Which team in their right mind is going to want him? Maybe the Bobcats, or KG will take him in like EG. Oh Les, please don't let that happen. We should take him as a ball boy just so he doesn't end up in Minni. Minni+Artest= scary.
1) Is throwing a cup of water at someone considered assault? Yes. Death by hanging. 2) How about a creme pie to a celebrity's face? Criminal offense! Death by lethal injection! 3) Does the body guards of the celebrity have the right to tackle the pie thrower on the ground? Only if they pay-off the town sheriff!
I honeslty don't think Artest ever intended to punch that fan he went after.. the fan said Artest demanded to know if he threw the cup... I don't know about you but if I was going for a TKO i wouldn't ask questions. Artest suspension is excessive, but thats another thread.
What did he do? Throw a tantrum and embarrass the league. Big deal. Yeah, he needs to sit, he needs a re-education. But is he worst actor in the league? Hardly. He is the league's whipping boy, mostly because he disrespected them. The league plays favorites and this is another instance where the wrong story is being told. The story here is that Detroit has no security. The Fans are Hooligans. Ben Wallace was playing the intimdation game, Artest played the game, then enter fan riot. Artest is a loose cannon, but the melee shows there was absolutely no security and no control. Give the players their suspensions but stop posturing that everything is hunky dory and do something. Just curious...what happened to Barkley when he spit on the girl? Malone has re-arranged multiple star's faces. Nothing. No penalty - in fact, he got more star treatment. Robinson, Zeke... how many had to suffer his cheats? That's real damage. When you put someone in the hospital and they have to give you free-throws, it's sick. The league would love a convienient scapegoat like they tried to make Spree and Sheed before, but there are problems that need to be addressed by the league on behalf of the players. I spit on your rule-of-law moralizing. How droll. How very boring.
not really arguing to argue, but more like using the tort law im learning and applying it to the situation. I am pretty sure in most places, you are allowed to tackle him. If you really disagree with this law, I can see your point. But according to law, I think Artest didn't do wrong. can you state the law because I don't know where you are getting this assumption. I'm not disagreeing with the law, because I know that the law for self defense is that you can only use reasonable force in return. If this case went to court, any lawyer would rather be on the fans side. the question i have is, what law are you referring to? if you want, i can dig up the law for texas or michigan, but you'll have to wait untill tomorrow. Some of the body guards are bigger than Artest. thats not the point, a body guards job is to defend a person and to also make it aware to fans that that person is being defended. could the fan in the audience (in the other thread its wondered if he even did anything) reasonably expect artest to come after him? yes, but if Artest's attack is greater than anything the fan could dish out, the court will rule that Artest used excessive force. lol. Artest is a celebrity and he is highprofile, he is at risk of being hurt by wacko fans just like them. i don't think you're getting the point. If Artest really wanted to punch that guy, he would be in the hospital and Artest would be in jail. i've watched the video several times now and artest wanted to punch the guy, take him down and hit him. but he was held back by others. either way a tackle by a 200+ lb guy can do just as much damage as a punch. Since you just found out about the tackle and ref being hurt by the water bottle. I'll assume you were arguing just to argue. I do that a lot myself. not a great assumption, but you are sounding more like a smartass. also have to consider that artest wasn't the one who got hurt, thus he has an even greater burden to show that this guy in the stands was a serious threat to him. Then again, im surprised that you can't see that artest wanted to hit the guy, you really think that if he wasn't held back he'd just hold him down? rather, if this was in front of a jury and artest's history was used as evidence, what would they think? I don't know your understanding of the law, in the first post you claim you don't know anything, and in this one you claim to know it well. Just don't expect to get off easy if you tackle a kid who throws a tomato at you. in a related case, that houston baseball player who threw a chair at the fans initially claimed that they threw something at him. in that case, he's not going to be able to claim self defense. I think you have to understand that you can't respond to an attack with greater force than the attack itself unless you are a licensed person with the authority and position to do so. just because someone assaults you lightly does not give you free reign to attack him head on. That may be antithetical to what you believe, but that is the law. I'm sure this will pop up in my torts class tomorrow, will let you know what the prof says.
Pasox, You seem awfully upset. Did Stern just kill your dream of landing Artest? Don't worry dude. I am sure all your trade proposals will one day land you an assistant scouting job with Instanbul Technics in the Slovenian league.
Hell end up somewhere and some team will take a chance on him. The Pacers will get pennies on the dollar though. Unless they hire Pasox, who will glady pay a premium for Artest as long as Artest doesn't kill anyone and brings a title. Anything else Artest does will be fair game.
Nyquil82: I can not. That's the reason I asked many times in other threads if anyone did know the law. I knew about the reasonable force in return part. My assumption was tackling was reasonable force. It's obvious this is where we differ, you don't think tackling is reasonable force. I'm really not trying to be a smartass here: are you saying a body guard can use tackling as reasonable force, but we can't. Because "a body guard's job is to defend a person"? I agree. Our only difference right now is: I believe tackling is a reasonable force. You believe tackling is not a reasonable force to defend yourself, but is reasonable if you are a body guard. I don't know anymore about the law than an average person. That is the reason I've asked many times in different posts. I made an assumption, and I aplogize if I appeared "claim to know it all." We have already agreed throwing a punch was excessive. Throwing a chair is excessive for sure. I agree he can't use self defense. I suppose you are right if this is indeed what the law says. I find it hard to believe the law would grant a body guard extra rights you normally would not have. Again, I don't know the Law. What are you studying? Just curious. I miss college days. It appears to me maybe you were pretty frustrated. I apologize for that. You gotta believe me when I say I'm not trying to be a smartass. My questions are honest and not means to express any attitude, in this thread at least. It's not worth it to get frustrated over BBS. Easier said than done. Let me know if you find out for sure that tackling is excessive.
clove: ok, here's our misunderstanding. You were asking for clarification on the law. I am a law student, so I did some quick research along with what I am learning with torts to answer your questions the best i can. i thought you were being cheeky just to argue with a law student just because. to answer q's Yes, tackling is excessive because it can cause serious injuries (such as breaking ribs), especially if that tackler is a 200 lb person. And yes, bodyguards have more authority to tackle someone than a regular person because 1) they are trained to identify risks and deal with it in the most reasonable manner 2) they have much more control in handling and dealing with possible harm. A trained bodyguard will determine threat and deal with it in an efficient manner, ex. some body guards carry guns, but if a third party is some kind of threat, they decide whether to 1) ask them to leave, 2) push or move them away 3) attack them or 4) open fire. on the other hand, an athlete incessed with rage does not have control and can cause unnecessary harm. Just look at Jerry Springer, bodyguards are there to maintain order, they are different from the weirdos on stage swinging at each other in rage, because the bodyguards exercise control. Do you understand the difference now?
everything above is assault in every jurisdiction in the country. also, nyquil..i think there are distinctions between tortious assauit and criminal assault.
I didn't know you were a Law student until your last post before this one. So I wasn't arguing with a law student just because. I really don't know what cheeky means. But if it means a pain in the butt, I have noticed myself being a pain reading my own posts. I tried not to, as I have claimed earlier, but it's just impossible since we didn't even agree on what happened until later in argument. Example: you thought Artest throw a punch, you didn't know about the water bottle cutting the ref. Since the only difference we had was the tackling is excessive part, and you and MadMax both testify that according to law, it is. Well, Artest used excessive force then. Fry him. "Well I guess the f**king facet is broken" --Vinny lol.
I just thought of something(i have lots of time on my hand right now). We have just agreed tackling was excessive in respons to a pie to the face. If the pie thrower said the following before throwing the pie: "Die you scum" "I am going to beat your ass" "I'll poke your eyes out with my fingers" Does the pie thrower have a right to tackle him to prevent the threats being carried out? I love court movies. Forget about the Artest case, this is just for my curiousity. lol
he does if it's in anticipation of the act. like if i said, "i'm gonna kill you" and the circumstances warrant that i can reasonably believe you might try, then I can defend myself. of course, it's hard to kill someone with a pie, so what you can reasonably believe depends on the circumstances. that's not what happened here. artest reacted to something that had already happened. it wasn't self-defense...it was vengeance. that's not protected under the law. you can't say, "he was mean to me...he threw something at me...and called me names...so i was pissed and kicked his ass" and expect that to be a valid defense. an assault is merely the unlawful touching of another in the Texas criminal statutes, I think. however, assault traditionally has included just the threat, itself, as well...so if you make the threat and the victim believes it's real and imminent, then that's enough to qualify for assault. so the fan could be guilty of assault...and so could artest...and disorderly conduct or something similar in michigan law. as well as a host of other things i'm not thinking of, perhaps. no one is "RIGHT" in this mess. no one was justified, under the law. everyone screwed up. my 4 year old son saw it on ESPNnews...before I could say anything about how wrong it was, he said: "daddy, that's not basketball. they shouldn't be doing that. you don't hit people like that." Congratulations, Pistons, Pacers, Detroit fans, etc....a 4 year old just displayed a ton more maturity than any of you could muster. Great work!!! by the way...I was soooo freaking proud of my son for saying that!!! carry on.
Thanks for the reply MadMax. Sounds like your son is a helluva boy. I obsolutly agree with what you said about there is no right in Artest's case. You obviously know a thing or two about law. After Ben(a favorite son in Detroit) choked Artest, there must have been threats screamed at Artest by angry fans. Taking this in consideration, could Artest's defense lawyer use this fact to his advantage? Agreed. We are also talking about a tackle. It's quite possible the guy he tackled suffered no injuries. While the ref who got hit by the water bottle suffered pretty serious injury. Is tackling excessive to prevent the bottle from hiting the ref? Again, as Nyquil pointed out, I understand tackling is excessive according to law. I am just curious how this thing plays out in court. I don't even like Artest. Thanks.
clove- first, there are no absolutes. there are principles of law, and those guide us. but deciding what fits into "too much" or "sufficient" amounts of force are questions for a factfinder (judge or jury) to decide. so really, it comes down to subjective opinion. i think artest will have a hard time arguing self-defense. he was laying down...he got hit...he got up and sought out the guy who did it (he didn't get it right, by the way)...and then went after him. that's not self-defense. self-defense is to prevent something from happening...he moved forward to kick ass after the fact. that's pretty indefensible...though i suppose his lawyer will try to create a defense that the whole thing was one big riot and every act taken was in self-defense...pretty weak case if you ask me. doesn't matter if you suffer injury or not...still technically an assault if it's an unlawful touching. whether or not its excessive, is again a question for the jury. i don't know if i saw the tackle...but wasn't the throw of the bottle already made at that point??? if so, then how would a tackle prevent the throw at that point?? maybe i'm missing the facts on that one.
Thanks for your better informed views MadMax. What you said about leaving it to the jury is also what I think is the right course of action. I started thinking about this situation after reading some people's opinion that players are the only ones to blame. Most still believe self defense could not be claimed. And they could be right. I just feel it's not as obvious as people feel. With the right lawyer, which I have little doubt Artest will find, they might be able to draw some members of the jury into buying the self defense card. Of course we are only TV jury, the "facts" to us is what we see on TV. There should be a lot more to it than we can ever expect. It's complicated, I'll see if I can clear it up for you. Yes, Artest was already hit. Like the Pie example, if threats are made, a tackle could prevent the threats from being carried out. He has reason to believe threats will be carried out because he was just assaulted. Boy that's not clear at all. Let's try a different way using the pie example again: Piethrower P goes up to celebrity C. Says to C, "I'll kill you C", and throws a creme pie at C. C has reason to believe P might carryout his threat, since C has just been assaulted. In other words, P made a threat, and acted. So C tackles P to prevent the completion of threat. This is the best I could do, I hope you can guess what I mean.
I'm not sure if I should take this as a compliment or an insult. If compliment, please says so, I like compliments. If insult, ...., hey, i'm sure you are not alone. I bet 90% of people following this thread would like to throw a pie at my face. lol, I'll tackle you guys.
