NFL’s Proposed National Anthem Rules: Penalties for Kneeling Being Considered

[Ron Burgundy]

I got this job in 2016. So no, I am not of an older generation that got grandfathered or was hired before stringent education requirements were put in place. As I said in a previous post, the degree requirement was waived because of my experience. I went through a hiring process that took nearly a year. Multiple interviews, multiple drug tests, a physical, a detailed background check, multiple resume rewrites, a resume validation for salary, and on and on and on. There are literally jobs everywhere right now. Some awesome, some not. Employers are willing to waive requirements left and right to hire people. I guess a person just has to decide if they want to do that work, and since companies are struggling to hire people, I would say not.

Not in sw PA. Can't find Jack Schitt. Have an MBA and my funeral director license and drive a cab for the railroad. The hours suck but on a good week I make a lot of money. I do get at least one inquiry a day and sometimes more through Monster from companies who want me to sell life insurance. So if you want to sell life insurance there's a ****-ton of jobs out there. Of course once you sell a few policies to friends and family and no more then you get fired.

 

[Sarge]

Not in sw PA. Can't find Jack Schitt. Have an MBA and my funeral director license and drive a cab for the railroad. The hours suck but on a good week I make a lot of money. I do get at least one inquiry a day and sometimes more through Monster from companies who want me to sell life insurance. So if you want to sell life insurance there's a ****-ton of jobs out there. Of course once you sell a few policies to friends and family and no more then you get fired.

The whole of western Pennsylvania is that way. Been that way since I was a kid. You have to wait for somebody to die to get a good job. It is why I left, and if I didn't have family there, I wouldn't go back. It sucks. You should try the SE US. Business is booming.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

The whole of western Pennsylvania is that way. Been that way since I was a kid. You have to wait for somebody to die to get a good job. It is why I left, and if I didn't have family there, I wouldn't go back. It sucks. You should try the SE US. Business is booming.

Worst mistake of my life was staying here in the 80's.
Population loss is a viscous cycle. You lose jobs so you lose people as they move to find work so there is less demand for goods and services so you lose jobs so you lose people as they move to find work....

 

[AggieSteel]

I didn't separate their level of education or poverty level. You can't take either out of the equation.

Nothing racist breaking down statistics. They read as they read. I realize circumstance plays a part.

And America isn't beating down the door to change it.

I agree the violent crime stats, when taken at face value, are not pretty for black folks. I just think we need to be careful to not then assume that there is some genetically or culturally inherent quality of violence that applies to anyone born black. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by poor people, and when that factor is controlled, people of all races are pretty much equally violent. That's why it's important that, when unarmed people are murdered by police, we don't blame a violent community. That had nothing to do with that individual person in that moment. It was a scared, or untrained, or violent cop.

Nobody would be happy with any unarmed man getting shot down.

Agreed - and that's what these protests are about. I'm glad we can all agree then that Kaepernick & friends & Black Lives Matter have a worthy cause. I'm glad we have established that as common ground in this discussion. Nobody is protesting cops killing someone who is trying to kill them first.

That article was written by a man whose best interest was color based. No way it could be rose color glassed whatsoever.

Article even points to the majority of murders of black men, are black on black.

I think you're being unfair to the writer. He makes great points that are based in facts and sound reasoning. Maybe his interest in the topic has led him to be a lot more educated on these things than folk like you and me, and for that, we should take him MORE seriously. That would be like a Browns fan saying they don't take our opinion on Tomlin seriously because we're so invested in the Steelers. Nah, actually, we follow him closely and know his tendencies better.

Also, the majority of violent crimes committed by whites is white on white as well. That's just how crime works. People commit violence against people they know or are very close with.

So we can go around and around on this. But yes of course when you are poor you are more apt to commit crime.

With the opportunities out there why is one race poorer than the other?

Effort? Upbringing? School system being dumb-ed down?

Whatever you want to point the finger too, that is what needs changed.

