Taking a knee during the national anthem.

[JohnsonJones]

I would partially disagree

9 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Without further debate on the comparison to Book of Mormon times (there is, I believe, more to be said, but not to anyone's benefit...so I'll drop it), obviously I agree that Trump's goal is not to accelerate the Second Coming. However, I do believe that one of the reasons we find our society in the state we do is because no one of influence has dared to stand up against the "politically correct" and call it out for its foolish. .

I would disagree partially.  I think that evil is on both sides of the coin, both conservative/right and liberal/left.  To blind oneself to the evils of one, while calling out the evils of the other is only going to lead one down the path of evil regardless. 

Unlike other nations where patriotism is enforced, the US DOES believe in free speech.  Luckily for us, we have other freedoms as well, such as the ability to not watch those who say or do things we do not agree with (For example, if one does not like the players kneeling for the national anthem, they can, of their own volition, choose NOT to watch the NFL.  If enough do so, not only will the teams not be able to afford the player's contracts...but it will most likely impact the players themselves to the point that they may think of something else).  It is a free nation, which is what I think Pat Tillman's wife was also trying to point out. 

That said, personally, I think it is an affront that they do not respect the United States or it's flag, and think that if they don't like the US, they can go somewhere else and see how much the like that nation instead.  Canada has an American Football League as does Europe (or at least it used to).

It is their freedom to choose though, and one of the first amendment rights guaranteed (along with that of the freedom of religion...something individuals would be well to remember).  I think I've admitted to being rather leftist here, and liberal, so the outrage at them kneeling during the anthem is NOT simply a right or left thing (in fact I think a majority of Americans do not like them doing so), though perhaps how we react is different.

On the otherhand, I think many thoughts and ideas, both from the right and the left are being seen more and more destructive as the Nephites fell to destructive natures and pride. I agree that we are in this type of stage in our own nation, and that there are many kingsmen at work within our own society today, as well as most likely modern day gadiantons.   I would say  those secret societies exist on both the Republican and Democrat parties, and in all sides of the equation, both right and left political circles.

I do NOT equate Trump with the Captain Moroni.  For starters, Moroni was a devout follower of the true gospel of the Lord.  Secondly, I highly doubt he was a serial divorcee.  Thirdly, I highly doubt he made crude remarks about woman and grabbing them inappropriately.  In fact, I'd say Trump is about as opposite of Captain Moroni as one can get. 

A more logical extension would be Elder Oaks and his talk today (or I suppose it was yesterday, now).  The banner would be the Proclamation to the Family, and the ones who follow are the members who desire liberty and follow Elder Oaks comments and directions today.

Edited October 1, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Traveler]

On ‎9‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 7:59 PM, Godless said:

Who said anything about scholarships? The issue is police violence and the apparent lack of accountability for it. This is literally a life-and-death issue in black communities.

When was the last time you walked alone at night through a black community?  Police violence is not even close to the single most significient life-and death issue in black communities.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Since when have professional football players become the example of how grown men should behave in their homes and communities?

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

On ‎9‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 9:22 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

 

—Trump, as a government official, needs to stay the heck out of private-sector decisions regarding hiring and firing.  Also, this is a cynical move on his part that advances his short term political interests but divides the country as a whole.  

I am wondering why you think that the president has any less right or obligation than any other individual citizen?   If someone has the right to speak to something - does not the president also?  BTW what is the written agreement in the NFL for all its employees and owners during the national anthem? 

 

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

55 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am wondering why you think that the president has any less right or obligation than any other individual citizen?   If someone has the right to speak to something - does not the president also?  

Because the President controls an army of millions and a bureaucracy of tens of millions who may take his words and run with them in a way that infringes on the rights of others.  Lois Lerner, and Antifa, being examples from our recent President Obama.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I do NOT equate Trump with the Captain Moroni.

Neither do I.  That was not the comparison being made, and it is a logical fallacy to imply that a wicked man speaking truth invalidates the truth.

[NeuroTypical]

While we're on the topic of inappropriate public protesting, did I hear correctly in General Conference, that when sustaining the leadership of the church, they did not ask for an indication from those opposed?

 

[my two cents]

22 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

While we're on the topic of inappropriate public protesting, did I hear correctly in General Conference, that when sustaining the leadership of the church, they did not ask for an indication from those opposed?

 

Yes they did and again told them to see their stk pres.

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I am wondering why you think that the president has any less right or obligation than any other individual citizen?   If someone has the right to speak to something - does not the president also?  BTW what is the written agreement in the NFL for all its employees and owners during the national anthem? 

 

The Traveler

I'm not certain on the president, but I believe government workers and the military actually have restrictions on what they can say and where in regards to politics.  I think the rule is if they are in uniform, or at work or on the job, or seen as representatives of the US government they cannot say certain political items.  It can be seen as uncouth for the President to do certain things or act in certain ways, but that has in no way stopped or hindered Trump in many of his statements, especially on his tweets.

[mirkwood]

We are not allowed to discuss politics with the public while on duty. 

[Grunt]

Just now, mirkwood said:

We are not allowed to discuss politics with the public while on duty. 

Even off duty can jam you up.   Me too.

[mirkwood]

The only one I avoid off duty is when the Sheriff is up for election.  I won't comment on that to anyone that I do not know personally.  We get asked all the time.

 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

We are not allowed to discuss politics with the public while on duty. 

Could you run for office while being an active duty police officer? 

[mirkwood]

Yes.  We've had several and a couple have won.

[Bad Karma]

Take a knee in front of me during the national anthem, well, I'll dump my slurpee on your head, after that, we'll figure out where it goes from there.  I'm Mormon, not perfect. 

[Guest Godless]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

When was the last time you walked alone at night through a black community?  Police violence is not even close to the single most significient life-and death issue in black communities.

 

The Traveler

Yes, violence in black communities is a problem, and it's one that many athletes have spent years trying to address through various youth outreach programs. 

Here's the thing though, our prisons are filled with black criminals. It's hard to argue that victims of black-on-black or black-on-white crimes aren't getting justice. How many cops are in prison for killing an unarmed suspect? 

[zil]

34 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

The only one I avoid off duty is when the Sheriff is up for election.  I won't comment on that to anyone that I do not know personally.  We get asked all the time.

So if someone asks whether you shot the sheriff, your answer is, "No comment"?

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Because the President controls an army of millions and a bureaucracy of tens of millions who may take his words and run with them in a way that infringes on the rights of others.  Lois Lerner, and Antifa, being examples from our recent President Obama.

 

I believe it was in King Lear (Shakespeare) where the king goes incognito among his troops prior to battle.  A debate is taking place as to who will be responsible for the deaths in battle – the King that plunges into war or the individual soldiers that take the life in battle.  Shakespeare never solves the debate – but for me I think all share responsibility in the things we do with those that encourage such things.

It is always possible that what an individual encourages is misunderstood and action taken beyond the intent of encouragement.  Such things always have the greater responsibility with those that take liberty to define what others encourage.

My point is all this is not so much to disagree and speak out concerning what it is that brings our disparagement.   My point is that when we disagree that our first obligation is to put forth the example of what ought to be done concerning the disagreement.   Specifically, what should a person do with a threat to peace and stability of society that will not respond to the laws enacted by that society?

I listened to one say that - no one that has not been forced to lie on the ground by law enforcement knows what it is like to be black.  I wondered about that attitude – is it possible that all the genetically “black” individuals that had not been forced to lie on the ground by law enforcement incapable of understanding what it is like to be black?  Also, I was once stopped by law enforcement and told to lie face down on the ground.  Though I had nothing to do with the problem – I replied quickly to the demands without any effort to resist.  Because I cooperated – does that mean that anyone that lies face down to the ground in full cooperation will never understand what it means to be black?  Or if a black person cooperates with police that they do not know what it means to be black?

I believe one follows a foolish path if they think to criticize any injustice without any effort to be an example of what is the intelligent response that will defuse and end injustice.  I make my living, in part, through industrial artificial intelligence.  Scientifically we define intelligence as the ability to learn from experience and modify our behavior for the greater benefit.

I do not believe that safety has improved in black communities in over 60 years – and I do not believe for a moment that black communities will improve in the next 60 years doing nothing other than blaming factors outside their community.  As to the current question – I wonder if black communities would become safer for everyone if there were no police in such communities?

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

12 minutes ago, Godless said:

Yes, violence in black communities is a problem, and it's one that many athletes have spent years trying to address through various youth outreach programs. 

Here's the thing though, our prisons are filled with black criminals. It's hard to argue that victims of black-on-black or black-on-white crimes aren't getting justice. How many cops are in prison for killing an unarmed suspect? 

 

We ask a great deal of our police to protect the citizens of this country.  The law defines the authority and power of the police.  It may be a big surprise to you but the police are given the authority to use lethal force when there is a threat.   You may not understand because you have never been in a life-threatening situation. 

