11/21/24
August 17, 2006
Community Service Artest Style: Artest defends his role in the Rumble at the Palace.
posted by gradys_kitchen to basketball at 12:47 PM - 58 comments
The terms of his community service should have had him picking up garbage rather than influencing children.
posted by bperk at 02:42 PM on August 17, 2006
The terms of his community service should have had him picking up garbage rather than influencing children. I think you forgot something. He's a role model.
posted by tselson at 03:02 PM on August 17, 2006
He's a role model. Altough tselson is being facetious, it is a sad fact that many young people, and some older folks, see him that way.
posted by Termite at 03:34 PM on August 17, 2006
Yes, he's a role model, but a negative one. I thought that the long suspension after the brawl would help him gain some maturity. It doesn't seem to have helped him as much as I had hoped.
posted by bperk at 03:46 PM on August 17, 2006
Community service would seem better served in a different city. The judical system should have a bit more feel than the guy who started the riot in D_E_T_R_I_O-T B-A-S-K-E-T-B-A-L-L.
posted by Mustang 71 at 04:11 PM on August 17, 2006
Who decides what type of community service someone has to do? Whoever decided that Artest was a good choice to speak to children at a black empowerment panel, is a bigger idiot than Artest.
posted by tselson at 04:22 PM on August 17, 2006
The man who starfted the fight is the man who should take responsibility for it. It was the man who threw the drink who started it, not Ron. Ron Artest has the right to be human whether he has money or not. Some people let things like that go, some people can't. He acted like 75 percent of men would have acted after getting a drink thown in their face.
posted by NInobrown1876 at 05:43 PM on August 17, 2006
Man, I've seen jocks goin' to the locker room, at the half and after the final whistle, gettin' deluged by beer and soft drinks, and most realize it's part of the stage they are on, and handle it without resorting to violence. I do not condone dousing the opposition with fermented beverages, but it's part of the deal when you play pro sports, I think, and I thought Artest handled it very poorly. Ron Artest has the right to be human whether he has money or not. I would say, because of the large sum of money he is paid to be a professional athlete, he is obligated to accept the fact that spectators in opposing arenas are likely to throw liquids at him, and to let security take what measures need be to thwart it, not himself.
posted by mjkredliner at 06:19 PM on August 17, 2006
Wow! Im surprised that the people listening to this didnt interupt Artest at some point and take him outside hand him some gloves, and get him to some real work where he wont be sending kids the wrong message... again!
posted by lakerfan2thend at 07:28 PM on August 17, 2006
I stand correctd in the fact that he did not start the fight. However mjkredliner is on the money with his point on professional athletes. Fans have and will continue to be loud and overbearing and the jocks need to leave their rabbit ears at home.
posted by Mustang 71 at 08:46 PM on August 17, 2006
Now that I'm middle-class, don't throw a drink on me. If I get rich, don't throw a drink on me. There will be a problem either way. The real menace was the one who threw the drink. He deserved to get his face kicked in. Millions of people go to these games and millions of people get upset at the players. The difference is only very few have the nerve to throw things and try to physically harm these guys. How often do you here about how wrong the guy was for starting something that turned into thousands of people against about 10. Fred Jones got socked for standing there and being a Pacer. We don't here about him. We only here about how wrong Ron was. If I throw the first punch in a big brawl, I'm to blame for starting it. Not the guy who retaliated. Actors, athletes, Presidents, all act on emotion sometimes. Also, I don't consider getting covered in beverages as a part of pro sports.
posted by NInobrown1876 at 08:56 PM on August 17, 2006
Artest=typical overpaid bozo. All that money and NO JOB. It was my broken home, it was because I make too much money, it was blah, blah, blah. PO ME.
posted by joromu at 09:10 PM on August 17, 2006
Well, the difference is this: If I throw a drink at somebody, I have not broken any laws. If I punch somebody in the face, I've commited assault.
posted by Joey Michaels at 09:13 PM on August 17, 2006
Joey, your logic is extraordinary. If you throw a drink at someone, you have in fact committed an assault. The only difference is the drink and a fist. Using your logic, I could throw a brick at someone, then say, but, but, but, your honour, I didn't throw a punch, I only threw a brick.
