VTTW Board Index

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/08/missouri-to-boycott-season-until-university-president-steps-down/

I really wish someone would step up, forget all about political correctness, and revoke the scholarship of any player who refuses to participate in a practice or a game. There's no doubt racism is alive and well on the Mizzou campus, but from everything I've read, it isn't just the fault of the university leadership. This seems to have started with Ferguson, when some black students on campus were upset that Mizzou officials weren't condemning the police officer's actions — which we now know were justified, by the way. Those students took it upon themselves to find injustice where none existed and sparked a discord that has continued to grow since then.

Yep.  By refusing to prepare for games or participate in games they are breaching the contract they signed in the form of accepting an athletic scholarship. 

No play, no pay scholly. 

I would reply to this thread but it would drive the thread to the other board.  Herb, please see my response in your friend's thread on another board.  That just scratches the thread of how I truly feel.

If I was facing a potential horse whipping at home by the likes of BYU, I'd probably concoct some scheme to get out of it also.....

While I agree in theory, you know as well as I do that in today's climate, revoking their scholarships would basically be athletic department suicide.  They'd never sign another AA player, in ANY sport.  The players, assuming they follow through with their threat, are going to win here.  What's sad is that without football, most of them probably couldn't have gotten into a school like Mizzou anyway (assuming Mizzou is like most other Power 5 schools).  And they're going to be the ones to get the president of the university fired.  In today's PC climate, the tail truly wags the dog.

Is there ANY situation in which you would support a scholarshipped student's right to conscientiously protest?

Refusing to live up to a contractual obligation is not a protest.  It's a breech of contract.  

and nota "microagression" breech at that ...

Okay.  But the question WAS, "Is there ANY situation in which you would support a scholarshipped student's right to conscientiously protest?"

Sure.  They can protest all they want, but if they fail to live up to the terms of their scholarship then they should be held accountable for breech of that contract. 

Where would you stand if a coach instructs a player to intentionally injure a player on the opposing team and the player refuses?

Then the coach needs to be held accountable, but there is absolutely zero analogy between the players refusing to live up to their contract and what your hypothetical question.  The situation at Mizzou has nothing to do with their responsibility to get ready for and play in a football game. 

If you're going to protest - hit them where it hurts. This is at least getting the issue attention, because without black players, imagine if you will trying to run a good football or basketball program?

All the info I have is what I have read - and it seems to be there's something to it, considering the admissions of a certain key person involved. The university can of course revoke their scholarships, but they'd be stupid to do so. $$$$ says that the issue has to be addressed.

I totally understand and honestly I'm trying to formulate an opinion of my own on this.  Look, I know my politics go WAY against the grain of what prevails here... but I'm not comfortable denying anyone the right to protest on principle in any/all/whatever situations.  I respect the contract but... things change and I have a problem saying that in the nest of maturing principles (institutions of higher learning) that ANYONE is denied the right to stand for something strictly because their talents warranted a scholarship.  I understand the black and white clarity of a contract... but I'm not comfortable saying that NO situation warrants the right.  Seems really dangerous to me.  I myself was a scholarshipped student and I protested against and helped get fired the head of a department (he was a drunk).  In the long run, the program was better for it and I would hate to think that a student loses the right to be him/herself because of that scholarship.  But I respect your opinion, sincerely.  I'm still not sure where I stand on this.

It's pretty simple.  

The players can protest all they want.  Refusing to do what they promised to do in return for their educations being paid for has ZERO to do with their right to protest.  

These are two totally different issues.  

Nobody is depriving them the right to protest, but by refusing to honor their commitment they are denying the University a promise they made to them and they should be held accountable for it.

What would happen if you decided not to show up and fulfill your contractual obligations according to your contract of employment?  Would you expect to get a paycheck and continue to be employed?    

Fortunately... thank GOD I have a union to protect me in such a situation.  I am grateful that my contract does not deny me the right to refuse the job should an unacceptable situation arise and that I have a union to back me.  We'll just respectfully disagree here.  I cannot be cool when NO MATTER WHAT, any American cannot oppose and refuse a "wrong" situation and therefore be dismissed.  We simply, RESPECTFULLY disagree.

So, your union protects you when you intentionally refuse to honor your commitment to the employer that is spelled out in that contract between the yourself, the union and the employer? 

You could live with that? 

