And you saw plenty of coverage about the Jet's Justin Miller being arrested for assault.
Nicholson allegedly struck a woman in club and is being charged in the matter.
The woman was Nicholson's girlfriend. She claims that, yes, they were angry and arguing. But that he did not strike her. She says she was trying to snatch a cell phone out of his hand. In her anger, she grabbed it so hard that she hit herself near the eye.
Police are pursuing charges. And the Bengals released Nicholson.
It's on the front page of ESPN.com, SI.com and all the sports .com's. As were links to Miller's incident.
An incident you haven't seen all over the front page of the sports sites happened this weekend also.
The Arapahoe County Sheriff's office has identified Broncos receiver David Kircus as "a person of interest" in an alleged assault against a Centennial man early Sunday morning. Grayson Robinson, sheriff of Arapahoe County, said his investigators were planning to bring Kircus in for a photo lineup Sunday night or this morning. The victim suffered multiple broken facial bones in the alleged assault and was taken to Sky Ridge Medical Center in Lone Tree for surgery. According to Robinson, the incident took place about 3:20 a.m. Sunday at a party in Centennial.
Interesting.
The other party in Nicholson's case said it was a misunderstanding. Yet the media is acting like Nicholson is already guilty; running his incident in the headlines. The police are pursuing charges (despite the account of the "victim"). And he got cut.
Kircus' incident, in which he may have broken the face of someone, is nowhere to found on these same sites.
Oh, here is a pic of Kircus, by the way.
30 comments:
Come on, you expect me to believe that a white man plays a SKILL position?
Sir, no one said he played much.
the players you mentioned were both ARRESTED...this player is labeled as a person of interest...when they arrest him then you can complain if there is no coverage until then you are dealing with different scenarios.
I mean for instance...lets say Jason Giambi was black like barry bonds...the media would not be hounding him...it is all racial
"the players you mentioned were both ARRESTED...this player is labeled as a person of interest..."
Sir, Pacman was never arrested in conjunction with the Vegas accusations. And he was all over the media's propaganda machine.
He was only ID'd as a person of interest.
Go ahead...your next feeble point...
"lets say Jason Giambi was black like barry bonds...the media would not be hounding him.."
Sir, not sure what your point is...
There is no scenario you can paint. No variable you can develop. No imaginary happenstance that you can conjure....that could remotely convey the "hounding" that Bonds has endured.
Seriously, you have proven to be the king of empty comparisons and meaningless analogies.
This may be your worst.
Sir, Pacman was never arrested in conjunction with the Vegas accusations. And he was all over the media's propaganda machine.
Sir that is because as you well know Jones has a history of run ins with the law. It was not this one time thing. You sleep with dogs and wake up with fleas. Yet this is the type of person you want to defend. He gives YOU a bad name.
"Sir that is because as you well know Jones has a history of run ins with the law. It was not this one time thing."
Sir, and arrests were not conducted or charges were not filed in almost ALL of the incidences.
So, you are correct.
It is NOT a one time thing that the media has chosen to make a front page scene over Pacman NOT being arrested or NOT being charged.
As we have said in the past, when you are right...we will admit.
You are absolutely correct here.
"Sir that is because as you well know Jones has a history of run ins with the law. It was not this one time thing."
Sir, and arrests were not conducted or charges were not filed in almost ALL of the incidences.
instead of capitalizing ALL you should have put the emphasis on ALMOST ALL. See that indicates that there is indeed a pattern of behavior with this person.
" See that indicates that there is indeed a pattern of behavior with this person."
Sir, fair enough.
Let's apply that logic to you.
So, far, when it has come to the Braves you have been ALMOST ALL wrong.
Pattern of behavior: wrongness.
So far, in ALMOST all your claims of fact, you have shown no evidence to back it up.
Pattern of behavior: Liar.
Hey, this is fun!
Should we keep going?
"ALMOST ALL"
Sir, I think this sums you up.
You generalize and stereotype ALMOST ALL things that have to do with Negroes.
That makes you ALMOST ALL racist.
Sir, BTW. We just realized.
Cumming, GA?
That explains just about everything.
Is that Forsyth county?
Everything is crystal clear, if so.
Don't you have a cross burning to get to?
Hey look!
"Broncos receiver David Kircus has been charged with second-degree assault. The allegations arise from a Sunday morning fight that occurred at a party Kircus was attending."
Shame white people get due dilligence.
Another professional bum who does not appreciate the gift God (or Allah) has given him...
" See that indicates that there is indeed a pattern of behavior with this person."
Sir, fair enough.
Let's apply that logic to you.
So, far, when it has come to the Braves you have been ALMOST ALL wrong.
Pattern of behavior: wrongness.
So far, in ALMOST all your claims of fact, you have shown no evidence to back it up.
Pattern of behavior: Liar.
I have presented facts but you choose to twist them and warp them instead of facing them....also you talk of diversion...how does your rant relate to the subject of Pacman Jones...you proved my point by saying ALMOST ALL...this just proves your bigoted ways..you will defend a person who has shown a pattern of bad behavior just because he is black..that is wrong!!! In fact you should be speaking out against those that make the community look bad.
"I have presented facts but you choose to twist them and warp them instead of facing them"
Sir, you have presented no facts.
Quit lying.
You have presented your opinions and in every instance that we have asked for a reference, you have not responded with one.
Just because YOU believe something to be true. That does not make it a fact. This is completely clear in the Braves thread. The Braves and the Commish SAID they wanted Aaron to address the issues of Negro players. Yet YOU say that noooo...things won't change they just did this to appease. Your saying this does not make it a FACT.
The Braves and Selig welcoming Aaron to come in and make changes is the FACT.
The rest YOUR opinion.
Tomorrow, we'll teach you something else.
Take the rest of today to digest this.
And, look up "fact".
That's your homework.
Off you go.
"this just proves your bigoted ways..you will defend a person who has shown a pattern of bad behavior just because he is black..that is wrong!!! In fact you should be speaking out against those that make the community look bad."
Sir, how's this.
The moment that Pacman is CONVICTED of anything in the Vegas deal, we will call for his lynching.
Until he is convicted of anything, YOU will allow him the right of innocence until proven guilty.
Fair enough?
As for "pattern of behavior". The running theme for Pacman is NO convictions.
If the courts don't find just cause to convict him of a crime, we feel comfortable in dismissing your racist assertations.
Being arrested of something. Being accused of something. Those are not things that can fairly establish anything.
Too many people in this country have been unjustly accused and falsely charged. And unjustly convicted.
In this case, there is no conviction. So stop being a devil and allow the man to live his life in peace until the day a judge tells the bailiffs to take him away.
Notice, we said "judge". Not crazy white ranting racist commentor on the righteous pages of NOIS.
Try to be righteous. It's a struggle. But try.
As for "pattern of behavior". The running theme for Pacman is NO convictions.
Celebrities and star athletes are always afforded a longer leash (OJ got away with murder...a civil settlement showed that). Your ideas that a big conspiracy is in the works to bring down pacman jones is just idiotic...he has displayed a pattern of behavior that has gotten him in trouble...bottom line...getting off without a conviction does not make him righteous.
"a civil settlement showed that"
A civil judgement allows circumstantial evidence. And it does not convict an individual, as a criminal judgement does.
OJ Simpson was proven innocent of any criminal conduct.
A civil case can not prove one guilty of murder.
You are spreading false information and come across as an ill informed lout hellbent on doing nothing but spreading salicious racist views.
We took the time to read this, and noticed that NOIS never said Pacman was righteous. They only said that Pacman should be given the benefit of innocent until proven guilty.
You don't argue a point well.
A civil judgement allows circumstantial evidence.
yes if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck...or an OJ or a Pacman.
"yes if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck...or an OJ or a Pacman."
Except neither has been convicted of anything. You have a great legal mind.
Pictures of black folks getting arrested sell papers, pictures of white players don't. It is not a conspiracy it is just good old fashioned greed.
damn...a weekend in Vegas and I miss all the fun over here!
FREE PACMAN!
"pictures of white players don't"
Sir, how do we know this?
It's never been attempted.
"FREE PACMAN! "
Sir, Roger Goodell's vigilante justice...enacted due to the obvious fact that there has been no evidence found to incarcerate Mr. Jones legally, is a simple act of anger and jealousy.
Goodell wishes he could live the playa's life. Wishes he could head to Vegas and just ball out.
But, he can't.
And he hates those that can.
Hence, Mr. Jones is walking the streets. No charges filed. No convictions. Yet, Goodell is concerned about the league's image.
Meanwhile, pics of young white QB's, drunk out of their skulls and looking like punchable frat boys abound on the internet.
Clearly this concern about the league's image is a one way street.
let me inform you alittle on the law..many laws do not apply to employer/employee example: there is no free speech in the work place you can get fired for saying something your boss does not like.. If you constantly drag your companies name through the mud you can be fired, you DO NOT have to be convicted of a crime to be fired from your job.. sorry but this has nothing to do with whitey.. I truelly feel sorry for you. It must be horrible spending your whole life thinking someone is out to get you.. watch out for those black helicopters
"let me inform you alittle on the law..many laws do not apply to employer/employee example"
Sir, thank you for the dime store lawyering.
Did you consider, that the CBA the NFLPA and the NFL both agreed to is subject to federal law? And it does not give the commish the arbitrary right to do what he is doing?
But, again. Thanks for your wonderful law lesson. Next time we want to be wrong, we'll call you first.
Oh, and why all of a sudden the new name on here?
You do know that we can check IPs, right? So we KNOW it's you.
Circumstantial evidence is also admissible in a criminal case and can be the sole grounds for conviction if the fact-finder chooses to believe it beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Circumstantial evidence is also admissible in a criminal case and can be the sole grounds for conviction if the fact-finder chooses to believe it beyond a reasonable doubt"
Sir, excellent point.
And if the jury/judge finds it insufficient, the defendant will not be convicted.
And if the DA feels it is not enough, they won't even file charges.
What was your point again?
Just clarifying that circumstantial evidence is used in both civil and criminal cases. An earlier post could be read to imply criminal verdicts cannot be based upon circumstantial evidence. As for your comment that a prosecutor might intelligently screen a weak case before filing, I find that NOT to be the case if it could generate publicity for the prosecutor.
"As for your comment that a prosecutor might intelligently screen a weak case before filing, I find that NOT to be the case if it could generate publicity for the prosecutor"
Sir, dually noted.
We think.
Post a Comment