find it very annoying if one of the racers were pushing the NRA every chance he got. (Yes, I used a NASCAR stereotype, sue me.)

What's more, I can GUARANTEE YOU that if this were some pro life athlete, pushing the pro life agenda, many of you defending Michael Bennett now, would be expressing your annoyance at the athlete pushing his pro life agenda!
I guarantee that many of you guys now defending his "right to say whatever he wants", would be grumbling that it's not right that you tune in to watch football, and have to listen to someone ramble on about murdering babies.

[HumanCockroach]

Sorry, I was unaware when at work he ceased being black or from a poor background... My bad. SMDH.
He was asked a question, he answered. Really isn't complicated. Since answering questions is part of that WORK, you have zero grounds to b#tch if his answer isn't to your liking.

As for "getting it" I do, it's unfortunate you and others don't, but that's your cross not mine.

If he was moaning about a pro life agenda? Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't, but I wouldn't be lamenting him answering a question about it, nor saying he should STFU and just play football, nor professing being more intelligent or even that I had the "right" of it. Huge difference between not agreeing ( as I did with Sherman's stance) and lambasting HAVING a stance... If you ( and others )are OK with Sherman doing the EXACT same thing just two days before on the opposite side of the discussion, then your claims Bennett should just be quiet is hypocrisy in it's truest form.

[RiverDog]

Stop with the statistics. Statistics with no context mean nothing. You want some statistics? How about these?

White people and black peoples use drugs at s nearly identical rate. Black people are arrested for drugs at a much higher rate and receive harsher sentences. Black men are stopped/arrested for shoplifting at the highest rate per capita of any race/gender segment of the population but have one of the lowest rates of actually shoplifting. The population that has the highest rate of shoplifting is white women who are stopped or arrested at one of the lowest rates.

Your statistics about police violence and crime are not only deficient in terms of actually having reliable stats due to lack of good tracking but they are informed by a predisposed assumption that black people commit more crimes, which is based on stereotype. When you are constantly targeting one segment of the population and not giving as much attention to others, you are going to find more crime as a result of your focus.

It's like the NY stop and frisk. Your going to generate more crime statistics for black men if all you're doing is stopping and frisking black men. Your so called stats are juked by indirect bias if not intent.

I'm not sure if you're referring to my comments or not, but if so, I did not mention a statistic, more like a stating of fact: That blacks have a higher crime rate than whites or Asians. BTW, I agree about your statement, that blacks receive harsher sentences than whites. But I am not so sure that fact has as much to do with race as much it does money.

FYI, Hispanics have a high crime rate as well, and they are not immune to being shot by police. We had an incident in my community where a Hispanic that was refusing instructions and throwing rocks at police was shot dead, although that incident was ruled an appropriate use of force and there was no video.

My point was that we need to start talking about the cause of these shootings and what can be done to stop them. If you don't line ONE of my reasons, then propose another. The time for speaking out, protesting, et al has ended. Time to find a solution and get past it.

[burrrton]

That blacks have a higher crime rate than whites or Asians.

No no, RD- that must be due to all those racist cops and racist judges, too, because they just can't be committing more crimes.

Ruins the narrative, so you get "STOP QUOTING STATISTICS". So fcking tiresome.

[HumanCockroach]

Use all of them, not just the ones that support your position. Until you do, you're part of the problem, not the solution. Claiming only this statistic matters, without taking into account ALL of them, makes your knowledge, view, and position irrelevant and incomplete.

Doing the same I could easily claim that white males are the biggest risk to society... That is if course if I chose only to look at a single statistic ( violent criminal prisoners of which White Males dominate) until I look at the PERCENTAGE that is... Without context, a statistic is irrelevant. ( ie: people's refusal to acknowledge that an armed black male is 7x more likely to be killed by an officer than a white armed male, or that a black UNARMED male is 3x more likely to be killed by an officer than a white ARMED male. There's plenty of information on that stuff, unfortunately some only research until they get exactly what they want. To Hell with the disproportionate percentage in that end. Right?).