And therein lies the rub - commitment doesn't mean a damn in this country any longer. 

As I said, RESPECTFULLY disagree with you.  Peace out.

I'm completely peaceful.  Just making the point that the Mizzou players' rights to protest has zero to do with their refusing to live up to their commitment.  Absolutely zero.

It's a social protest herb. It's emotional.

If I'm inferring too much, I'll apologize in advance, but as I read between the lines it appears to me that your question is implying that I'm racist, which is all too common in these debates. The answer, by the way, is sure. Any student can protest all they want, so long as they honor their contractual obligation and they're not disruptive. Which is to say, I agree with Herb.

Obviously this will work in the students' favor, as BDV said. No one has the cahones to stand up to it.

The bottom line to all of this is we have a racism problem in America. But it works both ways. Until both sides start to be held to the same standard, we're chasing our tail.

NO NO NO NO!  In no way, shape or form am I "inferring" anything.  I'm just GENUINELY trying to formulate my own position here.  Please believe me, I'm coming from a lifetime of conservatism and within the last five years questioning a lot of that.  What I'm trying to grasp is... whether this "contract" denies any student the right to essentially strike.   I'm not yet comfy saying "no".  I don't like the concept that a college student is denied the right to "protest by not performing the duties" in order to stand up for principles.

I despise the whole Kim Davis situation, for example.  I've thought she should just "do her effing job" as EVERYONE in Morehead KY whom I asked said about her (I was there recently).  But now... when it is suggested that the scholarship revokes the right to "strike"... I ponder.  I'm honestly just trying to formulate an opinion.  I'm not inferring anything.

While I think the guy shot in Ferguson was a thug and it's highly likely he contributed to the incident, short of a cam on the policeman there isn't any way "we" can "know" anything.

All that can be said is that there was a hearing and the officer was exonerated.  There are reports of "testimony" by "unidentified" witnesses in certain media, but has anyone seen a transcript of the hearing itself or the actual testimony or evidence that was presented there? 

Just saying, the officer was exonerated and based on what little I actually know, that was probably justified.  But that's a far cry from "knowing" anything.   :biggrin:

 

I'm of a different breed, but in my book, there is no situation which justifies the protest. You're turning your back on the institution that has given you a gift, and your intent of protesting is to smear that institution.

If you want to protest, then do so after you leave.

THAT is the problem!
The entire Social Justice movement is emotionally based and doesn't have a damn thing to do with the reality that we live in!

Perhaps their is more going on regarding this Practice/all football activities "protest"(1st and last paras):
"As much as we want to say everyone is united, half the team and coaches -- black and white -- are pissed," the player, who wished to remain anonymous, told ESPN. "If we were 9-0, this wouldn't be happening."

"Not everyone agrees with the decision [to stop all football activities]," the player said."

Also: "The player indicated the team had been aware of Butler's hunger strike for several days. However, some black players didn't decide to take action until Butler met with some players Saturday night."

Source: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14087454/missouri-tigers-player-says-team-not-united-practice-boycott (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14087454/missouri-tigers-player-says-team-not-united-practice-boycott)

It's not a binary situation. Most things aren't. You don't have to lop off 'eads, or join the protest.

Sit down with players in a relaxed setting. Discuss why they think what they think. Pinkel can then explain he's paid to coach, and that's what he'll do. Anyone who wants to play football can practice. Don't yell and scream.

BTW, this won't hurt recruiting more than losing games. Recruits are low- information people, and plenty of guys want an SEC scholarship. Plus, the news cycle is short.

It doesn't seem to be clear exactly what they are protesting.  I have heard that it is about racist comments on an anonymous msg board and swastika graffiti.  If that's true, seems like pretty weak sauce.  I don't think we'd be discussing this if Missouri was doing well on the field, jmo.

That goes to 'nut's post.  They are getting emotionally involved in something they have little to no knowledge of.  That leads to paths taken that in the end end up doing far more damage than the original (often perceived or contrived) incident.

And this adds to the point I was tying to make last night with a couple of posters. 

Students have the right to protest, but not at the expense of others being hurt by that protest, and especially when a contract has been signed to play for pay.  The protest of some is hurting others who have signed the same contract, that that is not just wrong, but blatantly wrong. 

I'll disagree with the notion that the institution "has given them a gift." It could easily be argued that what they give the university is far more valuable than what the university has given them. Regardless, both parties are getting something out of the arrangement and I don't think it's out of bounds for one to protest what maybe amounts to difficult working conditions.

Now with that said, I've had a hard time trying to understand why they are demanding that the president be fired, among other things. The incidents that have been reported weren't his or the university's fault, as far as I know. Then again it sounds like race on that campus has been an issue continuously for decades and maybe it's about time the administration took serious steps to fix it. So maybe I understand the sentiment but not really the acuteness and severity of the anger.

This can be a great learning experience for the players. Someone said something. O.k., do you believe the statement? Why or why not? Could they have ulterior motives? What are the ramifications of your actions?

Letting everyone rationally process things will solidify convictions, regardless of which road each person selects. That's a positive.

I think I will fill rather unsafe in two weeks time walking amongst the self entitled, noninterested in reality students.
Almost as skeered as walking below the urine bottles of the "tree people" at Cal a few years ago ...

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/education/tensions-high-as-mu-students-continue-protests-hunger-strike/article_cce06f20-2777-5d9b-8ebf-bfa42be0676d.html (http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/education/tensions-high-as-mu-students-continue-protests-hunger-strike/article_cce06f20-2777-5d9b-8ebf-bfa42be0676d.html)

Then, as I said, I apologize. I agree whole-heartedly about Kim Davis. I never understood why she became such a champion for the conservative right. If she wants to oppose same-sex marriage on a personal basis, she has every right to, and I admire her conviction to do so. But she was elected to work for the government of the United States, and when the government of the United States authorized same-sex marriage licenses, it became her job to uphold that -- even if she disagreed. When she refused, the court did what it should've done: demand that she either fulfill the duties of her job or step down. When she refused to do either, the court again did what it should've done and arrested her for contempt. Even people who agreed with Davis's personal belief on the issue of same-sex marriage should've been able to see that the court's actions were not only justified but necessary.

Unfortunately, the same standard doesn't apply evenly. Kim Davis should have been, and was, forced to uphold her contractual obligations...and so should the football players at the University of Missouri. Ironically, some of the same people who cheered loudest for Kim Davis's "right" to protest her decision are the ones quickest to criticize the Mizzou football players.

Obviously those two situations are an apples-oranges comparison. I get that. But there's a right way and a wrong way to go about everything. Kim Davis had every right to protest and stand on the corner and hold up a sign DURING HER TIME OFF. The students at Mizzou have the same right. But the football players are contractually obligated, like Kim Davis, and should be required to fulfill that obligation. There's a fine line when it comes to these "protests." When is a protest too much? I read that some students at Mizzou were claiming their civil rights have been violated because they were threatened with arrest after interrupting the school's homecoming parade by encircling the president's car and forcing it to stop. Are you kidding me? Of course they should've been threatened with arrest. That's a no-brainer.

I agree that the "oppression" does not seem so bad, although I will point out that the swastika was composed of human feces  :hurl:

I am sure the students have some gripes that are legitimate, and it does appear the president was slow to respond.  At the same time, calling for his resignation seems rather aggressive.

Not sure the players should have joined, seems more likely to hurt them than help the cause.

But...Pinkel supports the players fully, and maybe that's all anyone needs to know.  It's his call, not ours.   :biggrin:

Heck, they may forfeit at this rate, but I'd rather beat that arse on the field.  We owe them!   :bird:

Just FYI, here are the demands

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2015/11/08/missouri-protest-list-demands-issued-to-university.html

Some are not so unreasonable.  Demand 3, who even knows what demands were made in 1969, and why should that matter in 2015?  One has a couple silly lines, and two is ridiculous IMO.  No one can possibly think he will accept that, unless forced by the board.

4 seems a bit much, but 5-9, subject to some negotiation, might not be so bad.  Just MO.

The Mizzou President has resigned......the starving dude can go eat a cheeseburger now :naughty:

it's being reported that he resigned....

http://www.local8now.com/home/headlines/Support-leaps-for-Univ-of-Missouri-student-activists-343669692.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WVLT_Volunteer_TV (http://www.local8now.com/home/headlines/Support-leaps-for-Univ-of-Missouri-student-activists-343669692.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WVLT_Volunteer_TV)

And yet the perceived and contrived problems remain.
Nothing has been accomplished in the end, other than forcing a resignation ...
The entitled class will STILL not be satisfied in any way

So it's all one-sided?  I'm as sick of this as anyone, but I am pretty sure some of their complaints are legit.

Some of their demands are also ridiculous IMO, but that could and should be subject to negotiation.

maybe, maybe not.
The problem is, the entitled class feels wronged if they PERCEIVE you looked at the wrong.  The events may or may not be real and may or not be staged (yes incidents on several occasions in the recent past have been staged to create outrage) but why wait for information when it is so much fun to create unrest and weld power without facts?
Most of them need to just grow the freak up!

Oh, and a news flash for them:  ALL FREAKING LIVES MATTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The results of our education system
https://www.facebook.com/Butler.L.Jonathan/posts/10206054956185385?pnref=story (https://www.facebook.com/Butler.L.Jonathan/posts/10206054956185385?pnref=story)

Who knew the school President could over rule state law???

When one of the demands are that the president "admit white privilege" then it ceases being a protest and it becomes about furthering an agenda.  

This just reeks of political correctness.  When those words are used it is no longer about justice, but more about perceived revenge. 

Yeah, if you're protesting, you're one of the most privileged people to ever walk the earth. It's just a matter of degrees.

That really hits the nail on the head.  They are basically dictating how the President should think and believe.  IMO, "white privilege" is just code for reparations, and reparations was just a front for redistribution.  This whole BlackLivesMatter movement is nothing more than Occupy Wall Street II.  To boot, one of George Soros' organizations is promoting BLM to the tune of $33 million so far - just like he promoted OWS.  It would not surprise me if this whole U of Mizzou deal was really about Ferguson, and not really about the atmosphere on campus.

See, I don't understand the outrage from the other side on the phrase "Black Lives Matter".  I get the rebuttal ("All Lives Matter"), but I don't see any implication that they don't in that phrase.

Stating what is...no offense...very obvious...they have a perception that in the past, black lives HAVE NOT mattered.

I don't think its a point of debate that in the past they have not.  After all, the last public lynching of a black man was as recent as 1964.

It's fair to debate whether or not they are still treated differently by the law today.

But why would that phrase bother anyone?  It's not intended to suggest that other lives don't matter, just that there is a perception of injustice to blacks.

Rather than attack the phrase, maybe a better thing to do is find out if they are right, no?  Have you looked into it? Do you have statistics on the number of innocent blacks killed in questionable police actions in the last 50 years since civil rights legislation was passed?

If so, I expect a full report on my desk by Monday, because I want to be outraged by a harmless phrase also.   :naughty:

I agree with you.  I have absolutely no problem with the phrase.  I'm honestly not sure I understand what is going on in this country.  I'm going to be careful here and limit what I say but... being black in America today is not the same as being white.  I know for a fact there is NO way I can possibly understand what it is like to be black and I take no offense in realizing that.  I take no offense in learning that I will never stop learning... and I have no qualm with the suggestion that I have certain privileges that most black folks don't... seems obvious to me.  I just don't get why the phrase is so offensive.  We have a loooooonnnnng way to go in this country.  I have no problem admitting that.

The phrase is doubly racist.  Besides the non-inclusive part, it more importantly implies that white people do not think that black lives matter.  It implies white people are racist.  That seems pretty 'racist' to me, in this day and age.  Yeah, there were a lot more racists out there 50 yrs ago, but - come on - that was 50 freaking yrs ago.  I just don't see anywhere near that level of racism around here these days.  If some one (anyone) physically challenges a LEO, they are due for a beatdown - I view that as just a basic fact of life, NOT racism.

Here's my problem with this mentality: We (white people) are supposed to admit (as was demanded of the Mizzou president) that we have privileges that black people don't have. Then so many (not you, just speaking generally) expect us to act apologetic for having these perceived privileges that are exclusive to the white race.

My question is what privileges do I have that any other American -- regardless of their skin color -- doesn't have? If not being born into an inner-city neighborhood where crime runs rampant is a privilege, I'll admit that one, but I would also argue that there are just as few privileges and crime is just as rampant (maybe not violent crime, but certainly drug-related crime) for white people in the redneck ghettos of eastern Kentucky's Appalachian region and even some areas here in East Tennessee.

