[MLB] Kenny Rogers suspended for 20 games

[Ayepecks]

Please look at the movie link I posted and tell me how he shoved him. It's utterly obvious he only shoved the camera... any movement on Mr. Gonzalez's part is in an effort to catch the camera, not because he was shoved. And it's not for you or I to determine if it was assault... that's a police matter.

But, I can tell you that Canadian law isn't American law.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Please look at the movie link I posted and tell me how he shoved him. It's utterly obvious he only shoved the camera... any movement on Mr. Gonzalez's part is in an effort to catch the camera, not because he was shoved. And it's not for you or I to determine if it was assault... that's a police matter.

But, I can tell you that Canadian law isn't American law.

586159177[/snapback]

Whether or not the police and the camera operator press charges, it is a low violent uncivilized act that has brought shame to baseball. 4 starts and 50 grand (considering his salary) was a soft punishment.

[christracy]

as i said before if if someone pushes your backpack into your back and u stumble and fall i dont expect you to raise a hand or sue because the guy has a problem with your backpack and you just happen to have it strapped to your back.

he assaulted him period maybe not to the point of bleeding but apparently that doesnt matter. people that get whiplash because they got rear-ended shouldnt be allowed to sue either because they arent bleeding oh and besides that the driver behind them had a problem with the car in front of him. you have got to be friggen kidding me. as i said im done you obviously have a fans point of view of the whole thing and dont want your ace to be lost for 4 starts.

[Ayepecks]

Considering his salary? What do you expect he makes? $50,000 out of $3 million is quite a portion.

Next...

assault, in law, an attempt or threat, going beyond mere words, to use violence, with the intent and the apparent ability to do harm to another. If violent contact actually occurs, the offense of battery has been committed; modern criminal statutes often combine assault and battery. An assault may be both a crime and a tort, for which the party assaulted may sue for damages; the victim's freedom, as to move or remain at peace, must have been impinged on. Modern criminal statutes recognize certain degrees of assault (e.g., with intent to kill, to do great bodily harm, to rape) as aggravated assaults and felonies, though simple assault remains, as at common law, a misdemeanor. Either malevolence or recklessness (as in driving a car in reckless disregard of human life) may constitute the intent necessary to assault in most jurisdictions.

Can you tell me where he intended to harm the cameraman? I see an intent to damage property, which is not assault.

as i said before if if someone pushes your backpack into your back and u stumble and fall i dont expect you to raise a hand or sue because the guy has a problem with your backpack and you just happen to have it strapped to your back.

he assaulted him period maybe not to the point of bleeding but apparently that doesnt matter.  people that get whiplash because they got rear-ended shouldnt be allowed to sue either because they arent bleeding oh and besides that the driver behind them had a problem with the car in front of him.  you have got to be friggen kidding me.  as i said im done you obviously have a fans point of view of the whole thing and dont want your ace to be lost for 4 starts.

586159198[/snapback]

Um, hardly. I am not a Texas Rangers fan, nor am I the one who pays for the season tickets. Can you tell me where I've ever posted that I'm a fan of the Rangers? Because I am not. St. Louis Cardinals are my team, buddy. I don't like AL teams. Because I am defending him does not mean I am a fan of him or the team. I like a few players on the Rangers (Michael Young being the only one I really like), but not Rogers.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Considering his salary? What do you expect he makes? $50,000 out of $3 million is quite a portion.

Next...

Can you tell me where he intended to harm the cameraman? I see an intent to damage property, which is not assault.

586159202[/snapback]

Less than 1.7% of his salary? Cry me a river.

I see a violent attack on a person and his property with little regard for safety.

[Ayepecks]

Less than 1.7% of his salary?  Cry me a river.

I see a violent attack on a person and his property with little regard for safety.

586159210[/snapback]

OK, whatever you want to think, but Rogers isn't paid what most pitchers are paid is the point I was making.

So is it assault or not? That's what you said it was earlier... is it? I've been saying it wasn't, and that's all I've been saying.

[christracy]

Considering his salary? What do you expect he makes? $50,000 out of $3 million is quite a portion.

Next...

Can you tell me where he intended to harm the cameraman? I see an intent to damage property, which is not assault.

Um, hardly. I am not a Texas Rangers fan, nor am I the one who pays for the season tickets. Can you tell me where I've ever posted that I'm a fan of the Rangers? Because I am not. St. Louis Cardinals are my team, buddy. I don't like AL teams. Because I am defending him does not mean I am a fan of him or the team. I like a few players on the Rangers (Michael Young being the only one I really like), but not Rogers.

586159202[/snapback]

oh ok im sorry your not a rangers fan you just have season tickets for the rangers. :rolleyes: oh and he got a 50k bonus for making the all-star roster so i guess that takes care of the fine.

with the intent and the apparent ability to do harm to another.

do you know what rogers intended to do? are you basing the his intent on what was said by rogers or what you see in the video? would u think he had the ability to do harm to that guy? i mean a camera is not lightweight so is there ABILITY to do harm? what is your response to the scenario i presented my post just prior? you seem to address everything said in my post except the situation i presented.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

So is it assault or not? That's what you said it was earlier... is it? I've been saying it wasn't, and that's all I've been saying.

