Boycotting the NFL

[usd2bmd]

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?

In response to what's bolded, how do we know they aren't doing something in their community? Just because you're not seeing it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

 

[olwyngdh]

Ok... since you are both hung up on the legality issue, let me amend my statement.

It's exactly the same as saying "Hey ladies, don't want to get raped? Don't drink underage at a frat party"

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Ok... since you are both hung up on the legality issue, let me amend my statement.

It's exactly the same as saying "Hey ladies, don't want to get raped? Don't drink underage at a frat party"

Not even close.

Example of what not to do if you don't want cops to react accordingly:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/09/us/new-york-synagogue-stabbing/

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

So I should be careful to avoid going 26 in a 25 mph zone because I'm now fair game to be treated in whatever manner a police officer deems necessary?

A minor moving violation is not an arrestable offense.

Now if you went 50 on a school zone and refused to be pull over, you would be arrested. Resisting would not be a good idea. Ever.

Maybe if people stopped comparing the police to rapists and minor civil offenses with criminal offenses, they might be able to understand what is being said here.

Talk about logical fallacy.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

In response to what's bolded, how do we know they aren't doing something in their community? Just because you're not seeing it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I googled and the extent of the outreach was inviting the football team in August and crickets since. It would seem that for a community that is hurting, something more than the false symbol of hands up on the field would be newsworthy. Plus a poster from the area up earlier in the thread commented on the lack of outreach.

But I am open to hearing some positive stories if you have any to share.

 

[OurBigTrip]

This is EXACTLY the same as saying, "Hey ladies, don't want to get raped? Don't get drunk around men, and don't wear short skirts."

It's not the same in any way, shape or fashion. Any woman as the right to say "no" at any time, any place and under any circumstances.

No one has the right to resist arrest, ever, and if one chooses to do so, then there will be consequences, rarely fatal, but consequences nonetheless.

 

[OurBigTrip]

So I should be careful to avoid going 26 in a 25 mph zone because I'm now fair game to be treated in whatever manner a police officer deems necessary?

Fair game to be treated in any manner? No. But if you speed, and then mouth off to the officer when he or she is writing the ticket, or don't follow their directions, or argue with them, and then resist arrest when they try to take you in, then yes, you should be prepared to face the consequences of your actions.

 

[olwyngdh]

Not even close.

Example of what not to do if you don't want cops to react accordingly:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/09/us/new-york-synagogue-stabbing/

You seem to be of the opinion that whatever it is, as long as it is done by an authority figure, it is alright. Am I reading your correctly? Anyone who has allegedly (remember, it is only alleged until a court rules) broken a law is free game for the police. They can be judge, jury and executioner if the person they are arresting so much as speaks in a way they don't like.

It is an attitude pervasive in our culture. Whatever violence happens to someone, they are blamed because if they hadn't done this or that, it wouldn't have happened. Whatever you do, bow down to the oppressor or you deserve what you get.

Just like we need to teach our sons not to rape, not our daughters not to get raped, we need to teach our police not to abuse their authority, not our citizens to kowtow in fear.

 

[TaylorEar]

A minor moving violation is not an arrestable offense.

Now if you went 50 on a school zone and refused to be pull over, you would be arrested. Resisting would not be a good idea. Ever.

Maybe if people stopped comparing the police to rapists and minor civil offenses with criminal offenses, they might be able to understand what is being said here.

Talk about logical fallacy.

WOW! Talk about somebody not being about to understand what is being said here...

NOBODY has compared the police to rapists... I honestly can't believe I even had to type that People have compared you, and others who have repeatedly said things to the effect of "don't want to get killed? don't resist arrest!" to people who apply that same victim-blaming logic to rape victims.

Nice try though.

 

[usd2bmd]

Doesn't matter. Don't give the police a reason to "get physical" with you and physical injury won't happen.

But this is a totally relative term, I am certain that that there are police officers that would have not reacted with Eric Garner's "resisting" with a banned chokehold.

