It would still classify as assault and battery under Michigan Law. Artest would still have problems in a civil case should this victim wish to pursue.Kathleen said:
Black players in particular should heed Stern warning
- Thread starter mtl_guy
- Start date
Sure...the only race I saw of the people who started it was white.rama putri said:
This is really odd. I'm not condoning what Artest did. Absolutely not. But to me this wouldn't be any issue if a fan didn't start it.
FYI Kathleen, there has been a couple of times in the past where hockey players have gone into the stands. As a matter of fact it happened in junior hockey this year.
I agree you "cannot" go into the stands. But for the couple of fans that ran on to the court, all bets are off. LOL
Barkley has already stated he is not a role model and doesn't want to be.Kathleen said:
As for the Artest incident, the fans got what they deserved. I'm not condoning what Artest did. It was stupid and it cost him and the Pacers the season.
There was an altercation that occured on the court. I don't know if this fan was dragged on the court or if he ran on. If the fan ran on to the court does it change your opinions that a player can defend himself by fighting him?
There is another aspect on this topic that has not come up. We have already mentioned Rob Dibble. Lou Pinella, and Charles Barkley. Add to this list Michael Irvin, Deonn Sanders, Sterling Sharp, Bill Lambier and I'm sure there are a few more I'm missing. What do they have in common, they were all some of the most trash talking, taunting, fight starting, say anything to the media to get a reaction, pain in the asses to play their respected games. Oh yeah, and they were all rewarded with high profile TV and coaching jobs after they were done playing. If you think that today's players don't see this and realize that any attention, be it good or bad, will help keep them in the public spotlight, then your kidding yourself. And I'll bet ticket sales around the league will be higher at Indianapolis road games next year when Arrtest is back. People will want to see the next meltdown. It's Rodman syndrome all over again.
Kathleen said:
Not sure if a fan's mere presence on the court would justify a player taking a swing at him. If that were the case, then when the Pistons won the Championship, and the fans poured onto the court in celebration, then players from both teams could begin punching their tickets just because....? The same would hold true for College Football...etc.
The fan that was on the court, albeit in a place he was not supposed to be, still had his arms down when Artest clocked him. And the fan O'Neal hit was already down. Neither of them would be judged to have posed an immediate threat to either player. But, the law suits will bear all of that out.
Not so much a racist column as it is an utter simplification.
Players are spoiled. Basketball has the worst of them. Most of them happen to be black. Less racial than cultural.
Whether it's racial or not, there's been a massive disconnect between working class mostly white fans and spoiled (mostly black) basketball players.
Problem is, the same problem is happening in hockey and both players and fans are white.
As many people have commented, these issues are more about class--both money and manners--than about race. Agreed?
Players are spoiled. Basketball has the worst of them. Most of them happen to be black. Less racial than cultural.
Whether it's racial or not, there's been a massive disconnect between working class mostly white fans and spoiled (mostly black) basketball players.
Problem is, the same problem is happening in hockey and both players and fans are white.
As many people have commented, these issues are more about class--both money and manners--than about race. Agreed?
1. The relevance of black culture.
There is no doubt that most players in the NBA are black and that many players come from upbringings where violent responses to being "dissed" (whether verbally or physically) are acceptable.
However, the same could be said for players in the NFL, yet there is no similar problem. Why is there a difference? I'd suggest that while the NFL preaches discipline and team play as keys to both on and off-field success (in the NFL, even touchdown celebrations are scrutinized!), the NBA, by contrast, encourages individualistic and self-indulgent behavior. How many players in the NBA don't even pass the ball unless they're forced to?
It only so happens that the rap gangsta culture encourages the same self-indulgence! As a side note, it's also clear that the gansta culture doesn't work. It doesn't help young black men escape poverty or fully participate in society. It only ends up in turf wars where young black men are killed senselessly.
I think the writer would have been better to have simply said that fans will not put up with being beaten, regardless of the provocation. I don't think a black fan would have been any happier with Artest's fist in his face than a white fan.
2. The Response of the NBA
I completely agree with lowering the boom on the three players. I also hope they lose a significant amount of cash in civil suits. Everyone needs to be reminded that there are actually very few justifications in life for laying a beating on someone. Sorry Charles Barkley, but you are clearly out to lunch on this one!
There is no worse marketing I could imagine than laying a beating on your customers! The players are supposed to be partners in business with the owners (at least they make the kind of money that partners make). If they don't understand their responsibilty to the overall marketing of the game, they've simply got to go.
However, I don't think the NBA is actually doing enough. The fans behaved the way they did because trash talking, on and off the court, has been permitted by the league to be a part of the game. There is no need for this. The league should be throwing trash talking players off the court and trash talking fans out of the arena.
3. Comparison to Hockey/Rugby
The fighting in hockey does not threaten the marketing of the sport. It does not indicate a lack of respect for the fans. Many people like to claim that fighting in hockey prevents it from becoming more popular and joining the true "major leagues" of sport. There is no evidence to back up this claim. The North American public enjoys fighting as a sport. Just look at the popularity of wrestling! In my opinion the main reasons that hockey has not grown in prominence more quickly are: 1) they are starting in the disadvantageous position of having to wrest television audiences away from other established programming, 2) the game has become lower scoring, 3) there is too much turnover in franchise locations/identity/players for fans to develop "brand loyalty", and 4) the puck is too hard to see for American audiences (most of whom have never played the game).
I have some regard for what was said about the reconciliation that takes place after rugby games. I think that is the essence of sportsmanship. Hockey could take some notes from that practice. For example, in minor hockey, some genious came up with idea that teams should shake hands before the game! Some sportsmanship that teaches! Usually the referee ends up shepherding the teams off the ice separately at the end of the game! Thankfully, soccer teams at the amateur level still shake hands after the game.
4. Role Models
Charles Barkley is right about one thing - he's certainly no role model! Kids should be discouraged from choosing entertainers as role models (unless they have determined that their career choice is to become an entertainer).
However, everyone should be concerned about their behaviour, whether they are a role model or not! That's the crux of civilization! People, and in particular adults, should not encourage other people, and in particular children, to adopt stupid responses to life's problems. No-one wants to live in a society of self-indulgent Barkleys.
There is no doubt that most players in the NBA are black and that many players come from upbringings where violent responses to being "dissed" (whether verbally or physically) are acceptable.
However, the same could be said for players in the NFL, yet there is no similar problem. Why is there a difference? I'd suggest that while the NFL preaches discipline and team play as keys to both on and off-field success (in the NFL, even touchdown celebrations are scrutinized!), the NBA, by contrast, encourages individualistic and self-indulgent behavior. How many players in the NBA don't even pass the ball unless they're forced to?
It only so happens that the rap gangsta culture encourages the same self-indulgence! As a side note, it's also clear that the gansta culture doesn't work. It doesn't help young black men escape poverty or fully participate in society. It only ends up in turf wars where young black men are killed senselessly.
I think the writer would have been better to have simply said that fans will not put up with being beaten, regardless of the provocation. I don't think a black fan would have been any happier with Artest's fist in his face than a white fan.
2. The Response of the NBA
I completely agree with lowering the boom on the three players. I also hope they lose a significant amount of cash in civil suits. Everyone needs to be reminded that there are actually very few justifications in life for laying a beating on someone. Sorry Charles Barkley, but you are clearly out to lunch on this one!
There is no worse marketing I could imagine than laying a beating on your customers! The players are supposed to be partners in business with the owners (at least they make the kind of money that partners make). If they don't understand their responsibilty to the overall marketing of the game, they've simply got to go.
However, I don't think the NBA is actually doing enough. The fans behaved the way they did because trash talking, on and off the court, has been permitted by the league to be a part of the game. There is no need for this. The league should be throwing trash talking players off the court and trash talking fans out of the arena.
3. Comparison to Hockey/Rugby
The fighting in hockey does not threaten the marketing of the sport. It does not indicate a lack of respect for the fans. Many people like to claim that fighting in hockey prevents it from becoming more popular and joining the true "major leagues" of sport. There is no evidence to back up this claim. The North American public enjoys fighting as a sport. Just look at the popularity of wrestling! In my opinion the main reasons that hockey has not grown in prominence more quickly are: 1) they are starting in the disadvantageous position of having to wrest television audiences away from other established programming, 2) the game has become lower scoring, 3) there is too much turnover in franchise locations/identity/players for fans to develop "brand loyalty", and 4) the puck is too hard to see for American audiences (most of whom have never played the game).
I have some regard for what was said about the reconciliation that takes place after rugby games. I think that is the essence of sportsmanship. Hockey could take some notes from that practice. For example, in minor hockey, some genious came up with idea that teams should shake hands before the game! Some sportsmanship that teaches! Usually the referee ends up shepherding the teams off the ice separately at the end of the game! Thankfully, soccer teams at the amateur level still shake hands after the game.
4. Role Models
Charles Barkley is right about one thing - he's certainly no role model! Kids should be discouraged from choosing entertainers as role models (unless they have determined that their career choice is to become an entertainer).
However, everyone should be concerned about their behaviour, whether they are a role model or not! That's the crux of civilization! People, and in particular adults, should not encourage other people, and in particular children, to adopt stupid responses to life's problems. No-one wants to live in a society of self-indulgent Barkleys.
Sorry Kat...this is off topic...but if you don't take your picture off your posts, I'll never be able to watch any sports again because I keep thinking of you...you are SO HOT....Kathleen said:
Kat, my friends and family call me SpartyKathleen said:
Of course you needn't specify, however, if Artest and O'Neal's defense is "Hey, they were on the court so they are fair game", then I'm certain there will be some scenario presented that would render that defense....defenseless.
"Your Honor, while my client fully acknowledges that requesting an autograph from Mr. Artest in the midst of a riot for his young nephew may have been ill timed, I would argue that bad timing alone is no reason for my client to suffer the pain and humiliation of being repeatedly struck by Mr. Artest in the face before he even had the chance to make such a request. As you can see from the video, the shear nervousness my client expressed, coupled with the melee atmosphere, caused his fists to clinch as he approached his nephew's hero...hoping to surprise his nephew with his hero's autograph. In his nervous state, he even forgot his program he wanted Mr. Artest to sign. Imagine his surprise and shock when, just as he was opening his mouth to make his request, Mr. Artest struck him not once, but twice in the face. Your Honor, it is for this unprovoked attack on my client that we seek damages in the amount of $2,000,000."
Now I'm sure any lawyer worth his salt and percentage can make a much better argument, but something tells me the "They had no business on the court" defense will be weak...very weak. At what point is Artest qualified to render judgement as to intent of the victim? His judgement was out the window when he went into the stands and grabbed the wrong guy and threw him to the ground. I think he's toast...but, stranger things have happened. My bet, out of court settlements...