But here is something few consider.  If someone’s adrenaline is active in their system for about or over 30 minutes it will likely override training, sensibility and create a fight for life mentality.   In combat this is the #1 cause of death by friendly fire – historically it is the number # 1 cause of death in combat.  A policeman in pursuit (chase) of a suspect for 30 minutes or more is not going to behave nicely – neither will the individual they pursue.  Various drugs and drug cocktails will reduce the time to the threshold of violence.  All this contributes and is a recipe for disaster – especially in black communities where there is high drug use.   The best way to prevent anyone being killed by police is to convince anyone dealing with the police to fully cooperate with the police. 

My question to you Godless is – How many cases can you document that the police has shot and killed a black person (or any color of person) in the USA, trying to cooperate with them, that has not been convicted of a crime?  Can you document 1?

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm not certain on the president, but I believe government workers and the military actually have restrictions on what they can say and where in regards to politics.  I think the rule is if they are in uniform, or at work or on the job, or seen as representatives of the US government they cannot say certain political items.  It can be seen as uncouth for the President to do certain things or act in certain ways, but that has in no way stopped or hindered Trump in many of his statements, especially on his tweets.

Outside of criticism concerning the chain of command or a direct order - I am not aware or any restrictions for the military.  As per elected officials (including the Clintons) I do not believe politicians are obligated to even tell the truth or be honest about anything.  I believe politicians have a very long history of saying both stupid and untrue things.  That you are making reference to someone in political office indicates to me that you are not paying much attention to things. 

Holding someone retroactively to something different than the established norm – is considered an act of injustice – or dare I say – by definition - an act of bigotry (or at least political bigotry).  Sorry if that sounds harsh – but I am concerned that what we see as contained violence is actually a road to uncontained violence.

Historically disputations in society that lead to violence lead to civil war.  At least this is one understanding I get reading the Book of Mormon

 

The Traveler

Edited October 1, 2017 by Traveler

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

Yes, violence in black communities is a problem, and it's one that many athletes have spent years trying to address through various youth outreach programs. 

Here's the thing though, our prisons are filled with black criminals. It's hard to argue that victims of black-on-black or black-on-white crimes aren't getting justice. How many cops are in prison for killing an unarmed suspect? 

Being unarmed doesn't negate the use of deadly force.

[Sunday21]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I believe it was in King Lear (Shakespeare) where the king goes incognito among his troops prior to battle.  A debate is taking place as to who will be responsible for the deaths in battle – the King that plunges into war or the individual soldiers that take the life in battle.  Shakespeare never solves the debate – but for me I think all share responsibility in the things we do with those that encourage such things.

It is always possible that what an individual encourages is misunderstood and action taken beyond the intent of encouragement.  Such things always have the greater responsibility with those that take liberty to define what others encourage.

My point is all this is not so much to disagree and speak out concerning what it is that brings our disparagement.   My point is that when we disagree that our first obligation is to put forth the example of what ought to be done concerning the disagreement.   Specifically, what should a person do with a threat to peace and stability of society that will not respond to the laws enacted by that society?

I listened to one say that - no one that has not been forced to lie on the ground by law enforcement knows what it is like to be black.  I wondered about that attitude – is it possible that all the genetically “black” individuals that had not been forced to lie on the ground by law enforcement incapable of understanding what it is like to be black?  Also, I was once stopped by law enforcement and told to lie face down on the ground.  Though I had nothing to do with the problem – I replied quickly to the demands without any effort to resist.  Because I cooperated – does that mean that anyone that lies face down to the ground in full cooperation will never understand what it means to be black?  Or if a black person cooperates with police that they do not know what it means to be black?

I believe one follows a foolish path if they think to criticize any injustice without any effort to be an example of what is the intelligent response that will defuse and end injustice.  I make my living, in part, through industrial artificial intelligence.  Scientifically we define intelligence as the ability to learn from experience and modify our behavior for the greater benefit.

I do not believe that safety has improved in black communities in over 60 years – and I do not believe for a moment that black communities will improve in the next 60 years doing nothing other than blaming factors outside their community.  As to the current question – I wonder if black communities would become safer for everyone if there were no police in such communities?

 

The Traveler

Henry 5

[clbent04]

On 9/29/2017 at 1:02 PM, Traveler said:

Does anything associated with this make sense to anybody?

A couple points everyone should realize:

Professional athletes who don't stand for the National Anthem are bringing politics into the workplace.  They rightfully can be terminated from their employment by crossing that line.  The media platform that has been built around their employment is not for them to use for their personal political agendas.  If you want to protest an issue, do so outside of work.  

Kneeling during the National Anthem sends a stronger message that you don't support this country rather than you taking issue with racial discrimination.  Your message is confused by your actions.  Choose a more appropriate way to protest.

[Guest Godless]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

We ask a great deal of our police to protect the citizens of this country.  The law defines the authority and power of the police.  It may be a big surprise to you but the police are given the authority to use lethal force when there is a threat.   You may not understand because you have never been in a life-threatening situation. 

 

I did three tours in Iraq, two of which had me operating guntrucks.

But here is something few consider.  If someone’s adrenaline is active in their system for about or over 30 minutes it will likely override training, sensibility and create a fight for life mentality.   In combat this is the #1 cause of death by friendly fire – historically it is the number # 1 cause of death in combat.  A policeman in pursuit (chase) of a suspect for 30 minutes or more is not going to behave nicely – neither will the individual they pursue.  Various drugs and drug cocktails will reduce the time to the threshold of violence.  All this contributes and is a recipe for disaster – especially in black comBut here is something few consider.  If someone’s adrenaline is active in their system for about or over 30 minutes it will likely override training, sensibility and create a fight for life mentality.   In combat this is the #1 cause of death by friendly fire – historically it is the number # 1 cause of death in combat.  A policeman in pursuit (chase) of a suspect for 30 minutes or more is not going to behave nicely – neither will the individual they pursue.  Various drugs and drug cocktails will reduce the time to the threshold of violence.  All this contributes and is a recipe for disaster – especially in black communities where there is high drug use.   The best way to prevent anyone being killed by police is to convince anyone dealing with the police to fully cooperate with the police.  munities where there is high drug use.   The best way to prevent anyone being killed by police is to convince anyone dealing with the police to fully cooperate with the police

Soldiers (and I assume cops as well) go through countless hours of training to condition them to make split-second decisions in dangerous situations. Poise under pressure is programmed into our muscle memory. Because of this, actions made "in the heat of the moment" can't be dismissed because of adrenaline. Yes, mistakes can still be made. We're only human. But we're still accountable for our mistakes.

True story: During my first tour (2004) my gunner injured his finger while trying to adjust the turret. He was cleaning his wound when a cow came out of no where, forcing me to slam on the brakes. My gunner turned, finger on the trigger, to find a young girl in his crosshairs, running after her cow. He came a finger-twitch away from killing an innocent child. His training led him to do make a very swift and correct judgement call.

My question to you Godless is – How many cases can you document that the police has shot and killed a black person (or any color of person) in the USA, trying to cooperate with them, that has not been convicted of a crime?  Can you document 1?

 

Philando Castile

Based on the accounts I've read, the only mistake that Castile may have made was not keeping his hands visible at all times. But after informing the officer that he had a licensed weapon and communicating that he wasn't reaching for it, I don't think the mistake of hand placement justified the death of an otherwise very cooperative suspect. FWIW, even the very-conservative National Review called it a miscarriage of justice (more from them below).

For the sake of balance, here is another case, this one involving a white woman shot and killed by a black Muslim cop. The investigation is on-going, but based on the facts provided, I believe it's a procecutable case. 

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

Being unarmed doesn't negate the use of deadly force.

I'm aware that there are sitiations where using deadly force on an unarmed suspect is necessary. I get that. I'm just not convinced that some of the shootings that have been put in the spotlight in recent years were carried out in such circumstances. I found a good article (and from a conservative publication no less) outlining the flaw in using an officer's fear to justify deadly action. It paints a stark contrast between the Castile case and the shooting of Terrence Crutcher in Oklahoma which, while still sketchy, was objectively easier to justify.

[Grunt]

8 minutes ago, Godless said:

I'm aware that there are sitiations where using deadly force on an unarmed suspect is necessary. I get that. I'm just not convinced that some of the shootings that have been put in the spotlight in recent years were carried out in such circumstances. I found a good article (and from a conservative publication no less) outlining the flaw in using an officer's fear to justify deadly action. It paints a stark contrast between the Castile case and the shooting of Terrence Crutcher in Oklahoma which, while still sketchy, was objectively easier to justify.

1

With regard to Castille, I don't necessarily disagree.  I also agree that when the State removes your civil liberties (life) the bar must be set higher than "officer safety".   I believe there should be a clear and imminent threat of the use of deadly force, not "he might have a gun".  

My statement was simply in opposition to the idea that this is an epidemic or one-sided.