Completely agree that poverty is the root of the issue and that's what needs changed. I'm not a sociology expert but I'm confident that poverty (esp black poverty in America) is way too complicated to point to one root cause. We'd be naive to say that systemic racism has nothing to do with it. There are many studies that show it's prevalent today (resumes with black names thrown in the trash, harsher sentences for blacks vs whites for the same crime, police brutality, etc. etc), and it was significantly worse in prior generations. Check out this data that I think shows the reach of systemic racism on black folks: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html . So even though we don't have slavery or Jim Crow anymore, that doesn't mean the impact isn't still felt today, when looking at the black population as a whole.

All that being said, we'd also be just as we'd be naive to say that some individuals do not take advantage of opportunities in front of them. Not sure what data is out there to back up that individuals make bad decisions, but we all know it happens. And it happens across races.

On the other side of the coin, I would like to see drug users released from jail/prison. If that was their only crime.

Because we know records handcuff people for getting jobs.

Another angle we can ask ourselves is do cops patrol poor areas more? Knowing the likelihood of a higher crime rate?

Because stats indicate that they do.

This whole thing is sort of like the chicken and egg which comes first.

But to break this pattern, the poor neighborhoods have to break their trends.

Also agreed with you here. Especially people serving sentences for marijuana related crimes. Very sad. And I'm quite sure these disproportionately affect black folks as well. And yes, some people need to make better decisions and some people get too comfortable in the hood. But on the other side of the coin, growing up in a wealthy (or even just middle class or lower middle class) home gives one the stability and safety and access to opportunities, and importantly, good parents/teachers/mentors/friends/guides to help them recognize and take advantage of those opportunities when they show themselves.

I got this job in 2016. So no, I am not of an older generation that got grandfathered or was hired before stringent education requirements were put in place. As I said in a previous post, the degree requirement was waived because of my experience. I went through a hiring process that took nearly a year. Multiple interviews, multiple drug tests, a physical, a detailed background check, multiple resume rewrites, a resume validation for salary, and on and on and on. There are literally jobs everywhere right now. Some awesome, some not. Employers are willing to waive requirements left and right to hire people. I guess a person just has to decide if they want to do that work, and since companies are struggling to hire people, I would say not.



Even state schools can open doors. Most every program at every college is connected to people of import in some way that can help those in the program to network and open doors when they come out of college. Sure, some are better than others. But if you feel the need to attend some big important private school knowing the cost of education today, that is on you. Part of that bill you are paying is probably for the doors it opened for you. Nothing in America is free.

That's cool of you that you were able to bypass education requirements even in 2016 - my bad for assuming it was a different situation. That's cool on you - props for that. It's really hard to do in today's economy. I still don't think it's something people should "bank" on - especially young people who clearly don't have the experience you have. And they won't be able to get the experience you had if they can't get the degree.

Agreed that students should be hyper aware of the price tag when they go to school. Often times they're not because they're 16/17 when they make these decisions so they're not thinking about it as much. I put that burden more on the parents to educate them and let them know what they're in for. Also, it has to take a lot of maturity for a kid that age (with heavy pressure from parents and comparisons to peers) to look at an admission letter from a great school like Harvard or something and say "nah, too expensive, what's Lackawanna CC up to?" It's just... a lot easier to tell kids they should make "practical" decisions about their future, and it's another altogether to actually be in that situation, knowing your entire future is going to be affected by this decision you make, and then try to be "cost effective" about it. No, when it's your own life and your own future, you want to make the best of it. And even state schools are expensive. A quick google search tells me Slippery Rock costs $23,800 a year to attend. WTF? That's $95k for 4 years. If you don't come from a wealthy family, and you want to attend all four years, you're coming out of pocket and possibly going into debt $95,000. So yeah, that might be better than $150k or $200k, but is it really a situation you want to be in? That's just awful

Not in sw PA. Can't find Jack Schitt. Have an MBA and my funeral director license and drive a cab for the railroad. The hours suck but on a good week I make a lot of money. I do get at least one inquiry a day and sometimes more through Monster from companies who want me to sell life insurance. So if you want to sell life insurance there's a ****-ton of jobs out there. Of course once you sell a few policies to friends and family and no more then you get fired.

