elegantelliotoffen Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 do you have proof that the results of a civil suit and not a criminal case can place him in the leagues substance abuse program? Cause that doesn't make a lot of sense unless you got proof to back it up I believe the comissioner has the discretion to decide, here is the policy. http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/sports/d...ball/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 24, 2008 Author Share Posted June 24, 2008 It's a smart move by her legal team. Just as Lynch's defense team used hardball legal manuevers that may have seemed unseemly at the time Shepleys are doing the same. They know that Lynch doesn't want them looking into whether or not he was drinking that night as it could place him in the NFL's substance abuse program meaning that he would be subject to more frequent tests for both drugs and alcohol. By using the Dram Shop law her lawyers can leverage the bars into cooperating. My guess is that Lynch doesn't want his activities of that night to reach the light of day so he'll make her a generous offer and she'll go away. http://www.wkbw.com/news/local/20728404.html Taking the 5th is using "hardball legal maneuvers?" And there's a difference between drinking and driving drunk. It will be almost impossible to prove he was impaired while driving because none of the bars' employees will admit that they served him alcohol if he was sloshed. The best they can hope for is eyewitnesses who saw him falling over himself, but they would have uncovered those already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Taking the 5th is using "hardball legal maneuvers?" And there's a difference between drinking and driving drunk. It will be almost impossible to prove he was impaired while driving because none of the bars' employees will admit that they served him alcohol if he was sloshed. The best they can hope for is eyewitnesses who saw him falling over himself, but they would have uncovered those already. A person can be legally drunk and not "falling over himself". My point is that I'm sure Lynch doesn't want leaked reports every day of different people who either served him alcohol or saw him drinking and will try to settle as quickly as possible. By the way, how can you plead the fifth if you've done nothing wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Taking the 5th is using "hardball legal maneuvers?" Only when someone with a "criminal history" "runs over" a woman with his car and "leaves her for dead". In that case, it's right up there with other hardball legal maneuvers, like "pleading not guilty" or "discovery" or "trial by jury". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 By the way, how can you plead the fifth if you've done nothing wrong? I could explain it...but under my constitutional rights as an American citizen, I choose not to answer. See? Easy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 I could explain it...but under my constitutional rights as an American citizen, I choose not to answer. See? Easy... I'm not allowed to draw an inference from that? That only protects him from prosecution, I'm free to come to whatever conclusion I want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 I'm not allowed to draw an inference from that? That only protects him from prosecution, I'm free to come to whatever conclusion I want. Yes, you're free to come to whatever conclusion you'd like. You have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to be a complete !@#$ing idiot. But you do NOT have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to be taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Yes, you're free to come to whatever conclusion you'd like. You have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to be a complete !@#$ing idiot. But you do NOT have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to be taken seriously. Why are you swearing? I'm not swearing. Looks like someone is nervous that Lynch's actions of that night are going to be made public. Are you still going to so valiantly defend your boyfriend Lynch when the truth comes out that he was drinking Hennesey all night (without tipping of course) ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Why are you swearing? I'm not swearing. Looks like someone is nervous that Lynch's actions of that night are going to be made public. Are you still going to so valiantly defend your boyfriend Lynch when the truth comes out that he was drinking Hennesey all night (without tipping of course) ??? First, I'm swearing because I'm an adult and I can do whatever the !@#$ I want. I can !@#$ing swear, I can use !@#$ing emoticons, I can even !@#$ing ignore your sorry !@#$ing ass if I so !@#$ing choose. Second...why the hell would I be worried about Lynch's actions being made public? Do I care? Is it somehow of some critical importance that whatever Lynch was doing be kept quiet, lest my world-view be completely shattered? Third...find ONE place where I defended Lynch. After that, I'll point to the three where I said he should get a month in jail IF HE WERE DRIVING, which was not known until about a week ago. Only to dipshits like yourself does "waiting to find out what happened" equate to "defense". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 First, I'm swearing because I'm an adult and I can do whatever the !@#$ I want. I can !@#$ing swear, I can use !@#$ing emoticons, I can even !@#$ing ignore your sorry !@#$ing ass if I so !@#$ing choose. Second...why the hell would I be worried about Lynch's actions being made public? Do I care? Is it somehow of some critical importance that whatever Lynch was doing be kept quiet, lest my world-view be completely shattered? Third...find ONE place where I defended Lynch. After that, I'll point to the three where I said he should get a month in jail IF HE WERE DRIVING, which was not known until about a week ago. Only to dipshits like yourself does "waiting to find out what happened" equate to "defense". Hakuna Retatta, man. Hakuna Retatta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 I believe the comissioner has the discretion to decide, here is the policy. http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/sports/d...ball/index.html Discipline for violations of the law relating to use, possession, acquisition, sale, or distribution of substances of abuse, or conspiracy to do so, will remain at the discretion of the Commissioner. from the article you sent me, there is nothing showing Lynch violated the law with any of the above mentioned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 First, I'm swearing because I'm an adult and I can do whatever the !