VOR

I doubt there would even be a meeting between Goodell and Lynch, much less a suspension. But if I were Lynch, I'd schedule one preemptively.

Hey, being a pessimist means you'll never be disappointed. Yay!

So Moulds was a model citizen?

I haven't seen one post/poster saying that Lynch doesn't have some responsibility since it was his car that hit the victim, much less that it wasn't his car or he wasn't the driver. The point of contention is whether he knew he hit her +/- was drunk at the time.

Injury.

He got 1,115 yards at 4.0 YPC and 7 TD's despite missing 3 full games. Over a full season that would have worked-out to 1,372 yard and almost 9 TD's. Not too shabby. Although the point about picking up the blitz is valid, and something most rookie RB's struggle doing.

It will be interesting to see if Lynch's LASIK surgery helps him.

Yeah, that would suck.

If he gets charged, he'll probably face suspension. Notice though how his DUI didn't earn him a suspension.

Where is the victim when someone gets picked-up for DUI without having injured anyone? And spare me the "speeding isn't like DUI..." I don't care. I just like arguing.

I learned long ago to stay away from absolutes like "he'll never do this again." But if you'd like to make a bet...

Thanks for taking the bait. So I guess someone getting picked-up for DUI should be able to "hide behind a lawyer" even after repeated offenses, because he/she didn't have a victim. Isn't that what you're saying here? Or is it only a crime when there's a victim, but only in certain circumstances, and which don't involve just speeding? What you and the court of public opinion believes means little in the grand scheme. Lynch got a slap on the wrist, will still make millions, still be cheered-for loudly when he scores TD's, and probably won't "run over" anyone else.

Yes, I realize that DA's think everyone is guilty. They are also under political pressure to get as many serious convictions as they can. I highly doubt that Clark wanted to agree to a traffic violation, but given the lack of evidence, he really had no choice. And since he didn't offer it in the beginning, he probably thought there was more, only to find out there wasn't. Again if there were evidence that Lynch was drunk or even drinking heavily, there probably wouldn't have been a plea deal, and we would have heard about it.

If he has reason to believe that Lynch is lying, again based on the evidence he has, he'd have pursued it further. I suspect he thought there was more evidence he was going to get, hence the reason he didn't agree to this plea deal in the beginning.

You intentionally broke the law. Hence you should pay the price. Regardless of your opinion regarding the excessiveness of the penalty for going 15 MPH over the limit, the law is what it is and thankfully you didn't crash while speeding. But again, why is it okay for you to lessen the charges against you but it isn't okay for Lynch?

I disagree. If you hit something, you at least slow down, if not stop to see what happened. It's a leap to think that Lynch knew he hit a person but was so mind-numbingly drunk that he didn't care and kept going, and somehow made it home safely. Or that he was impaired and knew he hit her, but didn't slow down, much less stop, to see what the noise was because he knew it was a person and that he'd get caught for DUI. But again, it's not my interpretation. That's what the DA is accepting.

True. Thankfully the woman wasn't hurt and hopefully Lynch has learned something from this, whether he's guilty or innocent. What's so bad about the punishment for speeding, that you needed to hire a lawyer? Again, why not take what was coming to you?

Once again, you call "how could he not know he hit her" objective?

I'm talking about evidence that has been revealed so far. I would think that someone would have come forward by now saying they saw Lynch drinking heavily that night/early morning. They seem to have gotten a lot of other details.

As I said, all the objective evidence points to Lynch not knowing he hit her. Only using a subjective interpretation does one come to the conclusion that "there's no way he didn't know he hit her unless he was drunk" or that "he knew he hit her but didn't even slow down because he was drunk and didn't want to get charged with DUI." Unless there is proof he was impaired while driving, that's an assumption. The point wasn't to compare the severity of the crime. It was to point out the hypocrisy in thinking that Lynch should get the maximum punishment coming to him and hid behind his lawyer, yet when it came time for you to pay the piper, you did exactly what he did.

The bolded part pretty much shows what a hypocrite you are WRT how you believe other people should own-up to their crimes, but you don't need to do the same. Typical. Lynch got the punishment that was fitting. It's not like he was going to get off scot-free. All objective evidence points to him not knowing he hit her. There were things that distracted him and/or made it hard to see the victim, he never slowed down, much less stopped, after hitting her, and he parked his car in plain sight.

From today's BN article: I think the charge of failing to avoid hitting a pedestrian is fair.

I think he meant the lost gas was worth about 25-30 bucks.

My response is there.

Given she hit the side of the car, it's possible she wasn't in the path of the car, but fell into it because she was so drunk. Which would make it more a case of "stumble into and run."