Should ESPN do anything? Jason Kelce smashes student's phone (1 Viewer)

[TLEF316]

The fact that some punk kid can harass a celebrity with homophobic slurs and stick his phone in their face hoping for a reaction (in some pathetic attempt to gain social media clout)....and there are actually people saying "you can't destroy someone else's property"........just really sad.

I'm not a Kelce fan by any stretch (I think he's a clown whose brand is "drunken goofball") but really?

The "kid" deserved to be punched in the face. I'm ok with that not happening (as violence is not a good thing) but I'd be more than ok with his identity getting exposed and him having a very hard time getting a job even with a fancy PSU degree. Actions should have consequences. Being drunk isn't an excuse

 

[Zow]

What isn't necessarily true?

The claim right above mine. That provocation could never justify physical violence or property damage.

State laws may differ, but generally Chaka's statement is an accurate statement in terms of a black letter reading of the law.

I think what you're conflating is mitigation versus a legal defense/justification as well as the notion of prosecutorial discretion (where a prosecuting agency may choose, like they did with Aldrin's case, not to file charges even though the facts likely do meet the statutory elements of the charge).

 

[Zow]

The fact that some punk kid can harass a celebrity with homophobic slurs and stick his phone in their face hoping for a reaction (in some pathetic attempt to gain social media clout)....and there are actually people saying "you can't destroy someone else's property"........just really sad.

I'm not a Kelce fan by any stretch (I think he's a clown whose brand is "drunken goofball") but really?

The "kid" deserved to be punched in the face. I'm ok with that not happening (as violence is not a good thing) but I'd be more than ok with his identity getting exposed and him having a very hard time getting a job even with a fancy PSU degree. Actions should have consequences. Being drunk isn't an excuse

The law probably says the same.

Again, this is an example of whether somebody can be charged with a crime versus whether they should. There's a stark difference.

 

[TLEF316]

The fact that some punk kid can harass a celebrity with homophobic slurs and stick his phone in their face hoping for a reaction (in some pathetic attempt to gain social media clout)....and there are actually people saying "you can't destroy someone else's property"........just really sad.

I'm not a Kelce fan by any stretch (I think he's a clown whose brand is "drunken goofball") but really?

The "kid" deserved to be punched in the face. I'm ok with that not happening (as violence is not a good thing) but I'd be more than ok with his identity getting exposed and him having a very hard time getting a job even with a fancy PSU degree. Actions should have consequences. Being drunk isn't an excuse

The law probably says the same.

Again, this is an example of whether somebody can be charged with a crime versus whether they should. There's a stark difference.

I don't disagree. But hiding behind "the law" in this situation just seems dumb. It's the equivalent of a 6 year old sticking their finger in their siblings face and saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you" and then crying to their parents when the sibling pushes them to the ground.

Yes, by law, breaking an expensive piece of plastic is a "crime" while following someone around in a public place and calling their family nasty words isn't. But I think we all can probably agree which action is more worthy of punishment

 

[Zow]

If this helps, there is a legal difference between a "defense" and "mitigation" under every state law I'm aware of. The former concerns a factual defense (e.g. alibi, legal justification, factual innocence, etc.) whereas mitigation concerns itself with "why" the defendant committed the crime and the "why" supports either a reduced sentence (either at sentencing or via plea agreement) or that, in rare cases like Aldrin's, allows a prosecuting agency to use its discretion and not charge the defendant even though the facts technically support a charge.

Using Kelce's case as an example (these are obviously fictitious but illustrate the point and the difference in legal concepts):

Legal defense = "It wasn't me who smashed the kid's phone. It was my younger brother dressed up to look like me. Find me not guilty!"
Mitigation = "I have years of brain damage resulting in serious CTE that caused me to overreact. Please help me get help and don't jail me!"

Turning back to the actual Kelce issue, the State can act well within its discretion by reviewing the clear mitigating factor that the victim used a racial slur he knew or should have known would have antagonized Kelce and choosing not to charge Kelce because they don't think they should. But, this does not mean that they couldn't charge Kelce because the victim's verbal provocation provides a factual defense (which it almost certainly does not).

