Taking a knee during the national anthem.

[NightSG]

4 hours ago, Grunt said:

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

IMO, every judge and jury in a deadly-force-against-unarmed-attacker case should first be educated on the events of 1953 in boxing; 22 boxers in their physical prime died as a result of injuries suffered in the ring, from opponents in their weight class, wearing big padded gloves, following Queensbury rules.  Saying that an unarmed attacker on the street, without gloves or rules isn't lethal force in the face of that information is a bit less believable.

On the other hand, I think Jonathan Aledda and all the other cops involved in Charles Kinsey's shooting should have their badges tattooed on their foreheads, and each be placed in general population of the nearest prison for as long as Kinsey still feels any pain or impairment from his injuries.

Edited October 2, 2017 by NightSG

[AnthonyB2]

OK as a non American I didn't understand this, I only heard about it from Trumps initial rant. My immediate thought was, isn't kneeling more respectful then standing? You kneel to propose. You kneel when when getting an honour from a monarch, like being knighted. Some christian kneel to receive communion. Some people kneel whilst getting married. So I couldn't get why Trump was upset about people being more respectful of the anthem then they normally were. I know get that he sees it as protresting and therefore not respecting the symbol, but isnt the whole "mythological" history of the USA that a rebellious protest was a good thing? Your a nation that celebrates rebels as your founding fathers? Isn't the Boston Tea Party a private  property destroying riot for a cause?

[Traveler]

 

Just wondering – After the recent massacre in Las Vegas – how do you feel about the idea that caring citizens should not support our law enforcement?

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

48 minutes ago, AnthonyB2 said:

 Isn't the Boston Tea Party a private  property destroying riot for a cause?

No, it was about the king that created a tax (one of many) as punishment only paid by the colonists; that went into the personal finances of the king.  In addition the tea was the property of the East India Company which had a monopoly (by pleasure of the king) on all tea going to the colonists – owned mostly by the king.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, AnthonyB2 said:

My immediate thought was, isn't kneeling more respectful then standing? 

Not during the pledge of allegiance.  When pledging allegiance, you stand, with your hand over your heart.  Kneeling in this case is a symbol of protest, occasionally even intended to communicate disrespect for the flag and the American institution.

[Traveler]

 

Something many that supporters of the protests (riots) may not know is that the under-writing laws of insurance for small businesses has an exclusion of coverage in case war or civil disturbances.  In essence, when demonstrations turn to riots – the most damage is done to any business trying to make a living in the communities where such demonstrations take place.   There is no reimbursement (or government program) to help the companies – most small businesses cannot survive such civil disturbances – obviously, something that hurts such communities.  I have to believe that such tactics of support are intended by those that organize and fan the flames of riots and not the result is ignorant stupidity – especially anyone that serves in an elected office.

 

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

It is apparently the considered opinion of one Ms. Holly Black that a) what these NFL players are doing is, under the standards of flag etiquette, roughly analogous to flying a flag at half-staff; b) that said kneeling is not a per se expression of contempt for Americans who don’t think like they do; c) that it must be assumed an initio that the plight of black Americans in 2017 is primarily the result of ongoing “oppression”, and d) that said “oppression” is roughly on par with the terms of the Edmunds Act of 1882.  She therefore concludes it to be quite likely that our pioneer ancestors, being fully informed, would have chosen to kneel with Karpernik if they were alive today.

https://mormonhub.com/blog/buzz/sports/early-mormons-kneel-kaepernick/

The utter myopia as to things legal, cultural, and historical that underlyies all of these opinions, is simply staggering.  LDS leaders of the 19th century would have given up their left arms for the sort of “indifference” Ms. Black infers we are perpetrating against modern ethnic minorities.  

Edited October 3, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

She therefore concludes it to be quite likely that our pioneer ancestors, being fully informed, would have chosen to kneel with Karpernik if they were alive today.

When instead, we chose this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Battalion

Quote

The President wants to do us good and secure our confidence. The outfit of this five hundred men costs us nothing, and their pay will be sufficient to take their families over the mountains. There is war between Mexico and the United States, to whom California must fall a prey, and if we are the first settlers the old citizens cannot have a Hancock or Missouri pretext to mob the Saints. The thing is from above for our own good.
- Brigham Young

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[pwrfrk]

So if a cop kills, murders, my unarmed mother at a traffic stop, I can go down to a nursing home and spit in the faces of the elderly veterans?

