ExiledInIllinois Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Exactly. Why anyone is sticking up for these thug fans in Detroit is beyond me. The fans embody their thug team. Last night both the fans and team got their ass handed to them and I for one couldn't be happier about it. 126012[/snapback] Did Artest get the right guy? Classify all the Detroit fans as "thugs?" Wow... I thought I knew you better BF...? Didn't you get my points? What you are saying is purely reactionary. Why lump a group of people into one mold. Detroit fans DON'T personify their extremist fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?sel...ld=%7C%7C%7C%7C I'm actually suprised this definition of selfdefense doesn't clarify the situation better. In a law class I took (I'm not a lawyer) I remember the prof stressing that self defense has to be a lesser reaction in almost every case, and would be thrown out if another option was available (such as walking away). 125998[/snapback] It's amazing how some people perceive self defense, like it gives them a free pass to attack anyone who has attacked them. WRONG. These people are confusing defending their ego with actual self defense. While self defense is usually a judgement call, there are certian questions any prosecutor, judge and jury would ask to determine self defense. There are escalating steps that must be followed by all. Straight from one of my criminal justice textbooks from college "You become the aggressor if 1) you were an active participant in the creation and escalation of the conflict, (e.g. you were in an argument that turned into an extended punch out). 2) you did not stop attacking after the immediate threat had passed (e.g. he was trying to disengage or had fallen and you kept on attacking) or 3) your response was excessive beyond the threat offered to you (e.g. you knife someone who just punched you)." Artest is guilty of all three. 1. He was not part of the creation, but was part of the escalation. The "attack" on him stopped and could have easily removed himself from the situation. 2. The immediate threat was the cup of beer, there were no following threats. Additional threats were created by his actions. 3. He ran into the crowd to attack an individual from a thrown cup, not a equal response. People need to stop confusing pride and ego with self-defense. Nobody is impressed by chest thumping anymore. You're a bigger man if you stop a fight, not continue one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drunkenirishmann Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 How is he guilty of all 3????? Ok......lets tackle them 1 @ a time: "Straight from one of my criminal justice textbooks from college "You become the aggressor if 1) you were an active participant in the creation and escalation of the conflict, (e.g. you were in an argument that turned into an extended punch out). The person in the stands threw an object @ Artest....unprovoked might I add. 2) you did not stop attacking after the immediate threat had passed (e.g. he was trying to disengage or had fallen and you kept on attacking) or One he wrestled the fan to the ground, he did not retaliate or escalate the assult any further. 3) your response was excessive beyond the threat offered to you (e.g. you knife someone who just punched you)." The fan threw an object and hit Artest. Artest wrestled the person to the ground. There is no excessiveness on Artests part "Artest is guilty of all three" - wrong, he isn't guilty of any of the 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 How is he guilty of all 3????? Ok......lets tackle them 1 @ a time: "Straight from one of my criminal justice textbooks from college "You become the aggressor if 1) you were an active participant in the creation and escalation of the conflict, (e.g. you were in an argument that turned into an extended punch out). The person in the stands threw an object @ Artest....unprovoked might I add. 2) you did not stop attacking after the immediate threat had passed (e.g. he was trying to disengage or had fallen and you kept on attacking) or One he wrestled the fan to the ground, he did not retaliate or escalate the assult any further. 3) your response was excessive beyond the threat offered to you (e.g. you knife someone who just punched you)." The fan threw an object and hit Artest. Artest wrestled the person to the ground. There is no excessiveness on Artests part "Artest is guilty of all three" - wrong, he isn't guilty of any of the 3 126038[/snapback] Your whole arguement assumes that Artest had to go into the stands in order to prevent any further bodily harm to himself. Your case would hold no water in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcrusho Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 http://mfile.akamai.com/12942/wmv/vod.ibsy...935750.200k.asx Enjoy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailog80 Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Ron Artest = Rodman Wanna be. Same # 91 same lame ass gimmicks. Head case . Geez you wonder if the NBA will still use Artest and Wallace to promote League Pass. Trampling an old lady that should really have David Stern smiling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_eyedog_* Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 I know one new millionaire who was wearing a Pistons jersery,{ and a Yankees hat if I recall right}. That dude got smoked twice. I'd say a couple of mill coming. I hate the NBA and wouldn't go to a game if someone gave me tickets. And they wonder why fan interest is dwindling. They have to be the dumbest athletes in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drunkenirishmann Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Your whole arguement assumes that Artest had to go into the stands in order to prevent any further bodily harm to himself. Your case would hold no water in court. You said it yourself, further bodily harm. Let me ask you this......in your opinion when does he have a right to defend himself? When 2 drinks are thrown @ him? 3 drinks? a shoe? chair? All I'm saying is there is no evidence that it would have stopped there. That being said, he has a right to defend himself as long as it isn't excessive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drunkenirishmann Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 I know one new millionaire who was wearing a Pistons jersery,{ and a Yankees hat if I recall right}. That dude got smoked twice. I'd say a couple of mill coming. I doubt it......he was on the courts @ the time. Maybe of he was in the stands I would agree but he was definitely in an area he shouldn't have been. And as far as I'm concerned he got what was coming to him. On a side note.....it was quite funny watching his fata$$ getting leveled by O'Neal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_eyedog_* Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 You doubt it drunkenirish ? Don't. On the court or not I guarantee he has spoken to a lawyer already. I predict a nice out of court settlement to make this go away. It will involve the players, the NBA, the arena, it will be endless. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 You said it yourself, further bodily harm. Let me ask you this......in your opinion when does he have a right to defend himself? When 2 drinks are thrown @ him? 3 drinks? a shoe? chair? All I'm saying is there is no evidence that it would have stopped there. That being said, he has a right to defend himself as long as it isn't excessive. 126060[/snapback] This first step of self defense is removing yourself from the situation. Ask yourself, could he have removed himself? YES. He could have walked to the middle of the court or went to the locker room if he felt threatened. Just because you feel threatened it does not give you the right to attack. If he tried to remove himself and it didn't stop then he would have every right to defend himself. He became the aggresor though, there was nothing defensive about it. If the guy was 2 feet from him it would have been one thing, but the guy was 20 feet, give or take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Here's a good one for you, BF (BTW, nice avatar ): Throw Artest Out of the League Everybody else, I wouldn't worry too much about Artest. Five years from now, he'll either be robbing liquor stores, in jail, or dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Ron Artest looked like Muhammad Ali tonight. He was floating like a butterfly and as those punks from Detroit could atest stinging like a bee!!!! 125984[/snapback] He attacked some kid who didn't throw anything. Yeah, what a hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drunkenirishmann Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 You doubt it drunkenirish ? Don't. On the court or not I guarantee he has spoken to a lawyer already. I predict a nice out of court settlement to make this go away. It will involve the players, the NBA, the arena, it will be endless. We'll see I just don't see it happening. Just like those clowns that run on the field @ RWS and then get leveled by a player. If anyone thinks they deserve any type of monetary compensation they're retarded. (imo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain America Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Life time Ban for: 1.The fan(s) that threw things at the players and on the floor 2. The fans that went on the floor. 3 The players that went into the stands . And of course criminal charges and lawsuits . Oh and due to the fact it was Detroits home game no more games for them this year. Case closed. You can go to any place in the 'hood' and see the same thing for free ,why you might even catch a shooting or two. Who ever said that if these guys werent playing basketball they would be in jail was right on the money. Think about the money these guys get the next time you buy a pair of those 120 dollar Nikes :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailog80 Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Life time Ban for:1.The fan(s) that threw things at the players and on the floor 2. The fans that went on the floor. 3 The players that went into the stands . And of course criminal charges and lawsuits . Oh and due to the fact it was Detroits home game no more games for them this year. Case closed. You can go to any place in the 'hood' and see the same thing for free ,why you might even catch a shooting or two. Who ever said that if these guys werent playing basketball they would be in jail was right on the money. Think about the money these guys get the next time you buy a pair of those 120 dollar Nikes :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: 126079[/snapback] Those very same 120 dollar Nike's that the players are given for free. Artest is a Rodman wanna be. Arrests should be made on both sides....crowd and players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Yeah it's totally idiotic to stand up for someone who was assaulted and defended himself. Forgive me. 125976[/snapback] Yeah, and I'm still waiting for your explanation of the justification for Jackson to leap into the stands to start flailing away, or O'Neal taking a flying leap into a guy who's already down on the ground. Were they hit by nasty plastic cups first? Never mind the little tidbit about Artest hitting the wrong guy in the first place. Keep rationalizing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Ha this thread is BF's typical nonsense...how did I already know exactly how he was going to react to this.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Ha this thread is BF's typical nonsense...how did I already know exactly how he was going to react to this.. he's amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 I'm going out to cop an Artest jersey now, you gotta respect that man for taking on the whole arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts