The ultimate COVID thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted59964
  • Start date Start date
Healthcare jobs with pay you can see.
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
vector2 said:
Yea he picked up that Nike endorsement and I'm sure he's had some other deals going. But whatever he's been doing, I'm sure his income is multiple standard deviations away from being a starting NFL QB with that kind of contract and endorsements.
Click to expand...
I've never really believed Kaepernick was the victim of a owner conspiracy to keep him out of the game. We're talking about businesses who'll pay the likes of Ray Rice and every felonious girlfriend beating POS who can run jump throw or catch a ball millions so long as they produce on the field.

The truth is Kaepernick was benched for Blaine freakin' Gabbard before he began kneeling. His days as a starting NFL QB were over, and every one of us 49er fans knew it and were sobbing into our beers over it. He played well, for a short time, in a system the 49ers built around his talents, and then opponents adjusted to him, and the happy days were over.

He'd have made a poor backup choice elsewhere given that most other teams had offenses that would've been a poor fit for him. And you can't tune an offense around a backup QB.

It was his declining performance, salary demands, and style that was a poor fit for most teams, that kept him off the field. Add in the nonfootball drama and it's no wonder no team wanted him. Every other kneeling player stayed on a team. Then he finally gets a workout last year and he shows up with demands and an entourage and camera crew.

He's a smart guy, and landed on his feet. I bet he'll laugh last, after all he's earning Nike money and he's not getting pounded into the turf by a 280 pound roided up defensive end 5 or 10 times per week.
 
pgg said:
I've never really believed Kaepernick was the victim of a owner conspiracy to keep him out of the game. We're talking about businesses who'll pay the likes of Ray Rice and every felonious girlfriend beating POS who can run jump throw or catch a ball millions so long as they produce on the field.

The truth is Kaepernick was benched for Blaine freakin' Gabbard before he began kneeling. His days as a starting NFL QB were over, and every one of us 49er fans knew it and were sobbing into our beers over it. He played well, for a short time, in a system the 49ers built around his talents, and then opponents adjusted to him, and the happy days were over.

He'd have made a poor backup choice elsewhere given that most other teams had offenses that would've been a poor fit for him. And you can't tune an offense around a backup QB.

It was his declining performance, salary demands, and style that was a poor fit for most teams, that kept him off the field. Add in the nonfootball drama and it's no wonder no team wanted him. Every other kneeling player stayed on a team. Then he finally gets a workout last year and he shows up with demands and an entourage and camera crew.

He's a smart guy, and landed on his feet. I bet he'll laugh last, after all he's earning Nike money and he's not getting pounded into the turf by a 280 pound roided up defensive end 5 or 10 times per week.
Click to expand...

It's laughable to still believe Kap didn't get picked up because of his skill. Plenty of teams could have used him even as a gadget play qb for the league minimum. The real reason, as an NFL exec recently came out and said was because it would have cost a team 20% of its season ticket holders in the short term. Add in that many NFL owners are very pro Trump, and you get to where we are today.

It's business baby. And he was bad for business at the time.
 
pgg said:
.

It was his declining performance, salary demands, and style that was a poor fit for most teams, that kept him off the field.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your take. I'll grant you though that the odds of him finding a gig as a starter were perhaps low, but given that Chip and the rest of the offense (that were physically incapable of stopping a passrush) were just as culpable for their horrible seasons, it is 100% the bias against his protests from 20 some white billionaires, the commissioner, and the president's tweets that's kept him permanently off the field. I don't care how bad a season someone is having- you don't go from an NFC championship appearance and a superbowl appearance a few years prior to totally unemployed, short of having a career-ending injury. Hell, look at what Bridgewater was able to do after almost 2 yrs of persona non grata.

I mean, just look at this stat after Kaep started getting benched and unbenched in the fall:

Screenshot_20200606-184742_Chrome.jpg

www.sbnation.com

Colin Kaepernick’s journey from football stardom to NFL exile

Six years ago, Colin Kaepernick was one of the NFL’s brightest young stars. A year after his decision to speak out for equality in America, teams refuse to sign him.
www.sbnation.com www.sbnation.com

At the end of the day, the guy was still capable of high level play and likely some redemption with another team.
 
pgg said:
I've never really believed Kaepernick was the victim of a owner conspiracy to keep him out of the game. We're talking about businesses who'll pay the likes of Ray Rice and every felonious girlfriend beating POS who can run jump throw or catch a ball millions so long as they produce on the field.

The truth is Kaepernick was benched for Blaine freakin' Gabbard before he began kneeling. His days as a starting NFL QB were over, and every one of us 49er fans knew it and were sobbing into our beers over it. He played well, for a short time, in a system the 49ers built around his talents, and then opponents adjusted to him, and the happy days were over.