I understand RD's point, the issue is that he's treating this like this is some sort of new development, and that it's time to fix it instead of protesting and bringing it to light. This isn't new, and people have tried to bring this to light for decades. The BLM is doing that ( as painful as it is on both sides of the spectrum), it's unfortunate that some refuse to acknowledge the reasons for that movement, and can't see the lunacy in claiming " well they deserved it" every single time.

The truth is, all lives matter, but last I checked, black lives were part of that group, as are blue lives, white lives, Asian lives, Hispanic lives etc... I wouldn't have any issue with any of those statements or beliefs either as each one would be accurate. They aren't fighting for special treatment, they are fighting for equal treatment, what's the issue with that?

[c_hawkbob]

I wanna know where the rules about only asking/ speaking only about football during media sessions at a team facility came from. Seriously, this is new information to me.

[HumanCockroach]

Well, that would be only when they are saying something someone doesn't like Bob.... I highly doubt this thread would even be here had Bennett been wearing a youth group T - shirt and was discussing inner city children's support after being asked, nor do I think it would be here if Bennett discussed how strong his faith was and what church he attended ( assuming it's a Church that some approved of)... To here some tell it, they would have an issue with answering a direct question not related to football, and yet two years ago, not a peep when Lynch refused to discuss anything football related, and instead discussed his Fam 1st foundation... Not a peep when Wilson discusses his faith, no talk when Sherm or Baldwin discuss anything and everything under the sun ( including direct jabs at the NFL itself) nothing, nada, zilch...

Because, you know, they know what a player should have an opinion on, or how they should feel and act.... LMFAO...

I honestly cannot believe that Monkey actually claimed Bennett should have pretended like he wasn't a black man, with a black wife and three black children because, you know, " he was at work. WORK!"... LMFAO... WHO pretends they aren't what they are when someone asks them a question at work? I am fairly confident, I've never lied about my heritage and upbringing at any time in my entire life, but maybe I'm the outlier, and everyone else does so. Who knows?

[kalibane]

Was not replying to you riv. Was applying to Burrton, who wants to focus on certain stats that fit his preferred narrative but doesn't care why those stats exist or how shaky those stats are due to lack of good data collection. See how he doesn't want to deal with the drugs or the shoplifting which indicate a big problem in how law enforcement focuses their effort but just wants to assume that kind of focus doesn't bleed over. He doesn't want to deal with the fact that there is no such thing as comprehensive reporting of police shooting stats (they are kind of like tackles in the NFL because local departments deal with them differently, most provide incomplete data and many don't report them at all).

And once you're in the criminal justice system you tend to stay there, whether you're black, white, Asian whatever. People adopt that lifestyle because having a record tends to shut doors well after the sentence is served especially for minorities. So police focus on black and Hispanic populations and it just becomes a feedback loop.

But you know one surface level statistic about crime rate is all people need to reinforce their desire to believe certain people are bigger criminals.

[monkey]

Sorry, I was unaware when at work he ceased being black or from a poor background... My bad. SMDH.
He was asked a question, he answered. Really isn't complicated. Since answering questions is part of that WORK, you have zero grounds to b#tch if his answer isn't to your liking.

I honestly cannot believe that Monkey actually claimed Bennett should have pretended like he wasn't a black man, with a black wife and three black children because, you know, " he was at work.

I won't even dignify the stupidity of that first sentence with a comment.
He was wearing a Black Lives Matter shirt, during an NFL press conference, because he WANTED to be asked about it. Are you intentionally being obtuse, and trying to obfuscate the conversation?
The part I bolded was simply hilarious.

So, if Aaron Rogers were to say that he has a cousin in law enforcement, do you think the NFL would allow him to wear some clothing denouncing Black Lives Matter, and ramble on about how white athletes need to advocate against "social change"?
Stop the hypocrisy please.

[monkey]

I wanna know where the rules about only asking/ speaking only about football during media sessions at a team facility came from. Seriously, this is new information to me.

Anyone hungry for some Red Herring?

Who said anything about rules that prohibit anything other than football talk?
I said that I find it annoying when celebrities politicize otherwise politically neutral events. How is that the same thing???
I reminded people that it's not a first amendment issue, (as people were implying) because he is employed by the NFL, and cannot just say whatever he wants, or risk being fined.

[c_hawkbob]

Seriously Monkey;

Furthermore, as an employee of the Seattle Seahawks, a team in the NFL, and therefore, a representative of both, he actually does NOT have the right to "say whatever he wants", as so many people have claimed he does. Not at an NFL sanctioned press conference!

You've thrown this out there several times as though if it were fact, I would really like to know if it is or if it's just the way you think it should work.

[c_hawkbob]

Who said anything about rules that prohibit anything other than football talk?
I said that I find it annoying when celebrities politicize otherwise politically neutral events. How is that the same thing???
I reminded people that it's not a first amendment issue, (as people were implying) because he is employed by the NFL, and cannot just say whatever he wants, or risk being fined.

Red herring my ass, you keep saying it, is it true? It absolutely speaks directly to the conversation at hand. You used as your justification for calling my post bologna, it's as pertinent as it gets.

[kalibane]

I seem to remember a lot of athletes wearing NYPD and NYFD paraphernalia after 9/11 and talking about their service. They have entire league wide efforts to support Breast Cancer awareness and Veteran appreciation. Is that not using a platform to advocate for a cause they believe in? No one took Sherman to task for expressing his opinion regarding all lives matter (although they did get mad when he expressed his opinion on the use of the word "thug").

Seems to me that it's when people get upset about celebrity activism depends on whether they agree with the cause. When they agree people call it "giving back". When they don't they just want celebs to shut up.

[Hawk Sista]

^^^^ BINGO! The narrative changes when the subject matter changes. PERIOD!

Modern day cell phone use has provided evidence (@ least a peek in a small window) to white America about what black America faces. The new citizen evidence demonstrates why black parents have to have "the talk" with their children....no, not the one about sex - the one that says "keep your hands visible, don't talk back - even if you are right, yes, you will be pulled over for no reason & followed by management in the store as though you are there to rob them blind.... Just be polite and don't make any sudden movements."

I seriously do not know why we are not more open to talking about needed change after we all see a video of a black man lying in the street with his arms in the air (no weapon anywhere) get shot by the very people who were there to help. this is not to say all cops are bad.... It is to say we have a problem and we can be better. Why is that so hard to acknowledge??

[burrrton]

I wanna know where the rules about only asking/ speaking only about football during media sessions at a team facility came from. Seriously, this is new information to me.

"I wanna know where the rules about asking/speaking only about Thanksgiving during Thanksgiving dinner at your house came from!" -Uncle Bob, after I ask him to please quit haranguing everyone about Hillary and Trump at Thanksgiving dinner.

Is it really so outrageous to ask that players leave the racially-charged and partisan political issues for political environments, or at least non-football environments?

I don't think so.

[c_hawkbob]

There's a lot of difference between asking your favorite celebrities not to talk about subject matter that makes you uncomfortable and saying they don't have the right to.

[burrrton]

Modern day cell phone use has provided evidence (@ least a peek in a small window) to white America about what black America faces.

No- it's given *all* of America a better view of what *all* people face when coming into contact with police.

Remember the names of the unarmed white guys shot by police recently? They're there and more numerous than the black guys, but of course you don't- you've been led to believe there is some police war going on against black people (and worse in my view, you've admitted previously you're not interested in reading to learn more about such things).

The new citizen evidence demonstrates why black parents have to have "the talk" with their children....no, not the one about sex - the one that says "keep your hands visible, don't talk back - even if you are right, yes, you will be pulled over for no reason & followed by management in the store as though you are there to rob them blind.... Just be polite and don't make any sudden movements."

Hate to burst another narrative, but everybody has that talk with their children, Sis.

[edit]

Another thing: when pulled over, even if for no reason (which happens), do you honestly think you shouldn't have to keep your hands visible and avoid talking back "even if you're right"?!? Do you think you have some free pass for being aggressive in some manner if a store manager has some misconception about you based on prejudices that may exist in his/her mind?

[/edit]

Personally, I live in a lower-crime area so interactions with police are much more rare than in, say, certain parts of Beacon Hill area (Seattle), where jaywalking at 1am might get you rolled up on by Seattle's finest. If you admit that's a a driver of police encounters (which I think is obvious), what do you want to do to change that? Tell police to spend more time elsewhere?

I seriously do not know why we are not more open to talking about needed change after we all see a video of a black man lying in the street with his arms in the air (no weapon anywhere) get shot by the very people who were there to help. this is not to say all cops are bad.... It is to say we have a problem and we can be better. Why is that so hard to acknowledge??

Nobody is saying there are no bad cops, that bad mistakes aren't made, and that no further improvements can be made- it's acknowledged. The issue seems to be that you think police violence is limited exclusively to black people- it's not.

The police should be trained more thoroughly in dealing with uncomfortable situations more effectively, but beyond that general statement, I'm not 100% sure what that entails. Maybe you could stop assuming any shooting is based purely on skin color and come up with some great suggestions?

[edited for leaving out parts and generally bad grammar]

[burrrton]

There's a lot of difference between asking your favorite celebrities not to talk about subject matter that makes you uncomfortable and saying they don't have the right to.

Agree- I won't say there is no "right" to say anything at any time. I think the point of that line of argument is more that the Seahawks/NFL retain the option to silence such things if they choose to, something I doubt either will do (nor do I think they should) unless it got much more out of hand.

[NorthHawk]

We are overlooking the fact the NFL encourages the players to let us fans in on who they are as people.
They do this in a large part by interviews and as such interviews including at work are a large part of finding out what type of people they are.
Players have in the past, do today, and will continue in the future to comment on political and social issues amongst other things during these conversations/interviews.
It's all part of the discovery process of the players by the media, which the NFL encourages.

[RiverDog]

And once you're in the criminal justice system you tend to stay there, whether you're black, white, Asian whatever. People adopt that lifestyle because having a record tends to shut doors well after the sentence is served especially for minorities. So police focus on black and Hispanic populations and it just becomes a feedback loop.

But you know one surface level statistic about crime rate is all people need to reinforce their desire to believe certain people are bigger criminals.

That I agree with. My step son was arrested and convicted of a drive by shooting on his 18th birthday. Sounds pretty bad, huh? Actually he was driving the car from which some of his friends were shooting unoccupied cars from with a .22, not exactly the type of weapon Clint Eastwood would be packing. And that one crime dogged him for the rest of his life (he died at age 32 of an epileptic seizure 1.5 years ago) even though he was not what anyone would consider a hard core criminal. He couldn't get a job because he'd lost his driver's license because he couldn't afford to pay the insurance, astronomical because of the drive by shooting conviction and he couldn't pay off his restitution because he had a hard time finding work. It was a vicious circle and taught me a lesson about how really difficult it is to get out of that cycle.

As far as the police focusing their efforts on blacks and Hispanics goes, they focus their attention on high crime rate areas, which oddly enough, tend to contain more blacks and Hispanics, and hence part of my argument: That those demographic groups are naturally subject to more interactions with the police. It's certainly possible that some policemen have become so conditioned or biased that they see a threat behind every black face to where all it takes is for a black man to make one unusual movement that triggers an instinctive, reflex action. Of course, that doesn't explain the cop in SC that shot a black suspect in the back as he was running away from him or the "rough ride" given to the black kid in Baltimore. Those cops ought to be in prison...including the black cops that were involved in those incidents.

[burrrton]

I notice that despite the difficulty of your step-son's life post-conviction, RD (as tends to be the case), his "feedback loop" didn't force him to "adopt a lifestyle" of armed robbery and burglary.

Amazing.

(Notice how the argument isn't that the crimes aren't being committed, but rather that some demographics shouldn't be expected to stop committing crimes, and rather than arguing for creating increased opportunities for those so hobbled by prior convictions, it's considered an argument against cops enforcing laws. Because Racist.)

(sorry to hear about your loss, too)

[kalibane]

As far as the police focusing their efforts on blacks and Hispanics goes, they focus their attention on high crime rate areas, which oddly enough, tend to contain more blacks and Hispanics, and hence part of my argument: That those demographic groups are naturally subject to more interactions with the police. It's certainly possible that some policemen have become so conditioned or biased that they see a threat behind every black face to where all it takes is for a black man to make one unusual movement that triggers an instinctive, reflex action. Of course, that doesn't explain the cop in SC that shot a black suspect in the back as he was running away from him or the "rough ride" given to the black kid in Baltimore. Those cops ought to be in prison...including the black cops that were involved in those incidents.

That is half true because crime tends to be in lower income areas and blacks and Hispanics reside in lower income areas. But it's half propagated by stereotype and inflated by focus. Witness Burrrton's account of how encounters with police are so rare for him in a low crime area. A black man in that same area gets stopped because he is perceived as not belonging there. But he seems to be incapable of believing that a black man's experience with law enforcement would be different and it's all unaffiliated circumstances.

And again if it's all about focusing on where crime happens and who's likely to commit crimes then why are black men stopped/accused/arrested for shoplifting at the highest rate of any segment of the population even though they have one of the lowest incidences of actually engaging in shoplifting? If they really wanted to stop shoplifting just based on what is more likely (not that I agree with them doing it) store security should be following white women around the stores but that's not what happens. Security follows the black men first and foremost.

As another example, look at the heroin and/or meth epidemic running through the country. Those particular drugs are more a white problem than a black problem for a number of reasons. And yet still drug enforcement efforts are focused more on black and Hispanic inner city neighborhoods instead of the neighborhoods where most of the drug activity is happening. So the result is more minorities are arrested at a higher rate for these drugs even though they use these particular drugs at a lower rate. For example here in Cincinnati, they focus most of their drug enforcement operations in and around downtown Cincinnati, but most of the drug users are in West Side Cincinnati (low income white neighborhoods and northern Kentucky). Why are they focusing the "war on drugs" where the war isn't really happening?

And that's my point. When you are actively looking for crime in one specified area you are going to find more of it. If you started kicking in doors every day in so-called "low crime" areas those crime rates are going to rise significantly. And then people like Burrrton take those skewed stats and use it to justify the focus of law enforcement on those populations. Now he's throwing out more dog whistles with this nonsense about armed robbery, which is apropos of nothing in this discussion but seriously informs me about what his ideas about black people consist of.

[Hawktawk]

BLM advocates state publicly that using the phrase '
all lives matter" is racist. its not a reasonable mainstream advocacy group.

Black neighborhoods have far and away more crime. Whats happening in Chicago is not a cop problem and not a white problem.It isn't even a gun problem. its like the sheriff in Louisiana said after his officers were hunted down and killed'this isn't so much about guns as what is in mens hearts.'

I don't know all the reasons why blacks are dis-proportionally represented in crime statistics, out of wedlock births etc.But when Blacks have only had the right to vote and sit in front of the bus for a few generations its fair to say racism over centuries has helped the dysfunction.

But when black parents attack cops when their kids resist arrest violently and wind up dead it isn't helpful.And that was big thug mike brown and momma to a t. Also many other of these highly sensationalized cases.Garner is the most ridiculous. A store owner reported him for tailgating cigarettes in front of his business. The arrest was ordered by a BLACK FEMALE police sergeant. Garner, a 6'7 350 lb man clearly resisted arrest. They didnt taze him, shoot him, none of that. They took him to the ground which took at least 4 officers to accomplish. They restrained him so that he couldn't possible get an officers weapon etc.He had terrible health issues and died.The cops like most of these incidents were completely exonerated.

Wtf are the cops supposed to do with a 350 lb man resisting arrest? how about some respect for the cops for a change?

I used to be in twice as much trouble at home when I got in trouble with authority. Not too many parents of any race do that anymore. MLK had some harsh words for blacks and their lawlessness in the day. no matter how far behind the 8 ball anyone of any race starts bad behavior is unacceptable.

And as an aside regarding mike Bennett or any Seahawk or any of us in this forum to voice our diverse opinions we need more of it. The cardinal rule in america seems to be don't discuss religion or politics.not in the workplace, not in the bar, not at the dinner table.

Thats why we are a pretty much godless nation and have as our election choices hillary klingon vs Donald chump.Its why we have black democrats controlling black inner city cesspools for decades and than blaming whites and racism when the lid blows off and black voters keep buying their bullshit.

We better wake up and educate ourselves and voice our opinions whatever they are or we will wind up on the ash heap of civilization.

[burrrton]

Wtf are the cops supposed to do with a 350 lb man resisting arrest?

I'll tell you what I think they should have done in his honor- quit fcking criminalizing people selling single cigarettes. I feel similarly about the differences in drug sentencing (with small quibbles)- we over-criminalize too much of it and, as RD alluded to, it puts dumb kids making bad decisions into situations that make life much more difficult (which some apparently then use to excuse them making even worse decisions).

There *are* bad cops, but in way too many situations, we lump those simply doing their job in with the bad ones to create fairy tales that lead people into the streets chanting for dead cops** instead of decriminalization and employment/rehab programs for those in need (things that would actually help the situation, not fan the flames).

[edit]

**I'd also like to add that as I've pondered this over the last few weeks, I've become more sympathetic to the argument that the "Dead Cops"/"Pigs in a Blanket" stuff is more more bad actors in the movement and less representative than I previously gave credit for. The effort to hug cops and generally make an effort to express appreciation is a welcome evolution to what we constantly see in the news. Now let's start talking about real solutions instead of inflammatory cliches...

[HumanCockroach]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/us/miami- ... -shooting/

Anyone else tired of racial steered debates? Same people, over and over claiming this stuff is fantasy? I know I am.

[NorthHawk]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/us/miami-officer-involved-shooting/

Anyone else tired of racial steered debates? Same people, over and over claiming this stuff is fantasy? I know I am.

With this case, I wonder why any shots were fired at all.
We have one guy laying on his back with his arms in the air and the other sitting playing with a toy truck.
Are they trained to shoot first and ask questions later?

Maybe it's too late to walk it back and the Police never know what exactly they are coming up against, but I can understand the perception in some quarters that the Police are acting like an occupying force instead of Officers of the Peace.

[burrrton]

With this case, I wonder why any shots were fired at all.
We have one guy laying on his back with his arms in the air and the other sitting playing with a toy truck.

Looks terrible. Could be justified (although I don't see how), could be an example of one of the bad cops that we all admit exist.

They're investigating, and he'll either be exonerated or may be indicted like the cop RD mentioned earlier (shot a guy in the back, then lied about it) who is likely going to spend the rest of his life behind bars. As he should.

[RiverDog]

I notice that despite the difficulty of your step-son's life post-conviction, RD (as tends to be the case), his "feedback loop" didn't force him to "adopt a lifestyle" of armed robbery and burglary.

Amazing.

(Notice how the argument isn't that the crimes aren't being committed, but rather that some demographics shouldn't be expected to stop committing crimes, and rather than arguing for creating increased opportunities for those so hobbled by prior convictions, it's considered an argument against cops enforcing laws. Because Racist.)

(sorry to hear about your loss, too)

The fact that my step son did not turn into a hardened criminal wasn't really my point. My point was to corroborate what Kal was saying, ie how incredibly difficult it is to break free from an endless cycle of skirmishes with the law. You can't get a job because you can't get a car and you can't get a car because you can't get a job. Sort of like that. The damn cops would drive by his house, see that he didn't have license tabs on his car, new that he didn't have a driver's license, then pulled him over the minute they saw his car on the road and back to the can he went and with more fines to pay. I have to admit that since I met my wife in 2000, the ordeal her son went through was one of the most eye opening, thought changing experiences I've encountered.

Here's another example: My employer will fire anyone convicted of a felony. I had a worker of mine get fired for throwing rocks at his girlfriend's house despite not having any major issues with his supervisor(me). He plead guilty to "domestic violence malicious mischief", and when I researched it, the law said that if the damage is over $300 (he broke a window), it constitutes a felony. He didn't realize he was pleading guilty to a felony and he didn't realize the zero tolerance our company has for employing felons. That seems to me to be illegal, but they do it and get away with it. We bought a small plant in E. Washington and immediately terminated about 20% of the workforce because they had a felony conviction in their background. And it's not like we are involved in a super secret, highly classified business, either. We make junk food. It's an example of a bunch of white men in suits that were born with silver spoons in their mouths patting themselves on the back for their ultra pure ethics.

I don't know what the solution is. We have to hold people accountable for their actions, punishment has to be progressive, and the public has to be protected. I get all that. But until you've seen close up what the life of someone that's always living on the edge is like, you don't get an appreciation of how difficult it is to break free from that endless cycle.

[RiverDog]

That is half true because crime tends to be in lower income areas and blacks and Hispanics reside in lower income areas. But it's half propagated by stereotype and inflated by focus. Witness Burrrton's account of how encounters with police are so rare for him in a low crime area. A black man in that same area gets stopped because he is perceived as not belonging there. But he seems to be incapable of believing that a black man's experience with law enforcement would be different and it's all unaffiliated circumstances.

And again if it's all about focusing on where crime happens and who's likely to commit crimes then why are black men stopped/accused/arrested for shoplifting at the highest rate of any segment of the population even though they have one of the lowest incidences of actually engaging in shoplifting? If they really wanted to stop shoplifting just based on what is more likely (not that I agree with them doing it) store security should be following white women around the stores but that's not what happens. Security follows the black men first and foremost.

As another example, look at the heroin and/or meth epidemic running through the country. Those particular drugs are more a white problem than a black problem for a number of reasons. And yet still drug enforcement efforts are focused more on black and Hispanic inner city neighborhoods instead of the neighborhoods where most of the drug activity is happening. So the result is more minorities are arrested at a higher rate for these drugs even though they use these particular drugs at a lower rate. For example here in Cincinnati, they focus most of their drug enforcement operations in and around downtown Cincinnati, but most of the drug users are in West Side Cincinnati (low income white neighborhoods and northern Kentucky). Why are they focusing the "war on drugs" where the war isn't really happening?

And that's my point. When you are actively looking for crime in one specified area you are going to find more of it. If you started kicking in doors every day in so-called "low crime" areas those crime rates are going to rise significantly. And then people like Burrrton take those skewed stats and use it to justify the focus of law enforcement on those populations. Now he's throwing out more dog whistles with this nonsense about armed robbery, which is apropos of nothing in this discussion but seriously informs me about what his ideas about black people consist of.

I'm sure what you say is true, at least to some degree. I realize that it's easier to commit a crime in a high class neighborhood and get away with it because there isn't the police attention that there is in lower class neighborhoods. But it's not enough to account for such a wide disparity.

My whole point is that we are not talking about root causes and solutions. For example: The out of wedlock birth rate for blacks has soared since the 1960's, to near 73%. It's only 29% for whites and a mere 17% for Asians/Pacific Islanders. With those kind of numbers, is it any wonder why test scores of black kids entering Kindergarten are so much lower than it is for their white and Asian counterparts? The black community needs to start addressing those problems that they have control over if they want to do something positive to address the crime rate and quit rationalizing it as you have. As a society, we need an honest discussion without the fear of being called a racist because we dared to bring up facts like I have.

Here's what Charles Barkley had to say:

“We got to do better as black people. The cops have made some mistakes, but there’s a lot of blame to go around. But I’m not going to get on TV and yell like all these other idiots. I’m willing to sit down with anybody and have constructive criticism. I always tell myself as a black man: ‘Am I part of the problem or part of the solution?’ If I’m out doing illegal stuff, stupid stuff, I’m part of the problem. If I’m helping young black kids go to college like I’m trying to do, if I’m giving money to causes to help young men, I know I’m part of the solution. I’m not perfect, I’m not trying to be perfect, but you have to ask yourself: ‘Are you part of the problem or are you part of the solution?'”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ear ... ck-people/

I'd really encourage you to read the entire interview with Barkley. He offers a unique perspective.

[burrrton]

The fact that my step son did not turn into a hardened criminal wasn't really my point.

I know. It was mine, though.

As I said, I acknowledge well the problems people face with criminal histories. That does not mean criminal behavior is inevitable, it doesn't mean it's society's fault, it doesn't excuse criminal behavior, and it sure as hell doesn't mean criminal behavior isn't taking place.

It *does* mean we should be looking for ways to help them (jobs programs, removing/reforming useless laws, etc), not b*tching that police are enforcing existing law (the over-zealous dcks you witnessed notwithstanding).

[edit]

You can't get a job because you can't get a car and you can't get a car because you can't get a job. Sort of like that. The damn cops would drive by his house, see that he didn't have license tabs on his car, new that he didn't have a driver's license, then pulled him over the minute they saw his car on the road and back to the can he went and with more fines to pay. I have to admit that since I met my wife in 2000, the ordeal her son went through was one of the most eye opening, thought changing experiences I've encountered.

Stupid question (asking in all sincerity): why didn't you just loan, or even give, him the $50 for his tabs?

[RiverDog]

Stupid question (asking in all sincerity, since it seems obvious): why didn't your thoughts change to loaning him the $50 for his tabs?

We gave him countless hundreds of dollars, did everything but bail him out of jail. We gave him a car that he was supposed to pay for but we forgave the debt. My wife made trips to his house and would stock the kitchen with food. I'd slip him a $100 when he came down to visit. He always had some money, either through menial labor or unemployment. But instead of using the money to buy license tabs (and they were $35, not $50) or make payments on his restitution, he'd use it on unnecessary parts for his car. I often said that if he were a squirrel, he'd starve to death in the winter because he didn't know how to plan ahead, lived for the moment, thrived on instant gratification. He was a F-up, but not a hardened criminal. The really sad thing was that he was finally getting his life in order when he died of natural causes. As a matter of fact, we're heading to a campground to spread his ashes this weekend (you won't see me posting for a few days).

[burrrton]

Sorry to hear about that, RD. Burying a child is something no parent should ever have to experience. I'm truly sorry.

[edit- you caught my wise-acre phrasing of the question- I thought it sounded a-hole-ish so changed it FYI]

[edit2- I don't mean this disrespectfully to your late son, but it doesn't sound like his criminal history was his problem.]

[monkey]

I wanna know where the rules about only asking/ speaking only about football during media sessions at a team facility came from. Seriously, this is new information to me.

Who said it's a "rule"? I said it's ANNOYING.
I have said repeatedly that I don't like it when people politicize otherwise politically neutral events, no matter which side of the aisle they are on.
I also questioned, (that's NOT the same thing as saying there is a rule about it) the appropriateness of it during a Seattle Seahawks/NFL sanctioned press conference, and I pointed out that if the NFL or the Seahawks wanted to, they could tell him to stop.
People tried to say that it's a first amendment thing, to which I pointed out that, no, it is NOT. It's a work place thing.
Again, I never said that I know of a "rule" against it, I said it's annoying.
Is that clear now?

[HumanCockroach]

I think everybody has an F up in their family ( or at least enough to be a moot point) many people understand the vicious cycle that ensues, but many refuse to acknowledge that cycle... One of the things that is often glossed over its that sometimes, the only thing that it takes to be considered that is your financial status, physical address or color of your skin ( which is IMHO exactly what we are talking about). No one is claiming that that cycle doesn't exist outside of blacks, however, it's insane to think the percentages of blacks caught inn that cycle is do solely to them committing crimes ( which is honestly just another way of discrimination on the part of those refusing to acknowledge the vast disparity in jailing, sentencing and deaths of black people).

People that follow the law but have minor issues ( like a taillight out, full disclosure, following instructions of the officer simply because they were in a nice neighborhood and happen to have a darker pigment.. Or are selling cigarettes illegally, or are on the ground, or are shot in the back after a routine traffic stop etc) no matter WHAT those previous infractions are, do NOT deserve to be gunned down. That is not how enforcing the law is supposed to work, and it absolutely surprises me that today there are still those refusing to acknowledge that...

It IS supposed to be the same rules for everyone, it's doubtful that you RD would be ok with your stepson being shot because he had a taillight out ( regardless of former criminal history) which is EXACTLY why BLM exists. This isn't one issue, or a few issues, or a couple bad cops, this is a HISTORY of these types of instances, that span decades. Just because it now is being blasted out via social media doesn't make it "new", which is why the insistence that there is no profiling, racism, etc in the police department is not just laughable, but dangerous.

This isn't to say I don't respect, acknowledge and love police officers. I absolutely do, 99% of them absolutely try to do their jobs ( difficult, dangerous and thankless jobs), that said, pretending like they don't have ingrained training, human responses, and personal biases is ridiculous. They do, just like the rest of us.