Update on Jerime Anderson, Steps Back from Party and Apologizes
by DCBruins on Aug 1, 2011 8:06 PM PDT
in Basketball
Email
PrintJerime Anderson partied away his best chance to be the starting UCLA PG between his freshman and sophomore years. While facing something even more serious in felony criminal charges, Jerime seemingly still planned to attend a party he helped organized. Jerime is now pulling back from that:
"I will not be attending any social events and I am saddened and disappointed for my lack of judgment," the post said.
. . . "He was involved in this party and now he’s not and he’s trying to make it clear," [His lawyer] Artz said. "He had the event scheduled prior to making a huge mistake. Now he's not going to this party or any party."
I am glad Anderson is now taking things more seriously. However the question remains: is it again too little, too late? In 2009-10, Anderson's lack of effort and dedication led to his inability to play PG at the Pac-10 level and caused him to be benched despite CBH not having a backup. Anderson's problems were many but he admitted that he partied too much and did not work at his game, instead taking the PG position as his right. It was a key reason for UCLA's first losing season not related to Steve Lavin since pre-Wooden.
Just as Anderson admired his mistakes after his freshman season, Jerime is again admitting using "poor judgment" this time after his junior season:
UCLA guard Jerime Anderson, arrested last week for stealing a laptop computer, made his first public comments about the incident in a Facebook post over the weekend.
"I am terribly sorry and embarrassed for my conduct and poor judgment that I’ve used recently," Anderson wrote in the post on his personal Facebook page, according to a UCLA spokesman and confirmed by his attorney, Jon Artz. "I have embarrassed my family, friends, teammates, coaches and university and I am extremely sorry for that."
Now this time Anderson's lack of "judgment" may be costing himself more:
UCLA senior guard Jerime Anderson is scheduled for an arraignment at the Airport Courthouse on Sept. 27 to face charges of grand theft. He was accused of stealing a laptop Tuesday. Anderson has been suspended for the Bruins' opener against Loyola Marymount on Nov. 11 and barred from team activities.
It was frustrating and maddening to watch Anderson in 2009-10. Anderson betrayed the UCLA basketball team. It was heartwarming to see him come back in 2010-11 and become the team's sixth man. But Jerime you may have blown it for the last time. Jerime, this time your betrayal may cost you more than some time on the pine.
In any case, the Bruins are going to have to start making plans without Anderson because one thing is for certain; you cannot rely on Anderson to use good judgment.
Go Bruins
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Unfortunately, Jerime Anderson is now 21 y.o.? 22?
He’s a rising senior in college and fully a young adult. At this point in life we all start to reap the full consequences of our actions (select trust fund babies excepted). That and theft of a laptop is very different than a bar fight in a moment of passion. I am not a lawyer, so don’t take this in the legal sense, but even a theft of opportunity requires some degree of premeditation.
Jerime is in a horrible, self-inflicted, situation: in four years he went from a potential NBA player to someone who is unlikely to get drafted, and a felony (would this be a felony if convicted?) makes getting any job outside of professional sports more difficult. For every one player with NBA-level talent, there’s a handful without NBA-level dedication. Hopefully if he rededicates himself he can overcome this tremendous obstacle.
Doesn't always require premeditation.
If you saw a wallet on the ground, many people would simply take it as opposed to returning it. Seeing something and grabbing doesn’t take premeditation, merely impulse. Not saying this case didn’t, but it’s not always a requirement.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
According to the CPC
Theft is:
“(a)Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another”
CAL. PEN. CODE § 484
Reading this created some confusion for me knowing that the classical definition of larceny, which is what a theft would be, is defined as 1) the taking 2) and carrying away 3) of the property 4) of another 5) with the intent to permanently deprive that person of possession.
California uses the term “feloniously” which does not mean that theft is necessarily a felony. Rather, the term speaks to the illegality of the act and I think would encapsulate intent within the term.
As you can see here, the state came up with its own language to express what a theft is. Usually in such codes and in the California Penal Code, theft is broken up into two crimes. One is petty theft in which the property taken is valued below a certain dollar amount (in CA it is $950). Petty theft is a misdemeanor. Grand theft is for property valued above $950 and is a wobbler, that is, it can be prosecuted as either a felony or a misdemeanor depending on several factors the most important of which are prior criminal history involving theft and/or the particular circumstances of the case.
For informative purposes only. The mere fact of my posting this does not in any way create an attorney/client relationship with anyone.
EGO TROIORUM MALLEUS SUM
by Bruins102NCAA on Aug 2, 2011 5:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Nope, Bruins102NCAA - you're on the hook.
You’re now my lawyer. I have relied on your advice. Your bill is too high and I won’t pay it. But I’m still suing you for malpractice. In fact, you’re my lawyer on that case, too, and I think you ought to immeiately set your own deposition.
You know
I’m getting even more paranoid…
EGO TROIORUM MALLEUS SUM
by Bruins102NCAA on Aug 3, 2011 1:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Laugh it up counsellors
EGO TROIORUM MALLEUS SUM
by Bruins102NCAA on Aug 3, 2011 1:44 AM PDT up reply actions
I admittedly am unsure what constitutes premeditation.
Could someone clarify: I heard somewhere on the interwebs that if you get in an argument with person X, go to a different room and grab a sword, and go back and kill person X, it is considered to be premeditated (because you had to think about how you would kill the person). If you rob a store with a gun, and things break down, and you happen to shoot someone and kill them, it is also considered premeditated because you brought a gun with you (i.e. thinking of potentially killing someone).
Given that definition, it seems that theft would always be premeditated. I don’t know that it has any legal significance, but seems to require the same amount of thinking (check if the owner is nearby, make a decision to take the laptop, …) as the above situations.
Again, I am not a lawyer.
You're confusing "premeditation" with "intent."
Premeditation is what is required for 1st degree murder. (An alternative is “felony-murder” which you’ve used to conflate “premeditation.” Google “premeditation” for an extended discussion.) Without premeditation — which can occur in the flash of an eye — you’ve got a crime, usually murder, caused by emotion rather than calculation.
In order for a defendant to be culpable of most criminal offenses, there is a requirement that he/she have the required “intent” to commit the offense.) In other words, if Jerime Anderson walked off with a laptop he thought was his, that would be a “mistake” and he wouldn’t have criminal liability. Or, if Jerime Anderson reasonably thought that the laptop had been abandoned (e.g., he saw someone who appeared to own it dispose of it in a dumpster), that would also be a defense. But, if he didn’t have any of those “beliefs,” and he simply walked off with someone else’s laptop, the law would presume he intended to do what he did. (“The law presumes one intends the ordinary consequences of his acts.”)
Anderson’s voluble lawyer contends it was all a “mistake” but apparently not in the sense that it would exculpate Anderson; “mistake” is used only attempt to minimize his horribly bad judgment — and criminal intent.
But what you’re looking for is “intent,” not “premeditation.”
Give me a break. A mistake is not an intentional act.
Accidentally walking away with a laptop computer that looks like yours = a mistake.
Walking away with a laptop computer that you know is not yours = a crime.
Lawyers who conflate “mistakes” with “crimes” = obfuscators.
At this point Jerime Anderson and his lawyers need to just shut up. And based on what they’ve been saying, Anderson will not be returning to the team. Sad, but not a “mistake.” A crime.
What it there's a laptop laying on a table
and no one is around…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I fail to see how committing a crime can not be a mistake.
In fact, it is a massive mistake. Just because you choose not to define it so, doesn’t mean others do not. When I was young I stole a packet of water balloons from Toys R Us. I felt awful about it, and returned them. I have not stolen anything since. Hence, a mistake.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Matter of Semantics
The word “mistake” is being used in different ways by those who disagree.
In the legal context, taking something by “mistake” — not knowing it is the property of another — is usually not a theft; most definitions of the crime require a “state of mind” that the person act with intent to deprive the owner of the property. In that sense, one is not making a “mistake” when one acts intentionally.
However, in another context — the bonehead move of the century context — the word “mistake” is often used to describe an act that is so stupid as to not be understandable.
So, one can meet the legal state of mind requirement (intentionally take it) while also calling it a “mistake” (incredibly stupid thing to do).
And, yes, defense attorneys often try to use the softer word “mistake” when discussing the acts of their clients. However, it won’t fly in court where the judge and jurors know the legal definition controls.
sjh
Certainly not, nor would I expect it to.
However, whether or not he’s made a mistake in a legal sense, he’s made a mistake in the “softer” sense, e.g. he did something he never should have done, it was stupid.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Agree Completely
If it is true that Jerime intentionally took something that was not his, it was both a criminal decision and a stupid one.
For someone on a scholarship and about to graduate from a great university, and playing for the most storied program in sports, to put himself in that position is incredibly stupid. Said another way, it is a mistake of the highest order.
sjh
Previously posted in another fanshot, I still feel this way!
Funny, it took this long for him to come out with a "statement". Not so funny is that between his arrest and yesterday he was promoting a party and now he decides it is not in his best interest. First of all this guy is out and out stupid, how he passed admissions God only knows, secondly by his numerous gaffes he has proven he doesn’t belong on campus.
I would venture that someone is feeding him words to say in order to salvage his college career. I don’t believe for one minute that he is smart enough to have said anything about what has happened without him having been prompted by a third party.
One more thing quit making excuses for a 21 year old man. If this was any other school this blog would have hung, tarred and feathered him by now. There are many more students and/or student athletes would die for the chance to come UCLA.
What do you know that most of us don't?
1. He was not actively promoting the party after the arrest. The statements attributed to Jerime were actually made by someone else. They are hearsay.
2. He is a rising senior at UCLA. Apparently, he is meeting the academic requirements of the school. At one time, there was an article written about his poetry — and some of the thoughtful ways he expressed his views. Do you have evidence that he is “out and out” stupid in the sense that he has not been able to honestly meet his academic requirements or that he did not honestly qualify for admission?
3. What “numerous gaffes” prove he does not belong on campus? Facts would be appreciated.
4. Why do you believe that he is not smart enough to have discussed this with CBH? That a third party was speaking through him? That his words of contrition were not his own? That he is not sincere?
5. You may be too young to understand this, but invoking the concept of “… hung, tarred and feathered” in the context of punishing a person of color who has yet to be convicted of a crime brings up a reference to behavior that is a stain on this country that should never be forgotten.
Ray, take a deep breath and let this play out. Justice will be done.
sjh
+1
I have to admit, I felt very uneasy reading the “hung,tarred and feathered” comment. I know we often try to be too politically correct, but in this case, let’s be careful in the descriptions used to convey our disgust.
That said, I am trying to come up with a scenario where Jerime stays on the team, and its not easy.
Maybe, “I have the same type of Laptop and it was a simple mistake” Other than that, hard to come up with an explanation that isnt criminal activity and not just a “mistake”
by WestlakeVillage Bruin on Aug 2, 2011 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Let's get our history right
“[tarring and feathering] was a relatively rare form of mob punishment for Republican African Americans in the post-bellum U.S. South, as its goal is typically pain and humiliation rather than death (as in the more common lynching and burning alive).” Hanging is distinct from the lynching associated with extra-judicial mob violence against anyone but more recently against blacks.
EGO TROIORUM MALLEUS SUM
by Bruins102NCAA on Aug 2, 2011 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions
You and I disagree
1. Given his penchant for partying between his freshman and sophmore season, why would he be associated with a party that had the potential for a huge turnout given that it was posted on facebook.
2. Who says he is a rising senior? Poetry? Does the name Norman Porter ring a bell? He was a convicted murder who wrote a fairly well received book of poetry. Am I taking this to an extreme? Absolutely! Writing poetry does not inoculate oneself from acting or behaving stupidly.
3. As for numerous gaffes, let us start with my number one above.
He is certainly not smart enough to recognize the privilege of attending one of the premier universities in the world nor appreciate the fact that he is receiving this education for free.
By his own admission the partying that he did between his freshman and sophomore year.
The “alleged theft” of the laptop, although between his and his attorney’s statements, he is only a few words away from admitting guilt.
This is the most glaring, he issued the following statement " I know that I have learned a life lesson that I will never forget and I will do any and everything to make this situation right and come out of the whole thing a better student……" Well of course he’s going to say these things because he got caught and it plays well for the press. But I have a question, why has it taken this “intelligent” man twenty one years to figure out stealing is wrong and it is a “life lesson”?
“Stupid is as stupid does”
4. Because nothing this man has done has inspired confidence in his decision making.
5. Actually, I believe that I’m 10 years behind you and I specifically didn’t use the word “lynch” for this reason. Lynching results in the death of another. Tar and feathering although painful was meant to humiliate the recipient. It was suppose to read" hung in effigy, tarred and feathered" but I got wound up towards the end of my post.
Well
He deactivated his facebook around the time of his arrest and just reactivated it recently. So he wasn’t really still promoting a party that is run thru facebook.
by lil eg not cs on Aug 2, 2011 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
