Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

What is the appropriate response to the riots in Charlotte?


Doc Holiday

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, bull123 said:

 


The response to the tragic events at a Church in Charleston showed that it is possible to be peaceful and that situation was a true tragedy

The criminals we saw in uptown last night and out on 1-85 Tuesday are the lowlife and dredge of society

To it burns me up to hear "I understand the frustration", attempting to justify this criminal behavior

I hope the National Guard steps in and irradiates our city of this scum



Sent from my iPad using CarolinaHuddle

this is a trump-esque view on how to handle people...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the game will be played this Sunday.  I also think there will be extra security at the entrances and also on the field/concourses.  Any protest to this specific shooting makes zero sense to me, the guy had a gun and was waving it at cops.  They told him multiple times to drop it, he didn't.  A African american cop shot him.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Harry The Hitman said:

Not sure why there are protests going on in Charlotte.  It seems to me like people are looking for any reason to riot and loot and blame the cops.  

The man was shot because he had a gun and was waving it at cops.

The protests aren't necessarily about this one incident but rather the perception of systemic and institutional issues. While the confusion over whether he had a gun or not added to the emotional content of this incident (which the police could've affected by releasing relevant information quickly), the larger issues go beyond this one event.

That's why whether he had a gun or not is only partially relevant. People are frustrated and boiling just beneath the surface. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bull123 said:

No way they can play the game here Sunday....not a safe situation with the criminals running loose and our police helpless to act

The criminals will feel safe attacking any white person they see

By then National Guard may be lining our streets

This is the saddest situation I have ever seen


Sent from my iPad using CarolinaHuddle

Who are these criminals to who you refer to? Sounds alot like that "You People" line in Tropic Thunder!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Moorgan said:

The protests aren't necessarily about this one incident but rather the perception of systemic and institutional issues. While the confusion over whether he had a gun or not added to the emotional content of this incident (which the police could've affected by releasing relevant information quickly), the larger issues go beyond this one event.

That's why whether he had a gun or not is only partially relevant. People are frustrated and boiling just beneath the surface. 

Whether there was a gun is WHOLLY RELEVANT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KB_fan said:

It's shocking sitting here from 4,000+ miles away having Charlotte be the lead story on world news headlines.   I can't really believe what I'm reading, it seems so unreal.   Maybe I'm just too new in CLT (having moved my US residence there in late 2010) and too rarely in the US to really know the city well, but seriously, if you'd asked me to come up with a top 10 list of U.S. cities LEAST likely to erupt in this kind of rioting and looting, CLT would have been near the top of that list.

I disagree on that count...this doesn't surprise me at all. I grew up in Charlotte and actually have wondered not if, but when Charlotte would be at the forefront of the police brutality/racism problem. Charlotte is heavily segregated and has deep rooted institutional racism embedded in the city. It was only a matter of time honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Dick the Butcher said:

Whether there was a gun is WHOLLY RELEVANT.

It's relevant to the details of THIS case yes. But the protests are about the bigger picture of justice and accountability across the nation. To be sure, this case adds emotional relevancy to protestors in Charlotte but the issue is larger than this case.

So while this guy had a gun and maybe even brandished it towards police officers thus justifying the shooting, the issues associated with racial injustice in this country are not nullified. Therefore the protests remain relevant while this case does not. It doesn't change why people are frustrated, angry and protesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, hepcat said:

I disagree on that count...this doesn't surprise me at all. I grew up in Charlotte and actually have wondered not if, but when Charlotte would be at the forefront of the police brutality/racism problem. Charlotte is heavily segregated and has deep rooted institutional racism embedded in the city. It was only a matter of time honestly.

Also this isn't the first riot the region has had.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, hepcat said:

I disagree on that count...this doesn't surprise me at all. I grew up in Charlotte and actually have wondered not if, but when Charlotte would be at the forefront of the police brutality/racism problem. Charlotte is heavily segregated and has deep rooted institutional racism embedded in the city. It was only a matter of time honestly.

I respect your insight. 

You're probably right.  I probably am too new / naive.  I guess I was falsely optimistic given that CLT survived the prior high profile police shooting incident (2012? 2013? I forget) peacefully, but obviously the national context has changed since then, and the fact that this is a 2nd high profile local police shooting (the deaf man being the other one) within a few weeks obviously has aggravated things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, hepcat said:

I disagree on that count...this doesn't surprise me at all. I grew up in Charlotte and actually have wondered not if, but when Charlotte would be at the forefront of the police brutality/racism problem. Charlotte is heavily segregated and has deep rooted institutional racism embedded in the city. It was only a matter of time honestly.

This doesn't help at all.  If anything it'll push white people further and further back into the suburbs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Moorgan said:

It's relevant to the details of THIS case yes. But the protests are about the bigger picture of justice and accountability across the nation. To be sure, this case adds emotional relevancy to protestors in Charlotte but the issue is larger than this case.

So while this guy had a gun and maybe even brandished it towards police officers thus justifying the shooting, the issues associated with racial injustice in this country are not nullified. Therefore the protests remain relevant while this case does not. It doesn't change why people are frustrated, angry and protesting. 

The shooting was the precipitating event.  To say it's now irrelevant is bewildering; I don't know what to say.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dick the Butcher said:

The shooting was the precipitating event.  To say it's now irrelevant is bewildering; I don't know what to say.  

This issue existed before and is larger than this most recent shooting. That's why it's irrelevant to the larger issue of systemic and institutional racial injustice in this country. If this shooting turns out to be justified, which I think it will, the larger issue will still exist and still need to be dealt with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harry The Hitman said:

Cops say it was a gun. I believe the cops over the protesters.  

I would've believed the Cops in the Walter Scott case too, thank heavens a bystander recorded him getting capped in the back with a full clip and Slager planting evidence. 

Hopefully the "video" puts this one away, good conviction or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...