I really hope most of you are never on a jury of my peers. Two things have happened this week where it seemed most of you, not all, assume guilty with really no merit.
First the Mike Greenberg MLK thing. I saw and I heard him say Martin Luther coon, and I read almost everyone jump on the guy saying he had to have said it before, or think it, or someone had to be saying it in his ear. What if he just put King and Junior together because he was talking fast? The K from King and the Jun from junior which is pronounced joon. Is that really too difficult to understand? I heard someone on ESPN say CHailey I mean Chan Gailey today. It is unfortunate the combo of those words combined to make that word in that circumstance, but nobody seems to be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Some of you will say he should have paid extra attention to not jarble those words, but that point is moot because that has you focusing more on race than him. If you weren't thinking about it, or concentrating on giving it special attention it probably never crossed your mind in the first place.
Secondly the Tyreke Evans thing. Some of the quotes were ridiculous "accomplice to murder" "He was with a guy in a gang so he must be in a gang." "He obviously knew what was going to happen." "I lost all respect for him." "He only got off because of he was a star."
WOW! Y'all sound like some privileged people. You've never been with anyone that did something you didn't expect? That was his cousin which he then told the police about. He cooperated fully. He could have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. So the police let him go because he was a good high school basketball player? This seems more credible than people trying to take advantage of an athlete? If I were him I'd pay the 50k, it's not worth the hassle, but that certainly doesn't mean he was guilty of anything. Just because some athletes have gotten away with things in the past doesn't mean all do. Vick, Burress, Carruth, Arenas, Barkley just to name a few...pretty sure they were all bigger names than Evans. Nobody has ever picked up a friend and found out he had weed or a flask with him?
Everyone is SO sensitive these days. If you lose all respect for someone because they drove a car then essentially helped put the killer in jail your respect is not worth anything in the first place and I doubt anyone cares if they have it. If someone accusing someone means they obviously did it you do not know how the world works. If a person makes a mistake and it couldn't have just been a mistake, it had to have been a subconscious form of his inner racism coming out you are prejudiced.
Not everyone is innocent, not everyone is guilty, but hopefully some of you will never have the opportunity to decide someone's fate.
Welcome to America..... Where everything is taken way too seriously. Thank you American Media!!!!!!!!!!!!!
im not sure or not if he did it on purpose because i dont kno whim but i have had friends who were driving a ar when a drive by happened and i can tell you all of them got in trouble for it. the one who did cooperate with the police didnt get in as much drouble but he did get in trouble. its not muh different then riding in a stolen car and u dont know its stolen. theres still in alot of cases a prie to pay
Thanks SportsNinja, I forgot your opinion was held in such high regard around the country.
"If you lose all respect for someone because they drove a car then essentially helped put the killer in jail your respect is not worth anything in the first place and I doubt anyone cares if they have it. If someone accusing someone means they obviously did it you do not know how the world works. If a person makes a mistake and it couldn't have just been a mistake, it had to have been a subconscious form of his inner racism coming out you are prejudiced."
This is the problem with society today...Yes innocent until proven guilty is one thing. But seriously look at the flawed-ass logic in your first sentence. "Drove a car that helped but the killer in jail" If we go by that, Mr. Attorney didn't he also drive the car that helped COMMIT the murder? I'm not saying Tyreke is a killer, or that he wished death upon anyone and was willfully an accomplice but lets be honest for a second...If you were in Tyreke's shoes, and you made a dumb mistake such as helping your cousin commit a crime, and realized you made a huge mistake, wouldn't you do exactly what he did? How can you lose respect for someone who questions Tyreke's sincerity? Like honestly how naive can you be. If you were an accomplice to a murder and you regretted it cause you had an awesome job making 2+ million dollars a year why would you EVER come out and say "Yea I did know he was gonna do a drive by, oopsie" No his &$#%#&@! lawyer is saying "Shut up Tyreke and if you say anything, say you didn't even know what was going on" Like really you're putting way to much faith in people these days. Maybe I'm cynical but your long-winded post got me a little riled up
Same thing goes for Mike Greenberg, I posted my feeling in that thread so you can read them their.
