Not impressed with the hands up BS displayed by the Rams WRs

[blackbart]

The traditional "American dream" is more complicated than just "if you work hard, you will succeed" that people tend to say it is. There are tons of very smart very hard working people who never "make it", far more than those who do. Which is why we make such a big deal of those who do make it from poor to rich, move up in a way. Far more often people end up moving down. A lot of success comes from being born with certain things being available for you, education, funds to get things off the ground, etc. The vast majority of people do not have these available to them for them to really move up, which is why most people maintain a livable salary and not much more. Plenty of people who do have those available try and fail, which moves them down, often for good.

In terms of quality of life, those of us born in the western world have pretty much already hit the jackpot. There's a lot more than just working hard to going from rags to riches, even athletes are often groomed from a young age that allows them to get to the top of their craft. There's a lot of luck that goes into it, which is why in a lot of ways it's a farce. It is sold to us so we have more incentive to work hard, Americans are more focused on the future compared to a lot of other nations. A lot of things that Americans do, they do so because tomorrow it might pay off, and it works for the country because we work much harder for the same or less that other nations work for. That's why many international companies like to hire Americans, they'll do more work for the same pay, because its bred into us.

Its not a bad thing, necessarily though.

You are welcome to your opinion but that is all it is.

I have seen and experienced bot ends of this equation. People born with the proverbial silver spoon that blew it all because they did not have the ambition to work for anything as well as people who lived in rooms with dirt floors and very little education who through their hard work were able to lift their families from poverty.

If you are born or naturalized in America you can better your financial situation if you work for it. Of course there are hurdles for everyone, that is why you have to work hard.

And just like you, it is only my experience and my opinion.

 

[Robocop]

I do believe they said they were neutral?

One thing that I find particularly funny about this situation is that people make pure assumptions about "their message" without knowing their intent, or bothering to hear their intent after the game.

Almost feels like there's a ton of Florio's running around

the gesture they decided to use is the problem and it shows their mindset. same one all the protestors are continuing to use even after witness accounts and physical evidence has disproven he was some innocent black kid. holding hands for example shows solidarity and respect. putting your hands up in a 'don't shoot' action speaks for itself.

 

[bluecoconuts]

You are welcome to your opinion but that is all it is.

I have seen and experienced bot ends of this equation. People born with the proverbial silver spoon that blew it all because they did not have the ambition to work for anything as well as people who lived in rooms with dirt floors and very little education who through their hard work were able to lift their families from poverty.

If you are born or naturalized in America you can better your financial situation if you work for it. Of course there are hurdles for everyone, that is why you have to work hard.

And just like you, it is only my experience and my opinion.

That's essentially what I said, added that it takes some luck as well. Otherwise everyone that works hard would be rich, but then why are there so many poor people who bust their asses? It doesn't mean that its not possible, it just means that there's more to success than just simply working hard.

 

[iced]

the gesture they decided to use is the problem and it shows their mindset. same one all the protestors are continuing to use even after witness accounts and physical evidence has disproven he was some innocent black kid. holding hands for example shows solidarity and respect. putting your hands up in a 'don't shoot' action speaks for itself.

considering the different interpretations people have had, I'd say that speaks for itself.

By the way, after the game:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...-teenager-michael-brown-sunday-game-not-fined

"We kind of came collectively together and decided we wanted to do something," Cook said after the Rams' 52-0 victory. "We haven't been able to go down to Ferguson to do anything because we have been busy. Secondly, it's kind of dangerous down there and none of us want to get caught up in anything.

"So we wanted to come out and show our respect to the protests and the people who have been doing a heck of a job around the world."

Earlier this week, the Rams spent time lamenting the fact there wasn't much they could do to help with the unrest in Ferguson. But Cook said he plans to go to Ferguson once things settle down.

"My sister, brother-in-law, sister-in-law -- all of them went this past week for Thanksgiving," Cook said. "They came back and reported to me about the things they saw and what was going on around there. Definitely, I will be making a trip to Ferguson."

Britt said he and his teammates were not "taking sides" with their display.

"We wanted to show that we are organized for a great cause and something positive comes out of it," Britt said. "That's what we hope we can make happen. That's our community. We wanted to let the community know that we support the community."

 

[RAMBUSH]

One other thing I would like to say, just because the rams receivers were not fined by the nfl or the team does not mean that their actions will not be addressed by coach fisher, in house where it belongs.

 

[Mackeyser]

Yes, the forensics show he was shot from the front several times. What they don't show is that he was shot from the back. There was only one inconclusive graze.

The forensics are imperfect as all forensics are. There are no forensics that don't support Wilson. There are no forensics that don't support the witnesses that state Brown charged at Wilson. All of the forensics support that Brown was charging and Wilson was back peddling. All of the forensics support that Brown attacked Wilson, went for his gun, was shot in the hand in the car, ran, turned, an charged while Wilson yelled over and over for him to stop and get down.

I was on the fence before the evidence came out and it's not impossible that Brown was innocent, but it's so unlikely as to be near impossible.

Those witnesses you linked to? One admitted to lying and not being there. One, Johnson, told a wild and unbelievable story that is proven false by the forensics. Several of them contradict each other on what happened.

As I posted in the other thread, there is so much wrong with this investigation, it's essentially a Gordian Knot.

However, to say that there are no forensics that don't support Wilson is incorrect. His very on testimony is grossly inconsistent and creates discrepancies which SHOULD have led to an indictment on that very fact alone.

I just don't feel like posting it again, but DA McCulloch really didn't want Officer Wilson to be indicted. Simple as that. And, emphatically in 100pt type, it doesn't take a conspiracy to have this happen. DA McCulloch simply didn't present the case to the Grand Jury.

Let me state that again.

DA McCulloch did NOT present the CASE to the Grand Jury.

He presented the evidence. That is NOT what's supposed to happen. In over 160,000 Federal Grand Jury cases, only 11... thats's 0.006875% of the cases. I highly doubt that State Grand Jury indictment rates vary too greatly. What this means is that the adage "a ham sandwich can get indicted" is basically true... IF the DA wants it to be true. And McCulloch didn't want it to be true in this instance.

How do we KNOW this? Well, firstly, he let the Officer Wilson testify. As Justice Scalia points out (and again, you can look at my other post for the longer version), the Grand Jury is NOT the venue for exculpatory evidence. Further, the very questions the ADA asked were leading and added to the DEFENSE of Wilson rather than the DA doing before the Grand Jury what was supposed to be done... which is to MAKE THE CASE FOR INDICTMENT. So, we saw completely bogus questions like, "so, you feared for your life?" which is something a Defense lawyer would ask, but not a Prosecutor. Not in that venue. And there was ZERO confrontation over his testimony. Although Officer Wilson's testimony is ridiculed with contradictions, HIS testimony was allowed to stand unchallenged whereas other eyewitness testimony was scrupulously vetted and gone over. It is very, very, very safe to say that the DA's office acted as DE FACTO Defense attorneys for Officer Wilson before the Grand Jury.

Please note: I'm not saying that Michael Brown is innocent. I don't know. What I'm saying is that this entire thing was a farce from the get go and for anyone with a discerning eye for how these procedures are supposed to go, it just stinks. On ice. It's a complete and utter sham. It's bogus. There ABSOLUTELY was enough to indict Officer Wilson. Convict? Probably not. I think his defense team would have done what McCulloch did in the Grand Jury and muddied the waters of the testimony enough that any jury would have locked or acquitted. But to not even indict? And THEN to have Officer Wilson go on national television in an interview and say that he'd do it all again the exact same way?

What in the F***? So, he'd still kill the kid knowing what you know now rather than find a non-lethal althernative? Knowing in advance he could park farther down the street and use police training to either wait to confront until backup arrived or at the very least use distance to ensure compliance, he'd still do it EXACTLY the same way? He'd still leave the body uncovered for HOURS?

No. Sorry. Yet another part of this that stinks to high heavens. Even after killing the young man, Officer Wilson STILL can't see him as a human being. This goes to the heart of what's wrong with not just this situation, but so many all across this country.

 

[Robocop]

considering the different interpretations people have had, I'd say that speaks for itself.

By the way, after the game:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...-teenager-michael-brown-sunday-game-not-fined

I did actually catch that stuff after the game. if that's true it's great and all but that is simply the wrong gesture to use IMO. i know Fisher made damn sure to get some PR seminars in after the riots started so they were schooled in what to say and not slip. also i expect fisher to be dishing out some discipline to them or a lecture or something. he's no nonsense.

 

[iced]

I did actually catch that stuff after the game. if that's true it's great and all but that is simply the wrong gesture to use IMO. i know Fisher made damn sure to get some PR seminars in after the riots started so they were schooled in what to say and not slip. also i expect fisher to be dishing out some discipline to them or a lecture or something. he's no nonsense.

eh i kinda don't but we really won't know most likely... just making a guess based off of his comments about ferguson.. I personally guess they'd be talked to like "come on really? come up with another gesture?" - not expecting a bunch of young 20 year old kids to make the best decisions and be worried about perception... Also when you consider some of this stuff that the arena/stadium was doing, can easily see how they stick within the theme...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/story...is-rams-give-pregame-salute-ferguson-missouri

In addition, the Rams took some steps to reach out to those affected by the unrest. The team hosted small business owners who lost their businesses to fires and volunteers who helped the ensuing cleanup efforts at the game. The team also ran the PSA at halftime called "St. Louis Stands Together."

