Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Masai Ujiri

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cop admits he saw the credentials, but baw gawd the boy showed them in a disrepectful way.

    G_Deane doubles down for the boys in blue smugly typing. "there are two sides to this story." then he peels away on his boat on the lake, and shakes his head about the lack of respect Masai shows authority.

    Comment


    • Easy there tiger, we're all friends here. Deane appears to be playing devil's advocate. You can discuss without insulting, right. That's a statement not a question.

      If you were going to take this route at least don't be lazy and back it up with direct quotes.

      Comment


      • The story from the cops is Masai had something but not the something the cop was authorized to permit access. Whether he's being fair about this rule to all is another matter. We know what the cops said he had and what he was required to have. We don't know what he says he had because he's not talking. The truth should be all you need to win your side of a debate.

        Based on what we know:
        1. He had something.
        2. Witnesses says he had something but they don't know what it was.
        3. He isn't speaking for obvious reasons.
        4. The cops say it wasn't the right something to gain access to the floor and they're looking into why he didn't have the right something.
        5. Other people appeared to be gaining access without this hold up, such as Leo for sure.

        Am I missing something? You're assuming the worst, which is fine, believe what you want to but don't be a dick to other posters because they not interpreting it just like you.

        Comment


        • Apollo wrote: View Post
          The story from the cops is Masai had something but not the something the cop was authorized to permit access. Whether he's being fair about this rule to all is another matter. We know what the cops said he had and what he was required to have. We don't know what he says he had because he's not talking. The truth should be all you need to win your side of a debate.

          Based on what we know:
          1. He had something.
          2. Witnesses says he had something but they don't know what it was.
          3. He isn't speaking for obvious reasons.
          4. The cops say it wasn't the right something to gain access to the floor and they're looking into why he didn't have the right something.
          5. Other people appeared to be gaining access without this hold up, such as Leo for sure.

          Am I missing something? You're assuming the worst, which is fine, believe what you want to but don't be a dick to other posters because they not interpreting it just like you.
          Yeah, you're missing the part that says "white guys get in for free" a.k.a. - racial profiling. Or as you called it...... "another matter". Sure, it's just "another matter" if you don't have to deal with that type of discrimination on an hourly basis.

          Comment


          • golden wrote: View Post

            Yeah, you're missing the part that says "white guys get in for free" a.k.a. - racial profiling. Or as you called it...... "another matter". Sure, it's just "another matter" if you don't have to deal with that type of discrimination on an hourly basis.
            No, I actually mentioned that part quite clearly in my post. I also never said it was "just" another matter but literally it is another matter.

            Twisting information out there so far and/or exaggerating only takes away from any ideas you're trying to convey. Attacking people's character because they don't share your view actually hurts you more than them. You here for a discussion or a fight? You seem to be here for a fight because I don't think your going to find a thread in here where everyone shares your exact same views and making character attacks against people isn't going to fly anywhere and it hurts your credibility. Maybe you should actually stop and consider what he was saying instead of assuming who he must be to say it?

            Comment


            • Apollo wrote: View Post

              No, I actually mentioned that part quite clearly in my post. I also never said it was "just" another matter but literally it is another matter.

              Twisting information out there so far and/or exaggerating only takes away from any ideas you're trying to convey. Attacking people's character because they don't share your view actually hurts you more than them. You here for a discussion or a fight? You seem to be here for a fight because I don't think your going to find a thread in here where everyone shares your exact same views and making character attacks against people isn't going to fly anywhere and it hurts your credibility. Maybe you should actually stop and consider what he was saying instead of assuming who he must be to say it?
              Nobody is attacking your personal character, Apollo. I'm just pointing out a systemic social problem that reared it's ugly head in front of millions of people. Which is: it's real easy to look past the genesis of the problem and then start blaming Masai, if you're on the other side that never has to deal with that kind of discrimination on an hourly basis.

              That's the whole message of the 'Black Lives Matter' campaign. Stop putting us into these situations, unfairly to begin with.... just because we look threatening .... to you. You can't gloss over that so quickly and smoothly.... like you just did. It is the central theme.

              Comment


              • And for the record before someone jumps on what I'm saying let me make it clear:

                I'm not doubting that racism might have occured here, sounds like it did but let's get the facts straight. He didn't have the right pass and others may not have either and they got through. That's the deal. It's not that he had everything in order and they said no. It's that he didn't have everything in order and they chose in particular to say no to him. There's a difference and I think this is what Deane was trying to say if I understand correctly.

                Comment


                • Apollo wrote: View Post
                  And for the record before someone jumps on what I'm saying let me make it clear:

                  I'm not doubting that racism might have occured here, sounds like it did but let's get the facts straight. He didn't have the right pass and others may not have either and they got through. That's the deal. It's not that he had everything in order and they said no. It's that he didn't have everything in order and they chose in particular to say no to him. There's a difference and I think this is what Deane was trying to say if I understand correctly.
                  Again, you gloss over the main point - unfairness. That a "threatening" black man was singled out. Even when he showed proof he was the goddamn President of the Toronto Raptors. Yet, Leo Rautins doesn't even have to show his Tim Hortons card to get onto the court. Masai was targeted and then held to an effing ridiculous standard. Leo was given the benefit of the doubt, because he's orange.
                  Last edited by golden; Fri Jun 21st, 2019, 04:30 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Apollo wrote: View Post
                    And for the record before someone jumps on what I'm saying let me make it clear:

                    I'm not doubting that racism might have occured here, sounds like it did but let's get the facts straight. He didn't have the right pass and others may not have either and they got through. That's the deal. It's not that he had everything in order and they said no. It's that he didn't have everything in order and they chose in particular to say no to him. There's a difference and I think this is what Deane was trying to say if I understand correctly.
                    Well, I think a lot of the discussion is not THAT he was said no to, or even why (though, yeah, loads to unpack there), but how he was said no to. If it turns out that the cop politely asked him for his credentials and Masai produced them and the cop told him he did not have the right credentials, then yeah, Masai trying to shove his way past the cop looks real bad. If the cop in actuality made this thing physical from the get-go? That's then the real difference.

                    Of course, we don't know, because the police refuse to release the footage. For, apparently, no reason, as they were willing to share a photo with a journalist (that they were not allowed to publish, to protect the investigation) and yet refused to show the same journalist the video (to protect the investigation). I don't see how releasing the video to the public could possibly hurt the investigation. But that's their right, I guess. You can hardly blame people for assuming the worst though, if they have evidence available to prevent those assumptions and aren't willing to show it.
                    twitter.com/dhackett1565

                    Comment


                    • golden wrote: View Post

                      Nobody is attacking your personal character, Apollo. I'm just pointing out a systemic social problem that reared it's ugly head in front of millions of people. Which is: it's real easy to look past the genesis of the problem and then start blaming Masai, if you're on the other side that never has to deal with that kind of discrimination on an hourly basis.

                      That's the whole message of the 'Black Lives Matter' campaign. Stop putting us into these situations, unfairly to begin with.... just because we look threatening .... to you. You can't gloss over that so quickly and smoothly.... like you just did. It is the central theme.
                      I wasn't saying people were calling me racist. I didn't like how that was implied to Deane because I don't think he is based on the sum of all his posts in here. I think he was being misunderstood and I didn't like that it was heading toward character assassination. That's heading in the wrong direction. If someone is heading there then they may not be mature enough to have this discussion.

                      I agree with you that Masai shouldn't have been in the situation but it happened and that's not going to be solved through physical force. Did you ever consider that the cop got exactly what he wanted to have happen if he truly is a horrible racist? It's always a bad idea to strike back against a cop. Masai had a choice not to do that and I hope he didn't make contact with the face because it makes it all that more worse because it should have never been a thing to begin with. I hope that makes more sense.

                      Comment


                      • Apollo wrote: View Post

                        I wasn't saying people were calling me racist. I didn't like how that was implied to Deane because I don't think he is based on the sum of all his posts in here. I think he was being misunderstood and I didn't like that it was heading toward character assassination. That's heading in the wrong direction. If someone is heading there then they may not be mature enough to have this discussion.

                        I agree with you that Masai shouldn't have been in the situation but it happened and that's not going to be solved through physical force. Did you ever consider that the cop got exactly what he wanted to have happen if he truly is a horrible racist? It's always a bad idea to strike back against a cop. Masai had a choice not to do that and I hope he didn't make contact with the face because it makes it all that more worse because it should have never been a thing to begin with. I hope that makes more sense.
                        This is the other part of your argument I'm having a hard time swallowing. You & Deaner are talking about following the rules, the laws, doing things by the book, etc... Yet the law is founded upon "presumed innocence until proven guilty". But we have seen zero evidence as proof of Masai striking the officer in the face. Even though this incident happened in front of 10's of thousands of people with camera phones up the yin-yang and multiple world-wide network cameras rolling.

                        If you truly want to follow "the rule of law", then we have to dismiss those so-called claims by the cops as being complete rubbish, until they show some evidence. Why are you so intent on taking their word for it? Even moreso after they have been changing their story as days go by?

                        That's really all you're clinging to right now is: "the cops said that Masai did this....." The body camera miraculously switching off at the moment of truth? C'mon, man.

                        Comment


                        • I'd tend to agree that there is currently no good reason to believe that Masai actually/intentionally struck this cop in the face. Seems pretty damn unlikely to me.

                          Comment


                          • Apollo wrote: View Post
                            Easy there tiger, we're all friends here. Deane appears to be playing devil's advocate. You can discuss without insulting, right. That's a statement not a question.

                            If you were going to take this route at least don't be lazy and back it up with direct quotes.
                            We all love Masai and I get why so many want to jump to his defense without all the facts. It's why I keep saying I want to see the film they say they have when most want to convict without evidence. It's kind of cute.

                            Comment


                            • Apollo wrote: View Post
                              The story from the cops is Masai had something but not the something the cop was authorized to permit access. Whether he's being fair about this rule to all is another matter. We know what the cops said he had and what he was required to have. We don't know what he says he had because he's not talking. The truth should be all you need to win your side of a debate.

                              Based on what we know:
                              1. He had something.
                              2. Witnesses says he had something but they don't know what it was.
                              3. He isn't speaking for obvious reasons.
                              4. The cops say it wasn't the right something to gain access to the floor and they're looking into why he didn't have the right something.
                              5. Other people appeared to be gaining access without this hold up, such as Leo for sure.

                              Am I missing something? You're assuming the worst, which is fine, believe what you want to but don't be a dick to other posters because they not interpreting it just like you.
                              The only thing you're missing is the EYE WITNESS FOR MASAI said Masai had credentials in his hand (not wearing them and not the ocrrect ones) but that's somewhat immaterial at this point because THE COP COULD NOT SEE THEM WHEN HE FIRST ENGAGED.

                              Comment


                              • golden wrote: View Post

                                This is the other part of your argument I'm having a hard time swallowing. You & Deaner are talking about following the rules, the laws, doing things by the book, etc... Yet the law is founded upon "presumed innocence until proven guilty". But we have seen zero evidence as proof of Masai striking the officer in the face. Even though this incident happened in front of 10's of thousands of people with camera phones up the yin-yang and multiple world-wide network cameras rolling.

                                If you truly want to follow "the rule of law", then we have to dismiss those so-called claims by the cops as being complete rubbish, until they show some evidence. Why are you so intent on taking their word for it? Even moreso after they have been changing their story as days go by?

                                That's really all you're clinging to right now is: "the cops said that Masai did this....." The body camera miraculously switching off at the moment of truth? C'mon, man.
                                If there was a SINGLE second of film before what we have already seen (Masai and the cop AFTER whatever incident occured) than it would have surfaced in spades by now. Tons of media outlets would gladly pay for it for example.

                                I think it's safe to assume that the thousands of cameras that would likely have been on were all trained on the court and celebrating athletes, not randomly away from the court where this occured. What other explanation would you have.

                                I'd also say that if Masai had struck the cop in the face, it would have surfaced even faster.

                                What we DO know (I think) is that the cop held him back, pushed him and then Masai pushed him back harder (eye witness FOR Masai again)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X