Pacers refuse to cooperate with police

"Sports Fan" <sports.DeleteThis@fan.home> wrote in message
news:ab6qq0t4lipnmtuuukibhhf9r5afqfilq2@4ax.com...
> On 30 Nov 2004 10:28:51 EST, "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam.DeleteThis@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/sports/basketball/30nba.html
> >
> >DETROIT, Nov. 29 - The Indiana Pacers have told law enforcement officials
in
> >Michigan that Pacers players will not submit to interviews as part of the
> >investigation into the brawl that injured nine fans during a game at the
> >Palace of Auburn Hills on Nov. 19.
> >
> >The Auburn Hills Police Department, which is investigating the fight,
said
> >Monday that Pacers officials told the department that they would "assist
> >with the investigation as much as possible" but would not provide any
Pacers
> >players for Auburn Hills detectives to interview.
> >
> >"That's bewildering to us," said an Auburn Hills police spokesman, Lt.
James
> >Manning. "They say they will help. On the other hand, the one thing we've
> >asked them for, they can't do."
> >
> >A Pacers spokesman, David Benner, said Monday, "This is a legal matter,
and
> >we have no comment."
> >
>
> And no clue either.
> You have everything that happened on tape and seen by millions by now,
> why would you investigate further?
> Go after the person who threw the cup on Artest and the one who threw
> the chair, and whoever entered the court charging at players.

Spoken like a true modern sport fan: if there isn't a highlight reel of it,
it simply didn't happen. How do you account for the report that O'Neil
punched a police officer off camera? Because ESPN didn't show you tape, it
didn't happen?


>
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

In article <cokkov$bliq$2@netnews.upenn.edu>
"John LaVoy" <jlavoy RemoveThis @pobox.upenn.edu> wrote:

>
>"Sports Fan" <sports RemoveThis @fan.home> wrote in message
>news:ab6qq0t4lipnmtuuukibhhf9r5afqfilq2@4ax.com...
>> On 30 Nov 2004 10:28:51 EST, "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam RemoveThis @hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/sports/basketball/30nba.html
>> >
>> >DETROIT, Nov. 29 - The Indiana Pacers have told law enforcement officials
>in
>> >Michigan that Pacers players will not submit to interviews as part of the
>> >investigation into the brawl that injured nine fans during a game at the
>> >Palace of Auburn Hills on Nov. 19.
>> >
>> >The Auburn Hills Police Department, which is investigating the fight,
>said
>> >Monday that Pacers officials told the department that they would "assist
>> >with the investigation as much as possible" but would not provide any
>Pacers
>> >players for Auburn Hills detectives to interview.
>> >
>> >"That's bewildering to us," said an Auburn Hills police spokesman, Lt.
>James
>> >Manning. "They say they will help. On the other hand, the one thing we've
>> >asked them for, they can't do."
>> >
>> >A Pacers spokesman, David Benner, said Monday, "This is a legal matter,
>and
>> >we have no comment."
>> >
>>
>> And no clue either.
>> You have everything that happened on tape and seen by millions by now,
>> why would you investigate further?
>> Go after the person who threw the cup on Artest and the one who threw
>> the chair, and whoever entered the court charging at players.
>
>Spoken like a true modern sport fan: if there isn't a highlight reel of it,
>it simply didn't happen.

Spoken like a true modern inquisition supporter.
If I heard it, then it must be true.

>How do you account for the report that O'Neil
>punched a police officer off camera?


Until I see it, or see at least 2 CREDIBLE witnesses' sworn statement, I
will dismiss it as an media exaggeration, or unproven claim.


>Because ESPN didn't show you tape, it
>didn't happen?
>

No, read and get a clue before you jump on others for what they say.

I bet you also believe anything that you read in your local newspaper
today too, and you must be a Pistons fan.
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1935140




Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Players may face assault and battery charges

Associated Press
AUBURN HILLS, Mich. -- Indiana Pacers players will be charged for fighting
with fans during the Nov. 19 brawl at the end of a game against the Detroit
Pistons, Oakland County Prosecutor David Gorcyca told The Detroit News.


"Whoever was involved in fisticuffs will be charged, regardless if they were
wearing a jersey. It's obvious there were several Pacer players and fans
that dealt blows," Gorcyca said, the newspaper reported Tuesday.


The prosecutor declined to say which players would be charged or what the
charges might be.


Auburn Hills police Lt. James Manning told the newspaper that he expects
four members of the Pacers to face assault and battery charges.


Manning said at a news conference Monday that a lawyer for the Pacers told
detectives that none of the players would agree to be interviewed by police.
Prosecutors could get the police report by the beginning of next week,
Manning said.


The fight between spectators and players broke out near the end of the game
after an on-court dispute over a foul. A fan hurled a drink at Pacers
forward Ron Artest, who charged into the stands, followed by teammates.


Artest was suspended without pay for the rest of the season by the NBA;
Stephen Jackson was suspended for 30 games, Jermaine O'Neal for 25. The
players' union appealed those punishments.


Police determined that a fourth member of the Pacers, reserve center David
Harrison, was involved in the brawl, too, but the NBA didn't suspend him.





> "bk49" <jeffmayner DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:pLednWVZFPBANzHcRVn-2w@giganews.com...
> >
> > "PeterL" <peterl DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:313nosF2tcafrU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >>
> >> "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:coi3jj$2up@dispatch.concentric.net...
> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/sports/basketball/30nba.html
> >>>
> >>> DETROIT, Nov. 29 - The Indiana Pacers have told law enforcement
> >>> officials
> >> in
> >>> Michigan that Pacers players will not submit to interviews as part of
> >>> the
> >>> investigation into the brawl that injured nine fans during a game at
the
> >>> Palace of Auburn Hills on Nov. 19.
> >>>
> >>> The Auburn Hills Police Department, which is investigating the fight,
> >>> said
> >>> Monday that Pacers officials told the department that they would
"assist
> >>> with the investigation as much as possible" but would not provide any
> >> Pacers
> >>> players for Auburn Hills detectives to interview.
> >>>
> >>
> >> How would they not provide the players for interviews? Two detectives
> >> show
> >> up in the parking lot right next to the players' cars. As each player
> >> shows
> >> up they are invited downtown for an interview. They either cooperate
or
> >> are
> >> handcuffed and taken in the police car as material witnesses.
> >
> > Uh, maybe 'cause multi-millionaires aren't anything like "us"?
> >
> > Jeff
>
> jeff and peter, let me introduce you to a little document called the US
> constitution. specficially the fifth amendment thereof. check the
"witness
> against himself" part. ;-)
>
> "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
> crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
> cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual
> service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject
for
> the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
> compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
> deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
> shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation."
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

"Sports Fan" <sports DeleteThis @fan.home> wrote in message
news:misrq0tcuk5v2dkm7meb6109i7rfakmsl4@4ax.com...
> In article <cokkov$bliq$2@netnews.upenn.edu>
> "John LaVoy" <jlavoy DeleteThis @pobox.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sports Fan" <sports DeleteThis @fan.home> wrote in message
> >news:ab6qq0t4lipnmtuuukibhhf9r5afqfilq2@4ax.com...
> >> On 30 Nov 2004 10:28:51 EST, "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam DeleteThis @hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/sports/basketball/30nba.html
> >> >
> >> >DETROIT, Nov. 29 - The Indiana Pacers have told law enforcement
officials
> >in
> >> >Michigan that Pacers players will not submit to interviews as part of
the
> >> >investigation into the brawl that injured nine fans during a game at
the
> >> >Palace of Auburn Hills on Nov. 19.
> >> >
> >> >The Auburn Hills Police Department, which is investigating the fight,
> >said
> >> >Monday that Pacers officials told the department that they would
"assist
> >> >with the investigation as much as possible" but would not provide any
> >Pacers
> >> >players for Auburn Hills detectives to interview.
> >> >
> >> >"That's bewildering to us," said an Auburn Hills police spokesman, Lt.
> >James
> >> >Manning. "They say they will help. On the other hand, the one thing
we've
> >> >asked them for, they can't do."
> >> >
> >> >A Pacers spokesman, David Benner, said Monday, "This is a legal
matter,
> >and
> >> >we have no comment."
> >> >
> >>
> >> And no clue either.
> >> You have everything that happened on tape and seen by millions by now,
> >> why would you investigate further?
> >> Go after the person who threw the cup on Artest and the one who threw
> >> the chair, and whoever entered the court charging at players.
> >
> >Spoken like a true modern sport fan: if there isn't a highlight reel of
it,
> >it simply didn't happen.
>
> Spoken like a true modern inquisition supporter.
> If I heard it, then it must be true.

Look, sports fan YOU were the one who said no more investigation was needed
because everything was on tape. Investigation is quite capable of revealing
exculpatory evidence as well. You are the inquisitor here, not me.

> >How do you account for the report that O'Neil
> >punched a police officer off camera?
>
> Until I see it, or see at least 2 CREDIBLE witnesses' sworn statement, I
> will dismiss it as an media exaggeration, or unproven claim.

Well now, wouldn't it require some investigation to find out if there were
any eye witnesses to make sworn statements? And doesn't getting a statement
from them constitute further investigation?

> >Because ESPN didn't show you tape, it
> >didn't happen?
> >
>
> No, read and get a clue before you jump on others for what they say.

I read what you wrote and reacted to exactly that. Your first reaction was
to suggest that everything was one tape, seen by millions. Do you still
think no more investigation is needed? For example, is there any merit to
trying to find out what people said? Or if anything happened outside the
view of the camera? Or if any of the particiapnts had priors? Or do you
still think the highlight reel is enough?
>
> I bet you also believe anything that you read in your local newspaper
> today too, and you must be a Pistons fan.

If I believe everything I read in the newspaper, at least that's better than
you believing everything you need to know is filmed by ESPN.


>
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

"Johnny" <apterix.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote in message
news:racrd.190604$hj.48662@fed1read07...
> It is a fundamental precept of the American justice system
> that in the interests of curbing potential abuses of power
> by the government it is better to risk that a guilty man go
> free than that an innocent man be punished or unjustly
> deprived of his life, liberty, or property at any stage of
> the proceedings. This meritorious principle is given
> substance by the heavy burdens placed on the prosecution at
> every stage of a criminal proceeding. Among these burdens
> are the various procedural and substantive safeguards of the
> 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments.

Your worldview is hopelessly outdated.

--
Jeremey
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

"Jeremey Wilson" <noaddressgiven.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eAjrd.35337$Qv5.268@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Johnny" <apterix.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:racrd.190604$hj.48662@fed1read07...
> > It is a fundamental precept of the American justice system
> > that in the interests of curbing potential abuses of power
> > by the government it is better to risk that a guilty man go
> > free than that an innocent man be punished or unjustly
> > deprived of his life, liberty, or property at any stage of
> > the proceedings. This meritorious principle is given
> > substance by the heavy burdens placed on the prosecution at
> > every stage of a criminal proceeding. Among these burdens
> > are the various procedural and substantive safeguards of the
> > 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments.
>
> Your worldview is hopelessly outdated.

Not in the least. A more accurate statement is that you are incapable of
understanding the concepts involved: they are timeless. Believe me, if you
are ever involved in a criminal proceeding, whether you did it or not, you
will be absolutely delighted with this worldview and even more delighted if
you have a lawyer who believes in it more than you do. >
>
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 12:24:31 -0500, "John LaVoy" <jlavoy.RemoveThis@pobox.upenn.edu>
wrote:

>

>> >> >A Pacers spokesman, David Benner, said Monday, "This is a legal
>matter,
>> >and
>> >> >we have no comment."
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> And no clue either.
>> >> You have everything that happened on tape and seen by millions by now,
>> >> why would you investigate further?
>> >> Go after the person who threw the cup on Artest and the one who threw
>> >> the chair, and whoever entered the court charging at players.
>> >
>> >Spoken like a true modern sport fan: if there isn't a highlight reel of
>it,
>> >it simply didn't happen.
>>
>> Spoken like a true modern inquisition supporter.
>> If I heard it, then it must be true.
>
>Look, sports fan YOU were the one who said no more investigation was needed
>because everything was on tape. Investigation is quite capable of revealing
>exculpatory evidence as well. You are the inquisitor here, not me.
>

Dude, follow the thread a bit closer, and see who is trying to impose
inquisition rules here.

You weren't there and neither was I.

We both got what we know from the news, ESPN/FSN/NBATV, ....etc.

So please knock off the "I know better than you" broken record.

>> >How do you account for the report that O'Neil
>> >punched a police officer off camera?
>>
>> Until I see it, or see at least 2 CREDIBLE witnesses' sworn statement, I
>> will dismiss it as an media exaggeration, or unproven claim.
>
>Well now, wouldn't it require some investigation to find out if there were
>any eye witnesses to make sworn statements? And doesn't getting a statement
>from them constitute further investigation?

Isn't this what I have said?
Then you agree that there needs to be some grounds, at least from the
legal stand point to go after someone.

>> >Because ESPN didn't show you tape, it
>> >didn't happen?
>> >
>>
>> No, read and get a clue before you jump on others for what they say.
>
>I read what you wrote and reacted to exactly that. Your first reaction was
>to suggest that everything was one tape, seen by millions. Do you still
>think no more investigation is needed? For example, is there any merit to
>trying to find out what people said? Or if anything happened outside the
>view of the camera? Or if any of the particiapnts had priors? Or do you
>still think the highlight reel is enough?

You took everything literally, that is the problem in your "reaction"
post.


>> I bet you also believe anything that you read in your local newspaper
>> today too, and you must be a Pistons fan.
>
>If I believe everything I read in the newspaper, at least that's better than
>you believing everything you need to know is filmed by ESPN.
>

Like I said earlier, we both got what we know from the news,
ESPN/FSN/NBATV, ....etc.

So please knock off the "I know better than you" broken record.
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

John LaVoy wrote:

> "Jeremey Wilson" <noaddressgiven RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eAjrd.35337$Qv5.268@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>"Johnny" <apterix RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:racrd.190604$hj.48662@fed1read07...
>>
>>>It is a fundamental precept of the American justice system
>>>that in the interests of curbing potential abuses of power
>>>by the government it is better to risk that a guilty man go
>>>free than that an innocent man be punished or unjustly
>>>deprived of his life, liberty, or property at any stage of
>>>the proceedings. This meritorious principle is given
>>>substance by the heavy burdens placed on the prosecution at
>>>every stage of a criminal proceeding. Among these burdens
>>>are the various procedural and substantive safeguards of the
>>>4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments.
>>
>>Your worldview is hopelessly outdated.
>
>
> Not in the least. A more accurate statement is that you are incapable of
> understanding the concepts involved: they are timeless. Believe me, if you
> are ever involved in a criminal proceeding, whether you did it or not, you
> will be absolutely delighted with this worldview and even more delighted if
> you have a lawyer who believes in it more than you do. >
>
>

You got that right, Mr. LaVoy. I have known more than one
person who complained that the law coddles criminals, only
to change their tune when they found themselves on the wrong
end of it, including cops.
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:28:57 GMT, Jon W. <JWalker DeleteThis @yahoo34.com> wrote:

>On 30 Nov 2004 10:28:51 EST, "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam DeleteThis @hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/sports/basketball/30nba.html
>>
>>DETROIT, Nov. 29 - The Indiana Pacers have told law enforcement officials in
>>Michigan that Pacers players will not submit to interviews as part of the
>>investigation into the brawl that injured nine fans during a game at the
>>Palace of Auburn Hills on Nov. 19.
>>
>>The Auburn Hills Police Department, which is investigating the fight, said
>>Monday that Pacers officials told the department that they would "assist
>>with the investigation as much as possible" but would not provide any Pacers
>>players for Auburn Hills detectives to interview.
>>
>>"That's bewildering to us," said an Auburn Hills police spokesman, Lt. James
>>Manning. "They say they will help. On the other hand, the one thing we've
>>asked them for, they can't do."
>>
>>A Pacers spokesman, David Benner, said Monday, "This is a legal matter, and
>>we have no comment."
>>
>>
>They are thugs and criminals. These type of SCUM usually DON'T
>cooperate with police. No surprise here, just shows they know they are
>guilty.


So players that responded (arguably in the wrong way) to fans assaulting
them, with most of those fans having criminal records, are the ones who
are "thugs and criminals"?
You have some weird way of looking at things.
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

Jon W. wrote:

> On 30 Nov 2004 10:28:51 EST, "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam.DeleteThis@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/sports/basketball/30nba.html
>>
>>DETROIT, Nov. 29 - The Indiana Pacers have told law enforcement officials in
>>Michigan that Pacers players will not submit to interviews as part of the
>>investigation into the brawl that injured nine fans during a game at the
>>Palace of Auburn Hills on Nov. 19.
>>
>>The Auburn Hills Police Department, which is investigating the fight, said
>>Monday that Pacers officials told the department that they would "assist
>>with the investigation as much as possible" but would not provide any Pacers
>>players for Auburn Hills detectives to interview.
>>
>>"That's bewildering to us," said an Auburn Hills police spokesman, Lt. James
>>Manning. "They say they will help. On the other hand, the one thing we've
>>asked them for, they can't do."
>>
>>A Pacers spokesman, David Benner, said Monday, "This is a legal matter, and
>>we have no comment."
>>
>>
>
> They are thugs and criminals. These type of SCUM usually DON'T
> cooperate with police. No surprise here, just shows they know they are
> guilty.
>
> J.W.
>

Whatever else anyone may or may not be, anyone who is under
the slightest suspicion that he may have committed a crime
and cooperates with the police except on the advice of his
attorney to do so is a fool. Rule No. 1 in that spot is
never rat yourself out. Rule No. 2 is never lie to the
authorities. Thus, if you can't say anything without
ratting yourself out or lying, just stfu.

It is well-settled law that guilt cannot be inferred from
silence, and there is a jury instruction to that effect
available to the defense in every criminal jury trial.

Your statements reveal even more about your prejudices than
they do about your ignorance of the law.
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

snip
>The direct answer to your question is that it would be
>better for the accused and for the principle of justice
>protecting the innocent stated above if they said nothing
>whether they were let go or not, better for the cops if they
>could be forced to spill their guts and rat out all their
>friends.
>
>> I'm a firm believer in the rights of defendants and witnesses. Still,
>> I don't recall the specific amendment that gives everyone a
>> constitutional right to "get away with it".
>>
>> Swyck
>
>Give me a break, you know better than that; but in case you
>don't, I'll try to clear up your implication by adding to
>what I said above: Constitutional rights are not intended
>to allow criminals to "get away with it." Their purpose is
>to protect the fundamental rights, freedoms, immunities, and
>privileges (what we call Liberty with a capital L) of a free
>people from encroachment by government. They do not give
>criminals a Constitutional right to get away with anything;
>they deny the government the right to get away with
>practices a free people consider unfair, unjust, and just
>plain tyrannical. It is not Constitutional rights which
>allow the factually guilty in a particular case to go free,
>it is the abuse of those rights by the government.
>
>Anyway, the tenor, tone, and implication of your closing
>sentence resembles the sarcasm of one who is not only less
>than well-read in Constitutional Law, but is also
>dissatisfied with the present balance of burdens between the
>government and the accused as established by Constitutional
>Law. That is a political question, my only interest in this
>thread is an accused's right to assert his Constitutional
>rights as part of his defense, not to argue the political
>wisdom of the prevailing application those rights or and
>accused's right to assert them. One who is a knowledgeable
>firm believer in the rights of defendants and witnesses as
>presently established would not stoop to such a specious and
>somewhat sneering implication.
>

I do see a difference between defending a clients rights, and what
some lawyers actually do, which is to use every trick in the book to
make sure their clients does "get away with it". Do you deny that
these things happen? Why should I base my point on view on a
lawyers point of view?

The tenor of your statements makes it obvious that you see yourself as
a champion of the opressed and a defender of our fundamental rights
and freedoms. Well, maybe you are and if so, then good for you and go
get em. I'll be running to a lawyer as soon as I'm in trouble and I
need one, but I also don't doubt that you'll call the cops as soon as
you need one.


Swyck
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

Swyck.DeleteThis@nospam.com wrote:

> snip
>
>>The direct answer to your question is that it would be
>>better for the accused and for the principle of justice
>>protecting the innocent stated above if they said nothing
>>whether they were let go or not, better for the cops if they
>>could be forced to spill their guts and rat out all their
>>friends.
>>
>>
>>>I'm a firm believer in the rights of defendants and witnesses. Still,
>>>I don't recall the specific amendment that gives everyone a
>>>constitutional right to "get away with it".
>>>
>>>Swyck
>>
>>Give me a break, you know better than that; but in case you
>>don't, I'll try to clear up your implication by adding to
>>what I said above: Constitutional rights are not intended
>>to allow criminals to "get away with it." Their purpose is
>>to protect the fundamental rights, freedoms, immunities, and
>>privileges (what we call Liberty with a capital L) of a free
>>people from encroachment by government. They do not give
>>criminals a Constitutional right to get away with anything;
>>they deny the government the right to get away with
>>practices a free people consider unfair, unjust, and just
>>plain tyrannical. It is not Constitutional rights which
>>allow the factually guilty in a particular case to go free,
>>it is the abuse of those rights by the government.
>>
>>Anyway, the tenor, tone, and implication of your closing
>>sentence resembles the sarcasm of one who is not only less
>>than well-read in Constitutional Law, but is also
>>dissatisfied with the present balance of burdens between the
>>government and the accused as established by Constitutional
>>Law. That is a political question, my only interest in this
>>thread is an accused's right to assert his Constitutional
>>rights as part of his defense, not to argue the political
>>wisdom of the prevailing application those rights or and
>>accused's right to assert them. One who is a knowledgeable
>>firm believer in the rights of defendants and witnesses as
>>presently established would not stoop to such a specious and
>>somewhat sneering implication.
>>
>
>
> I do see a difference between defending a clients rights, and what
> some lawyers actually do, which is to use every trick in the book to
> make sure their clients does "get away with it". Do you deny that
> these things happen? Why should I base my point on view on a
> lawyers point of view?
>
> The tenor of your statements makes it obvious that you see yourself as
> a champion of the opressed and a defender of our fundamental rights
> and freedoms. Well, maybe you are and if so, then good for you and go
> get em. I'll be running to a lawyer as soon as I'm in trouble and I
> need one, but I also don't doubt that you'll call the cops as soon as
> you need one.
>
>
> Swyck
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police