Anyone else concerned about the safety of NBA/sports stadiums ?

[greg683x]

what concerns me at sporting events and keeps me at home isn't terrorism, it's a much bigger problem, at least for me.

It's the slew of drunken idiots that get in fights and can't handle the alcohol they drink at and before the game.  It's made going to games completely unenjoyable for me to attend.  Perhaps ignorance is truly bliss, but I never remember it being this bad when I was a kid going to games with my dad.

I know most of you guys are from the NE area so I don't know if it's as bad as it is here in the DC area, but namely Fedex field is a nightmare here.  It's takes an eternity to get in and out of the stadium parking lot and just this past Monday night there were tons of fights in the club level of all places and someone got stabbed.  Just not worth leaving my flatscreen and recliner anymore......baseball games are exempt from this for me though, still love going to Orioles games and never see these problems at Camden yards

[saltlover]

what concerns me at sporting events and keeps me at home isn't terrorism, it's a much bigger problem, at least for me.

It's the slew of drunken idiots that get in fights and can't handle the alcohol they drink at and before the game.  It's made going to games completely unenjoyable for me to attend.  Perhaps ignorance is truly bliss, but I never remember it being this bad when I was a kid going to games with my dad.

I know most of you guys are from the NE area so I don't know if it's as bad as it is here in the DC area, but namely Fedex field is a nightmare here.  It's takes an eternity to get in and out of the stadium parking lot and just this past Monday night there were tons of fights in the club level of all places and someone got stabbed.  Just not worth leaving my flatscreen and recliner anymore......baseball games are exempt from this for me though, still love going to Orioles games and never see these problems at Camden yards

Yeah, I never like the post-game atmosphere at the Verizon Center here.  There've been a few random incidents on the street in the last year Wizards and Caps games.  I try to avoid it even if I'm not at a game.  Nationals Park is fine after games tho -- Camden Yards is too far away from me to go to.

[KeepRondo]

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/

This hasn't really changed much, if at all.

From 2000 to 2013, 279 people were killed from TVs that fell on them. Mostly infants. So I kind of dislike your comparison since its comparing people dying from a terrorist attack to infants being crushed by TVs.

Also I think your article is dated 2010? The recent attacks have now changed the perspective of many. There is certainly a potential that we may be in the beginning stages of a series of attacks. I pray that we are not, but it's certainly rational and ok for people to discuss their fears or ask if the TD Garden seems safe.

[kozlodoev]

Also I think your article is dated 2010? The recent attacks have now changed the perspective of many. There is certainly a potential that we may be in the beginning stages of a series of attacks. I pray that we are not, but it's certainly rationale and ok for people to discuss their fears or ask if the TD Garden seems safe.

I'm certain they changed perspectives. But perception of risk and actual risk are not the same thing.

[Celtics18]

what concerns me at sporting events and keeps me at home isn't terrorism, it's a much bigger problem, at least for me.

It's the slew of drunken idiots that get in fights and can't handle the alcohol they drink at and before the game.  It's made going to games completely unenjoyable for me to attend.  Perhaps ignorance is truly bliss, but I never remember it being this bad when I was a kid going to games with my dad.

I know most of you guys are from the NE area so I don't know if it's as bad as it is here in the DC area, but namely Fedex field is a nightmare here.  It's takes an eternity to get in and out of the stadium parking lot and just this past Monday night there were tons of fights in the club level of all places and someone got stabbed.  Just not worth leaving my flatscreen and recliner anymore......baseball games are exempt from this for me though, still love going to Orioles games and never see these problems at Camden yards

I know there were a couple of incidents at the Garden last year (saw it on the news), but my personal experience at Celtics games has always been positive.  I haven't been witness to any of that kind of behavior. 

[KeepRondo]

Also I think your article is dated 2010? The recent attacks have now changed the perspective of many. There is certainly a potential that we may be in the beginning stages of a series of attacks. I pray that we are not, but it's certainly rationale and ok for people to discuss their fears or ask if the TD Garden seems safe.

I'm certain they changed perspectives. But perception of risk and actual risk are not the same thing.

And how exactly are you the expert on what the future statistical risk is now? And also, the amount of risk someone is comfortably willing to take is a personal thing. What you consider minimal, the OP may consider too great.

[indeedproceed]

I know there were a couple of incidents at the Garden last year (saw it on the news), but my personal experience at Celtics games has always been positive.  I haven't been witness to any of that kind of behavior. 

didn't one guy get stabbed?

I've been in a few uncomfortable to outright serious confrontations in Boston in the last 12 yrs or so, but I've never felt anything but safe and amongst friends at the garden.

Now you wanna go out to the clubs and close down the bar, you might have some different experiences.

[pearljammer10]

It's terrorism's job to terrorize. If you are changin the way you live life because of terrorism, the terrorists and ISIS are winning. I will continue to go to games, marathons, Christmas parties and anywhere else I want to go because I refuse to let them terrorists scare me. I would rather be a victim in a terrorist attack than change the way I live out of fear!

This.

[Celtics18]

I know there were a couple of incidents at the Garden last year (saw it on the news), but my personal experience at Celtics games has always been positive.  I haven't been witness to any of that kind of behavior. 

didn't one guy get stabbed?