posted by tommybiden at 09:52 PM on August 17, 2006
If you throw a drink at someone, you have in fact committed an assault. The only difference is the drink and a fist. Technically sure. However, hitting someone and throwing a drink in their face will be treated much differently by a cop. (knock it off with the mentioning of his profession. That's uncalled for.)
posted by justgary at 10:16 PM on August 17, 2006
The real menace was the one who threw the drink. He deserved to get his face kicked in. Millions of people go to these games and millions of people get upset at the players. The difference is only very few have the nerve to throw things and try to physically harm these guys. Throw a drink=get your face kicked in. Great logic! Hope you don't reproduce. Most of those millions of people that attend those games understand that if they get caught throwing a beverage on anyone (player, fan, usher, etc..) they will be escorted from the ball bark/arena, and most likely formerly charged with something. Those charges are up to the local law enforcement, I would imagine it could range anywhere from disorderly conduct to assault and battery. However none of those are punishable be being beat up by Ron Artest. As far as letting him talk to children, thats just plain ridiculous.
posted by jojomfd1 at 10:25 PM on August 17, 2006
If you throw a drink at someone, you have in fact committed an assault. Actually, it is a battery. An assault is the threat that may or may not lead up to a battery while battery is the actual physical contact. Any person (even an athlete) whether someone hits them with a drink or a brick has a right to self-defense. The force with which they respond must be reasonable. There is no caveat in self-defense to let the police handle it if you think you are threatened. The problem with Artest's situation was that instead of protecting himself from danger he actually put himself in more danger by going into the stands. That is not reasonable.
posted by bperk at 10:48 PM on August 17, 2006
I accept that my facts were wrong. That being said, I agree with bperk.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:55 PM on August 17, 2006
Take yourself out of it then. If a man threw a drink into the face of your wife, would you man-up and do something, or debate with yourself about whats ethical and against the law.
posted by NInobrown1876 at 11:37 PM on August 17, 2006
My apologies for reversing the old assault/battery exactor, I sometimes do that with slander/libel too. Gary, sorry, my bad.
posted by tommybiden at 11:45 PM on August 17, 2006
NInobrown1876, take yourself out of it pal, this wasn't even remotely about what your last post mentioned. Artest would have been much more highly thought of if he had just given John Green a big goofy smile as security was hauling him away. Instead, he proved nothing except that he is a jerk who got violent because some dumbass fan threw carbonated water laced with sugar on him.
posted by mjkredliner at 11:50 PM on August 17, 2006
NInobrown1876, you're confusing Artest with Davis. Artest is the one who got hit with the beer, lost his temper, and then went after the wrong guy. So, if your question is "would I man-up and beat up the wrong shmuck for hitting me with a beer," I would say "no, I would not."
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:53 PM on August 17, 2006
Soda pop, beer, same difference, same stupid thought processes by dumbass fan and asshole Artest.
posted by mjkredliner at 12:03 AM on August 18, 2006
Whether you think it was stupid or not is your opinion. The fact of the matter is that it was a human reaction. I'm not perfect, your not perfect, we all do stupid things. But, doing dumb things is what helps us grow and learn. Human mistakes are a part of life. In this case I dont think its worth following him for the rest of his life. Its not like he's a muderer, rapist, or child molester.
posted by NInobrown1876 at 12:06 AM on August 18, 2006
So, if your question is "would I man-up and beat up the wrong shmuck for hitting me with a beer," I would say "no, I would not." I agree with you. But , if in my mind set I was sure I had the right guy, I would. He for some reason thought he had the right guy.
posted by NInobrown1876 at 12:11 AM on August 18, 2006
In this case, I dont think its worth following him for the rest of his life. Unfortunately, poor decisions leading to convictions and police records have a way of doing that. Artest will long be remembered for his part in this debacle long after anyone remembers anything he has done on the court, where, his childish antics are tiresome as well.
