The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(06-09-2020 08:56 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:40 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:32 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(06-07-2020 07:36 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 01:11 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  I just want to thank everyone on keeping this discussion cordial. I know it's a low bar to hurdle. But as one of the mods, I appreciate it. Keep it up, please.

Oh and until black lives matter, it's impossible for all to matter.

This post admirably encapsulates the tragic futility for reaching any kind of consensus on this issue.

On the one hand most of us (not all, but the vast majority of us) want to get along with one another and want a society that provides fair and equal opportunities to all of its citizens. Although I don't think it is fair to say that our nation has outright failed in this notion when it comes to our black population, we clearly can't claim to have succeeded.

On the other hand, for a discussion to have any meaning it needs to be open and honest. This thread is better than most. But when you qualify the discussion with "until black lives matter ...", you are forcing participants into a box that is fraught with loaded meanings.

Does this simply mean that the black community overall has not gotten a fair shake in this nation, and we all should recognize that? If that's all that is meant, then I am fully in agreement. Or, does it mean something more than that? Does it also necessitate endorsement of notions that we should defund police departments, kneel to the flag and pretend that violent riots are an acceptable form of protest? If the latter, then I have some problem with the condition you've placed on the discussion.

Black lives matter means a lot of things to a lot of different people. But to me, there are three things it means.

1. We need to get to a point in society where it doesn't take a national outcry to get justice against police officers who abuse their powers. Had the union and DA done their damn jobs in swift order, none of this would be happening. And I don't think that will happen until my second point happens.

2. Revenue policing and military policing needs to stop. Police forces should be built to protect and serve the public that pays for it. Purchasing a tank should never be a consideration for a police force. Those purchases and this type of policing leads officers to treat the public as revenue streams and adversaries.

A pivot to community policing in more cities would be a great start. But more funding to mental health services is certainly necessary to make that successful.

Side note; We also shouldn't see a whole police unit quit after their co-workers are punished for brutalizing a senior citizen. What kind of example does that show? Because to me it shows that the thin blue line matters more than protecting and serving the public they were hired to protect and serve.

I haven't followed the Buffalo case that closely, but I don't think thats the entire story. (Im not saying I support shoving the old man at all)

The officers were all told to clear the square. Someone in power on video is clearly telling the officers to clear the way. Are the officers upset because they felt the 2 officers were punished for following orders?

The 57 officers also quit the emergency response team, not the police force. On top of that, they publically stated that they quit because the union said they aren't legally backing the officers any more.

Correct, they quit the unit. But why should the union back officers who fail to realize shoving a senior citizen out of the way at the top of concrete steps is a completely unnecessary and unsafe way to clear him from the area?

I believe those officers did not act with malice. But they did act with stupidity and without concern for a fellow human. We need officers that have the ability to assess the situation and realize that shoving him was obviously a bad idea before it happens.

I've watched that video a couple of times. That "poor, innocent senior citizen" proactively approached the police, instead of removing himself from the scene as clearly instructed. I'm not saying that he deserved to be shoved, but he should not have put himself in that position. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

(06-09-2020 09:06 AM)MONARCHSWIN Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:56 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:40 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:32 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(06-07-2020 07:36 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  This post admirably encapsulates the tragic futility for reaching any kind of consensus on this issue.

On the one hand most of us (not all, but the vast majority of us) want to get along with one another and want a society that provides fair and equal opportunities to all of its citizens. Although I don't think it is fair to say that our nation has outright failed in this notion when it comes to our black population, we clearly can't claim to have succeeded.

On the other hand, for a discussion to have any meaning it needs to be open and honest. This thread is better than most. But when you qualify the discussion with "until black lives matter ...", you are forcing participants into a box that is fraught with loaded meanings.

Does this simply mean that the black community overall has not gotten a fair shake in this nation, and we all should recognize that? If that's all that is meant, then I am fully in agreement. Or, does it mean something more than that? Does it also necessitate endorsement of notions that we should defund police departments, kneel to the flag and pretend that violent riots are an acceptable form of protest? If the latter, then I have some problem with the condition you've placed on the discussion.

Black lives matter means a lot of things to a lot of different people. But to me, there are three things it means.

1. We need to get to a point in society where it doesn't take a national outcry to get justice against police officers who abuse their powers. Had the union and DA done their damn jobs in swift order, none of this would be happening. And I don't think that will happen until my second point happens.

2. Revenue policing and military policing needs to stop. Police forces should be built to protect and serve the public that pays for it. Purchasing a tank should never be a consideration for a police force. Those purchases and this type of policing leads officers to treat the public as revenue streams and adversaries.

A pivot to community policing in more cities would be a great start. But more funding to mental health services is certainly necessary to make that successful.

Side note; We also shouldn't see a whole police unit quit after their co-workers are punished for brutalizing a senior citizen. What kind of example does that show? Because to me it shows that the thin blue line matters more than protecting and serving the public they were hired to protect and serve.

I haven't followed the Buffalo case that closely, but I don't think thats the entire story. (Im not saying I support shoving the old man at all)

The officers were all told to clear the square. Someone in power on video is clearly telling the officers to clear the way. Are the officers upset because they felt the 2 officers were punished for following orders?

The 57 officers also quit the emergency response team, not the police force. On top of that, they publically stated that they quit because the union said they aren't legally backing the officers any more.

Correct, they quit the unit. But why should the union back officers who fail to realize shoving a senior citizen out of the way at the top of concrete steps is a completely unnecessary and unsafe way to clear him from the area?

I believe those officers did not act with malice. But they did act with stupidity and without concern for a fellow human. We need officers that have the ability to assess the situation and realize that shoving him was obviously a bad idea before it happens.

I've watched that video a couple of times. That "poor, innocent senior citizen" proactively approached the police, instead of removing himself from the scene as clearly instructed. I'm not saying that he deserved to be shoved, but he should not have put himself in that position. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

Slowly meandering near police is now considered provocation?

And do you really think that was the most efficient and appropriate way to remove him from the area? Even if he doesn't slam his head, you have only delayed him from leaving the area.

(06-09-2020 08:32 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(06-07-2020 07:36 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 01:11 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  I just want to thank everyone on keeping this discussion cordial. I know it's a low bar to hurdle. But as one of the mods, I appreciate it. Keep it up, please.

Oh and until black lives matter, it's impossible for all to matter.

This post admirably encapsulates the tragic futility for reaching any kind of consensus on this issue.

On the one hand most of us (not all, but the vast majority of us) want to get along with one another and want a society that provides fair and equal opportunities to all of its citizens. Although I don't think it is fair to say that our nation has outright failed in this notion when it comes to our black population, we clearly can't claim to have succeeded.

On the other hand, for a discussion to have any meaning it needs to be open and honest. This thread is better than most. But when you qualify the discussion with "until black lives matter ...", you are forcing participants into a box that is fraught with loaded meanings.

Does this simply mean that the black community overall has not gotten a fair shake in this nation, and we all should recognize that? If that's all that is meant, then I am fully in agreement. Or, does it mean something more than that? Does it also necessitate endorsement of notions that we should defund police departments, kneel to the flag and pretend that violent riots are an acceptable form of protest? If the latter, then I have some problem with the condition you've placed on the discussion.

Black lives matter means a lot of things to a lot of different people. But to me, there are two things it means.

1. We need to get to a point in society where it doesn't take a national outcry to get justice against police officers who abuse their powers. Had the union and DA done their damn jobs in swift order, none of this would be happening. And I don't think that will happen until my second point happens.

2. Revenue policing and military policing needs to stop. Police forces should be built to protect and serve the public that pays for it. Purchasing a tank should never be a consideration for a police force. Those purchases and this type of policing leads officers to treat the public as revenue streams and adversaries.

A pivot to community policing in more cities would be a great start. But more funding to mental health services is certainly necessary to make that successful.

Bumping my original post without the side note because I believe these to be more important to the overall discussion.

(06-09-2020 08:56 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:40 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:32 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(06-07-2020 07:36 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 01:11 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  I just want to thank everyone on keeping this discussion cordial. I know it's a low bar to hurdle. But as one of the mods, I appreciate it. Keep it up, please.

Oh and until black lives matter, it's impossible for all to matter.

This post admirably encapsulates the tragic futility for reaching any kind of consensus on this issue.

On the one hand most of us (not all, but the vast majority of us) want to get along with one another and want a society that provides fair and equal opportunities to all of its citizens. Although I don't think it is fair to say that our nation has outright failed in this notion when it comes to our black population, we clearly can't claim to have succeeded.

On the other hand, for a discussion to have any meaning it needs to be open and honest. This thread is better than most. But when you qualify the discussion with "until black lives matter ...", you are forcing participants into a box that is fraught with loaded meanings.

Does this simply mean that the black community overall has not gotten a fair shake in this nation, and we all should recognize that? If that's all that is meant, then I am fully in agreement. Or, does it mean something more than that? Does it also necessitate endorsement of notions that we should defund police departments, kneel to the flag and pretend that violent riots are an acceptable form of protest? If the latter, then I have some problem with the condition you've placed on the discussion.

Black lives matter means a lot of things to a lot of different people. But to me, there are three things it means.

