Westbrook threatens female fan and her husband

[TheReaLPuba]

This guys used to be a Highway Patrol Officer?

History of racist comments and takes on social media.

Verbal abuse will result in a reaction.

On the streets any normal person would probably result in physical response.

At some point these “fans” cross the line of normal fan behavior and will be dealt accordingly.

[mmmmm]

25k fan for Westbrook. In other words, exactly what I felt was appropriate: fine for the player, ban for the jackass fan.

I don't think it's appropriate.  Kobe got $100k for a gay slur.  I thought that was appropriate to send a message that anti-gay slurs weren't appropriate.

What message is sent when a star threatens to beat up a female fan and gets a slap on the wrist?

The message it sends is “don’t come to a game to be racist jackasses to athletes with your wife and then feign ignorance and play the victim when said athlete responds.”

If you’re asking which side I’m more interested in dissuading, the racist hecklers or the athlete threatening them in response, I’m picking the former every day and twice on Sunday. As I would in [dang] near every incident involving a provocateur and the provoked.

By all means, if somebody disrespects you threaten to beat up the nearest woman. 

But, in the world of social justice I guess abusive speech toward a person of color is worse than threatening violence against women?  I get confused by the hierarchy.

Watching the video again, I don't really see how that could really be accepted as a credible threat to do violence.  RW's body language seems completely non-threatening as he finishes a water bottle and seems more concerned about where to drop it than anything else.   It looks and sounds like just gum flapping on his part.   Folks can surely disagree but I think the NBA's view (probably filtered through the eyes of their attorneys) is that all they have on Westbrook is some cussing.   So they've fined him for using the foul language and that's the end of that.

No, there was more than cussing. There was a threat to do harm.

I mean, if Mike Pence was caught on a hot mic saying the same thing about a heckler in the crowd, are you defending him the same way? The only difference is that Pence doesn’t have a history of going after fans.

Yes.  I would.  But nice attempt at a red herring. 

I watched the vid very closely.  There is no specific literal threat of actual violence.  Only what might be inferred.  And if you need inference, then body language is relevant.  And his body language is completely neutral and almost disinterested.

In my humble opinion, that in no way should be considered meeting any legal definition of a threat of actual violence.   I will grant that it might be considered so in many courts in white America given that Westbrook is a black man.

[Roy H.]

Yes.  I would.

Lol.  You don't even believe that, let alone anybody else.

I watched the vid very closely.  There is no specific literal threat of actual violence.  Only what might be inferred.  And if you need inference, then body language is relevant.  And his body language is completely neutral and almost disinterested.

In my humble opinion, that in no way should be considered meeting any legal definition of a threat of actual violence.   I will grant that it might be considered so in many courts in white America given that Westbrook is a black man.

Get back to me when you graduate law school and have been practicing for awhile, okay?

[mmmmm]

Yes.  I would.

Lol.  You don't even believe that, let alone anybody else.

I watched the vid very closely.  There is no specific literal threat of actual violence.  Only what might be inferred.  And if you need inference, then body language is relevant.  And his body language is completely neutral and almost disinterested.

In my humble opinion, that in no way should be considered meeting any legal definition of a threat of actual violence.   I will grant that it might be considered so in many courts in white America given that Westbrook is a black man.

Get back to me when you graduate law school and have been practicing for awhile, okay?

So ... all you've done here is call me a liar based on nothing but your own red herring and then completely bypassed my point with nothing but an appeal for internet credentials.

Insults and avoidance.

Very convincing, Roy. 

[nickagneta]

Yes.  I would.

Lol.  You don't even believe that, let alone anybody else.

I watched the vid very closely.  There is no specific literal threat of actual violence.  Only what might be inferred.  And if you need inference, then body language is relevant.  And his body language is completely neutral and almost disinterested.

In my humble opinion, that in no way should be considered meeting any legal definition of a threat of actual violence.   I will grant that it might be considered so in many courts in white America given that Westbrook is a black man.

Get back to me when you graduate law school and have been practicing for awhile, okay?

So ... all you've done here is call me a liar based on nothing but your own red herring and then completely bypassed my point with nothing but an appeal for internet credentials.

Insults and avoidance.

Very convincing, Roy.

I think Roy's point is you are claiming that Westbrook didn't "in a legal definition" threaten violence. I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that what Westbrook said is legally a threat of violence and that legally, body language probably means nothing when words are spoken to threaten someone

[ozgod]

Let's hope the NBA doesn't get to the point that English soccer reached on the weekend...a spectator actually ran onto the field and assaulted a player.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCOUiycidjI

[johnnygreen]

I guarantee that fan would never say anything like that to someone’s face on the street, because there would have been physical consequences. He most likely wouldn’t have said the same thing to another fan in the arena, because that person could follow them to the parking lot. However, that fan knows that a player won’t attack him because of all the security and everything the player has to lose. And if a player does get by security and does attack a taunting fan, then the fan will sue. It would basically be like winning the lottery if a player attacked you, because the fan could sue the player and the team.

[johnnygreen]

Does anyone know who took the video? Was is a fan on their phone or a professional cameraman filming the game?

[mmmmm]

Yes.  I would.

Lol.  You don't even believe that, let alone anybody else.

I watched the vid very closely.  There is no specific literal threat of actual violence.  Only what might be inferred.  And if you need inference, then body language is relevant.  And his body language is completely neutral and almost disinterested.

In my humble opinion, that in no way should be considered meeting any legal definition of a threat of actual violence.   I will grant that it might be considered so in many courts in white America given that Westbrook is a black man.

Get back to me when you graduate law school and have been practicing for awhile, okay?

So ... all you've done here is call me a liar based on nothing but your own red herring and then completely bypassed my point with nothing but an appeal for internet credentials.

Insults and avoidance.

Very convincing, Roy.

I think Roy's point is you are claiming that Westbrook didn't "in a legal definition" threaten violence. I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that what Westbrook said is legally a threat of violence and that legally, body language probably means nothing when words are spoken to threaten someone

I said I saw no credible threat of literal violence.  I offered my _opinion_ that it did not meet any legal definition of a threat of violence other than by way of the biases and prejudices of humans in a court room.  I'm open to someone citing an actual law that is written that defines what is shown in that video to be without question an actual, legally defined threat of physical violence.

As opposed to just someone trash talking.

If body language (when there is video evidence) meant nothing then context means nothing and only the literal words would be relevant.  Which starts begging the question of the literal meaning of the words Westbrook used.  Did he say specifically what violence he was going to do upon them?  And ignoring context starts begging the question of whether a 'threat' that is not credibly actionable could be considered a threat of violence.   If someone in an internet blog threatens to blow you up or 'roast' you or 'cut you down' in an argument, is that a credible threat of violence?

I am not a Russell Westbrook fan.  Can't stand his style of play and his public persona has never appealed to me.  And I think what he did (use disgusting foul language) is deserving of a severe fine and imho a suspension of a game or two.  But I also think that the cries that what he did rises to the level of somehow threatening to actually kill these people right there in public in the stands is ridiculous hyperbole.

[nickagneta]

Yes.  I would.

Lol.  You don't even believe that, let alone anybody else.

I watched the vid very closely.  There is no specific literal threat of actual violence.  Only what might be inferred.  And if you need inference, then body language is relevant.  And his body language is completely neutral and almost disinterested.

In my humble opinion, that in no way should be considered meeting any legal definition of a threat of actual violence.   I will grant that it might be considered so in many courts in white America given that Westbrook is a black man.

Get back to me when you graduate law school and have been practicing for awhile, okay?

So ... all you've done here is call me a liar based on nothing but your own red herring and then completely bypassed my point with nothing but an appeal for internet credentials.

Insults and avoidance.

Very convincing, Roy.

I think Roy's point is you are claiming that Westbrook didn't "in a legal definition" threaten violence. I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that what Westbrook said is legally a threat of violence and that legally, body language probably means nothing when words are spoken to threaten someone

I said I saw no credible threat of literal violence.  I offered my _opinion_ that it did not meet any legal definition of a threat of violence other than by way of the biases and prejudices of humans in a court room.  I'm open to someone citing an actual law that is written that defines what is shown in that video to be without question an actual, legally defined threat of physical violence.

As opposed to just someone trash talking.

If body language (when there is video evidence) meant nothing then context means nothing and only the literal words would be relevant.  Which starts begging the question of the literal meaning of the words Westbrook used.  Did he say specifically what violence he was going to do upon them?  And ignoring context starts begging the question of whether a 'threat' that is not credibly actionable could be considered a threat of violence.   If someone in an internet blog threatens to blow you up or 'roast' you or 'cut you down' in an argument, is that a credible threat of violence?

I am not a Russell Westbrook fan.  Can't stand his style of play and his public persona has never appealed to me.  And I think what he did (use disgusting foul language) is deserving of a severe fine and imho a suspension of a game or two.  But I also think that the cries that what he did rises to the level of somehow threatening to actually kill these people right there in public in the stands is ridiculous hyperbole.

I do not know how you can get down to the nitty gritty of word definition to state that "I will eff you up" is not a threat of violence. No it's not written anywhere that that phrase is a threat but it is and pretending it isn't is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

As for body language, if I am walking away from someone and shout "I am going to kill you" does that not make it a threat because I was walking away and showed no body language of a threat? You do not need threatening body language to vocalize an actual threat of violence.

So your opinion of a legal definition is wrong.

[Roy H.]

But I also think that the cries that what he did rises to the level of somehow threatening to actually kill these people right there in public in the stands is ridiculous hyperbole.

Indeed. There’s even a name for that type of ridiculous hyperbole.

[Roy H.]

For those who think that threats need to include the intent to do actual harm, go to your nearest bank. Point a replica of a gun at the teller in a calm manner without saying a thing.

Report back to us in 8 to 15 years.

[wiley]

Is it not the job of police to sort out credible threats from non credible threats? 

Was Westbrook questioned by Police?  And if so specifically about his actual intentions? 

I'm guessing not...because no police believe this man is in the slightest danger whatsoever.  Nor do any police believe that Westbrook is a danger to anyone else. 

On the contrary, as johnnygreen pointed out, being attacked by Westbrook would be like winning the lottery for this fan. 

Yes, words can be threatening.  In this case, not so much. 

[Moranis]

For those who think that threats need to include the intent to do actual harm, go to your nearest bank. Point a replica of a gun at the teller in a calm manner without saying a thing.

Report back to us in 8 to 15 years.

Talk about a strawman.

I have no idea the actual law in Utah, but in general criminal threats do actually involve the intent of the person making the "threat".  I'm sure you know that being a lawyer and all.  They also require reasonableness.  A reasonable person must conclude the threat is credible, real, and imminent. 

mmmm is absolutely correct, Westbrook did not make a credible, real, or imminent threat of violence under any legal definition of the word.  And I do have that piece of paper of that you claim someone would need to make this argument. 

It also doesn't meet the definition of assault, because mere words alone are almost never an assault.  You need physical actions.  Again, there were no physical actions accompanying the "threat", thus no assault.

And you should absolutely know this being a lawyer and all, which is why your grandiose grandstanding is very strange.

[Roy H.]

For those who think that threats need to include the intent to do actual harm, go to your nearest bank. Point a replica of a gun at the teller in a calm manner without saying a thing.

Report back to us in 8 to 15 years.

Talk about a strawman.

I have no idea the actual law in Utah, but in general criminal threats do actually involve the intent of the person making the "threat".  I'm sure you know that being a lawyer and all.  They also require reasonableness.  A reasonable person must conclude the threat is credible, real, and imminent. 

mmmm is absolutely correct, Westbrook did not make a credible, real, or imminent threat of violence under any legal definition of the word.  And I do have that piece of paper of that you claim someone would need to make this argument. 

It also doesn't meet the definition of assault, because mere words alone are almost never an assault.  You need physical actions.  Again, there were no physical actions accompanying the "threat", thus no assault.

And you should absolutely know this being a lawyer and all, which is why your grandiose grandstanding is very strange.

No, there’s not an element of “intent to follow through”. At all. Thus the replica gun example. 

And, you’re conflating several things. Criminal threats vs. civil threats vs. common law assault vs. a commonly understood dictionary meaning are all different things. The dictionary definition:

“a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.. “

My 7 year old knows what a threat is. I suspect that you do too.

As for the internet credentials, don’t you do transactional work?  You should stay up to date on your CLEs, because your understanding seems a little rusty.