Mike Ditka comments on Ferguson, St. Louis Rams

Mike Ditka comments on Ferguson, St. Louis Rams

Sporting News

Troy Machir, Sporting News

10 hrs ago


Hall of Fame coach and longtime ESPN analyst Mike Ditka is the latest talking head to weigh in on the situation in Ferguson, Missouri, and the backlash from members of the Rams displayingthe "Hands up, don't shoot" gesture before their 52-0 win over the Raiders last weekend.

In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, the former Bears coach showed sympathy for everything that has taken place in Ferguson, but doesn't understand what the players' gesture accomplished.

"The shame of it is, I’m not sure they care about Michael Brown or anything else. This was a reason to protest and to go out and loot. Is this the way to celebrate the memory of Michael Brown? Is this an excuse to be lawless? Somebody has to tell me that. I don’t understand it. I understand what the Rams’ take on this was. I’m embarrassed for the players more than anything. They want to take a political stand on this? Well, there are a lot of other things that have happened in our society that people have not stood up and disagreed about."

Ditka's response is not uncommon. Not everyone has agreed with the players' decision to make the gesture. But then Ditka reverted to a very tired, very old argument.one that doesn't help his cause at all.

"What do you do if someone pulls a gun on you or is robbing a store and you stop them? I don’t want to hear about this hands-up crap. That’s not what happened. I don’t know exactly what did happen, but I know that’s not what happened. This policeman’s life is ruined. Why? Because we have to break somebody down. Because we have to even out the game. I don’t know. I don’t get it. Maybe I’m just old fashioned."

Yes, Mike Ditka pulled out the "I don't know exactly what did happen, but I know that's not what happened" line.

The entire subject of Ferguson is a difficult one to discuss, and while it is a issue that needs to be talked about, we are getting to the saturation point among sports-related talking heads.

There's no way Ditka spoke that clearly. I'm guessing it was more along the lines of....

"This Ferguson stuff....let me tell you....I don't believe for one sec...it's a kid who got killed and that's sad, but we don't know what happened. This poor officer who...and we live in a society today where everyone thinks they know everyth....why don't we wait and see before we vilify this poor guy?"

Good ol' Ditka. Not finishing his sentences before starting another since 1999.

The players have the right to voice their opinion...now whether or not that should be in uniform is another story. By virtue of being in that uniform they are also speaking for the Rams. Are they not supporting the cops by supporting Michael Brown?

Carp said:

The players have the right to voice their opinion...now whether or not that should be in uniform is another story. By virtue of being in that uniform they are also speaking for the Rams. Are they not supporting the cops by supporting Michael Brown?

Click to expand...

Right but if you are the Rams and you try to stop them you are screwed.

skidadl said:

Right but if you are the Rams and you try to stop them you are screwed.

Click to expand...

No doubt...them and the NFL are in a no win situation.

I can just compare it to the military...we are not allowed to participate in any political, social, etc...protests, conventions, and so on...while in uniform. The NFL could do the same thing, but it is a slippery slope.

Carp said:

The players have the right to voice their opinion...now whether or not that should be in uniform is another story. By virtue of being in that uniform they are also speaking for the Rams. Are they not supporting the cops by supporting Michael Brown?

Click to expand...

That's what I don't get with this whole thing. Can someone not support police officers in general and still support Michael Brown? Why is it that condemning the actions of one officer automatically means you are condemning the actions of all officers.

Texas Ace said:

There's no way Ditka spoke that clearly. I'm guessing it was more along the lines of....

"This Ferguson stuff....let me tell you....I don't believe for one sec...it's a kid who got killed and that's sad, but we don't know what happened. This poor officer who...and we live in a society today where everyone thinks they know everyth....why don't we wait and see before we vilify this poor guy?"

Good ol' Ditka. Not finishing his sentences before starting another since 1999.

Click to expand...

You forgot the multiple ~smacks gum~.

Carp said:

No doubt...them and the NFL are in a no win situation.

