Nick Young - What A Tosser

[Doormatt]

To Nick's defense, there are a ton of guys who cheat. Especially in the world those two live in. Prob more cheating than not. I remember a certain Magic Johnson cheating and contracting a deadly disease while his wife was pregnant with his child. And I remember him writing a book about it. Talking about sleeping with 7 women at once, and all that.

It's the life of these guys. Not for me....but it must be nice sometimes. I'm not sure my back could take 7 women at once these days. Sounds like an awful lot of work.

That said....according to a couple articles, the tape appears to be recorded here in LA, making the whole thing incredibly illegal. Nick and D'angelo are both employees of the Lakers, meaning that Nick could prob sue the everloving sh*** out of them if he wanted. Look what Hulk-Hogan got. Nick would have no problem proving damages. He could also prob file charges against D'angelo.

The Lakers would be wise not to mess with Nick too much and screw him over. He's actually dealt with this pretty well as far as the Lakers are concerned. He could make this pretty messy...and pretty expensive.

As someone going into law school with experience in defamation suits, he really has no ground to sue anybody. Defamation law suits come from false claims that harm reputation, nothing about what Dlo did or the lakers have done is a false claim on Nick Young. Being a celebrity its even harder because he'd have to prove that not only did Dlo record him with the intention to hurt his reputation, but then he also released the video with intent to hurt him. Interesting supreme court case that is somewhat related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

So yeah, as far as i can tell claiming damages against either Dlo or the lakers is irrelevant. He could probably sue Dlo for being filmed without consent (has nothing to do with the lakers since its a hotel room), but IIRC in the video Dlo says "I'm glad you told my video all of that", so i think there is some level of awareness/consent going on. I'm pretty sure the reason Nick hasn't made a bigger mess of this is because 1) He doesn't have much incentive or legal ground to take action and 2) He doesn't want to harm his reputation any more than it already has. Suing your teammates doesn't really look that good, I think the only reason Nick has handled this well is because he literally has no other choice.

*im not a lawyer yet so don't quote me on any of this.

[Doormatt]

What are his damages? Unless he lost endorsements over this I don't see any. Iggy claimed she broke up with him after catching him with other women on their home security cameras. Also, if his ex is in fact pregnant with his child, he would be hard pressed to show the relationship with Iggy would have survived this.

Your confusing logic and wrong/right with our legal system. He was illegally recorded. Unless they could prove that where they were and the fact that they were together had absolutely nothing to do in any way with the Lakers (very hard seeing as it was mid-season) he would absolutely have a case. Hogan just got north of $100 mil. What were his damages?? Nick would have no problem sucking the Lakers into this mess, especially since they have the $$ and not D'angelo. He'd also have no problem going after D'angelo.

Point is.....to his defense, he's just tried to move on...instead of being crappy about it.

You might not like the legal system, but that doesn't mean there is no logic behind it. Hogan's claim of damages were that he got fired due to his use of "racial epithets" in the video (which he did). Hogan's case is also not technically a defamation/libel lawsuit, it is one of consent as far as i can tell.

Also i don't see how he could drag the lakers into this, other than both being employed by the lakers it has nothing to do with them. The video wasn't capture by laker's cameras, it was Dlo's. If it had happened at a practice facility i could see how it could get sketchy, but it was a hotel room.

[DNP-Old]

What are his damages? Unless he lost endorsements over this I don't see any. Iggy claimed she broke up with him after catching him with other women on their home security cameras. Also, if his ex is in fact pregnant with his child, he would be hard pressed to show the relationship with Iggy would have survived this.

Your confusing logic and wrong/right with our legal system. He was illegally recorded. Unless they could prove that where they were and the fact that they were together had absolutely nothing to do in any way with the Lakers (very hard seeing as it was mid-season) he would absolutely have a case. Hogan just got north of $100 mil. What were his damages?? Nick would have no problem sucking the Lakers into this mess, especially since they have the $$ and not D'angelo. He'd also have no problem going after D'angelo.