1. We need to get to a point in society where it doesn't take a national outcry to get justice against police officers who abuse their powers. Had the union and DA done their damn jobs in swift order, none of this would be happening. And I don't think that will happen until my second point happens.

2. Revenue policing and military policing needs to stop. Police forces should be built to protect and serve the public that pays for it. Purchasing a tank should never be a consideration for a police force. Those purchases and this type of policing leads officers to treat the public as revenue streams and adversaries.

A pivot to community policing in more cities would be a great start. But more funding to mental health services is certainly necessary to make that successful.

Side note; We also shouldn't see a whole police unit quit after their co-workers are punished for brutalizing a senior citizen. What kind of example does that show? Because to me it shows that the thin blue line matters more than protecting and serving the public they were hired to protect and serve.

I haven't followed the Buffalo case that closely, but I don't think thats the entire story. (Im not saying I support shoving the old man at all)

The officers were all told to clear the square. Someone in power on video is clearly telling the officers to clear the way. Are the officers upset because they felt the 2 officers were punished for following orders?

The 57 officers also quit the emergency response team, not the police force. On top of that, they publically stated that they quit because the union said they aren't legally backing the officers any more.

Correct, they quit the unit. But why should the union back officers who fail to realize shoving a senior citizen out of the way at the top of concrete steps is a completely unnecessary and unsafe way to clear him from the area?

I believe those officers did not act with malice. But they did act with stupidity and without concern for a fellow human. We need officers that have the ability to assess the situation and realize that shoving him was obviously a bad idea before it happens.

The unions job is to back the officers, rightly or wrongly. A defense attorney backs their client; guilty or not. If u are one of those officers, why would u continue without support. What happens when someone has a frivolous complaint?

(06-09-2020 11:15 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:56 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:40 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:32 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(06-07-2020 07:36 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  This post admirably encapsulates the tragic futility for reaching any kind of consensus on this issue.

On the one hand most of us (not all, but the vast majority of us) want to get along with one another and want a society that provides fair and equal opportunities to all of its citizens. Although I don't think it is fair to say that our nation has outright failed in this notion when it comes to our black population, we clearly can't claim to have succeeded.

On the other hand, for a discussion to have any meaning it needs to be open and honest. This thread is better than most. But when you qualify the discussion with "until black lives matter ...", you are forcing participants into a box that is fraught with loaded meanings.

Does this simply mean that the black community overall has not gotten a fair shake in this nation, and we all should recognize that? If that's all that is meant, then I am fully in agreement. Or, does it mean something more than that? Does it also necessitate endorsement of notions that we should defund police departments, kneel to the flag and pretend that violent riots are an acceptable form of protest? If the latter, then I have some problem with the condition you've placed on the discussion.

Black lives matter means a lot of things to a lot of different people. But to me, there are three things it means.

1. We need to get to a point in society where it doesn't take a national outcry to get justice against police officers who abuse their powers. Had the union and DA done their damn jobs in swift order, none of this would be happening. And I don't think that will happen until my second point happens.

2. Revenue policing and military policing needs to stop. Police forces should be built to protect and serve the public that pays for it. Purchasing a tank should never be a consideration for a police force. Those purchases and this type of policing leads officers to treat the public as revenue streams and adversaries.

A pivot to community policing in more cities would be a great start. But more funding to mental health services is certainly necessary to make that successful.

Side note; We also shouldn't see a whole police unit quit after their co-workers are punished for brutalizing a senior citizen. What kind of example does that show? Because to me it shows that the thin blue line matters more than protecting and serving the public they were hired to protect and serve.

I haven't followed the Buffalo case that closely, but I don't think thats the entire story. (Im not saying I support shoving the old man at all)

The officers were all told to clear the square. Someone in power on video is clearly telling the officers to clear the way. Are the officers upset because they felt the 2 officers were punished for following orders?

The 57 officers also quit the emergency response team, not the police force. On top of that, they publically stated that they quit because the union said they aren't legally backing the officers any more.

Correct, they quit the unit. But why should the union back officers who fail to realize shoving a senior citizen out of the way at the top of concrete steps is a completely unnecessary and unsafe way to clear him from the area?

I believe those officers did not act with malice. But they did act with stupidity and without concern for a fellow human. We need officers that have the ability to assess the situation and realize that shoving him was obviously a bad idea before it happens.

The unions job is to back the officers, rightly or wrongly. A defense attorney backs their client; guilty or not. If u are one of those officers, why would u continue without support. What happens when someone has a frivolous complaint?

Unions are their to protect employees who have been fired without cause and to represent on their behalf in negotiations. Most unions have guidelines in place in regards to bad actors and those that are fired with cause.

