Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

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

  • #16
    Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

    Here you go, some short answers to long questions.

    This applies only to Indiana Code but Michigan should be similar.

    What Ron has done.

    Battery 35-42-2-1
    A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery, a Class B misdemeanor.

    It won't work but Ron and his lawyer may try this excuse.

    The effects of battery-Jusifiable reasonable force.
    When a defendant in a prosecution raises the issue that the defendant was at the time of the alleged crime suffering from the effects of battery as a result of the past course of conduct of the individual who is the victim of the alleged crime: Too bad Ron got the wrong guy. If it had been Green this might have worked.

    More than likely they will try to say Rons' actions were because of .....
    Duress 35-41-3-8
    It is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct was compelled to do so by threat of imminent serious bodily injury to himself or another person. With respect to offenses other than felonies, it is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct was compelled to do so by force or threat of force. Compulsion under this section exists only if the force, threat, or circumstances are such as would render a person of reasonable firmness incapable of resisting the pressure............SOUNDS GOOD FOR RON, RIGHT?

    However...section (b) of this code states.
    This does not apply to a person who: (1) recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally placed himself in a situation in which it was foreseeable that he would be subjected to duress.

    After reading this I would think obviously Ron doesn't have a prayer or excuse by the law. Once again, however, this might explain why Jermaine's suspension was reduced by Kaplan to only 15 games after he actually hit two people that night.
    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

      Originally posted by Peck
      This one has been bugging me since last night.

      There are people who are claiming that Ron going into the stands was a case of self defense. I've even seen the Prosecutor of that county muse if this was the case.

      I'm not trying to be difficult here but could somebody explain to me how it's self defense?

      Wouldn't it be retaliation?

      I mean let's assume for a min. that it was the bald guy in the blue wallace shirt that threw the cup. He was standing there with his hands in his pocket.

      At what point would a person have the right to strike him in self defense.

      Isn't self defense supposed to be that you are protecting yourself from harm or further harm?

      Let's further assume that hitting him is self defense. How far does it go? Is one punch justified? Is two? Can you pound the guy unconscious? I mean really what is self defense about it if the guy poses no further harm?

      Don't worry about starting a lot of threads, I don't think there is one person on here that minds you doing so. You're interesting, readable, and pose points to ponder, and that's why we are all here, to talk basketball.

      As for what Ron did being self defense. Going into the stands of itself is not self defense, it's not a crime, it's nothing. Guys wind up in the stands all the time chasing balls. When he was hit from behind he retaliated, and theres no doubt that was self defense.

      However grabbing someone, how do you characterize that self defense since you don't know if the party is guilty? And how do you separate one incident from all that was going on? Do you isolate the cup throwing from all the other stuff going on? The question is would a court, would a jury isolate it?

      In this particular case I don't think you can isolate all the separate incidents from each other. There's too many of them. That would be like isolating each punch in a fight between individuals. I think that's why the Prosecutor termed it self defense. He was looking at it how the law does.

      All your other questions just muddy the water, they didn't happen. Would it be self defense if a five year old repeatedly stuck you with a hat pin and you turned around and beat him to a pulp. Well yeah . . . but!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

        Originally posted by foretaz
        lets just say this...i would prefer to not be put in a position to anyway defend or belittle rons actions....
        It seems worth pointing out here that these are not the only two options available to you. I think its completely fair to make a judgement on Ron's actions and find the actions totally unacceptable (and illegal) without "belittling" them.


        Originally posted by foretaz
        11/19 is a different story....like it or not....given all the circumstances of the evening that u did refer to.....not only do people understand what he did, the vast majority of people would probably not respond in a much different fashion
        I get that you sincerely believe this, but since you're the one making the assertion here, isn't it fair for me to ask you to provide some kind of evidence or reason for you saying this? My life experience hasn't shown me this in any way.


        Originally posted by foretaz
        i only choose to look at it this way now....the severity probably speeds up and intensifies rons recovery....when u look the death penalty in the eye u cant help but be a changed person....funny how the talk back then on here was all about the team unifying when all were back....and how this could be a deciding factor in rons recovery....now if everyone can remember that and have enuff patience to see it thru to fruition , there should be a lot of relief to go around...
        I totally agree with you here. Well put. Eat that, Jay.
        "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

          Originally posted by Vicious Tyrant
          It seems worth pointing out here that these are not the only two options available to you. I think its completely fair to make a judgement on Ron's actions and find the actions totally unacceptable (and illegal) without "belittling" them.

          I get that you sincerely believe this, but since you're the one making the assertion here, isn't it fair for me to ask you to provide some kind of evidence or reason for you saying this? My life experience hasn't shown me this in any way.
          Nicely put, on both points.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

            Originally posted by foretaz


            i only choose to look at it this way now....the severity probably speeds up and intensifies rons recovery....when u look the death penalty in the eye u cant help but be a changed person....funny how the talk back then on here was all about the team unifying when all were back....and how this could be a deciding factor in rons recovery....now if everyone can remember that and have enuff patience to see it thru to fruition , there should be a lot of relief to go around...
            If Ron was Fred Jones the patience would have been there. Since it was Ron and people already had strong opinions, it didn't last.

            That's because forums tend to polarize people, they sort of make people go to one side of the issue or other, even when the person is impartial.

            To give an example of how this happens, say we are playing the Clippers in the NBA finals. I use the Clippers because no one has any reason to hate them, other than them being from LA. We are playing the Clippers and a bunch of Clipper trolls come on here and say what trolls say.

            As a fan we have no real reason to hate the Clippers and if all we did was watch on television and the Clippers beat us we would hate it but we still wouldn't hate the Clippers.

            What happens when we hear the trolls though? The more we hear from trolls the more we want the Pacers to beat the Clippers. Whereas before if a bad call went against us we wouldn't have liked it but it wouldn't have been any big deal. Now, after the trolls, we want to win so bad we are enraged by the bad call. We now hate the Clippers.

            That's whats happened with Ron. People on both sides have made ludicrous statements and now there's mostly the haters and the forgivers and few in between.

            All the haters and forgivers have accomplished is they've made the trolls sit back and laugh like heck. In other words trolls have moved people off their impartially.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

              My opinion: It was not self-defense but rather an inherant defense mechanism. I can remember when I was younger and when I was playing a sport and I got hit in the head, I lost control and got them back and didn't have any self-control. I wouldn't go swinging (and Ron didn't either) but I would make sure that, in basketball, I got a very, very hard elbow to the chest or throat area (I know, not nice) and in football, I would not even hear the next play and take out the guy's knees on the next play. I never got hit in the head in baseball so I doubt that I would have remembered much if I got hit in the head with a baseball .

              So, with that said, I don't agree with Ron, but I do understand. And the reason that I don't HATE Ron for what he did is because I would have surely done the same, though most likely to more of an extreme. I'm better now that I'm older and I would like to believe that I have more restraint now as I have things to lose for my actions (family, etc.).
              Two=the number 2
              Too=means "also"
              To=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (two, too) do not apply.

              Their=shows ownership-'it is their house'
              They're=they are
              There=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (their, they're) do not apply

              Sorry but it bugs me when these are used incorrectly when I read posts on PacersDigest.com.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

                Originally posted by Peck
                This one has been bugging me since last night.

                There are people who are claiming that Ron going into the stands was a case of self defense. I've even seen the Prosecuter of that county muse if this was the case.

                I'm not trying to be difficult here but could somebody explain to me how it's self defense?

                Wouldn't it be retaliation?

                I mean let's assume for a min. that it was the bald guy in the blue wallace shirt that threw the cup. He was standing there with his hands in his pocket.

                At what point would a person have the right to strike him in self defense.

                Isn't self defense supposed to be that you are protecting yourself from harm or further harm?

                Let's further assume that hitting him is self defense. How far does it go? Is one punch justified? Is two? Can you pound the guy unconscious? I mean really what is self defense about it if the guy poses no further harm?
                Ron going into the stands is not what begs the question of self-defense.

                What begs the question of self-defense is when he threw the first punch.

                If you watch the film, he did not throw a single punch until he was punched in the back of the head multiple times by the man who actually threw the cup in the first place (while he was confronting the younger kid). The kid he mistakenly went after, he merely bullied around in a "did you throw it? who threw it?" manner...he did not throw any punches at that kid.
                Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

                  Originally posted by Vicious Tyrant
                  It seems worth pointing out here that these are not the only two options available to you. I think its completely fair to make a judgement on Ron's actions and find the actions totally unacceptable (and illegal) without "belittling" them.
                  i feel this way with all of rons actions....the events on 11/19 strike me a little different...only in this way....all of rons behavior problems with the exception of 11/19 appear to be the result of an impulse reaction problem based on his severe unresolved emotional issues...and if most people were put in rons shoes they would react much differently and would not have done what ron did...

                  his actions on 11/19, while not being acceptable at all-and wrong, are much more understandable from a human nature standpoint and i feel many humans would have reacted similarly if placed in a similar situation....and i will say why i feel this way below....but realize that by saying this my intent is not to condone the behavior-just because many would do it doesnt make it right





                  I get that you sincerely believe this, but since you're the one making the assertion here, isn't it fair for me to ask you to provide some kind of evidence or reason for you saying this? My life experience hasn't shown me this in any way.

                  i will gladly tell u why i feel the majority would react in a similar fashion.......two basic reasons...

                  that nite the initial response was overwhelming....and it was supportive of what ron did....which means before people had a chance to think they felt the same way....before the nba had a chance to spin the issue....before people had the time to review the impact of sending a message that was understanding of what ron did....and thats the whole point...ron didnt have that time to think....he reacted....just like evryone reacted that nite....now when given a chance to think they might have recanted....but that simply doesnt matter as its not the same thing....

                  secondly....most everyone that has been asked and honestly responded with a direct response has said they either would have or probably would have done what ron did....and when i see individuals such as a grant hill-who many have respect for say this, then it seems that just maybe its not as farfetched as some would have us believe....

                  once again, this in no way makes it right, just understandable behavior....because humans do make mistakes...and in this particular case i think ron made mistakes that pointed much more to the fact that he was human versus having unresolved emotional issues-though these events dont change the fact that i know he does have these issues....but it does allow that he was indeed making progress regarding thse if u consider the possibility that this was a natural human reaction versus one based on emotional problems....

                  im about as calm and unemotional as they come, believe it or not....someone shoves me into a bsketball support, gouges me in the throat, throws things at me and makes every effort to get at me, and then im finally hit with a full beer....im thinking that might be the last straw and i respond in some fashion other than calmly go find security and poiint out the problem....and no...i just dont think im in the minority on this one....

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

                    Yes, it was retaliation. Yes, it was battery. What people neglect to mention is, the cup was battery as well. The prosecutor said as much the day the charges were announced.
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

                      Originally posted by Kegboy
                      Yes, it was retaliation. Yes, it was battery. What people neglect to mention is, the cup was battery as well. The prosecutor said as much the day the charges were announced.
                      and what do u get when u combine two batteries? detroit fans doing their version of the energizer bunny meets the darkside?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

                        Originally posted by foretaz
                        this really, really wasnt my intent by bringing up that post...i found it quite funny that he mentioned grant hill wouldnt respond the way artest did...when two weeks ago grant said that he probably wouldve...like most have said they probably wouldve....

                        lemme think....someone throws a full beer in my face....yea...im thinking i and probably 200 million americans might have this disorder then....

                        can u help me out with the cure as well?
                        I can't believe that most people would have just charged blindly into the stands looking for the guy. I probably would have jumped up and tried to find the person while yelling a few choice words. Heck, if the idiot would have had the guts to raise his hand I probably would have started after him. But by taking the time to look before I leaped should have allowed others to intervien.

                        To say that MOST people would have done what Ron did is reaching farther than what some people do that you claim is going too far with Ron.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

                          The thing is, it is really easy to play monday morning quarterback with this kinda thing. I mean, we can say that we would or wouldn't go into the stand, but how do we honestly know unless we are put into the same situation? It bugs me when people critisize Ron for going in, when they possibly might have gone in themselves.
                          Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

                            Going into the stands was retaliation. Maybe he was just going up to grab the guy and put a scare into him. That might be giving him too much credit. The media made it sound like he was throwing punches every step of the way and beating people into the ground, but that is unfair as well. He did snap. He was wrong. He went overboard.

                            Now, the guy that came out on the floor. I think that was self-defense. The guy comes walking up to him on the court with his fists up, and Ron takes a swing. That guy, as it turns out, posed very little threat, but Artest responded in self-defense.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

                              Grant brings up a correct poin I think. By leaving that border between the court and the stands it became retaliation. I simply can't see why he'd be "safer" leaving his area and enter the one where the attack came from.

                              And again, the the fans that got punched on the COURT all were punched in self-defense.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

                                Originally posted by Grant
                                Going into the stands was retaliation. Maybe he was just going up to grab the guy and put a scare into him. That might be giving him too much credit. The media made it sound like he was throwing punches every step of the way and beating people into the ground, but that is unfair as well. He did snap. He was wrong. He went overboard.

                                Now, the guy that came out on the floor. I think that was self-defense. The guy comes walking up to him on the court with his fists up, and Ron takes a swing. That guy, as it turns out, posed very little threat, but Artest responded in self-defense.
                                That's pretty close to what the Prosecutor said last fall in discussing what charges he'd file. Yes for the incident in the stands but the guy on the floor approached Artest in a hostile manner and he was within his rights to respond as he did.
                                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X