He'd have made a poor backup choice elsewhere given that most other teams had offenses that would've been a poor fit for him. And you can't tune an offense around a backup QB.

It was his declining performance, salary demands, and style that was a poor fit for most teams, that kept him off the field. Add in the nonfootball drama and it's no wonder no team wanted him. Every other kneeling player stayed on a team. Then he finally gets a workout last year and he shows up with demands and an entourage and camera crew.

He's a smart guy, and landed on his feet. I bet he'll laugh last, after all he's earning Nike money and he's not getting pounded into the turf by a 280 pound roided up defensive end 5 or 10 times per week.
Click to expand...

Mostly agree and I'm sick of people whining about him. He lost his job to a sad excuse of a backup in Gabbert. If he was still starter material, some team would have taken him even despite the drama surrounding the kneeling. And I don't believe there was any sort of agreement amongst the owners to keep him out.

All that said, I disagree about the part regarding his style of play and poor fit schematically being an issue. Like @crash2500 said, he was undoubtedly talented enough to be picked up and used for certain playsets. Problem is, in my opinion, he wasn't talented enough to overcome the backlash from fans (or at least in the perception of the owners, the hit their team would take from an angry fanbase) to be worth having on your team in that capacity.

So it's somewhere in between your and vector's takes I think. He wasn't nearly as talented as people like to claim when saying he was kept out of the league unfairly, but he certainly was (and probably still is) talented enough to be on a team if it wasn't for the drama that comes with signing him.
 
DrZzZz said:
Mostly agree and I'm sick of people whining about him. He lost his job to a sad excuse of a backup in Gabbert. If he was still starter material, some team would have taken him even despite the drama surrounding the kneeling. And I don't believe there was any sort of agreement amongst the owners to keep him out.

All that said, I disagree about the part regarding his style of play and poor fit schematically being an issue. Like @crash2500 said, he was undoubtedly talented enough to be picked up and used for certain playsets. Problem is, in my opinion, he wasn't talented enough to overcome the backlash from fans (or at least in the perception of the owners, the hit their team would take from an angry fanbase) to be worth having on your team in that capacity.

So it's somewhere in between your and vector's takes I think. He wasn't nearly as talented as people like to claim when saying he was kept out of the league unfairly, but he certainly was (and probably still is) talented enough to be on a team if it wasn't for the drama that comes with signing him.
Click to expand...

This is a direct quote from Joe Lockhart, the former NFL vice president of communications:

" “[F]or many owners it always came back to the same thing,” Lockhart wrote. “Signing Kaepernick, they thought, was bad for business. An executive from one team that considered signing Kaepernick told me the team projected losing 20% of their season ticket holders if they did. That was a business risk no team was willing to take, whether the owner was a Trump supporter or a bleeding-heart liberal (yes, those do exist). As bad of an image problem it presented for the league and the game, no owner was willing to put the business at risk over this issue.” "
clutchpoints.com

Former NFL Exec On Colin Kaepernick's Career Ending Because 'He Was Bad For Business'

This is something.
clutchpoints.com clutchpoints.com

It's baffling to me how anyone can even question that the protest issue wasn't the major factor in his never getting resigned, especially in a backup capacity, and especially especially cause dual-purpose QBs who can rush 500+ yds a season have just gotten more and more popular in the latter half of this decade.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
AMEHigh said:
RIP to Maurice Gordon
He was unarmed (patted down by a police officer), waiting for a tow truck with said officer and then was killed by the police officer.
I hope the family finds out what happens.

www.nj.com

Family demands answers after unarmed black man killed by N.J. trooper, attorney says

Maurice Gordon, 28, was shot May 23 while waiting for a tow truck during a traffic stop on the Garden State Parkway.
www.nj.com www.nj.com
Click to expand...


That's very sad and all, but have you stopped to also consider the plight of the white male? I mean, he is still able to freely post his thoughts on various forums, instagram, FB, snapchat, reddit, tiktok, the nyt/wapo/wsj comment sections, and literally every street corner in America (not to mention freely interact with police with a much lower likelihood of death), but I've heard from some that his speech is being suppressed in the name of your political correctness.
 
crash2500 said:
It's laughable to still believe Kap didn't get picked up because of his skill. Plenty of teams could have used him even as a gadget play qb for the league minimum. The real reason, as an NFL exec recently came out and said was because it would have cost a team 20% of its season ticket holders in the short term. Add in that many NFL owners are very pro Trump, and you get to where we are today.

It's business baby. And he was bad for business at the time.
Click to expand...

Of course it's business, that was my point. I'm disagreeing with the racist conspiracy narrative. He wasn't willing to play for the league minimum. He expected to be paid what a superbowl QB gets paid, and he wasn't worth near that.

If he was really that good people would've watched him and bought tickets. Professional sports are full of dirtbag lowlifes that get cheered wildly because they produce. The truth is, there isn't a shortage of backup-quality or gimmick quarterbacks out there, and he just wasn't better than all the other options (or "enough" better to overcome the associated drama) and I don't blame the owners one bit for wanting their business of entertainment to stay out of politics.


vector2 said:
It's baffling to me how anyone can even question that the protest issue wasn't the major factor in his never getting resigned, especially in a backup capacity, and especially especially cause dual-purpose QBs who can rush 500+ yds a season have just gotten more and more popular in the latter half of this decade.
Click to expand...

Benched

For Blaine Gabbert

By the team that built a SB quality offense around him

:shrug:

Clearly somebody thought that he wasn't all that great once the superstar supporting cast melted away.
 
pgg said:
Of course it's business, that was my point. I'm disagreeing with the racist conspiracy narrative. He wasn't willing to play for the league minimum. He expected to be paid what a superbowl QB gets paid, and he wasn't worth near that.

If he was really that good people would've watched him and bought tickets. Professional sports are full of dirtbag lowlifes that get cheered wildly because they produce. The truth is, there isn't a shortage of backup-quality or gimmick quarterbacks out there, and he just wasn't better than all the other options (or "enough" better to overcome the associated drama) and I don't blame the owners one bit for wanting their business of entertainment to stay out of politics.




Benched

For Blaine Gabbert

By the team that built a SB quality offense around him

:shrug:

Clearly somebody thought that he wasn't all that great once the superstar supporting cast melted away.
Click to expand...

That conveniently ignores the fact that Jim Tomsula became the head coach when Harbaugh left/was pushed to Michigan. To characterize the 2015 49ers as dysfunctional puts it mildly. So it was not the team that built a SB offense around him, it was the vestiges of that team. I mean Harbaugh was the only reason Kap got a chance over Alex Smith in the first place.

The greatest corollary is Jay Cutler. Marc Trestman benched him for Jimmy Clausen (!!!) The Bears released him. He retired and got a sportscaster job. And he still managed to find a starting job with the Dolphins.
 
.
DrZzZz said:
Mostly agree and I'm sick of people whining about him. He lost his job to a sad excuse of a backup in Gabbert. If he was still starter material, some team would have taken him even despite the drama surrounding the kneeling. And I don't believe there was any sort of agreement amongst the owners to keep him out.

All that said, I disagree about the part regarding his style of play and poor fit schematically being an issue. Like @crash2500 said, he was undoubtedly talented enough to be picked up and used for certain playsets. Problem is, in my opinion, he wasn't talented enough to overcome the backlash from fans (or at least in the perception of the owners, the hit their team would take from an angry fanbase) to be worth having on your team in that capacity.

So it's somewhere in between your and vector's takes I think. He wasn't nearly as talented as people like to claim when saying he was kept out of the league unfairly, but he certainly was (and probably still is) talented enough to be on a team if it wasn't for the drama that comes with signing him.
Click to expand...
I am not a football fan, but I know one thing: employers don't like trouble. The ideal employee is one that does his job and only opens his mouth to say "yes, sir!", "right away, sir!" "thank you, sir!".

People who are screaming discrimination and racism left and right may want to consider that, in some cases, attitude and culture have a significant negative impact on people's success in life. Nobody wants a troublemaker or big mouth in his business (or even life), unless s/he's God's gift to humanity, or not even then. It has nothing to do with skin color, but it has a lot to do with how somebody was brought up. It's very hard to correct bad childhood habits or brainwash (e.g. there is a reason people who are brought up religious tend to remain religious, despite every scientific proof to the contrary they learn about, it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks). Success makes some people more entitled, while it makes others more humble and grateful.

Usually people who play the victim card too much are not liked anywhere, because the thinking goes "tomorrow s/he may cause trouble here" (plus even the nicest most color/sex/accent/etc-blind people get tired of hearing negative stuff). People want peace and quiet, not attitude, entitlement and politics at work. One can think of me of a privileged white male or discriminated foreigner (the truth is in the middle), but that's how the world works in my semi-privileged experience. Most people take the path of least resistance, like the electron. It's not racism, it's basic human nature. People who are liked or likable (as defined by the employer and co-workers) have a much easier life than unpleasant people.

If I made a fuss at work regularly, even if right in principle, I am sure that my privileged white male doctor ass would be kicked out before I could say "Nike".

Human nature plus experience plus incentives; that's all, most of the time, on both sides. One can change people's way of thinking (harder) or the incentives (e.g. severely punish violent cops, play football players enough to keep their mouths shut).

The older I get the more I respect psychology as a science. We should all learn more about it; it would make the world a better place (and maybe we wouldn't elect malignant narcissists either).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pgg said:
Of course it's business, that was my point. I'm disagreeing with the racist conspiracy narrative. He wasn't willing to play for the league minimum. He expected to be paid what a superbowl QB gets paid, and he wasn't worth near that.

If he was really that good people would've watched him and bought tickets. Professional sports are full of dirtbag lowlifes that get cheered wildly because they produce. However, the truth is, there isn't a shortage of backup-quality or gimmick quarterbacks out there, and he just wasn't better than all the other options (or "enough" better to overcome the associated drama) and I don't blame the owners one bit for wanting their business of entertainment to stay out of politics.




Benched

For Blaine Gabbert

By the team that built a SB quality offense around him

:shrug:

Clearly somebody thought that he wasn't all that great once the superstar supporting cast melted away.
Click to expand...

Yea, you said that already, and I get it. But he's not the first or the fifth or the fiftieth sagging QB to get benched for some scrub because the entire clown show of a team doesn't know what to do. The statistics are clear- the vast majority of franchise QBs who get benched play again (esp one who as I showed was still capable of setting a 49ers record in the middle of intermittent benching). Hell, Cam Newton is probably never going to play another game again as a Panther after getting released and no one knows whether he's 100% healthy yet, but it's not like we're speculating whether he's going to play football ever again.

Further, assuming we're reading the same comments from Lockhart, the interpretation is pretty clear. Kaep's views on BLM is what was toxic for business. NFL games are still widely attended even with teams who suck. Note, the Browns had their best attendance in 5 years even though they're still on a 12 year losing streak.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Here’s what should happen:
1. Police unions banned (Or at the very least only for pay negotiation, not to be involved in matters of discipline).
2. Police wear body cams that are on 24-7, if there is an injury or death while policing the entirety of the interaction (including lead-up) is automatically reviewed by a 3rd party civilian panel.
3. Affirmative action is abolished. Admissions/job initial screen via name/color blinded panels.
4. Media has to provide race/crime coverage based on statistical occurrence. For example, if 3 black people are killed by police for every 2 white, they need to use 3:2 airtime.
5. No more politically correct BS about white fragility and how all whites are racist by virtue of birth. That’s no more true than all blacks are criminals— and it’s amazing that a book/statement like that isn’t ITSELF laughed at as patently racist. Seriously, I think stuff like that is 80% of the reason why we have Trump in the White House.
6. Lots of tax funding to early childhood + family resources to the poor to makeup for disparities (ie 90% of our money should be towards elementary and below as after that it’s hard to make a difference).
 
Last edited:
doctalaughs said:
Here’s what should happen:
1. Police unions banned (Or at the very least only for pay negotiation, not to be involved in matters of discipline).
2. Police wear body cams that are on 24-7, if there is an injury or death while policing the entirety of the interaction (including lead-up) is automatically reviewed by a 3rd party civilian panel.
3. Affirmative action is abolished. Admissions/job initial screen via name/color blinded panels.
4. Media has to provide race/crime coverage based on statistical occurrence. For example, if 3 black people are killed by police for every 2 white, they need to use 3:2 airtime.
5. No more politically correct BS about white fragility and how all whites are racist by virtue of birth. That’s no more true than all blacks are criminals— and it’s amazing that a book/statement like that isn’t ITSELF laughed at as patently racist. Seriously, I think stuff like that is 80% of the reason why we have Trump in the White House.
6. Lots of tax funding to early childhood + family resources to the poor to makeup for disparities (ie 90% of our money should be towards elementary and below as after that it’s hard to make a difference).
Click to expand...

I think ending all police unions nationwide and forcing all officers to take on a malpractice-type insurance (that's not taxpayer-funded, so cops should pay for the insurance) is the major, necessary step to end police brutality. The deeper issue is to end systemic racism across all institutions, which is going to be challenging but needs to be done now.
 
doctalaughs said:
Here’s what should happen:
1. Police unions banned (Or at the very least only for pay negotiation, not to be involved in matters of discipline).
2. Police wear body cams that are on 24-7, if there is an injury or death while policing the entirety of the interaction (including lead-up) is automatically reviewed by a 3rd party civilian panel.
3. Affirmative action is abolished. Admissions/job initial screen via name/color blinded panels.
4. Media has to provide race/crime coverage based on statistical occurrence. For example, if 3 black people are killed by police for every 2 white, they need to use 3:2 airtime.
5. No more politically correct BS about white fragility and how all whites are racist by virtue of birth. That’s no more true than all blacks are criminals— and it’s amazing that a book/statement like that isn’t ITSELF laughed at as patently racist. Seriously, I think stuff like that is 80% of the reason why we have Trump in the White House.
6. Lots of tax funding to early childhood + family resources to the poor to makeup for disparities (ie 90% of our money should be towards elementary and below as after that it’s hard to make a difference).
Click to expand...

1. Ok
2. Ok except some hesitation with the "civilian" panel. Like getting sued in medicine, having lay people be the sole jury isn't always beneficial. I agree it can't be a bunch of the accused coworkers or police brethren on said jury, but having a bunch of people that have no experience being in that environment is questionable.
3. Nice thought on the blinding, but that's only an initial screen. Does nothing for underrepresented groups actually being hired.
4. Totally unrealistic. Good luck implementing and enforcing that.
5. Agreed
6. Agreed
 
doctalaughs said:
Here’s what should happen:
1. Police unions banned (Or at the very least only for pay negotiation, not to be involved in matters of discipline).
2. Police wear body cams that are on 24-7, if there is an injury or death while policing the entirety of the interaction (including lead-up) is automatically reviewed by a 3rd party civilian panel.
3. Affirmative action is abolished. Admissions/job initial screen via name/color blinded panels.
4. Media has to provide race/crime coverage based on statistical occurrence. For example, if 3 black people are killed by police for every 2 white, they need to use 3:2 airtime.
5. No more politically correct BS about white fragility and how all whites are racist by virtue of birth. That’s no more true than all blacks are criminals— and it’s amazing that a book/statement like that isn’t ITSELF laughed at as patently racist. Seriously, I think stuff like that is 80% of the reason why we have Trump in the White House.
6. Lots of tax funding to early childhood + family resources to the poor to makeup for disparities (ie 90% of our money should be towards elementary and below as after that it’s hard to make a difference).
Click to expand...

We can at least agree on 1, 2, and 6.


As far as who should be hired, the majority of the police dept personnel need to come from people who live in that zip code, and subsidies should he provided for officers who cant afford to because of gentrification (i.e. parts of DC and NYC)
 
vector2 said:
s far as who should be hired, the majority of the police dept personnel need to come from people who live in that zip code,
Click to expand...

While I agree with the theory behind this, it is problematic in practice. Even upstanding “good” cops are likely to make some enemies within the community. This is exacerbated in places with a strong gang presence. You can see why it might be a bad idea to have Joe PD and his family living down the street from Bill gang banger.
 
The tragedy is Trump's response to George Floyd protests and attempts to send in troops to stop them are the opposite to what i was hoping for.

Rioters are bad but police unions are far far worse. Trump's priorities end up defending the cops rather than stopping their evil behavior.
 
What do you guys think about the old white guy who Police shoved and sustained a head injury? I watched the video and it definitely should have been handled better - but what do you expect when you run up to a large, coordinated, marching police line clearing a square and start waving your cell phone wildly around in their faces (he was literally rubbing his cell phone on one of them)? I’m for some discipline of those 2 cops - but I’m not sure that falls under brutality when they have no idea what he’s about to do and seems like he was looking for trouble.
 
doctalaughs said:
Here’s what should happen:
3. Affirmative action is abolished.
5. No more politically correct BS about white fragility and how all whites are racist by virtue of birth. That’s no more true than all blacks are criminals— and it’s amazing that a book/statement like that isn’t ITSELF laughed at as patently racist. Seriously, I think stuff like that is 80% of the reason why we have Trump in the White House.
Click to expand...

Using racial slurs, committing atrocities against minority groups, or similar actions are not the only things that are causing the racial divide in this country. Many people therefore believe that 'since they are not racist' they are free and clear of the issue.

In reality whether one chooses to accept it or not, ignoring the ongoing racial problems we have in this country because they don't affect you, and ignoring the system of oppression that this country was founded on (that has improved, but still continues today) as if this has had no effect on the current situation of blacks in this country is the problem. This leads many to the thought of 'I don't see color and everyone should thus be treated the same. Why do we need affirmative action? Slavery was abolished in the 1800's! As long as one works hard and has a good head on their shoulders they can make it. The black people that don't make it just don't work hard enough and are too in to gangs and drugs.'

This is the attitude that continues to uphold the system of oppression and does nothing to help tear it down and is thus 'racist.' It is because of the recognition by some of the ongoing racial issues and continued effects from past racial inequalities that programs like affirmative action have been formed, not just to fill quotas of diversity or to give poor people opportunities.

It is ironic that you decry the book White Fragility itself to be racist as this is the whole premise of the book - people are so uncomfortable to talk about race and so self righteous because of the above, that they scream 'RACISM' at the first suggestion that they themselves might not be 100% unbiased and may have some racist tendencies.

