Big Turk Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 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. Unless the person is your spouse...
dave mcbride Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Irrespective of the legalistic obfuscation that's currently dominating the discussion, does anyone seriously believe that he wasn't driving the car??
Mickey Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 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. I was picking up the discussion where you took it, that he had information about someone else and refused to talk so that he could then be charged with obstruction. Obviously, they would have to compel him to testify first and he would have to take the 5th. I didn't think it was necessary to cover that assumption. They can't arrest a guy for not talking when they haven't even asked him a question. My discussion was targeted to how, after all that, they prove that he had no basis for taking the 5th. It is difficult to prove. I don't think you will find many cases where someone was convicted of obstruction of justice for taking the 5th improperly. When it does come up, it is usually contempt, such as when a witness takes the 5th on the stand and the Judge orders him to answer after making a finding that the question did not reasonably invoke the 5th. If the witness continues to refuse to answer, the judge hits him with contempt.
MarkAF43 Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Didn't see this posted but per WGRZ he may have been driving News link
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Cut him. Fast Freddy! If that doesn't work, give Sean Doctor a call.
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 NASTYCAR introduces the Marshawn Lynch 500 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24943229/
nodnarb Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 I feel like I have a cartoonesque dark squiggly tornado thingy over my head every time I think about this. Lynch is really, really good. And so key to the offense being explosive and difficult to defend. I wonder what the worst case scenario is for him, assuming he was driving. But no matter what the story is, this will haunt his reputation as a person, and that's a real shame. It just doesn't seem consistent with the kind of guy we've all heard about/read about. I wish these young millionaires would realize that nothing good happens on the streets at 3:30 in the morning.
Dwight Drane Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Didn't see this posted but per WGRZ he may have been driving News link I'm confused as to why this board isn't lighting up in more of a frenzy given that this is turning out to be a worst case scenario. Not only was it Lynch's car, not only do multiple people put him on Chippewa at the time, but now multiple people have him as the driver along with the fact he stopped for a moment, then sped off.....AND now we have the DA who is known to love camera time and is getting ready to leave office telling us that multiple Bills players were probably in the car and that they have a responsibility to step up and inform police or else they will be forced to talk. Clark said there are going to be charges, and is goading the other Bills into giving up Marshawn before they are put on the spot and could face charges themselves. This is not going away. If anything it is getting much bigger. I don't know if anyone is going to serve time, but I have to think suspensions will be handed down from the commish.
HurlyBurly51 Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Sounds like a plea deal will be coming. I would suspect no time, but the commish is a whole other matter.
Dawgg Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Lots of Bills have been guilty of things in the past; that's not the point. I simply think, based upon the time that has transpired, it's less and less likely Marshawn was driving. Still stand by your conclusion based on shaky logic?
eball Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Still stand by your conclusion based on shaky logic? Dude, I simply had a hunch, and I don't think the logic was "shaky" at all. I have no "dawgg" in this fight. Interestingly, This article paints a little bit of a different picture, and it's still not a certainly Marshawn was driving. I'm now more concerned about the possibility other Bills were in the vehicle as well. It would be better for the team if only one guy was involved.
Chandler#81 Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 From the USA Today, ML is prime suspect. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...awn-lynch_N.htm Just an opine, but if other Bills were in the car as well, this doesn't speak highly of any of them, that no-one was able to convince <the driver> to stop and assist, as everyone knows is the only legal thing to do, let alone the moral obligation.
obie_wan Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 From the USA Today, ML is prime suspect. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...awn-lynch_N.htm Just an opine, but if other Bills were in the car as well, this doesn't speak highly of any of them, that no-one was able to convince <the driver> to stop and assist, as everyone knows is the only legal thing to do, let alone the moral obligation. what's the problem? they are all Bills - so they must be right. injured lady was probably a Pats fan anyway
eball Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 what's the problem? they are all Bills - so they must be right. injured lady was probably a Pats fan anyway Give it a rest, man. Nobody with a brain thinks anyone is innocent or guilty because of the uniform they wear. We are fans so we "hope" our team is not negatively impacted. Understand the difference? Your act is old and tired.
DC Tom Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 From the USA Today, ML is prime suspect. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...awn-lynch_N.htm So now after a week...nothing has changed. They still have no evidence that he committed a crime. But NOW we're convinced he was, because USA Today is reporting that they don't know if he was driving? Nice police work there, Lou. Just an opine, but if other Bills were in the car as well, this doesn't speak highly of any of them, that no-one was able to convince <the driver> to stop and assist, as everyone knows is the only legal thing to do, let alone the moral obligation. Screw the legality of it, the moral obligation of being an adult is taking responsibility for your own !@#$-ups. But as I said earlier...we tend to forget that these guys are really NOT adults. Usually they're spoiled overgrown children. And we should look to ourselves and the way we worship our "heros" for the reasons for that. Really, if you want to apportion responsibility, each one of us hit that pedestrian at Chippewa and Delaware... (Yeah, that last sentence was bull sh--. The rest I meant, though.)
DC Tom Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Please don't let it be Hamdan. Please don't let it be Hamdan. Actually, it was Hamdan. But he was so poised under questioning that the police were convinced it couldn't have been him, then so charasmatic in his arguments that he convinced them Lynch did it.
obie_wan Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Give it a rest, man. Nobody with a brain thinks anyone is innocent or guilty because of the uniform they wear. We are fans so we "hope" our team is not negatively impacted. Understand the difference? Your act is old and tired. Homer- I guess you are right. The hundreds of posts trying to retationalize the reckless and criminal activities of certain individuals (only because they play for the Bills) are all just being "mis-understood" Thanks for clearing that up
eball Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Homer- I guess you are right. The hundreds of posts trying to retationalize the reckless and criminal activities of certain individuals (only because they play for the Bills) are all just being "mis-understood" Thanks for clearing that up You've got issues, dude.
Chilly Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Homer- I guess you are right. The hundreds of posts trying to retationalize the reckless and criminal activities of certain individuals (only because they play for the Bills) are all just being "mis-understood" Thanks for clearing that up lol "hundreds"
Lurker Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 I wish these young millionaires would realize that nothing good happens on the streets at 3:30 in the morning. Why pick on millionaires? The same logic applies to all 22-year olds...
Recommended Posts