Article: Jets' Miller shows little sense (4:20 am; night club)

[adamknite]

Anyone else find it ironic that this occurred at 4:20?

I wonder if "4:20" was a factor...

Huh? Why? what does it matter that the time was 4:20

please elaborate.....

 

[onetrickpony]

totally agree. esp. since most bars close down at 2am. being there at 4:20 would be a different crime you'd be in trouble for.

and at my size - i'm often one of the bigger dudes in the bar and NO ONE has picked a fight with me in a long long long long time. although some girl did sneak up behind me at 2am when i was tabbing out of curtain club the other night and gave me a spanking then demanded i returned the favor.

the horror...

:clubbed:

Funny!

But the original article stated that the incident DID take place at 4:20 AM. If he had gone home at 2, he would not have had a problem!

As to the size issue, I can't verify that as I am only 5'7"!!! I can however testify to drunks doing stupid things and that the later it is, the more likely it becomes that you will encounter one.

By the way, not all states require bars to close at 2AM. Las Vegas for sure doesn't and I think NY City also has a much later closing time. The are also many "undergound" or "private" clubs that can get around the 2AM closing times in some states.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

And if he never left the house except to go to practice/game, he would reduce the risks even more so. I bet the statistics on that would be even less than going to church on Sunday.

The problem isn't that it was at 4:20 am.

It was WHAT he did. Its that simple.

We wouldn't be discussing this if he opted NOT to hit anyone.

I thought what he did was a given.

The question/argument/debate was with the the articles point that being in a place, drinking and at a certain time escalates the chances of something bad happening.

Which it would prove to be so even though some are fighting the notion.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

no one said it didn't. i know *I* didn't say it was the case. the clubs i go to in dallas and shut down - in all my years of going out you know how many fights i've seen?

1. and it wasn't even much of a fight in as much as some guy at firewater (nice club in dallas) was roughing up a girl who was a friend of the singers wife and i just got up, put him in a full nelson to get him off her, he backed off (as many would when a 6'4" 320lb viking dude is putting you in an arm lock) and calmed down quickly.

i gotta go back 15+ years for the next time i was involved in a bar fight and this guy shut up also when he turned around and saw me.

yes there are beligerant drunks who cause problems. but there are psycho's who also shoot up college campuses in heartbreaking fashion. was he coming home from a bar?

my point is you can go out and have a good time w/o drinking and getting all crazy on people. i do it a lot. i never have problems, i never run into someone itching to kick my tail around, i can use common sense to avoid what looks to be trouble (which i can do while driving also knowing how bad people here drive - it helps me be proactive).

so when someone is out what i get tired of is the seemingly AUTOMATIC ASSUMPTION that since it's in the middle of the night evil was being done and he should have stayed home.

as for church fights and all else - i'm just saying what i've seen, bp. there are "biker" clubs i'm sure and some "dives" you just don't go into cause yes, those *are* going to be trouble and yes, after a hard nights drinking it does make it easier.

i never denied any of that. i ONLY said it's not the automatic this article and many people seem to make it.

It may not be automatic, but in does indeed escalate the chances of it happening. I really hope you are not getting all this time and energy into debating it just because you see the guy saying absolutes when more times than not his point is true.

Plus I hate to hurt your feelings but you are not in the same status of fame as some of these football players. Now don't get me wrong this specific football player is not as famous as many other football players but once word gets out that he is a pro I am sure some idiots would start something...Or the idea that he thinks he is better than someone and can get out of things may also come into play.

That was also part of the article that people do not seem to take into account.

 

[iceberg]

It may not be automatic, but in does indeed escalate the chances of it happening. I really hope you are not getting all this time and energy into debating it just because you see the guy saying absolutes when more times than not his point is true.

Plus I hate to hurt your feelings but you are not in the same status of fame as some of these football players. Now don't get me wrong this specific football player is not as famous as many other football players but once word gets out that he is a pro I am sure some idiots would start something...Or the idea that he thinks he is better than someone and can get out of things may also come into play.

That was also part of the article that people do not seem to take into account.

part of me *is* arguing the stupidity of the "nothing good happens at 4:20am" statement. i've had to defend a single word before in here and have gotten raked over the coals for being "flippant" (see l. davis vs. kozier convo's) about a single word.

so forgive me - the precident is set we ignore the overall meaning and whine for days about a single word/point. that's how we roll. : )

and not insulted at all - i *did* already say that if i were a football player i'd have to be more careful. but i *hate* the assumption that people jump to that if they're up and about in the middle of the night, it's up to no good.

that part of the article i have a problem with. should they be smart enough to avoid trouble? i'd like to think so. if i were making millions would i still do the things i do? probably but then again, people would likely care a LOT more simply because i'm in the public eye.

i go to baby dolls. no one in here really cares.
a player goes to baby dolls - the horror - the crime!!!

irvin has hookers and coke - he's a criminal (by letter of the law, sure)
if you're in college and have that, it's called a party

when people *know* your name it does put things into a different light. i don't like it, in fact - i hate it.

but it's still the way things go.

are you more likely to run into a drunk a 3am than 3pm? sure. no one ever said otherwise in this thread that i've seen.

if you're out at 3am are you causing or getting into trouble?

dunno and would be a totally seperate thing. most people only drink at night anyway cause they gotta work during the day. can we "alter" the stats for that fact also?

but to answer the question as best i can - yes. i was arguing the point that "nothing good ever happens at 4:20am" cause that's just a stupid thing to say and build an argument around.

is that being anal? no more so than my calling kosier a castoff and having to get railed for that single word - so like i said - that's the tendency in here so i'm just going with it. : )

 

[iceberg]

:clubbed:

Funny!

But the original article stated that the incident DID take place at 4:20 AM. If he had gone home at 2, he would not have had a problem!

As to the size issue, I can't verify that as I am only 5'7"!!! I can however testify to drunks doing stupid things and that the later it is, the more likely it becomes that you will encounter one.

By the way, not all states require bars to close at 2AM. Las Vegas for sure doesn't and I think NY City also has a much later closing time. The are also many "undergound" or "private" clubs that can get around the 2AM closing times in some states.

abolutely right. dance clubs for example can stay open till 4 but stop serving drinks (as i understand it) at 2am.

i just hate sunlight and prefer to do my living at night when i can. my eyes got pretty sensitive to light through time and i hate it when people at work turn the light on cause it burns even more during allergy season.

but i do have to understand and realize i'm the odd one out in this situation.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

part of me *is* arguing the stupidity of the "nothing good happens at 4:20am" statement. i've had to defend a single word before in here and have gotten raked over the coals for being "flippant" (see l. davis vs. kozier convo's) about a single word.

so forgive me - the precident is set we ignore the overall meaning and whine for days about a single word/point. that's how we roll. : )

and not insulted at all - i *did* already say that if i were a football player i'd have to be more careful. but i *hate* the assumption that people jump to that if they're up and about in the middle of the night, it's up to no good.

that part of the article i have a problem with. should they be smart enough to avoid trouble? i'd like to think so. if i were making millions would i still do the things i do? probably but then again, people would likely care a LOT more simply because i'm in the public eye.

i go to baby dolls. no one in here really cares.
a player goes to baby dolls - the horror - the crime!!!

irvin has hookers and coke - he's a criminal (by letter of the law, sure)
if you're in college and have that, it's called a party

when people *know* your name it does put things into a different light. i don't like it, in fact - i hate it.

but it's still the way things go.

are you more likely to run into a drunk a 3am than 3pm? sure. no one ever said otherwise in this thread that i've seen.

if you're out at 3am are you causing or getting into trouble?

dunno and would be a totally seperate thing. most people only drink at night anyway cause they gotta work during the day. can we "alter" the stats for that fact also?

but to answer the question as best i can - yes. i was arguing the point that "nothing good ever happens at 4:20am" cause that's just a stupid thing to say and build an argument around.

is that being anal? no more so than my calling kosier a castoff and having to get railed for that single word - so like i said - that's the tendency in here so i'm just going with it. : )

Meh...we all have been that way or done it so no big deal. It really is the offseason and some of these threads take a life of their own or silly things or semantics.

The writer may have used absolutes and that is what you are arguing but in truth his point (although not absolute) does make sense. His choice of words or using a made up wise/wives tell line could have been said better or worded differently but his point still holds true.

These guys are young and are in the spot light. They increase their risk of things happening when they put themselves in position for it to happen (always felt that same way about Irvins problems).

Ugghh...the offseason stinks.

 

[iceberg]

Meh...we all have been that way or done it so no big deal. It really is the offseason and some of these threads take a life of their own or silly things or semantics.

The writer may have used absolutes and that is what you are arguing but in truth his point (although not absolute) does make sense. His choice of words or using a made up wise/wives tell line could have been said better or worded differently but his point still holds true.

These guys are young and are in the spot light. They increase their risk of things happening when they put themselves in position for it to happen (always felt that same way about Irvins problems).

Ugghh...the offseason stinks.

don't totally disagree - but i hate the instant assumption that he's up to no good simply because he's out at 3am.

damn off season.

 

[adamknite]

don't totally disagree - but i hate the instant assumption that he's up to no good simply because he's out at 3am.

damn off season.

I don't think anybody was saying because he was out at 3am he was causing trouble. If I did or gave the impression that's what I was saying then I apologize because that's not what I ment. What I ment was that when you're out at 3am you're more likely to get involved in trouble if you are the cause or not.

Is going out and having fun at a nightclub late at night mean you're "evil" never. Does it mean your out looking for trouble, no. However there is a larger risk that trouble will find you if you are in that situation, for the most part that is.

Let me use this as an example since I live in Arkansas and know the story.

Darren McFadden got into a fight and dislocated his toe outside a night club at about 4:20 am in little rock. he got into a fight because he caught somebody trying to steal either his or a friends car. Was he looking to start trouble, no. However if he hadn't been out so late around a place like that, the injury/fight probably never happens.

That was what I've been getting at, that if you don't put yourself into the situation then the chance of something bad happening isn't there, not that just because you're out that late something bad is automatically going to happen.