I can just compare it to the military...we are not allowed to participate in any political, social, etc...protests, conventions, and so on...while in uniform. The NFL could do the same thing, but it is a slippery slope.

Click to expand...

Funny story on that: My cousin runs a recruiting branch here in SA...one of his guys/recruiters disappeared early in the day without notifying anyone. That night my cousin sees him on the local news protesting. He wasn't in uniform, so that was all fine.

bsb

Cowboysrock55 said:

That's what I don't get with this whole thing. Can someone not support police officers in general and still support Michael Brown? Why is it that condemning the actions of one officer automatically means you are condemning the actions of all officers.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It is exhausting.

Cowboysrock55 said:

That's what I don't get with this whole thing. Can someone not support police officers in general and still support Michael Brown? Why is it that condemning the actions of one officer automatically means you are condemning the actions of all officers.

Click to expand...

Why are we condemning the actions to begin with...this kid was not a victim.

Carp said:

Why are we condemning the actions to begin with...this kid was not a victim.

Click to expand...

Because some would argue that the officers actions were not appropriate. Or that his statements appeared to be less then truthful. No one will ever know what actually happened on that day besides the officer and a dead man.

Cowboysrock55 said:

Because some would argue that the officers actions were not appropriate. Or that his statements appeared to be less then truthful. No one will ever know what actually happened on that day besides the officer and a dead man.

Click to expand...

Some did argue that the officers actions were not appropriate but I was under the impression that the grand jury was supposed to resolve the issue. Their verdict was rejected arbitrarily by some. I guess my question is in the justice system can you just pick and choose what verdicts you will accept and have the system rule only when it agrees with your position? Doesn't that constitute the same result as mob justice?

L.T. Fan said:

Some did argue that the officers actions were not appropriate but I was under the impression that the grand jury was supposed to resolve the issue. Their verdict was rejected arbitrarily by some. I guess my question is in the justice system can you just pick and choose what verdicts you will accept and have the system rule only when it agrees with your position? Doesn't that constitute the same result as mob justice?

Click to expand...

Because they couldn't work the grand jury's decision into their agenda.

Iamtdg said:

Because they couldn't work the grand jury's decision into their agenda.

Click to expand...

Well when the medias portrayal is along the lines of Brown was innocently playing with his GI Joe's in a sandbox while petting puppies and feeding kittens when the officer, who just returned form a Klan rally and still wearing his hood, identified Brown as an easy target, crept up upon him and executed him in broad daylight while shouting "white power" and blasting Ted Nugent's Stranglehold from his PA they aren't going to be satisfied with anything less than a hanging.

jsmith6919 said:

Well when the medias portrayal is along the lines of Brown was innocently playing with his GI Joe's in a sandbox while petting puppies and feeding kittens when the officer, who just returned form a Klan rally and still wearing his hood, identified Brown as an easy target, crept up upon him and executed him in broad daylight while shouting "white power" and blasting Ted Nugent's Stranglehold from his PA they aren't going to be satisfied with anything less than a hanging.

Click to expand...

That's not far off.

L.T. Fan said:

Some did argue that the officers actions were not appropriate but I was under the impression that the grand jury was supposed to resolve the issue. Their verdict was rejected arbitrarily by some. I guess my question is in the justice system can you just pick and choose what verdicts you will accept and have the system rule only when it agrees with your position? Doesn't that constitute the same result as mob justice?

Click to expand...

People get confused and think that a Grand Jury decides if someone is innocent or not. That's not there job. Their job is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to formally charge someone with a crime.

Additionally a Grand Jury makes that determination purely based on the evidence the prosecuting attorney presents. Which is another topic of dispute. Why didn't St. Louis County get a special prosecuting attorney from the AG's office? Anyone that understands the dynamics of the criminal justice system knows that police officers are key to a prosecuting attorney's ability to get convictions. You can't exactly expect a prosecuting attorney to zealously prosecute a case like this when he then has to turn around and expect the assistance of the other officers in the same department. The Grand Jury proceeding was just a way to shield the prosecuting attorney from criticism.

There would be absolute outrage if 5 white players came out and did something to show solidarity with the cop.

Cowboysrock55 said:

People get confused and think that a Grand Jury decides if someone is innocent or not. That's not there job. Their job is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to formally charge someone with a crime.

Additionally a Grand Jury makes that determination purely based on the evidence the prosecuting attorney presents. Which is another topic of dispute. Why didn't St. Louis County get a special prosecuting attorney from the AG's office? Anyone that understands the dynamics of the criminal justice system knows that police officers are key to a prosecuting attorney's ability to get convictions. You can't exactly expect a prosecuting attorney to zealously prosecute a case like this when he then has to turn around and expect the assistance of the other officers in the same department. The Grand Jury proceeding was just a way to shield the prosecuting attorney from criticism.

Click to expand...

I understands that the Grand Jury doesn't presume innocence but I also understand they (the jury) did not see enough to say they was sufficient cause to go forward. Your innuendo is either a hypothetical or accusation regarding the DA office. What is there to substantiate this from anyone's point of view, other than a suspicion it is a possibility. To me that isn't strong enough to justify self help destruction and condemnation. If in fact there is evidence to show the prosecutors limited or withheld same to manipulate the verdict then I will discount the verdict and join in the protesters point of view . That sAid will stop short of rioting and destruction. To me it is a matter of accepting what the system has provided until such time it is shown the system was abused.

Charles Barkley says Ferguson grand jury got it right; looters 'scumbags'
Published December 01, 2014FoxNews.com

Sir Charles has opinions, and he isn’t afraid to voice them.

NBA great Charles Barkley undoubtedly lost some fans and gained some more recently, when he said the grand jury got it right in declining to indict Ferguson, Mo., Police Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown and labeled looters “scumbags."

"The true story came out from the grand jury testimony," the Hall of Fame forward told radio host Mike Missanelli last week on Philadelphia’s sports radio station The Fanatic.

Noting that several black witnesses corroborated Wilson’s version of events, saying Brown attacked him and went for his gun, Barkley accused the press of using dubious information to inflame passions.

"I can’t believe anything I hear on television anymore,” the former Philadelphia 76er said. “And that’s why I don’t like talking about race issues with the media anymore, because [the media] love this stuff, and lead people to jump to conclusions. The media shouldn’t do that. They never do that when black people kill each other. "

Barkley called those who reacted to the decision by rioting "scumbags."

"There is no excuse for people to be out there burning down people's businesses, burning down police cars," he said.

And unlike protesters who have likened police in minority neighborhoods to an occupying force, Barkley said the black community owes a debt of gratitude to cops.

“[W]e have to be really careful with the cops, because if it wasn’t for the cops we would be living in the Wild, Wild West in our neighborhoods," he said. "We can’t pick out certain incidentals that don’t go our way and act like the cops are all bad.... Do you know how bad some of these neighborhoods would be if it wasn't for the cops?”

Barkley’s words were in sharp contrast to the actions of several current athletes. On Sunday, St. Louis Rams football players Stedman Bailey, Tavon Austin, Jared Cook, Chris Givens and Kenny Britt took the field and raised their hands in homage to the "hands up, don't shoot," rallying cry of Michael Brown supporters.

But Barkley has always spoke his mind, often going against the grain. In 2013, Barkley said he agreed with the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., in another case that inflamed racial tensions.

L.T. Fan said:

I understands that the Grand Jury doesn't presume innocence but I also understand they (the jury) did not see enough to say they was sufficient cause to go forward. Your innuendo is either a hypothetical or accusation regarding the DA office. What is there to substantiate this from anyone's point of view, other than a suspicion it is a possibility. To me that isn't strong enough to justify self help destruction and condemnation. If in fact there is evidence to show the prosecutors limited or withheld same to manipulate the verdict then I will discount the verdict and join in the protesters point of view . That sAid will stop short of rioting and destruction. To me it is a matter of accepting what the system has provided until such time it is shown the system was abused.

Click to expand...

Having a DA from an office that works directly with the department in question prosecute the officer is a clear conflict of interests.