or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 390

post #5836 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by accordion View Post
 

I don't even know how free speech was brought up in the first place as I thought this was about when/where protest is inappropriate. The original argument was that an accusation of improper venue is weak.


Because appropriateness is irrelevant.  If some NFL player wants to protest something at an NFL event, that's his and the NFL's business.  Everyone might have a different view of whether it is appropriate, but who cares?  The only opinion on the "appropriateness" that matters is the NFL's and the player's.  Obviously, fans can boycott or whatever as a result of the actions, but that makes their opinion only indirectly relevant.

post #5837 of 6073

A football player making a protest in a football stadium cannot be compared to a Nazi protesting in a synagogue or a NAMBLA member at a preschool. A football player is meant to be in a football stadium. There's nothing unusual or provocative about his mere presence there. With the other examples, the mere presence of those individuals is provocative and incendiary

 

It's kinda the point of the protest when someone is saying, "I'm where I'm supposed to be (e.g. a football player in a football stadium), and I don't feel comfortable with [insert issue] occurring here." That's completely different than an outsider coming into a place and telling the insiders that he doesn't like what they are doing. That's just a confrontation, not a protest.

 

So, yeah, the venue matters.

post #5838 of 6073
Double nothing brought up the free speech issue by trying to say things were protected speech. As the rest of us can clearly see this is not a free speech issue.


He's supposed to be there to play football, not protest. Key distinction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

A football player making a protest in a football stadium cannot be compared to a Nazi protesting in a synagogue or a NAMBLA member at a preschool. A football player is meant to be in a football stadium. There's nothing unusual or provocative about his mere presence there. With the other examples, the mere presence of those individuals is provocative and incendiary

It's kinda the point of the protest when someone is saying, "I'm where I'm supposed to be (e.g. a football player in a football stadium), and I don't feel comfortable with [insert issue] occurring here." That's completely different than an outsider coming into a place and telling the insiders that he doesn't like what they are doing. That's just a confrontation, not a protest.

So, yeah, the venue matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


Because appropriateness is irrelevant.  If some NFL player wants to protest something at an NFL event, that's his and the NFL's business.  Everyone might have a different view of whether it is appropriate, but who cares?  The only opinion on the "appropriateness" that matters is the NFL's and the player's.  Obviously, fans can boycott or whatever as a result of the actions, but that makes their opinion only indirectly relevant.

I would say the fans are going to be the ultimate arbiters as they pay the bills. Piss enough of them off and we all know what's going to happen if the owners/NFL see a material decrease in revenues over the issue. I doubt that will happen but let's be frank about what would motivate action by them.

I was thinking about abortion protesters. When they first started protesting at clinics, well terrorizing folks at clinics might be a better word, it received much media attention so I would deem their protests at that point to be effective to drawing attention to their issue. Now, it's run of the mill shit unless you bomb the place or assassinate someone. I'm wondering as the taking a knee spreads if it will lose its impact too? I suspect so.
post #5839 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


He's supposed to be there to play football, not protest. Key distinction.
 

 

Well, he's there to sit on the bench, but I know what you mean.  Obviously the NFL is his employer, so it is up to them whether it is appropriate.

Quote:

 I would say the fans are going to be the ultimate arbiters as they pay the bills. Piss enough of them off and we all know what's going to happen if the owners/NFL see a material decrease in revenues over the issue. I doubt that will happen but let's be frank about what would motivate action by them.

 

Of course and what's interesting is if the NFL was a publicly traded company or like most normal privately held companies the executives would have a fiduciary responsibility to stop the protests if it started impacting revenue.

 

Quote:

 I was thinking about abortion protesters. When they first started protesting at clinics, well terrorizing folks at clinics might be a better word, it received much media attention so I would deem their protests at that point to be effective to drawing attention to their issue. Now, it's run of the mill shit unless you bomb the place or assassinate someone. I'm wondering as the taking a knee spreads if it will lose its impact too? I suspect so.

