True question: is there a statement somewhere that I've missed where Kaepernick says that this specific incident is the reason he's protesting, or is this just an example of incidents that he's T'd off about?
I've seen the video and I'm not about to make apologies for the officer. No matter what the provocation was, it should have been handled without the violence. That said, read this CBS report on the story as to why charges weren't brought.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-crim...o-dragged-south-carolina-high-school-student/
It's interesting that the prosecutor says that the fact that the police chief fired the officer before the investigation was complete, and that the Justice Department cut a deal to drop its investigation in exchange for additional training being provided served to work against the officer being indicted. I think he's saying that the fact that the police department chose to handle discipline by firing Fields rather than arresting him, and the fact that the Justice Dept. resolution implies that the officer may not have been adequately trained works against being able to prosecute him. When combined with witness statements that it wasn't as bad as it looked in the video and that Fields didn't intentionally throw her, but lost his grip, there likely wasn't a reasonable chance that the officer would have been convicted.
I get why Kaepernick is pissed about so many incidents having happened in past few years where blacks are shot or injured at the hands of police and no charges are ever brought. But the underlying principles of justice cut both ways for civilians and cops. Just because it looks like an incident like this is blatant racism doesn't mean that it was. And just because there's video doesn't mean that there's sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute a case. Does that mean that there's something inherently wrong with our system of justice or does it mean that we're right and want to make damned sure that we only convict when there's proof of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? I respect Kaep's right to protest and throw a spotlight on perceived injustice, but I think that he's missing the mark if he's relying on this specific case to illustrate that injustice.