Endzone Animal Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 This DA has clearly decided to go after the Bills for some reason. The drunk Canadian broad is obviously just an excuse. Ummm...a woman is the victim of a hit-and-run, and the principle suspect is a Buffalo Bills player who refuses to speak to authorities. THAT is the reason the DA is "going after them".
BuffaloRebound Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Ummm...a woman is the victim of a hit-and-run, and the principle suspect is a Buffalo Bills player who refuses to speak to authorities. THAT is the reason the DA is "going after them". This article by Donn Esmonde, Buffalo News sums up the situation quite well. Lynch is playing it smart whether he's innocent or not. Lynch waits to see what the cops have So much for the stereotype of the dumb jock. Unlike Martha Stewart, Marion Jones and other celebrities, Marshawn Lynch is keeping his mouth shut when trouble arrives. Because the others initially denied wrongdoing, the law came down heavier on all of them than it otherwise would have. Police say Lynch’s Porsche SUV hit a woman in Buffalo’s Chippewa party zone at 3:30 a. m. May 31. The vehicle did not stop. She was not badly hurt, luckily for her and for whoever was driving. It is going on two weeks since the accident, and Lynch has yet to say a word to police. The Buffalo Bills running back is getting pummeled in the court of public opinion. But he looks like a model client to defense lawyers who know that no good, and a lot of bad, can come from prematurely entering the confessional with cops. (more)
Endzone Animal Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 This article by Donn Esmonde, Buffalo News sums up the situation quite well. Lynch is playing it smart whether he's innocent or not. Seems to me he is saying that ASSUMING Lynch is guilty he is strategically better off refusing to cooperate with authorities. I saw nothing in Esmonde's article that suggests it would be wise for an innocent man to refuse to cooperate with the investigation.
Chilly Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Donn seems to try to take both sides there - that Lynch is playing it correctly, but he should talk anyway to make it go away. By the way, before you reply to the above poster, look at his join date and don't feed the trolls.
KRC Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Seems to me he is saying that ASSUMING Lynch is guilty he is strategically better off refusing to cooperate with authorities. I saw nothing in Esmonde's article that suggests it would be wise for an innocent man to refuse to cooperate with the investigation. The “Just Shut Up” rule applies, said Connors, whether you are innocent or guilty. The classic example is the innocent man accused of murder who tells the cops he never liked the guy, but he did not kill him. Comes the trial, and the cop testifies that the accused admitted that he did not like the victim.
BuffaloRebound Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Seems to me he is saying that ASSUMING Lynch is guilty he is strategically better off refusing to cooperate with authorities. I saw nothing in Esmonde's article that suggests it would be wise for an innocent man to refuse to cooperate with the investigation. The “Just Shut Up” rule applies, said Connors, whether you are innocent or guilty. The classic example is the innocent man accused of murder who tells the cops he never liked the guy, but he did not kill him. Comes the trial, and the cop testifies that the accused admitted that he did not like the victim. “Right there,” said Connors, “you’ve got your motive.” Lynch’s case is a whole different story, but you get the idea. What you say can and will be held against you — innocent or otherwise. So you clam up, let cops make a case and then — and only then — sit down and tell your side. It may look like Lynch is sidestepping the law as if it was an opposing linebacker. But that is how this game is played. It is not like the guy has run off and skipped town. His day of judgment is coming.
Endzone Animal Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 By the way, before you reply to the above poster, look at his join date and don't feed the trolls. Is the message board a private organization, and new members are to be shunned? Seriously, what have I done to make you attack me like that?
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Is the message board a private organization, and new members are to be shunned? Just the dumb ones. Personally, I'm reserving judgement on you...but you're not exactly off to a flying start.