Sorry to hear man. I have an MBA too and I live in Texas where there are **** tons of jobs. The problem in Texas is that it's growing so fast, every decent job has HUNDREDS of applicants. You really have to stand out, network, know someone, have all the right "keywords" on your resume to stand out in the HR data systems, etc. It's hard out here. I think a lot of the country falls into these categories. An area either has very limited options for good jobs, or tons of great options but also tons of competition for them, so it's just as difficult to actually secure employment. Maybe there are some areas (like Sarge said the SE) where there are lots of good jobs but not enough people to fill them. But believe me, statements like that do not stay true for too long. If a place has jobs, people will go there eventually.

 

[slashsteel]

I agree the violent crime stats, when taken at face value, are not pretty for black folks. I just think we need to be careful to not then assume that there is some genetically or culturally inherent quality of violence that applies to anyone born black. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by poor people, and when that factor is controlled, people of all races are pretty much equally violent. That's why it's important that, when unarmed people are murdered by police, we don't blame a violent community. That had nothing to do with that individual person in that moment. It was a scared, or untrained, or violent cop.


Agreed - and that's what these protests are about. I'm glad we can all agree then that Kaepernick & friends & Black Lives Matter have a worthy cause. I'm glad we have established that as common ground in this discussion. Nobody is protesting cops killing someone who is trying to kill them first.


I think you're being unfair to the writer. He makes great points that are based in facts and sound reasoning. Maybe his interest in the topic has led him to be a lot more educated on these things than folk like you and me, and for that, we should take him MORE seriously. That would be like a Browns fan saying they don't take our opinion on Tomlin seriously because we're so invested in the Steelers. Nah, actually, we follow him closely and know his tendencies better.

Also, the majority of violent crimes committed by whites is white on white as well. That's just how crime works. People commit violence against people they know or are very close with.


Completely agree that poverty is the root of the issue and that's what needs changed. I'm not a sociology expert but I'm confident that poverty (esp black poverty in America) is way too complicated to point to one root cause. We'd be naive to say that systemic racism has nothing to do with it. There are many studies that show it's prevalent today (resumes with black names thrown in the trash, harsher sentences for blacks vs whites for the same crime, police brutality, etc. etc), and it was significantly worse in prior generations. Check out this data that I think shows the reach of systemic racism on black folks: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html . So even though we don't have slavery or Jim Crow anymore, that doesn't mean the impact isn't still felt today, when looking at the black population as a whole.

All that being said, we'd also be just as we'd be naive to say that some individuals do not take advantage of opportunities in front of them. Not sure what data is out there to back up that individuals make bad decisions, but we all know it happens. And it happens across races.



Also agreed with you here. Especially people serving sentences for marijuana related crimes. Very sad. And I'm quite sure these disproportionately affect black folks as well. And yes, some people need to make better decisions and some people get too comfortable in the hood. But on the other side of the coin, growing up in a wealthy (or even just middle class or lower middle class) home gives one the stability and safety and access to opportunities, and importantly, good parents/teachers/mentors/friends/guides to help them recognize and take advantage of those opportunities when they show themselves.


That's cool of you that you were able to bypass education requirements even in 2016 - my bad for assuming it was a different situation. That's cool on you - props for that. It's really hard to do in today's economy. I still don't think it's something people should "bank" on - especially young people who clearly don't have the experience you have. And they won't be able to get the experience you had if they can't get the degree.

Agreed that students should be hyper aware of the price tag when they go to school. Often times they're not because they're 16/17 when they make these decisions so they're not thinking about it as much. I put that burden more on the parents to educate them and let them know what they're in for. Also, it has to take a lot of maturity for a kid that age (with heavy pressure from parents and comparisons to peers) to look at an admission letter from a great school like Harvard or something and say "nah, too expensive, what's Lackawanna CC up to?" It's just... a lot easier to tell kids they should make "practical" decisions about their future, and it's another altogether to actually be in that situation, knowing your entire future is going to be affected by this decision you make, and then try to be "cost effective" about it. No, when it's your own life and your own future, you want to make the best of it. And even state schools are expensive. A quick google search tells me Slippery Rock costs $23,800 a year to attend. WTF? That's $95k for 4 years. If you don't come from a wealthy family, and you want to attend all four years, you're coming out of pocket and possibly going into debt $95,000. So yeah, that might be better than $150k or $200k, but is it really a situation you want to be in? That's just awful


