I admit, in the beginning, that I was not blessed with extreme athletic skills. Recognizing this, I have long been a fan of the professional sports, except for hockey which I don't understand. I have attended various sports venues and purchased various types of merchandise for personal use and as gifts. I am the perfect sports fan because I care about who is leading the race to the playoffs and can make the needed "oh wasn't that the perfect catch last night?".
I recognize that most professional athletes are not the most intelligent people in other areas of interest outside of sports.
The problem is when these semi-literate members of the professionals sports offer an opinion on a topic that is outside of sports. It is my opinion that a member of a sports team can offer an opinion that may be valid about the status of sports teams and how the players have performed. This opinion may be valid because of the experience and perspective that actually performing the sports can give the insights that others outside of the physical interaction can appreciate.
However, when these same professional athletes offer an opinion of the social conditions of the country, I realize that this is not a viable opinion. First, the moment that an athlete becomes professional, many lose the touch with the common man and their common sense. Second, celebrities seem to have no ability to actually think realistically. Like so many others, they live in their own little fantasy worlds, contriving the images and perceptions of their own making.
Recently, we have seen members of the professional athletes association desecrate the National Anthem in order to draw attention to themselves and to highlight an injustice that they claim but is actually based on a false narrative based solely on a ideological agenda. The claim is that blacks are targeted by the police, but the various studies have shown that this is false.
If you go back as far as Rodney King, the violence as a result of the interactions between police and blacks more often than not is the result of resisting the police and physical altercations instead of just a pure and simple, unprovoked attack. The false narrative started with the Michael Brown encounter where lies were perpetuated by the media and used by activists to push their agenda instead of the truth. The result of the Grand Jury and the DOJ investigation proved that the police were not at fault and the provocation lay solely at the feet of Michael Brown. However, the DOJ only added to the lies by refusing to simply walk away, instead they searched all of the records until they were able to draw a conclusion of Civil Rights violations and then the development of training programs for the police.
Bear in mind that the DOJ is part of the Obama administration and takes its direction from the White House. Remember that the IRS attacked Conservative groups in support of the Obama agenda, and recently the FBI failed to perform a proper investigation into the Clinton email scandal and ended up declaring that Clinton would not be indicted. Bear in mind, that when the notes of the FBI interrogation of Hillary Clinton were released, it was noted that the FBI failed to address, in depth, many of the issues including the intent of Hillary Clinton which was the primary basis for generating an indictment. In other words, it appears that the FBI intentionally failed to address the specific issues that would have justified indicting Hillary Clinton.
Opps, got lost there for a minute. The issue that the activists are claiming can be shown to be the result of the victim, are you truly a victim when you bring the violence on yourself? Here is the thing, the police have three responsibilities: first, to protect themselves; second, to protect the public; and, third, to eliminate the threat. Part of the problem is that many of the activists think that the police should being willing to die when an encounter occurs. Of course, the stupidity of this option cannot be explained to someone whose entire argument is based on ideology.
Think about it, the effectiveness of the police would be diminished if the police placed their lives on a lower level than each and every person they encounter. This is one of the primary reasons for the laws which provide the police with their authority. The public is expected to provide the police with needed cooperation to perform their responsibilities, and this includes the criminals. Police are required to identify themselves and order the contact to stop. This is done so that the contact understand they are interacting with the police and their cooperation is expected under the law.
When the contact fails to provide the required cooperation, the police officer cannot simply step away and allow the contact to continue on without apprehension. If the contact is truly innocent, studies have shown that the contact will be processed and run through the system and convicted if they committed a crime. The most important point is that the contact will remain alive through the interaction with the police. If the contact refuses to cooperate with the police then the decision was made by the contact and all decisions have consequences and often those consequences are not pleasant.
It seems to me, that if the black activists and the professional athletes want to make a difference, they should examine every incident and identify the truth: Did the contact make the decision to refuse cooperation, thereby creating the conditions of the result knowing the police have their job? The problem with all of the police civil rights programs is that while the police may attempt to avoid an altercation, once the decision is made by the contact, the cards have been dealt and the consequences are the consequences.
The first step in eliminating the violence is teaching the public the expected methods to interact with the police. Whether the contact has committed a crime or not, the interaction should be the same because it will end badly otherwise.