Point is.....to his defense, he's just tried to move on...instead of being crappy about it.

You're confusing criminal and civil litigation. If the recording was illegal, Young can press for criminal charges but there would be no damages awarded in such an action. In a civil suit he would have to prove damages in order to get an award, in fact he would have to show he was damaged just to get the suit into court.

[danfantastk32]

Apparently Nick has consulted a lawyer but has not taken any action. Here is what I found:

""California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place.""

Seems like Russell does nothing but incriminate himself at the end by letting Young know he's being recorded. I'm pretty sure popping out your recorder at the last second, and saying "oh yeah...your being recorded" doesn't quite cut it.

What Nick's recourse towards the Lakers would be, I'm not sure...but point is...to Nicks defense, he has tried to just move on from this, instead of dragging everyone into a giant court case. Something he could easily do.

[danfantastk32]

You're confusing criminal and civil litigation. If the recording was illegal, Young can press for criminal charges but there would be no damages awarded in such an action. In a civil suit he would have to prove damages in order to get an award, in fact he would have to show he was damaged just to get the suit into court.

His name is damaged. Iggy just left him...and it was partly because of the video that was illegally filmed without his consent. I mean, your not arguing he has no claim to damages are you? The damages are all around. He wins the criminal case...and therefore has no problem getting a civil case. The civil case is the easy part.


OMG....it was just a passing comment. Nick coulda made this ugly, but has tried (so far) to just move on. I really don't like Young that much...so it's cool. I don't really care.

[danfantastk32]

Here...this is the last part of what I pasted earlier. This should clear up the law-suit issue:

"If you are operating in California, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you might be "private" or "confidential." In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the California wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party. See Cal. Penal Code § 637.2. "

Hulk Hogan got $100+ mil for a sex-tape claiming it damaged his reputation (how, I will never know), so I think that Nick would not have a problem doing the same.

All he would have to do to drag the Lakers into this is prove this was a team hotel so it was "during work" and since Russell is an employee it is their responsibility....yada yada. Again....not saying any of this is right/logical...but we see these kinda suits all the time these days in America.

[MAMBAEMD]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/barstoolsports/status/751403236435763202[/tweet]

This video is very disturbing to me in so many ways . If that's truly Gilbert Arenas recoding this, he's a bigger idiot than I ever thought, and I thought he was an absolute moron before .

[DNP-Old]

You're confusing criminal and civil litigation. If the recording was illegal, Young can press for criminal charges but there would be no damages awarded in such an action. In a civil suit he would have to prove damages in order to get an award, in fact he would have to show he was damaged just to get the suit into court.

His name is damaged. Iggy just left him...and it was partly because of the video that was illegally filmed without his consent. I mean, your not arguing he has no claim to damages are you? The damages are all around. He wins the criminal case...and therefore has no problem getting a civil case. The civil case is the easy part.


OMG....it was just a passing comment. Nick coulda made this ugly, but has tried (so far) to just move on. I really don't like Young that much...so it's cool. I don't really care.

Yes, I am arguing he has no damages. Unless he lost an endorsement deal that I am unaware of, the incident caused him no financial loss, aka damages. Nothing that happened to him because of the recording caused him a financial loss. Also, nothing happened to him that would not have happened to him anyway, given he has impregnated his ex (while engaged it Iggy) and was caught bringing other women into the home he shared with Iggy on their security cameras.

[danfantastk32]

Yes, I am arguing he has no damages. Unless he lost an endorsement deal that I am unaware of, the incident caused him no financial loss, aka damages. Nothing that happened to him because of the recording caused him a financial loss. Also, nothing happened to him that would not have happened to him anyway, given he has impregnated his ex (while engaged it Iggy) and was caught bringing other women into the home he shared with Iggy on their security cameras.

ok

[thenbaman]

I'm not hating on Russell here but in no way is nick young responsible for Russell's embarrassment.

Right cause if Nick just shuts the **** up all of that still happens.....

Russell asked the question while video taping him how is it Nicks fault for answering a question. You can fault Nick for being a cheater but you can't fault him for somebody else recording his confession without his knowledge. Technically depending what state D'Angelo did this in recording somebody without there knowledge is illegal.

A rat is a rat don't blame nick.

[Doormatt]

Apparently Nick has consulted a lawyer but has not taken any action. Here is what I found:

""California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place.""

Seems like Russell does nothing but incriminate himself at the end by letting Young know he's being recorded. I'm pretty sure popping out your recorder at the last second, and saying "oh yeah...your being recorded" doesn't quite cut it.

What Nick's recourse towards the Lakers would be, I'm not sure...but point is...to Nicks defense, he has tried to just move on from this, instead of dragging everyone into a giant court case. Something he could easily do.

He could still easily do it though, he's dumb, but not dumb enough to do it while he's still teammates with the guy. Im sure he likes it in LA and if he did something like that he would all but seal his fate. I'm not really ready to give Nick credit for not dragging everyone into a court case just yet.

You would also be surprised as to what is considered consent.

[danfantastk32]

He could still easily do it though, he's dumb, but not dumb enough to do it while he's still teammates with the guy. Im sure he likes it in LA and if he did something like that he would all but seal his fate. I'm not really ready to give Nick credit for not dragging everyone into a court case just yet.

You would also be surprised as to what is considered consent.

I won't argue any of that. But the little rascal has been good so far. Hey....I'm diggin' deep here. I mean, trust me...I'd like Young shipped like nobody's business.

[dipstick]

http://m.ocregister.com/articles/young-725826-lakers-russell.html

Looks like there is a chance he still makes the team. If he's not destroying chemistry, he can be an asset especially if he plays like how he did during D'antoni's rule.

I guess the coaching staff and the FO will see that during training camp and preseason and decide at that point.

Obviously, we all want him gone but if he can get his trade value up, then why not?

[cambomvmt]

http://m.ocregister.com/articles/young-725826-lakers-russell.html

Looks like there is a chance he still makes the team. If he's not destroying chemistry, he can be an asset especially if he plays like how he did during D'antoni's rule.

I guess the coaching staff and the FO will see that during training camp and preseason and decide at that point.

Obviously, we all want him gone but if he can get his trade value up, then why not?

sunk cost at this point....just give him a chance to play, if he a disruption can always buy him out, at this point don't see anybody giving anything for him based on last year and half performance.

[Kilroy]

Nick young should not be allowed to start camp with the Lakers this season. Trade him, if not stretch him... Whatever, but change the locks and don't give him a key to the locker room.
He's a horrible example for a bunch of recent teenagers to be around. He needs to shipped East and reevaluate his priorities.

[ALL HAIL]

I think Nick Young should've never been signed, but, nevertheless, why is noone seeing how his shooting (for 15-20 minutes a game), under a good coach and system, could be of tremendous benefit to the youngsters and the overall offense?

[ak7]

I think Nick Young should've never been signed, but, nevertheless, why is noone seeing how his shooting (for 15-20 minutes a game), under a good coach and system, could be of tremendous benefit to the youngsters and the overall offense?

Because the role he feels can be filled by many other players who don't come with the off-court baggage and lack of leadership he comes with?

[BEazy]

We have Lou Williams if we want a streaky shooter. No need for another streaky shooter. Get rid of Young's sorry ass...

[RexRyan]

If they don't trade him, the lawsuits, frivolous or not, fly. Defamation of character, loss of future wages, etc. Stretching won't help. Kupchak should cash in a favor.

[Slava]

If they don't trade him, the lawsuits, frivolous or not, fly. Defamation of character, loss of future wages, etc. Stretching won't help. Kupchak should cash in a favor.

If it goes to court, probably Gilbert Arenas will testify for Nick Young as a character witness and live tweet his testimony while he's at it.