And you made my point. Of course, in your eyes it's all Garner's fault. You are the people they wrote about in the article.

FYI, look at the stats for grand jury indictments. What percentage of ordinary citizens are indicted by grand jury proceedings, and what percentage of police officers are indicted. There is a major problem with the system, and it needs to change.

There needs to be independent prosecutors in charge of police officer shootings, especially when the other person was unarmed. State/local prosecutors need to work hand-in-hand with the police, so they are biased and need to maintain a good relationship. The system is flawed.

And for the record, I believe most police are good, but the bad apples need to be dealt with, and the system needs to be addressed and changed.

Yes, Garner was a large guy resisting arrest (although not particularly aggressively) and the officer that used the chokehold was smaller than him. But there were 3 other officers surrounding him immediately. I have a hard time believing 4 trained officers were incapable of finding a method other than the banned chokehold.

I fully and completely agree. In this day of not wanting a conflict of interest I find it hard to believe that nobody saw this as a problem.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

You seem to be of the opinion that whatever it is, as long as it is done by an authority figure, it is alright. Am I reading your correctly? Anyone who has allegedly (remember, it is only alleged until a court rules) broken a law is free game for the police. They can be judge, jury and executioner if the person they are arresting so much as speaks in a way they don't like.

It is an attitude pervasive in our culture. Whatever violence happens to someone, they are blamed because if they hadn't done this or that, it wouldn't have happened. Whatever you do, bow down to the oppressor or you deserve what you get.

Just like we need to teach our sons not to rape, not our daughters not to get raped, we need to teach our police not to abuse their authority, not our citizens to kowtow in fear.

No. But it is not a surprise that is how you choose to read my posts while agreeing that someone under arrest is no different than a rape victim.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

WOW! Talk about somebody not being about to understand what is being said here...

NOBODY has compared the police to rapists... I honestly can't believe I even had to type that People have compared you, and others who have repeatedly said things to the effect of "don't want to get killed? don't resist arrest!" to people who apply that same victim-blaming logic to rape victims.

Nice try though.

This is EXACTLY the same as saying, "Hey ladies, don't want to get raped? Don't get drunk around men, and don't wear short skirts."

Nice try but poor effort at walking back your analogy. Rape should have never been mentioned into the first place.

Even further pathetic to you assume we are no different than blaming a rape victim. Please. And yes we disagreed with that, explained it and yet it was insisted--so in the analogy, the police are the rapist and Garner was wearing a short skirt.

Again--no place in the discussion. Wow indeed.

 

[usd2bmd]

One of the things that makes me wonder is that everyone is talking about what Eric Garner did wrong. He allegedly broke the law by selling single untaxed cigarettes. But why is it ok and accepted that the police officer violated protocols established by the NYPD 11 years ago.

If it is ok for the officer to do this where do you draw the line?

If what is set down by the NYPD are really more guide lines that they can follow (or not) as they see fit then I think everyone should be worried.

 

[declansdad]

Eric Garner shouldn't have resisted arrest, the officer shouldn't have used the banned choke hold. They both contributed to the death.

 

[olwyngdh]

Ok, here is a real life scenario.

Woman driving at night with a child in the car, sees flashing lights behind her pulling her over. She is on a narrow road with no berm and no streetlights. Knowing there is a parking lot ahead (apartment complex), she does as she has always been taught and does not pull over until she can pull into a safe, well lit area. She pulls over, the cop gets out of his unmarked car, pointing a gun and yelling for her to get out of the car, now.

Is the police officer or the woman wrong? If it had escalated into him shooting her, would it be her fault?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

One of the things that makes me wonder is that everyone is talking about what Eric Garner did wrong. He allegedly broke the law by selling single untaxed cigarettes. But why is it ok and accepted that the police officer violated protocols established by the NYPD 11 years ago.

If it is ok for the officer to do this where do you draw the line?

If what is set down by the NYPD are really more guide lines that they can follow (or not) as they see fit then I think everyone should be worried.

We are discussing what he did as a tangential conversation.

I missed where any poster on this thread said the chokehold was an acceptable method to use during the arrest regardless of what Garnee did or did not do.

 

[missbrooke06]

Fair game to be treated in any manner? No. But if you speed, and then mouth off to the officer when he or she is writing the ticket, or don't follow their directions, or argue with them, and then resist arrest when they try to take you in, then yes, you should be prepared to face the consequences of your actions.

And a reasonable consequence is death, yes?

 

[CPT Tripss]

Yes, Garner was a large guy resisting arrest (although not particularly aggressively) and the officer that used the chokehold was smaller than him. But there were 3 other officers surrounding him immediately. I have a hard time believing 4 trained officers were incapable of finding a method other than the banned chokehold.

Bingo! And another six were there within a very short time. You came be certain they didn't jut roll onto the scene when the choke took Garner down.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Ok, here is a real life scenario.

Woman driving at night with a child in the car, sees flashing lights behind her pulling her over. She is on a narrow road with no berm and no streetlights. Knowing there is a parking lot ahead (apartment complex), she does as she has always been taught and does not pull over until she can pull into a safe, well lit area. She pulls over, the cop gets out of his unmarked car, pointing a gun and yelling for her to get out of the car, now.

Is the police officer or the woman wrong? If it had escalated into him shooting her, would it be her fault?

I would call 911 to confirm that it is a real stop. And yes, I heard that somewhere as an appropriate thing to do.

Should 911 not be available, I would slow down and out on emergency flashers to indicate that I realize I need to pull over.

The gun is extreme. There was a case where a mom was pulled over. She complied. An error was realized. As scary as it was, she did exactly what she should have done to keep herself and her children safe. I would have been terrified. Stop should not have happened. But she complied since she didn't know why she was being pulled over and evading police isn't typically an option.

They did eventually apologize saying she did nothing wrong and she was considering a lawsuit and I don't blame her and I hope she does she and get some recourse for what she and her kids went through. But the side of the road was not the time to address that as if could have wrongfully resulted in her death. Link: http://abc7chicago.com/news/texas-p...-children-over-at-gunpoint-by-mistake/277874/

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/09/02/mom-talks-about-forney-traffic-stop-possible-lawsuit/


Have you heard of other cases? But as I said--I would call 911 if I am in such an area where I question my safety or the legitimacy of the stop.

 

[TaylorEar]

Nice try but poor effort at walking back your analogy. Rape should have never been mentioned into the first place.

Even further pathetic to you assume we are no different than blaming a rape victim. Please. And yes we disagreed with that, explained it and yet it was insisted--so in the analogy, the police are the rapist and Garner was wearing a short skirt.

Again--no place in the discussion. Wow indeed.

We are discussing what he did as a tangential conversation.

I missed where any poster on this thread said the chokehold was an acceptable method to use during the arrest regardless of what Garnee did or did not do.

So... I'm just going to respond as if all of your posts have been sincere.

I get that there is a disconnect for you somewhere, when it comes to either understanding the concept of victim-blaming, or accepting that it exists. Which is reasonable to expect, as its largely an unconscious thing.

It might help you to understand why people are bringing it up in response to statements about Eric Garner contributing to his own death, by reading this http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-love-and-war/201311/why-do-we-blame-victims

You are correct. Nobody has openly stated that they believe the chokehold was an acceptable method to use. Yes. Agreed. Just like nobody (typically) openly says that rape (I know, I know... you don't accept that it has any place in the conversation - bear with me!) is acceptable.

The problem is, that by continuing to say things like "yes, but he was resisting arrest", or "yes, but he was doing something illegal" implies that he was somehow asking for it... "it" being his own death. Hence - blaming the victim.

You are more than welcome to reject the concept... but that does not mean that the concept does not exist, or that it does not apply to what you (and others) have been saying.