Friday, May 12, 2006

Star Arrested On Charge of Harassment

Troi Torain "Star" was arrested today on charges of harassment and endangering the welfare of a child.

Cinco cero brought him into Police Headquarters, where he was told he had to give up his 9mm handgun and target practice permit. Then they slapped him with the cuffs and brought him in.

I also read that DJ Envy was given time off by Hot 97 for carrying gun in response to this whole debacle. Given Hot 97's history with shootings, they figured they'd let things cool off a little before they have Envy back on the air.

Star was fired from Power 105.1 for saying some really crazy things about DJ Envy's wife and daughter.

According to 1010 WINS, "Police officials had launched a hate crime investigation of DJ Star on Thursday after reviewing a transcript of his recent remarks about DJ Envy and his family."


Brother Lightness said...

With Hot 97's pending eviction and the money Clear Channel stands to lose after firing Star, New York urban radio is in deep doodoo.

Anyone wanna give the Brothers a shot at radio?

Brother Spotless said...

Why do you think Clear Channel will lose money for firing Star? Do you think they'll lose viewers (they didn't seem to mind Howard Stern leaving)? Do you think he'll sue?

Brother Lightness said...

The money Clear Channel earns in advertising dollars is all tied to the size of its regular listening audience. With no one listening in the morning right now (as Power 105.1's interim solution is all music and commercials, void of commentary), thousands (if not millions) of listeners have turned their dials for an alternative. What advertiser wants to pay for advertising on a station people have no reason to listen to?

Brother Lightness said...

On your other point: though I don't think Star will sue, I think he'd have a fair case, considering the fact that Clear Channel gave him free reign with so many other outrageous remarks throughout his brief tenure.

Brother Spotless said...

That's like saying Barry Bonds shouldn't be suspended for steroid use now because he passed all of the drug tests before (assuming he has in fact taken steroids). Fact is (at least in my opinion, so not really a fact), he's always gone way too far. He put himself out there again, and this time got called on it. He made it a situation where Clear Channel had the discression to choose when to call him on his ish.

Brother Lightness said...

Spotless, your comparative rationale is flawed.

Bonds never broke any rule in baseball with regard to steroids. He passed every test ever given to him and did what he could within the boundaries that were set. Whether or not those boundaries were legitimate is a completely different issue.

Star did exactly the same. He did exactly what he could within the boundaries that Clear Channel set. Unfortunately for Star, Clear Channel got its bluff called when the law stepped in and the rest is history.

qwerty said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brother Spotless said...

Lightness, you forget that steroid use outside of a hospital setting is in against the law. If Bonds did in fact use steroids, then baseball hid the fact. It may be dirty that they bring it to light now without mentioning their evil-doing, but, just like with Star, he put himself in a position where it was up to someone else to decide when and where to draw the line.

There are diferences, such as the fact that what Bonds (apparently) did was against the law of the land, while what Star has done in the past was simply against the laws of decency.

However, Star's latest antics do seem to cross the line from a decency conversation to an actual criminal converstation. You can't talk about a child the way he did, not here in America where the fear of a pedophile rivals the fear of Osama.

While it's true that Clear Channel could have fired Star based on previous statements, allowing him to continue gave them the right fire him at any point (ask Bobby Knight and the University of Indiana about that cause/effect rationale).

Brother Afrocan said...

Really good analogy with the Bonds case. Spotless while it may be illegal to use steroids without a prescription but it was not illegal to use steroids in baseball- they never added the language to their statutes. Likewise, Star may have violated the laws of decency, but within Clear Channel he was just doing what he always does. In both cases, the immediate governing bodies (MLB and Clear Channel) should defend the people (bonds and star) that were working within the micro-limits of their respective organizations against the greater body- the US government. Star could technically argue that what he did was somewhat within the limits of his organization and sue for wrongful termination. Ofcourse with the vagarities of the jury system he has no chance of winning- his lawyers would be hardpressed to find more than 3 people that sympathize with him.

In cases where the internal limits in an organization exceed the external laws. The organization usually decides to make an example by fingering a fall guy to keep the government dogs at bay. I do think this practice is unfair. That said, my sympathy for a guy that earns on the high side of 6 figures (or 8 in Bonds case) is VERY limited- not when people still die of hunger. This is similar to the front loading mutual fund scandal. All the big banks were doing it and making money off it, but when the SEC came down on them, the banks fired a couple of people they termed as 'rogue brokers'.

Brother Spotless said...

Something seems..."off" here in describing the Bonds case.

The law of the land states that steroids are illegal, but the baseball "House Rules" suggested that steroids are not that bad, even though there were rules on the books banning steroids BEFORE further legislation came down from Mr. Selig (i.e. harsher penalties). Baeball administrators chose not to enforce those rules because (my opinion) they needed juiced up players to hit home runs in order to raise the standing of the game; remember, baseball was falling from its cultural pedistal after the strike of 1994.

My point is that there were always rules within baseball banning steroids, and Baseball administrators chose when to enforce them. There were always rules within Clear Channel to protect decency, and they chose when to enforce those as well. Both Corporations (or whatever one calls rediculously large and wealthy businesses) used there own discression and profited from those who broke the law, and decided when it was the right time to cash out. Dirty? Hell yea. Business as usual? Hell yea. Should both Baseball and Clear Channel be held accountable? Hell yea. Did both steroids users and Star push the boundaries of law to the point where prosecution may be necessary? Hell yea.