Nebraska's Michael Rose-Ivey receives racial backlash for anthem protest

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

Can we lock this baby up yet

 

[Jim Hammer]

You act as though there is not an end in mind with these protests. These protests are closely tied to the Black Lives Matter movement which has a whole platform of ridiculous demands which, I will guarantee you, they would like to have laws in place that align with their demands.

No, I act as if the end in mind is for the betterment and propping up of a minority people group. Ron Brown's end in mind was legal discrimination against minority people groups. And. Again. Ron Brown is a great dude. Love him, have had plenty of conversations about him. He's absolutely allowed to do whatever he wants with no argument from me, but he presented himself as a representative of the university instead of as Ron Brown the person, the private citizen.

Do you agree with the BLM demands which is an end in mind from many of those protesting?

I didn't agree with the Black Panthers manifesto, either, a small subset of a much larger civil rights movement.

Do you agree with Donald Trump and the end he has in mind? Cause that fu&*#r is selling crap right out of the fascist handbook.

Pretty sure there are plenty of people who disagree with the BLM demands and have enough room left over in their brain to disagree with you.

You didn't answer the question. The BLM movement is driving the current protests, and to counter the last point LOMS made, there are people who are being harmed by the persistent anti-cop sentiment that is rooted in BLM and these protests. The rhetoric is so heated right now (on both sides). I have never seen more police officers being killed and targeted in my life than in the past couple years, and FBI data shows that blacks are more likely to kill cops than be killed by cops. So suggesting nobody is being harmed by these protests is misleading, as it continues the anti-cop narrative that has been pushed the past few years.

Uh. no.

Annual fatality data compiled by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund show that there have been an average of 135 police fatalities a year under President Obama, from 2009 to 2015, compared with 162 a year for the previous seven years, from 2002 to 2008. That’s a decline of 17 percent.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/killed-in-the-line-of-duty/

U.S. police have killed at least 194 black people in 2016, according to a project by The Guardian that tracks police killings in America. Keith Lamar Scott became the latest addition to the list on Tuesday after an officer in Charlotte, North Carolina, shot him dead.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-people-killed-by-police-america_us_577da633e4b0c590f7e7fb17

Hmm...

5. Blacks are more likely to kill cops than be killed by cops. This is according to FBI data, which also found that 40 percent of cop killers are black. According to Mac Donald, the police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black than a cop killing an unarmed black person.

Despite the facts, the anti-police rhetoric of Black Lives Matter and their leftist sympathizers have resulted in what Mac Donald calls the "Ferguson Effect," as murders have spiked by 17 percent among the 50 biggest cities in the U.S. as a result of cops being more reluctant to police neighborhoods out of fear of being labeled as racists. Additionally, there have been over twice as many cops victimized by fatal shootings in the first three months of 2016.

Anti-police rhetoric has deadly consequences.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler#

False. Going to the source of their "numbers", in 2015, 258 blacks were killed by police. 123 officers were killed total.

Check your math.

258 unarmed blacks who were not trying to attack an officer were killed in 2015? That's not what I have seen on some sites.

Also, there are several other valid points in the link I provided, as well as a Post article I provided showing twice as many cops were killed in Q1, 2016 relative to Q1, 2015.

This is what you said:

5. Blacks are more likely to kill cops than be killed by cops.

False

Quit moving the goal posts.

It's not false....if you think that it makes no difference if someone attacking the police is armed makes a difference, then it's pointless to discuss this with you any further. Police Officers are here to protect our communities, and face unknown risks everyday on the job. There should never be a situation where someone that is armed should be approaching or attacking a police officer, and the definition of armed is pretty strict as the author points out as it doesn't include situations where an attacker grabs the officers gun to use it as a weapon.

Listen... If you are going to use stats to support your argument, use them correctly.

You said, and I quote, "Blacks are more likely to kill cops than be killed by cops." That is false and I gave you numbers to prove it.

I am pro-cop. I don't want them to die in the line of duty. I understand that the vast majority of cops do a great job. But lately, the times they mess up had been captured on video and are broadcast all over. This is a tiny fraction of all of the interactions that the police are involved with, but some people have died who didn't need to. Those responsible need to be held accountable. And it pisses people off that while they are being investigated, they are on paid leave.

I think CK's initial protest which (I think) was strictly about cops killing unarmed black men, was misguided. Although each time is a tragedy, it's not some national epidemic. What he did accomplish and I home what MRI's has done, is call attention to systemic racism in this country. And that is a big problem.

I feel what we as a country need to do is to work to end the cycle of poverty in our inner cities and provide better education for those growing up there. We need to create more opportunities for those less fortunate. We need to figure out how to redistribute the wealth in this country. Less going to the top 1% and more going to the bottom 50%.

 

[GBRHouston]

We went from discussing a protest to talking about people killing cops or being killed by cops.

I think this thread has derailed.

Yup. That was sorta the reason why I decided to stop responding.

 

[macroboy]

We went from discussing a protest to talking about people killing cops or being killed by cops.

I think this thread has derailed.

Isn't people being killed by cops at the center of this discussion?

 

[macroboy]

The history of U.S. police deaths in the line of duty
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-history-of-u-s-police-deaths-in-the-line-of-duty/

Is There A 'War On Police'? The Statistics Say Nohttp://www.npr.org/2015/09/17/441196546/is-there-a-war-on-police-the-statistics-say-no

 

[Sparker]

We went from discussing a protest to talking about people killing cops or being killed by cops.

I think this thread has derailed.

Yup. That was sorta the reason why I decided to stop responding.

um.......

 

[Herbie87]

I just skimmed through to get caught up on this conversation. I'm not going to say much more because I've enjoyed the debate but there's not a lot of anything to add to this anymore.

One last thing that I will throw in here, and sorry if its already been said but I haven't seen it.

People keep saying that they wish protests weren't so offensive. Then someone says "well that's the point, otherwise no one will listen." So applying some logic, wouldn't I be less likely to agree with the message you are trying to communicate if you start by offending me?

And don't you need the people to agree with your message as the protestor? Just informing people that you want change will not necessarily make it happen.

 

[Mierin]

I just skimmed through to get caught up on this conversation. I'm not going to say much more because I've enjoyed the debate but there's not a lot of anything to add to this anymore.

One last thing that I will throw in here, and sorry if its already been said but I haven't seen it.

People keep saying that they wish protests weren't so offensive. Then someone says "well that's the point, otherwise no one will listen." So applying some logic, wouldn't I be less likely to agree with the message you are trying to communicate if you start by offending me?

And don't you need the people to agree with your message as the protestor? Just informing people that you want change will not necessarily make it happen.

If everyone agreed with the message there would be no need to protest

 

[Jim Hammer]

I just skimmed through to get caught up on this conversation. I'm not going to say much more because I've enjoyed the debate but there's not a lot of anything to add to this anymore.

One last thing that I will throw in here, and sorry if its already been said but I haven't seen it.

People keep saying that they wish protests weren't so offensive. Then someone says "well that's the point, otherwise no one will listen." So applying some logic, wouldn't I be less likely to agree with the message you are trying to communicate if you start by offending me?

And don't you need the people to agree with your message as the protestor? Just informing people that you want change will not necessarily make it happen.

If everyone agreed with the message there would be no need to protest

 

[Cina]

So the thread has derailed because people have moved from talking about the protest to talking about the reason for the protest?

 

[Flood]

I think a big objective of their protest is to just get people to start talking about it and bring awareness too it. This very discussion is already a big step. Not everyone is going to agree, but it is in our minds now. MRI gets a face to face meeting with the governor and a chance to share his story with one of the most important people in the state. Nebraska is not a very diverse state and not many people get to hear the black perspective. You don't have to agree, but at least you are hearing their side. I think this protest has already achieved quite a bit.

Start talking about and bring awareness to what? That, like Kaepernick said, the flag represents a country that oppresses black people and people of color? Oppresses. Really?

Show me an American policy that puts Americans of any kind at a disadvantage, especially considering we've had a BLACK president for 8 years.

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/80485-nebraskas-michael-rose-ivey-receives-racial-backlash-for-anthem-protest/?view=findpost&p=1742318

Read my previous post and open your eyes.

I am writing in response to JEREMY and anyone else who feels the same way, that there is not currently a disadvantage for some Americans.

There clearly is, and I will explain why. This is in regards to my people, the Indians of Western Nebraska, both in regards to blacks and African-Americans which this thread is actually about. I just cannot leave well enough alone, I guess.

A (very small) history lesson: By treaty (law in other words), the US Government promised to take care of us as part of the repayment for stealing our land. However, they attached some conditions which also explain why it is so hard for Indians to leave the reservation and take advantage of 'the same opportunities' everyone enjoys.

There are no jobs on the reservation, no chance to advance. We rely on government aid, also stipulated by treaty. The most important aspect is probably health care. We Indians average an income of around 8k per year. And that might be generous.

HOWEVER, we are entitled to our health care. AS LONG AS we live on the reservation or WITHIN 30 MILES OF THE RESERVATION.

Since the reservation features 80% unemployment and no prospects, it would be smart for Indians to leave. BUT, to leave would be to lose all medical care. It is bad medical care but it is better than nothing.

There are no jobs, no chance to learn, only the opportunity to follow those poor souls before us for the last 150 years.

JEREMY: Do you think this is a disadvantage to ANY Americans?

This IS an AMERICAN policy and we most certainly ARE American citizens. Is there no disadvantage here?

I mean no offense in asking this, I am purely interested in your responses since it is something I am intimately familiar with.

See this link if you need proof and sources: https://www.ihs.gov/ihm/documents/index.cfm?module=dsp_ihm_pc_p2c4

 

[Herbie87]

I just skimmed through to get caught up on this conversation. I'm not going to say much more because I've enjoyed the debate but there's not a lot of anything to add to this anymore.

One last thing that I will throw in here, and sorry if its already been said but I haven't seen it.

People keep saying that they wish protests weren't so offensive. Then someone says "well that's the point, otherwise no one will listen." So applying some logic, wouldn't I be less likely to agree with the message you are trying to communicate if you start by offending me?

And don't you need the people to agree with your message as the protestor? Just informing people that you want change will not necessarily make it happen.

If everyone agreed with the message there would be no need to protest

That's not my point. Of course everyone doesn't agree. In fact, if you are protesting, you are probably trying to persuade the people who disagree with you, right?

 

[zoogs]

I just skimmed through to get caught up on this conversation. I'm not going to say much more because I've enjoyed the debate but there's not a lot of anything to add to this anymore.

One last thing that I will throw in here, and sorry if its already been said but I haven't seen it.

People keep saying that they wish protests weren't so offensive. Then someone says "well that's the point, otherwise no one will listen." So applying some logic, wouldn't I be less likely to agree with the message you are trying to communicate if you start by offending me?

And don't you need the people to agree with your message as the protestor? Just informing people that you want change will not necessarily make it happen.

I can see how this might be said towards people spitting on the flag, burning it, purposefully desecrating it, or so forth.

Instead we have a very calm, very thoughtfully articulated stance by players who love their country.

At this point, if it's still seen as something that should be offensive to a lot of people, it's fair to ask, "Why?" ... and that, I think, is what has made this the perfect vehicle for a protest. When it comes to saluting our national symbols, we can all agree that doing so with introspection is better than without. These players are doing this, by example.

If that discomfort can transform into "Oh, okay. I see", then that's no small victory for American ideals. The way this has happened, it's seemed quite inspiring and unifying, more so than it is divisive. But of course there will be those who don't agree; there always are.

 

[Herbie87]

I just skimmed through to get caught up on this conversation. I'm not going to say much more because I've enjoyed the debate but there's not a lot of anything to add to this anymore.

One last thing that I will throw in here, and sorry if its already been said but I haven't seen it.

People keep saying that they wish protests weren't so offensive. Then someone says "well that's the point, otherwise no one will listen." So applying some logic, wouldn't I be less likely to agree with the message you are trying to communicate if you start by offending me?

And don't you need the people to agree with your message as the protestor? Just informing people that you want change will not necessarily make it happen.

I can see how this might be said towards people spitting on the flag, burning it, purposefully desecrating it, or so forth.
Instead we have a very calm, very thoughtfully articulated stance by players who love their country.

At this point, if it's still seen as something that should be offensive to a lot of people, it's fair to ask, "Why?" ... and that, I think, is what has made this the perfect vehicle for a protest. When it comes to saluting our national symbols, we can all agree that doing so with introspection is better than without. These players are doing this, by example.

If that discomfort can transform into "Oh, okay. I see", then that's no small victory for American ideals. The way this has happened, it's seemed quite inspiring and unifying, more so than it is divisive. But of course there will be those who don't agree; there always are.

Okay yes I see you're point, but some people do find it offensive.

If you're coming to my house to try and sell me a gadget, wouldn't it be better to say "hello" instead of sh**ing in my yard?

I'm speaking generally about protests now

 

[RedDenver]

I just skimmed through to get caught up on this conversation. I'm not going to say much more because I've enjoyed the debate but there's not a lot of anything to add to this anymore.

One last thing that I will throw in here, and sorry if its already been said but I haven't seen it.

People keep saying that they wish protests weren't so offensive. Then someone says "well that's the point, otherwise no one will listen." So applying some logic, wouldn't I be less likely to agree with the message you are trying to communicate if you start by offending me?

And don't you need the people to agree with your message as the protestor? Just informing people that you want change will not necessarily make it happen.

If you could simply express your message and people listened to you, then you wouldn't need to protest. Part of protesting is simply getting people to pay attention to your message, which most people won't do unless it's something eye-catching or provocative. So protests need to find what they can do to get that attention and get their message out. Anthem protests certainly succeed at getting attention, but as you say, we'll have to wait and see if the message gets out as well.