Sorry to hear man. I have an MBA too and I live in Texas where there are **** tons of jobs. The problem in Texas is that it's growing so fast, every decent job has HUNDREDS of applicants. You really have to stand out, network, know someone, have all the right "keywords" on your resume to stand out in the HR data systems, etc. It's hard out here. I think a lot of the country falls into these categories. An area either has very limited options for good jobs, or tons of great options but also tons of competition for them, so it's just as difficult to actually secure employment. Maybe there are some areas (like Sarge said the SE) where there are lots of good jobs but not enough people to fill them. But believe me, statements like that do not stay true for too long. If a place has jobs, people will go there eventually.

The BLM should focus in on drug arrests.

.As that ratio was like 3 to 1.


Selling sure arrest them, but the rest shouldn't be a arrest IMO unless it causes some sort of negative effect -law broken -outside of personal usage.

 

[SteelChip]

The BLM should focus in on drug arrests.

.As that ratio was like 3 to 1.
.

 

[AggieSteel]

What's your point?

 

[SCSteeler4life]

Great article discussing the number of Police shootings in the US in the last 3 years. Original article by the Washington Post.

As it has for the last three years, the Washington Post dedicated a team of data collectors and writers to focus on the issue of fatal shootings by police, producing a long story earlier this month headlined: “Nationwide, police shot and killed nearly 1,000 people in 2017.” The exact number of such deaths the Post counted was 987.

But rather than supplying any balance or meaningful context to an important topic, the flawed story takes the reader just where discerning people might expect – to the discredited myth that racist police are targeting and gunning down unarmed black men and boys for no reason other than the color of their skin.

By the third paragraph, the Post moves its focus to race, stating: “While many of the year-to-year patterns remain consistent, the number of unarmed black males killed in 2017 declined from two years ago. Last year, police killed 19, a figure tracking closely with the 17 killed in 2016. In 2015, police shot and killed 36 unarmed black males.”

Wait a minute. Note that while the issue of unarmed black males being shot by police drew enormous news coverage last year – enough to make the average person think there was a massive wave of such shootings – according to the Post’s own tally only 2 percent of those who died as a result of police shootings were unarmed black men and boys.

Yet four paragraphs later, the Post story blows the poisonous dog-whistle of race – even though 98 percent of people shot by police last year were not unarmed black males.

The Post story states: “National scrutiny of shootings by police began after an unarmed black teenager from a suburb of St. Louis was fatally shot by a white police officer in August 2014. The death of 18-year-old Michael Brown sparked widespread protests, prompted a White House commission to call for reforms, galvanized the Black Lives Matter movement and led many police agencies across the nation to examine their use of deadly force.”

What the Post states, as far as it goes, is true. But writers of the Post article know – or certainly should know by now – that a Justice Department report cleared Police Officer Darren Wilson of Ferguson, Missouri of any wrongdoing for his shooting of Brown. The report states: “Not only do eyewitnesses and physical evidence corroborate Wilson’s account, but there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s perception that Brown posed a threat to Wilson as Brown advanced toward him.”

Simply stated, Michael Brown was no martyr for “police brutality.” Brown was a thug and a thief. He stole a pack of $50 cigarillos from a convenience store, menaced the shopkeeper and shoved him out of the way. Brown then walked a few blocks and attacked Wilson, a uniformed police officer sitting in his marked police SUV, and tried to grab Wilson’s gun.

Do that in any city in the world – no matter what your race or ethnicity – and you put yourself in immediate risk of deadly force being used against you. Police are not required to allow anyone to grab their guns and kill them.

And, getting back to the Post article, it appears as though somewhere near three-quarters of the 987 people who were fatally shot by police last year posed a grave threat to police and others because they were armed with their own knife or a gun.

Put the Post’s numbers in perspective, because the paper chose not to do so.

According to the FBI’s “Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted” data collection, in 2016 law enforcement agencies that filed reports tallied 57,180 officers assaulted in the line of duty.