Besides that, though, where are my privileges? I was born into a poor white family in rural East Tennessee. My father worked in the coal-mining industry when I was a kid. When the mines played out, he was laid off from his job as an errands-runner. We were poor before he was laid off, and we were certainly poor after he was laid off. We relied on food stamps, as much as it shamed him to accept them, but the amount our family received was pretty meager considering there were six mouths to feed. Going to McDonald's was a treat when I was a young kid; I remember going maybe 3-4 times. We certainly didn't go to any restaurant that was higher up the ladder. We ate what we grew in the garden. My mom used to joke that we would have potatoes, beans and cornbread one night, and the next night we would change it up by having beans, cornbread and potatoes. During summer vacation, when we weren't in school, the leftover potatoes from one night's meal would be turned into potato cakes for the next afternoon's lunch. I remember one time when I was hungry and snuck into the kitchen for a piece of bread and got in trouble because it meant there wouldn't be enough bread for the evening meal.

But because America is the land of opportunity, my father recognized that no one is limited to their current limitations. He scraped together enough money to purchase some books on electrical wiring, which he used to teach himself the trade of an electrician. He parlayed that into a job that took him out of the unemployment line and spent long hours away from his family every day, working every overtime hour he could get his hands on so that he could generate favor with his supervisors. He climbed the ladder to eventually become a quality control inspector, a shift supervisor and, eventually, plant manager.

When I was ready to go graduate high school, no one offered me anything. I didn't receive any scholarship money. And even though we had grown up poorer than dirt, my father was by that time working as plant manager and our family income was too great for me to receive financial aid. I began working as a bag boy at a grocery store in high school to save up money for college, then continued to work my way through school after graduation. I would leave school Friday morning, drive home and immediately go to work, work all day Saturday and Sunday, then arrive back on campus late Sunday night just in time to hit the hay for the next morning's 8 a.m. class.

Today I still live in an area where poverty runs rampant. My wife and I live on a modest income; she's an elementary school teacher and I'm a newspaper publisher. We're fortunate for our area, but many of my friends aren't as fortunate. Our unemployment rate here was 23% as recently as four years ago. It was one of the highest in the nation then, and it remains one of the highest in the state today.

Where are my privileges? I've worked my ass off for anything I've accomplished in life, just like my father worked his ass off when I was still a wet-behind-the-ears kid.

Am I privileged because I've never been accosted by a police officer? Well, maybe. But here's the thing: I've been stopped for traffic violations, and I've been respectful. I've even been stopped for weapons violations (unintentional), and I've been respectful. All of these incidents like Ferguson have one thing in common: the cops in question may or may not have acted too aggressively (the Ferguson officer certainly wasn't, but the Charleston cop certainly was), but it all started because the victim broke the law and was being a thug. Every. Single. Time.

Sore subject? Yeah, it kinda is for me. When some people talk about a lack of privilege for minorities in America, what they're really talking about is an excuse for the lack of personal responsibility. If the dude in Ferguson doesn't rob a convenience store, he's alive and well today. Period. If the guy in Charleston doesn't run from a cop, he's alive and well today. The fact of the matter is that sometimes cops act over-aggressively. They should be held criminally liable and punished. But that doesn't excuse lawlessness on the other side. In August, an unarmed white teen was killed by a white cop in Seneca, S.C. The cop acted wrongly. But the teen was involved in drug trafficking and was attempting to flee. The cop should be liable, but the teen bears plenty of responsibility for his own death. That's life, and it has nothing to do with skin color.

I can't imagine what it was like to be a black American in the first half of the 20th Century, especially in the Deep South. White Americans committed atrocities on black Americans for many years through the institution of slavery, and that continued right on through the end of the Civil Rights movement in the '60s before we finally came to our senses. It's sobering to me that the world's greatest nation -- and brightest beacon of freedom -- felt that some people weren't worthy of drinking the same water they drank or sitting in the same restaurant they sat in, simply because of the color of their skin, as recently as 50 years ago. But we are never going to move past that era if we don't shelf this idea that white Americans are supposed to be apologetic for being white and realize that racism is racism is racism, regardless of which shade of skin its cloaked in. I see white racism all around me. I also see black racism all around me.

What I don't see are some sort of privileges that are exclusive to me as a white American.

I just did a show with a mostly AA cast here in WNC.  Four AA members of that cast at one point during the run of this show were "pulled over" by local cops here in our lovely little town... under suspicion of???  None had done anything wrong, but in just six weeks of being here, they experienced something I haven't in 32 years.  I'll never hear the click of the lock button in a car when I stand on a street corner simply because I'm standing there.  I'll never have the cops called on me when I walk through a neighborhood that isn't my own...  One of that cast was called the N word on Main Street here in our lovely little community.  They all had a great experience with the theatre but as far as the overall experience, they were pretty much ready to get back to NYC.

Look, as I said before, I don't care about PROOF, I have zero problem based simply on my own life experience, perceptions and friendships with admitting that I'll take being white over black every single day of the week.  I am speaking for myself, no one else, but yeah... give me whiteness every single time over being black.  No way I'd trade.  It's easier.  I like Louis CK's take on this... and none of this is any skin off my back to admit that I, VOLVEETA have no issue admitting that being white is a heck of a lot easier than being black in this modern America.  I'm completely cool if you disagree with me.  But for me, suggesting that we have some serious advantages... seems just plain obvious and honest.  We've come a long way but I have no problem admitting we still have a VERY long way to go.  And I respect that you disagree with me.

This is not suitable for all audiences:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPdqlROzgvg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPdqlROzgvg)

yer pal,
VOLveeta

Amen
Agree 1,000%

BTW, you should look into writing as a profession  :naughty:

I am ridiculously privileged. Period. I did not ask to be born when and where I was.

However,  a few things should be noted, even if the following is not as enlightening as Creek or Volveeta's takes.

1) Around 1999, I was on a spring break mission trip to St. Louis. While doing some work with the homeless, a cop stopped and told us to leave the neighborhood. Our race (white) made us targets. We didn't leave, but the point stands. White skin can be detrimental to your health in many parts of this country.

2) There has never been a better time and place to be black. I've done business in a few African countries, and they're lawless dumps. Colonialism was evil, but I'm not sure it's worse than what it replaced. Slavery is abominable, but the descendants of American slaves are in a far better place than they would be. No one goes back.

3) We live in a fallen world. Everyone reading this has gotten lousy service at a restaurant, been cut off in traffic, been mistreated at work, and had the plummer show up late. That's because we're human, not because we self-identify with "x" race. Everything bad can't be ascribed to race.

My grandfather from Chattanooga said more people will be in Hell because they didn't like the color of a man's skin than anything else. He was born in 1898. That may have been true in his time, but thankfully it's not now.

Here is my two cents on the situation, which is worth about a penny.  If you ask me these universities are getting what they deserve. I do not feel sorry for the president who just resigned. They brought it on themselves. So many universities are pushing a liberal agenda. They preach about diversity. Well diversity is more than just about skin color. The same folks who want to push diversity down our throats, forget that diversity includes ideas as well. If my beliefs and ideas are different, they don't want to hear that. Sure racism exists and it is wrong. But nowhere in the constitution does it say that you have the right to not be offended. It is only going to get worse. This is just the start. Where will it end? I see they wanted the statue of Thomas Jefferson removed from the Mizzou campus. It was plastered with sticky notes that read racist, rapist and all kinds of offensive things. But that is okay. Get ready for an even worse PC world friends. The Mizzou president is one of many scapegoats to come.

Damn Creek, that is some powerful stuff. And correct. Nice post.

I have a big problem with the blacklivesmatter BS. They obviously don't care when it is black on black inner city crime. The week of the Baltimore riots, I recall 17 blacks were killed by other blacks. Why were they not out looting and rioting over that. So black lives matter only when they are killed by a white. They need to take care of their own house. They kill each other a hundred times more than cops do.

I see your point, and it's a valid one.  However, I don't see it as "all white people are racist", but only that certain police mistreat certain blacks.  That's my interpretation, so it doesn't bother me.

Now, if one of those people using the phrase implies that it applies to me, personally, without having any basis for that opinion, I would definitely be offended and that would be racism on the part of the other person.   No question.