But you're right. White facility is exactly why Trump is in the White House.
 
Last edited:
IMHO, cops should be mandated to learn hand to hand combat. Those who can’t muster hand to hand combat training are assigned to administrative work. Maybe if they can subdue an unruly drugged out offender with just their hands, I feel like they are less likely to resort to using guns or excessive force. It’s also likely that hand to hand combat will teach them self awareness, self control, mental toughness and controlled aggression. There is a reason why military academies are still teaching boxing and it’s also a requirement to graduate. Will this lead to less use of excessive force? I think that it does.
 
marr65 said:
IMHO, cops should be mandated to learn hand to hand combat. Those who can’t muster hand to hand combat training are assigned to administrative work. Maybe if they can subdue an unruly drugged out offender with just their hands, I feel like they are less likely to resort to using guns or excessive force. It’s also likely that hand to hand combat will teach them self awareness, self control, mental toughness and controlled aggression. There is a reason why military academies are still teaching boxing and it’s also a requirement to graduate. Will this lead to less use of excessive force? I think that it does.
Click to expand...

Uhhhhh, you realize George Floyd was killed by “hand to hand combat” right?
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
SaltyDog said:
While I agree with the theory behind this, it is problematic in practice. Even upstanding “good” cops are likely to make some enemies within the community. This is exacerbated in places with a strong gang presence. You can see why it might be a bad idea to have Joe PD and his family living down the street from Bill gang banger.
Click to expand...

There are all kinds of details that need to be worked out, especially if we're talking about some top 0.1% of violent crime zip code. But the vast, vast, vast majority of officers nationwide should live within the city limits of the area they patrol.
 
vector2 said:
But the vast, vast, vast majority of officers nationwide should live within the city limits of the area they patrol.
Click to expand...

Don’t you think that’s how it is in most of the country as it is - save for the inner city type places which also happen to be more violent areas.
 
SaltyDog said:
Don’t you think that’s how it is in most of the country as it is - save for the inner city type places which also happen to be more violent areas.
Click to expand...

No

fivethirtyeight.com

Most Police Don’t Live In The Cities They Serve

In Ferguson, Missouri, where protests continue following the shooting of a teenager by a police officer this month, more than two-thirds of the civilian populat…
fivethirtyeight.com fivethirtyeight.com
 
doctalaughs said:
What do you guys think about the old white guy who Police shoved and sustained a head injury? I watched the video and it definitely should have been handled better - but what do you expect when you run up to a large, coordinated, marching police line clearing a square and start waving your cell phone wildly around in their faces (he was literally rubbing his cell phone on one of them)? I’m for some discipline of those 2 cops - but I’m not sure that falls under brutality when they have no idea what he’s about to do and seems like he was looking for trouble.
Click to expand...
So he was looking for trouble with what? A cell phone? Do you realize, given his age, if had landed wrong or hit something on the way down he could have easily died?
“Looking for trouble?” Do you realize that your statement and conclusion has been used by cops since forever to justify their overuse of force against the public they are supposed to help?
I saw a man who was upset who ran up to police and tried to talk to them in the heat of the moment. Not the smartest decision, but clearly not one deserving of being shoved to the ground as they kept on marching.
And BTW they attempted to lie that he tripped and fell.
What if that was your father?
 
doctalaughs said:
What do you guys think about the old white guy who Police shoved and sustained a head injury? I watched the video and it definitely should have been handled better - but what do you expect when you run up to a large, coordinated, marching police line clearing a square and start waving your cell phone wildly around in their faces (he was literally rubbing his cell phone on one of them)? I’m for some discipline of those 2 cops - but I’m not sure that falls under brutality when they have no idea what he’s about to do and seems like he was looking for trouble.
Click to expand...

Police unions were backing the bad cops. I want all police unions in the country to be abolished.
 
SaltyDog said:
I think what you’re really getting at, is that you want a police force that is more ethnically similar to the area they patrol.
Click to expand...

No, what I'm getting at is exactly what I said. Officers should not treat their beat like they're an occupying force each time they get a call, and they're less inclined to do so if theyre actually invested socially and financially in the cities they police.
 
vector2 said:
No, what I'm getting at is exactly what I said. Officers should not treat their beat like they're an occupying force each time they get a call, and they're less inclined to do so if theyre actually invested socially and financially in the cities they police.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure cops are still covered in the Declaration of Independence...you know...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now I'm all for police reform cause it's obvious we got a problem in this country, but come one man. Let's keep it realistic.
 
vector2 said:
No, what I'm getting at is exactly what I said. Officers should not treat their beat like they're an occupying force each time they get a call, and they're less inclined to do so if theyre actually invested socially and financially in the cities they police.
Click to expand...

I think if you put yourself in the shoes of an LEO, you’ll see why that idea is a non-starter.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
MirrorTodd said:
I'm pretty sure cops are still covered in the Declaration of Independence...you know...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now I'm all for police reform cause it's obvious we got a problem in this country, but come one man. Let's keep it realistic.
Click to expand...
SaltyDog said:
I think if you put yourself in the shoes of an LEO, you’ll see why that idea is a non-starter.
Click to expand...

And yet residency requirements still exist and indeed they used to be much more routine than they are today, all without anyone thinking a constitutional challenge was needed. I wonder if my friend should bring a Constitutional suit since he has to live within 30 min of his hospital...

And salty, I think if you put yourself in the shoes of the majority of tax paying, law abiding residents in certain areas who get policed by people who treat all of them like criminals, you'll understand why they don't give two shts about what you think is a non-starter for LEOs.
 
vector2 said:
And yet residency requirements still exist and indeed they used to be much more routine than they are today, all without anyone thinking a constitutional challenge was needed. I wonder if my friend should bring a Constitutional suit since he has to live within 30 min of his hospital...

And salty, I think if you put yourself in the shoes of the majority of tax paying, law abiding residents in certain areas who get policed by people who treat all of them like criminals, you'll understand why they don't give two shts about what you think is a non-starter for LEOs.
Click to expand...
Now you know that's not exactly the same thing as what you're proposing.
 
MirrorTodd said:
Now you know that's not exactly the same thing as what you're proposing.
Click to expand...

Is it not? A cursory google search shows that Federal courts have held up as Constitutional the ability for employers to impose restrictions on employee geographic proximity as long as there is a rational basis. I think the fact that police being part of their neighborhood makes them less likely to murder their neighbors is quite rational.


"
Generally, residency requirements have been upheld and deemed to be constitutional by the Federal Courts so long as the employing jurisdiction has demonstrated some "rational" basis for the provision.1

In Clinton Police Department Bargaining Unit v. City of Clinton (464 N.W.2d 875, Iowa), the court upheld a city requirement that employees live within 10 miles of their duty station. The court found that "rational"
interests included such things as having employees available for emergency calls, employees having a stake in the community, enhancing the tax base, improving community attitudes and cooperation, increasing loyalty to the community, and reducing absenteeism.
Mixing with the community, contributing to the tax base, and concerns about police response time were considered the "rational basis" for the residency requirement in Tiffany v. City of Payette, 825 P.2d 493 (Idaho). Both of these cases also declared that the residency rules did not infringe on an employee's right to free travel. In the United States Supreme Court's last decision regarding the constitutionality of public employee residency requirements, the Court said, "This kind of ordinance is not irrational."

Additionally, the high court found such requirements to be lawful conditions of employment on the basis that there is no fundamental right to government employment and they do not unconstitutionally impinge on the right to travel. McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Commission, 424 U.S. 645, 646 (1976)
"
 
Last edited:
vector2 said:
Is it not? A cursory google search shows that Federal courts have held up as Constitutional the ability for employers to impose restrictions on employee geographic proximity as long as there is a rational basis. I think the fact that police being part of their neighborhood makes them less likely to murder their neighbors is quite rational.


"
Generally, residency requirements have been upheld and deemed to be constitutional by the Federal Courts so long as the employing jurisdiction has demonstrated some "rational" basis for the provision.1

In Clinton Police Department Bargaining Unit v. City of Clinton (464 N.W.2d 875, Iowa), the court upheld a city requirement that employees live within 10 miles of their duty station. The court found that "rational"
interests included such things as having employees available for emergency calls, employees having a stake in the community, enhancing the tax base, improving community attitudes and cooperation, increasing loyalty to the community, and reducing absenteeism.
Mixing with the community, contributing to the tax base, and concerns about police response time were considered the "rational basis" for the residency requirement in Tiffany v. City of Payette, 825 P.2d 493 (Idaho). Both of these cases also declared that the residency rules did not infringe on an employee's right to free travel. In the United States Supreme Court's last decision regarding the constitutionality of public employee residency requirements, the Court said, "This kind of ordinance is not irrational."

Additionally, the high court found such requirements to be lawful conditions of employment on the basis that there is no fundamental right to government employment and they do not unconstitutionally impinge on the right to travel. McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Commission, 424 U.S. 645, 646 (1976)"
Click to expand...
Is it a fact though? Admittedly, you're probably more versed in this than I am since I have never had this conversation before and have little interest in learning about it at this point in my life. Just because it's your/the courts belief doesn't make it so. My personal experince (albeit this was in Iraq) is that police officers get car bombs placed underneath their car if the people (enemies) know where they live.
 
vector2 said:
you'll understand why they don't give two shts about what you think is a non-starter for LEOs.
Click to expand...

I’m sure they don’t, but see how many people sign up to be LEO’s in high crime areas when you tell them they have to live there. You’re gonna end up with a severe shortage in these areas. Maybe minimal law enforcement in these areas is what you’re after?? Would that be better or worse - I honestly don’t know??
 
SaltyDog said:
Uhhhhh, you realize George Floyd was killed by “hand to hand combat” right?
Click to expand...

Huh??? I never once saw hand to hand combat. Floyd was already in cuffs.

All I’m saying is teach them professional techniques for hand to hand combat. Learn how to do a takedown on an offender that can’t be reasoned with due to mental capacity or high on drugs. Maybe with proper teachings, cops could learn to be more disciplined. Also, through this type of training they can weed out people who aren’t able to controlled their aggression.
 
marr65 said:
Huh??? I never once saw hand to hand combat. Floyd was already in cuffs.

All I’m saying is teach them professional techniques for hand to hand combat. Learn how to do a takedown on an offender that can’t be reasoned with due to mental capacity or high on drugs. Maybe with proper teachings, cops could learn to be more disciplined. Also, through this type of training they can weed out people who aren’t able to controlled their aggression.
Click to expand...

No weapons were used against Floyd.

Cops are trained in hand to hand combat skills.
 
MirrorTodd said:
. My personal experince (albeit this was in Iraq) is that police officers get car bombs placed underneath their car if the people (enemies) know where they live.
Click to expand...

With that particular word choice, you could not have made the argument for having police be a part of their communities any better. The police are not the military, and the further officers are from having social, cultural, financial etc ties with the neighborhood they're supposed to protect and serve, the more this kind of enemy characterization pervades their thinking. That being said, using "fact" is probably too strong a word for whether specifically residency requirement reduces incidence of unarmed black men getting killed by the police (because I haven't looked up the primary source data either), but I certainly have my suspicions of how tied to the community all the officers involved in incidents from Garner to Floyd were.
 
Last edited:
SaltyDog said:
I’m sure they don’t, but see how many people sign up to be LEO’s in high crime areas when you tell them they have to live there. You’re gonna end up with a severe shortage in these areas. Maybe minimal law enforcement in these areas is what you’re after?? Would that be better or worse - I honestly don’t know??
Click to expand...

How bout pay them more money and leave the residency req in place????
 
"While the fiscal reasons are compelling in and of themselves, I see an even more serious concern for bringing back the full residency requirement. In far too many Philadelphia neighborhoods, the police department feels more like an occupying army than those who are called to serve. This feeling has only intensified in recent months in the wake of the devastating Plain View Project where racist, Islamophobic, homophobic, and other hateful social media posts by Philadelphia law enforcement were made public. Those posts suggest a contempt from officers toward people they are sworn to protect and make residents feel more alienated as a result.

Let’s be honest: A residency requirement alone will not eradicate such behavior. There is certainly much more work to be done. However, this is a step in the right direction.


When officers patrol the city they live in, they will better understand the culture of the place and its people. Culture is not something that can be learned popping in and out. Culture is in everything, even the very air that we breathe. One must live here to fully appreciate and learn Philadelphia’s unique character. Officers who live in the city will better understand the distinct personalities of the various neighborhoods. More importantly, they will treat citizens as neighbors, not strangers. This will not only improve community/police relations — this will save lives.

Listen, I get it. It’s America and we love the freedom to do what we want — especially to select where we live. As a pastor in a national denomination, I have been subject to a different form of residency requirements. In six of the seven congregations I’ve served across the nation, I have moved into those cities. I was not always excited about that decision at first. But afterward, I learned how much it benefited my ministry by being a part of the community full-time (not just dropping in to preach and run). I learned to love each of those places, and more importantly, I loved the people in them. In spiritual terms, we call that experience incarnation. It is the belief that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

This is what we want from our police department. A force for good that dwells among us, not an occupying force that hovers over us.
"


 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DrAmir0078
10-Second Anesthesia Pearls — Feedback Thread
Replies
4
Views
1K
DrAmir0078
DrAmir0078
U
Covid vaccine Jama
Replies
32
Views
3K
Arch Guillotti
Arch Guillotti
B
2024-2025 ACCM fellowship thread
Replies
1
Views
2K
NicholasPavona
N
C
New, annoying debate thread?
2
Replies
84
Views
6K
arsene19
A
Doc mu
What's the deal with the disrespect for anesthesiologists by surgeons/ancillary?
Replies
46
Views
5K
pgg
pgg
Top Bottom