Some Thoughts on the NFL Protests & BLM

I’ve been thinking about the NFL anthem protests and I can’t get over the fact that, however well intentioned they might be, they’re not actually really doing very much. Indeed, given the reactions of various people on my Facebook and Twitter feeds, they’re actively making things worse. Anyway, I had a bunch of free time today so I decided, mostly out of idle curiosity, to see if there was anything more concrete these players could do instead. So I decided to roughly estimate how many of these fabulously wealthy NFL players would need to donate 1 month’s salary in order to buy every 18-45 year old black man a personal body camera.

It’s not a hugely unreasonable request. A man is expected to spend (at least!) one month’s salary on a wedding ring, and when you take the 50% divorce rate into account, they might well have to do that two or three times. If they can give up a month’s salary for a diamond ring, surely they can give up a month’s salary to save black lives.

The salaries of NFL players range widely, but the average annual salary of an NFL player is $2 million dollars. That means the average monthly salary is $166,660.00. Including backup players, there are 53 players in an NFL team and 32 teams in the league.

$166,000.00 x 53 x 32 = $282,655,360.00. That’s how much money would be raised if every NFL player donated one month’s salary to…well, let’s call it the ‘Black Man Body Camera Fund’ (or BMBCF, for short). If the BMBCF was a registered charity, the donations would be tax free so every penny of that $282,655,360.00 would go towards buying body cameras for black men aged 18-45.

How many body cameras would that buy? Well, you want the cameras to be reliable, but you also want a good deal so you need to find a body camera that’s both reliable and reasonably cheap. A quick Amazon search revealed lots of potentially good cameras, but the one which I think strikes the best balance between reliability and affordability is the ‘Veho VCC-003-MUVI-BLK MUVI’ which is priced at $40.69 - Let’s call it an even $40 to make the math easier. How many $40 dollar body cameras can you buy for $282,655,360.00?

Answer: Seven million, sixty six thousand, three hundred and eighty four.

However, we mustn’t forget that $40.00 is the marked up retail price. Because this will be a charitable endeavour, these cameras would obviously be given away at cost. What this means is that, in practise, the BMBCF would most likely pay quite a bit less than $40.00 per body cam. If we redo the sum assuming a mere $5.00 discount per unit, the BMBCF would be able to buy 8, 075,867 body cams for black American men between the ages of 18 and 45. This number increases even further if the BMBCF were given a bulk purchase discount, though I couldn’t guess at what that would be so I’ve not factored it in.

But why focus on this particular demographic in the first place? Well, the answer is that, of all black people in America, the vast majority who are actually shot by the cops are men between the ages of 18 and 45. For example, in 2016, two hundred and sixty six black people were killed by the police. Of those 266, only 13 were women. Of the remaining 253, only 6 were under the age of 18 and only 29 were over the age of 45. That means 218 of the 266 black people shot by cops in 2016 (or 82%), were men between the ages of 18 and 45, so it makes sense to focus on that demographic.

So would 8,075,867 body cams be enough? Well, there are 21.5 million black men in America. Of those 21.5 million, 33.5% are under 18 as per the 2005 census (I know it’s a little dated, but it was the most recent one I could find that gave clear(ish) figures, and I don’t imagine the demographics have changed too much), and 6.5% are over 65. That means there are 12.9 million black men in America between the ages of 18 and 65.

Here’s where we run into a slight problem. We’re only looking at body cams for the 18-45 age group, not 18-65. The census data for the under 18, 18-65 and 65+ age groups is very exact. However, for some reason the data for the age group 45-65 is laid out in a shitty bar chart which only gives rough percentages. I did my best to work out how many black American men there were between 45 and 65 and, far as I can tell, it’s roughly 12%. I could be off a couple of percent in either direction, but let’s go with 12% for now. That’s 2,580,000. Take that away as well and the approximate number of black American men between 18-45 is 10,320,000.

So, let’s bring this to a conclusion. If every NFL player donated a mere one month’s salary to a fund to buy body cams for those black Americans most at risk of being shot by the cops, they would be able to buy cameras for just over 80% of them. That percentage would rise considerably if the NFL players donated one month’s worth of sponsorship money as well. For instance, Peyton Manning earned 12 million in endorsements last year. An extra million would buy nearly 30,000 more body cameras, and that’s just one month’s endorsement money from one player.

Now, you may be asking yourself “Why should they bother?. The real problem is the cops, and the system which protects them.” You might also ask “Why is it the responsibility of black men to protect themselves from the cops? They shouldn’t have to do that.” Both of those things are true. Unfortunately, systems are slow to change and while they’re changing, the number of black men shot by the cops is only going to go up. If those black men most at risk of being shot by the cops had body cameras of their own, they’d be able to watch the cops, and the cops would be forced to be a bit less trigger happy when dealing with young black men.

Bottom line is that if young black men between the ages of 18 and 45 had body cameras, they would be much less likely to be shot by cops. Rightly or wrongly, when NFL players kneel for the National Anthem, the only thing they seem to actually achieve is pissing off a bunch of people who just want to watch football. They don’t actually save any lives, and they’re not even raising awareness because everyone is already aware of this issue anyway. In practise, they’re basically doing fuck all. Can anyone, anywhere, point to a single life saved by these protests?

By donating 1 month’s salary & 1 month’s endorsement money, these players could actually do something that made a real difference. Even the lowliest NFL player makes an easy six figures a year. They’re already absurdly rich. It’s not like 1 month’s salary is going to break them. It’s a small price to pay for helping empower young black men to protect themselves and feel safer.

Also, as a bonus, I reckon it’ll really piss off Trump :smiley:

Just a thought.

Anyway, I guess the debate is:

a). Is this a good idea in theory?
b). If so, would it be a workable idea in practise?
c). Given how it’s within the means of these players to take real action to help fix the problem, to what extent do they bear a moral responsibility to do more than just kneel for the national anthem?

Sources: The Counted: people killed by police in the United States – interactive | US policing | The Guardian - Database of people killed by police, maintained by The Guardian newspaper.

http://tinyurl.com/y72h5zdh - 2005 census.

Black Male Statistics - BlackDemographics.com - Black male stats from blackdemographics.com

There isn’t enough infrastructure to accomplish something like this, even if you got them all of the players to buy into it. I think in reality, a large percentage of them would be taken and sold, and not ever used for the intended purpose.

I think it would also be rejected by many simply because a lot of young men (of all colors) are engaged in criminal activities they certainly wouldn’t want a camera to capture, as well as some people’s inherent big brother mentality and fears of monitoring.

If NFL players really wanted to personally invest in protesting for change, they should go on strike. Shut down football, and you’ll get a lot of attention. Not sure it would work, but I think it would have a much greater chance of success than what is starting to look more like virtue signaling than anything else. The problem is, there are thousand of police departments in the US, and you have affect change in most of them in order to make real progress. It would be much easier for change to occur if the police force was centralized, but that, of course, has its own problems.

N.B. I’m all for these guys doing whatever they choose to do. Take the knee during the anthem is fine. I just don’t see it having much affect other than now everyone is arguing about the protest itself rather than the issue.

Calling something virtue signaling is a great way to dismiss legitimate grievances as attention whoring.

I think it’s a great idea. Someone is going to have to pay for the cloud, too, because those cameras will have a habit of disappearing.

No, it’s a terrible idea in theory or in practice. It is essentially another form of victim blaming. Young black men are being shot by the police, therefore it’s up to the young black men to create a solution. It’s the equivalent of rape prevention by telling young women not to wear short dresses.

I am not opposed to the idea that NFL players could use their wealth to try to combat the problem they are protesting. Players like Colin Kaepernick and basketball player Iman Shumpert have already pledged to donate to organizations trying to improve the situation. But putting the responsibility on the young black men is the wrong answer.

I think the hard part is going to be persuading the black men to turn the cameras on before engaging in the sort of behavior during which they get shot.

How about if the NFL players kick in to get cameras for the police instead? I feel more comfortable making “turn the camera on” a condition of employment than as a condition of being black and 18-45. And you wouldn’t need nearly as many cameras.

Regards,
Shodan

You mean existing?

No need. The departments that have done it have found they more than pay for themselves in reduced legal costs caused by the bad cops.

Do you have a cite for this? It hasn’t been my experience. Mind, I think it’s a good thing (of course, being in IT probably biases me a bit :p), but the departments in my state that have implemented this aren’t all that convinced thus far that the large costs and effort has been worth it.

The OPs money wouldn’t pay for actual camera systems that could or would be used in police departments or acceptable…you’d need a lot more money to pay for that. But if we were really trying to fix this issue and were willing to spend billions to ensure justice in the few hundred deaths a year that are questionable I think it would definitely be better to put the cameras on the cops (and on their cars) than on civilians.

No, more like committing crimes, threatening the police or others, things like that. You could check for yourself, if you like.

Regards,
Shodan

No.

The problem is that the cameras would be worn too seldomly. This is like devices meant to prevent parents from leaving kids in hot cars. The chances of it happening are less than 1% on any given day to a particular person; they’d think it’s not worth the hassle of wearing it.

It can be, but it needn’t be. Additionally, I’m not using “virtue signaling” as synonymous with “attention whoring”. I don’t think the former necessarily implies the latter.

In the case we are considering, I think the actions being taken are so far removed from the actual problem that is being called out that the folks participating are deluding themselves if they think their protest is going to lead to any change. As I said, the discussion is all about the nature of the protest, not the problem that is being protested.

Seems to me Colin Kaepernick was legitimately protesting.

The latest fuss with all the kneeling across the league was more a “fuck you” to Trump than it was about protesting police violence against black men and it worked in that regard.

Obviously it’s not a good solution to try and bug all black people 24/7 for numerous relatively obvious reasons.

I do agree that if the players really wanted to do something about this, they would be well-served by either throwing money at it. And the obvious thing to do would be to put cameras on the cops and their equipment. Of course there are two steps that need to be taken for that to work:

  1. Make it strongly against the rules to remove or disable the cameras.
  2. Fix the system so that we can enforce laws or regulations of any kind on police officers.

Point 2 will be tricky to pull off. But if we can, cameras for all of them! And honestly, I can’t imagine why any honest cop would mind.

We have a hard enough time recognizing injustice even when it is clearly shown in police body cam videos. Let’s work on fixing that problem first, then we can talk about whether equipping civilians with body cams is worth it.

Their purpose is to direct attention to an issue that could have otherwise been easy to ignore, to make it less comfortable to ignore. The protests have been monumentally successful in that regard.

Yes. I wasn’t talking about him, but some of the folks who are recently getting in on the action.

Yea, that, too. Trump has, in his bumbling way, made this all about him like everything else he touches. Ugh…

I think the OP owes a month’s salary toward this silly idea as much as anyone in the NFL.

Civil rights is an issue that everyone must solve; not simply pass the buck to someone else.

And who are those people?