"The organization has been doing those type of things without the intention of getting recognition," Fisher said. "They're just doing it to help. I'm just glad that we could put together a great win here today."

The Rams also planned to play a series of public service announcements featuring Fisher and some players discussing how to build a stronger St. Louis.

Leading up to Sunday, there had been some speculation that the Rams-Raiders game might be moved from the Edward Jones Dome because of the unrest, but the game went on as scheduled with additional security in place.

According to ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter, the team did, however, explore some contingency plans that included the possibility of playing Sunday or Monday night in a nearby NFL city such as Indianapolis.

My opinion on the whole thing? Good intentions, good message, bad delivery.

 

[Boffo97]

considering the different interpretations people have had, I'd say that speaks for itself.

By the way, after the game:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...-teenager-michael-brown-sunday-game-not-fined

I posted that earlier, and at risk of running afoul of our rules against slamming Rams players, if Britt and the others really thought that display wasn't taking sides, they're idiots. There's just no way around that.

Whether it's "become a symbol for more than Michael Brown" or not, it's started based on Michael Brown, and the idea that Brown was ever making a hands up gesture has been shown to be a complete lie, whether people want to believe that or not.

 

[RamzFanz]

As I posted in the other thread, there is so much wrong with this investigation, it's essentially a Gordian Knot.

However, to say that there are no forensics that don't support Wilson is incorrect. His very on testimony is grossly inconsistent and creates discrepancies which SHOULD have led to an indictment on that very fact alone.

I just don't feel like posting it again, but DA McCulloch really didn't want Officer Wilson to be indicted. Simple as that. And, emphatically in 100pt type, it doesn't take a conspiracy to have this happen. DA McCulloch simply didn't present the case to the Grand Jury.

Let me state that again.

DA McCulloch did NOT present the CASE to the Grand Jury.

He presented the evidence. That is NOT what's supposed to happen. In over 160,000 Federal Grand Jury cases, only 11... thats's 0.006875% of the cases. I highly doubt that State Grand Jury indictment rates vary too greatly. What this means is that the adage "a ham sandwich can get indicted" is basically true... IF the DA wants it to be true. And McCulloch didn't want it to be true in this instance.

How do we KNOW this? Well, firstly, he let the Officer Wilson testify. As Justice Scalia points out (and again, you can look at my other post for the longer version), the Grand Jury is NOT the venue for exculpatory evidence. Further, the very questions the ADA asked were leading and added to the DEFENSE of Wilson rather than the DA doing before the Grand Jury what was supposed to be done... which is to MAKE THE CASE FOR INDICTMENT. So, we saw completely bogus questions like, "so, you feared for your life?" which is something a Defense lawyer would ask, but not a Prosecutor. Not in that venue. And there was ZERO confrontation over his testimony. Although Officer Wilson's testimony is ridiculed with contradictions, HIS testimony was allowed to stand unchallenged whereas other eyewitness testimony was scrupulously vetted and gone over. It is very, very, very safe to say that the DA's office acted as DE FACTO Defense attorneys for Officer Wilson before the Grand Jury.

Please note: I'm not saying that Michael Brown is innocent. I don't know. What I'm saying is that this entire thing was a farce from the get go and for anyone with a discerning eye for how these procedures are supposed to go, it just stinks. On ice. It's a complete and utter sham. It's bogus. There ABSOLUTELY was enough to indict Officer Wilson. Convict? Probably not. I think his defense team would have done what McCulloch did in the Grand Jury and muddied the waters of the testimony enough that any jury would have locked or acquitted. But to not even indict? And THEN to have Officer Wilson go on national television in an interview and say that he'd do it all again the exact same way?

What in the F***? So, he'd still kill the kid knowing what you know now rather than find a non-lethal althernative? Knowing in advance he could park farther down the street and use police training to either wait to confront until backup arrived or at the very least use distance to ensure compliance, he'd still do it EXACTLY the same way? He'd still leave the body uncovered for HOURS?

No. Sorry. Yet another part of this that stinks to high heavens. Even after killing the young man, Officer Wilson STILL can't see him as a human being. This goes to the heart of what's wrong with not just this situation, but so many all across this country.

Almost none of that is true. I will go read your full post and reply there.