That number only represents data from 12,421 law enforcement agencies – about 70 percent of the 18,000 agencies in the country. So a more realistic estimate of assaults on police last year would be roughly 75,000.

So when you think about shooting by police, remember that each year thousands of cops are feloniously assaulted and injured by dangerous attackers. And despite the danger, and their annual face-to-face contacts with tens of millions of us, police fatally shot only 987 people last year – a tiny fraction of 1 percent of those who assaulted the cops.

What’s truly remarkable is that thousands more people weren’t killed as they assaulted police with the intent to seriously injure – or in some cases with the intent to kill – the law enforcement officers.

So the Post story should not be focused on police excess. It should be focused on the remarkable degree of restraint exercised by police.

No police officer in his or her right mind sets out to kill anyone – and no officer finds the experience enjoyable or thrilling. It is a nightmare they all want to avoid.

Certainly, police shootings must be thoroughly and fairly investigated. And in the rare cases where police are have acted unlawfully they should face prosecution.

But in the overwhelming majority of police shootings, officers are acting to protect themselves or others from the prospect of imminent death or injury. Race plays no part in the decision to reluctantly shoot when there is no other alternative.

 

[slashsteel]

Great article discussing the number of Police shootings in the US in the last 3 years. Original article by the Washington Post.

As it has for the last three years, the Washington Post dedicated a team of data collectors and writers to focus on the issue of fatal shootings by police, producing a long story earlier this month headlined: “Nationwide, police shot and killed nearly 1,000 people in 2017.” The exact number of such deaths the Post counted was 987.

But rather than supplying any balance or meaningful context to an important topic, the flawed story takes the reader just where discerning people might expect – to the discredited myth that racist police are targeting and gunning down unarmed black men and boys for no reason other than the color of their skin.

By the third paragraph, the Post moves its focus to race, stating: “While many of the year-to-year patterns remain consistent, the number of unarmed black males killed in 2017 declined from two years ago. Last year, police killed 19, a figure tracking closely with the 17 killed in 2016. In 2015, police shot and killed 36 unarmed black males.”

Wait a minute. Note that while the issue of unarmed black males being shot by police drew enormous news coverage last year – enough to make the average person think there was a massive wave of such shootings – according to the Post’s own tally only 2 percent of those who died as a result of police shootings were unarmed black men and boys.

Yet four paragraphs later, the Post story blows the poisonous dog-whistle of race – even though 98 percent of people shot by police last year were not unarmed black males.

The Post story states: “National scrutiny of shootings by police began after an unarmed black teenager from a suburb of St. Louis was fatally shot by a white police officer in August 2014. The death of 18-year-old Michael Brown sparked widespread protests, prompted a White House commission to call for reforms, galvanized the Black Lives Matter movement and led many police agencies across the nation to examine their use of deadly force.”

What the Post states, as far as it goes, is true. But writers of the Post article know – or certainly should know by now – that a Justice Department report cleared Police Officer Darren Wilson of Ferguson, Missouri of any wrongdoing for his shooting of Brown. The report states: “Not only do eyewitnesses and physical evidence corroborate Wilson’s account, but there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s perception that Brown posed a threat to Wilson as Brown advanced toward him.”

Simply stated, Michael Brown was no martyr for “police brutality.” Brown was a thug and a thief. He stole a pack of $50 cigarillos from a convenience store, menaced the shopkeeper and shoved him out of the way. Brown then walked a few blocks and attacked Wilson, a uniformed police officer sitting in his marked police SUV, and tried to grab Wilson’s gun.

Do that in any city in the world – no matter what your race or ethnicity – and you put yourself in immediate risk of deadly force being used against you. Police are not required to allow anyone to grab their guns and kill them.

And, getting back to the Post article, it appears as though somewhere near three-quarters of the 987 people who were fatally shot by police last year posed a grave threat to police and others because they were armed with their own knife or a gun.

Put the Post’s numbers in perspective, because the paper chose not to do so.

According to the FBI’s “Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted” data collection, in 2016 law enforcement agencies that filed reports tallied 57,180 officers assaulted in the line of duty.

