12/21/24
June 13, 2006
Hidden: Now He Knows Why the Caged Bird Sings...: former Duke University star and likely first round NBA pick J.J. Redick was arrested early this morning and charged with DWI and making an illegal U-turn to avoid a police checkpoint. Redick pulled into an apartment complex parking lot and surrendered when police came after him.
posted by The_Black_Hand to basketball at 03:17 PM - 19 comments
Yo, we already did this, it was deleted.
posted by rocketman at 04:12 PM on June 13, 2006
Not linkworthy Unreal, if this was Marcus Vick, Doc Gooden, or Barry Bonds, it would be. Redick getting arrested isn't link worthy, but this is. JustGary, I know we've had our disagreements, but I have to call you on this one. I'm sure you'll respond with the usual "it's your site and you'll run it as you see fit" and that's all well and good, but this could be the start of bad behavior from Redick. He's projected as a top ten draft pick and he's the all-time leading scorer at Duke. This could be the beginning of a downward spiral. T.O never broke a law and there is 10 threads about him being an ass. Are you saying that an athlete acting like an ass is more important discussion than an athlete breaking the law? Maybe Redick is an alcoholic and we don't know it. I think that would hurt his value in the draft, don't you?
posted by Bishop at 04:32 PM on June 13, 2006
But it's Duke. justgary, I'm afraid I'm puzzled on this one.
posted by garfield at 04:47 PM on June 13, 2006
J.J. is a celebrity, so a mere slap on the wrist will be his punishment.
posted by whitedog65 at 04:48 PM on June 13, 2006
Unreal, if this was Marcus Vick, Doc Gooden, or Barry Bonds, it would be Great point Bishop, its amazing what a racial bias the media has. If this story was about Bonds or T.O. oh,my it would have shadowed the Ben story. In my opinion this is worse than anything TO has ever done. Sure he's an asshole but at least he's a law bidding asshole. I understand young people make mistakes I just wish those same mistakes were judged equally and reported equally.
posted by PGHTOS at 04:59 PM on June 13, 2006
True story - my sister gets pulled over for DWI. Goes to court with no lawyer and pleads guilty, b/c she was. The judge GETS MAD b/c she wouldn't buck up the cash to try and weasel out of the charge! My point is that people are accountable for their actions. I'm already reading about Redick's supporters setting the table to excuse his actions.
posted by whitedog65 at 06:04 PM on June 13, 2006
The story gets me thinking about folks that are twice his age that have not one, but SEVERAL DUI's and just keep doing it. And if you talk to them, they genuinely don't "get it". I hope JJ has the point driven home to him the first time so that the first time is the ONLY time.
posted by blakrain at 06:18 PM on June 13, 2006
Got to agree. My sister had the sense to quit drinking and driving after she got her DWI. Repeat offenders definitely need to be punished, and harshly.
posted by whitedog65 at 06:31 PM on June 13, 2006
I think this is amazing. No one wants to talk about this, if this was Lebron this thread would be full of people smearing him. Why does race play such a big part of how we judge people?
posted by PGHTOS at 09:00 PM on June 13, 2006
I don't think there's anything amazing about it. The guy's an idiot, but he'll also be lucky to be drafted in the first round, so maybe that explains the lack of enthusiasm about the event.
posted by ninjavshippo at 09:08 PM on June 13, 2006
Controversy sells--and at least some of the coverage of Bonds, T.O. , and Keyshawn Johnson, et al, seems excessively negative and may well be racially motivated. Perhaps it's partly racially motivated and part "they don't act the right way"--i.e. refraining from excessive celebration; talking freely with the media; etc. Personally I don't much care what athletes do on or off the field/court/rink, etc. It's just an entertaining diversion for me (most of the time.) Besides--athletes, actors, etc. aren't necessarily less or more idiotic than people in general. (Did I just set a record for use of Latin abbreviations, et al, in a post?)
posted by curtangle at 09:49 PM on June 13, 2006
I don't think there's anything amazing about it I didnt mean the story was amazing. I meant the fact that there are hardly any post about it is a amazing. Because it was NCAA's great white hope this past year and now he lost is clear cut image people want the story to go away..
posted by PGHTOS at 11:34 PM on June 13, 2006
I'm some what up in the air about it being completely a race issue. Sure it plays a part, however if this was about Pete Rose there would probably be a ton of posts. This is about image as well as race. Redick is being portrayed as the clean cut all American guy. There's no natural dislike for guys like him. There's no image of flaunting money, big jewelry, loud mouth,gambling, I know I'm a bad ass attitude. People like him are allowed mistakes. People who are perceived as having an attitude are not allowed to make errors in this society. Where are the people saying "nothing good happens when you're out at 1 a.m." Where are the people saying this guy should go to jail for trying to evade the sobriety check-point. If Redick didn't pull over right away and fled the police, do you think he would have been beaten like Rodney King? To say that this isn't link worthy while the thread about "how long do you think it will take Marcus Vick to get into trouble again" remains speaks volumes about the train of thought of a few of the spofi elite. This is their world, we are not forced to be a part of it.
posted by Bishop at 05:06 AM on June 14, 2006
Point out all the other links on the site about DUI arrests. Then start grousing about racism.
posted by yerfatma at 06:21 AM on June 14, 2006
But it's Duke. justgary, I'm afraid I'm puzzled on this one. Well, regarding the first time this was posted: At the time it was on the front page of espn. It's basically an AP story covered by every website and newspaper. The story is basically just the facts. Redick got a dui. I'm not sure what there is really left to discuss. We're not talking michael jordan here. It's a story that really fails on all accounts. An open sports discussion. Sure. SportsFILTER, not so much. Ask yourself this. Do you even have to read the link to comment on it? It would have simply become a vehicle for others to jump on their soap box. It's this type link that has been the worst as far as thread comments since day one here, which is why it would be easy to point to another thread in the past and claim inconsistency. It's not inconsistency, it's learning from the past. Redick getting arrested isn't link worthy, but this is. Well, since the thread you're pointing to was deleted, I'd say no. Just a minor detail you left out. I'm sure you'll respond with the usual "it's your site and you'll run it as you see fit" The usual? Please point to where I've ever said that. Anything even close. Don't waste your time. You're not going to find it. To say that this isn't link worthy while the thread about "how long do you think it will take Marcus Vick to get into trouble again" remains speaks volumes about the train of thought of a few of the spofi elite. 1. that thread does not remain. it was deleted that day. 2. elite? there is no elite. there is a community with a few admins trying to help with the quality of the site. So bishop, your whole argument is based on a link that was deleted the very day it was posted, and you've accused me of saying something I have never nor would ever say. I'll await your retraction. And by the way, a simple link to a dui and you're bringing up rodney king. If I ever doubted the link should have stayed, you're example one why it shouldn't have.
posted by justgary at 05:47 PM on June 14, 2006
I was not aware that the link was deleted, therefore I will retract that aspect of my comment. I also have looked into the claim about the "it's my site I'll run it as I see fit" (maybe it's not word for word) but here it is; I don't agree with that comment. If you go back to my comments about bonds, you'd know that. Bishop, post here or not, that's your choice. I delete very little content. When I do, as I said before, it's because: It's not good for sportsfilter, it's not good for discussion, and it's not going to happen here. You can email me if you want to discuss it, but there's really nothing to discuss. That comment would have been deleted a year ago, today, and tomorrow. This is not a free speech subject. It's what works best for the website. That's my only concern I stand by the idea that if this was someone more hateable (my own term) like the previously mentioned token examples, this thread would be filled with hateful, I told you so comments. Like the threads about Gooden, how he would rather get shot than go back to jail (observe the "this guy loves crack" comments), and the other threads concerning Clarett, J. R. Rider or this comment made by T$port about how the accuser of the Duke students is on food stamps because she is black. Unless you have changed your policy recently, this thread(if about the people mentioned above) most certainly wouldn't have been deleted the first time around (if it was about Bonds you would be working on your 5th post by now). Like you've said to me in the past, "if a thread doesn't interest you, then go to a different thread". It's obvious that more than 8 people wanted to discuss this, but as you've said, If you think it's not good for discussion, then it's not going to happen here.
posted by Bishop at 08:19 PM on June 14, 2006
Bishop, if you honestly don't see the difference between these two statements: It's not good for sportsfilter, it's not good for discussion, and it's not going to happen here. it's my site I'll run it as I see fit i don't know what to tell you. The site is run by 3 members, and member opinion has a lot to do with how the site is run. Yes, admin decisions are based on what is best (in our opinion) for the site. We care about the site. It's not my site. It's our site. But it will never be anything goes anarchy, which is what you seem to want. I stand by the idea that if this was someone more hateable (my own term) like the previously mentioned token examples, this thread would be filled with hateful, I told you so comments. Like the threads about Gooden, how he would rather get shot than go back to jail (observe the "this guy loves crack" comments), and the other threads concerning Clarett, J. R. Rider or this comment made by T$port about how the accuser of the Duke students is on food stamps because she is black. I agree, ugly threads. So why do you want another one? As the years go by, you find out what works here and what doesn't. You really want one of those ugly threads? You want another thread on race relations coming out of a link with nothing to do with race? Like you've said to me in the past, "if a thread doesn't interest you, then go to a different thread". It's obvious that more than 8 people wanted to discuss this, but as you've said, If you think it's not good for discussion, then it's not going to happen here. Here's how the site works bishop. Members post links. If an admin decides it doesn't work for sportsfilter, it's deleted. Of the threads remaining, members comment/read on what interest them. If a member doesn't believe a certain thread should have been posted, they can email an admin. Eight people wanting to discuss it has zero to do with post quality. Those ugly threads you mentioned should prove that. You seem to forget biship, that we're not robots. So we can delete a post today, and you can go back in the archives and find a similar one that wasn't deleted. We could have missed that thread, or maybe that thread is the reason we deleted the one today. I'll be honest here. I'm through talking with you about post/comment deletions. We're getting no where, and it's admin time taken away by arguing with one person. If you think a post should have or should have not been deleted, email an admin.
posted by justgary at 09:47 PM on June 14, 2006
Since you're through discussing this issue, I'll merely remind you of the reason why some think racial viewpoints play a part in what is or is not deleted. I posted a comment about someone sounding like a klansman with their viewpoint. You deleted it saying that it wasn't good for sportsfilter. That's ok by me. But how can you say that comment is not good for sportsfilter, then I point this comment out to you, But hands down, if they did it, they should pay. If she's lying, her food stamp card will not be able to compensate the damages done the players' reputation posted by T$PORT4lawschool at 10:49 AM CDT on May 28 and you do nothing about it ( in a sense saying "that it is good for sportsfilter") These 2 comments followed the previous: If she's lying, her food stamp card will not be able to compensate the damages done the players' reputation. Am I the only one that thinks this is racist? posted by bperk at 6:26 PM CDT on May 28 No bperk you're not! posted by Folkways at 6:53 PM CDT on May 28 My only argument is, if you're going to crackdown on the members here that point out certain things that are or should be considered offensive, then you should definitely crackdown on the openly flagrant racism. Because when you don't, it appears that you either agree with it, or don't find it offensive. You want another thread on race relations coming out of a link with nothing to do with race? No, so why not at least delete the ones you know about. Did I email the example above to you? No, did I link it to a thread where we previously had this discussion? Yes. Did you do anything about it? No. Why? Because you must think it's "good for sportsfilter" right? Can you at least see how that might send a mixed message? You leave the racist comment, but delete the comment that states it sounds like a klansman said it. To me, that just doesn't make sense.
posted by Bishop at 12:13 AM on June 15, 2006
I can only guess that this will result in more maudlin, saccharine, Creed-like poetry from young Mr. Redick. And crying, of course...lots and lots of crying.