Netflix Show Malice in the Palace

[Anonymous]

I am new to the basketball world, and just watched the documentary.

Can someone explain to me why it comes across as O'Neals life was the most impacted by the incident whereas the other's involved in the fight were not (thinking of Jackson and *Artest going on to play for other teams and still staying in the NBA albeit with different teams)?

Also, why did the Indy fans not support the players? I read fans stopped going to the games. I get it was an ugly incident, but Pistons fans throwing that drink on Artest was over the top and of course he was going to react. Obviously I see the racial undertones involved, black athletes attacking white fans, but really nobody thought the players had a right to defend themselves? What am I missing? O'Neal had to fight his suspension from the NBA, and a federal judge said he had a right to defend himself, so why was he shunned?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am new to the basketball world, and just watched the documentary.

Can someone explain to me why it comes across as O'Neals life was the most impacted by the incident whereas the other's involved in the fight were not (thinking of Jackson and *Artest going on to play for other teams and still staying in the NBA albeit with different teams)?

Also, why did the Indy fans not support the players? I read fans stopped going to the games. I get it was an ugly incident, but Pistons fans throwing that drink on Artest was over the top and of course he was going to react. Obviously I see the racial undertones involved, black athletes attacking white fans, but really nobody thought the players had a right to defend themselves? What am I missing? O'Neal had to fight his suspension from the NBA, and a federal judge said he had a right to defend himself, so why was he shunned?

Did you notice that Artest attacked the wrong fan? Not the one who threw the drink. Is that okay? Wouldn't it have been better to involve his coach and stadium officials?
Anyone could have been standing next to the fan who threw the drink. What if it was just a really big teen, someone's kid? It's okay to charge the stands after someone you think threw the drink?

The whole thing was nonsense.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_at_the_Palace#:~:text=Ron%20Artest%20running%20into%20the,was%20the%20actual%20person%20responsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am new to the basketball world, and just watched the documentary.

Can someone explain to me why it comes across as O'Neals life was the most impacted by the incident whereas the other's involved in the fight were not (thinking of Jackson and *Artest going on to play for other teams and still staying in the NBA albeit with different teams)?

Also, why did the Indy fans not support the players? I read fans stopped going to the games. I get it was an ugly incident, but Pistons fans throwing that drink on Artest was over the top and of course he was going to react. Obviously I see the racial undertones involved, black athletes attacking white fans, but really nobody thought the players had a right to defend themselves? What am I missing? O'Neal had to fight his suspension from the NBA, and a federal judge said he had a right to defend himself, so why was he shunned?

Did you notice that Artest attacked the wrong fan? Not the one who threw the drink. Is that okay? Wouldn't it have been better to involve his coach and stadium officials?
Anyone could have been standing next to the fan who threw the drink. What if it was just a really big teen, someone's kid? It's okay to charge the stands after someone you think threw the drink?

The whole thing was nonsense

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_at_the_Palace#:~:text=Ron%20Artest%20running%20into%20the,was%20the%20actual%20person%20responsible.

Eh, have you watched any of the interviews about it? Especially from Ron Artest. The Pistons fans made a bet and he did hit the guy who made the bet, so not exactly the 'wrong' guy.
You do realize throwing a drink at someone is considered assault, right. Anyhow, my post was about O'Neal and why it seemed that he was most shunned not on whether Artest should have gone into the stands.

[Anonymous]

It's been a while since I saw the documentary by O'Neal played for another ten years after the brawl, same as Stephen Jackson. Artest had a longer career, but I don't think O'Neal was shunned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's been a while since I saw the documentary by O'Neal played for another ten years after the brawl, same as Stephen Jackson. Artest had a longer career, but I don't think O'Neal was shunned.

Thanks for answering my question. It just seemed based on the documentary and subsequent interviews of him that he took the biggest hit in terms of image, and he is the most uncomfortable to talk about it. It also appears he has the most resentment towards the media and Indiana.

[Anonymous]

I remember keeping one eyebrow cocked while watching because O'Neal was an executive producer of the program, so how much did this affect the narrative? All that to say, it really was a spectacle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am new to the basketball world, and just watched the documentary.

Can someone explain to me why it comes across as O'Neals life was the most impacted by the incident whereas the other's involved in the fight were not (thinking of Jackson and *Artest going on to play for other teams and still staying in the NBA albeit with different teams)?

Also, why did the Indy fans not support the players? I read fans stopped going to the games. I get it was an ugly incident, but Pistons fans throwing that drink on Artest was over the top and of course he was going to react. Obviously I see the racial undertones involved, black athletes attacking white fans, but really nobody thought the players had a right to defend themselves? What am I missing? O'Neal had to fight his suspension from the NBA, and a federal judge said he had a right to defend himself, so why was he shunned?

Jermaine O'Neal was heavily involved in the production of the documentary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am new to the basketball world, and just watched the documentary.

Can someone explain to me why it comes across as O'Neals life was the most impacted by the incident whereas the other's involved in the fight were not (thinking of Jackson and *Artest going on to play for other teams and still staying in the NBA albeit with different teams)?

Also, why did the Indy fans not support the players? I read fans stopped going to the games. I get it was an ugly incident, but Pistons fans throwing that drink on Artest was over the top and of course he was going to react. Obviously I see the racial undertones involved, black athletes attacking white fans, but really nobody thought the players had a right to defend themselves? What am I missing? O'Neal had to fight his suspension from the NBA, and a federal judge said he had a right to defend himself, so why was he shunned?

Jermaine O'Neal was heavily involved in the production of the documentary.

Duh, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember keeping one eyebrow cocked while watching because O'Neal was an executive producer of the program, so how much did this affect the narrative? All that to say, it really was a spectacle.

I knew he was involved in the production. I wonder if his decision to fight the NBA suspension played into his resentment with the public/fan base over the incident. The other players that were suspended didn't fight the NBA whereas O Neal did. Did the Indiana fan base turn their back on the players at the time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember keeping one eyebrow cocked while watching because O'Neal was an executive producer of the program, so how much did this affect the narrative? All that to say, it really was a spectacle.

Ding ding ding. It wasn't a documentary, it was PR.