43 people were shot in the Chicago area over the Labor Day weekend, 13 fatally. Police didn’t shoot anyone.
Will Kaepernick or BLM say anything about those victims?
Of course not. Lives that aren’t taken by police don’t really matter…
My grandmother died a few years ago – BLM hasn’t said anything about her death. I guess her life doesn’t matter to BLM, or Kaepernick.
Come to think about it, pro-life organizations didn’t say anything about my grandmother’s death either, and they claim to be in favor of “life”. I guess my grandmother’s life didn’t matter to them.
Trump hasn’t said anything about my grandmother, and neither has Clinton or Obama. How can they claim to be opposed to Americans dying if they won’t say anything about my dead grandmother?
It’s weird how white racists think they found some loophole with BLM that means they can go back not caring about police brutality.
I suppose the Mayor can be held accountable…too. To some degree. But that’s not the first step. Hold a dirty cop responsible for his actions first. If police start losing their jobs/going to jail because of police brutality, the police stop being brutal.
I don’t think white racists ever cared about police brutality
Why should they endorse a candidate? And why is the absence of an endorsement some kind of gotcha?
Nobody supports those killings. Nobody excuses the murderers as being in a tough situation and they had to act or else they would be in danger. No organization pushes back on any punishments those people have while defending them as good people. Those people don’t get put on paid administrative leave as expensive lawyers work on getting them a slap on the wrist. That’s why your complaint is idiotic.
Kaepernick and BLM are protesting the systematic police actions of dirty cops who don’t get punished or jailed, or go on to attack black people for years before anything’s done, if ever. Common street murderers are already criminalized, chased by police, and given harsh sentences when caught. There’s no need to protest that.
True, but they’re clearly tired of hearing about it from the rest of us.
I suspect they want the team to discipline him by fine or suspension, or termination.
You ask what rule he’s broken, as though you believe the answer is “none.” He’s arguably hurting the image of the team, which is prohibited. But to avoid debate over that gray area . . . NFL rules prohibit players using their uniforms for “personal messages.” That’s a $6,000 fine for the first offense and $12,000 for the second, per the union contract to which he is subject for each day the socks are worn. Maybe even per sock. Dunno.
Does that cover practice as well? I don’t believe that he’s worn them during a game.
From what I can find, this only applies to game day.
The police feel threatened, they feel offended, they feel they have been dishonored…because of socks?!?
I’m sorry, but this is too stupid a conversation to continue. I’ll come back when you have something sensible to say.
You asked what rule he’d broken, and I answered you.
Now your objection is that the police are foolish to react in this way.
But the socks are more of an attack on the police than his refusal to stand for the anthem. The rejection of social convention can be grounded in a wide variety of reasons; the socks are clearly intended to communicate a message that is anti-police.
It’s not clear to me why you dismiss this with a handwave, except perhaps because you ran out of argument to make. I myself don’t care one way or another about his socks or his posterior during the anthem, but I am certainly able to understand police feeling as though he was contempteous of them, and choosing not to work under those circumstances.
You disagree, and couch your disagreement in terms of socks, but the socks are not the key element of the personal message. The message is Kaepernik’s contumacious reaction to police. The socks are merely the medium.
That’s a pretty good OP.
By the usual USA definition, I am not ‘patriotic.’ I grew up thinking I really, really wasn’t patriotic. Because ‘patriotism’ is defined by those symbols and some cultural identity nonsense.
But if you’re talking about a country and wanting to do right by it, maybe I’m more patriotic than I think?
Is patriotism just loyalty to a political construct or a civic religion? Or can it also mean caring about what kind of life is lived in a country?
Whatever, I think I’m not really patriotic at all. I just want my country to be governed justly,* like any other country.* And that isn’t patriotism.
I like these posts.
Roman Catholic here and that’s pretty much why I don’t stand for the anthem or pledge the flag. I don’t want to profess allegiance to anything but God. I started in high school and unbeknowst to me, my parents were called down to discuss it. I would have thought the religious reasons would be understood but apparently not. The patriotism and military service by Catholics is a 
to me.
No, you didn’t. The rule governs uniforms on game days. Not practice. And you can guarantee that NFL headquarters already did the calculus on the entire situation, and decided this was not worth fighting. The 49ers have explicitly supported his right to protest (which is why the union has their panties in a twist in the first place).
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Now your objection is that the police are foolish to react in this way.
But the socks are more of an attack on the police than his refusal to stand for the anthem. The rejection of social convention can be grounded in a wide variety of reasons; the socks are clearly intended to communicate a message that is anti-police.
It’s not clear to me why you dismiss this with a handwave, except perhaps because you ran out of argument to make. I myself don’t care one way or another about his socks or his posterior during the anthem, but I am certainly able to understand police feeling as though he was contempteous of them, and choosing not to work under those circumstances.
You disagree, and couch your disagreement in terms of socks, but the socks are not the key element of the personal message. The message is Kaepernik’s contumacious reaction to police. The socks are merely the medium.
[/QUOTE]
You keep leaving out the brutality part of that. He’s protesting police BRUTALITY.
[QUOTE=Colin Kaepernick]
I wore these socks, in the past, because the rogue cops that are allowed to hold positions in police departments, not only put the community in danger, but also put the cops that have the right intentions in danger by creating an environment of tension and mistrust. I have two uncles and friends who are police officers and work to protect and serve ALL people. So before these socks, which were worn before I took my public stance, are used to distract from the real issues, I wanted to address this immediately.
[/QUOTE]
For someone who expects others to make very fine distinctions, you are sure giving the SCPD a lot of leniency in being pissed off about some socks.
And pretty sure contumacious is not the word you’re looking for. I haven’t heard anything about Kaepernick being disobedient, only critical. Contemptuous seems like a pretty loaded description for someone who has voiced support for good (a.k.a. not shitty) cops.
Amazing how butthurt they get by socks.
But apparently not enough to do anything about the bad actors in their midst.
Need more butthurt.
I don’t believe you understand the argument.
The police want the NFL to decide that this IS worth fighting. The question I am answering was Czarcasm’s: Take what action for quietly and legally protesting what he sees as an injustice?
The police don’t agree with Kaepernik’s view. They want the team to sanction him. If an effort to move the team (or the league) in that direction, they threaten to withdraw their services.
You cannot now come along and rebut this view by announcing that the team has decided the issue is not worth fighting. That’s the predicate: because the team has decided the issue is not worth fighting*, the police are threatening to withdraw.
OK. It’s not really relevant to the point I’m making, but sure: he’s protesting what he believes to be police brutality.
In what specific way am I being lenient?
How do the images on the socks purport to distinguish between shitty and non-shitty cops?
Outside of Santa Clara, I haven’t heard anything about police being pissy or refusing to take shifts. They’re threatening to die on this hill, because even the slightest criticism makes them feel attacked, and working in a hostile work environment (too much irony there). I understand the argument, and they’re absolutely within their rights to do so. They are also idiots. Instead of using this as an opportunity to discuss the feelings behind the protest, they’ve threatened to take their toys and go home. Instead of being a positive voice in the discussion, they look like asses.
Your quote was that his socks were an attack on police. He’s stated that wasn’t the case, that it was an attempt (however misguided and immature) to call out the bad ones.
He has made the distinction, they ignored it, and chose to get upset instead. You’ve defended their perception. Did I miss something?
Did you just not read his exact words on the subject, or were they too difficult for you?