M is for Moron... - Page 6

CrabMan · #76 (**permalink**) 11-21-2004, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarity

Take the fan that threw the drink that set Artest off (no, I don't think it's even remotely reasonable to say he's an innocent)

Please take a look at the video. The fan that Artest attacked did not toss the cup and, thus, is an innocent bystander. The man in the blue shirt with the white hat did the tossing.

The NBA has stated clearly that players do not under ANY circumstances belong in the stands. Period.

If their ego had not got the best of them, none of this would have happened. Besides, it was a flipping plastic cup that hit him in the chest - not the head. No, it wasn't a bottle. It wasn't a hard plastic mug. It was a cheap plastic cup which, judging by the amount of liquid that came out once it hit the 6' 7" 246 lb thug, had hardly anything in it.

The fan that tossed the cup was wrong. Period. However, what Artest did can not be justified by a reasonable human being.

BuckeyeNation27 · #77 (**permalink**) 11-21-2004, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMan

Please take a look at the video. The fan that Artest attacked did not toss the cup and, thus, is an innocent bystander. The man in the blue shirt with the white hat did the tossing.

The NBA has stated clearly that players do not under ANY circumstances belong in the stands. Period.

If their ego had not got the best of them, none of this would have happened. Besides, it was a flipping plastic cup that hit him in the chest - not the head. No, it wasn't a bottle. It wasn't a hard plastic mug. It was a cheap plastic cup which, judging by the amount of liquid that came out once it hit the 6' 7" 246 lb thug, had hardly anything in it.

The fan that tossed the cup was wrong. Period. However, what Artest did can not be justified by a reasonable human being.

clarity never said the guy who threw the beer was the guy who got attacked.

Clarity · #78 (**permalink**) 11-21-2004, 11:52 PM

I'd rather not take a look at the video, partially because it's not relevant to my point, partially because I'm just not interested. If the geek he attacked wasn't the cup thrower, then the one you're referencing may well have been an innocent. Or perhaps he wasn't, doesn't really matter in the scope of my end of this discussion. Just more reason why fans who DO get out of hand should be banned from games for some period. It's for their fellow fan's protection. A fan threw the cup, and by no means is he or they an innocent.

And no, players never belong in the stands. Likewise, fans never belong on the court or field while the players and officials have a game-related presence on it.

As far as justifying Artests behavior, I don't see anyone saying that it was okay. I think people more or less universally know he screwed up and did the wrong thing. I think the closest some come to justifying it is looking at it the same way they might a case where a husband comes home to find the mailman and his wife in the reverse cowgirl and kills him. The guy is guilty of murder, but somewhere in some deep and ugly place inside us, a lot of people can look at that and go "he shouldn't have done it, but I understand where the urge came from that led to it."

We're not nearly as evolved as we like to think or pretend, and sometimes it shows. It's really that simple. And when it does, when we can't keep command of our emotions or actions, then we get slapped accordingly.

The players have been slapped, and my point is that the league should look closely at what they can do to slap fans in the future.

I don't really understand your point in playing down what the fan(s) did. There's also no reasonable justification for throwing any object at a player. It's nowhere near as bad as what Artest did, but we don't and shouldn't balance offenses off others in the same incident. Each should be measured on its own.

Had Artest not gone into the stands, I think a lot of people would have been outraged that a fan threw something on the court and hit a player. And if they weren't, they should have been. The fact that Artest did something ridiculously stupid after the fact, shouldn't change how we view the act of the fan(s), whoever they were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMan

Please take a look at the video. The fan that Artest attacked did not toss the cup and, thus, is an innocent bystander. The man in the blue shirt with the white hat did the tossing.

The NBA has stated clearly that players do not under ANY circumstances belong in the stands. Period.

If their ego had not got the best of them, none of this would have happened. Besides, it was a flipping plastic cup that hit him in the chest - not the head. No, it wasn't a bottle. It wasn't a hard plastic mug. It was a cheap plastic cup which, judging by the amount of liquid that came out once it hit the 6' 7" 246 lb thug, had hardly anything in it.

The fan that tossed the cup was wrong. Period. However, what Artest did can not be justified by a reasonable human being.

CrabMan · #79 (**permalink**) 11-22-2004, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarity

I'd rather not take a look at the video, partially because it's not relevant to my point, partially because I'm just not interested. If the geek he attacked wasn't the cup thrower, then the one you're referencing may well have been an innocent. Or perhaps he wasn't, doesn't really matter in the scope of my end of this discussion. Just more reason why fans who DO get out of hand should be banned from games for some period. It's for their fellow fan's protection. A fan threw the cup, and by no means is he or they an innocent.

And no, players never belong in the stands. Likewise, fans never belong on the court or field while the players and officials have a game-related presence on it.

As far as justifying Artests behavior, I don't see anyone saying that it was okay. I think people more or less universally know he screwed up and did the wrong thing. I think the closest some come to justifying it is looking at it the same way they might a case where a husband comes home to find the mailman and his wife in the reverse cowgirl and kills him. The guy is guilty of murder, but somewhere in some deep ugly spot, a lot of people can look at that and go "he shouldn't have done it, but I understand where the urge came from that led to it."

We're not nearly as evolved as we like to think or pretend, and sometimes it shows. It's really that simple. And when it does, when we can't keep command of our emotions or actions, then we get slapped accordingly.

The players have been slapped, and my point is that the league should look closely at what they can do to slap fans in the future.

I don't really understand your point in playing down what the fan(s) did. There's also no reasonable justification for throwing any object at a player. It's nowhere near as bad as what Artest did, but we don't and shouldn't balance offenses off others in the same incident. Each should be measured on its own.

Had Artest not gone into the stands, I think a lot of people would have been outraged that a fan threw something on the court and hit a player. And if they weren't, they should have been. The fact that Artest did something ridiculously stupid after the fact, shouldn't change how we view the act of the fan(s), whoever they were.

I agree there is absolutely no justification for throwing anything at a player and I'm not trying to justify their behavior. The fans we're wrong and need to be held accountable for their actions.

However, there are folks in this thread that are trying to justify Artest's behavior and that is what I find disguisting. Especially since he beat the crap out of an innocent bystander. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate getting the hell beat out of you if you weren't involved, would you?

One last thing - to compare adultry to throwing a plastic cup....come on, Clarity. Apples to oranges.

Clarity · #80 (**permalink**) 11-22-2004, 12:21 AM

I'm not drawing a straight parallel between the acts in the slightest. Lol (sorry, I find the suggestion hysterical, but that's not at your expense really), nor would I, as there is no direct comparison to make. That's elementary. But there was a point to the reference, and it had everything to do with the part of each of us that is more feral than domesticated. That 'part' can speak to a wide range of anti-social acts, whether committed by us, or actions on the part of others that we witness. That 'part' can think "I'd want to kick some ass too", or "I might think about shooting him too", and hopefully for most of us that is squelched by our greater understanding that doing so would be wrong.

I haven't seen anyone justifying Artest's behavior, but that could just be a difference in perspective and context. I've spoken with vrb on this subject extensively, and I know he doesn't think Ron did the right thing, even if it sounds to some like he does. He may not be the one you're talking about, but like anything else, everything is about perspective. I would agree that anyone who would claim that Artest did nothing wrong, just refuses to voice what they must realize anyway out of pure bullheadedness. That he (Artest) 'did wrong', in my opinion, is inarguable.

Sure, I definitely wouldn't be happy about Artest trying to kick my ass had I not done anything. That would be a real injustice. But it's as hard to say that Artest's actions were (when measured as a misdeed) worse because he got the wrong guy, as it is to say that his actions would have been better had he got the right one. It's harder to stomach since he got the wrong one, it feels worse that way, but when peeling the emotional side away, it just doesn't (IMO) have a bearing on the severity of the incident. Sucks for the guy who got attacked though, lol. That much is certain. So I wouldn't be happy, but as the victim, I wouldn't have much perspective or objectivity on the issue either. I'd probably be doing the all-American thing by contemplating litigation.

Anyway, like I said, it's all an interesting subject. And honestly, I'm not sure that we're really saying different things at all. I think this thread, like a lot of others, are more about perceived differences in points, than true differences. But I could be overthinking it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMan

I agree there is absolutely no justification for throwing anything at a player and I'm not trying to justify their behavior. The fans we're wrong and need to be held accountable for their actions.

However, there are folks in this thread that are trying to justify Artest's behavior and that is what I find disguisting. Especially since he beat the crap out of an innocent bystander. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate getting the hell beat out of you if you weren't involved, would you?

One last thing - to compare adultry to throwing a plastic cup....come on, Clarity. Apples to oranges.

Bucklion · #81 (**permalink**) 11-22-2004, 01:23 AM

This is not directed to anyone or posts in particular.

I think about what my wife has relayed to me over the years she was a floor nurse at several Columbus area hospitals. Many families and some patients were emotionally, psychologically, and yes physically abusive, but the repurcussions would come down only on the nurses if they ever did anything that could even be construed as retaliation. I agree that the fans throwing stuff at players should be thrown out and in fact humiliated (in front of the arena at the least, on TV too if you want), and in egregious cases never be allowed to return or buy a ticket, but unfortunately the situation is much the same: if you are the employed (athlete) and you retaliate, the hammer gets dropped on you, whereas the fans get much more leaway. No one ever said life was fair. Speaking of which, Artest makes millions and millions for chucking a ball at a hoop and taking occasional abuse, and nurses barely make a living and get daily abuse. I'm sorry, but the idea that I or anyone should feel sorry for Ron Artest is laughable...at best.