Jump to content

Welcome to HornSports

Join our community and talk about the latest in Texas Longhorns Athletics!

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, 83Dee said:

Real racism is almost non-existent in my children’s generation (Gen Z and 1 Millennial).  It has decreased with each generation. Now it’s to the point where Acho and McConaughey are discussing - you are a part of the problem if you use expressions or hypothesize ethnicity on a resume.  1) okay 2) this represents progress. 

Where racism exists - it should be discussed.  But weaponizing race for politics (which is much of what we see today) is contemptuous and racist in and of itself.  

There is so much to discuss.  There is so much talk about BLM and rightfully so.  What about Black Baby Lives?  Do they matter?  These leftists are so quick to burn buildings and throw bricks at cops and call white people racists for not agreeing with BLM's demands then the silence speaks volumes when it comes to abortion.  The hypocrisy discredits them

Another example is someone else brought up homosexuals and the climate change.  They conveniently say I believe in the science when it comes to COVID and climate change but ignore science when it comes genetics.  Now there is some sort broad spectrum gray area when it comes to sex.  They cherry pick what they want to fit the narrative.

The shut downs are intended to hurt the economy. The riots are to cause unrest.  The goal is to beat Trump.  Hell I am beginning to wonder if COVID was released by China on purpose to get The tariff king out of office but that's another conversation but the timing is oh so convenient.  Biden will sell out this country to China just like Globalists want.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a little off topic, but I was in HEB this morning, wearing my mask, which happens to be a representation of the flag. Someone came up to me and said, "I like your mask but are you you sure that's wise these days?" I couldn't help but shake my head. People are now fearful of what other people think, may say or do. Even in Fredericksburg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People that hate America can move to Cuba for all I care.  I have niece that has told me on numerous occasions she hates what the USA stands for and wishes we were more like the EU.  I asked her has she ever lived in EU?  She replied no obviously.  Then I said how do you know then.  Hint some teacher told her so.

 

Indoctrination begins very early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Baron said:

This is a little off topic, but I was in HEB this morning, wearing my mask, which happens to be a representation of the flag. Someone came up to me and said, "I like your mask but are you you sure that's wise these days?" I couldn't help but shake my head. People are now fearful of what other people think, may say or do. Even in Fredericksburg.

 

2 hours ago, drgilbert said:

A coworker of mine was at a CrossFit 2 weeks ago with an American themed mask on. Some implied to him wearing that might not be a good idea. Since when did the American flag become a bad idea?

 

Well they would hate mine. .  . .Green side Blue side Red side

 

 

 

 

Green Side Red Side Blue side.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMAC said:

People that hate America can move to Cuba for all I care.  I have niece that has told me on numerous occasions she hates what the USA stands for and wishes we were more like the EU.  I asked her has she ever lived in EU?  She replied no obviously.  Then I said how do you know then.  Hint some teacher told her so.

 

We remain the Shining city on the hill.    The last true beacon of freedom for the world.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2020 at 3:46 PM, java said:

btw, we don’t need chokeholds, at least, as far as I can see.

Java, I'm just now reading through these and of course there is a lot to discuss but i'm curious about this one. How do you suggest a police officer arrest a violent person that doesn't want to be arrested that is an immediate and imminent threat of harm to innocent bystanders? (and I'm not referring to George Floyd either, that particular move was not necessary on him at the time and the officer is going to be held accountable for it as he should).

If a violent person gets away from the police because they couldn't subdue him and comes to your house to hide, killing your wife and kids quietly so they don't tip off the police. would you have wished they could have done more?

And for the record, I completely agree that police reform is long overdue but this is something that has to be carefully dealt with.

I don't agree on defunding the police and i don't agree with de-fanging the police but i definitely agree with some strong changes to them. I don't want the citizens of this country to have to protect themselves from criminals, thats a recipe for a real problem, much greater than the problem we currently have.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, aUTfan said:

Java, I'm just now reading through these and of course there is a lot to discuss but i'm curious about this one. How do you suggest a police officer arrest a violent person that doesn't want to be arrested that is an immediate and imminent threat of harm to innocent bystanders? (and I'm not referring to George Floyd either, that particular move was not necessary on him at the time and the officer is going to be held accountable for it as he should).

If a violent person gets away from the police because they couldn't subdue him and comes to your house to hide, killing your wife and kids quietly so they don't tip off the police. would you have wished they could have done more?

And for the record, I completely agree that police reform is long overdue but this is something that has to be carefully dealt with.

I don't agree on defunding the police and i don't agree with de-fanging the police but i definitely agree with some strong changes to them. I don't want the citizens of this country to have to protect themselves from criminals, thats a recipe for a real problem, much greater than the problem we currently have.

 

I've thought about this quite a bit. It hits right at the source of the problem. I had a couple of ideas... knowing these are entirely theoretical. The objective being to protect lives - suspects and cops - and to prevent chases which leads to a heightened sense of fight or flight, which can cause both overreact emotionally.

Right now the primary goal of cops is upper body restraint. If someone struggles then a take-down is normally attempted, which leads to a gang tackle. Injuries can occur both ways.... plus the close contact means access to cop weapons increases. The panic induced from the struggle heightens emotions. How many times does a peaceful stop turn into a dangerous encounter once restraints are applied?

First, what if restraint attempts focused on lower body instead? Something can be applied around the feet which brings them together (like a zip tie but more advanced). Once applied then cops back off - knowing running is impossible (as opposed hand cuffs). 

This would remove the need for choke-holds, knees on the neck/shoulder blades, etc... all the techniques cops apply in order to subdue sometimes larger suspects. It takes the need to fight completely off the table for both sides. Just the take down itself can lead to injuries. This is applying just a basic knowledge of martial arts... quickest moves are always to take out the legs first. 

Second,  just don't chase non-violent suspects. The guy at Wendy's had already been ID'd and could have been tracked down later. The guy with the taser is more difficult; however once he was out of the car then his threat was removed, since the concern there is public safety due to his intoxication.

This isn't a new concept either... When high speed car chases led to more injuries to the public than just letting suspects go, policing was changed to follow at low speeds or through the air. Same reasoning applied here but to foot chases. This may lead to more suspects getting away, but most can be tracked down later. 

So to answer your question @aUTfan, anyone suspected of violence to the public would be taken down with leg restraints as a first option. If those don't work then existing options would need to be applied. We can't hope to remove all fatal encounters in these situations, but at least fatal encounters can be reduced to truly violent individuals (and not those passing a fake check).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's just a wild and crazy thought.

Maybe Mr Brooks shouldn't have tried to avoid arrest, assault the officers, steal a taser gun, shoot the taser at the officer, and run from them. 

All for a DUI which would have been alcohol counseling probably.

Would anyone here had done that?  I know I wouldn't have.

As for Floyd.  The cops deserve what they have coming to them.  No excuse whatsoever, that was murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DMAC said:

Here's just a wild and crazy thought.

Maybe Mr Brooks shouldn't have tried to avoid arrest, assault the officers, steal a taser gun, shoot the taser at the officer, and run from them. 

All for a DUI which would have been alcohol counseling probably.

Would anyone here had done that?  I know I wouldn't have.

As for Floyd.  The cops deserve what they have coming to them.  No excuse whatsoever, that was murder.

So we're talking about someone already drunk, and you're asking that person to make rational decisions? That doesn't make sense.

We're talking about processes that take into account the suspects inability to make rational decisions - based on public intoxication, overly emotional situation, or otherwise.

The video proves the officers in that situation had no idea how to get control of the situation. We had video of this, but I would hazard a guess this scenario repeats itself many, many times. Then on the other side of that struggle the cops are overly-emotional which can lead to being overly-aggressive. 

The goal is trying to remove those situations. Saying that everyone should just all 'Make sure and act better and be polite' completely ignores the reality of these situations on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to ask a question?  For our doubters, yes, this is an honest question. I have been without TV most of the weekend because my cable box simply crashed .

The internet, I may look it up, but will it be true?  I will rephrase that.  I am going to look it up, but have no idea if it will be accurate. 

Here goes. What is happening in Seattle?  The narratives that I have heard are truly unbelievable.  This is third hand information. I was told there was a shooting (citizen not officer) and citizens called 911 for the police. The crowd would not allow police in, so the police left the scene, and did not force the issue.

Later, citizens again called 911 but this time asked for paramedics. The paramedics refused to enter without the police, so the police “were allowed” to enter with the paramedics. 

Did this really happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMAC said:

Here's just a wild and crazy thought.

Maybe Mr Brooks shouldn't have tried to avoid arrest, assault the officers, steal a taser gun, shoot the taser at the officer, and run from them. 

All for a DUI which would have been alcohol counseling probably.

Would anyone here had done that?  I know I wouldn't have.

As for Floyd.  The cops deserve what they have coming to them.  No excuse whatsoever, that was murder.

 

I agree he shouldn't have resisted once he was told he was under arrest.  However, in learning about a reason why he did run and fight, I understand why he did it.  Again, I don't agree but I understand why.

Mr Brooks was already on probation.  He was released from jail and was trying to get his life back on the right track for himself and especially for his family, two little girls and wife.  Any contact with police may have resulted him going back to jail.  I'm sure that ran through his mind once he heard the words, you're under arrest.  So no, just alcohol counseling would not have been it.

Did either of the police officers run his name to see what his situation was?  Perhaps that may have influenced the officers actions.  Who knows.  Police officers go through training on when to shoot and when not.  They already patted him down and he didn't have any lethal weapons on him.  Is a taser a lethal weapon?  Depends on what day it is from what I've seen.  In any case, another tragedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, java said:

I want to ask a question?  For our doubters, yes, this is an honest question. I have been without TV most of the weekend because my cable box simply crashed .

The internet, I may look it up, but will it be true?  I will rephrase that.  I am going to look it up, but have no idea if it will be accurate. 

Here goes. What is happening in Seattle?  The narratives that I have heard are truly unbelievable.  This is third hand information. I was told there was a shooting (citizen not officer) and citizens called 911 for the police. The crowd would not allow police in, so the police left the scene, and did not force the issue.

Later, citizens again called 911 but this time asked for paramedics. The paramedics refused to enter without the police, so the police “were allowed” to enter with the paramedics. 

Did this really happen?

Hard to say at this time.  I've only seen this reported by one website.  Can't tell if someone got trolled or not.  Those tiktok kids, ya know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain Hookem said:

I've thought about this quite a bit. It hits right at the source of the problem. I had a couple of ideas... knowing these are entirely theoretical. The objective being to protect lives - suspects and cops - and to prevent chases which leads to a heightened sense of fight or flight, which can cause both overreact emotionally.

Right now the primary goal of cops is upper body restraint. If someone struggles then a take-down is normally attempted, which leads to a gang tackle. Injuries can occur both ways.... plus the close contact means access to cop weapons increases. The panic induced from the struggle heightens emotions. How many times does a peaceful stop turn into a dangerous encounter once restraints are applied?

First, what if restraint attempts focused on lower body instead? Something can be applied around the feet which brings them together (like a zip tie but more advanced). Once applied then cops back off - knowing running is impossible (as opposed hand cuffs). 

This would remove the need for choke-holds, knees on the neck/shoulder blades, etc... all the techniques cops apply in order to subdue sometimes larger suspects. It takes the need to fight completely off the table for both sides. Just the take down itself can lead to injuries. This is applying just a basic knowledge of martial arts... quickest moves are always to take out the legs first. 

Second,  just don't chase non-violent suspects. The guy at Wendy's had already been ID'd and could have been tracked down later. The guy with the taser is more difficult; however once he was out of the car then his threat was removed, since the concern there is public safety due to his intoxication.

This isn't a new concept either... When high speed car chases led to more injuries to the public than just letting suspects go, policing was changed to follow at low speeds or through the air. Same reasoning applied here but to foot chases. This may lead to more suspects getting away, but most can be tracked down later. 

So to answer your question @aUTfan, anyone suspected of violence to the public would be taken down with leg restraints as a first option. If those don't work then existing options would need to be applied. We can't hope to remove all fatal encounters in these situations, but at least fatal encounters can be reduced to truly violent individuals (and not those passing a fake check).

Hello, there!  This was supposed to address aUTfan  

As I understand it, chokeholds can have fatal consequences. I believe that is why they are banned in some departments already.  I haven’t heard, yet, if they have been banned on a national level. 

I watched the Atlanta video multiple times.  Up until the point where the officer fired his weapon, I don’t believe that any reasonable person would have considered that could happen.  There was no reason for it.  You are right about that. They could have picked him up later. They could have moved the car or had it towed.

As far as your question about arresting a violent suspect. It seems to me that restraining the arms and hands first is the only thing that is practical. Otherwise, weapons will be a major concern.

In the Atlanta shooting, I thought it was very odd that the officers talked to Mr. Brooks for 45 minutes before everything unraveled.  When he began to try to arrest him, the officer seemed very slow, almost clumsy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rotty22 said:

Mr Brooks was already on probation.  He was released from jail and was trying to get his life back on the right track for himself and especially for his family, two little girls and wife.

Ah.  I didnt realize he was on probation.   I guess that plus the impairment contributed to the poor decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, java said:

I want to ask a question?  For our doubters, yes, this is an honest question. I have been without TV most of the weekend because my cable box simply crashed .

The internet, I may look it up, but will it be true?  I will rephrase that.  I am going to look it up, but have no idea if it will be accurate. 

Here goes. What is happening in Seattle?  The narratives that I have heard are truly unbelievable.  This is third hand information. I was told there was a shooting (citizen not officer) and citizens called 911 for the police. The crowd would not allow police in, so the police left the scene, and did not force the issue.

Later, citizens again called 911 but this time asked for paramedics. The paramedics refused to enter without the police, so the police “were allowed” to enter with the paramedics. 

Did this really happen?

Living in the PacNW, I can tell you what’s going on in Seattle is a mess. Granted it is not the entire city, but those six-eight blocks are a mess.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, java said:

The protest is now in the Seattle Times. The link is below. Evidently, there is concern about White Supremicists interfering with the BLM protestors.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/after-early-morning-shooting-in-chop-occupied-area-returns-to-its-new-normal/%3famp=1

You can also get some information on KOMO news online. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2020 at 8:53 PM, Aaron Carrara said:

What Joeywa said. Things are likely changing and they may shake the valley. 

I love college football.  I have since the 70s.   In a way it’s an escape from politics, work, etc.... 

I certainly do not watch it to be lectured about politics - or anything else.  It ceases to be what I enjoy.  They have “the right” to do whatever they want at UT, and I have “the right” to stop donating / spending money on them and watching it on TV.  

I have listened to the Ticket in Dallas since the mid-90s.  And it became a bunch of sports guys lecturing me and mocking how I vote.  “Their right” and I turned it off and haven’t really missed it since.  UT athletics is treading on dangerous grounds IMHO.  If I want political lectures I certainly won’t ask a college football player or Chris DelConte for it.  There are better forums for that kind of thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, 83Dee said:

I love college football.  I have since the 70s.   In a way it’s an escape from politics, work, etc.... 

I certainly do not watch it to be lectured about politics - or anything else.  It ceases to be what I enjoy.  They have “the right” to do whatever they want at UT, and I have “the right” to stop donating / spending money on them and watching it on TV.  

I have listened to the Ticket in Dallas since the mid-90s.  And it became a bunch of sports guys lecturing me and mocking how I vote.  “Their right” and I turned it off and haven’t really missed it since.  UT athletics is treading on dangerous grounds IMHO.  If I want political lectures I certainly won’t ask a college football player or Chris DelConte for it.  There are better forums for that kind of thing.  

1) I didn’t know that people expressing their fears of being killed was political. I didn’t know that wanting treasonous people who fought against the country so many say they loved was political. I mean would you celebrate an American born person who decided that Islam was the way and wanted to start a jihad against us? Wanting fair treatment & the removal of traitors isn’t political.

2) It was their right. No quotations are needed. And you have the right to not watch or donate. I think UT sports will be alright without you. UT sports will not be alright without the players. And sports, especially football, brings in a lot of revenue so your donation wouldn’t really matter compared to that. 

3) It’s funny people say I don’t need political lectures from college football players. You don’t know what they’ve lived through. You don’t know what they’ve learned through reading. They could be well read on the subject of politics and have the personal experience to know what’s going on. Also... isn’t our president a reality tv personality & real estate guy. As for “better forums”, you don’t get to pick the forums someone uses to express their feelings of injustice. The best forum to many would be the one that gets the most attention and people listening, seems like that’s working. I mean if you feel about this way about “better forums” I would assume you’re up in arms about the confederate flags in NASCAR. If not, sounds like you’re ok with politics in certain forums. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hornsups said:

1) I didn’t know that people expressing their fears of being killed was political. I didn’t know that wanting treasonous people who fought against the country so many say they loved was political. I mean would you celebrate an American born person who decided that Islam was the way and wanted to start a jihad against us? Wanting fair treatment & the removal of traitors isn’t political.

2) It was their right. No quotations are needed. And you have the right to not watch or donate. I think UT sports will be alright without you. UT sports will not be alright without the players. And sports, especially football, brings in a lot of revenue so your donation wouldn’t really matter compared to that. 

3) It’s funny people say I don’t need political lectures from college football players. You don’t know what they’ve lived through. You don’t know what they’ve learned through reading. They could be well read on the subject of politics and have the personal experience to know what’s going on. Also... isn’t our president a reality tv personality & real estate guy. As for “better forums”, you don’t get to pick the forums someone uses to express their feelings of injustice. The best forum to many would be the one that gets the most attention and people listening, seems like that’s working. I mean if you feel about this way about “better forums” I would assume you’re up in arms about the confederate flags in NASCAR. If not, sounds like you’re ok with politics in certain forums. 

1) you’re either obtuse to the point that’s been stated repeatedly here or you’re purposefully missing it to Go on your woke tangent.   
 

if this is about our black athletes fearing they are going to be killed by the police - okay, then leave politics out of it.  BLM pushes a Marxist agenda.  And if UT athletics donates money to them - I think it would be a big mistake.  
 

2) yes, it’s “their right.”   And - I’m sure Texas will be just fine without me as well.  But one thing I’ve noticed - going way back to college, is left wing types seem to be much more activist and vocal about their opinions.  That is neither good nor bad I suppose - but it gives them the idea that everyone agrees with them because conservative types are less vocal.  ESPN learned this the hard way, as did the NFL.    If UT donates money to BLM (political organization) there may be consequences beyond what I do... but I think that you knew what I meant.  
 

3) the fact that I don’t know what someone has been through does not necessarily mean that they are right and I’m wrong.  
 

And as for your conclusion.....  there we have it - I had to read through a bunch of clap-trap to get to it - but because I disagree with horns up - I’m a racist and mourn for the Confederate flag.   Can you not see your own blatant hypocrisy?   I’m scolded for criticizing actions without “knowing what they’ve been through,” but you judge me because we disagree on politics.  Priceless!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, java said:

As far as your question about arresting a violent suspect. It seems to me that restraining the arms and hands first is the only thing that is practical. Otherwise, weapons will be a major concern.

Good point. Half the battle we see on those videos is getting on arm restraints on someone, which ends up in the struggle with 4 cops sitting on top of someone. Someone who doesn't want handcuffs can make it really difficult to get them on. 

The type of leg restraints I'm referring to are much easier to apply, which then makes putting on the handcuffs easier. 

 

10 hours ago, oldhorn2 said:

....now if those Cops had been issued Bolos and were proficient in their use, Mr Brooks would still be alive.

about as constructive as any other solution I have heard.....

The original thought came from bolos, but I didn't want to say bolos cause I didn't want cheesy super hero coming to mind ;) However what I have in mind is more of a self tightening restraint (not to be thrown) but applied quickly which pulls the feet together.

Also, I threw my ideas out there to get the convo started. In lieu of better ideas I'm still the leader in the clubhouse. 

But to answer seriously, yes with leg restraints Brooks would have still been alive. He would not have been able to struggle, run, or be a part of the situation that led to his shooting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Week
    Opponent
    W/L
    9/5
    So. Florida
    9/12
    @LSU
    9/19
    UTEP
    10/3
    @Kansas State
    10/10
    Oklahoma
    10/17
    West Virginia
    10/24
    @Texas Tech
    10/31
    Baylor
    11/7
    @Kansas
    11/14
    TCU
    11/21
    Iowa State
    11/27
    Ok. State
×
×
  • Create New...