Police officers threaten to boycott 49ers over Kaepernick protest

jacee · September 7, 2016

And how do you know it's voluntary? I have tried looking into it, and I can't find anything.

If it's not voluntary, do you agree that it's a butt-hurt hissyfit?

This is the only update I could find:

/santa_clara_police_chief_calls_on_union_to_drop_49ers_boycott_threat_

"As distasteful as his [Kaepernick's] actions are, these actions are protected by the Constitution. Police officers are here to protect the rights of every person, even if we disagree with their position."

Unh ... ya.

Police officers do not get to dictate politics.

Edited September 7, 2016 by jacee

BC_chick · September 7, 2016

The type of irrational response I come to expect from SJW zealots. I presented a rational argument for why black crime rates matter if one is complaining about the ratio of black shootings.

If one is only concerned about police shootings then race does not matter (i.e. all lives matter).

Which is it? Are you concerned about the ratio of blacks killed by police or just the number of people killed by police?

I answered these two questions. Maybe next time pay attention to the words past the first one.

It was plain as day.

BC_chick · September 7, 2016

This is the only update I could find:

/santa_clara_police_chief_calls_on_union_to_drop_49ers_boycott_threat_

"As distasteful as his [Kaepernick's] actions are, these actions are protected by the Constitution. Police officers are here to protect the rights of every person, even if we disagree with their position."

Unh ... ya.

Police officers do not get to dictate politics.

Butt hurt, hissy-fit throwing AND bullies.

TimG · September 7, 2016

I answered these two questions. Maybe next time pay attention to the words past the first one.

No you didn't. You simply repeated your conflation of race with police shootings by complaining about cops killing black unarmed suspects. Well cops kill white unarmed suspects too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KICXZs0Tdb4

Or you can be concerned about the ratio of blacks killed which cannot be separated from the black crime rate.

Which is it?

Edited September 7, 2016 by TimG

cybercoma · September 7, 2016

She explained it to you. Does she have to understand it for you too?

Boges · September 7, 2016

I don't understand why people that oppose BLM think that telling people other things they should care about instead of the thing they actually care about makes a point.

BLM says: "Unarmed black people are being killed by cops!!! This is wrong, it should be stopped."

Opponent says: "Yeah but black people also kill other black people, AND White people are killed by cops too. So your opinion is invalid unless you also protest these things."

cybercoma · September 7, 2016

These are the same people who go to breast cancer research dinners and shout "ALL CANCERS MATTER!"

TimG · September 7, 2016

Opponent says: "Yeah but black people also kill other black people, AND White people are killed by cops too. So your opinion is invalid unless you also protest these things."

The point you are missing is when people complain about unarmed black people being killed by cops are they:

1) Upset that unarmed people are killed by cops?

2) Upset that black people are killed by cops at a rate higher than their proportion of the population?

If the answer is 1) then fact that the person is black is irrelevant so why bring it up?

If the answer is 2) or both then no reasonable discussion on the topic is possible without looking at black crime rates.

It is not the fault of the listener when people don't explain themselves when they make an ambiguous statement and leave it up to the listener to infer what was meant.

Yet instead of simply clearly answering the question they simply throw insults.

I am not the one being unreasonable.

Black crime rates matter if one is concerned about the proportion of blacks killed by cops.

That should be self evident.

Edited September 7, 2016 by TimG

Big Guy · September 7, 2016

Well, it is very obvious that this mediocre football players gambit worked - it has created a discussion or "awareness" of his particular cause.

Folks, give me a break. People do these kooky things to forward their agenda and it works. I think it is a lark that individuals, once getting a spotlight, start their personal tap dance.

People with cause indicate their concern about their cause by wearing different colored ribbons to indicate their particular cause. The idea is that you wear it on your body to show that you support the cause and "make me aware" of your cause.

No thanks!

I do not care about your particular cause and have no intention of becoming "aware" of it because you want me to. It might be your ribbon, your walking protest, your screaming at a meeting, your sitting down in front of trucks, your standing in front of tanks or your behavior at a sporting event.

There are currently about 54 "official" ribbons for 190 different causes - from yellow for military forces to blue for child abuse to pink and blue for SIDS to green for dwarfism to .....

Awareness Ribbons

Each of these causes is of paramount importance to some people. That's nice - but I have my own.

Now, with the acceptance of doing something different during the playing of the national anthem, I am looking forward to the proponents of all these causes to start to use this venue.

I can see it now - The national anthem starts and the camera focuses on the sidelines: Kaepernick is sitting, some other player is on one knee making me aware of his cause, another is on two knees, another is standing balanced on his helmet, another is standing somebody's shoulder, three guys are standing on one leg (different legs) and one arm out (with each different combination representing a different cause), some guy doing a handstand, many doing different dance steps along the sidelines and one misguided rookie standing at attention. Then the play-by-play announcer can spend the first quarter looking at his "issue protest action" guide to explain what each protest action means.

Hey, you want to support a cause then do so on your time and your dime. Anything beyond that is a joke as far as I am concerned.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Big Guy

Argus · September 7, 2016

BS. Argus brings up the black on black crime when videos come out with cops shooting unarmed black people. It sounds to me very much like "well they do it, why so up in arms when cops do".

Don't misquote me. I assess each individual video on its merits. If I think the shooting was unjustified, I say so. But the greater question of BLM has to do with the statistical number of police shootings of Black people, and given the greater number of Black people cited as suspects by victims of violent crime I don't see their statistical higher chance of getting shot as being due to police racism so much as Black crime.