And I have a question for Quincey, since you've said you have known people who helped participate in drive bys without knowing. I might be completely ignorant on this topic but it really baffles me how this could happen? Could you explain in detail? Wouldn't the driver be like, where are we going? When the guy in the back is like "turn here, yea take a left....now slow down" It just seems very hard to believe that a drive of a drive by wouldn't have any idea that something bad was going to go down before it happened. Now if it's not a drive by thats completely different, but for a drive by the circumstances seem to set up for the driving having to know SOMETHING is going on. Help me out here Quincey, I might not know what I'm talking about haha
because they didnt say slow down. and the guy saw someone he was beefing with and in one case my boy told the guy to slow down a bit so he could holla at a guy not knowing that the guy had shot at his boy a week ago at the club. drive bys arent always liek they show in the movie. i can understand if it might seem hard tgo believe if you never grew up around things liek that before though
I never said I was an attorney or my opinion should be held in higher regard than anyone elses, only you said that and I thank you for the compliment. You are making a lot of assumptions, you assume he lawyered up right away before his statement which isn't the case in most circumstances. He drove a car in which his cousin did something wrong, does that make it his fault? He then did the responsible thing and cooperated with police. In my history most people have trouble cooperating with the police and ratting out their cousin.
I agree with Quincey, there are a lot of ways it could have happened. What's more likely, hey Tyreke I know you have a HUGE future ahead of you, and you have taken all these people on your back but let's go shoot this cat real quick, versus hey I gotta take care of something, or see someone, or pick something up let's swing by here. Or like Q said he just randomly saw him somewhere. Keep in mind they're in Philly not Danville.
You said: "...If you were in Tyreke's shoes, and you made a dumb mistake such as helping your cousin commit a crime, and realized you made a huge mistake, wouldn't you do exactly what he did?" Maybe, but I would def do it if I was innocent. If I was guilty and knew what I was doing, I would most likely deny I was driving the car. The point was you do not know the fact and are already assuming guilt. That's not right.
"How can you lose respect for someone who questions Tyreke's sincerity? Like honestly how naive can you be." I didn't lose respect for anyone, I don't recall who said "I lost respect for Tyreke because of his involvement," but I doubt I had an amount of respect for him (the person that made the quote) higher than any other individual I don't know so I didn't lose respect for him, I simply said his respect was worthless anyway and nobody really cares if they have it. It's ok to question his sincerity, but apparently the police didn't and everyone that knows him (friends, family, coaches, teammates) seems to back him. He was upfront about it to every team in the league. I just don't see how so many people get off assuming he's guilty before knowing the facts, especially considering most of you have no idea how he grew up. This isn't that uncommon. It's not Boys in the Hood where everyone throws on a ski mask, grabs an uzi and slowly drives by throwing out gang signs and shooting.
If someone says they are innocent everyone says sure that's what the guilty say, but isn't that what the innocent would say too?? Not everyone is bad, having faith in people is ok, but more importantly assuming everyone is guilty of everything they are accused of, or were around when it happened is ridiculous. I'm not worried about what your greenberg comments were I think I already have an idea...
Thanks for the response. And Quincey too. I'm not trying to stand over here on a pedestal and say "Tyreke is guilty! Throw him in jail" I'm just playing devils advocate to what I felt were very harsh criticisms for people who questioned Tyreke's sincerity (like me).
I agree with Quincey in that I have no idea whether or not 'Reke knew something was up when he was driving. I guess, how we grew up obviously came into play with this. I didn't grow up in an impoverished urban setting such as Tyreke so I guess I made the assumption that something in the nature of a drive by wouldn't be so easy to conceal. If you consider speed of the car, type of gun, amounts of shots fired, either getting told to drive by a certain location for unknown reasons or randomly driving by the person whatever. I just felt it seemed unlikely. But you're right, I guess it is just as likely that Evan's cousin is just a massive, massive idiot.
As far as the legal part of it goes, I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination (and when I called you one it was sarcasm, sorry) but I'm pretty sure this is all behind Tyreke and whoever is after money is just trying to extort him for the cash now that he's an NBA star and has the money.
So while I'm highly suspicious of Tyreke's comments about and motives during that day, the situation that arose from is obviously behind him (The guy is just ballin' out of his skull) and I don't think with impede on his future NBA success in anyway.
But I will say this...I think there is enough information pointing to him having something to do with it as there him having nothing to do with it. And by that I mean we have very little information on the subject.
Mike Greenberg is a whole other issue I would gladly discuss though ;)
I'm not expressing an opinion on what happened with Tyreke Evans because I don't have the facts. But the law is pretty clear on this issue.
If someone is driving a car used in a felony murder, they are just as guilty as the person who commits the actual homicide. The classic example is the guy who drives the get away car for a bank robbery and he never enters the bank. However, one of his partners in crime shoots and kills people during the bank robbery. Even though the driver never took one step into the bank, he would be charged with "Felony Murder", the same exact charge applied to the shooter.
That is under the assumption that the person driving knew what was going to happen. When a person driving doesn't know what's going on, thencooperates with police, it's different. If the law was clear (which law is never clear and always open for interpretation) than Tyreke would have been charged no? There isn't even a mention of him not being charged because of his cooperation, there was no plea deal or anything of the sort. Everyone can question his sincerity but it would appear that the police didn't and believed what he was saying to be the truth.
The Greenberg case isn't clear to me. Did Mike Greenberg actually call MLK a coon? Or is he claiming that he said something else, but slurred his words and that sounded like the word "coon"?
If Greenberg did in fact say Martin Luther "Coon", he must be severely penalized, and firing him wouldn't be out of the question. I know that I could never even think about using such an horrendous word, it isn't even in my vocabulary.
That idiot, Rush Limbaugh, was fired by ESPN after he made some derogatory remarks about Donovan McNabb and he didn't even use any racial slurs.
im not saying evans is guilty but just because you cooperate with the police doesnt mean you are innocent. since they already knew he was involved it was pretty much a given he had to cooperate or risk getting charged with something
The worst part is how ESPN doesn't even report on it. Not a lick of it. Pathetic.
SportsNinja, you're talking about two different aspects of law enforcement. The first one I discussed is the actual law. The 2nd one you brought up is how that law is enforced. Even though Evans was just as legally culpable as the shooter, law enforcement [the D.A.] has the option of no charges or a lesser charge if he cooperates and/or he really didn't know what was going to happen.
However, the latter is extremely hard to prove. How can you climb into the mind of someone? But the law is very clear, if you participate in the crime, you're just as guilty because the shooter couldn't kill anyone without your assistance as the driver.
But ESPN had the situation with Ralph Lawler, which offended one person, as one of the main headlines...
Who is Ralph Lawler and what's his relationship to the Mike Greenberg case?
here is the greenberg video for those who haven't seen
well shoot, this site is still not allowing vids i guess
Thats ESPN for you. They did the same thing with Golic admitting to steroids and something else...The Dana Jacobson thing, the Jamell Scott thing (I think thats her name). ESPN is shady.
Dana Jacobson thing? What was that about?
Ralph Lawler is the play by play guy for the Clippers (been there for like 30 years) who's name was dragged through the mud when he tried to be funny about Hidaddi from the Grizzlies. He pronounced Iran wrong (called it eye-ran) and said the Iranians couldn't shoot, but the guards could pass the ball. It offended one person, who thought it was racist, and Fox Sports suspended him for one game. ESPN had the story as one of the main headlines.
He also joked and said Hidaddi looked like the guy who played Borat.
Nobody's answered my initial question. Did Mike Greenberg actually call MLK a coon? Or is he claiming that he said something else, but slurred his words and that sounded like the word "coon"?
It would be a lot easier to form an opinion if we had the facts.
just youtube it rtbt and see for yourself. He said "welcome everybody as we celebrate martin luther coon, king junior day ...." He hesitated for a split second after saying coon and then corrected himself by saying king junior. Some say it was him letting out a racist comment, some say he accidently mashed the words king and junior together and there's nothing to it.
He didn't call him a coon he said "martin luther coon, martin luther king junior." IMO it could have been an honest mistake of combining King and Junior which isn't unheard of. I think a slip of the tongue is not something he should be fired for. I don't believe he's racist, I don't believe it was in his head. I don't believe someone was whispering it in his ear as people have suggested. I think people get vilified for mistakes. Combining two words is very plausible but nobody seems willing to say the guy made a mistake, an offensive one. He apologized and I think that's enough. Seriously how many people do the same thing all the time but because this combo made a sensitive word he should be fired? I guarantee 100% of you have done it or heard someone do it. What Imus said was racist, Greenberg had a slip of the tongue, most likely it was nothing more.