posted by mjkredliner at 12:24 AM on August 18, 2006
Dennis Rodman was remembered for a while because of his actions off the court. But when the bottom line comes out they say he was one of the greatest defenders and rebounders. Its like his antics are small-talk now. I think the same will happen with Artest when its said and done. As for convictions and police records...Its not like he's a muderer, rapist, or child molester.
posted by NInobrown1876 at 12:41 AM on August 18, 2006
The only problem I have with what Artest did that night in detroit is he smashed the wrong guy.I wish he would have blasted the schmuck who started the incident.I personally think any idiot who throws objects at the players at a sporting event should be beaten.they act like savages,they should be treated as such.you buy a ticket wich gives you a right to view the game,and express your likes and dislikes.it does not give you the right to assault people.how would you like if someone came to your job and started pelting you with trash?P.S. they should not have had Ron talking to kids anyway.he has issues.
posted by mars1 at 02:21 AM on August 18, 2006
But, doing dumb things is what helps us grow and learn. Human mistakes are a part of life. I will agree with you on this also, but there is a problem there. According to his profile Artest was born Nov. 13th 1979. Making him 26 yrs old now(soon to be 27). This happened in Nov. 2004 he was 25 then. I have a sneaky suspicion that he knew right from wrong very well, and knew he should not go into the stands and do what he did. If a man threw a drink into the face of your wife That did not happen. Read this to freshen up a bit of you like.
posted by jojomfd1 at 02:34 AM on August 18, 2006
From Joey Michaels second link- Unfortunately for everyone involved, Artest charged the wrong guy. A big clue should have been that the guy was still holding his beer, but Ron missed that. Now maybe if you're charging into the stands you might not pay attention to details, but this is a little too important to miss.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 06:17 AM on August 18, 2006
I would say, because of the large sum of money he is paid to be a professional athlete, he is obligated to accept the fact that spectators in opposing arenas are likely to throw liquids at him, and to let security take what measures need be to thwart it, not himself. Obligated to let people break the rules they agree to when they buy a ticket? I mean, at least personally, if someone's able to throw a drink at me, it could easily be a bottle, or a brick, or something a lot more damaging. Security didn't protect him from being hit by any object thrown at him (it was merely the discretion of the fan that chose what to throw). At least personally, I'd be miffed at the arena for allowing anyone the ability to hit me with anything. I'm being paid to perform, not to be attacked by an idiot in the stand. The idea that fans should be allowed to use any verbal/physical attacks they chose and that athletes should put up with it is absurd. These are still human beings, regardless of how much money they make, and as such should be treated with the same respect they'd get walking down the street. The fact they're on display makes it no less wrong what countless fans do every day at events, but this mob mentality that because it happens so often it should be expected doesn't make the cause any less wrong. It just happens that the cause happened to someone with less than average self-control, but it's not like he wasn't provoked. I don't like Ron Artest, I think he could chill out quite a bit, but that doesn't give anyone the right to provoke him. If anything, if what we really want is for him to develop into a more sound human being, we'd be arguing that people should lay off him and let him work on his self-control.
posted by dfleming at 07:31 AM on August 18, 2006
What ever happened with Artest's rap career?
posted by Bill Lumbergh at 07:41 AM on August 18, 2006
Take yourself out of it then. If a man threw a drink into the face of your wife, would you man-up and do something, or debate with yourself about whats ethical and against the law. How's the Camaro? I don't trust the "manning-up" argument. People who talk like that typically never do, and usually are discovered to have the condition known as Teeny Peeny. I like Artest. I think he's a good player, a complete loose cannon and always entertaining. Plus, big fights at sports arenas are neato. And if we really want to get stupid about these things, Ben Wallace started that fight. But then he didn't "man up" and fight Artest. And we were robbed of a goooooood fight.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:24 PM on August 18, 2006
The one thing that pisses me off about that incident was that Ron decided he needed to beat the shit out of some wimpy ass little white dude. Ron Artest is a monster compared to that guy. He coulda killed him. That would be like me going at a 3rd grader for throwing a water balloon at me.
