enough is enough

Dewey · #1 10-01-2017, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

This all depends on 2 things...

1) Which data (as David stated) you choose to believe.

2) If you believe the "victims" of these law enforcement situations (Michael Brown, Travyon Martin, etc.) are truly innocent or not.

I believe the data that is true, even if it doesn't confirm my bias. At least I try too. It's a painful thing, admittedly, to change a mind. Read the article. I'm assuming you didn't. If I'm wrong, my apologies.

vintagetoppsguy · #2 10-01-2017, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dewey

I believe the data that is true, even if it doesn't confirm my bias. At least I try too. It's a painful thing, admittedly, to change a mind. Read the article. I'm assuming you didn't. If I'm wrong, my apologies.

Do you believe that if a police officer gives a lawful command and the suspect fails to comply with that command and the police officer fears for his life, that the officer has the right to use deadly force?

For example if the officer says "show me your hands" or "on the ground" and the suspect reaches inside his pants or jacket or elsewhere, does the officer have the right to shoot?

Peter_Spaeth · #3 10-01-2017, 09:01 PM

Interesting very recent piece.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...a-actually-say

In reality, a randomly selected black man is overwhelmingly unlikely to be victim of police violence — and though white men experience such violence even less often, the disparity is consistent with the racial gap in violent crime, suggesting that the role of racial bias is small. The media’s acceptance of the false narrative poisons the relations between law enforcement and black communities throughout the country and results in violent protests that destroy property and sometimes even claim lives. Perhaps even more importantly, the narrative distracts from far more serious problems that black Americans face.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...a-actually-say

But even if this is right about police violence, I think it's unrealistic to say racism has been eradicated from America. And I see nothing wrong with peaceful protests, even if ultimately token, to remind us we still need to improve.

Dewey · #4 10-01-2017, 09:40 PM

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;1706501]Interesting very recent piece.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...a-actually-say

Thanks for the links. I look forward to reading them.

Peter_Spaeth · #5 10-01-2017, 09:46 PM

[QUOTE=Dewey;1706512]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Interesting very recent piece.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...a-actually-say

Thanks for the links. I look forward to reading them.

A longer piece with more statistics.
https://law.yale.edu/system/files/ar...eo16_fryer.pdf

samosa4u · #6 10-01-2017, 09:34 PM

I think Leon needs to lock this thread up. This is supposed to be the Watercooler all sports talk forum, and so far nobody is discussing sports.

When I first joined this forum, one of the first things that caught my attention was the following:

Please no politics or religion.

This was obviously put there for a reason. These are very sensitive subjects and by discussing them people go absolutely batsh*t crazy and nothing gets solved in the end. I'm also surprised how some of you spent the whole weekend just fighting over this. What kind of weekend is that supposed to be? Now there are still a few hours to go until Monday arrives, so turn off your damn computer (or tablet or cell or whatever) and do something else!

CollectingAmericasPastime · #7 10-02-2017, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samosa4u

I think Leon needs to lock this thread up. This is supposed to be the Watercooler all sports talk forum, and so far nobody is discussing sports.

When I first joined this forum, one of the first things that caught my attention was the following:

Please no politics or religion.

This was obviously put there for a reason. These are very sensitive subjects and by discussing them people go absolutely batsh*t crazy and nothing gets solved in the end. I'm also surprised how some of you spent the whole weekend just fighting over this. What kind of weekend is that supposed to be? Now there are still a few hours to go until Monday arrives, so turn off your damn computer (or tablet or cell or whatever) and do something else!

Here is my response to this.

Athletes are using the sports stage to make a political statement and send a political message. If they want to try and bring awareness to something they feel is an issue in this country, shouldn't the issue at hand be discussed in detail to see #1 if there actually is an issue and #2 how we as Americans can improve on that issue? Our society loves to bury their hand in the sand as soon as politics and other difficult points of conversation are brought up.

Whether or not this is the right forum for that discussion is up to Leon (the line is a dot to you), but it's a matter that was brought up through the platform of sports.

packs · #8 10-02-2017, 09:48 AM

I am curious as to how the people who are against protests feel about this particular issue:

http://nypost.com/2017/09/28/louisia...during-anthem/

In Louisiana you have public high schools, supported by public funds, telling students they will face discipline for protesting. However, Tinker vs Des Moines has already set the legal precedent that "Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates."

A leading issue for debate here has been the "not at work" perspective. How do you feel about public schools with policies that are at odds with the Supreme Court?

CollectingAmericasPastime · #9 10-02-2017, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

I am curious as to how the people who are against protests feel about this particular issue:

http://nypost.com/2017/09/28/louisia...during-anthem/

In Louisiana you have public high schools, supported by public funds, telling students they will face discipline for protesting. However, Tinker vs Des Moines has already set the legal precedent that "Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates."

A leading issue for debate here has been the "not at work" perspective. How do you feel about public schools with policies that are at odds with the Supreme Court?

Public schools don't have the right to stop these students from peacefully protesting (as long as it doesn't interrupt class), especially if the Supreme Court has had previous rulings to this. I know there are kids that go out in the hallway when the Pledge of Allegiance is said (rare anymore), and then they come back in. I think their parents need slapped, but they still have the right to do that.

vintagetoppsguy · #10 10-02-2017, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

I am curious as to how the people who are against protests feel about this particular issue:

http://nypost.com/2017/09/28/louisia...during-anthem/

In Louisiana you have public high schools, supported by public funds, telling students they will face discipline for protesting. However, Tinker vs Des Moines has already set the legal precedent that "Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates."

A leading issue for debate here has been the "not at work" perspective. How do you feel about public schools with policies that are at odds with the Supreme Court?

How do I feel? I think it's great! Here's a couple of jackasses that got kicked off a Texas high school football team for kneeling. You have to remember these are extracurricular activities, so I would guess these kids have no rights.

http://abc13.com/sports/football-pla...-knee/2473284/

CollectingAmericasPastime · #11 10-02-2017, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

How do I feel? I think it's great! Here's a couple of jackasses that got kicked off a Texas high school football team for kneeling. You have to remember these are extracurricular activities, so I would guess these kids have no rights.

http://abc13.com/sports/football-pla...-knee/2473284/

Good point on that. Playing football is a privilege, not a right, and protesting during this isn't the same as protesting during the school day.

With it being an extracurricular activity, that changes things, taking away the prior Supreme Court ruling similarities/comparisons.

Cliff Bowman · #12 10-01-2017, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dewey

I believe the data that is true, even if it doesn't confirm my bias. At least I try too. It's a painful thing, admittedly, to change a mind. Read the article. I'm assuming you didn't. If I'm wrong, my apologies.

Here is the list of people that supplied the data for your report: the New York Times, a University of California-Davis professor, the Black Lives Matter affiliated group Mapping Police Violence, the Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch led Department Of Justice, the Washington Post, retired federal and state judges tasked by the San Francisco district attorney's office, the ACLU, a Harvard professor, a New York Federal District judge, a team of professors from UCLA, Portland State University, and Boston University, a Stanford University study, a Washington State University professor, University of Chicago researchers. You honestly believe that every single one of these people were completely unbiased and didn't already have a conclusion decided before they even started?

Dewey · #13 10-01-2017, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Here is the list of people that supplied the data for your report: the New York Times, a University of California-Davis professor, the Black Lives Matter affiliated group Mapping Police Violence, the Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch led Department Of Justice, the Washington Post, retired federal and state judges tasked by the San Francisco district attorney's office, the ACLU, a Harvard professor, a New York Federal District judge, a team of professors from UCLA, Portland State University, and Boston University, a Stanford University study, a Washington State University professor, University of Chicago researchers. You honestly believe that every single one of these people were completely unbiased and didn't already have a conclusion decided before they even started?

I never made such a claim about the sources being unbiased. I provided a link with 15+ reports pertaining to discrimination by law enforcement. Others provided alternative links from Fox News and the National Review. Now if we were all to read those and make informed arguments, then we'd really be doing good work. I look forward to reading the NR articles soon. I've enjoyed reading it over the years. To dismiss either set of reports as wrong because of who wrote them is an excuse to quit thinking. We need to stop politicizing the pursuit of truth and seek it wherever it is, even if articulated by an ideological opponent. But if we can't muster even a bit of epistemological humility, then discourse itself is dead, replaced by its zombified form known as power politics and the tyrrany of self-interest. Just read widely. Read wisely. I trust you to do that. Then ask people of color you know about their experience. That has been very transformative for me.