keepthefaith Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 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... Well, you're wrong about Goodell and the NFL and that's my point. The NFL Players agreement includes a code of conduct and players can (and are) disciplined for conduct alone. Vick was suspended prior to being arrested. Packman was suspended the last time for just being in the room in Vegas where someone was killed. He was not charged in that incident. Tank Johnson was suspended long before he was convicted. The NFL standard of conduct (which is a contract) is different than that of the law.
keepthefaith Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 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. You're wrong too. The NFL conduct policy does not require that the league punish only "guilty" players.
AJ1 Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 You're wrong too. The NFL conduct policy does not require that the league punish only "guilty" players. Name one player who was suspended for being a suspect.
VOR Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 Well, you're wrong about Goodell and the NFL and that's my point. The NFL Players agreement includes a code of conduct and players can (and are) disciplined for conduct alone. Vick was suspended prior to being arrested. Packman was suspended the last time for just being in the room in Vegas where someone was killed. He was not charged in that incident. Tank Johnson was suspended long before he was convicted. The NFL standard of conduct (which is a contract) is different than that of the law. You're wrong. The NFL knew of Vick's impending arrest and about all the information against him. Tank Johnson was suspended well AFTER he was charged with guns possession. And Pacman was arrested for assault and felony vandalism, and charged with felony obstruction of justice, before being suspended.
AJ1 Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 You're wrong too. The NFL conduct policy does not require that the league punish only "guilty" players. Course, we could have Saddam 'justice' where the police know the perp is one of four people so you throw all four in jail to get the right one, without a trial, by the way.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 Well, you're wrong about Goodell and the NFL and that's my point. The NFL Players agreement includes a code of conduct and players can (and are) disciplined for conduct alone. Vick was suspended prior to being arrested. Packman was suspended the last time for just being in the room in Vegas where someone was killed. He was not charged in that incident. Tank Johnson was suspended long before he was convicted. The NFL standard of conduct (which is a contract) is different than that of the law. There is no known conduct. That's a futile argument. What if Marshawn found a girl and threw his keys to his buddy and said "take my car." What if Marshawn was totally wasted and asleep in the passenger seat and didn't really know what happened except what his friend told him. Chances are, with what we now know, that he knows something. But you can't suspend someone for "unknown conduct". Pacman was suspended for throwing a bag of cash up in the air and starting a riot where someone was killed.
Big Turk Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 There is no known conduct. That's a futile argument. What if Marshawn found a girl and threw his keys to his buddy and said "take my car." What if Marshawn was totally wasted and asleep in the passenger seat and didn't really know what happened except what his friend told him. Chances are, with what we now know, that he knows something. But you can't suspend someone for "unknown conduct". Pacman was suspended for throwing a bag of cash up in the air and starting a riot where someone was killed. Exactly...the NFLPA would appeal this within a minute of a suspension being handed out...
AJ1 Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 Exactly...the NFLPA would appeal this within a minute of a suspension being handed out... ...and any blindfolded 2yr. law student could win the defendant's case.
keepthefaith Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 There is no known conduct. That's a futile argument. What if Marshawn found a girl and threw his keys to his buddy and said "take my car." What if Marshawn was totally wasted and asleep in the passenger seat and didn't really know what happened except what his friend told him. Chances are, with what we now know, that he knows something. But you can't suspend someone for "unknown conduct". Pacman was suspended for throwing a bag of cash up in the air and starting a riot where someone was killed. My point continues to be missed, but first of all I sincerely hope that the end result of this is that Marshawn is not involved beyond owning the car and that he is not subject to any discipline from the league or the law. While there is no known conduct at this point, more info in the coming days will reveal something, good or bad. My point is simply that if he has any involvement in this and even if he is not charged or convicted of anything, there will likely be a league review at the very least. The league can impose penalties even if the player is not found guilty and not charged. Below is a link to the NFL conduct policy and here are a couple of excerpts. It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty of a crime. Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club, you are held to a higher standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, promotes the values upon which the League is based, and is lawful. Persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental and subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime Conduct that imposes inherent danger to the safety and well being of another person; Upon learning of conduct that may give rise to discipline, the League will direct an investigation, which may include interviews and information gathering from medical, law enforcement, and other relevant professionals http://www.purplepride.org/nfl/conduct.cfm
keepthefaith Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 Name one player who was suspended for being a suspect. Pacman Jones
Mickey Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 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. :lol: Obviously, you are free to draw your own conclusions, even in the absence of facts, as to what is wrong and right, moral and immoral in this situation. I have a feeling that the DA's office is going to do what is in their best interests, regardless of right and wrong or "karma". I am pretty certain that the woman who was injured, if even only slightly, will do what is in her best interests regardless of what is right or wrong. Not knowing the facts, I have no problem with Lynch doing what is in his best interests as well. As for what he loses or gains, I think he loses a lot more from a wrongful conviction than he does from shutting up until this all blows over. There are situations where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. This may be the case for Lynch. If he was the driver and, with no plea bargain in place he fesses up, he will be at the mercy of a prosecutor who would have every reason to go way overboard. He would also be handing the victim and her attorneys a victory in court and believe me, they will have no morals when it comes to grabbing every dime they can get, warranted or not. I'd lose respect for him if he talked under these circumstances because he would be an idiot.