RTBT- There is not a law that says if you drove the car you are guilty. If you drove the car knowingly then you will be charged unless they opt for a plea deal. Since it is hard to prove he did or did not know they could have easily charged him. The law says the driver of the crime whether it be a robbery or murder or whatev can be charged same as the main culprit since they were an accomplice. It doesn't say that in every case the driver is guilty of murder or whatever the crimes...There is never an umbrella statement like that because there can be extenuating circumstances...
All of this is off-point anyway since all I was saying is everyone is assuming he is guilty and knew what was going to happen. So many people are assuming the worst with little to no factual evidence.
i don't think tyreke knew what was hapening. They are just sueing him because he just got a lot of money and want a huge buy out. like someone said above, welcome to america, the land of the law suit.
i don't judge tyreke by the incident because i believe he was caught in a tough spot and had no idea what was gonna go on and he panicked by driving away. But when someone in your car shoots someone and you drive away from the crime, odds are you are gonna get in some kinda trouble i don't care who you are. So if he has to pay 50k, he should be glad that is all that happened.
Is anyone else on here annoyed as much as I am by her? I CANNOT stand her. I dislike her with a passion, I hate when she interupts the 1st and 10 guys, let them debate, she is there to moderate, and she never has anything worth saying anyway. When she interviews people I cringe, it's so awkward, I have to look away when they do closeups...HD is not her friend. The other day they had Derrick Brooks, Jon Ritchie and an ex WR on a couch and they were talking about fitting 3 big dudes on one couch, the next segment Jacobson and the WR switch so she is in the middle and he is in a chair, and there is waaaaaay less room and the look on their faces...If they would replace her with that Michelle Beadle chick from sportsnation...
He said, Martin Luther Coon and then said Martin Luther King right after saying Coon. It may or may not have been intentional, but he clearly said it. I won't be watching the show ever again though, that was wrong even if it wasn't intentional. He had to have and it on his mind in some way or another, and that in its own way makes it wrong as well....
Now I don't get what you mean here Sportsninja: "What if he just put King and Junior together because he was talking fast? The K from King and the Jun from junior which is pronounced joon." I dont think that we should make excuses for that. Joon doesn't sound like coon, which is obviously what he said.
SportsNinja, I must say that you're wrong.
The law is very clear, all participants in a crime that results in a homicide are equally guilty. I'm pretty sure, but not positive, that the legal term is "felony murder".
If you read the law, it doesn't matter whether you actually pulled the trigger or even knew it was going to happen. After all, the guy who drives the bank robbery get away car probably didn't know his buddies were going to shoot people in the bank. But the law makes no distinction, everyone who participates in the crime is guilty.
As I stated above, I don't know anything about the Tyreke Evans case so I have no opinion. But please SportsNinja, what do you expect the driver of a car to say? Do you really think he's going to say, yeah I knew he was going to shoot someone and needed a driver so I volunteered. No one in their right mind is going to say that. Everyone's going to say oooooooooooops, I didn't know he was going to shoot someone.
That's why the law takes "mind reading" out of the equation and declares everyone as equally guilty.
That's the law as it's written, but every day D.A.s make decisions on whether to prosecute someone even if he/she did break the law. There are thousands of murder cases where one or more of the participants weren't charged because they wanted them to testify against someone they want a lot more.
treu. just watch the first 48 and see how alot of them go to trail for the same crime even though only one committed it
JNixon-Iggy9, I agree with you.
I listened to the "You Tube" video at the link posted by tezo83. The audio wasn't very clear, but it was clear enough to make me believe that wasn't a mistake. I could never accidentally say something like that, it had to be intentional. And if that's the case, he should be fired, or at least give him some benefit of the doubt and hit him with a long suspension. We cannot tolerate that kind of thinking/talking on our public broadcasts.
I must tell you that you are wrong.