It is an interesting question.  I think it will lose its impact because it becomes mundane and not newsworthy.  Yesterday, I was having a discussion with someone who was concerned about self-driving cars because of all the news about crashes lately, but we all know the reason it is in the news is because it is so rare - human drivers have probably been in thousands of accidents in the same period of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post
 

A football player making a protest in a football stadium cannot be compared to a Nazi protesting in a synagogue or a NAMBLA member at a preschool. A football player is meant to be in a football stadium. There's nothing unusual or provocative about his mere presence there. With the other examples, the mere presence of those individuals is provocative and incendiary

 

It's kinda the point of the protest when someone is saying, "I'm where I'm supposed to be (e.g. a football player in a football stadium), and I don't feel comfortable with [insert issue] occurring here." That's completely different than an outsider coming into a place and telling the insiders that he doesn't like what they are doing. That's just a confrontation, not a protest.

 

So, yeah, the venue matters.

 

But the organizations in your examples can kick those people out just like the NFL could kick a player out unless the contract says something different.

post #5840 of 6073
The Tulsa shooting looks bad. I can't tell from the video if he was reaching in through the window or if the window was rolled up. This video is still used in training today as a reason to never let an uncooperative person return to their car:
post #5841 of 6073
Also, the "mere presence" of some of the examples would not be incendiary. For instance, unless he/she was giving visual clues or said something, a neo-Nazi antisemite could attend temple services and no one would know.
post #5842 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

He's supposed to be there to play football, not protest. Key distinction.

 

It's the whole point of any protest. You can't have a protest without doing something you're not supposed to be doing. He's supposed to be there to play football, but he's doing something else. That's provocative. That's the point.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post
 

But the organizations in your examples can kick those people out just like the NFL could kick a player out unless the contract says something different.

 

Well, yeah. That's not in dispute. I'm not arguing some legal distinction. I'm making a practical distinction that made the comparison silly.

 

Nobody would bat an eye at a synagogue owner kicking out a Nazi. The Nazi is someone who directly opposes the synagogue owner. He's not supposed to be there. His mere presence is being directly confrontational to the owner.

 

Almost everybody would take notice of a football team owner kicking out its own player. The football player is supposed to be there. He's taking advantage of the football team owner allowing his presence to make a statement about some issue unrelated to the football team. The owner may take issue with that, but he's not being directly confrontational to the football team owner.

post #5843 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Also, the "mere presence" of some of the examples would not be incendiary. For instance, unless he/she was giving visual clues or said something, a neo-Nazi antisemite could attend temple services and no one would know.

 

That's adding context that was not present in my statement. I said, "a Nazi protesting in a synagogue." Thus, "mere presence" implied showing up without hiding that he (or she) was going to protest. "Mere presence" insinuates something like a person wearing an SS uniform, carrying a swastika flag, and just standing there without actually saying anything. "Mere presence" doesn't mean sitting quietly in the back of temple with nobody having any idea who you are or what you are thinking.

 

Of course if nobody knew who the person was, then his (or her) "mere presence" would be meaningless.

post #5844 of 6073

yeah but is that a cogent public protest? 

 

that he wasn't doing was he was "supposed" to do is what makes it a protest. and at the same time the basis of others' dismissal of his message. saying that he's there to play football is a bit like saying Rosa Parks was there to sit in the back of the bus. 

 

as far as financial repercussions if murder, rape and child abuse allegations don't turn people off from the NFL i think it will survive this. 

 

cue the non sequitur hypotheticals Betabaire.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Also, the "mere presence" of some of the examples would not be incendiary. For instance, unless he/she was giving visual clues or said something, a neo-Nazi antisemite could attend temple services and no one would know.
post #5845 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

It's the whole point of any protest. You can't have a protest without doing something you're not supposed to be doing. He's supposed to be there to play football, but he's doing something else. That's provocative. That's the point.

Why can't you have a protest without doing something provocative or something you're not supposed to be doing?
post #5846 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


Why can't you have a protest without doing something provocative or something you're not supposed to be doing?

 

You can. My language wasn't great, and I could have clarified more. I meant more that you generally don't have an effective protest without doing something that actually brings attention to you and your point. That doesn't mean that all acts that bring attention are effective or that an act that doesn't bring a lot of attention is ineffective. I just mean that, generally, acts that bring attention are generally necessary for a protest.