@#$ I want. I can !@#$ing swear, I can use !@#$ing emoticons, I can even !@#$ing ignore your sorry !@#$ing ass if I so !@#$ing choose. Second...why the hell would I be worried about Lynch's actions being made public? Do I care? Is it somehow of some critical importance that whatever Lynch was doing be kept quiet, lest my world-view be completely shattered? Third...find ONE place where I defended Lynch. After that, I'll point to the three where I said he should get a month in jail IF HE WERE DRIVING, which was not known until about a week ago. Only to dipshits like yourself does "waiting to find out what happened" equate to "defense". You care, look at how passionate you are getting. Admit it, you have a crush on Manchild Lynch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 You care, look at how passionate you are getting. Admit it, you have a crush on Manchild Lynch. C'mon, man, relax, take a breath, go spend an hour or two cooking yourself some noodles and pickle juice for dinner, and then come back and try to understand what's being said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 You care, look at how passionate you are getting. Admit it, you have a crush on Manchild Lynch. Of course I don't care. Why would I? Now, if he threw a cup at Ron Artest...maybe then I'd care... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 I'm not allowed to draw an inference from that? That only protects him from prosecution, I'm free to come to whatever conclusion I want. You can draw whatever inference you want, you are not on a jury. If you were, you would be instructed by the Judge not to do so. If you went ahead and did so anyway, you would be violating the oath you took as a juror. Exercising your constitutional right to remain silent does not mean you are guilty any more than would speaking to the police be proof of innocence. Lots of guilty people have talked a blue streak and a lot of innocent people have taken the 5th. Nevertheless, not being on a jury, if you want to infer guilt from silence, go ahead. If you want to infer that Lynch is the Easter Bunny based on his not having denied it, go ahead. There is no law requiring you to be logical or intelligent. I am still trying to make sense of Clark's statement that, on the one hand, the deal is based on Lynch having been the driver but that, on the other hand, Lynch hasn't admitted to having been the driver. One last thing. In a case like this where a personal injury suit is clearly in the offing, the typical police response is to hold the charges against the defendant in abeyance until the civil suit is completed. They know that the defendant would otherwise be forced to take the case to trial. A plea of guilty is admissible as an admission in the civil case but jury verdict of guilty is not. Thus, where the civil case is likely to carry a heavier punishment than the minor offense charged would, it can be in the defendants best interest to take the case to trial. DA's prefer pleas so the hid the criminal case until the civil case is done and resolve it then. I have personally arranged this kind of deal literally hundreds of times. Think about that when you hear all the bleating about how Lynch got special treatment and how this was "dragged" out way too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 I am still trying to make sense of Clark's statement that, on the one hand, the deal is based on Lynch having been the driver but that, on the other hand, Lynch hasn't admitted to having been the driver. In some plea bargains, when you agree to plead guilty to a lesser charge than previously accused of, you may not have actually committed that crime, or you are still professing innocence but understand this is your best bet. You are simply pleading guilty to a lesser charge to get a smaller fine or jail term or whatever. They, meaning Lynch and his lawyers, may have decided that pleading guilty to a lesser traffic charge, like, say, leaving the scene of an accident versus hit and run, was in their best interests. And so they made the deal. But they may never have outright admitted to Clark that Lynch was driving. Clark consistently said the new charge or what he was to plead guilty to was "predicated" on the idea that Lynch was driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 You care, look at how passionate you are getting. Admit it, you have a crush on Manchild Lynch. I think you are just irritating him overall..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I think you are just irritating him overall..... John spread the love..... he has irritated more than DC Tom so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I think you are just irritating him overall..... Not even. "Amusing" would be more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 You can draw whatever inference you want, you are not on a jury. If you were, you would be instructed by the Judge not to do so. If you went ahead and did so anyway, you would be violating the oath you took as a juror. Exercising your constitutional right to remain silent does not mean you are guilty any more than would speaking to the police be proof of innocence. Lots of guilty people have talked a blue streak and a lot of innocent people have taken the 5th. Nevertheless, not being on a jury, if you want to infer guilt from silence, go ahead. If you want to infer that Lynch is the Easter Bunny based on his not having denied it, go ahead. There is no law requiring you to be logical or intelligent. Nice straw man you stuck out there.So inferring that Lynch was drinking that night from his past behavior on Chippewa is the same as believeing he's the Easter Bunny? Face the facts, "logic" would dictate that Lynch was acting that night on Chippewa as he has other nights, drinking and not tipping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts