Artest arrested

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vlade4GM said:
uh, kobe didn't rape that woman.
Click to expand...

Kobe's accuser, after being attacked by Kobe's lawyers in every possible way (including giving her name to the press, which was beyond disgusting), basically said that she couldn't take any more, and declined to go on with the case. Instead, she filed a civil suit against him for rape, and he ended up paying her what was probably a very large (but undisclosed) amount of money to settle the case. As part of the settlement, Kobe had to issue a statement which said that, while he considered it to have been consensual, she "did not and does not view this incident the same." What does Kobe think "no" means?!?

Kobe may have gotten an OJ sort of outcome, fighting small-town Colorado DAs with $500/hr. defense lawyers, but I'll never be convinced of his innocence. The rules say he can't be banned from the NBA because he wasn't convicted, fine. But I'll always think he's scum.
 
I withheld judgement until now. Domestic Violence is a sketchy topic. It sounds like the operator led her, and the only thing she hurt was her finger while smashing his windshield.
 
I won't listen to the call because I just don't think that's a "Right" thing for anyone to do, but from everything I've seen and read so far this is by no means Ron Artest just getting mad and slapping his wife.

And I have no idea how any of this all works...The witness says Ron was trying to leave, but then got his windshield smashed in and went back in...Ron then goes and does something he shouldn't have.

All of this needs to be tied together before I will jump to ANY conclusion...There's just not enough for me to make a judgement I can be happy with.

I do know, though, I will continue to be an Artest supporter throughout...As many people seem to overlook, innocent until proven guilty.

I dunno...Im just typing my thoughts.
 
fnordius said:
Kobe's accuser, after being attacked by Kobe's lawyers in every possible way (including giving her name to the press, which was beyond disgusting), basically said that she couldn't take any more, and declined to go on with the case. Instead, she filed a civil suit against him for rape, and he ended up paying her what was probably a very large (but undisclosed) amount of money to settle the case. As part of the settlement, Kobe had to issue a statement which said that, while he considered it to have been consensual, she "did not and does not view this incident the same." What does Kobe think "no" means?!?

Kobe may have gotten an OJ sort of outcome, fighting small-town Colorado DAs with $500/hr. defense lawyers, but I'll never be convinced of his innocence. The rules say he can't be banned from the NBA because he wasn't convicted, fine. But I'll always think he's scum.
Click to expand...

wow, you don't sound bias in the least :rolleyes:

fact is, there was zero evidence that it was rape. All there was was her word against his. I assume he paid her off and issued that statement because he wanted to get her off his back which is completely understandable and is not an admission of guilt imo.
 
Vlade4GM said:
wow, you don't sound bias in the least :rolleyes:

fact is, there was zero evidence that it was rape. All there was was her word against his. I assume he paid her off and issued that statement because he wanted to get her off his back which is completely understandable and is not an admission of guilt imo.
Click to expand...

You were apparently on the jury?
 
Vlade4GM said:
wow, you don't sound bias in the least :rolleyes:

fact is, there was zero evidence that it was rape. All there was was her word against his. I assume he paid her off and issued that statement because he wanted to get her off his back which is completely understandable and is not an admission of guilt imo.
Click to expand...

Long ago, I was a naive young law student who thought that I could make society more just. A few years later, when I was clerking, I got to see first hand that a wealthy litigant can often win their case by bankrupting a poorer litigant, even when the poorer litigant is pretty plainly in the right. Especially when people are willing to perjure themselves, which happens a lot more often than you'd suspect. And criminal law isn't very different, then you're dealing with a few severely overworked prosecutors vs. whatever lawyers the accused can afford, which in Kobe's case would be an army of people who edited prestigious law reviews and graduated with high honors, who can spend ten times the hours on the case that the DAs can. Yeah, I'm cynical. I've seen way too many cases that were like that. I've written the arguments for too many cases which were like that.

If I'm biased, that's where it comes from.
 
Vlade4GM said:
wow, you don't sound bias in the least :rolleyes:

fact is, there was zero evidence that it was rape. All there was was her word against his. I assume he paid her off and issued that statement because he wanted to get her off his back which is completely understandable and is not an admission of guilt imo.
Click to expand...

Coming from a Laker fan....
 
fnordius said:
Long ago, I was a naive young law student who thought that I could make society more just. A few years later, when I was clerking, I got to see first hand that a wealthy litigant can often win their case by bankrupting a poorer litigant, even when the poorer litigant is pretty plainly in the right. Especially when people are willing to perjure themselves, which happens a lot more often than you'd suspect. And criminal law isn't very different, then you're dealing with a few severely overworked prosecutors vs. whatever lawyers the accused can afford, which in Kobe's case would be an army of people who edited prestigious law reviews and graduated with high honors, who can spend ten times the hours on the case that the DAs can. Yeah, I'm cynical. I've seen way too many cases that were like that. I've written the arguments for too many cases which were like that.

If I'm biased, that's where it comes from.
Click to expand...

My better half is an experienced paralegal and has echoed this sentiment exactly.
 
fnordius said:
Long ago, I was a naive young law student who thought that I could make society more just. A few years later, when I was clerking, I got to see first hand that a wealthy litigant can often win their case by bankrupting a poorer litigant, even when the poorer litigant is pretty plainly in the right. Especially when people are willing to perjure themselves, which happens a lot more often than you'd suspect. And criminal law isn't very different, then you're dealing with a few severely overworked prosecutors vs. whatever lawyers the accused can afford, which in Kobe's case would be an army of people who edited prestigious law reviews and graduated with high honors, who can spend ten times the hours on the case that the DAs can. Yeah, I'm cynical. I've seen way too many cases that were like that. I've written the arguments for too many cases which were like that.

If I'm biased, that's where it comes from.
Click to expand...

uh ok, so you are bias then.
 
fnordius said:
Kobe's accuser, after being attacked by Kobe's lawyers in every possible way (including giving her name to the press, which was beyond disgusting), basically said that she couldn't take any more, and declined to go on with the case. Instead, she filed a civil suit against him for rape, and he ended up paying her what was probably a very large (but undisclosed) amount of money to settle the case. As part of the settlement, Kobe had to issue a statement which said that, while he considered it to have been consensual, she "did not and does not view this incident the same." What does Kobe think "no" means?!?

Kobe may have gotten an OJ sort of outcome, fighting small-town Colorado DAs with $500/hr. defense lawyers, but I'll never be convinced of his innocence. The rules say he can't be banned from the NBA because he wasn't convicted, fine. But I'll always think he's scum.
Click to expand...


It is sad when people spew nonsense over things they clearly know nothing about. It doesn't matter who the person is, if you are going to spew hate about them then at least have your **** straight.
 
Freakout said:
It is sad when people spew nonsense over things they clearly know nothing about. It doesn't matter who the person is, if you are going to spew hate about them then at least have your **** straight.
Click to expand...

It isn't hate, it's the facts. Show evidence to the contrary before you start bad-mouthing others here.
 
Vlade4GM said:
oh sorry, didn't know that thinking kobe is a rapist was a pre-requisite to being a kings fan.
Click to expand...

No, it just takes common sense and a head not inserted into Kobe's ***. Talk about "bias".

Let's get back on topic, shall we?
 
kennadog said:
You'll have to show me where Petrie says anything of the kind. As far as I can tell that was an assumption on the part of Voison in her piece. She asks and answers her own rhetorical question about whether Petrie is surprised.
Click to expand...

Kennadog, you're absolutely right. Petrie was not quoted: "I was surprised." Voison, characterized Petrie as not surprised: "Was he surprised? Of course not!" She did this after attending Petrie's news conference. Did she mischaracterize him? I don't know. But what I do know is that Petrie looks like an idiot if he was surprised or if he was not surpised. It's a no win.

If he was surprised, then looks like an idiot because he ignores the voluminous Ron-Ron history. And I'd bet that Petrie, Mr. Detail, has a notebook on Ron dating back to high school, that goes into every single character incident they could find before they traded for him, including the domestic violence. So if he's surprised, he's ignoring the obvious and really believing that, "It's going to be different this time."

If he's not surprised, Petrie's looks like an idiot because why the heck didn't he unload him earlier? What was he waiting for? If he's not surprised he would know that Ron Artest is like a stock without a balance sheet ---you do a pump and dump, you trade him quickly; you don't invest in him for the long haul.

The only way Petrie could come out of this without a huge black eye is if: (1) he never made the trade to begin with, or (2) he traded him sometime between the end of last season and the trading deadline. Otherwise, he's the one with egg on his face, whether he was surprised, or not.
 
Last edited:
Warhawk said:
It isn't hate, it's the facts. Show evidence to the contrary before you start bad-mouthing others here.
Click to expand...

Show evidence? What about him? It's fine for him to use the rich guy got away free card without using any facts to back that up?

Here is you a fact. Mark Hurlbert had his case for 14 months and could not find a single DNA expert that would side with his story. Even the State of Colorado's own forensics department was being called as a witness by the defense. Faber never said she told Kobe to stop, go, jump, sit, or anything. She wrote a letter to the prosecutor a month before jury selection started in which she admitted she made up one whole part of her story. Soon after this she hooked up with one of the most high profile civil attorney's in the country. On the day Kobe's attorney files for dismissal of the case (Hulbert yet again was with holding DNA expert testimony that helped Kobe) Hulbert suddenly drops the case. Hulbert was motioning for the judge to discount all DNA evidence leading up to the trial. Now why would he do that? Geee maybe because it hurts his case?

Too many people kept their head stuck in the sand when this was going on.
 
This thread does not have much to do with Kobe.

It's hard for me because I've seen both sides although I have one question that may get figured out as the facts come to light:

If she was so fearful of her life, why did she hit the Hummer with a cast-iron (very heavy) pan as he was driving away?
 
Same old Ron Ron.

Absolutely sickening. Just cut this loser. The Kings don't need the negative image. First it was Musselman's DWI, now this.


Another interesting part of the article was that he had his Great Dane taken away last month because the poor dog wasn't being fed. Imagine that, a multimillionaire pro athlete who can't ensure that his own dog is being fed!
 
Team Dime said:
Same old Ron Ron.

Absolutely sickening. Just cut this loser. The Kings don't need the negative image. First it was Musselman's DWI, now this.


Another interesting part of the article was that he had his Great Dane taken away last month because the poor dog wasn't being fed. Imagine that, a multimillionaire pro athlete who can't ensure that his own dog is being fed!
Click to expand...

He was in the middle of a road trip when it happened...

It was his dogsitter that made the mistake.
 
Kingster said:
Kennadog, you're absolutely right. Petrie was not quoted: "I was surprised." Voison, characterized Petrie as not surprised: "Was he surprised? Of course not!" She did this after attending Petrie's news conference. Did she mischaracterize him? I don't know. But what I do know is that Petrie looks like an idiot if he was surprised or if he was not surpised. It's a no win.

If he was surprised, then looks like an idiot because he ignores the voluminous Ron-Ron history. And I'd bet that Petrie, Mr. Detail, has a notebook on Ron dating back to high school, that goes into every single character incident they could find before they traded for him, including the domestic violence. So if he's surprised, he's ignoring the obvious and really believing that, "It's going to be different this time."

If he's not surprised, Petrie's looks like an idiot because why the heck didn't he unload him earlier? What was he waiting for? If he's not surprised he would know that Ron Artest is like a stock without a balance sheet ---you do a pump and dump, you trade him quickly; you don't invest in him for the long haul.

The only way Petrie could come out of this without a huge black eye is if: (1) he never made the trade to begin with, or (2) he traded him sometime between the end of last season and the trading deadline. Otherwise, he's the one with egg on his face, whether he was surprised, or not.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not going to take Voison's characterizations as based on anything other than her opinion and I'm not a big believer in Voison. She also implied he was angry. To tell you the truth, GP has an incredible poker face. I can't remember the last time you could gauge Petrie's emotions at a press conference (the one I can think of is the announcement the Kings had traded Webber). So I really doubt GP gave away any hint of emotion whatsoever.

As you so eloquently put it, GP is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If people knew Ron Artest was offered stright up for Peja and Geoff says no, he would have been blasted with in an inch of his life around here. When so many thought it was a good move, it was attributed to the Maloofs by many, not GP. Now that it turns out to be possibly bad, he gets the blame, instead of the Maloofs? Talk about teflon.

Everyone who knows anything about the NBA knew that any team taking on Artest was taking on a long history of baggage and a risk of more problems. It was a known risk and Kings fans knew it too. As usual, there was no way for GP to look good on this no matter what he did. Except maybe trade Ron for a bag of chips before the trade deadline, if he even got offered that. Then he would of been blasted for that. I didn't see a whole lot of people around here clamoring for Ron to be "traded right now, before its too late," before the trade deadline.

This team has not invested in Artest for the long haul. His contract is relatively cheap and was short term (2 1/2 yrs), which is why the risk was even considered in the first place. If this really does go sour (which there's no evidence it has yet), he's gone no later than the end of next season, if he can't be traded. So was it a bad risk to take? Its always easy to say that in hindsight. Until a few days ago, most folks thought it had turned out to be a pretty good risk.
 
kennadog said:
This team has not invested in Artest for the long haul. His contract is relatively cheap and was short term (2 1/2 yrs), which is why the risk was even considered in the first place. If this really does go sour (which there's no evidence it has yet), he's gone no later than the end of next season, if he can't be traded. So was it a bad risk to take? Its always easy to say that in hindsight. Until a few days ago, most folks thought it had turned out to be a pretty good risk.
Click to expand...

if they're not invested in him for the long haul then why didn't they trade him? we aren't going anywhere this year or next.
 
Vlade4GM said:
if they're not invested in him for the long haul then why didn't they trade him?
Click to expand...

We're not invested in Potapenko or Hart, either, but we didn't trade either of those guys, despite the fact that they were getting zero minutes and were of no use beyond maybe practices. So in this case, I think that failure to trade Artest didn't necessarily mean that the franchise was locked into keeping him until his contract expired, just that Petrie and/or the Maloofs weren't feeling very motivated in terms of rebuilding. Which may be viewed as bad, but it's a topic unto itself; it's not synonymous with Artest.
 
ezekielbear said:
It's not an excuse. It's the situation.

I'm lucky enough to have knowledge of things that the general public doesn't, and know the situation.

Ron's had some problems that were of his own doing.

That was not his doing.
Click to expand...


How can any dog watcher be that incompetent??? His primary purpose is to feed the dog!!

Something strange was going on there. How could Artest not know anything about it? Why not check on occasion to be sure that his dog is being fed?



What special knowledge do you have? Sorry, but I have a big problem giving the benefit of the doubt to a guy who beats women.
 
fnordius said:
We're not invested in Potapenko or Hart, either, but we didn't trade either of those guys, despite the fact that they were getting zero minutes and were of no use beyond maybe practices. So in this case, I think that failure to trade Artest didn't necessarily mean that the franchise was locked into keeping him until his contract expired, just that Petrie and/or the Maloofs weren't feeling very motivated in terms of rebuilding. Which may be viewed as bad, but it's a topic unto itself; it's not synonymous with Artest.
Click to expand...

ok, well it's either they're investing in artest or they're ok with wasting his value. either way it's not flattering to say the least.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Y
Ex-NBA player J.J. Hickson stole $100,000, charged with armed robbery, officials say
Replies
1
Views
350
Reuters
R
Y
Kings point guard arrested on domestic violence charge (The Associated Press)
Replies
0
Views
451
Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
Y
Y
Sacramento Kings guard pleads guilty to domestic battery (The Associated Press)
Replies
0
Views
616
Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
Y
Y
Ex-NBA center Dalembert arrested after allegedly hitting girlfriend (Ball Don't Lie)
Replies
0
Views
386
Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
Y
Y
Kings' Collison facing domestic assault charge (AFP)
Replies
0
Views
528
Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
Y
Back
Top