Krazy, I agree with you, and everyone is free to do as they wish, but nobody can tell me that Deshaun didn't know already that something like that could happen. To me, it's like teasing the bull. Could our guys handled it a little bit differently?...maybe...but we don't know what was said or how they said it to him. Gotta give him credit for having the kehonas to go into a Bama bar after beating us for the Natty. That's kinda like rubbing it in the face. Whether it was intentional or unintentional. We don't know what patrons were in that bar that recognized Watson and in their alcoholic state were offended that he came in there, especially after a lot of fans still sore about those pick plays. Maybe Ryan went up to him and just said " Hey man, there's some people in here that might start some crap, it might be a good idea if you leave". So, with that said, we don't know exactly what happened in there, and therefore I can't/won't judge another for their actions without knowing their intent.That's not really true, at least in relation to what I said. Now, in B1G's defense, I'm not sure he intended to come off quite like he did, as I was arguing with what he said which might not be how he might actually feel. But what he said was along the lines of there's no issue with Watson going there because it's a free country, yet right after the he expressed the sentiment that there's something wrong with people who took exception to that. Both of those things though fall under freedom of expression!
Now, the truth is this entire topic is non-sports as it never had anything to do with actions on a football field. Having said that it is the offseason. To make things a bit more clear, freedoms are allowable to the point of infringement. In this case, Watson had a right to go into a bar even though he obviously knew this might cause an adverse reaction. On the other hand, every single patron in that bar has ever right to be incensed by his being there and to express their displeasure! The only point in which that might veer into infringement upon his rights or the rights of the proprietors would be at the point he was asked to leave. Even then, the manner in which it was done would dictate if it was an infringement. For instance if someone said "I'd really prefer you not be in here" how on earth is that anything other than their exercising their right to freedom of expression? It is only when and if they (assuming they are not the proprietor) took it upon themselves to deny him access or threaten him with harm that it becomes anything beyond that.
That's how freedom works, or at least how it should work. Freedom can't be applied in a one way manner, and it can't end at the point it effects others but rather at the point it infringes on others. Merely causing a negative reaction is not reason enough to deny me my rights. I take exception to fact that people often use their right to freedom of speech or what have you, to do things then claim their rights are violated when people respond to their actions. The right to do something is not the right to live free of consequences.