The thing is, it doesn't matter who started it. It's all a matter of opinion. Hell I could say Artest started it by having a reputation for hard fouling and a short fuse. Does that change the outcome?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting SupraJames:</div><div class="quote_post">Funny how you, of all people, are trying to tell other people to read. Anyways, Artest and the fans are to blame, that's obvious and we all agree on that. The multi-million dollar question here is: Who started it? Who's responsible? Not who's at fault. Everybody's at fault. Everybody's responsible. But who started it? Also, one more thing, come on people let's be real about Artest's "self-defense" argument. That may be true towards the fan that came onto court, but his reactions towards the fan that threw beer at him was NOT self-defense. It was a retaliation. It's obvious, and this is coming from a pro-Artest guy. If you guys are gonna argue, at least argue the right thing, please.</div> Who's at fault? We can agree the fans are. We can agree Artest is. But to what degree? Artest took a manageable court fight, which was caused by Wallace, and turned it into a riot. Artest turned it from an on court fight into a riot once he crossed the lines of going into the stands.
In addition, Supra James, if I am correct, in assuming you were talking in reference to me, where I responded to your post incorrectly, which is now locked, I apologize. I actually had two windows going at once. I quoted you, and I was quoting someone else on two different threads. My response wasn't intended for you. It was intended for another thread. I was cycling through my windows, and wrote the wrong response to the wrong poster. Which is my fault.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Hoggamill:</div><div class="quote_post">Fan: "I followed my friend down to the court and I didn`t notice the melee, next thing I know I see Ron Artest throw a punch into right eye...there has to be some kind of...lawsuit or something....you can`t hit a fan like that." In sounded like he was still shooken up and mumbled alot.</div> What the heck are you doing on the courtside in the first place fool? Your not suppose to be there!
Artest not willing to "take any sh*t?" Well you do not get paid millions to play in a vacuum. You get paid millions with the understanding that people pay big $$$ to at times say unfortunate things and at times hurl beverages at you. Your obligation is to not retaliate nor provoke the crowd and most importantly, do not ever go into the stands. As for going on to the floor, so what? Neither of the two guys threw a punch, threw a beer, nothing. Never even threatened Artest. Yet you condemn them to endure sucker punches and bodily injury without any compensation? That is not America, that is not the rule of law and they are entitled to be compensated. After all is said and done now, what exactly have Artest, Jackson and O'Neal suffered exactly? Did Artest lose face because he got a beverage thrown at him? Is that such an indignity that it warrants pumelling someone? Oh he just held someone down? Well, we as a people do not allow anyone to assault someone, especially the wrong person, simply because you suspect that he was the perpatrator? If you lay your hands on someone you better be damn sure you have the right person. Yes the fan behavior was reprehensible but it did not warrant physical violence, and that was started by the players.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting SupraJames:</div><div class="quote_post"> Now, the thing that pisses me off is all the people <font color="SlateGray"><font size="1">(edit by Shapecity)</font></font> here that say that Ron should've done this, Ron shouldn't have done that. Of course it's easy to say that behind your little computer and make Ron sound like a total maniac. Fact of the matter is, he's just a normal guy with a short fuse. His reaction may have crossed the line, but who crossed it first? Get it to your head people. There are two types of people in this world: 1. Passive people that take alot of crap from others. These ppl wouldn't have retaliated in that situation, they would run to the center of the court, duck like a little girl, crying, waiting for the security (which apparently wasn't nearly enough there) to calm things down and then play the lame "I'm gonna sue you" game. 2. People that don't take shit from nobody and willing to take matters into their own hands even if it means that there will be a little dent to their checking account. These are the people that act out of true emotions and might not always make the brightest nor the right decisions. In Artest's case? He knows he's in deep shit as soon as he jumped over that table. But you know what he was thinking? Screw that, I ain't taking crap from nobody. You want some $ after I beat the crap out of you? Here I come. With a check in one hand and another fist right to your face. </div> Here's another category for you: MATURE PEOPLE who know that there's a difference between being a pushover and indulging every drunken idiot who comes along trying to pick a fight. The "little dent" to Artest's wallet is 5 million in suspension alone. Nice. Now that I think about it, here's another category: PEOPLE WHO GET POUNDED INTO THEIR HEAD by the justice system and real life that when you "don't take shit from nobody" there are long term consequences, like not getting a job they want because they have a record. Things like that have a funny way of making people grow up.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting philsmith75:</div><div class="quote_post">Artest not willing to "take any sh*t?" Well you do not get paid millions to play in a vacuum. You get paid millions with the understanding that people pay big $$$ to at times say unfortunate things and at times hurl beverages at you. Your obligation is to not retaliate nor provoke the crowd and most importantly, do not ever go into the stands. As for going on to the floor, so what? Neither of the two guys threw a punch, threw a beer, nothing. Never even threatened Artest. Yet you condemn them to endure sucker punches and bodily injury without any compensation? That is not America, that is not the rule of law and they are entitled to be compensated.</div> Uh, I don't know what the hell you're talking about but I don't recall the players are paid so people can hurl beverages at them.... Verbal abuse, yes, hurl beverages? No. So what if you're on the floor? One, you're not supposed to be there. Two, you apparently are not a real NBA fan to not know that there are rules prohibiting fans from coming onto the court. So you're actually dead wrong there buddy. There is a law that says fans cannot enter the basketball court.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting SupraJames:</div><div class="quote_post">Uh, I don't know what the hell you're talking about but I don't recall the players are paid so people can hurl beverages at them.... Verbal abuse, yes, hurl beverages? No. So what if you're on the floor? One, you're not supposed to be there. Two, you apparently are not a real NBA fan to not know that there are rules prohibiting fans from coming onto the court. So you're actually dead wrong there buddy. There is a law that says fans cannot enter the basketball court.</div> Players know the deal. Whatever happens, they are told from the day they attend the first meeting, DO NOT GO INTO THE STANDS, EVER. How hard is that to understand? Players are paid a huge premium with the understanding that unfortunate incidents may occur (not supposed to but that is the risk they take) but they are not to retaliate ever. Those are the rules and all the players know that. Fans cannot enter the basketball court. True. But the point is that the solution is being taken off the court, not being suckerpunched by a 7 footer with a running start. Never has the acceptable penalty for being on the court been being exposed to a sucker punch.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting philsmith75:</div><div class="quote_post">Players know the deal. Whatever happens, they are told from the day they attend the first meeting, DO NOT GO INTO THE STANDS, EVER. How hard is that to understand? Players are paid a huge premium with the understanding that unfortunate incidents may occur (not supposed to but that is the risk they take) but they are not to retaliate ever. Those are the rules and all the players know that. Fans cannot enter the basketball court. True. But the point is that the solution is being taken off the court, not being suckerpunched by a 7 footer with a running start. Never has the acceptable penalty for being on the court been being exposed to a sucker punch.</div> Players have their boundaries. Fans have their own also. Once one of them crosses the line, you cannot always expect the other to act the same. People keep saying the players are professionals and all that bullcrap. What about the fans? The fans are supposed to be CIVILIZED spectator but they crossed the line first. I don't see them being condemned for crossing the line. All I hear are all these biased wussies saying how pro atheletes shouldn't go up in the stands. Why can't I be a biased player and say that fans should never EVER throw a cup full of beer at the players?
AJ Shackleford. Thats the name of the guy who got the blow from O`Neal. lol I was watching Best Damn Sports Period, and one of the hosts were explaining that the fan that was attacked by Artest, was the NOT the guy who threw the beer. And Tom Arnold just said "YOU KNOW WHAT, SOMETIMES YOU GO INTO WAR AND YOU HUNT FOR OSAMA BIN LADEN BUT INSTEAD YOU GET SADDAM HUSSEIN!"