That number only represents data from 12,421 law enforcement agencies – about 70 percent of the 18,000 agencies in the country. So a more realistic estimate of assaults on police last year would be roughly 75,000.

So when you think about shooting by police, remember that each year thousands of cops are feloniously assaulted and injured by dangerous attackers. And despite the danger, and their annual face-to-face contacts with tens of millions of us, police fatally shot only 987 people last year – a tiny fraction of 1 percent of those who assaulted the cops.

What’s truly remarkable is that thousands more people weren’t killed as they assaulted police with the intent to seriously injure – or in some cases with the intent to kill – the law enforcement officers.

So the Post story should not be focused on police excess. It should be focused on the remarkable degree of restraint exercised by police.

No police officer in his or her right mind sets out to kill anyone – and no officer finds the experience enjoyable or thrilling. It is a nightmare they all want to avoid.

Certainly, police shootings must be thoroughly and fairly investigated. And in the rare cases where police are have acted unlawfully they should face prosecution.

But in the overwhelming majority of police shootings, officers are acting to protect themselves or others from the prospect of imminent death or injury. Race plays no part in the decision to reluctantly shoot when there is no other alternative.

somehow this truth is racist

 

[AggieSteel]

That article is full of deflection.

Its entire premise is a defense of police officers as a whole. But nobody is saying the entire institution of police is to blame, or that they are all bad, or evil, or whatever. Everybody knows that the country is full of great cops here to protect us.

Amazing how this article just glosses over 72 unarmed black men murdered by police in three years by comparing it to the overall number of police shootings. That number should be ******* ZERO, or damn near close to it. That is 72 lives taken in three years. You can't just throw that under the rug and couch it between "well it's only 1% of police shootings". We're not talking about legitimate police shootings. That's not part of the equation. Because good honest cops are not the subject of discussion. And the number should be 0%, anyway. Unarmed people should NOT BE KILLED BY POLICE, white or black. These mass shooters keep being brought in unscathed for their arrest. How is it that we need to shoot to kill an unarmed person? Seriously, the glossing over that fact is truly disturbing. 72 in 3 years. Just because you can compare it to bigger, irrelevant numbers doesn't mean it's not a relevant number.

And the article again glosses over the most important part of all this. It just throws in one sentence at the end "And in the rare cases where police are have acted unlawfully they should face prosecution.". BUT THEY'RE NOT. THAT'S THE POINT. They are not being charged, if they are the charges aren't sticking. DAs and fellow police are protecting these people. It's all a part of the problem. You can't just throw that in there with a "should" at the end and think the entire point is resolved. They absolutely should be prosecuted and it's not happening. If the writer of that actually cared about that, he/she would go deeper and try to analyze WHY that isn't happening, HOW that can change, why we should care if that changes. But they don't. They just leave it at "should" and do not explore any further how they continue to escape accountability.

So as far as I'm concerned, that article might be music to your ears if you already view this thing a certain way, but it is absolute trash to me.

 

[slashsteel]

Why does every unarmed man have to be a murder? That is assuming a lot of innocence.

 

[AggieSteel]

Why does every unarmed man have to be a murder? That is assuming a lot of innocence.

Because we've seen good cops be able to bring in dangerous criminals (some even armed to the teeth) without using force. If you are armed, and someone else isn't, you have the upper hand. Even if he lunges, or goes for your gun, or whatever, you don't have to shoot, usually pointing is enough to stop most people. But even if an unarmed person still charges at you and you're pointing your gun at him, there are lots of places you can shoot a man to stop him in his tracks without killing him. I completely understand there may be instances where force is necessary to protect yourself even if you are armed and the other person isn't, but what I don't see is - why would it have to be fatal force? Just put one in his arm or leg, get him on the ground, and haul him away. Cops are well trained, they can aim well.

I just truly believe in my heart that people do not deserve to die just because they aren't "innocent". Even if he's being a complete ******* or even has a bit of a rap sheet. We only give the death penalty here in some states, and you have to commit a capital crime. Being disobedient or lunging at a cop with no weapon does not constitute a capital crime deserving of DEATH. Get ****** up sure. But we don't have to kill them. That's why I call it murder. We should be better than that.

 

[SCSteeler4life]

That article is full of deflection.

Its entire premise is a defense of police officers as a whole. But nobody is saying the entire institution of police is to blame, or that they are all bad, or evil, or whatever. Everybody knows that the country is full of great cops here to protect us.

Amazing how this article just glosses over 72 unarmed black men murdered by police in three years by comparing it to the overall number of police shootings. That number should be ******* ZERO, or damn near close to it. That is 72 lives taken in three years. You can't just throw that under the rug and couch it between "well it's only 1% of police shootings". We're not talking about legitimate police shootings. That's not part of the equation. Because good honest cops are not the subject of discussion. And the number should be 0%, anyway. Unarmed people should NOT BE KILLED BY POLICE, white or black. These mass shooters keep being brought in unscathed for their arrest. How is it that we need to shoot to kill an unarmed person? Seriously, the glossing over that fact is truly disturbing. 72 in 3 years. Just because you can compare it to bigger, irrelevant numbers doesn't mean it's not a relevant number.

And the article again glosses over the most important part of all this. It just throws in one sentence at the end "And in the rare cases where police are have acted unlawfully they should face prosecution.". BUT THEY'RE NOT. THAT'S THE POINT. They are not being charged, if they are the charges aren't sticking. DAs and fellow police are protecting these people. It's all a part of the problem. You can't just throw that in there with a "should" at the end and think the entire point is resolved. They absolutely should be prosecuted and it's not happening. If the writer of that actually cared about that, he/she would go deeper and try to analyze WHY that isn't happening, HOW that can change, why we should care if that changes. But they don't. They just leave it at "should" and do not explore any further how they continue to escape accountability.

So as far as I'm concerned, that article might be music to your ears if you already view this thing a certain way, but it is absolute trash to me.

Anybody shot by police is troubling , but the numbers don’t lie. 2% is still 2%. I wished it was zero but we both know that isn’t going to happen. Look at the number of times the police were assaulted (57,000 times) Bottom line there is no proof at all that cops target blacks any more than any other race. Sorry to burst your bubble. All lives matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[slashsteel]

Anybody shot by police is troubling , but the numbers don’t lie. 2% is still 2%. I wished it was zero but we both know that isn’t going to happen. Look at the number of times the police were assaulted (57,000 times) Bottom line there is no proof at all that cops target blacks any more than any other race. Sorry to burst your bubble. All lives matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

What was the percentage of black men attacking officers again?


If that is way over the 2%

what does arithmetic tell yinz?

I am sure whites, etc. attacking officers is greater too.


And if some one is dumb enough to go @ a officer, you have to assume they are capable of anything.

Don't want to get shot and killed? don't ******* attack the officer.

It can go both ways.

Cause and effect. I am not out attacking police officers. When they have told me to get down? (Which they have in my youth) I got the **** down. Guns drawn aiming at me (crazy ex told them I had a knife, I didn't), I got the **** down.

And trust me chances are they would have killed me if I lunged. As my size is often intimidating.


I again go back to these issues should be a lesser scale America issue, and not a enlarged issues by the reported black man claiming racial issues.


One of the bigger issues I have is people always making issues racial issues.

I bet that would be a interesting percentage if that could be computed. Percentage to actual racial issues compared to percentage of manufactured bullshit.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Unarmed people should NOT BE KILLED BY POLICE, white or black. These mass shooters keep being brought in unscathed for their arrest. How is it that we need to shoot to kill an unarmed person?

You have a unrealistic idea of police enforcement. They are not going to make sure it's a fair fight, and they are not going to shoot to wound. That only happens in Hollywood. If you want to learn why that is, read this - https://www.policeone.com/police-tr...n-to-the-public-why-cops-dont-shoot-to-wound/

If you started making cops try to shoot to would or else face prosecution, nobody would take the job and we'd end up with an Escape from New York scenario.

 

[AggieSteel]

You have a unrealistic idea of police enforcement. They are not going to make sure it's a fair fight, and they are not going to shoot to wound. That only happens in Hollywood. If you want to learn why that is, read this - https://www.policeone.com/police-tr...n-to-the-public-why-cops-dont-shoot-to-wound/

If you started making cops try to shoot to would or else face prosecution, nobody would take the job and we'd end up with an Escape from New York scenario.

Sure, my buddy who is a cop told me a long time ago that cops are trained to shoot to kill.

I read through the entire article. The entire premise is based on an armed assailant who has already committed violence and/or might soon commit violence. You must shoot center mass to stop the threat to the public and/or fellow cops and/or yourself, as shooting for hands or arms is too risky for a miss. Sure, that is totally understandable.

But in the scenario of an unarmed “assailant”, this is not a risk. And that’s what we’re talking about here. As I said before, I still do not understand why anyone needs to be shooting someone who is unarmed, even if he’s being a disrespectful prick. As if law enforcement has absolutely no measures it can take between “doing absolutely nothing” and “killing the person”.

If a cop thinks the only way to handle an unarmed person is to shoot to kill, then I think that is a badly trained or cowardly cop. I simply do not understand how there can’t be ANY other intermediate measures to take when someone lacks a weapon. And I know I’m not a cop, but even if the entire world of cops says “no we have to shoot unarmed people” then I would say “bullshit, if you believe that then we need a paradigm/culture shift in law enforcement in our country”

And if people stop being cops because they can’t pump unarmed people full of bullets, then I wouldn’t want that person “protecting” the public anyway.

I have absolutely no bones about police shooting violent armed assailants who pose a threat. None. Even though mass shooters are often brought in alive and well somehow..?


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Sure, my buddy who is a cop told me a long time ago that cops are trained to shoot to kill.

I read through the entire article. The entire premise is based on an armed assailant who has already committed violence and/or might soon commit violence. You must shoot center mass to stop the threat to the public and/or fellow cops and/or yourself, as shooting for hands or arms is too risky for a miss. Sure, that is totally understandable.

But in the scenario of an unarmed “assailant”, this is not a risk. And that’s what we’re talking about here. As I said before, I still do not understand why anyone needs to be shooting someone who is unarmed, even if he’s being a disrespectful prick. As if law enforcement has absolutely no measures it can take between “doing absolutely nothing” and “killing the person”.

If a cop thinks the only way to handle an unarmed person is to shoot to kill, then I think that is a badly trained or cowardly cop. I simply do not understand how there can’t be ANY other intermediate measures to take when someone lacks a weapon.

And if people stop being cops because they can’t pump unarmed people full of bullets, then I wouldn’t want that person “protecting” the public anyway.

I have absolutely no bones about police shooting violent armed assailants who pose a threat. None. Even though mass shooters are often brought in alive and well somehow..?


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

We'll never agree on much at all. I would really love to see you live in a community where the police followed your rules, but I am optimistic that that will never happen.

 

[slashsteel]

But in the scenario of an unarmed “assailant”, this is not a risk.

If that person is lunging @ a officer it is a risk. If that person has their hands in their pockets that is a risk. If a person is potentially causing harm to another individual that is a risk.


So if we throw out all the scenerios on a already small percentile. The amount of preventable shootings is even less. And again what is the percentage of cops attacked in comparison.

Officers lives matter too.

 

[Supersteeler]

It’s incredibly easy to sit at a computer and say that a cop should be able to bring down an unarmed aggressors without the use of force. Sure if the person sees the gun and gets down on the ground like they are supposed to. However in the real world many of these unarmed aggressors are either in a complete rage or under the influence of a substance making them irrational. Trust me cops aren’t shooting people who get on the ground when they are told to. They are shooting people that attack them in most of the cases.

I do have a problem with cops fatally shooting people who fleeing. That to me is excessive violence. However if you attack a cop, it’s a Darwin situation to me.

 

[Black & Gold Bleeder]

god we need some news. camp news ,,, rookie feel good news.. twitter blurbs , Anything really. Well, Anything but a new Coach made topic. Yeah, not that. But pretty much anything else, (non political)

I guess I should have boldened the above with my earlier post.