Seattle vs Minnesota: Official Game Thread

Did I ever say that Ron Artest didn't deserve his punishment? He ran into the stands and hit a innocent guy. He was in the wrong. And b/c he is Ron Artest David Stern in essence had to suspend him for the season. If he hadn't the NBA would have lost a lot of credibility in the eyes of its sponsors.

My issue is with the punishment for the guy who threw the drink. I'm sorry folks. Throwing a drink at someone w/o being provoked in my mind is an assault. If I throw a drink at a policeman for no reason I'm going to jail for assault on a police officer. Comparatively speaking, Ron Artest loses a year of his salary when an ex-con loses his ability to watch games at the Palace. Where is the justice in that? The ex-con needs to be able to lose his ability to earn a income and that will only happen if his parole officer violates him and sends him back to prison. I haven't heard anything from the media that would suggest that that is going to happen.

The ex-con started a riot, participated in the riot, and is still able to work wherever it is that he earns an income. Remember everyone, he attacked Ron Artest for absolutely no reason. First w/ the cup, then with sucker punches. But yet Ron Artest is the only one that has been hit w/ a one year finance freeze.

Supersonic and Casual, why don't both of you guys look at the other side of the argument before you pass judgment on what I'm trying to say? I have never said that black athletes shouldn't be held accountable for inappropriate behavior.

 

You've just illustrated my point - "Because he is Ron Artest..."
Who's fault is it that he's Ron Artest? Who's fault is it that he has a reputation as Ron Artest? The way you've worded that reads that David Stern is discriminating against Ron Artest. Well, Ron Artest has a reputation for actions that Ron Artest has committed. The league comes down harder on Ron Artest because he is the one who has screwed up so many times. Not because they're trying to make an example out of him. Hell, if he hadn't committed a cheap foul on Wallace or laid provocatively on the scorer's table, it wouldn't have happened, but that's exactly the sort of thing Ron Artest does.

If you threw a drink at a police officer, you might get in trouble. If he then came back and smacked you, you could sue him. Throwing a drink at someone does not constitue assault, no matter how you try to look at it or what kind of spin you put on it. It's not against the law to throw a cup of water at someone.

And the sucker punches? Why do you think the sucker punches came? Because Ron Artest was in the stands whaling on the wrong guy. I'm not excusing this clown's actions, but the bottom line is everything that happened that night fell squarely at the feet of Ron Artest. If he hadn't fouled Wallace like that in the last minute, it wouldn't have started (not excusing Ben's reaction). If he wasn't lying on the scorer's table and mocking Pistons fans, he wouldn't have gotten hit with a cup. If he didn't go into the stands and start hitting people, he wouldn't have been sucker punched.

And he wouldn't be losing so much money.

 

Shiek, I don't even know what point you're trying to make anymore. A guy who throws beer gets less punishment than a guy who attacks somebody. Makes sense to me. The guy who attacks somebody did it ON THE JOB, so he loses salary. If the guy who threw beer did it on the job, he probably would have lost salary, too.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Supersonic:</div><div class="quote_post">You've just illustrated my point - "Because he is Ron Artest..."
Who's fault is it that he's Ron Artest? Who's fault is it that he has a reputation as Ron Artest? The way you've worded that reads that David Stern is discriminating against Ron Artest. Well, Ron Artest has a reputation for actions that Ron Artest has committed. The league comes down harder on Ron Artest because he is the one who has screwed up so many times. Not because they're trying to make an example out of him. Hell, if he hadn't committed a cheap foul on Wallace or laid provocatively on the scorer's table, it wouldn't have happened, but that's exactly the sort of thing Ron Artest does.

If you threw a drink at a police officer, you might get in trouble. If he then came back and smacked you, you could sue him. Throwing a drink at someone does not constitue assault, no matter how you try to look at it or what kind of spin you put on it. It's not against the law to throw a cup of water at someone.

And the sucker punches? Why do you think the sucker punches came? Because Ron Artest was in the stands whaling on the wrong guy. I'm not excusing this clown's actions, but the bottom line is everything that happened that night fell squarely at the feet of Ron Artest. If he hadn't fouled Wallace like that in the last minute, it wouldn't have started (not excusing Ben's reaction). If he wasn't lying on the scorer's table and mocking Pistons fans, he wouldn't have gotten hit with a cup. If he didn't go into the stands and start hitting people, he wouldn't have been sucker punched.

And he wouldn't be losing so much money.</div>

Ron Artest has built a negative reputation for himself not b/c he is a violent person, but b/c he has emotional and mental issues that he needs professional help with. Ron Artest, again, was dead in the wrong by going into the stands and whaling on an innocent fan. But that was the only thing that he did wrong that night.

If Ron Artest foul on Ben Wallace was that malicious, why wasn't it called a flagrant foul. Why wasn't he ejected? If the NBA encourages people walking away from confrontation, why was he in the wrong for removing himself from the fight and lying on the table. Granted he was making a mockery of the entire incident, but I would assume that is better than going to blows on the court. What you seem to be saying is that prior to Ron Artest running into the stands his actions warranted him getting blasted in the face by Ben Wallace and getting a cup thrown in his face, which is complete bs.

Why are you excusing the ex-con when he began hitting Ron Artest from behind. That ex-con didn't know that fan, and that is what security is for. He took it upon himself to get involved in something he had no business getting involved with. And considering that he is an ex-con, I would think that he would get a stiffer punishment outside of banishment from the Palace.

This is my absolute last post in this thread so I'm going to clarify my entire stance on this subject. White athletes/people aren't held accountable in the same fashion as black athletes/people. Possession of cocaine, a traditionally white recreational drug, carries a minimum 10 years less of a prison sentence, than crack cocaine, a drug found primarily in black communities. I, myself, have been a victim of police brutality, in one of its worse forms. Why, b/c it was right after 9/11 and police felt as if they could get away w/ whatever they wanted b/c the public were praising all of their efforts (and they were right). My friend smiled when a police officer arrested his friend (for nothing as well). They arrested him. I asked him what he did wrong and ended up getting stomped and billy clubbed in the middle of the street in East Baltimore, w/o making an attempt to resist arrest. My charge, assault on a police officer. So if you don't think that someone would get charged w/ assault on a police officer if they threw a drink in the face of a policeman you are sadly mistaken.

And if you think that white athletes/people are held to the same standards as black athletes/people you are just naive.

 

I'm sorry you've been a victim of racism before, but I feel it does no good to try to search for racism in the world. If you look for trouble, you will find it, even if it's not there. Racism exists, but yelling about it when you have no proof does nothing but accuse possibly innocent people of a crime that would make them less of a human being in the eyes of much of the world. If professional sports were truly racist, you'd be able to give me a list of the black and white troublemakers and prove they were unjustly dealt with. But all you have is conjecture. That's not enough to make me hate somebody. It's not enough to make me look suspiciously at somebody. The possibility of malicious intent is there, just like it's possible that everything you've mentioned was an honest mistake.

Can you prove things happened because of race? No. Can I prove they didn't? No. So let's not accuse anybody or any organization of such thing unless they deserve it.