Patterico's Pontifications

8/11/2019

Punishing a Jerk But Choosing Not to Expose Him to the Mob

Filed under: General — JVW @ 12:00 pm



[guest post by JVW]

Over at National Review Online, Jay Nordlinger has a post on an ugly event that occurred at a recent Texas Rangers ballgame:

Apparently, a man at a Texas Rangers game was taunting an Hispanic family, in a racist way. He has now been banned from the stadium. You can read about the episode here.

[. . .]

The Rangers offered the harassed family free tickets to another game. Moreover, a season-ticket holder offered his front-row seats to them, for another game. “I wanted to affirmatively do something and take some form of action,” he said. “I didn’t want to just read the story and think, ‘Ah, that’s terrible, I can’t believe someone did that.’”

The Rangers did the right thing by permanently banning the obnoxious jerk from the stadium. But the team also did something that I find equally good in an action that they decided not to take: they did not name the man publicly. We all know in this day and age of social media mobs that there are people who would want this guy fired from his job, thrown out of his home, shamed in front of his family, publicly doxxed so he could be the target of righteous harassment, and all of the other ways that we exact our full revenge on those whom are annoying in a particularly galling way.

But to the degree that maybe this man might learn a valuable lesson from all this, I think the Rangers got it just right. Three cheers to them.

– JVW

32 Responses to “Punishing a Jerk But Choosing Not to Expose Him to the Mob”

  1. Oh, who am I kidding? There is a picture of the guy at one of the links, and even though he’s in a cap and sunglasses and his hand is partly obscuring his face, there is a woman seated next to him who is presumably a wife, girlfriend, or family member and will probably lead people to ID him. He’ll soon be outed, and then the rage mob can swing into action.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  2. He’ll soon be outed, and then the rage mob can swing into action.

    That’s not invariably a bad thing.

    nk (dbc370)

  3. I like that the Rangers didn’t name him. Clearly they took care of it. There’s no need to release his name. The angry mob, however, is not interested in anybody else’s meting out of justice, only their own. And they do it with more vigor and smug viciousness than anyone else. I want to make sure that everyone else also gets the message .

    Dana (fdf131)

  4. nk, have to disagree there.

    A mob is a mob and unfair, even to a racist jerk.

    Patricia (3363ec)

  5. I agree that the Rangers did the right thing. The man does not have to pay with his job, and social standing at the hands of strangers; when those closest to him should be the ones to exert correction to his behavior.

    felipe (023cc9)

  6. I’m guessing nk’s comment was tongue-in-cheek. At least that’s the way I took it.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  7. The Rangers did the right thing, but they’re all going to be outed, and it won’t be pretty. Sigh.

    Paul Montagu (a2342d)

  8. Nobody is more anti-racist then national review. Lets see if that helps them, when they oppose the Left next time.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  9. Nobody is more anti-racist then national review. . . .

    rcocean’s continual harping on David French, Kevin Williamson, and the rest of NRO is what we used to call a broken record. I guess nowadays we call it a corrupted MP3 file.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  10. SJW’s will doxx him – they live for this kind of thing and will do a little victory dance if his life is ruined or fired from his job. Frankly, I think kicking him out of the stadium would’ve been enough, along with an apology. But who knows? Some jerks can’t be reasoned with and a permanent ban may be the only way.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  11. SJW’s will doxx him – they live for this kind of thing and will do a little victory dance if his life is ruined or fired from his job. Frankly, I think kicking him out of the stadium would’ve been enough, along with an apology. But who knows? Some jerks can’t be reasoned with and a permanent ban may be the only way.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  12. Yeah, unlike the “Orange man bad” comments that come 24/7. In case, you didn’t notice, NR is mentioned in the post.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  13. Well, OK, maybe you were being sincere when you wrote “Nobody is more anti-racist than national review.” If you were, then I apologize. Based upon your continued digs at Goldberg, French, Williamson, et al., I took it as you accusing them of virtue signaling.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  14. That’s not invariably a bad thing.“

    Being subjected to a rage mob is invariably a bad thing unless it prevents a greater evil.

    If this all went down exactly as depicted they handled this great, but as some of us have learned first reports can be less than accurate.

    From giving out bad info on George Zimmerman’s family, the Covington kids and Castro’s supposed Trump-supporting Targets etc., a lot of people are slow learners.

    harkin (6ddbda)

  15. Red Sox owners did a similar thing a few years back. Or was it the celtics or Patriots? i do know it wasn’t the Bruins.

    mg (8cbc69)

  16. Pardon my rambling and I am not giving legal advice, just thinking about why the ballpark — which I am going to call a stadium just because I want to — did not name the guy they banned, and whether that is good or bad.

    That quickly changed to wondering how they would actually ban him. They can probably refuse to sell him a ticket online or on the phone if he pays with a credit card in his hame, but can they prevent his wife and friends from buying tickets? Are they going to post a photo of him at every entrance for every game in the future? Or is he on his honor to respect the ban and never go to a home game? (Sure.)

    I looked up the Stadium rules and they are pretty routine (“Globe Life Park Fan Code of Conduct”).

    But then it occurred to me: I don’t see anything that lets the stadium disclose this guy’s name. Being at a stadium may give them the right to eject people but does it also let them name/shame them? I don’t think so, and I don’t think the stadium code of conduct does either.

    But at the very bottom is the stadium Privacy Policy that conveniently links to the real power — the MLB Privacy Policy adopted by the stadium. That is where they put the legal stuff. There are many reasons set forth there that allow them to name someone, including legal reasons, but I don’t think naming someone to effectively shame them is included.

    In other words, they may not be able to name this guy as things stand now.

    DRJ (15874d)

  17. The Rangers essentially ‘kicked the can down the road’- or in this case, out of the ball park.

    Kudos to the stadium and team management but MLB should really be the organization to ban bums like this across the leagues. But unless the dude was drunk, it’s doubtful a lesson was learned given the brazenness and the locale. It won’t stop this nameless fella from doing this again whenthe situation rises at another venue- perhaps more intensely, be it at another stadium, in another town at another ball game, or at a Burger King… or loaded for bear at a Walmart.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  18. @16. Bingo. MLB are the folks to craft a league-wide policy on his sort of behavior.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  19. But then it occurred to me: I don’t see anything that lets the stadium disclose this guy’s name. Does being at a stadium give them the right to eject people and also name/shame them? I don’t think so, and I don’t think the stadium code of conduct does either.

    There is a lot of relevant fine print on the ticket too, I believe, making generous use of phrases like “for any reason or no reason” and “at our sole discretion”.

    Also, doesn’t the First Amendment “give them the right” to say anything they care to about anyone, as long as it isn’t false and defamatory?

    I too was wondering how they would enforce a lifetime ban in practice.

    Dave (1bb933)

  20. The MLB’s privacy policy specifically says it will not release names, addresses, credit card, etc., information except under certain circumstances outlined in the policy. So they can’t unless this falls under a specific exception, and this may not be one.

    DRJ (15874d)

  21. They can eject for many reasons but releasing names is limited.

    DRJ (15874d)

  22. I think the privacy policy you linked only applies to information collected online. Because that’s what it says:

    This Privacy Policy does not apply to the collection of information from you by MLB Clubs offline (e.g., when you provide information over the phone or on a paper form).

    The policy only applies to MLB Advanced Media (MLBAM), which is essentially all official Major League Baseball online content. The policy distinguishes MLBAM from “MLB Entities” which include lots of brick and mortar franchises that are part of Major League Baseball:

    “MLB Entities” means MLBAM, the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, the MLB Clubs, Major League Baseball Properties, Inc., The MLB Network, LLC, and Tickets.com, LLC.

    Dave (1bb933)

  23. Good point but we don’t know how they got their tickets and by linking it at the stadium website, it should apply there, too.

    DRJ (15874d)

  24. They could know his name by investigating based on the photo, or they could know it by linking the seat to a ticket sold for that seat paid for (1) online with a credit card or (2) thru a ticket service or (3) in person at the ticket office. They might not have his name if it was (2) or (3), without more investigation, so I’m guessing it was an online purchase and I think that would make this policy apply. But that is a lot if guesses, any of which could be wrong.

    DRJ (15874d)

  25. But maybe it is only for online discussion forums, in which case I don’t see anything that lets them disclose names and it would be in the contract governing the sale of the ticket (which I don’t have). If so, I really doubt the fine print says they can disclose customers’ identifying information however they chose. Ejection is not the same as naming.

    DRJ (15874d)

  26. I saw this on my Facebook feed several days ago, via someone sharing the original post by a member of the Hispanic family (the mother, I believe). I presume SJWers would already be at work on outing the man.

    Kishnevi (c2a547)

  27. Stray in the herd and the boss said, “Kill it,”
    Hit him in the rump with the handle of a skillet
    Come a ki yi yippee yippee yi yippee yay
    Come a ki yi yippee yippee yay

    This jerk went into the Rangers’ place of business and was bothering paying customers, so the Rangers chased him out and calmed the customers. They don’t need to do more than that.

    As for being “outed” by the picture he obscenely photo-bombed with the expressed purpose of “let me see how I can f— up their pic”, that’s just karma. I should have been clearer that I was talking about the picture, in response to JVW’s comment @1, and not the Rangers disclosing his identity.

    nk (dbc370)

  28. Yes, the photo seems like fair game. I would want to know if I were his boss, especially if he works with Hispanics or with the publuc.

    DRJ (15874d)

  29. How sad.

    DRJ (15874d)

  30. Also, doesn’t the First Amendment “give them the right” to say anything they care to about anyone, as long as it isn’t false and defamatory?

    The First Amendment only applies to government, not a private business.

    rip mudock (d2a2a8)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2555 secs.