It is not just black lives that matter, but all lives.  Not just blacks are beaten and murdered by cops, but whites, too.  And Hispanics.  And Chinese.  And Japanese.  It happens and the group "cops", as a whole, has no concern for or against anyone's race or color.  The group itself does not commit these acts.  It is the acts of the individuals that are in question.  So because my neighbor was driving intoxicated and had a wreck killing someone means I can show America, as a whole, disrespect?

I have no idea what our early pioneers would have done.  Times were different back then.  A lot was different.

[Guest Godless]

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Just wondering – After the recent massacre in Las Vegas – how do you feel about the idea that caring citizens should not support our law enforcement?

 

The Traveler

I think it is very supportive of law enforcement to demand that they do better, that they improve their system of accountability for wrongdoing. Because the thing is, most people in the BLM movement aren't anti-cop, they're anti- bad cop, and cops should be too. Is it asking so much that cops hold each other accountable for their actions rather than defending corruption and abuse until they're blue in the face? 

My first tour of Iraq took place in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal. It was chaotic, to say the least. There was no lack of resentment and anger towards the Iraqis for the way they often treated us, but we reserved a special level of wrath for the MPs at that facility. They directly contributed to the radicalization of the people we shared roads with on our supply routes. We vilified those soldiers because they put our lives in danger. I think the public would trust cops more if they felt that the good cops were truly and completely on our side.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

I think it is very supportive of law enforcement to demand that they do better, that they improve their system of accountability for wrongdoing. Because the thing is, most people in the BLM movement aren't anti-cop, they're anti- bad cop, and cops should be too. Is it asking so much that cops hold each other accountable for their actions rather than defending corruption and abuse until they're blue in the face? 

My first tour of Iraq took place in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal. It was chaotic, to say the least. There was no lack of resentment and anger towards the Iraqis for the way they often treated us, but we reserved a special level of wrath for the MPs at that facility. They directly contributed to the radicalization of the people we shared roads with on our supply routes. We vilified those soldiers because they put our lives in danger. I think the public would trust cops more if they felt that the good cops were truly and completely on our side.

Except that the most vocal of them - Colin Kaepernick being apropos of this thread - don't agree with you.  And that's WHY there's kneeling on the anthem.

Except that the BLM movement is based on a lie - Hands up, Don't Shoot.

Except that BLM makes no effort in correcting the media portrayals of their movement and gives no effort in denouncing those of their group that demand death for cops while lambasting anybody who don't denounce the KKK 5 times every hour.

People would be more willing to dialogue if dialogue was actually possible in the kind of environment BLM swims in and if they're really honest about the issues of the black community.

Edited October 4, 2017 by anatess2

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, Godless said:

I think it is very supportive of law enforcement to demand that they do better, that they improve their system of accountability for wrongdoing. Because the thing is, most people in the BLM movement aren't anti-cop, they're anti- bad cop, and cops should be too. Is it asking so much that cops hold each other accountable for their actions rather than defending corruption and abuse until they're blue in the face? 

My first tour of Iraq took place in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal. It was chaotic, to say the least. There was no lack of resentment and anger towards the Iraqis for the way they often treated us, but we reserved a special level of wrath for the MPs at that facility. They directly contributed to the radicalization of the people we shared roads with on our supply routes. We vilified those soldiers because they put our lives in danger. I think the public would trust cops more if they felt that the good cops were truly and completely on our side.

 

I served in the army during the Vietnam era.  I have never worked for a more incompetent organization than the army.  I also worked (following college) as a consultant with the defense department.  At that time the military was high tech ignorant – especially senior officers.  But this is another story.

During my military service, I was attached to 186th Engineers.  When the 186 was ordered into combat zones in Vietnam I was transferred (no idea why) to an army intelligence unit specializing in enemy interrogations and combat debriefings of allies.  There is a reason these two specializes are coupled.   None of my “intelligent” officers had any idea why a combat engineer with my MOS was transferred to their unit.  I just filled in wherever anyone needed help or I felt like it.  I learned a lot about the combat psyche and PTST.  Though I never saw combat – I dealt directly with many that had.  I do not consider myself an expert but I worked with and learned from experts.  This is why I have referenced adrenaline induced aggression.  

One thing I learned is that when individuals have difficulty with authority (desire to fight back or not cooperate) it is seldom because of corruption in the ranks of the authority.   Corrupt authority reacts badly to lack of cooperation – much more than highly disciplined efficient and competent authority.  Challenging authority comes from perceived weakness and efforts to exploit that weakness.   The proper response to insubordination by competent authority is increased regimentation.  However, there is an exception.  That exception is associated with someone under “the influence” – intoxicated, drunk or drugged.  

