Online Petition to Support NBA Players against Drunken Fan Aggression

[Evilmav2]

I found a link to this petition on PacersDigest.com, and I thought I would repost it here, just in case anybody on this forum wants to make their voice heard on this subject:

Stop Drunken Fan Behavior!

To: G. William Hunter Executive Director NBA Players Association

Dear Mr. Hunter,

By now most sports fans have seen or heard about the chaos that erupted at the end of the Pistons and Pacers game in Detroit last night.

As any follower of the NBA knows, heavey fines and or suspensions are likely to be levied by David Stern, NBA Commissioner.

However as you must be aware Mr. Hunter, this episode is nearly unlike any other in our sports history. There have been few more blatant displays of thuggish fan behaviour. Instance after instance during the fracas, you see "fans" throwing objects at players or running up to them aggressively.

While we certainly regret what occurred, we are simply appealing to you to not allow the NBA to make examples out of the players. We are urging you to use the full power of the players association to aggressively defend the right of every NBA player to be respected as a human being.

If the players must be fined or suspended, we urge you to demand that the police then identify every "fan" who threw objects at the players. Not only should these cowards be banned from every NBA arena, but that the players association should to the fullest extent of the law, press charges against each and every one of them as well.

We are urging you to use this history-making episode as an example to help stamp out the current in vogue crassness, insensitivity and drunken behavior that has sadly become commonplace in many sports arenas across the country.

No "fan", Mr. Hunter owns the right to assault any player by throwing objects at him and every man owns the right to defend himself when he is attacked.

Whether he makes $10,000,000 or just $10.

[Murphy3]

No "fan", Mr. Hunter owns the right to assault any player by throwing objects at him and every man owns the right to defend himself when he is attacked.

And the player that is 'attacked' then has the right to randomly go into the stands and 'defend' himself against whomever he chooses even if it means going after someone not involved in the situation.

[grndmstr_c]

It's really getting to the point where I think the efforts to absolve the players of guilt are more disturbing than the incident itself. How can so many people be so clueless. Artest's immature display of mindless agression last night endangered a lot of people, and when you take a step back from all that ridiculous crap about a man's right to defend himself or retaliate when he's disprespected, there's just no getting around the fact that he basically started a riot because somebody got him wet. Big freaking deal. He deserves whatever punishment he gets from the league.

[FishForLunch]

A guy hit me in the head with an aerosol can coming right out of the huddle, and it kind of got me a little bit unnerved. I should have been smarter, but I wasn't. I've always tried to remind players to stay on the bench if there's a fight." — Utah coach Jerry Sloan, who as a player went into the stands to confront a fan in Kansas City.

So there it has happened before and will happen again, inspite of your outrage against the players.

[Dirkenstien]

Originally posted by: grndmstr_c
It's really getting to the point where I think the efforts to absolve the players of guilt are more disturbing than the incident itself. How can so many people be so clueless. Artest's immature display of mindless agression last night endangered a lot of people, and when you take a step back from all that ridiculous crap about a man's right to defend himself or retaliate when he's disprespected, there's just no getting around the fact that he basically started a riot because somebody got him wet. Big freaking deal. He deserves whatever punishment he gets from the league.

Well said. When Artest ran towards the fan he thought threw something at him and started pummeling him Artest was in an aggression state, not a defensive one. A defensive state would have been to move to the center of the court, ready to protect yourself from any form of aggression....not charging towards the supposable source of the problem.

[chumdawg]

Originally posted by: grndmstr_c
It's really getting to the point where I think the efforts to absolve the players of guilt are more disturbing than the incident itself. How can so many people be so clueless. Artest's immature display of mindless agression last night endangered a lot of people, and when you take a step back from all that ridiculous crap about a man's right to defend himself or retaliate when he's disprespected, there's just no getting around the fact that he basically started a riot because somebody got him wet. Big freaking deal. He deserves whatever punishment he gets from the league.

I think you will agree, GMC, that Artest wouldn't have gone into the stands if he hadn't been pelted with a beer. Then to extend your reasoning, an NBA fan basically started a riot because...what? Because he desn't like Ron Artest? Because he doesn't like any Pistons opponents? Because he thinks that, since he bought a ticket, he has carte blanche to say and do anything he wants to the players, that he no longer has to treat them the same way he would treat his fellow fans in the stands?

I'm just saying, let's be honest about who "basically started a riot," and try to figure out why, and how it can be prevented in the future.

[grndmstr_c]

I think you will agree, GMC, that Artest wouldn't have gone into the stands if he hadn't been pelted with a beer.

Having an ounce of common sense would also have served to solve the problem. If your point is that the fan should be held accountable, though, at least as much as it's possible to hold someone accountable for throwing a plastic cup, then I have no quarrel with your agenda. I have not, nor will I ever, defend the actions of the fans who in any way imposed themselves on the players as anything other than peacemakers. In fact, outside of suggesting that Artest was within his rights to clock the idiot who came onto the court, I haven't defended anybody in the affair. My philosophical beef has been, and will continue to be with those who seem to think that there was any justification whatsoever for Artests reaction to the fan throwing the cup. Because in the civilized culture we claim to aspire to there isn't, and there's just no getting around that. FWIW, if people were defending the right of fans to act like imbiciles because they were caught up in the heat of the moment, and are bound by the inborn subservience of the human psyche to social constructs to identify with the team they support, I'd be spending most of my time talking about how wrong that opinion was. It just happens to be the case that most of the opinions being floated by the ex-jocks in the media, caretakers of morality that they all are, fall on the other side of the fence.

[LRB]

Artest right deserves to be suspended for the rest of the season (longer IMO, at least 1 entire season) and put on notice if he ever does anything to a fan no matter what provocation, then he will be banned for life.

However every single fan who threw objects or who instigated in any shape form or fashion should be banned for life for all NBA arenas and activities. And in many cases I think assault charges should be brought against the fans.

Just my unhumble opinion.

[scooterj5]

Originally posted by: LRB
Artest right deserves to be suspended for the rest of the season (longer IMO, at least 1 entire season) and put on notice if he ever does anything to a fan no matter what provocation, then he will be banned for life.

Why should players be discouraged from defending themselves when physically attacked? (Aren't you guys all second amendment advocates? j/k)

Artest's response was reasonable and proportionate. He grabbed the person whom he thought was responsible but did not hit him. Artest was provoked by common law standards.

I find it amusing that it's fans that are accusing the players of violence and thuggery when it was fan misbehaviour that instigated the riot.

[kingrex]

It is understandable for Artest to be mad after someone throws something at him. It is also understandable for him to want to bum rush the guy who threw it at him.

However, it is inexcusable to act on that anger. Just as much as it was wrong for that fan to chunck his drink just because he was frustrated at how his Pistons got whipped in that game.

Artest should have allowed the security to do their jobs and throw that guy out, rather than taking the law into his own hands. That's how it should be done in a civilized society.

[scooterj5]

Originally posted by: kingrex
However, it is inexcusable to act on that anger. Just as much as it was wrong for that fan to chunck his drink just because he was frustrated at how his Pistons got whipped in that game.

Artest was physically and legally provoked. The fan was not.

[kingrex]

Originally posted by: scooterj5

Artest was physically and legally provoked. The fan was not.

Like I said, in his position I would feel just as ticked off, but you still can't act on that.

[mary]

I have two short questions.

What the hell is legal provocation? Is there such a thing? Is there also something called "legal retaliation?"

Secondly, when was it determined that this infamous beverage was a beer? I could've sworn that it was a big plactic cup with ICE in it. Is that they way they serve beer in the motor city?

[scooterj5]

Since I specifically mentioned legal provocation ... yes it does exist.

Link

The defence of provocation is only available to a person charged with assault and assault occasioning bodily harm. For a person who is charged with an assault to succeed in the defence of provocation, he or she must establish the following :

- That the person was provoked into committing the assault
- That the provocation deprived the person of their power of self-control:
- That the person acted before their passion had time to cool:
- The force used was not disproportionate to the provocation:
- The force used was not intended, or was not likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm:

[mary]

I haven't checked out the link yet, but thanks for the info. Just from looking at the info you provided, it looks like at least two of those criteria (on?) were not met in this situation. I'm not sure it can be reasonably argued that someone is "deprived of their power of self-control" because they were hit by a plastic cup. That's a stretch - a big one. Secondly, its was not proportionate - a plastic cup does not equal being thrown to the ground.

Obviously, the biggest reason the "provocation" argument is flawed is because Artest DIDN'T ATTACK THE MAN THAT THREW THE CUP. So, I guess you can throw out the rest of those criteria as well.

[scooterj5]

I couldn't be bothered explaining why there was bona fide provocation (very boring), other than to say, yes, there was.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: scooterj5
Since I specifically mentioned legal provocation ... yes it does exist.

Link

The defence of provocation is only available to a person charged with assault and assault occasioning bodily harm. For a person who is charged with an assault to succeed in the defence of provocation, he or she must establish the following :

- That the person was provoked into committing the assault
- That the provocation deprived the person of their power of self-control:
- That the person acted before their passion had time to cool:
- The force used was not disproportionate to the provocation:
- The force used was not intended, or was not likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm:

1st of all this definition applies to Queensland, Australia I believe. The definitions are most likely at least slightly different in Auburn Hills, Michigan. None the less I'm sure there are more simularities than differences.

However I do not think that the Artest situation meets the criteria to fall under a legally provoked assault.

1. The person Artest 1st attacked, did not appear to have assaulted Artest in any way
2. Having beer thrown on you is not IMO a valid reason to lost control
3. Artest had to go quite a distance to attack the fan giving him reasonable time IMO to cool off
4. The force that Artest responded with was most definitely IMO disproportionate to any acts of provocation
5. We don't know what Artest intended, but it is a distinct possibility that grievious bodily harm could have occured

Now perhaps Dooby or KG or one of our members with a law degree might be able to shed a little more light on this matter. However I believe the law sets a rather high standard for legal provocation of assault. If it were not so, our society would be full of brawls such as last Friday night.

[mary]

However I believe the law sets a rather high standard for legal provocation of assault. If it were not so, our society would be full of brawls such as last Friday night.

I couldn't have said it better LRB.

[scooterj5]

Points 2 to 5 are all incorrect.

Point 1 is true but provocation still applies because the entire concept of the defence is that a person ought to be excused for their passionate response to an illegal act, whether or not there was an honest mistake of fact (such as the indentity of the original assaulter). This has been established in a famous Australian case case called Turnanko, and I see no reason why this would be different according to Michigan law.