Argus · September 7, 2016

I don't understand why people that oppose BLM think that telling people other things they should care about instead of the thing they actually care about makes a point.

BLM says: "Unarmed black people are being killed by cops!!! This is wrong, it should be stopped."

Opponent says: "Yeah but black people also kill other black people, AND White people are killed by cops too. So your opinion is invalid unless you also protest these things."

No. Opponents say "Policing is an imperfect science made up of hundreds of thousands of imperfect people, and mistakes are going to happen"

Show me that Blacks are 'targeted' for shootings because of race. Show me that Blacks are shot disproportionately to their involvement in crime. Can't do that? Then BLM is BS.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Argus

jacee · September 8, 2016

Oh Argus Argus Argus!

It's OK for cops to shoot innocent Black people, because other Black people are involved in crime?

I heard of a redheaded criminal. So it's OK for cops to shoot innocent redheads because some redheads are involved in crime, right?

How do you breathe with your foot in your mouth?

.

BC_chick · September 8, 2016

That's exactly the way I read it too. Well black criminals kill innocent blacks, why should the people who are hired to serve and protect be treated with such a double standard when they kill innocent blacks?!? :rolleyes:

cybercoma · September 8, 2016

White privilege is a myth though. :rolleyes:

TimG · September 8, 2016

That's exactly the way I read it too.

You clearly have problems with English comprehension.

Why is this concept so hard for you to understand: *if* one is concerned about the percentage of people killed by police who happen to be black then one cannot separate the issue from black involvement in crime. *if* one is concerned about the fact that the police kill unarmed people then race is irrelevant so why mention it?

BC_chick · September 8, 2016

You clearly don't seem to grasp the difference between criminals killing people and cops doing so - if you did, maybe you'd understand why one gets more attention than the other.

I'm done explaining it to you, TimG.

TimG · September 8, 2016

I'm done explaining it to you, TimG.

What can't you address by points directly instead of responding with your condescending and completely incoherent BS?

The fact that you repeatedly refuse to directly address the points I made makes it clear that you are unable to address my points because doing so would only illustrate how screwed up your POV is.

Edited September 8, 2016 by TimG

BC_chick · September 8, 2016

I did explain it to you a half a dozen times. One gets more press and sympathy because it's committed by the people who are hired to serve.

You can't understand the difference, can you??

TimG · September 8, 2016

I did explain it to you a half a dozen times.

You have not addressed my points directly even once.

Why is is so hard for you to directly acknowledge/confirm that:

1) BLM is concerned about the percentage of black people killed by police (therefore black crime rates matter);

and/or

2) BLM is concerned about the number of people killed by police (therefore all lives matter);

The only scenario where you can say that black crime rates don't matter is if BLM only cares about 2).

Edited September 8, 2016 by TimG

BC_chick · September 8, 2016

Sigh...

Boges · September 8, 2016

Sigh...

Total cop out.

Watching you two argue is like watching chimps slap each other.

I think the idea of All Lives Matter ignores that there is clearly racial discrimination going on the US and that cops treat black differently.

But if you want to look at pure numbers you could come to the conclusion that Blacks are more prone to crime than other races. Of course you'd have to ignore other figures that show incarceration for blacks is much higher for comparable crimes.

The case of Philando Castile was particularly galling because he wasn't committing a crime and he was carrying a firearm he was allowed to carry legally.

But if you're going to respond with sign and "I'm not going to discuss this anymore" then might as well just ignore his posts.

I can see both sides of the argument.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Boges

TimG · September 8, 2016

But if you want to look at pure numbers you could come to the conclusion that Blacks are more prone to crime than other races.

Simply acknowledging this fact does not exclude a meaningful discussion of the socio-economic factors that drive black crime rates. My objection is the assertion that black crime rates are not a factor that contributes to the relatively larger number of blacks who are killed by police.

I think the idea of All Lives Matter ignores that there is clearly racial discrimination going on the US and that cops treat black differently.

The justice system is designed to really screw over poor people and since a larger percentage of blacks are poor they are disproportionately getting screwed by the system. Focusing on the racial aspect will likely have unintended consequences that makes things worse for people most harmed by the system.

IOW: 'all lives matter' may be used by some people to minimize the fact that blacks are disproportionately harmed by the system, however, it is also reminder that focusing only on blacks may not be the best path to finding a solution.

In fact, I think the solutions presented by a BLM associated group here:

http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision

are an excellent basis for reform.

Note that the word 'black' does not show up in any of them.

Edited September 8, 2016 by TimG

BC_chick · September 8, 2016

Total cop out.

Watching you two argue is like watching chimps slap each other.

I think the idea of All Lives Matter ignores that there is clearly racial discrimination going on the US and that cops treat black differently.

But if you want to look at pure numbers you could come to the conclusion that Blacks are more prone to crime than other races. Of course you'd have to ignore other figures that show incarceration for blacks is much higher for comparable crimes.

The case of Philando Castile was particularly galling because he wasn't committing a crime and he was carrying a firearm he was allowed to carry legally.

But if you're going to respond with sign and "I'm not going to discuss this anymore" then might as well just ignore his posts.

I can see both sides of the argument.

I've explained it many times, it's not a cop out. I don't know how many different ways to word it.

Argus · September 8, 2016

I've explained it many times, it's not a cop out. I don't know how many different ways to word it.

I have myself criticized the militarization of police and their poor training which often causes them to resort to firearms when they shouldn't. But this affects all races equally. The only reason Blacks feel they are disproportionately affected is because they are disproportionately coming into contact with police because of their high crime rates. If you aren't capable of understanding this you are ignoring basic logic.