Also agree with your point on LEO...stupid to physically assault someone with a gun, who is OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED TO USE LETHAL VIOLENCE!  And the state will ALWAYS err on their side, not the victim's side.  Common sense and judgment do matter.   It's just like saying that as a pedestrian in a cross walk I have the right of way, so there is a semi tractor trailer breaking the law and bearing down on me, but I am going to stand my ground because I am right.  That doesn't work very well....and neither does attacking and scaring an armed person who can LEGALLY KILL YOU.   :biggrin:

The Charleston cop did way more than "act aggressively", he committed a major crime and betrayed his badge.  He's the bad cop that unfortunately makes many people dislike cops.

I take major exception to your final statement (bolded above).  As it turns out, the guy in North Charleston was stopped for a broken tail light.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html?_r=0

The shooting unfolded after Officer Slager stopped the driver of a Mercedes-Benz with a broken taillight, according to police reports. Mr. Scott ran away, and Officer Slager chased him into a grassy lot that abuts a muffler shop. He fired his Taser, an electronic stun gun, but it did not stop Mr. Scott, according to police reports.

How is having a broken tail light being a thug?  Is it okay that this man got killed for having a broken tail light?  I mean, really dude.  And you wonder why the other side gets exasperated.

The guy did run, but who is to say the cop wasn't being a complete #badword# and scared him?  Given that he shot him in the back and then planted a weapon on him, it's entirely possible!

Having said that, it could happen to a white person do, and probably does.  But does it happen more frequently to blacks?  I honestly don't know, but I would not be at all surprised if it did.

But also on topic, I saw an author on a talk show that wrote a book about a friend of his that was shot and killed by police in Baltimore years before the recent incidents.  He was mistaken for a criminal, and when they approached him he fled and they shot him dead.  He didn't do anything!

The bottom line is that it is very unwise to provoke the police because they can and sometimes do kill people who absolutely don't deserve it.

So should we just accept that or promote accountability?  I think promoting accountability is wise, actually.   :naughty:

black on black violence is crime, and they do have a problem with that, but .... it's crime

Their issue, and it's a valid one, is that POLICE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO COMMIT CRIME.  I would think that last statement is obvious, but with you I never know.

Newsflash...the big event earlier this year in Baltimore that led to riots led to the indictment of 6 police officers.   THREE OF THEM WERE BLACK!!!

Go figure...

I don't think the protestors in Baltimore cared what race the cops were.  They have all been indicted. 

I guess you missed the part where Scott ran from the cop? That's called evading, and it's a felony. So, yeah, I'd say the thug tag applies.

 :wow:

So running makes you a "thug"?  And shooting the runner in the back is "acting aggressively". 

 :wow:

And you wonder why the other side gets pissed....unreal.   :dielaughing:

Just in case anyone does want to read it, the Ferguson transcript is only about 4500 pages long

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-assets/grand-jury-testimony.pdf

 :crazy:

Typical of you to try to twist and mangle someone's word. I was using the "acting aggressively" as a blanket statement for all situations involving the use of force by cops and said. I think my post made that clear. My post also pointed out that the Charleston cop deserves the consequences for his actions -- which is to say he belongs in prison.

But as to your first question, absolutely. He was obviously a lawbreaker, or he wouldn't have had reason to run in the first place. But running in and of itself is a serious crime. Lawless felons are, in my book, thugs. You want to coddle them? Hey, that's you. I'll call a spade a spade.

Link to Professor Click's bio.  Three words:  Bat. shizzle. Crazy. 

https://communication.missouri.edu/faculty/click

I'm not sure why the guy ran, but he was stopped for a broken tail light, and no one should have to die for that.  You "law and order over common sense" types wanna stick your noses up the arses of law enforcement and overlook their excesses, but that's not the principle this country was founded on and is downright un-American.  It says in the Constitution that we are not to be subject to "unreasonable search and seizure".  I'm no legal scholar, but shooting an unarmed man in the back while he is fleeing is pretty dam unreasonable.

The cop in question was held accountable, thank God.  But how many other instances have occurred where there was no video available?  Should we, as Americans, sit back and let our "law enforcement" (using the term loosely in this case) officers get away with whatever they want to do?

Like I said, that's un-American.  Travel back in time and move to the Stalin-era USSR or Nazi Germany if you want to take that attitude.  Their police never had to answer to anyone.   :naughty:

But for me, I prefer to keep law enforcement answerable to the Constitution. 

If in fact, blacks have been subject to such behavior over and over again in certain municipalities, then they have a right to be upset.  If it's become routine in certain jurisdictions to ignore routine police misconduct, I would expect people to become upset.