(06-09-2020 11:21 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 11:15 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:56 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:40 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:32 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  Black lives matter means a lot of things to a lot of different people. But to me, there are three things it means.

1. We need to get to a point in society where it doesn't take a national outcry to get justice against police officers who abuse their powers. Had the union and DA done their damn jobs in swift order, none of this would be happening. And I don't think that will happen until my second point happens.

2. Revenue policing and military policing needs to stop. Police forces should be built to protect and serve the public that pays for it. Purchasing a tank should never be a consideration for a police force. Those purchases and this type of policing leads officers to treat the public as revenue streams and adversaries.

A pivot to community policing in more cities would be a great start. But more funding to mental health services is certainly necessary to make that successful.

Side note; We also shouldn't see a whole police unit quit after their co-workers are punished for brutalizing a senior citizen. What kind of example does that show? Because to me it shows that the thin blue line matters more than protecting and serving the public they were hired to protect and serve.

I haven't followed the Buffalo case that closely, but I don't think thats the entire story. (Im not saying I support shoving the old man at all)

The officers were all told to clear the square. Someone in power on video is clearly telling the officers to clear the way. Are the officers upset because they felt the 2 officers were punished for following orders?

The 57 officers also quit the emergency response team, not the police force. On top of that, they publically stated that they quit because the union said they aren't legally backing the officers any more.

Correct, they quit the unit. But why should the union back officers who fail to realize shoving a senior citizen out of the way at the top of concrete steps is a completely unnecessary and unsafe way to clear him from the area?

I believe those officers did not act with malice. But they did act with stupidity and without concern for a fellow human. We need officers that have the ability to assess the situation and realize that shoving him was obviously a bad idea before it happens.

The unions job is to back the officers, rightly or wrongly. A defense attorney backs their client; guilty or not. If u are one of those officers, why would u continue without support. What happens when someone has a frivolous complaint?

Unions are their to protect employees who have been fired without cause and to represent on their behalf in negotiations. Most unions have guidelines in place in regards to bad actors and those that are fired with cause.

Im sure they will argue that they were punished for following superiors orders.

(06-09-2020 11:36 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 11:21 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 11:15 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:56 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:40 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  I haven't followed the Buffalo case that closely, but I don't think thats the entire story. (Im not saying I support shoving the old man at all)

The officers were all told to clear the square. Someone in power on video is clearly telling the officers to clear the way. Are the officers upset because they felt the 2 officers were punished for following orders?

The 57 officers also quit the emergency response team, not the police force. On top of that, they publically stated that they quit because the union said they aren't legally backing the officers any more.

Correct, they quit the unit. But why should the union back officers who fail to realize shoving a senior citizen out of the way at the top of concrete steps is a completely unnecessary and unsafe way to clear him from the area?

I believe those officers did not act with malice. But they did act with stupidity and without concern for a fellow human. We need officers that have the ability to assess the situation and realize that shoving him was obviously a bad idea before it happens.

The unions job is to back the officers, rightly or wrongly. A defense attorney backs their client; guilty or not. If u are one of those officers, why would u continue without support. What happens when someone has a frivolous complaint?

Unions are their to protect employees who have been fired without cause and to represent on their behalf in negotiations. Most unions have guidelines in place in regards to bad actors and those that are fired with cause.

Im sure they will argue that they were punished for following superiors orders.

And the department, union and DA will say a misuse of force was not necessary to follow the order.

Unions exist to protect the worst employees. Police unions will never cooperate in firing a cop.

(06-09-2020 01:59 PM)VB Monarch Wrote:  Unions exist to protect the worst employees. Police unions will never cooperate in firing a cop.

+1. My brother in law worked at the Port of Norfolk before relocating to a different city and port and he was constantly dealing with POS employees who never wanted to do work because they knew their union rep was going to fight for them when they got stiffed.

Creates a toxic circle that keeps on rocking because the Union will always have their back even if they're a POS like Chauvin.

If unions are causing these extensive problems on police departments, how do you think it is effecting our schools?

(06-09-2020 01:59 PM)VB Monarch Wrote:  Unions exist to protect the worst employees. Police unions will never cooperate in firing a cop.

Unions exist to protect ALL employees. Negotiations are a 2-way street. Ask those in charge why they didn’t negotiate better terms, and don’t waste time whining about job actions.

It isn’t unions that allow bad cops to stay on the job; how about the community’s culture of excusing abuse of minorities?

BTW... Ever wonder why the fewer unions and membership we have the more middle class finances tank? Enjoy the Wal-Mart China market circle jerk.

Mess with the bull, you get the horns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk