Former Chicago Bears head coach, current ESPN NFL analyst, and favorite to be the lead actor in the film Grumpiest Old Men - Mike Ditka - decided to take his grumpiness to the Chicago Sun Times, where he wrote a bit concerning the St. Louis Rams players' pre-game protest this past Sunday. His piece went as follows:
"It's a shame this thing has come to this. 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.
I wasn't in Ferguson. I don't know exactly what happened. But I know one thing: If we dismantle and limit the power of our policemen any more than we have already, then we're going to have a lot of problems in this country.
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 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."
This may be one of the dumbest comments I've read in a while, and believe me, I've read my fare share. Ditka opens by questioning the Rams players' true motives, saying he's embarrassed for them, and insinuating that they were celebrating unlawful behavior. Yet, through this muddled mess, he says, "I don't understand it." Obviously, but please continue anyway...
He then laid down the following statements over the next two paragraphs, which didn't make a bit of sense at all:
"I wasn't in Ferguson. I don't know exactly what happened. ... I don't want to hear this hands-up crap. That's not what happened. I don't know what did happen, but I know that's not what happened..."
Say what? So, let me get this straight, Coach Ditka, you don't know exactly what happened in Ferguson since you weren't there, but know Michael Brown didn't have his hands up, even though you don't know, but do? Is that right?
Here's what those comments sound like to me: "So, like, I wasn't like at the party and stuff, but like, I know what went on there, but I don't, but I do, you know what I'm saying? Are you going to finish that joint? Far out, man."
Ditka then closes his column with a loud thud, where the echo screams out the word, "ignoramus." He asks what one would do if someone pulled a gun on them. Good question, considering the fact the likes of Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and Eric Garner weren't carrying guns, and the first and second in the group were shot and killed by one.
He then said, "The 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."
A policeman, who killed an unarmed man, has a ruined life because we feel the need to "break somebody down"? The policeman is still living, while the unarmed man he killed is no longer. Whose life was ruined again?
Person: A living policeman
Ditka: "His life is ruined!"
Person: An unarmed man that was killed by the policeman
Ditka: "Eh, whatever"
Mike Ditka may be embarrassed for the St. Louis Rams players for protesting and bringing awareness to police violence against blacks. As for me, I'm embarrassed for Mike Ditka. He was right about one thing in his column, though; he really doesn't get it.
http://deadspin.com/mike-ditka-says-hes-embarrassed-for-hands-up-dont-s-1666098031
"It's a shame this thing has come to this. 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.
I wasn't in Ferguson. I don't know exactly what happened. But I know one thing: If we dismantle and limit the power of our policemen any more than we have already, then we're going to have a lot of problems in this country.
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 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."
This may be one of the dumbest comments I've read in a while, and believe me, I've read my fare share. Ditka opens by questioning the Rams players' true motives, saying he's embarrassed for them, and insinuating that they were celebrating unlawful behavior. Yet, through this muddled mess, he says, "I don't understand it." Obviously, but please continue anyway...
He then laid down the following statements over the next two paragraphs, which didn't make a bit of sense at all:
"I wasn't in Ferguson. I don't know exactly what happened. ... I don't want to hear this hands-up crap. That's not what happened. I don't know what did happen, but I know that's not what happened..."
Say what? So, let me get this straight, Coach Ditka, you don't know exactly what happened in Ferguson since you weren't there, but know Michael Brown didn't have his hands up, even though you don't know, but do? Is that right?
Here's what those comments sound like to me: "So, like, I wasn't like at the party and stuff, but like, I know what went on there, but I don't, but I do, you know what I'm saying? Are you going to finish that joint? Far out, man."
Ditka then closes his column with a loud thud, where the echo screams out the word, "ignoramus." He asks what one would do if someone pulled a gun on them. Good question, considering the fact the likes of Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and Eric Garner weren't carrying guns, and the first and second in the group were shot and killed by one.
He then said, "The 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."
A policeman, who killed an unarmed man, has a ruined life because we feel the need to "break somebody down"? The policeman is still living, while the unarmed man he killed is no longer. Whose life was ruined again?
Person: A living policeman
Ditka: "His life is ruined!"
Person: An unarmed man that was killed by the policeman
Ditka: "Eh, whatever"
Mike Ditka may be embarrassed for the St. Louis Rams players for protesting and bringing awareness to police violence against blacks. As for me, I'm embarrassed for Mike Ditka. He was right about one thing in his column, though; he really doesn't get it.
http://deadspin.com/mike-ditka-says-hes-embarrassed-for-hands-up-dont-s-1666098031
Comments
Post a Comment