(01-03-2024 08:03 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 05:28 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 02:45 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 01:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 01:31 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  I don't disagree, but it's still assault nonetheless. Plus, there are probably several witnesses who have photographic evidence via smartphones. Guy should at least sue the hell out of him.

For what? A $20 laundry fee? And an assault charge? The guy would have to be a real snowflake. He wasn't hurt. Just wet.

This thread is a great advertisement for the need for tort reform. If one of us tosses a drink at opposing fans, maybe we get tossed from the game or there’s a fight, but nobody is talking about lawsuits. Who cares what his net worth is? No harm, no foul as they say. This is only a big deal to the “victims” bc now they’re folk heroes. To the NFL, however… ugh, it’s embarrassing.

As for the punishment, it’s hard to say that drink-tossing is on the same level as DWI. Irsay got a $500k fine and 6 game suspension for his DWI, this had to be less than that. Maybe the NFL figured that NOT giving Tepper a suspension was more of a punishment to the team than suspending him would have been?

With Snyder gone, Tepper has to be in the discussion for Worst NFL Owner.

This says less about tort reform and more about the general state of law enforcement and how people feel that rich people shouldn't be above the law. Any judge is going to throw out a lawsuit for damages by the fan because no one is going to believe that damages were suffered beyond dry cleaning. Maybe it gets referred to small claims court.

The police, however, should file charges because that's clearly assault captured on publicly available video. Remember, people don't actually "press charges", the State (read, the police) does. When you "decline to press charges" you're essentially telling the police that you won't support the case they'd file on your behalf (as the victim) and if the case needs your support to proceed then the police just drop it. The police don't need that fan's support to "press charges" here, they just need to do their job. Else we have a question of whether or not we want the State (Fed/State/Local) to have discretion in choosing who we enforce the laws on.

But there was zero actual physical harm. If the police end up filing criminal charges, it will be because of the person throwing the drink rather than in spite of it. That’s a double standard all right, just not the way it used to be. I didn’t like seeing rich/powerful people operate as if they were above the law in the past, and I don’t like watching militant prosecutors target those same people due to their fame and wealth today.

IIRC, assault doesn't require physical harm, it's battery that does.

What would this pompous owner do if a fan threw a drink on him? Iiiiiiii wonder...

(01-03-2024 09:54 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  What would this pompous owner do if a fan threw a drink on him? Iiiiiiii wonder...

Exactly!

Would be nice if the next time Carolina plays at the Jaguars there was some coordination among fans

(01-04-2024 11:30 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 09:54 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  What would this pompous owner do if a fan threw a drink on him? Iiiiiiii wonder...

Exactly!

Would be nice if the next time Carolina plays at the Jaguars there was some coordination among fans

My point is not that he shouldn't suffer consequences, but rather that the consequences should be social (embarrassment, future harassment from fans, etc). A lawsuit or criminal prosecution would be a disproportionate response to a tossed drink.

I just want to say, every time I scroll by this thread I misread the title as "what's a reasonable time for throwing a drink at opposing fans?" and wonder if there's a poll in here where we're taking a count to see at what point in a game someone would be expected to break and finally do it.

I don't understand what the point would be to suspend an owner. So he has to hang out at his luxury home instead of his luxury sky box?