I can see you have an opinion that you haven't vetted for accuracy just in the statement that Wilson left the body uncovered. The police aren't allowed to touch it in any way other than to determine if he's alive. If they had trampled the scene and contaminated the body it seems you'd be blaming them for that too.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Almost none of that is true. I will go read your full post and reply there.

I can see you have an opinion that you haven't vetted for accuracy just in the statement that Wilson left the body uncovered. The police aren't allowed to touch it in any way other than to determine if he's alive. If they had trampled the scene and contaminated the body it seems you'd be blaming them for that too.

They're allowed to touch to preserve evidence, for example if it was raining they should cover evidence so it doesn't get washed away.

I don't know what the weather was like, but if I had a guess I'm assuming it was fine, so there wasn't a need to cover anything. If evidence got washed away though, then that's not good.

 

[Mackeyser]

I wanna say one thing.

The Grand Jury not indicting Officer Wilson does NOT mean he was innocent or guilty.

The Grand Jury not indicting Officer Wilson also does NOT mean that Michael Brown was guilty of anything (he was never on trial. Remember... he was the victim and he's a dead human being).

What it means is that the Grand Jury returned No True bills on the charges presented.

I've read several people post things like "the evidence exonerates Officer Wilson" and stuff like that.

Well, no, it doesn't. While there was a LOT of evidence, much of it including Officer Wilson's testimony was NOT subject to Cross Examination nor secondary examination AND much of it was contradictory. All the more reason it should have gone to trial, really.

My point is that there was still a lot of work left to do and that SHOULD have been done at trial. Just the fact that Officer Wilson's testimony was so grossly inconsistent from his initial statements to his later statements and how the distances didn't match should have been enough to indict considering that enough distance would have put his other testimony in question.

But, basically, that's it. The Grand Jury coming back didn't "acquit" or "exonerate" Officer Wilson.

It may have exposed a very flawed, biased system and it certainly exposed a misuse of the Grand Jury by DA McCulluch (as defined by Justice Scalia), but all the Grand Jury finding did is say that the process wouldn't continue. It didn't express innocence or a lack of guilt.

Of anyone.

 

[Stranger]

Really so Dr Ben Carson really did not work his way out of a bad situation in spite of the color of his skin to become a great surgeon?

All of the players involved in this incident are no paid better than most Americans to play a game?

c'mon, that's not going to work on me.

 

[Stranger]

I wanna say one thing.

The Grand Jury not indicting Officer Wilson does NOT mean he was innocent or guilty.

The Grand Jury not indicting Officer Wilson also does NOT mean that Michael Brown was guilty of anything (he was never on trial. Remember... he was the victim and he's a dead human being).

What it means is that the Grand Jury returned No True bills on the charges presented.

I've read several people post things like "the evidence exonerates Officer Wilson" and stuff like that.

Well, no, it doesn't. While there was a LOT of evidence, much of it including Officer Wilson's testimony was NOT subject to Cross Examination nor secondary examination AND much of it was contradictory. All the more reason it should have gone to trial, really.

My point is that there was still a lot of work left to do and that SHOULD have been done at trial. Just the fact that Officer Wilson's testimony was so grossly inconsistent from his initial statements to his later statements and how the distances didn't match should have been enough to indict considering that enough distance would have put his other testimony in question.

But, basically, that's it. The Grand Jury coming back didn't "acquit" or "exonerate" Officer Wilson.

It may have exposed a very flawed, biased system and it certainly exposed a misuse of the Grand Jury by DA McCulluch (as defined by Justice Scalia), but all the Grand Jury finding did is say that the process wouldn't continue. It didn't express innocence or a lack of guilt.

Of anyone.

These post deserves multiple readings.

 

[Thordaddy]

I do believe they said they were neutral?

One thing that I find particularly funny about this situation is that people make pure assumptions about "their message" without knowing their intent, or bothering to hear their intent after the game.

Almost feels like there's a ton of Florio's running around

At best their symbolism was poorly thought out, and PLEASE , members of this forum have honest opinions , the Florio reference is not going to bring anything but retorts in kind.

 

[iced]

At best their symbolism was poorly thought out, and PLEASE , members of this forum have honest opinions , the Florio reference is not going to bring anything but retorts in kind.

did not mean to insinuate this board in particular - meant just a lot of the responses a lot people in the public have had to it

 

[Thordaddy]

Missed in all this were three Oakland players standing at the end of their tunnel who had fashioned their torsos in YMCA song fashion in an N an R ans A in support of gun owners rights

 

[RamFan503]

I've resisted commenting but I'll go ahead and chime in.