posted by ChunkE at 12:35 PM on August 18, 2006
All this "human reaction" nonsense is, well, nonsense. It's a "human reaction" to stab your wife and the eighteen year-old pool boy to death when you come home early to find them fucking all over the kitchen floor. And it's a "human reaction" to then slit the kids' throats when they get home from school, so they won't have to grow up without a mommy and with a daddy on death row. But there are laws against that kind of "human reaction," and I for one am glad of them. Artest showed a "human reaction" when he ran up into the stands after being hit with a half-cup of beer and beat on the wrong guy? Who cares how "human" his reaction was. It was against the very reasonable law for which we should all be thankful (I don't want to ride the subway with wife- and child-killers or NBA brawlers), and Artest is being an asshole when he sloughs the blame off in front of children. He went from low-class to no-class, and his apologists doubtless have a variety of agendas, all of which reflect poorly on their holders. Unless, like me, you think all sports should have fights. Then you'd agree that Artest is a pussy for turning away from a fight with Wallace to pick on some loudmouth ofay who hasn't been in a fight since he was in short pants. A big pussy.
posted by Hugh Janus at 01:26 PM on August 18, 2006
Artest could at least have said "I'm sorry I beat up the wrong guy" as opposed to what he actually said. In my opinion, recognizing you did something wrong is a major part of "man-ing up."
posted by Joey Michaels at 03:33 PM on August 18, 2006
Instead, he proved nothing except that he is a jerk who got violent because some dumbass fan threw carbonated water laced with sugar on him I hate to do this, but would someone please offer a link to the "sugar-water" hitting Artest. I'd like to verify that it was not just fluid that hit him. Does anyone recall how far away the person was who threw the damn BIG GULP sized plastic cup that was obviously near full. If I recall correctly, it was this football sized full plastic cup that hit him in the chest/neck/face area from upwards of 20 feet away. I hate when people play things down as if some nun walked by and grazed Artest with a phantom drop of holy water dispensed from an eye-dropper. An NHL player climbs the boards to get at a fan who in fact does pour a drink on him, and it's cool. Ron Artest gets smacked in the mouth with a plastic cup near full of whatever and he draws this comparison; And it's a "human reaction" to then slit the kids' throats when they get home from school, so they won't have to grow up without a mommy and with a daddy on death row
posted by Bishop at 05:49 PM on August 18, 2006
Here is your sugar water link Bishop. Watch what happens after it grazes his forehead, he lays back down before deciding to go and fight. He is not even running into the stands for about 20-25 seconds after, you can hear the crowds reaction. That is not a snap reaction on his part.
posted by jojomfd1 at 06:45 PM on August 18, 2006
Jojo, are you kidding me? WTF is that? I would have thought if were going to offer a link that it would be a link to what the hell I'm talking about. That version of the video didn't even show the drink being thrown on Artest, so how do you think it warrants a response to my post? Did you offer a link and not even watch the video on the link? The feed was from channel 4 with no shot of Artest as the drink hit him. What the hell does "hearing the crowd" have to do with showing or proving that the cup hit him and not just fluid? I think what you saw was something else fly by him. That was not the full cup of beer/whatever that hit him in his chest/neck/whereever. Does anyone have a link to what I'm referring to?
posted by Bishop at 04:29 AM on August 19, 2006
youtube.com link of espn live footage. The cup that hits him is blue, it appears to be about a 20.oz cup approx. half full. It does srtike him in the face. The cup came from over 30 feet away. Also note that he got up 2 seconds after the cup hit him, not 25 seconds. This may be pointless, but it was a damn lucky shot.
posted by Bishop at 04:55 AM on August 19, 2006
An NHL player climbs the boards to get at a fan who does in fact pour a drink on him, and it's cool. Says who? I say said hockey player, donned in full protective gear, going after a fan, is thin skinned, unaware that as a pro athlete he will more than likely encounter unruly fans, (especially if he is a cheap shot artist anyway) and a hot-headed jerk. I'm sure that plastic cup really hurt Artest, Bishop. Artest could have been the bigger man by letting security handle the situation, instead, he took the low road. The fans have no business throwing liquids, but the "pros" have no business retaliating violently over being splashed with a beverage.