First your argument "what do you expect him to say" is moronic. WTF would you say? If you were innocent or guilty? If a guy didn't do something what do you want from him? It's pretty likely the cousin said Tyreke wasn't involved either. That most likely isn't good enough though since he's his cousin. The other 2 friends in the back seat probably had the same story. Were they charged with anything? No. You must not know how things work. And you are interpretting the law incorrectly.
"If you read the law, it doesn't matter whether you actually pulled the trigger or even knew it was going to happen. After all, the guy who drives the bank robbery get away car probably didn't know his buddies were going to shoot people in the bank. But the law makes no distinction, everyone who participates in the crime is guilty."
BS it does. It doesn't matter if you knew? BS, you're just making stuff up. The whole point is Tyreke wasn't a participant. He was simply there and didn't know something was going to happen. Yeah if you participate in a crime in which something happens you were not expecting like it went from robbery to homicide you can be charged with homicide. But they aren't going to charge someone who didn't know a crime was about to take place. Now if Tyreke was in the same gang as his cousin, or in a gang at all with a criminal record maybe I could understand the assumption of guilt in the court of public opinion. If I drive you to the movies and you shot someone while in my car what would I tell the police? I didn't know he was going to do it, he had a gun I kept driving, but let me tell you everything that happened. What more can I do???? OOOOHHHHH of course I said that, I must be guilty. Nobody involved with anything tells the truth. Of course you would say that so you must be guilty!!
And when people testify against others they are asked what their involvement was. They only "make a deal" when the DA is going to charge them with something otherwise it's just testifying to the events...
rtbt, so you don't think there was a chance he just combined the K from king and Joon from junior while speaking too fast?
rtbt said he could never say anything like that...obviously he has never combined two words together. Ever. Or he's saying he'd never combine those two words together, which would mean he is giving it thought before saying it, which means it popped in his head that he must think about race when mentioning a person with a nationality of his own, which means what?
im not saying i agree completely with him but sports nija that part isnt bs and hes not making that up. im not a lawyer but ive had friends and family in that situation that didnt know and was still charged with things
i just think if you look at greenbergs track record and how when you speak quickly all the time a person could easily combine words. I've done it in the past. It's just unfortunate that in this case he used two words that combined to make a racial slur while talking about celebrating martin luther kings birthday. I can see why people would be upset, but if you take time to step back and think about it, it really just seems like a very awkward slip up. If enough people complain to espn about it, i'm sure somehitng will be done. But otherwise, they are probably just assuming it was an accident and are gonna sweep it under the rug.
I like it, some passion, and Quincey I'm watching first 48 right now and they are talking about this exact thing. Not sure what the chances are of that but...
So in this case 4 guys in one car one of them shoots at a guy in another. All 3 guys in the car with the shooter say it's so-n-so. Everyone in other car says it's the same dude. Only one getting charged is the shooter.
What had happened was one guy throws a bottle at a car, so there is a dude in that car with a gun and he shoots. RTBT you will be upset that not everyone is going to jail. I know you want everyone in the car with the shooter, and probably everyone in the other car and maybe some witnesses in jail, but it doesn't work that way. Haha, just playing with you.
Not one lawyer involved...as usual...I know Tyreke's lawyers told him to shut up according to most of you, but I agree with Ninja, he prob never even had one. I gotta say I agree with Ninja on most of this, I'm not the kind of person to jump to conclusions or to assume guilt. I believe in the good, and I grew up in a bad area so I know how things get done sometimes.
What you two don't seem to understand here is the fact that... HE SAID IT. How and why he said it is up for debate and nobody knows that, except for him. Obviously he's not going to say, "Well... Me and my buddies talk about this back stage and it slipped" or "I have these thoughts in my head and the word just slipped". He's not going to say that, so basically we'd be taking his word that it was just an accidental mispronounciation/combining of two words.
It's arguable whether or not he should be fired, but he should be suspended for awhile.
yeah tezo, i already said that from the get go. He made an insensitive remark and should be suspended. But you laughed at that and said he should lose his job.
I want to give Greenberg the benefit of the doubt because he seems like a good guy. However, I tried to deliberately say those words and I had a hard time doing such because the word "coon" isn't in my thought process.
As for the combining of "K" from King and "Joon" from Junior, I guess it might be possible, but I can only speak for myself when I say I have a hard time believing that mumbo jumbo. It simply doesn't register with me as a logical explanation.
No matter what happens, I think the worse thing ESPN can do is to ignore it. That's especially true after they fired that idiot Rush Limbaugh who didn't even use a racial slur.
Personally... I think he should be let go, but whether or not he should be fired is arguable.
difference with limbaugh is that he went on a minute long rant where there is no debating his intentions. He made innapropriate remarks about race and was rightfully fired. A one syllable slip up is far different. Plus limbaugh had a track record of numerous racially insensitive remarks and should never have been doing a sports show to begin with.
SportsNinja, I'm so sorry that an explanation of the law is way above your ability to comprehend. It has nothing to do with my opinion, it's a matter of reading and understanding the law as it's written. Everything I wrote is true so maybe you should hire a lawyer so he/she can explain it in layman terms so that even you can understand them.
And unlike you SportsNinja, who claims to know so much about the Tyreke Evans incident, I acknowledge that I don't know anything about it. I'm not throwing out verbal trash, trying to sound knowledgeable about something when I wasn't there. As I said above, I have no opinion on the incident because I don't have any facts.
yeah thats my show. i guess it depends where u are and what they decided to do but i know from the other side that the others can be charged
Yea, I'm not buying that King and Junior combination as the reasoning for him saying it. That sounds alot like an excuse to me..
I'm not saying they should fire Greenberg, I'm saying he should be disciplined. And if they decide that firing is the appropriate discipline, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I would also be happy if they just suspended him for one week. But I would not be happy if ESPN ignored it and did nothing.
LLperez22, I agree with everything you said about Rush Limbaugh and his track record.
However, sometimes a track record isn't good enough for one's defense. If I worked with someone for a long time and thought he was a good guy and then one day I heard him call a black person a "coon", his track record would immediately become meaningless to me.
Here is a link from the Bee: http://www.sacbee.com/kings/story/2474375.html
A little interesting what the lawyers are saying...only a payment of money can make it right, they think he was more involved than he says, etc.
RTBT if you must result in personal attacks because you are wrong that's fine. You are not a lawyer, that much is obvious, you trying to belittle me does not help prove your point or help your debate. None of your explanations are above my head, they are just wrong. You seem to have a lot of opinions even if you say you don't, but if you would have just read my initial statement I said a lot of people are assuming he is guilty where there are other plausible explanations, not saying I knew what happened just saying people should hold the criticsims until they know the facts. You may have brushed over this. You make a statement like the law says all participants in a crime that result in a muder are all equally guilty and turn that into anyone knowingly or not is around when someone commits a crime they are guilty. Very simply that is not true, not sure what else I can say...
Allow me to quote two of your comments about me.
"First your argument "what do you expect him to say" is moronic. "
"BS, you're just making stuff up"
And prior to that, you said something like I couldn't put two words together.
So you're calling me a moron and a liar weren't personal attacks?
SportsNinja, I don't know why you can't understand the difference between a personal opinion and the law. But let me try for the nth time.
I have no opinion on the Tyreke Evans case because I don't know the facts.
The law treats everyone who participates in a felony murder equally. That is not an opinion, it's a fact. You keep bringing up the subjective part of how the law is enforced, which is an entirely different matter.
you can say it a million more times...the police and the DA did not believe him to be a participant...so say it all you want it won't make you right. The law does not say he was a participant in the actual crime just because he drove the car, he is only a participant if he knew what was going to happen and went ahead with it. They deemed him innocent of this, therefore he was not a participant of the crime.
SportsNinja, why can't you understand the difference between what the law is versus how it's enforced? I never said one word about the Tyreke Evans case because I have zero facts and therefore don't believe I have a right to say anything. That's my opinion on the incident and you can agree or disagree.
However, the LAW is very clear, anyone who participates in a felony murder in any way is equally guilty. That is a FACT, it is not my opinion nor anyone else's opinion. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Now let's change gears. You keep talking about Evan's lack of prosecution. That has nothing to do with how the law is written, but how it's enforced. People break the law every day but law enforcement authorities choose when, where, and how to enforce it.