Javaris Crittenton: Murderer

[Pauly]

ATLANTA (AP) -- Javaris Crittenton, the former NBA player once suspended by the league for bringing a gun into the Washington Wizards' locker room, has been charged with murder in the shooting of a woman on an Atlanta street.

Police spokesman Carlos Campos said Friday night that police have secured a murder warrant for the arrest of Crittenton in connection with the shooting death of 22-year-old Jullian Jones on Aug. 19. Campos said Crittenton, a former Georgia Tech player, isn't in custody and is wanted.

Atlanta police Maj. Keith Meadows told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Friday night that Crittenton is believed to be in the Los Angeles area. He said the FBI is involved in the investigation.

another fine upstanding NBA citizen.

[Hornsby]

another fine upstanding NBA citizen.

Maybe Gilbert Arenas was simply ahead of his time?

[B-Fly]

another fine upstanding NBA citizen.

I think even as a percentage of total players, the NBAers are way behind the NFLers in violent crime, no?

[BuckyBuckner]

I thought people were innocent until proven guilty in this country.

[Lucky]

I thought people were innocent until proven guilty in this country.

Not exactly. People are innocent until proven guilty in the criminal justice system, which is a very small piece of the country...one which has its own rules and internal logic regarding what information can be considered and how one must reach a conclusion.

More and more often, people who misbehave badly tend to hide behind the conventions of the criminal justice system. And we, as a country, have bought into it. We tend to think that we cannot make up our minds whether a person has committed a bad act until the criminal justice system has run its course, even though critical information may be withheld from a jury for legal reasons, and even though a jury must be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt".


What I'm trying to say is that the criminal justice system has a specific set of rules for operating. Those rules are not necessarily designed to ferret out the truth of a given matter. They certainly should not replace our own abilities to make judgments about what did or didn't happen in a given situation, based upon our common sense, the information available to us, and the circumstances present. Believe me, there is a world of difference between "not guilty" and innocent.

[umjewman]

Not exactly. People are innocent until proven guilty in the criminal justice system, which is a very small piece of the country...one which has its own rules and internal logic regarding what information can be considered and how one must reach a conclusion.

More and more often, people who misbehave badly tend to hide behind the conventions of the criminal justice system. And we, as a country, have bought into it. We tend to think that we cannot make up our minds whether a person has committed a bad act until the criminal justice system has run its course, even though critical information may be withheld from a jury for legal reasons, and even though a jury must be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt".


What I'm trying to say is that the criminal justice system has a specific set of rules for operating. Those rules are not necessarily designed to ferret out the truth of a given matter. They certainly should not replace our own abilities to make judgments about what did or didn't happen in a given situation, based upon our common sense, the information available to us, and the circumstances present. Believe me, there is a world of difference between "not guilty" and innocent.

Pshaw, and what would YOU know about the law?

Oh wait.....never mind.

[Lucky]

Pshaw, and what would YOU know about the law?

Oh wait.....never mind.

I ask myself that question every day.

[chancellor]

Not exactly. People are innocent until proven guilty in the criminal justice system, which is a very small piece of the country...one which has its own rules and internal logic regarding what information can be considered and how one must reach a conclusion.

More and more often, people who misbehave badly tend to hide behind the conventions of the criminal justice system. And we, as a country, have bought into it. We tend to think that we cannot make up our minds whether a person has committed a bad act until the criminal justice system has run its course, even though critical information may be withheld from a jury for legal reasons, and even though a jury must be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt".


What I'm trying to say is that the criminal justice system has a specific set of rules for operating. Those rules are not necessarily designed to ferret out the truth of a given matter. They certainly should not replace our own abilities to make judgments about what did or didn't happen in a given situation, based upon our common sense, the information available to us, and the circumstances present. Believe me, there is a world of difference between "not guilty" and innocent.

Nicely said. One would hope you're a judge or some other responsible legal individual.

[BuckyBuckner]

I get that and I appreciate the explanation Lucky but it just strikes me as jumping to an uninformed conclusion for Pauly to label him a murder because there is a warrant out for his arrest. I realize that the police probably won't issue a warrant if they don't have very strong evidence but it still strikes me as premature to post this.

[Pauly]

I think one's thuggery quotient should be heavily considered when jumping to conclusions about guilt or innocence. Crittenton is a thug who has shown already that he likes to bring guns into locker rooms to settle disputes.