586159221[/snapback]

I think it is assault. Ultimately it will require the camera operator to press charges and the police/D.A. to agree with him. Then it will take a judge/jury to agree with them.

What is even more likely, however, is that the camera operator will take a cash settlement from Roger's lawyers and we'll never hear about it.

In Canada, however, the police are free to file charges even without the camera operator's cooperation (we don't require the victim to press charges). It is a nice way to prevent private cash settlements that amount to hush money.

[Ayepecks]

oh ok im sorry your not a rangers fan you just have season tickets for the rangers.  :rolleyes: 

do you know what rogers intended to do? are you basing the his intent on what was said by rogers or what you see in the video? would u think he had the ablitity to do harm to that guy? i mean a camera is not lightweight so is there ABILITY to do harm? what is your response to the scenario i presented my post just prior? you seem to address everything said in my post except the situation i presented.

586159226[/snapback]

Please don't try to pretend to know me if you don't. I have Rangers tickets because my dad's company provides them. Normally he takes customers, but sometimes we go instead. Other time we'll just give them away because we don't go to a ton of games except during the summer. He had Mavericks tickets before. The Mavericks I actually was fan of.

I think it's obvious that he didn't intend to cause harm to Mr. Gonzalez, but that's my point of view. I think it's obvious that he isn't trying to hurt him, only remove the camera from his posession. Perhaps you think differently, but personally, I think that thinking anything to the contrary is simply grabbing at straws.

And, yes, he has the ability to harm him. But BOTH the ability AND the intent must be present, not only the ability. I have the ABILITY to harm some people, but do I intend to? Nope. So if I were to stand next to a guy who is smaller than me would I be comitting assault? No, I wouldn't.

What scenario are you referring to? This one?

"as i said before if if someone pushes your backpack into your back and u stumble and fall i dont expect you to raise a hand or sue because the guy has a problem with your backpack and you just happen to have it strapped to your back."

If someone pushes my backpack into me and I stumble and fall is a completely different situation than this. Kenny Rogers pushed the camera off of the man, and the man only tried to grab it as reaction -- he didn't stumble for any other reason. And you're completely changing the situation. To me, it was obvious that Kenny Rogers was going after the camera, not the cameraman. In your scenario it seems to me like the opposite is true, so I won't even dignify it with a response as it is nothing similar to this case.

[bigbluepride35]

oh ok im sorry your not a rangers fan you just have season tickets for the rangers.  :rolleyes: 

586159226[/snapback]

He siad he didn't pay for them. If someone offered me free season tickets to Knicks' games I'd probably go to a bunch of games even though I'm not a Knicks fan. And basically this is going to come down to what everyone's interpretation of assault is. And no matter what I think it was dumb for Rogers to lose his cool like that. No matter what his intentions were or what happened previously you can't just come flying out of the dugout and go after someone like that. You open yourself up to exactly this. Thoughts and speculation on what the motvie was and what the intent was and even if he did issue a statement after the fact we know it would be drafted up by a lawyer so that wouldn't reveal much of what really went on anyway. I agree that paparazzi (spelling?) and other media outlets can be invasive at times but you can't retaliate like that. It just makes you look awful no matter what.

[christracy]

Please don't try to pretend to know me if you don't. I have Rangers tickets because my dad's company provides them. Normally he takes customers, but sometimes we go instead. Other time we'll just give them away because we don't go to a ton of games except during the summer. He had Mavericks tickets before. The Mavericks I actually was fan of.

I think it's obvious that he didn't intend to cause harm to Mr. Gonzalez, but that's my point of view. I think it's obvious that he isn't trying to hurt him, only remove the camera from his posession. Perhaps you think differently, but personally, I think that thinking anything to the contrary is simply grabbing at straws.

And, yes, he has the ability to harm him. But BOTH the ability AND the intent must be present, not only the ability. I have the ABILITY to harm some people, but do I intend to? Nope. So if I were to stand next to a guy who is smaller than me would I be comitting assault? No, I wouldn't.

What scenario are you referring to? This one?

"as i said before if if someone pushes your backpack into your back and u stumble and fall i dont expect you to raise a hand or sue because the guy has a problem with your backpack and you just happen to have it strapped to your back."

If someone pushes my backpack into me and I stumble and fall is a completely different situation than this. Kenny Rogers pushed the camera off of the man, and the man only tried to grab it as reaction -- he didn't stumble for any other reason. And you're completely changing the situation. To me, it was obvious that Kenny Rogers was going after the camera, not the cameraman. In your scenario it seems to me like the opposite is true, so I won't even dignify it with a response as it is nothing similar to this case.

586159252[/snapback]

i dont know you and i dont assume to know you. no he didn't stumble but my point to you is that if you find that rogers taking it upon himself to remove the camera from the cameraman OK then you would find someone doing what they can to take your backpack from you acceptable as well. no the guy didnt stumble but its obvious that he was being physically inconvienced in some way. you cant get to the camera without getting to the man. thats why they are called cameramen and not just camera. i'm not changing the situation but i'm not saying rogers wasn't wrong in what he did. but i see your not able to see that point of view so i digress.

He siad he didn't pay for them. If someone offered me free season tickets to Knicks' games I'd probably go to a bunch of games even though I'm not a Knicks fan. And basically this is going to come down to what everyone's interpretation of assault is. And no matter what I think it was dumb for Rogers to lose his cool like that. No matter what his intentions were or what happened previously you can't just come flying out of the dugout and go after someone like that. You open yourself up to exactly this. Thoughts and speculation on what the motvie was and what the intent was and even if he did issue a statement after the fact we know it would be drafted up by a lawyer so that wouldn't reveal much of what really went on anyway. I agree that paparazzi (spelling?) and other media outlets can be invasive at times but you can't retaliate like that. It just makes you look awful no matter what.

586159259[/snapback]

at the time i stated that, he said he had season tickets. he didnt make clear they are not his and he doesn't pay for them. i got no problem with him going, but a person that says "i have season tickets" is paying good money for them and usually roots the team.

[....]

Oh, and I can post pictures all day if you want to play that game...

The camera being pulled down, nowhere near injuring the cameraman's eyes.

586159159[/snapback]

Oh yes, outside of shadowing Kenny Rogers and knowing what he tells cameramen while he is deep in the clubhouse and you in section 110 row 2, seat 3, you also know how it feels to have a camera pushed into your eye...

The camera being thrown over the head of the camerman, nowhere near injuring his eyes. Look at the picture -- see any blood around his eyes? And sagging? Maybe a black eye? I don't.

586159159[/snapback]

....and hold that heavy camera as it is pushed behind you and having your arm at an awkward angle. Yeah, you know it didn't hurt. Those season tickets daddy gets are pretty good since you can tell all that.

So..him pushing the camera away is perfectly ok? Even though the cameraman was in no way invading his personal space? (see: Rogers coming right out of the dugout right towards the cameraman)

I give up, trying to get you to think logically about all this is utterly hopeless. :wacko:

[Ayepecks]

Trying to get me to think logically? That's a good one coming from you, BOOG, the man who sees Barry Sanders as more of a team deserter than Ricky Williams.

I like how you've completely changed your opinion, too, as the topic has gone on... first the camerman was brutally beaten and raped by Rogers, and he also suffered 2nd degree burns as well as a gunshot wound, and now he just pushed the camera, right? What happened to all the crap you said before?

Oh, and it's nice of you to just completely ignore the video footage I posted, too. Guess you could tell that it didn't harm his eye or wouldn't have hurt him at all so you just chose to leave that out as it'd damage your argument (well, I call it that, but you've done nothing to argue your point unlike the other people here).

But, go ahead, keep flinging the insults and cockiness as you have no clue what you're talking about. Keep pretending to know the story when all you've seen is the coverage on Sports Center. Go ahead, keep making fun of me for merely just being there and having the information the local media gives me when all you've done is looked at a freaking picture and watched a 5 second clip on ESPN. You are 1337, and I bow down before you. :rolleyes: Please, you may be a moderator, but you have some of the weakest arguments I've ever seen here.

christracy: I never said what he did was right. I never said he doesn't deserve a suspension for it... I said I thought the suspension was far too harsh, considering no one was hurt (like I said, the cameraman was released in less than an hour after being taken to the hospital). I also said that I wouldn't consider it assault, yet I have no problem admitting what he did was wrong. It was. But I think saying he needs more time suspension is just plain silly.

I'd just like to clarify, for the record, I never said Rogers didn't deserve a suspension. I said he does from the very beginning, and I also said "[he] blew a gasket" at the very beginning. I don't condone anything he did, nor will I ever condone it. I merely said that I thought the suspension was too harsh and scoffed when people said he should be brought up on charges of assault.

[oddcrap]

As a Ranger fan, I expected him to be suspsended, and cannot really argue the length, if looked at by itself. But when you compare it to other things, such as drug use, it does seem a little excessive.

Its unfortunate, as Rogers is the #1 pitcher on that staff. This is a huge lose for Texas and puts them in serious trouble as far as the AL West in concerned.

rogers has some frustration problems.

Rogers is a competitor. Plan and simple. He's playing for a team that is in a slump. 2 weeks ago they were in first place, now they are 6.5 out. Yeah, thats frustrating. But still, that doesn't give one the right to go postal on a cameraman.

[....]

I like how you've completely changed your opinion, too, as the topic has gone on... first the camerman was brutally beaten and raped by Rogers, and he also suffered 2nd degree burns as well as a gunshot wound, and now he just pushed the camera, right? What happened to all the crap you said before?

586159776[/snapback]

I dunno, 'cause I never said any of that. I simply stated Rogers attacked the cameraman. Dunno where you got all that.