As a business owner, if I had an event and some of my employees pulled a stunt like this, they would be heading home without pay and I would likely consider their employment with my company. And this has NOTHING to do with the subject of Ferguson. That they are representing my company to the public and taking sides on political or religious issues is not something I am cool with as it is bound to alienate a good portion of my customer base. There is no debate there as far as I'm concerned. If they thought it was ok to do, they would have discussed it with ownership. And though some want to make this into a free speech issue or defend the players as just speaking their mind and showing support, it is not up to them when they are wearing a company uniform.

I would also add that this was a completely empty gesture. Anyone being truly honest knows what the gesture means. And IMO saying it is merely showing support is being intellectually dishonest or ignorant. EVERYONE knows what the hands up gesture means. And by empty, I mean that they deny knowing what the gesture means and fall back on saying it was about showing support - that they wanted to "do something". Please. You want to "do something" and show support as a high profile individual within the community - go down there, pick up a microphone and actually SAY exactly what you are supporting or condemning. I'm right behind not only your right to do so but your character in standing behind specifically what you stand for.

This little stunt was divisive - not supportive. They took a side on a hot button issue and then chickened out by saying they weren't taking a side. They put the entire organization in the crosshairs of one side. That is NOT their right nor position as a player.

So while I would encourage them to go out and speak their mind and even use their high profile status to do so, they had no right to do it as representatives of the Rams organization. What they did was very immature and IMO ignorant. And I don't mean as it pertains to the case (though I question their actual knowledge on the particulars of the case), I mean they made this gesture more about them and the team than offering any real substantive support for their position.

 

[Philly5]

I wanna say one thing.

The Grand Jury not indicting Officer Wilson does NOT mean he was innocent or guilty.

The Grand Jury not indicting Officer Wilson also does NOT mean that Michael Brown was guilty of anything (he was never on trial. Remember... he was the victim and he's a dead human being).

What it means is that the Grand Jury returned No True bills on the charges presented.

I've read several people post things like "the evidence exonerates Officer Wilson" and stuff like that.

Well, no, it doesn't. While there was a LOT of evidence, much of it including Officer Wilson's testimony was NOT subject to Cross Examination nor secondary examination AND much of it was contradictory. All the more reason it should have gone to trial, really.

My point is that there was still a lot of work left to do and that SHOULD have been done at trial. Just the fact that Officer Wilson's testimony was so grossly inconsistent from his initial statements to his later statements and how the distances didn't match should have been enough to indict considering that enough distance would have put his other testimony in question.

But, basically, that's it. The Grand Jury coming back didn't "acquit" or "exonerate" Officer Wilson.

It may have exposed a very flawed, biased system and it certainly exposed a misuse of the Grand Jury by DA McCulluch (as defined by Justice Scalia), but all the Grand Jury finding did is say that the process wouldn't continue. It didn't express innocence or a lack of guilt.

Of anyone.

Supposedly the DA provided all the evidence. It certainly took enough time and they heard from many witnesses. There was nothing to 'acquit' since there was not even enough to 'indict'. Not even on the least of the charges.

 

[Thordaddy]

I've resisted commenting but I'll go ahead and chime in.

As a business owner, if I had an event and some of my employees pulled a stunt like this, they would be heading home without pay and I would likely consider their employment with my company. And this has NOTHING to do with the subject of Ferguson. That they are representing my company to the public and taking sides on political or religious issues is not something I am cool with as it is bound to alienate a good portion of my customer base. There is no debate there as far as I'm concerned. If they thought it was ok to do, they would have discussed it with ownership. And though some want to make this into a free speech issue or defend the players as just speaking their mind and showing support, it is not up to them when they are wearing a company uniform.

I would also add that this was a completely empty gesture. Anyone being truly honest knows what the gesture means. And IMO saying it is merely showing support is being intellectually dishonest or ignorant. EVERYONE knows what the hands up gesture means. And by empty, I mean that they deny knowing what the gesture means and fall back on saying it was about showing support - that they wanted to "do something". Please. You want to "do something" and show support as a high profile individual within the community - go down there, pick up a microphone and actually SAY exactly what you are supporting or condemning. I'm right behind not only your right to do so but your character in standing behind specifically what you stand for.

This little stunt was divisive - not supportive. They took a side on a hot button issue and then chickened out by saying they weren't taking a side. They put the entire organization in the crosshairs of one side. That is NOT their right nor position as a player.

So while I would encourage them to go out and speak their mind and even use their high profile status to do so, they had no right to do it as representatives of the Rams organization. What they did was very immature and IMO ignorant. And I don't mean as it pertains to the case (though I question their actual knowledge on the particulars of the case), I mean they made this gesture more about them and the team than offering any real substantive support for their position.

Well said they were representing the Rams at that moment if they want to represent themselves they need to do it on their own time .