posted by mjkredliner at 11:21 AM on August 19, 2006
The fans have no business throwing liquids, but the "pros" have no business retaliating violently over being splashed with a beverage. You have your opinion, I have mine. Like I said, play it down all you want, "splashed"? If a fan runs onto the field of play, then gets drilled by security, the crowd goes crazy. If Artest got "splashed" by a fan, then I'll say all he did was go ask the guy why he did it. Don't down play one offense, then highlight the RESPONSE. Is this really that hard to understand? The point is as simple as this, Artest doesn't get hit in the face with a cup of beer, he doesn't end up in the stands, period! You seem like a level headed guy. Why is this aspect of the situation so hard for you to grasp? One has to understand dominant/submissive behavior. Artest felt like he was being taken advantage of after he was submitting to the situation. Ben Wallace was more out of control then Artest was. Artest was being told to refrain during a very volatile confrontation. The laying down on the table was an act of submitting. While he was in a submissive state he was taken advantage of, for that split second he became the victim and he reacted. Call it what you will, spin it how you please, but the facts are the facts. You may say he over-reacted, either way, he didn't "over-act" did he? No. He reacted, and his REaction cost him more that it should have. How did he know for sure more cups of whatever weren't coming his way? If he just stayed there and took that cup to the face, would that have made the way for more objects to be thrown at him while he was no threat what so ever at that specific point and time? I'm not excusing all the BS and thugery, but lets keep it in perspective and stop acting like the guy was sprinkled by a Priest with Baptism water.
posted by Bishop at 12:54 PM on August 19, 2006
Q. I wonder why Bill Parcells didn't slug Harry Carson when he dumped Gatorade on him that first time? A. Because it rinses off. If Artest was so intent on being 'dominant', he shoulda settled his beef with Wallace.
posted by mjkredliner at 01:53 PM on August 19, 2006
Come on man. READDDDD. I said him laying down on the table was a sign of submission. I never said he was intent on being dominant. You did. Parcells? Gatorade? Now you're just making yourself look silly with foolish comparisons. Hint: It's ok to be wrong sometimes. I was wrong once. (long ago)
posted by Bishop at 02:46 PM on August 19, 2006
And him jumping off the table and going after the fan (albeit the wrong fan) was an act of being dominant. Artest was the one who was wrong. The judge apparently thought so, too. Poor baby coodint hando bein spwashed with wawa.
posted by mjkredliner at 02:59 PM on August 19, 2006
Poor baby coodint hando bein spwashed with wawa. I reiterate: Now you're just making yourself look silly with foolish comparisons. Man I have witnessed you make some foolish commentary in the past, but this may take the cake. You feel as though you can't convince the person you're debating with to see your side of the argument, so therefore you type in baby talk? Ironically (or moronically, take your pick) while calling Artest a big baby. Let me see if I can guess what's next. I got it. If you were there you would have whipped Artest's ass, right?
posted by Bishop at 09:17 PM on August 19, 2006
Artest, and the fan, were both found guilty by a judge and/or jury. What part of that do you not understand? If you think Artest is such a great guy, and that all athletes should follow his example, you sir, are a fool. And yes, I am implying that Artest acted like a child, and no, I dont mess with the players on a personel level when I attend sports events. I think if Artest was such a "big tough guy", he would have settled his beef with the man who pushed him, a certain Mr. Wallace, who would have stomped a mudhole in Artest.
posted by mjkredliner at 09:40 PM on August 19, 2006
Artest, and the fan, were both found guilty by a judge and/or jury. Artest pled no contest, so no judge, no jury, no admission of guilt.
posted by bperk at 10:52 PM on August 19, 2006
And we all know that he copped that plea so the admittance or finding of guilt could not be used against him in civil proceedings, and I am sure that a judge had to accept his plea of no contest.
