Lynch - Suspended?

[DC Tom]

both incidents were just "misunderstandings"

 

the lady on the pavement was just a mirage

 

Who hit her?

[Chilly]

Who hit her?

 

Hardy, duh.

[Nanker]

I'm considering stepping up to the plate.

But, I might want to swat ML first.

[BADOLBILZ]

This Lynch thing has been buggin' the shiiit out of me lately, and I've been trying to understand why it bugs me so much.

 

First...yes...I'm glad the person who was hit is okay. Everyone happy about that I mentioned that? Good. God forbid anyone thinks I'm a douchebag for supporting someone who left someone else for !@#$ing dead.

 

At first, I thought "I hope this isn't true, because I really like this guy." What I mean is, as a guy, I really like him. The enthusiasm, the lightheartedness, the momma. Dig it. AND...as a football player, I completely dig him, and I'm enthused the offense has some stuff built around him because I think he's a !@#$ing monster. Granted, maybe I just like his play on the field after suffering through McGahee's apathy, but I don't care. I dig him. I don't want to see him fail.

 

Then I thought, "I hope this isn't true because we just hobbled through a season of injury, have reason to be optimistic for the upcoming health of the team, and now we have to be reminded that injury isn't the only thing that can !@#$ with a team's performance."

 

But then I read this post, and a lot of posts like it, and I realize what bugs me the most: regardless of how this turns out, for better or even worse, the online Bills fan will FOREVER rake this dude over the coals through the sheer strength of their own self-important egomanical assumptions for as long as another online fan will mention his name. We're still mentioning Marangi! Do you have any idea how long the online fan is going to have to listen to these self-righteous muther-!@#$ers lord over anyone who even mentions Lynch?

 

"Yes, he had a 2500 yard season, but he LEFT A PERSON FOR DEAD!!!! HAVE YOU NO MORALS????"

 

Light up, muther!@#$ers. Judge not...

 

Oh, poor Marshawn. It's not fair that people will be calling him out because he was unaccountable.

 

Stop embarrassing yourselves with this "apparently Marshawn is guilty because some fans say so" sarcasm. The crime happened and it was his car. There is no question of his involvement. None. It was his car. The question is his level of involvement. Obviously, Marshawn could have avoided being bashed for hit and run by not leaving the scene.....but much easier than that he could have avoided it by stepping up soon after it happened. Even a lame-ass, "I didn't know someone was hit" and apology would have appeased practically every Bills fan. We want to give our players the benefit of the doubt.

 

Mistakes happen.

 

Men are supposed own up to their mistakes. You can't trust unaccountable people. That doesn't suit a lot of Bills fans needs in this case, but concern about the lack of integrity is particularly why sports leagues are coming down so hard on those who lack it. They know we don't like cheaters, and people who use the system to circumvent the rules(or the law) are cheats.

[Chilly]

Oh, poor Marshawn. It's not fair that people will be calling him out because he was unaccountable.

 

Stop embarrassing yourselves with this "apparently Marshawn is guilty because some fans say so" sarcasm. The crime happened and it was his car. There is no question of his involvement. None. It was his car. The question is his level of involvement. Obviously, Marshawn could have avoided being bashed for hit and run by not leaving the scene.....but much easier than that he could have avoided it by stepping up soon after it happened. Even a lame-ass, "I didn't know someone was hit" and apology would have appeased practically every Bills fan. We want to give our players the benefit of the doubt.

 

Mistakes happen.

 

Men are supposed own up to their mistakes. You can't trust unaccountable people. That doesn't suit a lot of Bills fans needs in this case, but concern about the lack of integrity is particularly why sports leagues are coming down so hard on those who lack it. They know we don't like cheaters, and people who use the system to circumvent the rules(or the law) are cheats.

 

O RLY? His car = he was there now?

 

Stop embarrassing yourself with this line of reasoning.

[Kelly the Dog]

Oh, poor Marshawn. It's not fair that people will be calling him out because he was unaccountable.

 

Stop embarrassing yourselves with this "apparently Marshawn is guilty because some fans say so" sarcasm. The crime happened and it was his car. There is no question of his involvement. None. It was his car. The question is his level of involvement. Obviously, Marshawn could have avoided being bashed for hit and run by not leaving the scene.....but much easier than that he could have avoided it by stepping up soon after it happened. Even a lame-ass, "I didn't know someone was hit" and apology would have appeased practically every Bills fan. We want to give our players the benefit of the doubt.