Intoxicated aggression (armed or not) must be dealt with differently than someone sober.   Note – that intoxicated aggression is very similar to adrenaline induced aggression.  I have been told by a number of law enforcement friends that in most cases where a murder is committed associated with a violent altercation – that drugs or alcohol are involved.  Interestingly this follows the exact same pattern that China suffered during the 100 years of shame from opium and the opium wars.

My point is that if drugs are involved in any way in the subcultures promoting police corruption and limiting police activity in the same subculture – and if history (China) is any possible example – we are headed toward civil war and limiting police authority will not make anything better.  One last note – that resistance to police (be the police corrupt or not) can cause heightened adrenaline – both in the individual and the police.  If this heightened adrenaline persists continuously in excess of 30 minutes – violence will likely occur at a life-threatening level.   

If we want to save lives – One thing is we want to avoid drug or adrenaline induced aggression.  The best opportunity to avoid adrenaline aggression is cooperation.  The best way to avoid drug induced aggression is to remove drugs from societies with violent problems – Chicago case in point – gangs another case in point.  It is my opinion that drugs are a bigger problem than "bad" police.

 

The Traveler

Edited October 4, 2017 by Traveler

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

8 hours ago, Godless said:

I think it is very supportive of law enforcement to demand that they do better, that they improve their system of accountability for wrongdoing. Because the thing is, most people in the BLM movement aren't anti-cop, they're anti- bad cop, and cops should be too. Is it asking so much that cops hold each other accountable for their actions rather than defending corruption and abuse until they're blue in the face? 

My first tour of Iraq took place in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal. It was chaotic, to say the least. There was no lack of resentment and anger towards the Iraqis for the way they often treated us, but we reserved a special level of wrath for the MPs at that facility. They directly contributed to the radicalization of the people we shared roads with on our supply routes. We vilified those soldiers because they put our lives in danger. I think the public would trust cops more if they felt that the good cops were truly and completely on our side.

Well said.

[mordorbund]

Since we're revisiting issues that haven't been resolved in 2 years, I'll repost this:

 

[pwrfrk]

Reflecting on recent events, I think that Colin Kaepernick is an idiot for supporting the "Black Lives Matter" gig, when ALL lives matter.  When he starts preferring the preservation of one race over another, he should start looking for another job.

 

At the same time, Trump has no business saying the crap he said about firing anybody.  When I enlisted the oath I took was about protecting the POTUS and the US Constitution.  Out of those two the US Constitution is omnipotent, POTUS is not.  The US Constitution is there to stay.  And if/when the POTUS starts violating the US Constitution, We can always vote out or impeach the POTUS.  Trump should have thought about that.

[Anddenex]

On 10/3/2017 at 3:52 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

It is apparently the considered opinion of one Ms. Holly Black that a) what these NFL players are doing is, under the standards of flag etiquette, roughly analogous to flying a flag at half-staff; b) that said kneeling is not a per se expression of contempt for Americans who don’t think like they do; c) that it must be assumed an initio that the plight of black Americans in 2017 is primarily the result of ongoing “oppression”, and d) that said “oppression” is roughly on par with the terms of the Edmunds Act of 1882.  She therefore concludes it to be quite likely that our pioneer ancestors, being fully informed, would have chosen to kneel with Karpernik if they were alive today.

https://mormonhub.com/blog/buzz/sports/early-mormons-kneel-kaepernick/

The utter myopia as to things legal, cultural, and historical that underlyies all of these opinions, is simply staggering.  LDS leaders of the 19th century would have given up their left arms for the sort of “indifference” Ms. Black infers we are perpetrating against modern ethnic minorities.  

To her defense @Just_A_Guy, she does refer to herself as a "tree-hugger" in her bio (if I am remembering correctly). That should explain the article referenced.

[pwrfrk]

Nothing wrong with hugging trees. 

[anatess2]

On 10/21/2017 at 3:48 AM, pwrfrk said:

At the same time, Trump has no business saying the crap he said about firing anybody.  When I enlisted the oath I took was about protecting the POTUS and the US Constitution.  Out of those two the US Constitution is omnipotent, POTUS is not.  The US Constitution is there to stay.  And if/when the POTUS starts violating the US Constitution, We can always vote out or impeach the POTUS.  Trump should have thought about that.

The US Constitution does not prevent the POTUS from stating an opinion.

The POTUS cannot fire anybody in the private sector.  The POTUS cannot force the private sector to fire anybody.  The POTUS CAN express that it would be nice if the private sector would fire people who disrespects the Flag.  The POTUS' primary job is to defend the USA - he is the Commander-in-Chief.  It is his Constitutional duty.  It's good to see a POTUS actually defending the US, not just from those who would impugn it from abroad but also from within instead of leading the pack in denigrating this great republic.

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The US Constitution does not prevent the POTUS from stating an opinion.

No more than the principles of English law (or morality) prevented Henry II from exclaiming “will no one did me of this meddlesome priest?”

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The US Constitution does not prevent the POTUS from stating an opinion.

No more than the principles of English law (or morality) prevented Henry II from exclaiming “will no one did me of this meddlesome priest?”

But Becket’s civil rights were infringed upon, all the same.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

53 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

No more than the principles of English law (or morality) prevented Henry II from exclaiming “will no one did me of this meddlesome priest?”

But Becket’s civil rights were infringed upon, all the same.

If I understand you correctly, I believe this is a rare case where I disagree with the more-knowledgeable lawyer. I am no fan of Trump's stupid preoccupation with trivial matters like whether overpaid NFL players show appropriate respect to the symbol of the flag. But excoriating a player for lack of patriotism and manners is fundamentally different from requesting his assassination.

[Just_A_Guy]

40 minutes ago, Vort said:

If I understand you correctly, I believe this is a rare case where I disagree with the more-knowledgeable lawyer. I am no fan of Trump's stupid preoccupation with trivial matters like whether overpaid NFL players show appropriate respect to the symbol of the flag. But excoriating a player for lack of patriotism and manners is fundamentally different from requesting his assassination.

That’s a fair point.  But it’s not so different than requesting his firing.  (And of course, King Henry would protest that he never actually requested anything; which was sort of my point.)

What if President Obama had publicly excoriated Brendan Eich over his Prop 8 support?  I think as conservatives—and Mormons—we’d agree that Obama had acted pretty inappropriately.  We were, of course, hopping mad about the IRS’ mistreatment of conservative groups; and we tend (rightly, I think) to attribute this to a general “get ‘em!” environment that Obama created by talking of “enemies”, advocating “get[ting] in their faces” and “punch[ing] back twice as hard”.  And our disgust at Hillary and her foundation, constitutes a tacit recognition that high office holders do indeed possess a sort of “soft power” that cannot be wielded with impunity. 

I think we should hold Trump to the same standard as Obama and Hillary. 

Edited October 24, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Again, I have no problem faulting Trump for his stupidity -- though I admit I am galled that the media is only too happy to do so, after having given Obama an eight-year pass. But comparing Trump's comments, even a request/demand/petulant tantrum for firing the player, to a tacit request for his assassination, is unfounded. (And I do realize that the whole Becket background story to his assassination is apocryphal, but I'm sure you'll agree that's not the point.)

EDIT: My point isn't to criticize what you wrote so much as to call out its hyperbolic nature. Whatever his many faults, Trump has not called for someone's execution. I actually mostly agree with your sentiments, just not with the comparison.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Vort

[Just_A_Guy]

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

Again, I have no problem faulting Trump for his stupidity -- though I admit I am galled that the media is only too happy to do so, after having given Obama an eight-year pass. But comparing Trump's comments, even a request/demand/petulant tantrum for firing the player, to a tacit request for his assassination, is unfounded. (And I do realize that the whole Becket background story to his assassination is apocryphal, but I'm sure you'll agree that's not the point.)

I feel like we’re re-enacting the discussion we just had with @LiterateParakeet earlier today that other thread about comparing pedophilia to homosexuality.  The point of the comparison here isn’t that Trump’s trying to kill anyone; the point is that the “mere” statement of an opinion by a high officeholder can and does result in the deprivation of the liberties of others.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

I feel like we’re re-enacting the discussion we just had with @LiterateParakeet earlier today that other thread about comparing pedophilia to homosexuality.  The point of the comparison here isn’t that Trump’s trying to kill anyone; the point is that the “mere” statement of an opinion by a high officeholder can and does result in the deprivation of the liberties of others.

Which leads to (as opposes to "which begs") the question: Should leaders in high office be expected to keep their opinions to themselves? In many or perhaps most cases, I think so. By descending to Kaepernick-bashing, Trump is showing yet again why so many keep insisting he acts beneath his office. Sheesh, let stupid social nonsense go by the wayside, and save your political ammo for important things, like Hillary's ties with Russia or NK's lunatic leader. By sniping at everything, large or small, Trump makes everything of pretty much equal importance. That's ridiculous, and it's too bad, because if Trump were to act (for lack of a better term) more presidential, he would have the support of people like me in greater numbers and intensity. As it is, I tolerate him because (1) he's miles better than Hillary and (2) he hit a home run in the SC justice selection. But I'd rather be a supporter than a mere tolerator, which I just might be if he would quit embarrassing himself on Twitter on a daily basis.