53 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I understand that sentiment... but vigilante justice is not justice either.  

It's not justice and it leads to further disorder.  I am just saying that I think we need to look at the violence against property in the context of the crime.  Really, it doesn't matter what we say.  There needs to be some real systemic changes in terms of holding police accountable.  

 

 

28 minutes ago, RLC said:

What's more just: A vigilante killing a murderer, or the death penalty killing an innocent man?

Justice is complex.

I never said it wasn't.  What I said was that vigilantism was not justice.  And that is simple.   The death penalty, as adjudicated by a proper court, with a proper jury, with solicitors for the defendant, is a far cry from vigilantism.  You can argue that the courts make mistakes, and I won't push back.  Are you saying that vigilantes never miss the mark?  Please.  You are the one who took that tangent into the death penalty, not me.   If your defense for vigilantism is that the proper courts make mistakes, that's not a defense at all.  If you are against the death penalty from a proper court, then even more so, you should be against vigilantism.  I don't see where you are coming from.

32 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

It's not justice and it leads to further disorder.  I am just saying that I think we need to look at the violence against property in the context of the crime.  Really, it doesn't matter what we say.  There needs to be some real systemic changes in terms of holding police accountable.  

Did I say that there shouldn't?   Re-read what I said and tell me if we disagree.    I'm pretty sure what I said was that vigilantism wasn't justice.   And I said that I was against violence as a solution to violence.  This country, for all its warts, has means available to the average person to make their voice heard, maybe not to the degree they wish, and maybe it takes longer for change to happen than we prefer... but I've yet to see where a violent protest has ever actually brought about positive change in a timely manner.   We have the right to assemble, the freedom of speech, and the ability to communicate with our leaders, plus to remove them from elected office if we so choose (or more exactly, if the majority of folks in a given area, so chooses).  You can put the crime in context if you wish... but I don't even hold the 'protesters' responsible.  The true protestors are just protesting, as is their Constitutional right.   Then there are the rioters, the looters, etc.  Those are the folks that I am speaking against, I stand with the protesters, and what they want to see happen.  But I ask to the rioters/looters: How does looting a store of its goods help to bring crooked cops to justice?  Answer:  It doesn't.  How does lighting the neighborhood bank, pharmacy and/or grocery store on fire help to further that call for justice?   Answer:  It doesn't.    They are in this for a whole different reason... and are using this tragedy for their benefit, which is also disgusting.

9 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I never said it wasn't.  What I said was that vigilantism was not justice.  And that is simple.   The death penalty, as adjudicated by a proper court, with a proper jury, with solicitors for the defendant, is a far cry from vigilantism.  You can argue that the courts make mistakes, and I won't push back.  Are you saying that vigilantes never miss the mark?  Please.  You are the one who took that tangent into the death penalty, not me.   If your defense for vigilantism is that the proper courts make mistakes, that's not a defense at all.  If you are against the death penalty from a proper court, then even more so, you should be against vigilantism.  I don't see where you are coming from.

My greater point that justice can't be solely defined by a legal system, because legality and morality aren't the same. I'm with you that vigilantism is bad and that all forms of looting should be stopped. The idea though that suddenly systemic racism will end, and others will get justice, simply because of these protests is naive. That's sad, but it's true.

Bringing it back to football, the NFL will say the right things but ultimately do nothing. They financially benefit from the status quo.

56 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I think we all would be of that mindset and angry as raw emotions  I think human nature of emotions any one of us would have that feeling especially with some of the justice systems failures over time added on.

One of the answers I carry with me today from my Great grandmother was when she talked about life after being liberated from concentration camp. She was Extremely depressed by all that she lost and saw, happy to somehow still alive and vengeance in her heart. She knew friends who turned their back on her family and knew the atrocities that went on but stood by doing nothing and reaped benefits of it (i think some were scared to do anything for their lives but a lot just went with it cause it didn’t effect them besides friendships lost). Only reason why she didn’t go to them after and just lose it on them (she meant bring violence) is because if you do that then they are going to portray you in the light they want to then use it against you for the next 40-50 years to downplay the real atrocity. Instead she just continued to bring to light how disgusting and gross Those people were and people saw the truth. As fulfilling as I’m guessing it would have been for her In the moment of doing so she had the mindset that it didn’t outweigh the injustice of how it would’ve been used against her and her people.  

That's a great story about your Great Grandmother.  We should certainly bear in mind that suffering and injustice is nothing new and it certainly puts in perspective what is going on today.  All cops are not bad and the ends of the criminal justice system do line up with a sense of morality that treats people equally under the law.  We are not dealing with NSDAPs although I do think there are active agents sowing social discord.  We have a problem that there isn't a sufficient check on an abuse of power.  

Your story brings to mind the Arendt's banality of evil.  I think these types of incidents beg the question of intent these police officers.  Often, the actions of police officers are excused under the lack of intent despite the outcome.  I mean the shooting in Louisville of the unarmed EMT comes to mind.  There was likely no specific intent.  There is likely no criminal charge (except for Federal Civil Rights Charges) although there is civil liability.  I think the question is whether we would be better served by criminal statutes with the ends of what is carried out in mind.  Maybe extend that liability up the chain of command.  

 

34 minutes ago, RLC said:

What's more just: A vigilante killing a murderer, or the death penalty killing an innocent man?

Justice is complex.

what if the innocent man is only innocent of the crime he is accused of but is guilty of other more heinous murders? 

7 minutes ago, RLC said:

My greater point that justice can't be solely defined by a legal system, because legality and morality aren't the same. I'm with you that vigilantism is bad and that all forms of looting should be stopped. The idea though that suddenly systemic racism will end, and others will get justice, simply because of these protests is naive. That's sad, but it's true.

Bringing it back to football, the NFL will say the right things but ultimately do nothing. They financially benefit from the status quo.

I didn't say that it would.  But, you decided to try to conflate the death penalty with vigilantism.  Sorry, that's a false equivalency.   The legal system isn't perfect.  I never said it was, but it's infinitely better than vigilantism.  And that is my point, and the extent of my point.  

 

And I didn't say that the protests would 'suddenly' do anything.  But, two wrongs don't make a right.  Creating a bigger mess of a situation won't do a thing to fix this current one.

3 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

what if the innocent man is only innocent of the crime he is accused of but is guilty of other more heinous murders? 

ooooh oooh what if the man is innocent but is now inhabited by a parasitic alien that is planning to destroy the Earth but is willing to let the Eagles win 4 more Super Bowls first?

 

I mean if we're adding on, lets make it interesting 

2 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

what if the innocent man is only innocent of the crime he is accused of but is guilty of other more heinous murders? 

Reminds me of a line from Dashiell Hammett’s Continental Op, that most cynical of all detectives. When challenged by his boss for engaging in a gunfight in the middle of a city street, where innocent bystanders might Have been harmed, he said, "There are no innocent bystanders.”

Doesn't really affect the Eagles, but it does affect other teams.

1 minute ago, RLC said:

Doesn't really affect the Eagles, but it does affect other teams.

Probably just a minor inconvenience, if anything. Every team should have a sufficient facility  

4 hours ago, bpac55 said:

Growing up I had heard about Ted Bundy (I'm 38) but had no idea what he actually did.  That series was fascinating.  Women KNEW he was a killer and still were infatuated with the guy.  He was truly sick.  It's also so interesting to me to see the change in how news traveled, technology and so much over the last 40-50 years.  Really worth watching to learn about what happened.  Creepy as heck to hear him start talking in the 3rd person to confess.  Gives you chills for sure.

His ability to lie and play innocent was so convincing that there were parts of that docu-series where I thought there was a small possibility he wasn't committing the crimes.  It's been awhile since I've seen it, but I guess he truly believed his own lies because of his bipolar disorder, thus making them more believable.    

2 hours ago, RLC said:

 

I take satisfaction knowing our owner opens up an effective, open dialogue on a team meeting and releases this powerful statement.  Meanwhile the Plastic-face Crypt Keeper is forcing his rookie players to wear the jersey number of his choosing.  

1 hour ago, RLC said:

Doesn't really affect the Eagles, but it does affect other teams.

Jerry Jones:

Possibility the other 3 officers will be charged.

edit:  Sharpton saying the families have been told (via the family's lawyer), does not know when the announcement will be made.

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Did I say that there shouldn't?   Re-read what I said and tell me if we disagree.    I'm pretty sure what I said was that vigilantism wasn't justice.   And I said that I was against violence as a solution to violence.  This country, for all its warts, has means available to the average person to make their voice heard, maybe not to the degree they wish, and maybe it takes longer for change to happen than we prefer... but I've yet to see where a violent protest has ever actually brought about positive change in a timely manner.   We have the right to assemble, the freedom of speech, and the ability to communicate with our leaders, plus to remove them from elected office if we so choose (or more exactly, if the majority of folks in a given area, so chooses).  You can put the crime in context if you wish... but I don't even hold the 'protesters' responsible.  The true protestors are just protesting, as is their Constitutional right.   Then there are the rioters, the looters, etc.  Those are the folks that I am speaking against, I stand with the protesters, and what they want to see happen.  But I ask to the rioters/looters: How does looting a store of its goods help to bring crooked cops to justice?  Answer:  It doesn't.  How does lighting the neighborhood bank, pharmacy and/or grocery store on fire help to further that call for justice?   Answer:  It doesn't.    They are in this for a whole different reason... and are using this tragedy for their benefit, which is also disgusting.

I don't disagree.  I think I am more tolerant of the rioters and tend to believe they are not all motivated by greed.  As with all things, I am sure people have many motivations. Some of them are looting just to get a new TV.  But I haven't met many people that express a desire to acquire their material goods via crimes.  I think fundamentally it is an expression of frustration first.  Violence doesn't fix anything.  It is, however, the only leverage they feel like they have.  Violent protest isn't ever going to be cured without addressing the condition.  I agree if rioting and looting continue, I think there is a likelihood it makes things worse.  My favorite podcast that's not sports is the Revolutions podcast by Mike Duncan.  He's gone from the English Revolution to now the Russian Revolution.  It is a remarkable series.  There are several constants.  I think it's a pretty well established historical constant that more often violent protest leads to conservative backlash and sometimes even draconian changes.  Even when violent revolution works in overthrowing a government, there is almost always a progression away from the ideals of the revolution.  Revolutions eat their own children. The better outcome for all of is progression without violence especially the persistent kind.  We do have a system that allows for political expression without significant control.  We have a far more equitable society than others from a historical perspective.  Race and racism in this country is a sore outlier to the expressed ideals of our country.  Yet is racism is endemic and crops up persistently in violent expression.  We have seen these types of protests persist despite civil rights reforms almost every 30 years.   We haven't done enough to purge racism.  I think we agree on that issue.  

2 hours ago, RLC said:

My greater point that justice can't be solely defined by a legal system, because legality and morality aren't the same. I'm with you that vigilantism is bad and that all forms of looting should be stopped. The idea though that suddenly systemic racism will end, and others will get justice, simply because of these protests is naive. That's sad, but it's true.

Bringing it back to football, the NFL will say the right things but ultimately do nothing. They financially benefit from the status quo.

Legality is determined by laws. If we disagree with laws, we can try to change them and, if we chose, practice civil disobedience.  Morality?  Whose? What is moral or just for some may not be for others. 

 

So much for that comp pick...

19 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

So much for that comp pick...

Did we not bring him back because of money or they didn't trust he was healthy from that back injury?

2 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Did we not bring him back because of money or they didn't trust he was healthy from that back injury?

He’s not very good anymore, probably because of his back. 

47 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

So much for that comp pick...

Bill O’Brien continuing his impressive offseason. 

58 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

 

Yes!!!  

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

So much for that comp pick...

Per Kempski, right below the cutoff is Darby so in essence a seventh lost with Jernigan results in a seventh due to the Darby signing.  

The rioting and looting is disgusting, but, I have to admit I laughed.

28 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Per Kempski, right below the cutoff is Darby so in essence a seventh lost with Jernigan results in a seventh due to the Darby signing.