Boycotting the NFL

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Sorry, but the bolded section is an implication that somehow his "I can't breathe" statement was overly dramatic/exaggerated. It's something that a lot of pundits on certain TV "news" stations have been throwing around, as a way to somehow discredit or downplay the actual events. Why bother throwing that statement in there? What was the point? You can't put something out there, that definitely implies something, and then try to back out of it by saying "but, but... I SAID he was in distress!".

It's like talking about a rape victim, saying "well, yes rape is a horrible thing, how sad. Of course this reminds me of what my mother used to tell me about wearing short skirts... regardless, she felt in distress"

In no way did I intend to imply that he was exaggerating. If that is what you thought, then the way I wrote it was not clear enough and I do apologize.

The reason for throwing that in there was to get to the point that there should be some procedure to deal with it. I don't believe for one second that the cops should have completely ignored his pleas which is what they chose to do. They SHOULD have a procedure to deal with something like that and be able to discern properly if indeed they are distressing the suspect (for lack of better term). And sure--we can discuss how choke holds are against policy--but even when doing things within policy, there is a chance that a suspect could have. A medical event (heart attack for example) that should NOT be ignored. Ignoring medical events as a means to maintain control of a suspect seems to not be a legit procedure to me. And if it is to them, then that needs addressing.

And I am not trying to back out of anything--clearly you inferred that I was claiming he exaggerated and nothing could be further from the truth. MY attempt at clarification in response to the hostility I received was just that. If you want to believe it is back pedaling, that is your prerogative. It doesn't change what I actually meant into your "blame the victim" interpretation.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The NYPD has a procedure . . . Don't use choke holds, call for a bus and administer aid. Let's see, they did call the EMTs, who did nothing.

And that is a problem. (I addressed it in response to TaylorEar above.)

What if a suspect in the course of arrest in accordance with procedure suffers ANY kind of medical event?

Not good to go through the motions but not to actually provide any aid. What's the point of that?

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

If this is a myth that leads to death, I suggest you take your hostile indignation and direct of to the American Red Cross.

Whoa!!! Hostile indignation. Where did you get that from?
And I fail to see why would I go off on the Red Cross on your word that someone that trains in CPR for them said it.
And yes the belief in that myth has resulted in death.

Until then, the fact remains that he could breathe and I ALREADY conceded that did not mean he wasn't on distress. But you chose to overlook that and ignore it.

I ignored nothing, including you trying to play semantics, much to your chagrin. The fact remains he is dead. It is a death that could have been prevented.

I have rescued an infant who could literally not breathe due to a blocked airway. She made NO sound as her face turned blue. So spare me your lecture.

Even if you did, it is a complete logical fallacy to claim that because one baby made no sound as her face turned blue due to an obstruction that every single person that can talk, with or without obstructions in their airway can also breathe sufficiently to keep themselves alive. And that you feel the need to back up your argument with it is telling. To borrow from Kenny Rogers, I can see you're out of aces.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Whoa!!! Hostile indignation. Where did you get that from?
And I fail to see why would I go off on the Red Cross on your word that someone that trains in CPR for them said it.
And yes the belief in that myth has resulted in death.
I ignored nothing, including you trying to play semantics, much to your chagrin. The fact remains he is dead. It is a death that could have been prevented.

Uh uh. Sure. Even if you did, it is a complete logical fallacy to claim that because one baby made no sound as her face turned blue due to an obstruction that every single person that can talk, with or without obstructions in their airway can also breathe sufficiently to keep themselves alive. And that you feel the need to back up your argument with it is telling. To borrow from Kenny Rogers, I can see you're out of aces.

And I have no need for you to believe me.

I know my intentions and I know yours. I won't play your game any longer since clearly, it is just a game to you.

 

[Alice Sr.]

We're giving up on the Bears until the NFL does something with the McCaskey family and the team.

Lol if it weren't so sad

 

[eliza61]

And none of this makes it any less hypocritical.

lol so that's the standard you subscribe to? Some one does some thing unethical or hypocritical then by all means let everyone? Op wants people to stand up and stop "sleeping". Yet is upset when nfl players who last time I checked qualified as "people" did exactly that. So what is the person boycotting?

He/she is upset that they have an opinion?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

lol so that's the standard you subscribe to? Some one does some thing unethical or hypocritical then by all means let everyone? Op wants people to stand up and stop "sleeping". Yet is upset when nfl players who last time I checked qualified as "people" did exactly that. So what is the person boycotting?

He/she is upset that they have an opinion?

That they are using their place of employment as their platform.

That is not the same as being upset that they have an opinion at all.

I responded to your post specifically that identified the players as having special privilege to use their on the job time to protest. And yes, that is hypocritical to extend that privilege to them while not doing so to other employees in their line do work. (What I inferred from your post.)

As someone pointed out, instead is symbolism on the field--what can they do on their communities? What are the Rams doing for outreach? Arms up on a field prior to the game does nothing. What are they actually doing? How are they being they change they wish to see in the world?

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Everyone's a little late to the party, I've been Boycotting the NFL for going on 35yrs now.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

And I have no need for you to believe me.

I know my intentions and I know yours. I won't play your game any longer since clearly, it is just a game to you.

Seeing as how you're not even attempting to participate in any sort of legitimate discussion, I see no point in continuing. Clearly you do not have even a minimal understanding of my intentions. Suffice to say I don't consider anyone's death a game.

 

[DebbieB]

It's funny that the same people who cry "freedom of speech" in one situation are the same people who say the football players should shutup. Not on this board, someone on facebook.

 

[missbrooke06]

I have no problem with players expressing themselves but I do find it a bit rich since few people have benefited more from police mishandling a situation than athletes.

 

[redoctober25]

My take on the Rams Players protest is this... The "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" never happened. At least according to the Grand Jury Witness statements. (You can believe or not believe that if you wish). So if the "Hands Up" never happened why are you using this as your rally cry? In my opinion, I think they should have protested off the field. But thats my opinion. The second issue is that the Rams as an organization ask off duty police officers to perform security at these games. Why would you allow your players alienate the guys (and gals) that are protecting you? What happens when these officers no longer wish to work with the Rams? Anyway, that's my two cents and I'm out.

 

[OurBigTrip]

You can bet that had any players worn T-shirts supporting Darren Wilson, they would have been disciplined.

The hands-up symbol is just the latest thing that those wanting to try to hang with cool kids think they need to do. Best reaction is to point and laugh.

 

[gwynne]

American Red Cross says this.

This isn't to say the cops should not have backed off--but the man was breathing when he said those words. Or he would not have been able to say them.

Also--difficulty breathing and inability to breathe are two different things.

Some years ago I had a neighbor that made the "mistake" of calling 911 and telling the dispatcher she couldn't breathe. The dispatcher corrected her, and eventually sent out an ambulance...not urgent. Because, of course, she couldn't talk if she truly couldn't breathe per the dispatcher. She died of a heart attack that day. She was 31.

Maybe the dispatcher would have been more concerned if my neighbor had understood she was required to say she was having difficulty in breathing, rather than she couldn't breathe. Accuracy counts, I guess. Ugh.

So yes, difficulty breathing and inability to breathe can be seen as two different things. But really? These semantics games can contribute to (or potentially be the cause of) death.

 

[lauradis]

I have been boycotting all major sports franchises for years.

Bunch over priced whiny babies.

Good luck they aren't going any where.

 

[sam_gordon]

It's funny that the same people who cry "freedom of speech" in one situation are the same people who say the football players should shutup. Not on this board, someone on facebook.

Many people don't realize A) "Freedom of Speech" only means the government can't restrict your speech and/or B) "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean "freedom from consequences of that speech."

 

[eliza61]

Many people don't realize A) "Freedom of Speech" only means the government can't restrict your speech and/or B) "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean "freedom from consequences of that speech."

LOL. very true Sam. I think people are simply jealous that these players can absorb the "consequences" better than most. If the NFL fines them they will pay the fine and continue to play.

I have been boycotting all major sports franchises for years.

Bunch over priced whiny babies.

Good luck they aren't going any where.

And that's the major problem.

People aren't mad that they made a statement, people are jealous that they get paid a bunch of money for some thing they "perceive" as not being important.

It's another areas I find very hypocritical. Americans swear they are for free capitalism and yet we're the first to say who should get paid what.

I love professional football, it is a great game and a great type of entertainment. players are paid according to their worth. They negotiate their contracts. Now if they do some thing illegal, then they should totally be subjugated to the same laws as anyone else (and as we've seen this past few months, that doesn't work in any area).

But to say they are overpaid? sorry according to who?? If I've got a talent and that talent is valuable, darn tooting, you'll be paying me a boat load of money.

 

[eliza61]

That they are using their place of employment as their platform.

That is not the same as being upset that they have an opinion at all.

I responded to your post specifically that identified the players as having special privilege to use their on the job time to protest. And yes, that is hypocritical to extend that privilege to them while not doing so to other employees in their line do work. (What I inferred from your post.)

As someone pointed out, instead is symbolism on the field--what can they do on their communities? What are the Rams doing for outreach? Arms up on a field prior to the game does nothing. What are they actually doing? How are they being they change they wish to see in the world?

How do you know they aren't doing some thing? these players didn't make a statement on behalf of the "rams" did they? (I'm asking) Why can't they do symbolism on the field.

When Charleston Heston and Tony Curtis supported the civil rights movement, they didn't go into the neighborhoods, they spoke out against what they felt was a social injustice.

The bottom line is THEY don't have to do ANY THING. They are American Citizens. that fact alone means they get to protest, speak out, jump up and down without any stupid qualifications.

What if I don't volunteer with the poor I'm not aloud to speak out against it.

I stand by my assessment. People don't like the message so they should be allowed to say it at all.
If they had come out in favor of the cops, no one would utter a peep about them going into the hood.

It's all good, I definitely encourage folks to vote with their dollars. As others have pointed out, there are definitely enjoy the game and going to see the game.
My local supermarket gives a 5% discount on groceries if you wear Eagle paraphanalia while shopping on game day sundays so I get to watch a great game and save some dough.

 

[Airship Ariadne]

I think your definition of "majority" and mine are drastically different.

Yes, mine is numbers of people in polls, not White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

You can bet that had any players worn T-shirts supporting Darren Wilson, they would have been disciplined.

The hands-up symbol is just the latest thing that those wanting to try to hang with cool kids think they need to do. Best reaction is to point and laugh.

And this is the problem with allowing anyone from the team to make these kind of statements on the field. Do we really believe there are no players in that locker room who think the GJ got it right?

I won't speculate as to what would or wouldn't be punished. I'm just saying it's probably not a great idea to allow your players to publicly take sides in such divisive issues.