Williams innocent of manslaughter, assault; guilty on 4 lesser counts The Associated Press - Updated: 4:15 p.m. ET April 30, 2004 SOMERVILLE, N.J. Jury finds ex-NBA star not guilty on 3 of 8 charges, undecided on one; probation likely. Former NBA player Jayson Williams was acquitted Friday of the most serious charge against him, aggravated manslaughter. The jury said it could not agree on the charge of reckless manslaughter. Williams was convicted on four of the six lesser charges in the Feb. 14, 2002, death of limousine driver Costas “Gus” Christofi at Williams’ mansion. The convictions were related to tampering with evidence and attempting to cover up the shooting. Collectively, the charges carry a maximum penalty of 13 years in prison. © 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dude is going to get a slap on the wrist. I think this was a terrible accident but he made it much worse on himself trying to cover it up.
I can't believe he got innocent on the manslaughter charge. The prosecutors must suck. I hope the survivors of the victim sue Williams in civil court ala OJ.
That's a slippery slope. I imagine you have quite a few opinions on the Bush Administration that could just as easily be dismissed based on such criteria.
I look at it this way, Jayson Williams is a good guy. It would be a waste of a life if he were in prison. He certainly deserved to be in prison, but what good was it gonna do anybody to have him there anyway. So I'm ok with the not guilty verdict. He was guilty, no doubt, but as I said, a conviction would only hurt society than actually improve it. We have to use common sense.
You mean will. Sentencing hasn't occurred. Odds are he's going to get some prison time. It's interesting that you think since he's a "good guy", he shouldn't go to prison. How do you feel about drunk drivers who kill people...? If they're nice guys, I mean.
It depends, if I think the drunk driver will drink and drive again I'd send him to prison. People are dependent on alcohol. It's an addiction. And people are dependent on cars. So the odds he will drink and drive again are high. But I don't think Jayson Williams will be so careless again with a gun. Two totally different situations in my opinion.
If it was just an accident, does he deserve manslaughter? I am not an expert on the law, but if it was truly a freak accident, I don't see why he should be locked up.
It's not a slippery slope, it's two different things. I have my own personal beliefs that I feel that don't align with the Bush Administration's regardless of my opinions of the policy results. Not to mention that many people who did spend a lot of time with that administration have varying opinions on why they went to war, etc. These are 12 people who came to a unanimous conclusion on seven of eight charges who listened to evidence presented day in and day out and people who hear soundbites on ESPN have the nerve to call the system a shame? Also, most of what I've heard is that he'll probably receive probation, which would be consistent with past similar convictions. This syphlitic bedpan post was brought to you by...
Yes, it is a slippery slope. You've undoubtedly formed opinions on some of the decisions the Bush Administration made (as I have), without having access to even five percent of the decision-making process. Yet you don't think people should form opinions of the verdict in the Williams trial, simply because those people weren't on the jury or in the courtroom. If we're not allowed to form opinions on decisions unless we're intimately involved in the decision-making process, this BBS is going to get much quieter.
Fine, whatever. Any opinion I've made about the Bush administration has been based on a combination of personal ideology and commentary from people who've been directly involved in matters with the President. It's a tad different than hearing a 30-second soundbite on ESPNNews and determining that 12 people who sat in the courtroom for months are a shame.
And the opinions of the people posting in this thread have been based on their personal beliefs about the issues involved in the case, and the media's coverage of the trial. I see little difference in the validity of either.
Because you're not supposed to have a personal opinion about the case. Having one taints your opinion about it when it comes to criminal cases. Almost everyone has an opinion about politics and it's true that most people have an opinion about whether or not Jayson Williams, Michael Jackson, et al, are guilty. However, those 12 people have to throw those opinions out the window when they serve, so that's why I'm more likely to believe them than someone who wasn't in there everyday. Or at the very least, why I'm not likely to call it a shame.
I would think the innocent until proven guilty thing only applies to the state (including the judge) and those charged by the state to render a verdict. The average Joe off the street doesn't have to adhere to those Constitutional ideals. (That said, I really don't have an opinion of the case. I didn't pay enogh attention to it). ...so that's why I'm more likely to believe them than someone who wasn't in there everyday. Not anything to attack you because I often approach the judicial system this way and feel the same way, but there are many instances when the situation reverses and we (generally speaking, not you and me specifically necessarily) believe those who weren't there instead of the 12 people who redered the verdict. To use one example, there wouldn't be much of a debate about the potential for executing innocent people if people who weren't there didn't disagree with 12 people who were and rendered a verdict and a punishment. Just throwing a little more on the discussion fire, not trying to really argue or attack anyone.
