^I look at it another way, and it seems a lot of vets see it the same... vets went to war in part to uphold the freedoms that Americans enjoy, part of that is the first amendment. Why shouldn't he be allowed to protest? Yes he could have picked a less controversial way to make his point, but isn't that the essence of protest? Doing something that will force a discussion? It seems to me that people are forgetting what is supposed to make America great, freedom of expression. If we set aside his method of protest, his aims seem entirely reasonable. African Americans should be able to enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else without persecution. They should be able to feel that the police will look after their interests, but clearly they don't feel that way. If nothing else has worked to change their situation to date, then the protest has to be a valid form of political discourse surely.
I watched Skip Bayliss and his new partner on 'Undisputed' the other day (I forget the guys name), and he made the point that in just the last year there have been a few white criminals who have committed some fairly heinous crimes and they were captured without violence, but people like Eric Garner are somehow killed selling cigarettes or cds? I won't go into specifics, that would be poor sampling, but if a large section of society feel that there is bias against them and it stays unresolved for decades, no... centuries, why shouldn't they force the issue however they feel appropriate, particularly when no one got hurt.. just my opinion. For what it's worth, taking the knee seems more sensible than the initial sitting down..