Eagles Malcolm Jenkins Explains What’s Next For The NFL Protests

Originally, the “protest” from a disgruntled quarterback who was demoted to 3rd string and liked wearing socks featuring cops as pigs was about police brutality against Blacks (but failed to mention that roughly 50% of all U.S. murders were committed against Blacks with over 90% of the known killers being Black). So, of course we get mission creep, as Philadelphia Eagles player Malcolm Jenkins is given a platform at the Washington Post (and other outlets, such as Philly.com)

What protesting NFL players like me want to do next

A year ago, I was one of several NFL players who began demonstratingin the hope of sparking conversation about injustice in our country. That effort has now grown to include players and teams across the league, as we proclaim together that we believe in equality and justice for everyone. We understand that these conversations are often uncomfortable, but they are important for progress. Our demonstrations have never been about the symbols and traditions we use to honor America. They have been about us as citizens making sure we hold America to the ideals and promises that make this country great.

Except, there really hasn’t been a conversation, just slogans and annoying fans by disrespecting the flag, the nation, our military, and our first responders. And following the lead of Colin Kaepernick, who wore the pig socks, along with shirts loving Fidel Castro and Mao, not too mention donating $25,000 to a group that supports cop killer Assata Shakur.

But, let’s give Jenkins the benefit of the doubt, and see where he’s going with his mission creep

In the past year, more than 40 NFL players have joined Anquan Boldin, who retired this summer after 14 seasons, and me to form a Players Coalition dedicated to improving our criminal-justice system.

We want to lend our voices to changing this flawed system, which is crippling our nation and especially affects people who are poor or of color. We have gone on ride-alongs with police, visited Capitol Hill and talked with policy advocates and grass-roots organizers. We’ve learned first-hand about the problems we face. We’ve also learned that we aren’t alone. There are plenty of Republicans and Democrats, community leaders and members of law enforcement who agree.

We as citizens must make this work a priority. Consider our money-bail system. In 2016, police punched 58-year-old Gilbert Cruz in the face and arrested him for refusing to leave his own home during an investigation. Unable to make the $3,500 bail, Cruz spent more than two months in a Houston jail. By the time prosecutors finally dropped the case after concluding he had committed no crime, Cruz had lost his job, his car and almost his home.

While Jenkins and his group are aiming this reform along racial lines, let’s note two points. First, they are actually doing something in this push, not just yapping, complaining, and spreading awareness. They’re putting their time and money into this. Good for them.

Second, this is not just a hardcore leftist push. If you visit any media platform of hardcore leftist Democrat Senator Kamala Harris, you’ll see her pushing this. You’ll also see Republicans such as Rand Paul pushing this issue. Some, in pushback, have noted that bail is there to make sure that the accused does not flee prosecution. True. But, sometimes, the money-bail system goes to far, as Jenkins noted above. There certainly does need to be reform. If Rand Paul and Kamala Harris have joined forces, then this is something to consider, IMO.

But, more mission creep

The system punishes even after you’ve served your time. As many as 1 in 3 Americans has a criminal record. Criminal records keep people from getting jobs. Philadelphia native Ronald Lewis runs his own HVAC business, where he hires people from his neighborhood. But two misdemeanor convictions from 13 years ago continue to keep him from getting contracts that could help his business grow.

What the group wants is for records to be sealed on non-violent misdemeanors after 10 years. Good idea? Bad idea? It’s not something that can be immediately answered.

The system has unleashed an extraordinary burden on communities of color. Mass incarceration and the war on drugs have destroyed lives, families and whole communities for generations. Communities of color have also had to watch video after video of unarmed black men and women being handled without regard for their lives or well-being. As a black man, I see these images and I see myself; I wonder whether this will happen to me or one of my loved ones.

Well, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. This is where Jenkins et all should be out in the Black communities, showing there are better ways than shooting each other over crimes of disrespect. Because someone blew off your barbecue or looked at your girl is no reason to pull a gun and start shooting.

I’ve heard people say that my colleagues and I are un-American and unpatriotic. Well, we want to make America great. We want to help make our country safe and prosperous. We want a land of justice and equality. True patriotism is loving your country and countrymen enough to want to make it better.

The way to do it is not pissing off the people who pay good money to come to the stadium. Who buy merchandise. Who give up their time to watch the team play. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. You catch more fans with hot wings and beer, rather than crapburgers and spoiled milk.

Oh, and perhaps NFL players should consider not committing so many crimes themselves.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

14 Responses to “Eagles Malcolm Jenkins Explains What’s Next For The NFL Protests”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Thank you for linking to Mr. Jenkins’ well-written and thoughtful essay. It’s must reading for anyone interested in understanding the NFL protests.

    Your poorly written racist smears were not helpful, but were not unexpected.

    Mr. Jenkins said:

    I’ve heard people say that my colleagues and I are un-American and unpatriotic. Well, we want to make America great. We want to help make our country safe and prosperous. We want a land of justice and equality. True patriotism is loving your country and countrymen enough to want to make it better.

    You prefer that protesters protest where it doesn’t bother you, and that they not piss off the people who need to change.

    • Your poorly written racist smears were not helpful, but were not unexpected.

      Point them out. Then rebut them. I’m waiting.

      You prefer that protesters protest where it doesn’t bother you, and that they not piss off the people who need to change.

      If you’re pissing people off instead of bringing them over to your side, then you are failing.

  2. Dana says:

    Mr Jenkins wrote:

    The system punishes even after you’ve served your time. As many as 1 in 3 Americans has a criminal record. Criminal records keep people from getting jobs.

    Mr Jenkins assumes that the sole punishment for the crime is serving the sentence. However, it is part of the law that criminal records are kept, and available to the public, and those are also part of the punishment for crimes. The left even agree that convicted felons, once released, are still justifiably banned from owning firearms, and that sex offenders can be maintained on a sex offenders registry, so it is clear that they have no problem with continuing punishment beyond serving their sentences; conservatives, including me, simply believe that they should also be barred from voting.

    Some on the left have been pushing “ban the box,” a measure which prohibits employers from having a question concerning whether an applicant has even been convicted of a crime on initial job applications. The idea is that applicants should get a chance to show prospective employers their job skills and résumés before being summarily rejected simply for having a prior criminal record. Employers could ask that question in the interview process. From Wikipedia:

    In June 2016, a large experimental study was published by Princeton University economist Amanda Agan and University of Michigan Law School professor Sonja Starr on the racial gap in callback rates of employers to job applicants of different racial backgrounds in New Jersey and New York City before and after Ban the Box laws went into effect. Agan and Starr sent out 15,000 fictitious online job applications to companies in those areas with racially stereotypical names on the job applications. Prior to the implementation of Ban the Box laws in New Jersey and New York City, the gap in the callback rate between the job applications with stereotypically black names and stereotypically white names was 7 percent. After the implementation of Ban the Box laws, the racial gap in the callback rate increased to 45 percent. A July 2016 study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research on Ban the Box laws by University of Virginia professor Jennifer L. Doleac and University of Oregon economist Benjamin Hansen found that in jurisdictions where Ban the Box laws have been implemented, the probabilities of young, non-college educated, black and Hispanic males being employed have declined. An October 2006 study with a similar finding published in The Journal of Law and Economics by McCourt School of Public Policy economist Harry J. Holzer, University of California, Berkeley public policy professor Steven Raphael, and University of California, Los Angeles public affairs professor Michael A. Stoll found that employers who made routine criminal background checks for all job applicants, regardless of their racial backgrounds, hired black applicants (especially black males) at a higher rate than those employers that did not make routine criminal background checks for all applicants.

    Translation: employers assumed that anyone named Umgwana Kik-Bouti¹ was black, and knowing that blacks have a far higher crime rate, simply assumed that those applicants were more probably criminals. Statistically speaking, such an assumption was correct, and was just a way around the ‘ban the box’ rules. Research has shown that ‘ban the box’ has actually been more harmful than helpful for blacks.

    Mr Jenkins plays for the Philadelphia Eagles, the team which gave Michael Vick a second chance, following his federal conviction for cruelty to animals. (Mr Vick had moved on before Mr Jenkins joined the Iggles.) Mr Vick had the athletic ability and skills that the Eagles’ coaching and management thought could help them win games, and he did have some good games for them. Ban the box didn’t matter, because everyone knew about Mr Vick’s convictions long before the Eagles signed him. Living in Pennsylvania at the time, I saw plenty of articles and commentary from fans, on both sides, those who thought he should be given a second chance, and those who thought that a cruelty to animals conviction was so far beyond the pale that he should forever be condemned to joblessness and poverty.

    Of course, I’m always amazed that people who get the most incensed about cruelty to animals are also pro-abortion, but I digress.

    Personally, I had no problem with the Eagles signing Mr Vick: he still had to earn his job in training camp, and I do not oppose convicted felons re-entering the job market. I am opposed to ever letting them vote again.

    I wonder: what would Mr Jenkins say about second chances for convicted pedophiles or rapists? Of course, that problem could easily be solved by making their punishments life in prison without parole!
    ______________________
    ¹ – Umgwana Kik-Bouti was a name used in an old Cheech and Chong comedy album, Los Cochinos.

  3. Jeffery says:

    As a reasonably well-compensated, older, white male, I can buy my way out of any speeding ticket, post bail, avoid most second looks by police, hire the best lawyer to plea down drug offenses, even pay off those I’ve wronged (as Dotard tRump has several times)… poor folks don’t have the same opportunities. Mr. Jenkins appeared to making the point that poor folk don’t have those same breaks available, largely from lack of resources, and these records haunt someone forever. Super wealthy real estate developers all have pasts that they are able to keep secret because of great lawyering and nearly unlimited resources. Should a pot conviction in 2004 keep you from getting a job in 2017?

    I DO agree that pedophiles and rapists cannot be rehabilitated and should be put away until they die. Most are sociopaths and there is no good treatment short of several grams of IV pentabarb.

    most incensed about cruelty to animals are also pro-abortion

    Your statement is too broad. It’s like saying white supremacists are also pro-tRump. Are you pro-cruelty to animals? Do you support bear-baiting, cockfighting and dog fights? I’m pro-choice and my name and home address were on the watch list of an anti-animal use terror organization because of my occupation conducting FDA mandated animal testing. If one of those loons appeared at my door they’d have been met with a 12g. In addition I hunt and fish. That said, I fully support regulations to limit animal cruelty in both the field, farm, factory and laboratory.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      No one here really gives a shit about you and what you think little jeffvckery.
      Haven’t you realized that yet, little attention whore?

      • Jeffery says:

        Bitch with an Itch types:

        No one here really gives a shit about you and what you think

        Yet we live inside your tiny head rent free.

        Stop asking your mom to read you the comments and your inferiority complex will get better.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          You responded!
          Must’ve touched a nerve there, huh little jeffvckery?
          Like the rest of us here, we still don’t give a shit about you or what you think, you little attention whore.
          Is the Christian wifey still ignoring you or has she finally walked out?

    • Dana says:

      Jeffrey wrote:

      (Of course, I’m always amazed that people who get the most incensed about cruelty to animals are also pro-abortion.)

      Your statement is too broad. It’s like saying white supremacists are also pro-tRump. Are you pro-cruelty to animals? Do you support bear-baiting, cockfighting and dog fights? I’m pro-choice and my name and home address were on the watch list of an anti-animal use terror organization because of my occupation conducting FDA mandated animal testing. If one of those loons appeared at my door they’d have been met with a 12g. In addition I hunt and fish. That said, I fully support regulations to limit animal cruelty in both the field, farm, factory and laboratory.

      I am absolutely opposed to animal cruelty, and I am also pro-life, from the moment of conception until natural death. I do not hunt or fish, though I will probably take up fishing this spring, to supplement our diet.

      I couldn’t meet anyone at the door with a 12-gauge because I honor the Second Amendment with my choice not to own a firearm.

    • Dana says:

      Jeffrey asked:

      Should a pot conviction in 2004 keep you from getting a job in 2017?

      That, I would say, ought to be up to the employer.

      Depending upon the crime and date of conviction, I would most definitely consider convicted felons; due to their poorer job prospects, they have less flexibility to leave, thus (in theory, anyway) increasing employee retention. That said, I would not hire a convicted rapist if I had any female employees or customers; that’s the kind or liability I would not accept. I would never hire a driver with a past DUI conviction. People convicted of theft would never find a position with me which involved handling money or responsibility with keeping equipment. But if an employer wishes to maintain a workforce with zero convicted felons, it is his right to do so.

      • Jeffrey misses that companies deny job applications all the time because the drug test comes back positive for pot. Even in states that allow recreational usage, companies are allowed to, and still do, deny job applications. And terminate if an employees drug test comes back positive.

        • Jeffery says:

          No I didn’t miss that, it’s just irrelevant to the point that prior convictions limit the economic options of jobseekers.

          Any potential employee with a recent drug history stupid enough to submit to drug testing deserves their fate. Frankly, I would never submit to drug test, but then I’m no longer asked to.

  4. formwiz says:

    The Village Idiot speaks.

    Let me know when these Athletic Scholarships (an oxymoron if ever there was one) want to form a Players Coalition to stop black on black violence.

    BTW, Here are the stats by race. Perhaps even Nitwit will notice black on black shootings make up the vast majority while white on black shootings make up the vast minority – less than 10%.

  5. Jeffery says:

    The Wiz doesn’t think police violence against Blacks should be addressed until black on black crime ends. Of course, he’d be breezin’ on down a different road if cops were shooting down white kids playing with toy guns, or white Con Men looking at BB guns in WalMarts, or white guys reaching for the wallet after being stopped for a tail light violation.

  6. TJ says:

    If the ‘SJW’ in the NFL want to really promote their case, they should kneel during -plays-, not during the anthem. Just imaging the talk that would ensue after -that- demonstration.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8211 access attempts in the last 7 days.