Mickey Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 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? Sure it could happen, anything is possible. He might have thought he just hit a curb, no one knows what happened. Defendants win ties. Prosecutor has the burden of proof. A DA with a solid case makes an arrest. A DA with a circumstantial case is in a grey area, maybe he has a case, maybe not. To know, he or she has to know all the circumstances so he can show that those circumstances leave only one possibility. My guess is that they know it was his car that hit her but don't have any other evidence to show it was him. So they need details on his activities that night and anyone else's who could potentially have had access to the car or been driving with Lynch as a passenger. A defendant's silence can't be used as proof of his guilt. I think Lynch's atty has reached the same conclusion. Every day that goes by without an arrest or cooperation by Lynch is an indication that they don't have all the evidence they need. Its all speculation and guesses at this point but if I had to bet that is where I would go.
DC Tom Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 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... The right to aviod incriminating yourself is just that - to avoid incriminating yourself. IF Lynch committed a crime, he has the legal right to not make statements about it. (Morally, it may make him a coward. But legally he'd be correct in doing so.) If, however, he has information about someone ELSE committing a crime that he wasn't involved in...there's no self-incrimination, hence no constitutional right to keep silent. He has no legal requirement to talk to the police, either...but if he chooses not to talk under those circumstances, the police and DA CAN charge him with obstruction or hold him as a material witness (or possibly, given his car was involved, charge him with aiding and abetting). The 5th Amendment only applies if he himself is actually criminally negligent, though. There's no constitutional right to keep quiet to avoid incriminating others.
HurlyBurly51 Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 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. Apparently there is. I saw an update on ESPNews last night, and they say someone placed him in the same general vicinity around the time of the incident. That was news to me.
VOR Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 Word around Bills camp is that Marshawn's cousin was driving, Marshawn doesn't want to give him up until he gets things straight, and Marshawn wasn't even in town, which contradicts the claim that he was in the area that night. This is from an "inside source," and we'll know soon enough whether the source if FOS or not. I hope it's all true.
Mickey Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 The right to aviod incriminating yourself is just that - to avoid incriminating yourself. IF Lynch committed a crime, he has the legal right to not make statements about it. (Morally, it may make him a coward. But legally he'd be correct in doing so.) If, however, he has information about someone ELSE committing a crime that he wasn't involved in...there's no self-incrimination, hence no constitutional right to keep silent. He has no legal requirement to talk to the police, either...but if he chooses not to talk under those circumstances, the police and DA CAN charge him with obstruction or hold him as a material witness (or possibly, given his car was involved, charge him with aiding and abetting). The 5th Amendment only applies if he himself is actually criminally negligent, though. There's no constitutional right to keep quiet to avoid incriminating others. Proving that the right was invoked improperly is often difficult to the point of impossible. Even then, I don't think it would be obustruction if he had a good faith belief that his assertion of the right was proper. All that he would have to show is that he acted on the advice of counsel.
DC Tom Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 Proving that the right was invoked improperly is often difficult to the point of impossible. Even then, I don't think it would be obustruction if he had a good faith belief that his assertion of the right was proper. All that he would have to show is that he acted on the advice of counsel. Trying to prove WHAT right was invoked improperly? He hasn't invoked any rights. He doesn't have to. He's under no obligation whatsoever to talk to anyone right now. The whole point of the right against self incrimination is that you can refuse to answer WHEN YOU WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED TO if the answer is self-incriminating. He's not required to answer any questions, not until they put him under oath or subpoena him. Ergo, him exercising his "right" in this situation makes about as much sense as you exercising your "right" to yawn. Which doesn't mean they couldn't arrest him for obstruction...it just means they'd have to prove mens rea if they tried him for it.
Steely Dan Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 Trying to prove WHAT right was invoked improperly? He hasn't invoked any rights. He doesn't have to. He's under no obligation whatsoever to talk to anyone right now. The whole point of the right against self incrimination is that you can refuse to answer WHEN YOU WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED TO if the answer is self-incriminating. He's not required to answer any questions, not until they put him under oath or subpoena him. Ergo, him exercising his "right" in this situation makes about as much sense as you exercising your "right" to yawn. Which doesn't mean they couldn't arrest him for obstruction...it just means they'd have to prove mens rea if they tried him for it. Does he have to prove Ghana Rea? She's a slut!
JasoninMT Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 What if.... It was his Mom driving? Enough Hypotheticals... ML does not HAVE to say anything to the press, ML SHOULD say something to the press. I'm certain that his atty has told him to stay quiet, this situation won't go away, but until the authorities have everything sorted out, he'll remain quiet. If they question him, he'll answer in coordination w/ his counsel. I don't believe ML has a prior record of miscreant behavior - this will work to his advantage. After the "legality" parts work themselves out - I'm positive he'll issue a presser and in it he'll apologize for remaining quiet, but he was acting on his counsel's advice. The fact that he's not on TV denying everything, does not mean he is guilty... in fact, I applaud the fact that he isn't playing the NOT ME game most athletes use until they are proved to be lying about their involvement. This seems to me a very smart move by him. if he's guilty of something, he'll admit it when the time comes, and not beforehand... I hate the media posturing often made by defendents, whether they are famous, infamous, or nobodies.
Recommended Posts