 

It's why you see people protesting by holding up signs in front of whatever business they oppose, not just sitting at home and writing letters to the business. People are not "supposed" to stand out on sidewalks in front of buildings with signs and yell stupid things in public. It's a provocative act to bring attention.

 

However, I've never protested anything in my life, so what do I know.

post #5847 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

It's the whole point of any protest. You can't have a protest without doing something you're not supposed to be doing. He's supposed to be there to play football, but he's doing something else. That's provocative. That's the point.

Now you're just talking in circles I think and I disagree with the bolded. You're also playing both sides with the "mere presence" thing. You want the Nazi protesting (okay, provocative and incendiary) but then are saying CK's mere presence is not provocative and incendiary. Well, his mere presence while protesting like your example for Nazis is provocative as we all have seen. In order for the examples to be parallel they must both be protesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post

as far as financial repercussions if murder, rape and child abuse allegations don't turn people off from the NFL i think it will survive this. 

Remember what happened to the Dixie Chics? You underestimate the importance millions of Americans give to being patriotic.
post #5848 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


Now you're just talking in circles I think and I disagree with the bolded. You're also playing both sides with the "mere presence" thing. You want the Nazi protesting (okay, provocative and incendiary) but then are saying CK's mere presence is not provocative and incendiary. Well, his mere presence while protesting like your example for Nazis is provocative as we all have seen. In order for the examples to be parallel they must both be protesting.
Remember what happened to the Dixie Chics? You underestimate the importance millions of Americans give to being patriotic.

 

Well, I already addressed the "you can't have a protest without doing something you're not supposed to be doing" comment by clarifying that I should have said "you generally can't have an effective protest without doing something you're not supposed to be doing." I mean, we can debate what "something you're not supposed to be doing" is. However, this isn't some crazy notion.

 

Um, yeah, I'm saying there is a real difference between Colin Kaepernick, a football player who is supposed to be at a football stadium, making a protest at a football stadium about something unrelated to football compared to a Nazi, who's not supposed to be at a synagogue, making a protest at a synagogue about something directly related to the synagogue.

 

There is a real reason, other than to protest, for Colin Kaepernick to be at the football stadium. There is no reason for a Nazi to be at a synagogue other than to protest. This is the whole "mere presence" thing. Both may have provocative protests, but they are not similar types of protestors. The Nazi is in direct opposition to everybody in the room and is protesting the actual existence of the place where he is. He has no reason to be there other than to express conflict. Colin Kaepernick has some supporters, some detractors. He is protesting something entirely unrelated to the reason why he is there and has a reason to otherwise be at a football stadium. It's, again, not a crazy notion to think these are not really comparable types of protests.

post #5849 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

So if Scott got out of his car and pointed his gun at the cops, it was a good shoot.

But, if Scott got out of his car, and repeatedly failed to follow commands to drop the gun, while having it at his side, then it was a bad shoot if they shot him without his raising of the gun.

Is this what you're saying? I sense that whatever the video shows, the cop is going to say that he perceived a threat to his life.

You're a lawyer. Doesn't the law now say something like "the officer has the right to defend himself if he reasonably fears for his life?" And it doesn't take much for the cop to perceive a threat.

So, what would have to happen is a changing of the law. If that's what the public wants, it would be fine with me if the proponents can get a law like that passed..

We can call it The Florida Mountain Law.

Its not just that a cop perceives a threat, its that it is reasonable to perceive that threat.
post #5850 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

The Nazi is in direct opposition to everybody in the room and is protesting the actual existence of the place where he is. He has no reason to be there other than to express conflict. Colin Kaepernick has some supporters, some detractors. He is protesting something entirely unrelated to the reason why he is there and has a reason to otherwise be at a football stadium. It's, again, not a crazy notion to think these are not really comparable types of protests.

So what is CK protesting exactly? I'd say pretty similar to what your description of the Nazi is. In his own words, "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color." Keep in mind the stadiums and NFL exist in the country he refuses to show pride in. That's part of the cognitive dissonance I am seeing in his actions and why I find the venue inappropriate. It's just my opinion, you're not going to change it, and it's not unreasonable to think a 28 year old multi, multi millionaire that throws a ball for a living is a bit disingenuous to take the venue that made him so rich as his place to protest.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?