Sadly, Mike Wise's story in The Washington Post today, which went online last night, is true (not that Wise, as quality a journalist as they come, would make something up). A source, who was in the locker room at the time has confirmed all the details. Angered by having to pay an extra $1,100 that Arenas backed out of, and further provoked by Arenas' refusal to take him seriously while he tried to get him to pay his part to JaVale McGee rather than leave him with the bag, and further exasperated by more mocking by Arenas the next day (when the three-time All-Star placed the four guns on the third-year player's chair), Crittenton did pull out his own gun, lock and load it during his dispute with Arenas.
Mike Jones. That's now two reporters I trust (Wise and Jones) confirming the Crittenton part of the story.
about 2 years ago
Mike Prada
90 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Ya, me too
Ironic that “waiting for next year” is a Cleveland blog – right? ;p
by Manimal Smith on Jan 7, 2010 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
Players seem rather comfortable around guns
One thing that I find very interesting is how much the players have seemed to take the guns in the locker room thing in stride. I know these new details indicate that two players backed out of the room, but there’s a lot of other evidence that none of the players took it too seriously: none of the players coming forward with this story in the beginning, Jamison’s comments today seem to indicate that he is more concerned with the suspension than the events that took place, players encouraging Arenas to point his fingers like guns in the huddle, all the other quotes from players that convey a “gun culture” in the NBA/other professional sports, etc.
This makes me look at Rev. Sharpton’s comments and Wilbon’s subsequent article in a different light. They see a much bigger issue – that of a culture where guns are normal, loading a weapon and cocking it is just another way of communicating and that this culture is inbred in athletes well before they get to the professional level. For Sharpton, Wilbon, Stern and others, they don’t so much care about the individual, Gilbert Arenas, they care about a greater issue.
Luckily no one was injured in this episode, but they see this as a watershed event, not just the guns, but the guns combined with the nonchalant attitude about the guns by so many players that they are going to send a message that this is serious: Guns are serious, and if you mess around with them, it doesn’t matter who you are, you won’t be playing – potentially for a very long time.
Is it fair to Gilbert? No. Do they care? Maybe, but as leaders in society (Sharpton and Stern more-so) it isn’t their job to worry about the individual so much as the community as a whole. I don’t think they were trying to save Gilbert from himself or any of that. Does this upset me as a fan of Gilbert’s? Yes. The guy was just part of the culture and he happens to be a goofball with no agent, and it’s painful to see him be made an example of….But I also see where these guys are coming from. Where they have to come from given their roles in society.
by mogoman on Jan 7, 2010 10:29 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
You're comfortable in familiar environments
From personal experience, I’ve only been uncomfortable around a gun when the person on the other end was acting maliciously (or scared…). People kill people; not guns.
To opine that there should have been some sort of different reaction on the behalf of bystanders really seems naive to me. But then again, I realize that not everyone has seen what I’ve seen.
Not indicting anybody
and I don’t want my comments construed as a judgement on the matter either way, I’m justgiving my perspective, which I’m sure is shared by many NBA players. And many people, regardless of skin color, who have been exposed to guns (like for example, veterans…)
Even the army
doesn’t allow off duty soldiers walk around an army base with weapons. But for the NBA it’s cool right?
by BayAreaBullet on Jan 7, 2010 10:58 AM EST up reply actions
I hear you...
How we react is a very personal thing based on our backgrounds. Does being in a room with an angry guy, who is loading a gun and cocking it, make you uncomfortable? I personally would not be comfortable and I would expect most people not to be comfortable, but maybe that’s just me projecting my emotions on others.
I think what Sharpton, Wilbon, and Stern are saying is that the comfort level players were feeling was too high to be safe. And they want to change it.
I just don't think people should lose the right to a safe workplace
because they are in a locker room. And as for a gun culture, sure, there seems to be a gun culture but thats not a good thing or an excuse. It’s not like Cops walk around the police station with guns, or members of the armed forces on military bases when they’re not on duty as security. Those people have real familiarity with guns and take having them seriously. Do we even know Arenas or Critt knows how to properly use a gun. Is that self described goofball the kinda guy you want to take his word that they are unloaded?
by BayAreaBullet on Jan 7, 2010 11:24 AM EST up reply actions
but thats not a good thing or an excuse.
I didn’t say it was. But it is a reason. A factor you can use to help get a better understanding of the situation. But then again, I’m not the type to judge…
Those people have real familiarity with guns and take having them seriously.
I could say the same thing about half my childhood friends.
No Such Thing
People throw the term rights around whenever there is something people think they should have. Rights are A Priori, that is found in the state of nature and logically derived (not induced). As such, the right to life, liberty and property. All things are logically deduced A Priori, as such they become immutable and unalienable.
Work Places are sometimes dangerous (i.e. watch those crab fishing dudes, boxers, military personal in theater). This does not excuse the behavior of pointing guns and loading them at your co-workers but the violation is not the imaginary right to a safe workplace (impossible to derive logically, you induce it from what you believe should exist), the violation is someone threating the right to life. Be careful with your rhetoric.
There's a difference between civil rights and "natural rights."
You’re right that rights should be deduced, rather than induced, but the bases for deduction are not “life, liberty, property.” I have the right to not be racially or sexually harrassed at the work place, which does not follow from those three.
Rights are useful fictions, contracturally agreed upon, that are valid a priori and allow us to make absolute claims within certain contexts. I think a right “not to have a gun thrown at your feet” while working as a trainer in a Wizard’s locker room is probably deducible from the nature of the work place. Of course, I don’t know if that trainer is making any such claim, but I would think that the possibility of it at least speaks to BayAreaBullet’s point.
by dcball on Jan 7, 2010 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Even in the context of Life, Liberty & Property
The Pollins have an absolute right to prohibit guns on their private property. They also have duty lunder our aws to provide a safe work environment for their employees and the right to limit behaviors on their property to do this.
by NeverNervousPervis on Jan 7, 2010 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
I'm honestly asking this question
Is the Verizon Center classic private property anymore? Didn’t the Pollins ask taxpayers to chip in for half the cost recently. Or am I not remembering this well?
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
You mean this?
Yeah that's the one
I could be totally misinterpreting this.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
This may not be the right analogy...
But I don’t think the fact that the government just gave me a tax credit for replacing my windows would undermine my private property rights.
by NeverNervousPervis on Jan 7, 2010 1:24 PM EST up reply actions
dcball: this is pretty freaking intelligent by the way
i wish it was commonly understood what a “right” is and what it isn’t.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Jan 7, 2010 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
Honestly,
It depends on his anger level, the subject/object of his anger, what I know of that person, and how well I know that person. It depends on the parameters of the situation. It depends on a lot of factors. But I will say that I have been in that very situation, and yes I was a little apprehensive, and not comfortable at all, but not scared.
Got it.
Thanks for answering. I’m not sure that you and I disagree. I think we agree that their reactions were genuine to their backgrounds. We might also agree that Stern, Sharpton and Wilbon are seeking to change how athletes react in the future toward guns. Maybe they aren’t scared of the guns themselves, but by coming down hard on Gil, they are creating fear for athletes in the future of what could happen to their career, if they are around guns – especially on NBA property.
This is a very good analysis....
The story has come down to one of social roles and societal expectations… with the consequeces being felt largely by one guy, Gilbert, who undoubtedly had no idea that his social role could shift so rapidly from talented class clown to major league pariah.
It is interesting that so many of us continue to feel badly for Gilbert (I still do) even though we have never met him, but simply have enjoyed watching his play on the basketball court and following his previously harmless antics as translated to us through the filter of the mass (And personal) media.
I hope he comes out of this reasonably intact, I fear that he may not.
by khrabb on Jan 7, 2010 11:10 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
The right to a safe workplace has been defined by Stern, The CBA and most law
as to include having weapons on work grounds so it is not imaginary. Would you be defending the Wizards if they built the locker room out of Asbestos and Lead and had stairwells that were falling down?
by BayAreaBullet on Jan 7, 2010 5:04 PM EST up reply actions
Wow
just wow. i think I’m now officially scared to look at this site becuase the wiz manage to keep topping themselves in ways I never imagined.
I don't own a gun...
… but if you come from the mid-west… where hunting season is a big… everyone ..moms, dads, grandparents, kids…is “comfortable around guns.”
Gun ownership is protected by the 2nd amendment of the Constitution.
Guns arent the problem, its how people use (or in the case of Crittendon..misuse them)
by CVC on Jan 7, 2010 11:03 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Rifles and shotguns for hunting are one thing
Handguns are a different story. IMHO.
Not to get too "political" here
but the Founding fathers added the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution so that, they could defend themselves, defend and protect their families, defend and protect their property, and most importantly defend the Constitution by taking back a tyrannical government when it became oppressive and there was no other solution available.
Remember, those guys were true radical thinkers. True revolutionaries. They wouldn’t have cared a wit about protecting hunter’s rights. They knew that ordinary citizens in England could not own guns – because the Crown was afraid if they did, the people would rise up…. so they built into our Constitution protections against their (and our) OWN Government.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
On the other hand
I doubt Thomas Jefferson ever envisioned two young men, richer than the King of England, fighting over the equivalent of $37 bucks….
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
or $3.39
Depending on whether you think Crittenton ($37) should have paid the $1,100 or it was Gilbert’s ($3.39) responsibility….
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
Guns on league/team property are the problem
That and gambling are what led to this situation. NBA players should neither have available to them this motive for fights (debts) nor the means to escalate that fight via weapons.
Whatever happened to the good ole days of Brendan and Etan? In retrospect, I applaud them for settling their differences the old fashioned way.
by morethesamewiz on Jan 7, 2010 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
The 2nd amendment gave the right to bear arms in a militia
it doesn’t mention carrying concealed weapons completely unfettered.
by BayAreaBullet on Jan 7, 2010 5:06 PM EST up reply actions
Incorrect Interpretation
The DC gun law got struck down by the Supreme Court precisely because they did not agree that the 2nd Amendment applied only to militias. That is a relatively new argument (20th century) that is now obsolete. The 2nd Amendment applies to everybody that the 1st Amendment applies to. And it makes no distinction between concealed or unconcealed.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
I come from the midwest, and live here,
and that’s not true. The last guns I saw up close were in a locked wall rack in the basement of a friend I had when I was in early grade school. Well, those and some .22s we shot on the range with in Webelos.
Any situation in which someone has a gun, and particularly a handgun, is very, very uncomfortable for me. Cops’ guns too. I’ve been in two sitiuations where a cop drew a weapon, and that was a horrible feeling.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Crittendon was mad...
…from most of the press accounts ive seen, Crittendon is the one who appears to be genuinely hot-tempered and angry. Gil is being Gil.
It appears Crittendon was angry when he “did pull out his own gun, lock and load it during his dispute with Arenas”
maybe the other two players in the locker room were truly frightened and Gil diffused the situation with humor…
That's a possibility
But I SERIOUSLY doubt that. I’ve never seen (or heard of) any tense situation involving people loading and cocking guns diffused by humor. I prefer to believe that Critt, while probably pissed, was nowhere near angry enough to use the gun in his hand, and was essentially demonstrating how big he thought his nuts were…
On the other hand, I’ve heard of people getting killed for less. So I therefore believed that both Gil and Critt took careful stock of both the environment and one another (from the perspective of putting their own lives at risk, NOT from the perspective of how absurdly stupid it would be to pull your gun out) before either decided to do what has to be the dumbest thing either of them has ever done.
This may be accurate... but it doesn't excuse Gilbert for instigating the mess...
and it highlights his essential insensitivity to the darker things that might be driving the people around him (a classic attribute of a clown’s personality) … Think about the juxtaposition here… Gilbert with his massive contract and following, Crittenden the most marginal of NBAers, no contract beyond this year, little hope of getting on the court to show whether he has the talent to stick in the league. Critt apparently struck back, lashed out, whatever, in the only way he could at that point, and down it went.
From this quote from the Post today, I’m wondering whether Gilbert isn’t in much legal trouble, but instead is primarily a witness for the Crittendon situation. In other words, maybe Crittendon is the target of prosecutors. Gilbert might still be charged with a crime, but a lesser variety (misdeamor). Again, I’m just guessing from some language in a newspaper article.
“A source familiar with Monday’s meeting between Arenas and police and prosecutors said that prosecutors agreed to only use Arenas’s statements as part of their investigation, not as direct evidence to be presented to the grand jury or to be used during a trial or hearing. Also, Arenas told prosecutors Monday that he would be willing to meet with them again or appear before a grand jury in the coming days if they requested.”
this is my assessment
i wrote this last night – that Critt is the likely main target of the investigation if the facts are as we now hear them
Abe
is really rolling in his grave right now
You could argue it also boils down to one guy who couldn't understand what to joke about
Both would be right.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Even So
Big difference between someone making a joke in poor taste and someone pulling a gun. Gilbert is at fault, I don’t disagree. But the main culprit here is Crittendon.
We all sometimes make jokes in poor taste
When I say something like “Being the best defender on this team is a little like being the tallest short person in the room,” I usually don’t choose to underscore the punchline with firearms.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
It's Javale's fault for not forgiving the debt.....
what’s the big deal about $1,100 to these guys. I say that tongue in cheek, but if two friends started fighting over a small amount relative to me, I would let it go and just know not to ever gamble with them again. I’m a little disappointed Arenas was acting so cheap.
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk - Tuco
by ravoriobulleterpitals on Jan 7, 2010 11:32 AM EST reply actions
At least
We didn’t re-up Critt earlier this year. This would seem like an even bigger mess if we had.
As long as Arenas didn't bring the guns for the sole purpose of messing with JC
And his original story is in fact true, they were stored in a lock box after his child was born, I would be ok with supporting Arenas.
What he did when it comes down to it, is not nearly as bad as punching a fan, or a DUI.
Whatever comes from the DC gun charges he should deal with and move on.
Agreed
He has broken D.C. gun laws regardless of whatever else happens, but it would be fairly heinous to throw the book at him for a completely non-violent offense with no violent priors.
If his story was true to begin with, then Gil should get a 20 game suspension and be given a second chance by the organization.
by Manimal Smith on Jan 7, 2010 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
I Agree
And am glad that someone else here is willing to consider giving Gil a second chance. After serving his suspension, and hopefully without serving any jail time, I would rather have Gil on this team putting up 22-7-3 rather than trading him for 10 cents on the dollar.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
me too-
I just don’t want him to be made an example of. that is why I am so upset at Stern – not because Gil didn’t deserve to get suspended but because he didn’t wait for the legal stuff to play out. I understand he had every right to do what he did but this is someone’s life at stake.
I hope he gets a second chance somewhere
He doesn’t deserve to be the fall guy for Stern’s agenda.
I’m not sure it’s going to work here though. Too much baggage to overcome. I’m willing to be swayed though.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I agree, too
Aside from his talent, which as a fan I would hate to lose, Gilbert truly is one of the good guys. Immature, but with a great heart. More interested in making others laugh than protecting his own backside. That photo with him forming guns with his fingers really captures who he is, and you can see how much his teammates love him.
One of the key problems from the organization’s perspective, I imagine, is that their franchise player is only willing to play the court jester. When you accept the checks that go with Gilbert’s contract, certain responsibilities go with it, too. You have to carry yourself a certain way, in essence, act corporate. Gilbert seems unwilling or incapable of doing that. Did anyone in the organization really try to get him to do that (not that it’s their responsibility, but it was in their interests)? I don’t get from Gilbert that he is incapable of learning and growing, so for that reason, I think he will grow from this and be a better person and leader. I hope it’s here.
America is all about second chances...
….. if Gil’s actions ..as we currently know them via press accounts… are accurate, he’ll be given a misdeamnor- resulting in a fine and no jail time by the DA.
Stern should extend the suspension to 20 games, a harsh penalty.
I want the Wizards to keep Arenas. He is not a bad guy, just a goofball (who can put up 22 points, and 7 assists every nite)
by CVC on Jan 7, 2010 1:49 PM EST up reply actions
Don’t forget the part where he lied about how many guns he brought to the arena, then lied about why he brought the guns to the arena.
Seriously, I can’t begin to understand why anyone wants to give him a second chance when he lies and jokes about something as deadly serious as horseplay with guns.
I would welcome him back
after he accepted and served his punishment. Not sure if that will happen though.
by BayAreaBullet on Jan 7, 2010 5:08 PM EST up reply actions
My god man
you are right about everything today.
Me too. But he’d have to demonstrate actual remorse and understanding about the wrongness of his actions. And seem to have changed his ways. Or at least fool me into thinking so.
by MR on Jan 7, 2010 5:19 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
i could have him back
but it’s probably best to send him somewhere else and let ted start anew.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Jan 7, 2010 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
I like Gilbert and want him to succeed
I’m just not gonna excuse his actions just cuz I want him on the court. It’s like sometimes your friends do something really stupid and it’s like “What you did was stupid and wrong and I don’t love you any less but I’m not gonna feel bad for you or excuse what you did” Obviously me and Gil aren’t friends but I want to see him do well in much the same way.
by BayAreaBullet on Jan 7, 2010 5:36 PM EST up reply actions
They don't care
They don’t care if Gil only meant putting the guns out as a joke, they don’t care that Critt was provoked, they don’t care if they guy only has a high school diploma, they don’t care about any of that. All they care about is that next time this happens, someone could be seriously hurt or killed and so they have to put an end to it. They are going to put an end to the escalation. Unfortunately for these two players.
As it should be.
This isn’t a moral crusade. This isn’t an anti-gun crusade. It’s a safe behavior in the NBA workplace crusade. It is clear that there are guns all over the place, in a volatile emotional environment. The league needs to creat ae bright line or risk having a death on league property.
The Jayson Williams situation was bad enough for the league withou having it happen on league property. What if Sprewell had been holding a gun when he lost it with PJ? etc?
by NeverNervousPervis on Jan 7, 2010 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Agree in full
It’s not arbitrary and unfair to have players who behaved so cavalierly with firearms in the locker room be the ones who go down as the examples, either. Justice needs to be proportionate, I know that, but Arenas and Crittendon aren’t innocents going down for the sins of others.
I have the same mixed feelings about Gilbert’s persona and so on as anyone else, but it’s not like he didn’t spark the entire situation in an incredibly reckless way.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
yes he did
and he’s going to pay for that, as well as pay for the light suspensions of jackson, telfair and the current non-suspension of west. that’s what gets me mad.
but yes, my core anger is at arenas. and yes, he’s my favorite player.
"how ironic - you came here with a mouse in a bottle, now YOU are the mouse in the bottle" - B.M. Smith
by little stevie colter on Jan 7, 2010 8:42 PM EST up reply actions
Telfair got 3 games
He was convicted of “criminal possession of a firearm” in New York state. The total package was:
misdemeanor possession of a loaded .45-caliber handgun, speeding and driving without a license in Westchester in April 2007
Since then ‘Bassy has largely redeemed himself in terms of off-court behavior. I’m not sure how to judge those offenses relative to Gilbert’s….
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Oop! I missed the earlier, much more relevant, charge
In February 2005, as a member of the Blazers, (Telfair) was caught in Boston trying to bring a loaded gun onto the team’s plane. He claimed the gun belonged to his girlfriend and charges were later dismissed.
Now that’s very close, and he got what? Nothing??
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
ok - so lets assume 20 game suspension
team holds together…treads water – gil comes back and they make the playoffs in the horrible east…then maybe we can get another matchup with cleveland
Sorry, I'm confused
Is that your best-case scenario or your worst-case scenario?
by MR on Jan 7, 2010 3:27 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
At this point
Its hard to distinguish between the two. We can’t win for losing and we sure as hell can’t win.
by Manimal Smith on Jan 7, 2010 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