I've been in a few uncomfortable to outright serious confrontations in Boston in the last 12 yrs or so, but I've never felt anything but safe and amongst friends at the garden.

Now you wanna go out to the clubs and close down the bar, you might have some different experiences.

Not my style.  I usually go once or twice a year, and I take the missus.  We stop for some wings and a beer at a tourist/family bar pre-game, and catch the subway to our car post-game.

It's always super chill. 

[kozlodoev]

Also I think your article is dated 2010? The recent attacks have now changed the perspective of many. There is certainly a potential that we may be in the beginning stages of a series of attacks. I pray that we are not, but it's certainly rationale and ok for people to discuss their fears or ask if the TD Garden seems safe.

I'm certain they changed perspectives. But perception of risk and actual risk are not the same thing.

And how exactly are you the expert on what the future statistical risk is now? And also, the amount of risk someone is comfortably willing to take is a personal thing. What you consider minimal, the OP may consider too great.

I do statistical modeling for a living. And while we're nowhere near having a real model to discuss, I'll go out on a limb and say that observed recent high-profile terrorist activity isn't the main determinant of future terrorist activity.

[mef730]

Not in the slightest. I feel the same way at the Garden that I do when flying. My biggest safety concern would be getting hit by an idiot going 90 down the Pike. That's a far greater risk than a terrorist.

Mike

[pearljammer10]

Also I think your article is dated 2010? The recent attacks have now changed the perspective of many. There is certainly a potential that we may be in the beginning stages of a series of attacks. I pray that we are not, but it's certainly rationale and ok for people to discuss their fears or ask if the TD Garden seems safe.

I'm certain they changed perspectives. But perception of risk and actual risk are not the same thing.

And how exactly are you the expert on what the future statistical risk is now? And also, the amount of risk someone is comfortably willing to take is a personal thing. What you consider minimal, the OP may consider too great.

I do statistical modeling for a living. And while we're nowhere near having a real model to discuss, I'll go out on a limb and say that observed recent high-profile terrorist activity isn't the main determinant of future terrorist activity.

Its a personal thing sure. But it should be affected by terrorist attacks that haven't happened, and probably won't happen in the future. If you don't want to take risks that's fine, just don't use manbearpig as an excuse.

[KeepRondo]

Also I think your article is dated 2010? The recent attacks have now changed the perspective of many. There is certainly a potential that we may be in the beginning stages of a series of attacks. I pray that we are not, but it's certainly rationale and ok for people to discuss their fears or ask if the TD Garden seems safe.

I'm certain they changed perspectives. But perception of risk and actual risk are not the same thing.

And how exactly are you the expert on what the future statistical risk is now? And also, the amount of risk someone is comfortably willing to take is a personal thing. What you consider minimal, the OP may consider too great.

I do statistical modeling for a living. And while we're nowhere near having a real model to discuss, I'll go out on a limb and say that observed recent high-profile terrorist activity isn't the main determinant of future terrorist activity.

If you do statistical modeling for a living, you should know whatever model you come up with would be extremely unstable. First, you don't have information that the FBI or other agencies have regarding how many 'real' potential threats we have. Or how many people are currently self radicalized and undetected. You don't know if the numbers are growing and if they are to what extent. And you can't use reports from the FBI such as people traveling back and forth from Syria or total number of people on the Terror list. We just don't know, out of all those people, how many are real threats. Pretty much every variable in any statistical model would become an assumed number. We also don't know if recent trends will trigger more attacks.

[kozlodoev]

If you do statistical modeling for a living, you should know whatever model you come up with would be extremely unstable. First, you don't have information that the FBI or other agencies have regarding how many 'real' potential threats we have. Or how many people are currently self radicalized and undetected. You don't know if the numbers are growing and if they are to what extent. And you can't use reports from the FBI such as people traveling back and forth from Syria or total number of people on the Terror list. We just don't know, out of all those people, how many are real threats. Pretty much every variable in any statistical model would become an assumed number. We also don't know if recent trends will trigger more attacks.

That's precisely what I'm saying. Just because we observed a couple of high-profile terrorist acts doesn't mean that the underlying risk factors have changed overnight (in fact they probably didn't, that isn't how it works generally). In other words, the fact that people are freaking out doesn't make terrorism more likely.

[KeepRondo]

If you do statistical modeling for a living, you should know whatever model you come up with would be extremely unstable. First, you don't have information that the FBI or other agencies have regarding how many 'real' potential threats we have. Or how many people are currently self radicalized and undetected. You don't know if the numbers are growing and if they are to what extent. And you can't use reports from the FBI such as people traveling back and forth from Syria or total number of people on the Terror list. We just don't know, out of all those people, how many are real threats. Pretty much every variable in any statistical model would become an assumed number. We also don't know if recent trends will trigger more attacks.

That's precisely what I'm saying. Just because we observed a couple of high-profile terrorist acts doesn't mean that the underlying risk factors have changed overnight (they probably didn't, that isn't how it works generally). In other words, the fact that people are freaking out doesn't make terrorism more likely.

You tout statistical probability and then you say the fact we can't use stats proves your point. So which is?