WOW.....what double standards.....one league praises them the other league suspends them.......what a joke!!!!
MLB is not the NFL. Nor have I seen any such vulgarity out of any other players.
Why would you think that? Do you think that all corporations should march in lock step as well?they should all be on the same page......
Why would you think that? Do you think that all corporations should march in lock step as well?
Other than being professional sports leagues, what do they have in common?
They are run by different people.
The teams are owned by different people.
They have different contracts with different companies.
They have different images they wish to present and maintain.
Why would they get together about something like this?
And, do you really believe that a player who said equivalent things against, say, the TEA Party and Sarah Palin, would have been suspended? I'm not a fan of either but I'd bet everyone would just yuk it up and the league would mostly ignore it. I'd ignore it.
It went on to say that Scott has a 9-millimeter handgun, that he did not have a permit for it and that he is a convicted felon...
He wasn't professional enough for the fotay.
It looked like a little Colt .380 Government model to me...Maybe the slide said 9mm kurz????
So you're ok with the guy who got shot in the back running away?
or
the guy who was getting his driver's license and caught a few rounds?
or
the guy in the Wal-Mart holding the gun shot in the aisle?
or
the guy who had the gun placed to his temple?
or
the kids (5th graders) who had a gun pulled on them in their backyard, while building a treehouse?
or
beating to a pulp a woman on the highway?
or
the guy who got shot in the stairwell because he startled an officer?
or
the elderly man killed during a "welfare check" after he wouldn't open the door?
That falls into "the rest of the time," for you?
The officer involved in this incident has been charged and is awaiting trial.
The officer involved in this incident was charged and convicted.
The officers acted reasonably, based on the information they were given. The ******* who SWATted the victim should face charges, but will not. The police are not at fault.
Not sure I recall this incident.
Not sure I recall this incident.
Not sure I recall this incident.
The police officer acted reasonably, based on proper application of the "reasonable man" legal standard as applied to the circumstances of that incident.
And once again: the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". You have provided a small handful of anecdotes (most of which do not prove your point, as demonstrated above).
I do not understand rioting and looting in response to incidents in which someone has faced or will face trial for his or her actions. What other recourse do the rioters/looters (or you) propose, other than filing charges and a subsequent trial? Alternately, what controls do you propose the state implement that would prevent people from doing bad things - and how would those controls not immorally and unacceptably trample the liberties of the vast majority of law-abiding people?
Bad people are going to do bad things in a free society - including agents of the State. I would not trade that reality for an Orwellian society in which (some) bad people are prevented by the State from doing (some) bad things. In such a dystopian society, law-abiding people have their liberties and rights trampled, and the State is more free to do all manner of bad things, with impunity.
Actually most do prove my point. Half of those you are unaware of, and the others you admitted there was wrong doing (I can give you links to some if you want). And maybe you're thinking about a different instance concerning the guy who was shot in the stairwell. There's no place on the planet that shooting blindly into the dark, and killing a man, would be considered reasonable.
Actually, no. In several cases, there was no wrong-doing. And the ones that involved wrong-doing have been charged. As such, where is the alleged injustice?
There are two points here:
1. Anecdotes do not prove a systemic issue
2. Where actual wrongdoing takes place, those who have done wrong are charged and given a trial.
There is no pattern of injustice, at least not as proven by a handful of anecdotes.
I have a related question, by the way: if 2/3 - 3/4 of all police-involved fatalities involve white people who are killed, why is EVERY news story ONLY ever about the 1/4 - 1/3 who are black? The implication is two-fold: that all unjustified police fatalities involve black people, and that there is some endemic of unjustified police fatalities (involving black people).
There is no such epidemic. There is only a complicit media blowing mostly mundane incidents well beyond all proportion, in an era of 24/7 news cycles, in order to push a specific, anti-police, racially charged agenda.
Actually most do prove my point. Half of those you are unaware of, and the others you admitted there was wrong doing (I can give you links to some if you want). And maybe you're thinking about a different instance concerning the guy who was shot in the stairwell. There's no place on the planet that shooting blindly into the dark, and killing a man, would be considered reasonable.