posted by mjkredliner at 11:16 PM on August 19, 2006
mjk, I'd rather hear the baby talk from you. And stop offering bullshit for fact: Artest, and the fan, were both found guilty by a judge and/or jury Artest pled no contest, so no judge, no jury, no admission of guilt See how you end up sounding like a know it all that don't know it all? Because I defend his right to REact or REspond, you say I think Artest is a great guy. Why do you become so dramatic when you're confronted with an opinion that differs from your own? I have read a lot of your posts man, and if you only knew how many people here would consider you the Ron Artest of Spofi, you would probably consider being less confrontational. a certain Mr. Wallace, who would have stomped a mudhole in Artest. And then if you were there spouting all this nonsense within ear shot of Artest, he would promptly stomp a mudhole in you. So were does that leave us? Still here at Spofi with you responding to posts the same way Artest responds to getting, how did you so poetically put it, "spwashed with wawa". Hilarious, not in a Jim Carey way, but in a Vanilla ice trying to be a rapper way.
posted by Bishop at 06:35 AM on August 20, 2006
I think the drama was your example of "dominant/submissive behavior". I have no idea what your rap analogy means, but I will counter it by telling you that my daddy always told me don't get in a pissing match with a skunk, I can see why now. I can only say that I think David Stern was correct when he called the incident "Shocking, Repulsive, and Inexcusable", and the suspensions and ensuing court sentences were justified. Good day, sir.
posted by mjkredliner at 08:25 AM on August 20, 2006
Sheesh, Piston fans can be total asses and seem to easily secum(sp) to the "mob" mentality. History speaks for itself. B. Wallace was wrong! Artest was wrong! The fans were wrong! The NBA was wrong in thinking Artest talking to kids was a good idea! What of B. Wallace? Was he fined or penalized? If the officals had been carring mace/pepper spray they may have been able to control this much sooner (hint hint NBA for next season).
posted by Folkways at 10:41 AM on August 20, 2006
mjk, sorry, my mistake, I didn't know you were female. Folks, I was wondering if you could answer something for me? Why is it, in the NBA it's mob mentality, but in the NHL they actually pay certain team members to commit assault on a daily basis? I saw a recent poll that stated 73% of fans consider fighting as an important part of the game. Shouldn't NHL refs be the ones carrying pepper spray?
posted by Bishop at 12:36 PM on August 20, 2006
Bishop, to me its mob mentality in any situation where one person or a minoity of people start something that others join in on that they ordinarily would not. Im not a big hockey fan, primarily because I dont care for the fighting. It seems silly and childish for adults to act like that when playing a game for a living. I do think MLB the worst offender (player wise) now with the changes the NHL has made. Still, its the fans of the Pistons that opened the door Artest stepped thru. Had it stayed between B. Wallace and Artest we wouldnt be having this conversation.
posted by Folkways at 01:31 PM on August 20, 2006
Still, its the fans of the Pistons that opened the door Artest stepped thru. Had it stayed between B. Wallace and Artest we wouldnt be having this conversation I couldn't agree more. Hence me saying: While he was in a submissive state he was taken advantage of, for that split second he became the victim and he reacted. Call it what you will, spin it how you please, but the facts are the facts. You may say he over-reacted, either way, he didn't "over-act" did he? No. He reacted, and his REaction cost him more that it should have.
posted by Bishop at 02:30 PM on August 20, 2006
Well Bishop I guess we will just have to agree to agree on this one. Its a shame some others cant see the error of their ways (or thought process').
posted by Folkways at 07:22 AM on August 21, 2006
There are no wrong and right in this argument. You and Bishop can agree, but I think mjk is probably in the majority here. Artest escalated this incident to a very major degree. There could have been some very serious injuries with a brawl like that. A reasonable person would temper their response based on the situation. If someone throws something at you while you are wearing your FSU gear in The Swamp, it would be foolish to take the bait. It is a different scenario when you are in friendly confines.
posted by bperk at 09:44 AM on August 21, 2006
"Someone started trouble and I ended it" Not the smartest thing to tell kids. That can be taken the wrong way big time.