The National Anthem

• O-Trap

  

  gut;1877281 wrote:That's really not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying cops are an easy target for the media, politicians and others because, for the most part, it's a distraction from the fundamental underlying issues for which people have no real solutions. Particularly for federal/state officials they can come in, crack the whip and then take credit or assign blame for someone else having to fix the issue (with respect to police).

  Gotcha. I misunderstood your point, but certainly, I concur to a degree.
• gut

  O-Trap;1877276 wrote:This is anecdotal, of course, and it's not sufficient to claim consistency at a nationwide level, but it's enough to tell me it's a plausible scenario and worth looking into.

  Distrust breeds distrust, and you have a chicken/egg scenario. Most crime is committed by young males (true across every demographic), but I imagine the distrust in the older demographics often leads to "hostile witness" situations in which effective cooperation is sometimes difficult to achieve, not to mention the "wall of silence" that also exists among family/friends.
  
  As for the "blue wall of silence", again if you believe good cops can make mistakes it makes some sense.
• gut

  O-Trap;1877283 wrote:Gotcha. I misunderstood your point, but certainly, I concur to a degree.

  Yeah, that NRA guy who was shot in his car....that died down pretty quickly, despite reports that he was pulled over 30(?!?) times. Why did that receive so little attention from national media and politicians? Or that white woman who dialed 911 and then got shot in her bathrobe?
  
  I'd suggest because those situations were unambiguously [bad] cops making horrible mistakes, and it's difficult to inflame with an agenda when everyone agrees on the facts.
• gut

  Zunardo;1877282 wrote:If it were possible to hazard an educated guess, do you think there would be any change in the interactions, both with you and your neighbors, if the police officers in your area were predominantly black?

  I believe there's some research to suggest black cops are "more aggressive" with black offenders than their fellow white officers. And that would make perfect sense if white cops are more aware of the optics and scrutiny because of their race.
• gut

  O-Trap;1877275 wrote: Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown are often referenced, definitely, and I agree that it at least appears as though the kids were involved somehow (though it's hard to determine the details surrounding the scuffle in Martin's case)....But even if those aren't viable examples, they did draw attention to the matter of excessive use of force, particularly lethal force, from police.

  The point is, if you want to be taken seriously and open to productive dialogue....if you going to make someone a "martyr" to rally around, choose BETTER victims than Martin and Brown for your martyrs. Again, perfect examples of the sheeple being manipulated and enraged by people with an agenda.
• O-Trap

  

  Zunardo;1877282 wrote:1. Have you seen enough and included enough to see the difference between how you treat the police versus how your neighbors treat the police?
  
  2. If it were possible to hazard an educated guess, do you think there would be any change in the interactions, both with you and your neighbors, if the police officers in your area were predominantly black?

  1. In some cases, definitely. In others, probably not. In still others, it shouldn't have mattered either way, and the statements/behaviors were unacceptable even if they'd had prior interactions with the neighbors.
  
  2. I honestly don't know. I mean, it's obviously possible. Police, like any other profession, are comprised of people who span the assholery gamut, so I'd say it's a crap shoot.
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1877284 wrote:Distrust breeds distrust, and you have a chicken/egg scenario. Most crime is committed by young males (true across every demographic), but I imagine the distrust in the older demographics often leads to "hostile witness" situations in which effective cooperation is sometimes difficult to achieve, not to mention the "wall of silence" that also exists among family/friends.
  
  As for the "blue wall of silence", again if you believe good cops can make mistakes it makes some sense.

  I agree. You do have a chicken/egg scenario. However, one side has the assumed authority and an occupational obligation to treat individual members of a community equally.
  
  Make no mistake, I know the statistics on young males, and I work in an industry that makes decisions, often across demographic lines, based on statistics, so I even understand the relevance of them.
  
  But their job is different from mine. It carries a level of authority with it. I can attempt persuasion, but they can (in some cases) force compliance. I can try to win over someone, but they have the legal right to coercion in certain situations.
  
  Their job, unlike my own, is to treat the members of the community equally, even if members of the community aren't all willing to do the same. It's not a great situation, and officers who do so well should be commended for taking on such a difficult task and fulfilling it, but that is still the job.
  

  gut;1877287 wrote:Yeah, that NRA guy who was shot in his car....that died down pretty quickly, despite reports that he was pulled over 30(?!?) times. Why did that receive so little attention from national media and politicians? Or that white woman who dialed 911 and then got shot in her bathrobe?
  
  I'd suggest because those situations were unambiguously [bad] cops making horrible mistakes, and it's difficult to inflame with an agenda when everyone agrees on the facts.

  To a degree, yes. The media circus surrounding these events don't help. Quite frankly, I think Philando Castile would have made a good face for the cause to address the problem. He was a law-abiding family man who, despite having no criminal record, was stopped 49 times in 13 years. And the reason given for stopping him this time was because they thought he looked like an armed robbery suspect based on "the width of his nose."
  
  I think the fact that he was an NRA member with a CCW actually contributed to why he wasn't more a face of the issue, because so many who believe that the problem of police shootings needs addressed are also in the same camp who are quick to vilify the NRA and concealed carriers. Moreover, the NRA's statement came down on the same side, saying that Castile didn't deserve to be shot. So, I think a case in which many would have to begrudgingly align themselves with the NRA made it a less-than-favorable example to put on the front cover of the cause.
  

  gut;1877289 wrote:The point is, if you want to be taken seriously and open to productive dialogue....if you going to make someone a "martyr" to rally around, choose BETTER victims than Martin and Brown for your martyrs. Again, perfect examples of the sheeple being manipulated and enraged by people with an agenda.

  Ultimately, I don't even really like the idea of a martyr, but I understand that these sorts of things are so often won with emotions and not reason. Of course, I agree with your statement. IF you must use a martyr, you should probably make it one that functions well as one for the specific cause.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Some players from a local college team (read in paper) took a knee last week during anthem. What are everyone's thoughts on that? It's not a business, and this is a D3 school, so they're not on "athletic" scholarship.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Here's a reason why NFL players can take a knee:
  
  [video=youtube;BhPNjh0cX6o][/video]
• O-Trap

  

  Ex-Green Beret and ex-NFL longsnapper Nate Boyer wrote yet another great open letter piece on this:
  
  http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21003968/nfl-2017-ex-green-beret-nate-boyer-writes-open-letter-president-donald-trump-colin-kaepernick-nfl-united-states-america
• superman

  O-Trap;1877327 wrote:Ex-Green Beret and ex-NFL longsnapper Nate Boyer wrote yet another great open letter piece on this:
  
  http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21003968/nfl-2017-ex-green-beret-nate-boyer-writes-open-letter-president-donald-trump-colin-kaepernick-nfl-united-states-america

  Suprised that ESPN published that. They are one of the most divisive outlets out there.
• QuakerOats

  ernest_t_bass;1877318 wrote:Some players from a local college team (read in paper) took a knee last week during anthem. What are everyone's thoughts on that? It's not a business, and this is a D3 school, so they're not on "athletic" scholarship.

  
  You follow the team rules, or you suffer the disciplinary consequences. Maybe being on the team is not as important to certain people, as making an ignorant error in judgment.
• QuakerOats

  https://twitter.com/i/videos/tweet/789970623871279104
  
  
  pretty cool
• iclfan2

  

  Kap now filing against the NFL, b/c he is an idiot.
• like_that

  

  iclfan2;1877547 wrote:Kap now filing against the NFL, b/c he is an idiot.

  lol, good luck. My bet is shaun king gave him this advice.
• Heretic

  

  ernest_t_bass;1877318 wrote:Some players from a local college team (read in paper) took a knee last week during anthem. What are everyone's thoughts on that? It's not a business, and this is a D3 school, so they're not on "athletic" scholarship.

  QuakerOats;1877536 wrote:You follow the team rules, or you suffer the disciplinary consequences. Maybe being on the team is not as important to certain people, as making an ignorant error in judgment.

  Probably depends on the college and/or team's rules on things like that. If there were rules set up to not do that and they broke them, that's on them. If there aren't or if the school is cool with it, then there's no issue, at least until someone high up inevitably crumbles because some alumni complain.
  

  iclfan2;1877547 wrote:Kap now filing against the NFL, b/c he is an idiot.

  Definition of a meaningless move. He's definitely being blacklisted (just look at the QBs on benches and, in some cases, starting). But it's not like collusion can be proven when you add factors such as how he hasn't been overly successful since his, what, first year starting and how he'd likely be more highly-paid than drek like Landry Jones, Case Keenum and whoever.
  

  QuakerOats;1877543 wrote:https://twitter.com/i/videos/tweet/789970623871279104
  
  
  pretty cool

  That's neat. Spent a lot of it wondering just what the dude was speed-painting and when he flipped it around, it was a legit, "DAMN!" moment.
• like_that

  

  Heretic;1877555 wrote: Definition of a meaningless move. He's definitely being blacklisted (just look at the QBs on benches and, in some cases, starting). But it's not like collusion can be proven when you add factors such as how he hasn't been overly successful since his, what, first year starting and how he'd likely be more highly-paid than drek like Landry Jones, Case Keenum and whoever.

  0% chance they can prove collusion and honestly I highly doubt there is collusion. I just don't see how another team would benefit from preventing another organization from signing Kaep. He is garbage. If anything if I was a rival organization and I saw my rival signing Kaep, my thoughts would be "good, enjoy that PR disaster/distraction."
  
  As I have said numbers times. If he is good enough, he would have been on a team. The NFL doesn't give a fuck about baggage if you produce. Plenty examples of players with a lot of baggage throughout the history (and currently) of the NFL finding their way on a roster.
• superman

  like_that;1877554 wrote:lol, good luck. My bet is shaun king gave him this advice.

  I'm guessing that if you follow the money, it leads you to George Soros.
• queencitybuckeye

  Just reinforcing the notion that he wants a job in the league, which is the last thing he wants.
• Heretic

  

  like_that;1877557 wrote:0% chance they can prove collusion and honestly I highly doubt there is collusion. I just don't see how another team would benefit from preventing another organization from signing Kaep. He is garbage. If anything if I was a rival organization and I saw my rival signing Kaep, my thoughts would be "good, enjoy that PR disaster/distraction."
  
  As I have said numbers times. If he is good enough, he would have been on a team. The NFL doesn't give a fuck about baggage if you produce. Plenty examples of players with a lot of baggage throughout the history (and currently) of the NFL finding their way on a roster.

  I just look at it as the same way as Tebow. Both were good enough to be on NFL rosters. Kaep was better overall, but both were more-or-less system quarterbacks who struggled when their systems weren't working or when they had to do anything different than play in their system. Both showed they could be competent, at least in back-up roles, if in the right place.
  
  Both also, for different reasons, garnered a lot more attention than NFL teams want back-ups and fringe starters to do. No one wants their back-up to be getting an inordinate amount of attention because he's dedicated himself to being a walking Jebus billboard and no one wants him to be getting an inordinate amount of attention because he's decided to be the new face of social activism. A star guy can get away with attention whoring because he's a star; someone who's just a guy is expected to shut up and focus on football and football only, as far as his public face.
  
  So, collusion wouldn't be the right term. Teams see him, they see he's a lightning rod for controversy, they see that he's not good enough to be worth that sort of potential headache and so they don't bother with him when there's all sorts of poor-to-mediocre QBs around who'll do nothing but practice, keep their mouths shut and show up if needed to deliver quiet 11-21, 155 yd. 1 TD, 1 INT sorts of lines --- exactly what guys like Kaep and Tebow would give more often than not unless the stars aligned for them to have their occasional good game, but without the distraction.
• like_that

  

  Heretic;1877576 wrote:I just look at it as the same way as Tebow. Both were good enough to be on NFL rosters. Kaep was better overall, but both were more-or-less system quarterbacks who struggled when their systems weren't working or when they had to do anything different than play in their system. Both showed they could be competent, at least in back-up roles, if in the right place.
  
  Both also, for different reasons, garnered a lot more attention than NFL teams want back-ups and fringe starters to do. No one wants their back-up to be getting an inordinate amount of attention because he's dedicated himself to being a walking Jebus billboard and no one wants him to be getting an inordinate amount of attention because he's decided to be the new face of social activism. A star guy can get away with attention whoring because he's a star; someone who's just a guy is expected to shut up and focus on football and football only, as far as his public face.
  
  So, collusion wouldn't be the right term. Teams see him, they see he's a lightning rod for controversy, they see that he's not good enough to be worth that sort of potential headache and so they don't bother with him when there's all sorts of poor-to-mediocre QBs around who'll do nothing but practice, keep their mouths shut and show up if needed to deliver quiet 11-21, 155 yd. 1 TD, 1 INT sorts of lines --- exactly what guys like Kaep and Tebow would give more often than not unless the stars aligned for them to have their occasional good game, but without the distraction.

  Yeah we are on the same page. I was just saying collusion doesn't make sense, since other teams having nothing to lose to let Kaep be signed by another team.
• Automatik

  

  I think there was some collusion. How much? No clue. What will come of it? Most likely nothing.
  
  LeBron, Wade, Miami....they colluded too. What came of that?
• like_that

  

  Automatik;1877578 wrote:I think there was some collusion. How much? No clue. What will come of it? Most likely nothing.
  
  LeBron, Wade, Miami....they colluded too. What came of that?

  What does an organization have to gain from blocking Kaep from joining another team?
• O-Trap

  

  Heretic;1877576 wrote:Both also, for different reasons, garnered a lot more attention than NFL teams want back-ups and fringe starters to do. No one wants their back-up to be getting an inordinate amount of attention because he's dedicated himself to being a walking Jebus billboard and no one wants him to be getting an inordinate amount of attention because he's decided to be the new face of social activism.

  I dunno. Pretty sure Blaine Gabbert appreciated the distraction from his piss poor play.
  

  Heretic;1877576 wrote:A star guy can get away with attention whoring because he's a star; someone who's just a guy is expected to shut up and focus on football and football only, as far as his public face.

  Reminds me of Bull Durham.
  
  [video=youtube;XhGq7qmm6dw][/video]
• gut

  like_that;1877577 wrote:Yeah we are on the same page. I was just saying collusion doesn't make sense, since other teams having nothing to lose to let Kaep be signed by another team.

  Well, if you believe he'll make your team better, you'll sign him. He's a stop-gap QB, at best, and that's just not worth the circus he brings (not to mention his other issues with teammates and in the locker room).
  
  Plus, why would they care if he kneels? Up until Trump shot his mouth off, the NFL didn't seem to care or to not support the players doing that.