Just curious why you would use that phrase?

that's a very interesting choice of words, to say the least.   :dielaughing:

Because it is a very common cliche. You are the one attempting to infer racial overtones.

How many times have I said the cop in question should be held accountable? It's all here in black and white. Every time you insinuate that I said anything else you make yourself look foolish.

Not a huge fan of Clay Travis, but he nails it here.  There is just no evidence that the whole sordid affair at Mizzou has an credibility, and in fact it is beginning to look downright bogus. 

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/is-the-entire-mizzou-protest-based-on-lies-111115

And yet another example of how this bogus situation has gotten completely out of control.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/outrageous-look-what-mizzou-rotc-members-were-told-to-do-on-veterans-day/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=TPNNPages&utm_content=2015-11-11&utm_campaign=manualpost

Then why is it so hard to understand that, if a certain group feels they are consistently mistreated and nothing is done, they would get upset?

Whether they are actually mistreated or not is of course an important item, and I don't have the data, but simply based on what I know of our legal system it doesn't seem unreasonable.

"money walks and bs talks", or so goes a commonly stated phrase about our legal system. 

I do think the racial part of it is somewhat misplaced, as IMO it's the poor who get screwed.  Many of them are black, but .... so was OJ. 

it typically does
Yes there are issues but all too often the SJWs act long before any FACTS are available, even if they did give a damn about facts, which they don't
See Ferguson, we the Duke BS, see ...

I like the faculty journalism witch who called for heavy
Force to remove a journalist doing his job LEGALLY in a PUBLIC area feeling "aggressed upon" because her ILLEGAL and UNAMERICAN actions were called out.  fizzle HER and her fellow #badword#S who want to trash the Constitution and TRAMPLE other'r rights in the name of (their) "justice" :bird:

That's the problem: Things ARE done. The cop in Charleston was arrested and indicted on felony homicide charges, as he should've been. Google the words "cop arrested" and you'll see story after story of cops who were fired, arrested or both because of their misdeeds. But we have race-baiters, and they're white and black alike, who are trying to paint this picture that all cops are bad and that it's all racially motivated. Both of which are nonsense.

The problem, meanwhile, isn't white cops vs. black suspects and racist tendencies. The problem is an all too common mindset in general among a civilian police force that is becoming alarmingly militarized. Are there some racist cops out there? Sure. It would be blind ignorance to suggest there aren't. But is it a prevailing problem? I've seen nothing to suggest that it is. There may very well be a disproportionate number of cases of police brutality that involve black victims than white victims. I haven't seen the numbers. But what I do know is that there are plenty of cases of police brutality that involve white victims. And the fact that these go unreported by the mainstream media tells me that we aren't having a fair and balanced discourse about the issue.

The case from South Carolina a few months ago where the white police officer shot the unarmed white teenager as he attempted to flee in his car was alarming just like the other incident in North Charleston. The only difference was the cop in question didn't attempt to plant evidence on the body of his dead victim. But hardly anyone reported on it. Why? If we're truly interested in stopping police brutality, why aren't we casting a spotlight on all these cases? The answer is because the people who are perpetuating the outrage aren't interested in stopping police brutality. They're interested in attempting to craft an image of racial injustice. And what's the end game? I don't know what their intention is, but I know what the result is going to be if we aren't careful. There's a greater wedge driven between the black and white races right now than at any point since the end of the Civil Rights era. And back then we didn't have social media where folks could communicate with one another in an instant. If we aren't careful, this nation is headed for a full-blown race war.

The whining crybully SJW and (only) black lives matter movement has their panties up in a wad because ACTUAL terrorism is taking the spotlight off their terroristic activities
(only) Black Lives Matter and Mizzou tweets fell broadly into two categories of stupid last night:
1) (only) black lives matter: Paris and Mizzou are equivalent: both represent “terrorism.”
2) racial grievance fueled SJWs:  White people are “erasing black lives” by focusing on Paris

The problem isn't only at #Missouri:  http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/11/protesters-demand-firing-of-tenured-vanderbilt-law-professor-over-publication-of-op-ed.html (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/11/protesters-demand-firing-of-tenured-vanderbilt-law-professor-over-publication-of-op-ed.html)

Apparently the protesters are unable to read and comprehend, or the professor committed a micro-aggresion :rolleyes: