Mickey

Right, because they never charge or convict innocent people. Never happens. People assume that in most cases, guilt or innocence can be definitely proved. Not so. The only question is whether you have enough evidence to get it in front of a jury and if you do, then its up to them and with a jury, anything can happen or do I have to remind you of the OJ trial? Guilty guys sometimes get off and innocent people some time get slammed. Sometimes a guy is guilty of a minor crime but the DA gets a conviction on a much more serious charge. Criminal law is not an exact science and that is why the good defense atty's get the big bucks. It can often be very, very wise for an innocent man to shut his mouth.

Becasue the DA won't committ to a deal, just a fine and no jail time. Once he talks, he has ZERO bargaining power. Am I the only one here who has seen an interrogation scene from Law and Order? The DA has hinted many times that this is no big deal, at least that is what he keeps saying in public, something you are willing to buy into at face value. But when they had a meeting and the atty asked them to committ, they refused. Now, if you were Lynch's atty, I guess you would have just given them everything they need to hang your client with no committment to a lesser plea in place. Right after that you'd be fired and not long after, disbarred. Its easy to play armchair lawyer.

Seven stitches, no scar? Yeah, worth about 15k.

Why don't you tell us how you would handle it with all your superior skills and knowledge of the law and this particular case?

Actually, he doesn't have a right to subpoena any one he wants to for no reason at all. A subpoena such as this can be challenged in court should the recipient decide to do so. Its called a motion to quash the subpoena. I think that serving a subpoena on a guy because he was seen having a conversation with a suspect is about as thin as it gets.

Its a choice only if he knew he hit her, which is something no one on this board knows and its also something the police definitely don't know. Not that ignorance of a seminal fact in the case should get in the way of any piety pirates pontificating from on high.

...or harassment or pulled over for dwb. What makes you think he hasn't?

Actually, when they met with his lawyer, they refused to committ to a deal before he talks. Of course, once he does talk, they have no incentive to give him a deal. They have hinted that he would get off with just a fine but when the atty tried to get them to actually committ to that, they balked and so he walked and here we stand. Dragging Wilson in to testify just because he was seen *gasp* talking to one of the players allegedly involved is a bullying tactic, pure and simple. Are they going to drag in every person who is seen having a conversation with Lynch, Hardy, Gaddis or Johnson? They just want to put pressure on them, have Wilson pulling them in to his office by the ears. Maybe they should subpoena me too. Afterall, I probably have spoken to someone in the last week who has spoken to someone who has spoken to someone who has spoken to someone who has spoken to someone who has spoken to someone who has spoken to Lynch. Maybe I know something.

Lots of guys with just as much talent never made it because they didn't put in the work. Talent is just hard work in disguise. These guys didn't just wake up one morning running 4.3 40's. They spent hours and hours running, lifting and practicing from Pop Warner right up through 4 years of college.

Star athletes can certainly be a pain but I wouldn't call them "lucky". They work damn hard to get where they are and professional football is a business masquerading as a game. The money they make is not insane, it is what the market has determined their very special skills to be worth.

It is easy to be morally pure when it is someone else's keester on the line.

What the police really mean when they ask you to "cooperate" with the investigation is for you to help them convict you as soon as possible. If it makes them mad that you aren't going to help them throw you in jail and to help the victim get a 7 figure settlement for a minor cut, then so be it.

If he apologized, that would be admissible against him in a civil case as an admission of fault. You know nothing about the pedestrian's actions so even if you assume Lynch was driving which you clearly do, you have no way of knowing if she had any comparative fault. Was she crossing at a corner, in a cross walk, did she dart out, between cars, etc, etc,. Apologizing won't "prevent further damage", it will just make it easier for her attorneys.

I guess the terrorists win again.

Which is why we don't let the parents of the either the victim or the accused sit on juries, they couldn't possibly be fair and objective. I am not sure what that observation adds to the debate. I think the real problem here is that there is an unresolved cloud hanging over Marshawn and he is such an important part of the team's future that emotionally invested fans are filled with anxiety that can only be relieved by a speedy resolution. Each day Marshawn is quiet, drags that anxiety out. We do not now what happened, we do not know if Marshawn is guilty of anything, anything at all. If the police were sure, they would have made an arrest but instead they are trying to scare Lynch in to talking by the prospect of having his friends questioned, even if they have to convene a grand jury to do it. Since the police clearly don't even have a case yet they think is strong enough to make an arrest, there is no way anyone here can say they know enough about what really happened to start judging and condeming anyone. I would love to hear the DA give us some background info on how often he has gone as far as to convene a grand jury in a case involving a minor injury best left to the civil courts to redress. As I have said from the git-go, the DA is going to go overboard on this case because of the notoriety and with that in mind, Lynch would be a fool to cooperate. The fact that his atty wanted a deal in place before talking is elementary. The DA characterized it as if it were something unusual. Quite the contrary, its standard. That the DA claimed otherwise is a bad sign that he is looking to capitalize on the notoriety of this case to advance his own career.

but...but...but they were 97% sure he was guilty

What you fail to realize is that this guy is "97%" Lynch is guilty. With his Kreshkin like powers to see the future, to know the unknowable, he can skip right past the "proving guilt" part and skip right to the self righteous, pollyanna bleating about how morally offended he is. You see, there is a direct link between the imminent fall of western civilization and Lynch's driving skills that warrants a public call for Lynch to forfeit his self interest and that of his family for the sake of keeping badobilz's moral skirts clean and white. For me, I pay the ticket price to see that guy run over a few LB's and as long as he does that, I don't begrudge him the right to legal counsel and *gasp* using his right to keep silent to try and keep the police from ruining him. Gee, I don't why he wouldn't want to subject himself to the judgment of reactionary moral purists like badobilz. But then again, I don't have all the facts like badobilz has in his hip pocket so I have to actually wait until those facts are established before reaching judgment.

I don't care what Buffalo looks like, the food is unbelievable. And as for Canadians, I used to enjoy a merry little war over Canada vs. the US with a good friend of mine who is Canadian until I did some genealogical research and discovered that I have significant Canadian roots. Boy did she get a kick out of that one. Now she and I sit at parties and poke fun at these foolish Americans and their dip-wad of a President.

Do you know he knew what he hit? Do you know he hit her directly? Do you know if the damage to his car was done by impact with a pedestrian or impact with an object resulting from the same bad driving that hit the girl? Do you know what the driver of that vehicle was thinking at the time? By all means, don't let ignorance of the facts stop you from showing us all how righteously superior you are to everyone else. Lynch will have to deal with whatever he did or didn't do, the DA will see to that I'm sure. When its over, he will be back on the field because we pay him to run for yardage, not to serve as your moral inspiration.

I am expanding it to coaches, Turk is the most important guy on the team this year. He has the toughest job, turning around the worst offense in the history of the franchise with nothing new to play with but a tall WR.

Exactly. When you have a case with tons of publicity, and then, days after the fact a witness suddenly comes forward, you have to wonder. Add in all the circumstances you mention, and I am sure the police are concerned about this witness, assuming that witness exists. One of the oldest tricks in the book is to claim you have a witness who nails the defendant even if you don't. The defendant then figures he is better off coming clean to earn points with the DA and get a good plea/sentencing recommendation. I have even seen the ploy used in civil cases by insurance adjusters. I am sure you have seen an interrogation session on Law & Order where, making it up out of whole cloth, they tell the suspect, "look, we have witnesses who can place you at the scene, we know you had the motive, the only thing we can't figure out is whether you used a hammer or or a baseball bat...?" We just don't know diddly at this point. The police could have a witness, a good one, a lousy one or none at all. They might be holding off to give him a chance to do the right thing or they might be holding off because their evidence if for S....

What exactly are you basing your 99% certainty on that he had "too many drinks" ( I assume that means he you are 99% certain he had a bac over the legal limit?), "clipped a girl" (I take that to mean that your are 99% certain that he was driving the car and that the car actually struck the girl) that he "got scared & drove away" (I assume then that you are 99% certain that he was knew that the car made contact with the girl rather than with the curb, parked car or something else and that knowing that, he drove away). I am just wondering where this 99% certainty comes from based on what I think the known facts are at this point which are A) it was his car B) the police say they have a witness who pegs him as the driver but they also say they aren't sure yet who was driving. The fact that you may be right in the end doesn't justify a present declaration of 99% certainty of all these facts based on the information currently available nor flaming as homers anyone who thinks the facts should probably come out first.

You are absolutely right. In fact, Marv once described precisely what he meant by "character" in very similar terms.

A witness who "comes forward" days after a well publicized incident is certainly open to suspicion.

Exactly. I don't understand how they have a witness who says he was driving and yet, in the same story, it says authorities still aren't sure who was driving. Either they don't beleive their own witness or the statement is not dispositive as to who the driver was. Or, some other possibility I can't think of at the moment.