So who should keep the 73 ball? (1 Viewer)

[Patrick_S]

If that case is true, then the guy who dropped #72 can sue to get that one back since he did catch it, but dropped out of his hands. Can he sue Marquis Grissom for taking the ball and not giving it back?

So you really want to compare some one dropping a ball to being mugged? I don’t think you’ll find many that will agree with you on that one.
------------------

 

[Brad_W]

Who cares. It's just a ball, there's millions of them.
/Mike

Thank god someone else thinks like I do. It is just a ball.
Also, my explanation of Football:
a bunch a guys stand on opposite ends of a field. a ball is placed in the middle. the guys rush to get the ball and beat each other up trying to get the ball. in the end: no one gets to keep the ball. what was all the fuss about in the first place then?
The only thing more idiotic than this is pan and scan.
------------------
"I was born to murder the world." -Nix (Lord of Illusions)
My Home Page http://www.geocities.com/masternix/DVD.html
My List O' DVDs:
Link Removed
[Edited last by Brad_W on October 11, 2001 at 10:10 PM]

 

[Shayne Judge]

I think the guy that caught the ball would have an interesting argument in court. I have not taken a close look at the tape, but if the complainant had clear possession of the item, and he can prove that the ball was taken by force...... Keep in mind that in a civil case, the preponderence of evidence(51%, not beyond a reasonable doubt) is needed to win the case.
I dont thinks its "just a ball." We are talking about an item that is potentially worth millions. Those that do not care about home theater oftentimes think widescreen is idiotic.
CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 211-215
211. Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the
possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and
against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.

 

[MikeM]

quote: in the end: no one gets to keep the ball. what was all the fuss about in the first place then?[/quote]
Sure they do. They keep 'em all the time. Break a touchdown record? Keep the ball. Rush for 300 yards? Keep the ball. Kick a 64 yard field goal? Keep the ball. After each game a "Game Ball" is also given to the player(s) who played their ass off to win the game.
As Tom Green might say...RESPECT THE BALL.

------------------

[Edited last by MikeM on October 12, 2001 at 02:17 AM]

 

[Mitty]

Ok, although Major League Baseball and all other major sports allow fans to keep "souvenirs" that leave the playing field, is this "transfer of owndership" expressly written somewhere? In other words, what I'm asking is, does the ball legally belong to Major League Baseball?
If so, rather than allowing this crap to continue, a judge should have the ball turned over to the league. That way, it could reside in the hall of fame (where it belongs anyway). After all, can it be stolen if it isn't rightfully owned in the first place?
Just a thought.
------------------
Do you like SCARY MOVIES?
Scary Movie Challenge: 13, 12, 11 10 to go!

 

[Anthony Hom]

Uh EXCUSE ME, Patrick,
The argument is possession of the ball, not mugging. He is claiming he is the sole person who caught the ball, let's take the mugging factor out of this.
Let's say he is entitled to the ball NOT because of the mugging, but he caught it. Does that give the catcher of #72 the right to sue Maquis Grissom, too because he had it legally in his possession by your definition and others.
I'm all for letting the #73 guy sue MLB to get the ball back, but doesn't that entitle #72 to also sue Marquis Grissom by the same reasoning (remember, we are not including the mugging in this situation, just possession of the ball).

 

[Patrick_S]

quote: Ok, although Major League Baseball and all other major sports allow fans to keep "souvenirs" that leave the playing field, is this "transfer of owndership" expressly written somewhere? [/quote]
I'm not certain about Pac Bell but I do know that they generally announce before the game that fans are entitled to keep any bat or ball that leaves the field of play and enters the stands. Of course this is attached to a warning that fans should pay attention to the game because these items can be dangerous.
Anthony what is this illogical obsession with 72? It has nothing to do with 73.
Just to try to satisfy this obsession with 72, since major league baseball states that fans can keep any ball that leaves the field of play, when 72 reentered the field of play it probably was once again the property of MLB.
Also, your statements about suing Grissom are the kind of ridiculous statements that only a two-bit ambulance-chasing lawyer could think up. At this point Grissom doesn't currently have number 72, and he didn't physically take it away from the individual so there is no real point in suing him other then to extort money from a “deep pocket”. With that said, now that you though it up we can probably expect a lawsuit any day now.
In respect to 73, the video I have viewed clearly shows that one individual did catch and have control of the ball and then got mugged by the mob. This is the heart of the case, if he can prove that he had control of the ball then he should be allowed to keep it. Although I could be wrong in a legal sense but I doubt the definition of control means having to control the ball while people are shoving you to the ground and pawing at your glove.
By the way, just so you know the individual would not be suing MLB but the person who currently has the ball. MLB has nothing to do with it at this point other then to authentic that the ball in question is in fact number 73.
[Edited last by Patrick_S on October 12, 2001 at 01:32 PM]

 

[Shayne Judge]

Hear the latest?
http://www.espn.go.com/mlb/s/2001/1024/1268465.html
I think the most interesting part of the story, other than that the ball has legally been placed in limbo is..
"Popov entered into evidence affidavits from Keppel, two witnesses who claim that Hayashi allegedly bit a young boy during the melee in the stands and University of Tulsa law professor Paul Finkelman, who wrote a paper on the legality of ownership of foul balls. Finkelman recently told ESPN.com he believes the ball belongs to the person who initially caught it."

 

[MickeS]

So, let me get this straight... these are grown men fighting over who should have the ball? Idiots... have they never heard of "sharing"?
Seriously, these people are morons.
/Mike

 

[Brad_W]

Seriously, these people are morons

Again Mike, we're on the same wavelength.
------------------
"I was born to murder the world." -Nix (Lord of Illusions)
My Home Page http://www.geocities.com/masternix/DVD.html
My List O' DVDs:
Link Removed

 

[Joel Mack]

You should look at it as two men fighting over $1 million plus, rather than a baseball...
------------------
"The internet is a place where people from all over come together to
bitch about movies and share pornography."

 

[Kevin Potts]

Greed is such a wonderful virtue isn't it.

I don't think a situation could be anymore cut and dry. The first guy caught the ball, was in control of it (hence possession), and it was taken away from him by force. If that isn't a clear case of robbery, then I fear for all of us who live under our judicial system. The idea that someone could possibly justify this, makes me sick to my stomach.
------------------

"See the world on the wings of rock and roll"

 

[Anthony Hom]

Boy Patrick you are such a gullible person. I just took the devil's advocate to see if you would continue to answer this post. I'm actually 100% behind your opinion on this matter, but I wanted to see how far you would take this thread. Boy are you easily manipulated. Thanks for the fun.