 

[SanDawg]

Did Get Up, First Take, or Pat McAfee cover this at all today?

 

[Zow]

The fact that some punk kid can harass a celebrity with homophobic slurs and stick his phone in their face hoping for a reaction (in some pathetic attempt to gain social media clout)....and there are actually people saying "you can't destroy someone else's property"........just really sad.

I'm not a Kelce fan by any stretch (I think he's a clown whose brand is "drunken goofball") but really?

The "kid" deserved to be punched in the face. I'm ok with that not happening (as violence is not a good thing) but I'd be more than ok with his identity getting exposed and him having a very hard time getting a job even with a fancy PSU degree. Actions should have consequences. Being drunk isn't an excuse

The law probably says the same.

Again, this is an example of whether somebody can be charged with a crime versus whether they should. There's a stark difference.

I don't disagree. But hiding behind "the law" in this situation just seems dumb. It's the equivalent of a 6 year old sticking their finger in their siblings face and saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you" and then crying to their parents when the sibling pushes them to the ground.

Yes, by law, breaking an expensive piece of plastic is a "crime" while following someone around in a public place and calling their family nasty words isn't. But I think we all can probably agree which action is more worthy of punishment

I think the bold is where we are finding our difference in this discussion. I did not read any of the poster's posts (like mine, Chaka's, etc.) as "hiding" behind anything but, instead, pointing out that Kelce could be punished because he technically broke the law. In other words, I don't read any posts herein as a poster clamoring for punishment for Kelce.

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

Why is there a SP thread and a F4A thread? should they be combined?

 

[BladeRunner]

Why is there a SP thread and a F4A thread? should they be combined?

Are you questioning the owner of FBG starting a thread in his forums?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

If anything happens to Kelce it will be because of the homophobic slur he called the kid/guy/troll. You 100% CANNOT do that while being employed by a Disney company and escape consequence .

 

[JoeSteeler]

Words only have the power the listener gives to them.

You don't get to assault people or destroy their property because they said something that you didn't like.

If you don't think this goes beyond "saying something you don't like", then you are living in a different world.

This was words + actions

Apparently then, I am living in a different world. Which I guess has to mean you are living in a different world from me as well. I choose to believe otherwise.

I prefer my world where people actually are decent, and can't just do stuff like this with zero consequence.
Your view makes it ok, hence making it more prevalent.

If anything Kelce should be praised for restraint.

I can see both sides. But overall, free speech rules. There can be consequences for your actions. There shouldn't be illegal consequences for your actions.

I'm taking a walk at this moment. If someone came out of his house and yelled at me because of my hat "don't walk on the sidewalk in front of my house, you f***ing MAGAt!" I would laugh, shake my head, and and use the sidewalk on the other side if the road the next time out of consideration.

He has no right to prevent me from walking there. And I also would have no right to, say, egg his house the next time around. That's his property. All he did was insult me. However, I would have a right to continue using the sidewalk in front of his house every day waving giant flags and chanting "MAGA" if I wanted. But I wouldn't do that because I'm not a d***.

Now imagine the guy followed you during your walk doing the same thing and getting personal.

Call the police and report harassment.

 

[Statorama]

You may have seen.

https://x.com/SInow/status/1852799128201220543

Jason Kelce was heckled by a student at Penn State game that called his brother a "F*ggot"

Kelce grabbed his phone and smashed it.

Of course the internet is cheering him.

But wondering what, if anything, you think ESPN should do as his employer?

All I can think of when I see this is Sonny Corleone (Jimmy Caan) smashing a reporters camera and condescendingly tossing a couple of twenties on the ground.

 

[ghostguy123]

100% Kelce reacted because the accusation that his brother is gay. Not because an offensive slur was used for a gay person. I say fire them both into the sun.

I'd say it's more he reacted cause it was ongoing harassment that also got personal. I doubt "gay" was the thing that got him and moreso just the personal aspect of it. I kinda doubt "gay" was some sort of specific trigger that was the only personal attack that would have "worked".

 

[ghostguy123]

Words only have the power the listener gives to them.

You don't get to assault people or destroy their property because they said something that you didn't like.

If you don't think this goes beyond "saying something you don't like", then you are living in a different world.

This was words + actions

Apparently then, I am living in a different world. Which I guess has to mean you are living in a different world from me as well. I choose to believe otherwise.

I prefer my world where people actually are decent, and can't just do stuff like this with zero consequence.
Your view makes it ok, hence making it more prevalent.

If anything Kelce should be praised for restraint.

I can see both sides. But overall, free speech rules. There can be consequences for your actions. There shouldn't be illegal consequences for your actions.

I'm taking a walk at this moment. If someone came out of his house and yelled at me because of my hat "don't walk on the sidewalk in front of my house, you f***ing MAGAt!" I would laugh, shake my head, and and use the sidewalk on the other side if the road the next time out of consideration.

He has no right to prevent me from walking there. And I also would have no right to, say, egg his house the next time around. That's his property. All he did was insult me. However, I would have a right to continue using the sidewalk in front of his house every day waving giant flags and chanting "MAGA" if I wanted. But I wouldn't do that because I'm not a d***.

Now imagine the guy followed you during your walk doing the same thing and getting personal.

Call the police and report harassment.

You're a mile from home and don't have your phone with you, nearest hose quarter mile away.....

 

[ghostguy123]

Hmmmm, I just saw part where the guy actually shoved Kelce.
I thought he was lucky before but oh man is that dude lucky he didn't get a tush push of his face right into the ground.

 

[Chaka]

You may have seen.

https://x.com/SInow/status/1852799128201220543

Jason Kelce was heckled by a student at Penn State game that called his brother a "F*ggot"

Kelce grabbed his phone and smashed it.

Of course the internet is cheering him.

But wondering what, if anything, you think ESPN should do as his employer?

All I can think of when I see this is Sonny Corleone (Jimmy Caan) smashing a reporters camera and condescendingly tossing a couple of twenties on the ground.

Yup. And things worked out great for Sonny in the end, right?


Right???

 

[BespokeJort]

The fact that some punk kid can harass a celebrity with homophobic slurs and stick his phone in their face hoping for a reaction (in some pathetic attempt to gain social media clout)....and there are actually people saying "you can't destroy someone else's property"........just really sad.

I'm not a Kelce fan by any stretch (I think he's a clown whose brand is "drunken goofball") but really?

The "kid" deserved to be punched in the face. I'm ok with that not happening (as violence is not a good thing) but I'd be more than ok with his identity getting exposed and him having a very hard time getting a job even with a fancy PSU degree. Actions should have consequences. Being drunk isn't an excuse

The law probably says the same.

Again, this is an example of whether somebody can be charged with a crime versus whether they should. There's a stark difference.

I don't disagree. But hiding behind "the law" in this situation just seems dumb. It's the equivalent of a 6 year old sticking their finger in their siblings face and saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you" and then crying to their parents when the sibling pushes them to the ground.

Yes, by law, breaking an expensive piece of plastic is a "crime" while following someone around in a public place and calling their family nasty words isn't. But I think we all can probably agree which action is more worthy of punishment

I think the bold is where we are finding our difference in this discussion. I did not read any of the poster's posts (like mine, Chaka's, etc.) as "hiding" behind anything but, instead, pointing out that Kelce could be punished because he technically broke the law. In other words, I don't read any posts herein as a poster clamoring for punishment for Kelce.

I mean, the thread premise isn’t “could Kelce legally be liable for xyz,” it’s “should ESPN do anything”

 

[eighsse2]

Words only have the power the listener gives to them.

You don't get to assault people or destroy their property because they said something that you didn't like.

If you don't think this goes beyond "saying something you don't like", then you are living in a different world.

This was words + actions

Apparently then, I am living in a different world. Which I guess has to mean you are living in a different world from me as well. I choose to believe otherwise.

I prefer my world where people actually are decent, and can't just do stuff like this with zero consequence.
Your view makes it ok, hence making it more prevalent.

If anything Kelce should be praised for restraint.

I can see both sides. But overall, free speech rules. There can be consequences for your actions. There shouldn't be illegal consequences for your actions.

I'm taking a walk at this moment. If someone came out of his house and yelled at me because of my hat "don't walk on the sidewalk in front of my house, you f***ing MAGAt!" I would laugh, shake my head, and and use the sidewalk on the other side if the road the next time out of consideration.

He has no right to prevent me from walking there. And I also would have no right to, say, egg his house the next time around. That's his property. All he did was insult me. However, I would have a right to continue using the sidewalk in front of his house every day waving giant flags and chanting "MAGA" if I wanted. But I wouldn't do that because I'm not a d***.

Now imagine the guy followed you during your walk doing the same thing and getting personal.

Call the police and report harassment.

You're a mile from home and don't have your phone with you, nearest hose quarter mile away.....

Walk quickly. If he's making actual physical threats, as opposed to mere insults, run, and if it becomes necessary pull your piece.

 

[ghostguy123]

Words only have the power the listener gives to them.

You don't get to assault people or destroy their property because they said something that you didn't like.

If you don't think this goes beyond "saying something you don't like", then you are living in a different world.

This was words + actions

Apparently then, I am living in a different world. Which I guess has to mean you are living in a different world from me as well. I choose to believe otherwise.

I prefer my world where people actually are decent, and can't just do stuff like this with zero consequence.
Your view makes it ok, hence making it more prevalent.

If anything Kelce should be praised for restraint.

I can see both sides. But overall, free speech rules. There can be consequences for your actions. There shouldn't be illegal consequences for your actions.

I'm taking a walk at this moment. If someone came out of his house and yelled at me because of my hat "don't walk on the sidewalk in front of my house, you f***ing MAGAt!" I would laugh, shake my head, and and use the sidewalk on the other side if the road the next time out of consideration.

He has no right to prevent me from walking there. And I also would have no right to, say, egg his house the next time around. That's his property. All he did was insult me. However, I would have a right to continue using the sidewalk in front of his house every day waving giant flags and chanting "MAGA" if I wanted. But I wouldn't do that because I'm not a d***.

Now imagine the guy followed you during your walk doing the same thing and getting personal.

Call the police and report harassment.

You're a mile from home and don't have your phone with you, nearest hose quarter mile away.....

Walk quickly. If he's making actual physical threats, as opposed to mere insults, run, and if it becomes necessary pull your piece.

Lol

 

[Joe Bryant]

Why is there a SP thread and a F4A thread? should they be combined?

I wondered about that too but was interested in both forum's opinions on it. Lots in the FFA dont follow the NFL nearly as closely as the folks in the Shark Pool. And I wondered if there would be a difference in how they saw it.

 

[Ray_T]

The fact that some punk kid can harass a celebrity with homophobic slurs and stick his phone in their face hoping for a reaction (in some pathetic attempt to gain social media clout)....and there are actually people saying "you can't destroy someone else's property"........just really sad.

I'm not a Kelce fan by any stretch (I think he's a clown whose brand is "drunken goofball") but really?

The "kid" deserved to be punched in the face. I'm ok with that not happening (as violence is not a good thing) but I'd be more than ok with his identity getting exposed and him having a very hard time getting a job even with a fancy PSU degree. Actions should have consequences. Being drunk isn't an excuse

agreed. the kid did deserve a punch in the face, but that would definitely have gotten Kelce fired.

if the kid is a college student, he wont wanna make a big deal of this because the homophobic slur could get him kicked out of school.

I witnessed an incident in university where someone told a sexist joke. wasnt super bad but bad enough, and that guy almost got expelled for non academic misconduct. it is a real thing at college. only reason the guy didnt get expelled is because the girl decided not to push further with it. At the time the kids lawyer told him if she pursued he wouldnt have a leg to stand on and that he wouldnt be able to do much to help.

granted the laws and rules will vary by college and jurisdiction but I think its reasonable to think the kid would put himself at risk by pursuing this further.

in terms of severity, this is fairly comparable (in my opinion) so if the guy is smart he asks kelce for a new phone (which he most likely will buy for the kid) and it will be a case of no harm no foul.

sure he could pursue it, but in doing so, it could cause him to get expelled as well (which I would think is not a better outcome even if he gets some cash). I am pretty certain Kelce and ESPN have enough contacts that they will make sure the kids college is fully notified of the behaviour in the event the kid pursues things legally.

this is why I believe this ends with a new phone for the kid. kids lawyer (if hes smart) will advise the same. it will be done very quitly with a Non disclosure agreement and none of us will hear about this ever again.

 

[Zow]

The fact that some punk kid can harass a celebrity with homophobic slurs and stick his phone in their face hoping for a reaction (in some pathetic attempt to gain social media clout)....and there are actually people saying "you can't destroy someone else's property"........just really sad.

I'm not a Kelce fan by any stretch (I think he's a clown whose brand is "drunken goofball") but really?

The "kid" deserved to be punched in the face. I'm ok with that not happening (as violence is not a good thing) but I'd be more than ok with his identity getting exposed and him having a very hard time getting a job even with a fancy PSU degree. Actions should have consequences. Being drunk isn't an excuse

The law probably says the same.

Again, this is an example of whether somebody can be charged with a crime versus whether they should. There's a stark difference.

I don't disagree. But hiding behind "the law" in this situation just seems dumb. It's the equivalent of a 6 year old sticking their finger in their siblings face and saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you" and then crying to their parents when the sibling pushes them to the ground.

Yes, by law, breaking an expensive piece of plastic is a "crime" while following someone around in a public place and calling their family nasty words isn't. But I think we all can probably agree which action is more worthy of punishment

I think the bold is where we are finding our difference in this discussion. I did not read any of the poster's posts (like mine, Chaka's, etc.) as "hiding" behind anything but, instead, pointing out that Kelce could be punished because he technically broke the law. In other words, I don't read any posts herein as a poster clamoring for punishment for Kelce.

I mean, the thread premise isn’t “could Kelce legally be liable for xyz,” it’s “should ESPN do anything”

I understand that. We switched gears mid-thread about whether he committed a crime. So, yeah, we diverted off the original thread premise.

 

[ghostguy123]

Just curious, for anyone who thinks the punishment of the broken phone does not fit the crime, what do you think the school should do to the guy (assuming he's a student)?

 

[JohnnyU]

Just curious, for anyone who thinks the punishment of the broken phone does not fit the crime, what do you think the school should do to the guy (assuming he's a student)?

Tar and feather? Disemboweled? Make him watch Grey’s Anatomy from the beginning?

 

[ghostguy123]

Lol.
It would just be weird if anyone thought Kelce was out of line but the school should kick him out.

 

[JohnnyU]

Lol.
It would just be weird if anyone thought Kelce was out of line but the school should kick him out.

Everyone is so quick to cancel people. Those who live in glass houses….. He messed up for sure, but ruin his life?

What Rashee Rice did was worse.

 

[Ray_T]

Just curious, for anyone who thinks the punishment of the broken phone does not fit the crime, what do you think the school should do to the guy (assuming he's a student)?

this is why I dont think the kid will pursue this.

its likely a situation where if he gets his phone replaced both parties will forget it ever happened and Kelce will ask his educational institution not to pursue the matter.

 

[Ray_T]

Lol.
It would just be weird if anyone thought Kelce was out of line but the school should kick him out.

Everyone is so quick to cancel people. Those who live in glass houses….. He messed up for sure, but ruin his life?

dude this happens in colleges around the world. I'm not kidding. the kid is in a legit situation where he could be expelled

 

[JohnnyU]

Lol.
It would just be weird if anyone thought Kelce was out of line but the school should kick him out.

Everyone is so quick to cancel people. Those who live in glass houses….. He messed up for sure, but ruin his life?

dude this happens in colleges around the world. I'm not kidding. the kid is in a legit situation where he could be expelled

Then kick Rashee Rice out of the league, because that was way worse.

 

[ghostguy123]

Lol.
It would just be weird if anyone thought Kelce was out of line but the school should kick him out.

Everyone is so quick to cancel people. Those who live in glass houses….. He messed up for sure, but ruin his life?

dude this happens in colleges around the world. I'm not kidding. the kid is in a legit situation where he could be expelled

Then kick Rashee Rice out of the league, because that was way worse.

Colleges are......different

 

[JohnnyU]

Lol.
It would just be weird if anyone thought Kelce was out of line but the school should kick him out.

Everyone is so quick to cancel people. Those who live in glass houses….. He messed up for sure, but ruin his life?

dude this happens in colleges around the world. I'm not kidding. the kid is in a legit situation where he could be expelled

Then kick Rashee Rice out of the league, because that was way worse.

Colleges are......different

Lord how I know……..in so many ways……which I won’t go into in this forum.

 

[Ray_T]

Lol.
It would just be weird if anyone thought Kelce was out of line but the school should kick him out.

Everyone is so quick to cancel people. Those who live in glass houses….. He messed up for sure, but ruin his life?

dude this happens in colleges around the world. I'm not kidding. the kid is in a legit situation where he could be expelled

Then kick Rashee Rice out of the league, because that was way worse.

probably. but the difference is Rashee was a contributor to a football team that brings millions in revenue to the college. what does this kid do for the college that makes him valuable?

I'm not saying its right. I'm just saying thats how it is.

 

[JohnnyU]

Lol.
It would just be weird if anyone thought Kelce was out of line but the school should kick him out.

Everyone is so quick to cancel people. Those who live in glass houses….. He messed up for sure, but ruin his life?

dude this happens in colleges around the world. I'm not kidding. the kid is in a legit situation where he could be expelled

Then kick Rashee Rice out of the league, because that was way worse.

probably. but the difference is Rashee was a contributor to a football team that brings millions in revenue to the college. what does this kid do for the college that makes him valuable?

I'm not saying its right. I'm just saying thats how it is.

Sticks and stones…..oh nevermind.

 

[fatness]

Kelce just apologized.

"I chose to greet hate with hate, and I just don't think that's a productive thing."

 

[JohnnyU]

Kelce just apologized.

"I chose to greet hate with hate, and I just don't think that's a productive thing."

The kid should be forced to apologize, or get kicked out of school, if he’s a student . He messed up big time. If he does apologize I don’t think he should be kicked out of school. People make mistakes, especially young adults. Then just end this.

 

[fatness]

How about "just end this"?
Not many people will be thinking about it by Wednesday.

 

[JohnnyU]

How about "just end this"?
Not many people will be thinking about it by Wednesday.

You’re wrong. This thread is a lifer. It will never go away.

 

[-OZ-]

but I'd be more than ok with his identity getting exposed a

This. Should always happen with these things. Act like an ***, get exposed for the person you are.

 

[-OZ-]

Lol.
It would just be weird if anyone thought Kelce was out of line but the school should kick him out.

Everyone is so quick to cancel people. Those who live in glass houses….. He messed up for sure, but ruin his life?

What Rashee Rice was worse.

Natural consequences. Some places need to maintain standards. Universities are one, imo anyway.

 

[JohnnyU]

Lol.
It would just be weird if anyone thought Kelce was out of line but the school should kick him out.

Everyone is so quick to cancel people. Those who live in glass houses….. He messed up for sure, but ruin his life?

What Rashee Rice was worse.

Natural consequences. Some places need to maintain standards. Universities are one, imo anyway.

Yep, let’s cancel when given the opportunity. Everyone must go!!! It’s like a going out of business sale.

 

[Ray_T]

How about "just end this"?
Not many people will be thinking about it by Wednesday.

You’re wrong. This thread is a lifer. It will never go away.

sure it will. it will last until the next thread similar to this is created when someone else does something stupid.

but until that happens.... its at the top of the list

 

[rockaction]

If this helps, there is a legal difference between a "defense" and "mitigation" under every state law I'm aware of. The former concerns a factual defense (e.g. alibi, legal justification, factual innocence, etc.) whereas mitigation concerns itself with "why" the defendant committed the crime and the "why" supports either a reduced sentence (either at sentencing or via plea agreement) or that, in rare cases like Aldrin's, allows a prosecuting agency to use its discretion and not charge the defendant even though the facts technically support a charge.

Using Kelce's case as an example (these are obviously fictitious but illustrate the point and the difference in legal concepts):

Legal defense = "It wasn't me who smashed the kid's phone. It was my younger brother dressed up to look like me. Find me not guilty!"
Mitigation = "I have years of brain damage resulting in serious CTE that caused me to overreact. Please help me get help and don't jail me!"

Turning back to the actual Kelce issue, the State can act well within its discretion by reviewing the clear mitigating factor that the victim used a racial slur he knew or should have known would have antagonized Kelce and choosing not to charge Kelce because they don't think they should. But, this does not mean that they couldn't charge Kelce because the victim's verbal provocation provides a factual defense (which it almost certainly does not).

If it helps, I think you’re conflating (and not really using that word correctly, anyway) “never” with “sometimes.”

Easy as that.

 

[Ray_T]

The fact that some punk kid can harass a celebrity with homophobic slurs and stick his phone in their face hoping for a reaction (in some pathetic attempt to gain social media clout)....and there are actually people saying "you can't destroy someone else's property"........just really sad.

I'm not a Kelce fan by any stretch (I think he's a clown whose brand is "drunken goofball") but really?

The "kid" deserved to be punched in the face. I'm ok with that not happening (as violence is not a good thing) but I'd be more than ok with his identity getting exposed and him having a very hard time getting a job even with a fancy PSU degree. Actions should have consequences. Being drunk isn't an excuse

The law probably says the same.

Again, this is an example of whether somebody can be charged with a crime versus whether they should. There's a stark difference.

I don't disagree. But hiding behind "the law" in this situation just seems dumb. It's the equivalent of a 6 year old sticking their finger in their siblings face and saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you" and then crying to their parents when the sibling pushes them to the ground.

Yes, by law, breaking an expensive piece of plastic is a "crime" while following someone around in a public place and calling their family nasty words isn't. But I think we all can probably agree which action is more worthy of punishment

I think the bold is where we are finding our difference in this discussion. I did not read any of the poster's posts (like mine, Chaka's, etc.) as "hiding" behind anything but, instead, pointing out that Kelce could be punished because he technically broke the law. In other words, I don't read any posts herein as a poster clamoring for punishment for Kelce.

technically both parties likely have something to lose by this.

if the kid is a student, non academic misconduct for using a slur, for Kelce breaking the phone. and if the kid is not a student, the language may count as verbal assault (flimsy yes) but in the end nobody will get cancelled. kelce will buy the kid a new phone and everyone will shut the F up and none of us will hear about it again. Kelce made a nice reasonably classy comment/apology (likely written by a staffer at ESPN) and that will be the end of it.

in the end, this is probably how it should play out given the severity of the offenses. you could argue one offense is more severe than the other, but in the end, neither really did any great harm (provided Kelce does get him a new phone) and I do think all parties want this out of the news so it wont be hard for them all to come to an agreement. This is nothing burger. normally this probably wouldnt even be newsworthy.

 

[Chaka]

....and there are actually people saying "you can't destroy someone else's property"........just really sad

That's not sad it's a good thing. Don't confuse that fact with giving the instigator a free pass.

 

[-OZ-]

Lol.
It would just be weird if anyone thought Kelce was out of line but the school should kick him out.

Everyone is so quick to cancel people. Those who live in glass houses….. He messed up for sure, but ruin his life?

What Rashee Rice was worse.

Natural consequences. Some places need to maintain standards. Universities are one, imo anyway.

Yep, let’s cancel when given the opportunity. Everyone must go!!! It’s like a going out of business sale.

Calling every consequence “canceling” somebody has gotten really old.

Edit to add - imo just having the kid be known as an *** is a perfectly acceptable ending here.

 

[Chaka]

Lol.
It would just be weird if anyone thought Kelce was out of line but the school should kick him out.

Everyone is so quick to cancel people. Those who live in glass houses….. He messed up for sure, but ruin his life?

What Rashee Rice was worse.

Natural consequences. Some places need to maintain standards. Universities are one, imo anyway.

Yep, let’s cancel when given the opportunity. Everyone must go!!! It’s like a going out of business sale.

Calling every consequence “canceling” somebody has gotten really old.

I agree. The instigator in the situation was brazenly throwing around pejorative terms in a vile and egregious manner, he absolutely deserves to have that follow him around. As an employer, I would want to know if a job applicant thought it was a good idea to do what he did. It reflects on his character and his cognitive abilities in general.

Should it still be with him 20 years from now? No, people change. Sometimes it takes consequences to elicit that change. In reality it likely won't stick with him that long, probably not even a few years. But right now? Yes, absolutely.

Even if he were the best candidate for a job would you want that guy working for you right now? Hell, no. And I probably wouldn't want to do business with a company that would hire someone who did that.

Let him toil in some minimum wage job for a few years and wonder why his life is turning out this way.

 

[Chaka]

Lol.
It would just be weird if anyone thought Kelce was out of line but the school should kick him out.

Everyone is so quick to cancel people. Those who live in glass houses….. He messed up for sure, but ruin his life?

What Rashee Rice did was worse.

What does this have to do with Rashee Rice?

Rice is facing six felonies and significant jail time as a potential consequence. His criminal case is working it's way through the legal system. After that is resolved he will definitely face additional consequences from his employer.

BTW we're talking about the instigator, not Kelce, right?

 

[nittanylion]

As a Penn State Alumnus, I was disgusted when I heard about this. I actually cringed, and it takes a lot to get me to do that. I haven't looked into the details, but what I did read, spoke of the offender as a 'Penn State fan' wearing 'Penn State attire' ... I haven't seen anything indicating he's actually a student. I certainly hope he's not.

I'm in my mid-50's, and I come from an era where I take great pride in being involved with the things that have meaning in my life. My choice of Penn State as the institution of higher learning that I chose to attend, my experience there, the education I received, the degrees I earned and how all of those things have affected my past, present and future are things I hold dear.

If the young man was a student, I would expect, advocate and support the University taking corrective action towards him. I don't necessarily think he should be expelled, but the behavior should merit some kind of response that addresses 'a Penn State man (student) doesn't behave that way. You've brought shame upon yourself, your family and your University'. See below.

If the young man was not a student, but rather only a 'Penn State fan' - and I know what I'm about to advocate is far-fetched in this day and age - I would be thrilled if the University could find a way to prevent him from publicly showing his fandom (no clothes, bumper stickers, flags outside the house, etc.), for a specified period of time, and having to appeal to the University, in writing, to have the privilege of publicly showing his fandom re-instated. I'd also require him to do a research project requiring him to meet and speak with successful Alumni who's lives and careers have reflected positively on the University, and perform some kind of public service project involving manual labor, on the University grounds.

I'll take some crap for this, but I'm a strong advocate of judicial corporal punishment, as one of the most effective measures to eliminate stupid and foolish public behavior, and IMHO, this is an excellent example of an exhibition of behavior by the fan/student, where a judicial caning would be entirely appropriate.

A tangent more appropriately discussed in another Forum, IMHO, Judicial caning as consequence, would serve to eliminate a massive amount of stupid and foolish behavior existing, especially among young people, in society today, and in very short order.

@ghostguy123

 

[Nugget]

Just curious, for anyone who thinks the punishment of the broken phone does not fit the crime, what do you think the school should do to the guy (assuming he's a student)?

I’m still torn on this. What if the guy wasn’t following Kelce but was instead doing the same to the Penn State QB or a girl who turned him down for a date?

 

[cdclopper]

Even though I said no suspension, he will have to buy him a new phone. That’s a given.

Still worth it.