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
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