 

Mistakes happen.

 

Men are supposed own up to their mistakes. You can't trust unaccountable people. That doesn't suit a lot of Bills fans needs in this case, but concern about the lack of integrity is particularly why sports leagues are coming down so hard on those who lack it. They know we don't like cheaters, and people who use the system to circumvent the rules(or the law) are cheats.

So if you were Marshawn, and weren't driving, and your teammate on the Bills was, or your cousin, or your good friend, and he came to you and said, "I screwed up bad. I feel awful. I want to make this good but I spoke to a lawyer and he said the absolute worst thing to do for me, and you, was for either of us to talk to the police or the press. Please let the guys who know what they're doing handle this. I'm sorry. We'll make it up to the woman when we can."

 

You would call a press conference and turn him in?

[Pete]

Whomever was in the car with the driver is put in a bad spot and needs to either lie or take the fifth to protect their friend. Why would you subject your friends to that? Why not man up? To hit a person then try and take advantage of the legal system to slime your way out of personal responsibility is pathetic

[BADOLBILZ]

O RLY? His car = he was there now?

 

Stop embarrassing yourself with this line of reasoning.

 

Let me walk you thru this....when your car runs someone down you are involved whether you were there or not. The level of involvement is another issue. If your car was stolen you say so. If not, it's to be assumed you know who was in it at the VERY least. That's not jumping to conclusions, that's common sense.

 

Please enlighten us as to what other scenario is being overlooked.

 

I mean, do you think he fired up his car, put on a blindfold and called out to the public that his car was free for anyone to drive as long as they returned it to HIS DRIVEWAY in a couple hours? I understand you guys just want this to go away but don't blame me for pointing out the obvious.

[Kelly the Dog]

Whomever was in the car with the driver is put in a bad spot and needs to either lie or take the fifth to protect their friend. Why would you subject your friends to that? Why not man up? To hit a person then try and take advantage of the legal system to slime your way out of personal responsibility is pathetic

If you did something bad, felt horrible about it, knew you were responsible, and could find legitimate ways to make it up to society, the person you may have harmed, your faith, your conscience, and yourself, you would volunteer to go to jail when the law didn't require or demand it?

[BADOLBILZ]

So if you were Marshawn, and weren't driving, and your teammate on the Bills was, or your cousin, or your good friend, and he came to you and said, "I screwed up bad. I feel awful. I want to make this good but I spoke to a lawyer and he said the absolute worst thing to do for me, and you, was for either of us to talk to the police or the press. Please let the guys who know what they're doing handle this. I'm sorry. We'll make it up to the woman when we can."

 

You would call a press conference and turn him in?

 

What you are asking has nothing to do with what's right or wrong. I've said repeatedly that what he is doing is understandable. A great many selfish acts are understandable. And yes, protecting your entourage or family is a self interest situation.

 

What you appear to want to say is that it's somehow EXCUSABLE because you can understand why he's doing it. Not the accident itself, but the act of not being accountable. If you want to make such an argument then what if his cousin runs down your kid with Lynch's car and they uses Lynch's silence to protect his cousin from justice? What's your take then?

[Kelly the Dog]

What you are asking has nothing to do with what's right or wrong. I've said repeatedly that what he is doing is understandable. A great many selfish acts are understandable. And yes, protecting your entourage or family is a self interest situation.

 

What you appear to want to say is that it's somehow EXCUSABLE because you can understand why he's doing it. Not the accident itself, but the act of not being accountable. If you want to make such an argument then what if his cousin runs down your kid with Lynch's car and they uses Lynch's silence to protect his cousin from justice? What's your take then?

No, you're totally wrong on that, IMO. At least from me. I am not trying to excuse it. If it comes out he did it, then, like I said, it is inexcusable, and I think the law isn't strong enough for the offense. It's deplorable.

 

But we aren't there yet.

 

When, and IF we get there, then and only then should he be lambasted for his not being accountable. You're just impatient. Face the facts. Because those are the facts. You want an answer now, and you're saying it's a moral choice right now, and if he doesn't give it to you, he's immoral. But that just isn't true. There are scenarios that the moral choice may be exactly what he's doing.

 

You may well be right. He may be guilty and he may be immoral. And then I will feel like you do now. I just don't think it's fair to anyone to just assume he is immoral when I just gave you a very reasonable scenario. I am not talking about understandable action. Totally denying everything is "understandable".

 

I am talking about there is NOT a clear moral or immoral choice right now, from what we know. It may lean toward him not being honest about it. That may well be the case when the story comes out. But we can't just blast him for something we don't know. There is 50 years to admonish him for being cowardly. You can't wait a few weeks?

 

In your scenario up top, I would want to know who did it. I would be frustrated not knowing but it ultimately wouldn't matter to me for the truth to come out instantly or a few weeks from now. I hate the guys on trial now for the 9/11 things but I don't want to just skip the trial and hang them now because they deserve to be hung. I want the law to do its job and then see them hung.

[obie_wan]

No, you're totally wrong on that, IMO. At least from me. I am not trying to excuse it. If it comes out he did it, then, like I said, it is inexcusable, and I think the law isn't strong enough for the offense. It's deplorable.

 

But we aren't there yet.

 

When, and IF we get there, then and only then should he be lambasted for his not being accountable. You're just impatient. Face the facts. Because those are the facts. You want an answer now, and you're saying it's a moral choice right now, and if he doesn't give it to you, he's immoral. But that just isn't true. There are scenarios that the moral choice may be exactly what he's doing.

 

You may well be right. He may be guilty and he may be immoral. And then I will feel like you do now. I just don't think it's fair to anyone to just assume he is immoral when I just gave you a very reasonable scenario. I am not talking about understandable action. Totally denying everything is "understandable".

 

I am talking about there is NOT a clear moral or immoral choice right now, from what we know. It may lean toward him not being honest about it. That may well be the case when the story comes out. But we can't just blast him for something we don't know. There is 50 years to admonish him for being cowardly. You can't wait a few weeks?

 

In your scenario up top, I would want to know who did it. I would be frustrated not knowing but it ultimately wouldn't matter to me for the truth to come out instantly or a few weeks from now. I hate the guys on trial now for the 9/11 things but I don't want to just skip the trial and hang them now because they deserve to be hung. I want the law to do its job and then see them hung.

 

just keep squinting thru those rose colored glasses.

 

If you clickl the heels of the ruby slippers - all will be well and Lynch won't be a turd

[Kelly the Dog]

just keep squinting thru those rose colored glasses.

 

If you clickl the heels of the ruby slippers - all will be well and Lynch won't be a turd

Actually, Lynch may very well turn out to be a turd.

 

You, on the other hand, have already been enshrined in the Turd Hall of Fame.

[BADOLBILZ]

No, you're totally wrong on that, IMO. At least from me. I am not trying to excuse it. If it comes out he did it, then, like I said, it is inexcusable, and I think the law isn't strong enough for the offense. It's deplorable.

 

But we aren't there yet.

 

When, and IF we get there, then and only then should he be lambasted for his not being accountable. You're just impatient. Face the facts. Because those are the facts. You want an answer now, and you're saying it's a moral choice right now, and if he doesn't give it to you, he's immoral. But that just isn't true. There are scenarios that the moral choice may be exactly what he's doing.

 

You may well be right. He may be guilty and he may be immoral. And then I will feel like you do now. I just don't think it's fair to anyone to just assume he is immoral when I just gave you a very reasonable scenario. I am not talking about understandable action. Totally denying everything is "understandable".

 

I am talking about there is NOT a clear moral or immoral choice right now, from what we know. It may lean toward him not being honest about it. That may well be the case when the story comes out. But we can't just blast him for something we don't know. There is 50 years to admonish him for being cowardly. You can't wait a few weeks?

 

In your scenario up top, I would want to know who did it. I would be frustrated not knowing but it ultimately wouldn't matter to me for the truth to come out instantly or a few weeks from now. I hate the guys on trial now for the 9/11 things but I don't want to just skip the trial and hang them now because they deserve to be hung. I want the law to do its job and then see then hung.

 

I think you are still somewhat in denial about Lynch's involvement here. His car hit the woman. The level of his involvement is unknown, but he is involved. He is not being accountable for his involvement. I'm not being impatient, timing is important in life. Admitting you committed the crime or know who did is a lot different than obstructing justice, making someone prove it and then showing contrition after you got caught.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think you are still somewhat in denial about Lynch's involvement here. His car hit the woman. The level of his involvement is unknown, but he is involved. He is not being accountable for his involvement. I'm not being impatient, timing is important in life. Admitting you committed the crime or know who did is a lot different than obstructing justice, making someone prove it and then showing contrition after you got caught.

I actually do see where you're coming from. I know what you mean. I just don't agree with it.

 

The difference, I guess, is that even though I think, say, there is an 80% or more chance that he IS doing the immoral thing as you define it, I will not go there right now because of the 20%. I may indeed go there when(or if) it turns out he did the immoral thing.

[BADOLBILZ]

I actually do see where you're coming from. I know what you mean. I just don't agree with it.

 

The difference, I guess, is that even though I think, say, there is an 80% or more chance that he IS doing the immoral thing as you define it, I will not go there right now because of the 20%. I may indeed go there when(or if) it turns out he did the immoral thing.

 

I'm assuming that the 20% "moral" you are talking about is protecting the suspects by not being forthright about what he knows about the case. If not, please elaborate.

[Kelly the Dog]

I'm assuming that the 20% "moral" you are talking about is protecting the suspects by not being forthright about what he knows about the case. If not, please elaborate.

I just don't know what happened. It could have been that. It could have been that he was totally hammered and passed out in the front seat and didnt know what happened until the next day, and doesn't know for sure right now (like his friend is lying to him about what happened). He could have been screaming to "go back, go back, go back!". He could have hooked up with a girl and thrown the keys to his car to a friend and left with her. He could have been getting a blowjob in the backseat with the tunes blasting and didnt know it happened at all until the cops called. There are all kinds of things that could have happened.

 

Chances are, he knows.

 

But we don't know that, and we don't know the particulars, and we don't know whether he is being immoral or not.

[IDBillzFan]

Men are supposed own up to their mistakes. You can't trust unaccountable people.

The problem, Skippy, is that you assume Marshawn made a mistake. You assume he's unaccountable. And that's enough for you to stand in judgement.

 

In the end, you don't know a !@#$king fact beyond whatever you WANT to believe so you can light your torch and boil some tar.

 

I'm not sure if I just misread your old posts or if you just turned into my old man by accident, but grow the !@#$ up and realize your assumptions don't mean shiit except to make you feel better about your holier-than-thou approach to everything you don't know as fact.

[Chilly]

Let me walk you thru this....when your car runs someone down you are involved whether you were there or not. The level of involvement is another issue. If your car was stolen you say so. If not, it's to be assumed you know who was in it at the VERY least. That's not jumping to conclusions, that's common sense.

 

Please enlighten us as to what other scenario is being overlooked.

 

I mean, do you think he fired up his car, put on a blindfold and called out to the public that his car was free for anyone to drive as long as they returned it to HIS DRIVEWAY in a couple hours? I understand you guys just want this to go away but don't blame me for pointing out the obvious.

 

lawlz, knowing who was driving the car = being involved in a hit and run?

 

You define "involvement" a bit differently than I do.

[macaroni]

long time Bills fan here ....... and I want this to be a big BIG misunderstanding .... really really I do.

 

BUT

 

Bottom line is he was either driving ...... was in the car ..... or knew something about the incident after the fact.

 

In either situation he would have done a lot better (in my eyes at least) to come out immediatly and tell officials what he did/saw/knew. IMHO if preople feel anything less they are diluding themself and being blinded by their love of the Bills.

 

In my OPINION he was drunk/high, hit the girl and fled ......... simple as that ..... the reason for his silence could well be he now understands the severity of what has been done and was scared to go to the police when he sobered up, and is now taking advice (IMHO bad advice) from his lawyer to keep mum until he (the lawyer) tries to quell this somehow.

 

Another thought is taht maybe he was high, and wants "time" on his side to "clear his system" for when the inevidable drug test is administered.

 

Once again ....... this is all my own opinion, as for those of you about to flame me ..... think about ..... and please provide in your post .... any plausable excuse as to why you think he wasn't driving or in the car, in the area of local night spots at 3:00 in the morning under the influance of something.