Endzone Animal Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 The “Just Shut Up” rule applies, said Connors, whether you are innocent or guilty. The classic example is the innocent man accused of murder who tells the cops he never liked the guy, but he did not kill him. Comes the trial, and the cop testifies that the accused admitted that he did not like the victim. “Right there,” said Connors, “you’ve got your motive.” Lynch’s case is a whole different story, but you get the idea. What you say can and will be held against you — innocent or otherwise. So you clam up, let cops make a case and then — and only then — sit down and tell your side. It may look like Lynch is sidestepping the law as if it was an opposing linebacker. But that is how this game is played. It is not like the guy has run off and skipped town. His day of judgment is coming. Thanks, I missed that part somehow. Still, it seems strange that this is how we all should react whenever the police suspects us of anything, particularly something that doesn't even carry a felony charge. This advice would compel all people to refuse to cooperate with police until seated at the stand under oath. I guess the lawyers would appreciate that, but it sure would grind the criminal justice system to a hault.
Lori Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Endzone, we've had some troll problems lately. Blue, this isn't him.
Endzone Animal Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Just the dumb ones. Personally, I'm reserving judgement on you...but you're not exactly off to a flying start. Wow...nice people here.
bourbonboy Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Guilty, not guilty, I really don't care - the following is the issue here: Legal observers have stated that similar cases of leaving the scene of an accident, when no one is seriously injured, usually lead to a plea to a lesser traffic infraction, with the defendant often paying about a $250 fine. But Erie County District Attorney Frank J. Clark had said that he would resort to a grand jury if investigators could not get satisfactory answers from people who knew about the accident or Lynch’s actions at the time. As someone else said about 5 pages ago, this is grandstanding on the part of Clark, pure and simple....he's trying to make a name for himself on a high profile case. It's not like all this effort will pay off by putting a child molester behind bars - even if Lynch or someone else is proven guilty, IT'S A $250 FINE! Yet how much money do you think this is costing the taxpayers?? I'm not defending Lynch or anyone else, but if Clark is obvioously lacking any kind of proof, how much effort is normal for a $250 infraction? If my kids $250 bicycle gets stolen, do you think that they would put this amount of manpower and effort into finding the thief? Come on - just close the case and move on already! If the Toronto woman wants to sue for tens or hundreds of thousands in damages (medical costs, mental anguish, whatever), that's where a jury may be needed to prove Lynch was driving - but not for a $250 fine!! I'm surprised some taxpayer group hasn't jumped all over this.
Chilly Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Endzone, we've had some troll problems lately. Blue, this isn't him. D'oh, well, I do apologize.
Endzone Animal Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Bourbonboy, I'm sure the investigators are simply dumbfounded by Lynch's silence and are only doing what needs to be done to get this cleared up. As odd as it may be for this to get to the point of a grand jury, I think it's even stranger for such a lower level criminal investigation to be stonewalled like this by the lead suspect. I'm kind of glad to see the police and the DA taking their jobs seriously. BTW, does anybody know if Lynch has any criminal record in California? I know he has a clean record in Buffalo, but if he has something from the past on his record it would explain why he has taken it this far.
VOR Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Ralph Wilson won't be subpoenaed. This per the DA, Frank Clark.
Nanker Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Marshawn Lynch and Capt'n Jack ... separated at birth? They seem similar in so many ways.
Mickey Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 A woman was hit by a car and the perp cowardly drove off with his victim in the street. THe people who know what happened refuse to talk.... It sounds to me like the DA is trying to do his job and hold the people who broke the law responsible. He has said numerous times that if they come in and talk, the thing can be pleaded down and it will go away, but if they continue to refuse to cooperate he will pursue the matter to the full extend to the law. It seems like Marshawn and the Bills have chosen this path. 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.
Mickey Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 If Marshawn thinks the police are picking on him because he's black he needs to talk to all of the other black athletes on the team and find out how many of them have faced charges from the police. ...or harassment or pulled over for dwb. What makes you think he hasn't?
Mickey Posted June 14, 2008 Posted June 14, 2008 Even if that is true, you have to remember that the crime was not HITTING the woman, it was driving away after it happened. The first part is an accident, it could happen to any of us, the second part, driving away is a choice the driver made. 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.
Recommended Posts