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

8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

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

  • #31
    Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

    :rollseyes: That's not even close to what I was talking about, and you very well know it.

    He's not a medic, but it is part of his job to report injuries. Notice it didn't say he DID have a broken jaw.
    I understand your point, but this is how bias is thrown in. How does a person GET a broken jaw? So why didn't the officer leave the medical reporting to a pro and simply say that it appeared he had been struck forcefully in the jaw, or better yet verify that the victim claimed he HAD BEEN struck forcefully in the jaw or that witnesses saw it happen. For all we know the guy "looked like he had a broken jaw" when he came to work that day, or from the scuffle with the coat thief.

    Witness claims he had been punched in the jaw by Mr. Tinsley. Blood was coming from his mouth. Etc. No medic required, it's not wrong, it's not opinion.

    Looked like he had a broken jaw...what's that even mean? Instead just write down that stuff, the things you see that make you come to that opinion and let an expert use that evidence to explain what you saw. That's why you don't use opinion/judgement. You can't use that as evidence. DESCRIBE the injury, report what you saw happen (if you got there in time) or what witnesses say they saw happen.

    That's what will have to happen at the trial, he'll have to describe what he meant by "looked like..." because it will be about what happened, not what looked like happened.


    I'm NOT taking a stance that the cops were out to get them, and perhaps that's what you think I'm saying with my responses to you. I'm saying that even responsible people wrap their own opinions into "factual" reporting all the time in a way that seems totally harmless.

    Maybe he's just trying to cut to the chase and summerize what the situation was and figures that's a good short hand for "jaw severely injured". He's not out to get Tins, but by making that statement A LOT OF PEOPLE took it as fact (even though the report didn't say it was). It is a loaded description, especially in light of the victim not actually having a broken jaw.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

      Originally posted by TheDon View Post
      Nobody is making excuses, just waiting for all the facts to come in. As far as we know nobody even "acted a fool". These stories are becoming increasingly as inconsistent as a stephen jackson 3-point attempt .

      Look if they're guilty they're guilty but so far alot of things just aren't adding up and the level-headed bunch of us want to at least wait for due process to occurr before we call for anyones heads. Even Darrel Armstrong was accused of beating up a cop when he was in Orlando guess what, case was thrown out of court cause it was all a wash, but everybody is so quick to jump on the I hate Jamal Tinsley bandwagon they'd rather jump to conclusions than wait for the facts.

      I think everyone wants them gone if it's the case, but until then they're "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY".
      I can't speak for Elgin but I think what he is trying to say is that he's tired of the Pacers being in the headlines and becoming a laughing stock of the NBA. It's obvious our fan base is declining. I hear it from people everyday. I've been in Florida for the last 3 weeks or so and when I wear a Pacers hat or shirt, I receive a lot of questions about them.

      When I was in the bay area...same thing. Colts are great but the Pacers...."what's the matter with that team"?

      The Simons have deep pockets but, they can't sustain a decreasing fan base indefinitely. The losses mount up....yes, even with all the TV revenue.

      Right or wrong, innocent or guilty, we have replaced the Portland "JailBlazers". Are we just that unlucky, the stars aligned against us or what? What have we done to deserve this? One of the most successful franchises from 1990.

      It's going to take something major to get this "fan base" turned around. The Simons and TPTB are acutley aware of this. Even winning the 4th seed and going to the second round is not going to be enough to offset this image that has been attached to our team.

      I can understand Elgin's frustration.
      .

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        I'm sick of sitting next to PACERS FANS who I can tell are obviously drunk and whom I later see getting in their car to drive home, probably without even being properly arrested for this criminal behavior (it's still a crime even if you aren't caught, right?)

        I refuse to go to games till someone cleans up the stands and gets the drinking under control. What kind of community are the Pacers trying to create. And while we are on the subject, what's with Colts tailgating? Don't tell me that public intox isn't involved with that tradition. Again the scoff-laws run free and the city turns a blind eye to the infractions.

        I'm ready for someone to put their foot down and protect me from all of these people, and the Pacers too. I want to be able to go to Rio and start some s*** without being punched or having to run over someone just to get away.

        (end sarcasm)

        This is what I mean by the moral high horse going on. The Pacers ARE NOT GETTING A FREE PASS. They just haven't been found guilty yet. If they are plenty of people will be bothered by their behavior. Smash is right about one thing for sure, we already saw how this sort of posturing can destroy lives, as in the out of control Duke case.

        Not only were the players hurt by the knee-jerk public reaction, but even the community ran into heated racial debates regarding the charges...all for no good reason, just because people ran with the initial story.


        There have been TWO things, not a long history. People are just quick to dump on Tinsley now because they hated him before for having the disgusting, immoral behavior of being injured too much previously (how dare he).

        And neither of those things has actually been a conviction of Tins or Quis. Jack looks the most likely to see a conviction from Rio, and that's moderate right now.

        It's not a free pass to simply not judge until we have some idea of what REALLY happened, rather than go with gossip. Considering that a free pass is the immoral viewpoint, or at least it goes against society, which created the US legal system and promotes innocence until proven guilty.

        Now I don't even mean the court judgement, though that should be a person's right. I'm willing to fudge and let a person carry their own opinion of how the case should have been judged...but that requires hearing the legal details on the case rather than going totally off of speculation, innuendo and assumption that the tabloids...err, news outlets carry.



        I will call Tins a troublemaker and a problem when he is found guilty of starting trouble. Until then he is innocent, just like I would like to be if I got hauled in for something I didn't do (if his claims of innocence are true).

        Seth, you are entitled to your opinions and I will defend you right to express them to the end, however that does not preclude me or other "regular fans", as you prefer to call them, from expressing our opinions on this subject being debated. Is Tins guilty? I don't know and I don't believe that you do either, however that is not the point that I was trying to make. The undisputed fact is, attendance is down and yes it is mainly caused by these incidents of bad judjement by a FEW players. When the owner states that we have lost the fans, you know the current situation is both, serious and unacceptable.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          I understand your point, but this is how bias is thrown in. How does a person GET a broken jaw? So why didn't the officer leave the medical reporting to a pro and simply say that it appeared he had been struck forcefully in the jaw, or better yet verify that the victim claimed he HAD BEEN struck forcefully in the jaw or that witnesses saw it happen. For all we know the guy "looked like he had a broken jaw" when he came to work that day, or from the scuffle with the coat thief.

          Witness claims he had been punched in the jaw by Mr. Tinsley. Blood was coming from his mouth. Etc. No medic required, it's not wrong, it's not opinion.

          Looked like he had a broken jaw...what's that even mean? Instead just write down that stuff, the things you see that make you come to that opinion and let an expert use that evidence to explain what you saw. That's why you don't use opinion/judgement. You can't use that as evidence. DESCRIBE the injury, report what you saw happen (if you got there in time) or what witnesses say they saw happen.

          That's what will have to happen at the trial, he'll have to describe what he meant by "looked like..." because it will be about what happened, not what looked like happened.


          I'm NOT taking a stance that the cops were out to get them, and perhaps that's what you think I'm saying with my responses to you. I'm saying that even responsible people wrap their own opinions into "factual" reporting all the time in a way that seems totally harmless.

          Maybe he's just trying to cut to the chase and summerize what the situation was and figures that's a good short hand for "jaw severely injured". He's not out to get Tins, but by making that statement A LOT OF PEOPLE took it as fact (even though the report didn't say it was). It is a loaded description, especially in light of the victim not actually having a broken jaw.
          Hindsight is 20/20. You're doing a lot of hair-splitting with the luxury of ample time to explain something that a cop wrote in the heat of the moment. Maybe, he couldn't open his mouth or had trouble enunciating his words...who knows? The cop's impression was that it appeared he had a broken jaw.
          .

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges



            NOW CAN WE PLEASE BEAT TORONTO TONIGHT!
            Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

              Needless to say, it was disturbing to see JOs name on the witness list since NOTHING has been said about that previously. Not even a "I was there and it didn't happen that way" from him.

              There are those who have stated it is about perception. And from a franchise standpoint - that is the absolute truth. Perception is an editorial comment. But it is perception that can make or break a player or team.

              When the Pacers draft or trade for a player, there is an instant pass given to that player. He is OUR player = he is a good guy. After that, the player erodes his own reputation with the fans. There is a reason Tinsley is disliked by the fans. His continued on and off court "demeanor" doesn't fly with fans ideals. My personal dislike came from him on the court. His attitude and his foul mouth caught by the cameras while on the bench. His constant "manhood or cred challenges" when he is getting beat to hell on the court.

              Frankly, I couldn't care less about whether either of them are innocent or guilty in this matter. They continue to show poor judgement and it's my team paying the price. That's not acceptable.
              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                They are supposed to write down any injuries, even if they're as minor as bruises.

                I have to deal with police reports daily, for auto accidents, and every report either has suspected injuries, aches, bruises, anything or they say "not at this time," or the equivalent.

                He did his job how they're told to do their job. He didn't make up any injury, he just didn't know the severity of the injury. As someone who is trained in first aid/cpr, you're told to be overly cautious. It's better to assume worse and treat it accordingly, and then find out it's not as bad, as opposed to dismiss it and misdiagnose the injury as small.

                You really are spliting hairs here. Was their an injury to his jaw? Obviously. Was it broken? No. But at the time, he didn't know that.

                Of course there is going to be biasness, there always is. But the orginal thing I was objecting to was the notion that the officer interjected the players names by himself. He writes down what he's told, as far as statements go. He doesn't manufacture them.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                  I believe there's a major difference between this incident and Club Rio. In the Club Rio case we've had one conviction already, shots were fired, apparently drugs were involved, etc.

                  Here what we appear to have, even if every accusation is true, a typical bar room scuffle. Now this can certainly result in charges. But typically that's a charge like drunk and disorderly or simple battery. From what I've seen, these are often dismissed at the first court case because of a lack of a complaining witness. The idea being that a trip to jail was sufficient punishment for the crime. Only if one of the people involved wanted to make a big deal out of it would the case even proceed.

                  I've never heard of any situation ever where a simple bar fight involving a) no major injuries, b) no significant property damage, and c) no complaining witnesses resulted in a prosecutor enpaneling a grand jury to investigate the case. Or seen felony charges result.

                  This idea that Brizzi is floating that the grand jury was the one behind the indictments is bogus. As the saying goes, a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Grand juries are basically hand held and guided by the prosecutor in most cases, so you can believe that if a felony intimidation charge came out of the proceedings, it is because Brizzi wanted it.

                  I have a few opinions on this:

                  1. The handling of this case seems over the top compared to any other simple bar fight I've seen.

                  2. Filing of a felony case over someone saying "I'm going to kill you" with nothing credible to indicate it is a real threat to kill rather than typical bravado (e.g., possessing a deadly weapon) is an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. People say "I'm going to kill you" all over this country every day and virtually no one is indicted. It is practically a figure of speech or idiomatic expression used to express anger instead of a real threat.

                  3. Brizz has laid himself on the line here. If these cases unravel, it will put him on his heels. So I expect, Nifong like, that he will be unwilling to settle for anything less than a guilty plea or something that allows him to declare victory. If this case and Jackson case don't go his way, it will be very politically damaging to him in a county that is trending democrat anyway.

                  4. Brizzi has focused on these type of anti-Pacers headline type cases instead of looking into the rampant corruption in local government and the city's terrible crime problem. You've got the feds investigating pea shakes houses and the like, but where's Brizz?. In an almost exclusively Democrat controlled county, he is the only check and balance to keep them in check, but he seems to be doing nothing. What's more, crime is spiraling out of control. This is obviously a bigger issue than just Brizzi, but he has to be part of the solution. Where is he?

                  5. Even though I think this is overblown, I still think it shows exceptionally poor judgement on the part of the Pacers involved. Those guys have to realize they are under a microscope. One reason they are getting paid millions is to behave like public figures in the spot light. What they do on their off hours, such as drinking at 2:15am on a school night, is not a purely private matter for them. If they don't like that, they should get a regular job like the rest of us.

                  6. The Pacers organization has disappointed again in its unconditional backing of Jackson/Quis version of events without having the facts. What's more, their refusal to condemn or hold those guys accountable for their questionable judgement only encourages this type of behavior. The problem starts right at the top with the Pacers here.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                    I've barely glanced at the thread right now, but WHEN did the 8 Sec owner/manager decide he didn't want to press charges? That night or after a meeting with representatives of the Pacers?

                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                      Originally posted by arenn View Post
                      I believe there's a major difference between this incident and Club Rio. In the Club Rio case we've had one conviction already, shots were fired, apparently drugs were involved, etc.

                      Here what we appear to have, even if every accusation is true, a typical bar room scuffle. Now this can certainly result in charges. But typically that's a charge like drunk and disorderly or simple battery. From what I've seen, these are often dismissed at the first court case because of a lack of a complaining witness. The idea being that a trip to jail was sufficient punishment for the crime. Only if one of the people involved wanted to make a big deal out of it would the case even proceed.

                      I've never heard of any situation ever where a simple bar fight involving a) no major injuries, b) no significant property damage, and c) no complaining witnesses resulted in a prosecutor enpaneling a grand jury to investigate the case. Or seen felony charges result.

                      This idea that Brizzi is floating that the grand jury was the one behind the indictments is bogus. As the saying goes, a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Grand juries are basically hand held and guided by the prosecutor in most cases, so you can believe that if a felony intimidation charge came out of the proceedings, it is because Brizzi wanted it.

                      I have a few opinions on this:

                      1. The handling of this case seems over the top compared to any other simple bar fight I've seen.

                      2. Filing of a felony case over someone saying "I'm going to kill you" with nothing credible to indicate it is a real threat to kill rather than typical bravado (e.g., possessing a deadly weapon) is an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. People say "I'm going to kill you" all over this country every day and virtually no one is indicted. It is practically a figure of speech or idiomatic expression used to express anger instead of a real threat.

                      3. Brizz has laid himself on the line here. If these cases unravel, it will put him on his heels. So I expect, Nifong like, that he will be unwilling to settle for anything less than a guilty plea or something that allows him to declare victory. If this case and Jackson case don't go his way, it will be very politically damaging to him in a county that is trending democrat anyway.

                      4. Brizzi has focused on these type of anti-Pacers headline type cases instead of looking into the rampant corruption in local government and the city's terrible crime problem. You've got the feds investigating pea shakes houses and the like, but where's Brizz?. In an almost exclusively Democrat controlled county, he is the only check and balance to keep them in check, but he seems to be doing nothing. What's more, crime is spiraling out of control. This is obviously a bigger issue than just Brizzi, but he has to be part of the solution. Where is he?

                      5. Even though I think this is overblown, I still think it shows exceptionally poor judgement on the part of the Pacers involved. Those guys have to realize they are under a microscope. One reason they are getting paid millions is to behave like public figures in the spot light. What they do on their off hours, such as drinking at 2:15am on a school night, is not a purely private matter for them. If they don't like that, they should get a regular job like the rest of us.

                      6. The Pacers organization has disappointed again in its unconditional backing of Jackson/Quis version of events without having the facts. What's more, their refusal to condemn or hold those guys accountable for their questionable judgement only encourages this type of behavior. The problem starts right at the top with the Pacers here.


                      5 and 6, I agree with, the rest I disagree with totally. Note, Brizzi is a republican, in as you say a democratic trending county, if so, he is going against the opinion of many voters, and that politically makes no sense at all. I think it is disengenous of you to blame Brizzi for the crime problems of the county, crime is what it is, crime. People that commit crimes, should be the group that you point your hate towards, and not the enforcer of the laws. I, for one, take it serious when one says that " I will kill you", and threats are often carried out as crime statistics bear it out.



                      Quote:Here what we appear to have, even if every accusation is true, a typical bar room scuffle.

                      There is no typical bar room scuffle! The end results of bar room fights, end in a wide range, some end with a simple fist fight, others esculate into stabbings and shootings, sometimes on location and other times at a different location and time, under completely different circumstances. Don't discount a threat, just because as you say it " was just a typical bar room scuffle".

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                        Originally posted by Bball View Post
                        I've barely glanced at the thread right now, but WHEN did the 8 Sec owner/manager decide he didn't want to press charges? That night or after a meeting with representatives of the Pacers?

                        -Bball
                        Nice...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                          Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                          My question is, if JT and Quis were completely innocent, would it even matter at this point?

                          Not at all.
                          Read my Pacers blog:
                          8points9seconds.com

                          Follow my twitter:

                          @8pts9secs

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                            For all those pointing out that Brizz is just doing his job, how many times has a bar fight gone to a grand jury type of situation where felony charges were the result? TO ME, this seems like an over-zealous prosecutor trying to get his "white whale". Maybe Gregg Garison was his idol for bringing down Mike Tyson from the Marion County prosecutor's office.

                            IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, Brizz should be using the court's time in a better way. The city of Indianapolis has a lot of larger nationally recognized problems that demand the prosecutor's time other then setting up a dog and pony show for a "bar room fight" where the complaintent doesn't seek charges. If someone was beat within an inch of his life, I would demand that the state pick up the charges. In this situation where injuries and property damage was minimal without a complaintent seeking charges, why is Brizz so interested?

                            It makes me wonder if I made the wrong choice on Nov. 7th of last year!!!
                            ...Still "flying casual"
                            @roaminggnome74

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                              My guess is he didnt want to press charges because it would be bad for business. I do not know the city or that bar but just hearing about it I wouldnt want to go there. A coat theif and then a bar fight where the manager and players of the pacers are involved. If I was him I would of tried to keep it as far away from the media as possible.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                                Originally posted by DaSMASH View Post
                                Elgin56

                                You are one of the short sighted "Im a Pacer fan and I'm sick of this Behavior" people that claim to be fans that make me sick. Your rant about this subject, DOES NOT reflect what the real fans think. Attendenace is down more due to how the team is playing then to the issue at hand with Tinsley and Daniels. *snip*

                                Let me make this clear one last time...I do not like Jammal Tinsley as a basketball player, his game is all over the place and has mor playgroung to it then professionalism. That being said is all that needs to be said. I don't care if Jamal dresses in womens clothing, or reads comic books in his off time....or even goes to strip clubs. I don't care...thats what he does when hes not on the court.

                                Who are you to judge anybody? Why don't you wait for all the facts to come out first before you judge anything? *snip* Or understand your inncent until proven gulity in this country. Now that more information is creeping out how do you explain yourself?

                                *snip*

                                It just sounds like to me that you and people like you want to believe the worst in people before you believe the good....Thats Sad,

                                *snip*

                                - Flames removed - Shade
                                This my kind of poster.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X