Police Call 1 P.M. News Conference on Accident Involving Marshawn Lync

[stinky finger]

What means this?

Nothing really. Just beating the dead horse that is JP/community service.

[DC Tom]

Yep, that's what I thought. As I said, the cops are threatening him with obstruction for not talking to them.

 

Have they threatened him with obstruction? I haven't heard.

 

Regardless...a stand-up guy would either a) come forward (if he were driving), or b) (what'd I'd do) try to convince the driver to be a stand-up guy and come forward, then turn him in if he were being a completely incalcitrant dick about it. I'd have no problem with Marshawn, through his lawyer, telling the police "Hey, can you give me a few days to talk some sense into this guy and have him turn himself in?" I'd also have no problem with the police telling him "sh-- no, it's our responsibility. Talk, or we're bringing you in." I WOULD have a problem with Marshawn hiding from responsibility for his own actions as the driver, or protecting someone else out of some misguided sense of loyalty. I also don't know what happened beyond "Someone hit a lady with Lynch's car", so I'll reserve judgement.

 

One thing to also keep in mind is that we expect these guys to act like mature adults, usually more mature than we are. The fact of the matter is that they're little more than kids, usually spoiled rotten (and often we as fans contribute to it), and it's not the LEAST bit uncommon for spoiled rotten kids to panic and run from the scene of a crime even when they know and have been taught better. It's called a lapse in judgement, of a kind very common in spoiled rotten kids, and while it certainly doesn't excuse things it is NOT the same as willful commission of criminal hit-and-run.

 

 

And the woman will likely get a nice out of court settlement because it was Marshawn's car and he has deep pockets.

 

Of course. It's the American Way.

[bills_fan]

Have they threatened him with obstruction? I haven't heard.

 

Regardless...a stand-up guy would either a) come forward (if he were driving), or b) (what'd I'd do) try to convince the driver to be a stand-up guy and come forward, then turn him in if he were being a completely incalcitrant dick about it. I'd have no problem with Marshawn, through his lawyer, telling the police "Hey, can you give me a few days to talk some sense into this guy and have him turn himself in?" I'd also have no problem with the police telling him "sh-- no, it's our responsibility. Talk, or we're bringing you in." I WOULD have a problem with Marshawn hiding from responsibility for his own actions as the driver, or protecting someone else out of some misguided sense of loyalty. I also don't know what happened beyond "Someone hit a lady with Lynch's car", so I'll reserve judgement.

 

One thing to also keep in mind is that we expect these guys to act like mature adults, usually more mature than we are. The fact of the matter is that they're little more than kids, usually spoiled rotten (and often we as fans contribute to it), and it's not the LEAST bit uncommon for spoiled rotten kids to panic and run from the scene of a crime even when they know and have been taught better. It's called a lapse in judgement, of a kind very common in spoiled rotten kids, and while it certainly doesn't excuse things it is NOT the same as willful commission of criminal hit-and-run.

 

Of course. It's the American Way.

 

 

Speaking as a lawyer, Marshawn does not need to say anything. His lawyer is correct in making ML not even speak with the police yet. There is procedure here and ML should say nothing. If he was driving, he should definately say nothing. Take the 5th and let the police prove it. If he was not driving, I would still counsel against saying anything, plead the 5th per any obstruction/consipracy charge.

 

At this point, DUI is off the table, as there is no physical evidence. So it is a simple hit-and-run. So, you shut up for now.

[VOR]

Speaking as a lawyer, Marshawn does not need to say anything. His lawyer is correct in making ML not even speak with the police yet. There is procedure here and ML should say nothing. If he was driving, he should definately say nothing. Take the 5th and let the police prove it. If he was not driving, I would still counsel against saying anything, plead the 5th per any obstruction/consipracy charge.

 

At this point, DUI is off the table, as there is no physical evidence. So it is a simple hit-and-run. So, you shut up for now.

Paul Cambria agrees with you:

 

http://wgr550.com/Cambria--Lynch-s-treatme...pecial-/2309253

[Bill from NYC]

Don't worry about that. It's the rest of us who have to be leary of these dirty buffoons. Seriously, after watching that press conference, does anyone feel good these idiots are making life and death decisions every day?!

 

The fact that you were born was a bad life and death decision.

[bills_fan]

Paul Cambria agrees with you:

 

http://wgr550.com/Cambria--Lynch-s-treatme...pecial-/2309253

 

 

If you only knew how funny that statement is.

 

In law school, I used to work for Paul.

[eball]

We all know that if Marshawn was responsible for the whole mess, his mamma would make him fess up!

You know, that's probably the truth.

[Mickey]

Yep, that's what I thought. As I said, the cops are threatening him with obstruction for not talking to them. And the woman will likely get a nice out of court settlement because it was Marshawn's car and he has deep pockets.

He has no obligation to provide evidence to the police at all, zero. The right to remain silent wouldn't be much of a right if they could charge you with a bunch of crimes for exercising it.

 

As an atty, for what it is worth, my total guess would be that the police don't know and can't prove who was behind the wheel and they want to interview Lynch hoping that he will give him the proof they need that either he or someone else was driving. Another guess would be that they do have some proof that he was driving but aren't quite positive and want to make sure he doesn't have any proof that it was really some one else before they charge him. His atty probably doesn't know either way and is gambling that if they could have arrested him on what they have, they would have already done so. The fact that they haven't could be a sign that they don't have enough proof. If that is the case, Lynch's best play is to exercise his right to remain silent. The file would eventually be closed for lack of evidence.

 

In the end, these kind of cases often end up turning on circumstantial evidence. Its his car, right? He didn't loan it out to anyone, right? It wasn't reported stolen, right? He offers no alibi, right?, There was no one staying with him, right? etc. etc.

This kind of proof sometimes makes it to a jury and sometimes doesn't. No hard and fast rule as to when there is enough circumstantial evidence warranting a trial.

[VOR]

You know, that's probably the truth.

Unless he's protecting mama...

[The Senator]

In the end, these kind of cases often end up turning on circumstantial evidence. Its his car, right? He didn't loan it out to anyone, right? It wasn't reported stolen, right? He offers no alibi, right?, There was no one staying with him, right? etc. etc.

This kind of proof sometimes makes it to a jury and sometimes doesn't. No hard and fast rule as to when there is enough circumstantial evidence warranting a trial.

Well actually, his mother and younger brother live with him, so I imagine either could have 'borrowed' the car.

 

Anyone see Delisa or DaVonte out on Chippewa last Friday nite/Sat. morning?

[Mickey]

Speaking as a lawyer, Marshawn does not need to say anything. His lawyer is correct in making ML not even speak with the police yet. There is procedure here and ML should say nothing. If he was driving, he should definately say nothing. Take the 5th and let the police prove it. If he was not driving, I would still counsel against saying anything, plead the 5th per any obstruction/consipracy charge.

 

At this point, DUI is off the table, as there is no physical evidence. So it is a simple hit-and-run. So, you shut up for now.

I agree. It would be nice if everyone could just be a "stand up guy" and take responsibility for their actions but that isn't the world we live in. He would be opening himself to the whims and discretions, or lack thereof, of a prosecutors office which is filled with ambitious lawyers hoping for a big score to launch their careers. The DA that was involved in that Duke Lacrosse situation is a good example of that kind of prosecutor. I would have no problem with a guy taking responsibility if I thought that there was a pretty good guarantee that he would be given his just punishment. However, that would be out of his control once he confesses.

 

The only leverage an accused has, especially a guilty one, is the time, effort and difficulty the state will bear to prove his guilt. Once he gives that up, the state can punish him, over-punish him, be merciful, whatever they want, at their discretion.

That is why there are plea bargains. The accused gets to limit just how badly he will be punished and the state is saved the uncertain results and increased expenses of a trial.

 

In this case, it looks like a hefty fine is in order along with a suspension of his license followed by a rather painful, for Lynch, civil trial. If he was behind the wheel, that is what his atty should be looking for. Damage control. Limit the loss and cost to the client and get it over with.

 

I imagine that the DA is probably not relishing a trial against Lynch if they don't have proof, dispositive proof, that he was the driver. DA's are elected officials and Bills fans vote. They will stick with Lynch unless and until there is solid proof he was the bad driver. That is especially so due to, thank God, the injuries being minor. I wouldn't bother charging him unless I thought I had him nailed as the driver.

[Mickey]

Well actually, his mother and younger brother live with him, so I imagine either could have 'borrowed' the car.

 

Anyone see Delisa or DaVonte out on Chippewa last Friday nite/Sat. morning?

Makes sense, he is keeping quiet to protect Mom. Who could blame him?

[HurlyBurly51]

The fact that you were born was a bad life and death decision.

 

I'd be a little snarky and embarrassed as hell too after that display of your profession yesterday. Jeez...what a joke these bungling barney fife keystone cops represented yesterday. And the funny (sad) thing is, it isn't an abberation!

[UConn James]

He has no obligation to provide evidence to the police at all, zero. The right to remain silent wouldn't be much of a right if they could charge you with a bunch of crimes for exercising it.

 

As an atty, for what it is worth, my total guess would be that the police don't know and can't prove who was behind the wheel and they want to interview Lynch hoping that he will give him the proof they need that either he or someone else was driving. Another guess would be that they do have some proof that he was driving but aren't quite positive and want to make sure he doesn't have any proof that it was really some one else before they charge him. His atty probably doesn't know either way and is gambling that if they could have arrested him on what they have, they would have already done so. The fact that they haven't could be a sign that they don't have enough proof. If that is the case, Lynch's best play is to exercise his right to remain silent. The file would eventually be closed for lack of evidence.

 

In the end, these kind of cases often end up turning on circumstantial evidence. Its his car, right? He didn't loan it out to anyone, right? It wasn't reported stolen, right? He offers no alibi, right?, There was no one staying with him, right? etc. etc.

This kind of proof sometimes makes it to a jury and sometimes doesn't. No hard and fast rule as to when there is enough circumstantial evidence warranting a trial.

 

Legally, he may not have to talk to the police other than to say "I invoke the 5th amendment" and make them try to prove who was driving. That's a pretty strong argument not to say anything until/unless evidence rises. But there's legality and then there's morality (karma, if-you-will).

 

If he does not talk, does ML have even more to lose? I'd say that most fans certainly don't like this situation. I'm sure the Bills do not like it. Could factor into future contract negotiations as the club, in the papers at least, values 'character' players. There will always be this cloud over his head if he doesn't come forward with any info he has. Whether it passes over...?

 

Almost five days on, I'm disappointed in and have lost respect for ML as a man. I was taught to own responsibility for your actions and to do the right thing. It's crap like this that has me always saying that I 'root for the laundry' rather than the individuals on a team I follow. And it's getting harder to even do that anymore.

[Big Turk]

Legally, he may not have to talk to the police other than to say "I invoke the 5th amendment" and make them try to prove who was driving. That's a pretty strong argument not to say anything until/unless evidence rises. But there's legality and then there's morality (karma, if-you-will).

 

If he does not talk, does ML have even more to lose? I'd say that most fans certainly don't like this situation. I'm sure the Bills do not like it. Could factor into future contract negotiations as the club, in the papers at least, values 'character' players. There will always be this cloud over his head if he doesn't come forward with any info he has. Whether it passes over...?

 

Almost five days on, I'm disappointed in and have lost respect for ML as a man. I was taught to own responsibility for your actions and to do the right thing. It's crap like this that has me always saying that I 'root for the laundry' rather than the individuals on a team I follow. And it's getting harder to even do that anymore.

 

His lawyer advised him not to say anything, which is the same advice the lawyer would give you, I or a bum on the street. Every person in this country has a right to not self incriminate themselves, and if they decide not to talk, then that is their right according to the constitution. Obviously the police must not have a lot to go on or else they would have charged him already. All this legal mumbo-jumbo the police are talking is a smoke screen to try and get him to come forward because they have nothing. I mean, just how ridiculous is it for them to suggest that if he refuses to talk to the police that he can be charge with obstruction of justice? In no way, shape or form is that an accurate statement by the police, and they could never charge him with that for not talking, and invoking his constitutional right. I think the police spokesman who suggested this has been reading a little too much George Orwell...

 

How are we so sure its whoever's fault that was behind the wheel to begin with? What if he had a green light to turn and some drunk person just kept walking right into the street against the light(jaywalking)? What if they recognized it was a member of the Bills' team and intentionally walked in front of the car to try and get insurance money? All kinds of things could have happened, but everyone is assuming that this person is guilty with no evidence to support it. I am not saying the person is innocent either. All I am saying is that we do not know all of the facts, and to be honest, there is more we don't know than there is we know.

 

Now everyone will say "Well if he was innocent he would come forward with information". Not necessarily. He is acting on advice of his lawyer, who knows the law and what is in the best interest of his client, regardless of what everyone thinks they know or don't know. If it was truly in Marshawn's best interest to come forward and speak about it, I am sure he would have been advised to do so.

 

Regardless, if the person who was "injured" chooses, they can sue the insurance company in civil court and try and get compensation. The person wasn't seriously injured, and the worst crime that whoever was driving the car could be charged with is a class A misdemeanor, which they would probably plea down to community service and a small fine at the worst anyways.

[Big Turk]

He has no obligation to provide evidence to the police at all, zero. The right to remain silent wouldn't be much of a right if they could charge you with a bunch of crimes for exercising it.

 

As an atty, for what it is worth, my total guess would be that the police don't know and can't prove who was behind the wheel and they want to interview Lynch hoping that he will give him the proof they need that either he or someone else was driving. Another guess would be that they do have some proof that he was driving but aren't quite positive and want to make sure he doesn't have any proof that it was really some one else before they charge him. His atty probably doesn't know either way and is gambling that if they could have arrested him on what they have, they would have already done so. The fact that they haven't could be a sign that they don't have enough proof. If that is the case, Lynch's best play is to exercise his right to remain silent. The file would eventually be closed for lack of evidence.

 

In the end, these kind of cases often end up turning on circumstantial evidence. Its his car, right? He didn't loan it out to anyone, right? It wasn't reported stolen, right? He offers no alibi, right?, There was no one staying with him, right? etc. etc.

This kind of proof sometimes makes it to a jury and sometimes doesn't. No hard and fast rule as to when there is enough circumstantial evidence warranting a trial.

 

Even if he was charged, wouldn't the fact that it was a misdemeanor to begin with mean that he would likely plea down to some sort of community service and pay a fine anyways? Its not like there is a strong likelihood of serving any jail time, especially as it was his first offense of this kind...

[AJ1]

He has no obligation to provide evidence to the police at all, zero. The right to remain silent wouldn't be much of a right if they could charge you with a bunch of crimes for exercising it.

 

As an atty, for what it is worth, my total guess would be that the police don't know and can't prove who was behind the wheel and they want to interview Lynch hoping that he will give him the proof they need that either he or someone else was driving. Another guess would be that they do have some proof that he was driving but aren't quite positive and want to make sure he doesn't have any proof that it was really some one else before they charge him. His atty probably doesn't know either way and is gambling that if they could have arrested him on what they have, they would have already done so. The fact that they haven't could be a sign that they don't have enough proof. If that is the case, Lynch's best play is to exercise his right to remain silent. The file would eventually be closed for lack of evidence.

 

In the end, these kind of cases often end up turning on circumstantial evidence. Its his car, right? He didn't loan it out to anyone, right? It wasn't reported stolen, right? He offers no alibi, right?, There was no one staying with him, right? etc. etc.

This kind of proof sometimes makes it to a jury and sometimes doesn't. No hard and fast rule as to when there is enough circumstantial evidence warranting a trial.

 

Is there one witness that can place Lynch downtown anywhere near the time of the accident? If not, that is an indication that the DA has no case.

 

One circumstance I speculate about is, is it possible to have the car stereo turned up so loud as to not hear or notice a brushing 10 mph collision with a pedestrian? So a hit and an unknowing run. Wondering if that could happen?

[keepthefaith]

His lawyer advised him not to say anything, which is the same advice the lawyer would give you, I or a bum on the street. Every person in this country has a right to not self incriminate themselves, and if they decide not to talk, then that is their right according to the constitution. Obviously the police must not have a lot to go on or else they would have charged him already. All this legal mumbo-jumbo the police are talking is a smoke screen to try and get him to come forward because they have nothing. I mean, just how ridiculous is it for them to suggest that if he refuses to talk to the police that he can be charge with obstruction of justice? In no way, shape or form is that an accurate statement by the police, and they could never charge him with that for not talking, and invoking his constitutional right. I think the police spokesman who suggested this has been reading a little too much George Orwell...

 

How are we so sure its whoever's fault that was behind the wheel to begin with? What if he had a green light to turn and some drunk person just kept walking right into the street against the light(jaywalking)? What if they recognized it was a member of the Bills' team and intentionally walked in front of the car to try and get insurance money? All kinds of things could have happened, but everyone is assuming that this person is guilty with no evidence to support it. I am not saying the person is innocent either. All I am saying is that we do not know all of the facts, and to be honest, there is more we don't know than there is we know.

 

Now everyone will say "Well if he was innocent he would come forward with information". Not necessarily. He is acting on advice of his lawyer, who knows the law and what is in the best interest of his client, regardless of what everyone thinks they know or don't know. If it was truly in Marshawn's best interest to come forward and speak about it, I am sure he would have been advised to do so.

 

Regardless, if the person who was "injured" chooses, they can sue the insurance company in civil court and try and get compensation. The person wasn't seriously injured, and the worst crime that whoever was driving the car could be charged with is a class A misdemeanor, which they would probably plea down to community service and a small fine at the worst anyways.

 

This may all be true. The problem is that the commissioner looks at more than the law. He considers the manner in which the player resolves the issue. If marshawn hides behind the law and then is found guilty or is found to be obstructing the criminal investigation in some way, old Roger is gonna punish him for that.

[Big Turk]

This may all be true. The problem is that the commissioner looks at more than the law. He considers the manner in which the player resolves the issue. If marshawn hides behind the law and then is found guilty or is found to be obstructing the criminal investigation in some way, old Roger is gonna punish him for that.

 

It is NOT possible to obstruct an investigation by invoking a constitutional right to not incriminate yourself. There is no hiding behind anything going on here. He has a right to not talk, and he is using that right. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. Lynch doesn't need to prove anything. That is the whole reason someone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. The law does not state that you are guilty until you prove your innocence...that harkens back to the days of the inquisition.

 

Also I am pretty sure Goodell would not be silly enough to try and suspend a player based on the only evidence being that his car was found to be involved. The NFLPA would have a field day with that appeal...

[VOR]

This may all be true. The problem is that the commissioner looks at more than the law. He considers the manner in which the player resolves the issue. If marshawn hides behind the law and then is found guilty or is found to be obstructing the criminal investigation in some way, old Roger is gonna punish him for that.

If he doesn't talk, he can't be obstructing anything. And he needs to be found guilty of something, which is why he's not talking.