Endzone Animal Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Great points, Kelly. It's also reasonable to believe that if an upstanding person were to have hit a girl and drove away out of fear of getting caught, he would have later felt guilty about doing such a thing and made a point of using the press to his advantage and clear his conscience. In all likelihood, if he had taken that route from the beginning this would have been settled early and to everyone's satisfaction, and without any significant difference in legal punishment from the one that he received. What that tells us is not an objective story of naive innocence from a quality young man, but a combination of repeatedly poor judgments and a disturbing lack of compassion for the victim. At least that's how I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I disagree. If you hit something, you at least slow down, if not stop to see what happened. It's a leap to think that Lynch knew he hit a person but was so mind-numbingly drunk that he didn't care and kept going, and somehow made it home safely. Or that he was impaired and knew he hit her, but didn't slow down, much less stop, to see what the noise was because he knew it was a person and that he'd get caught for DUI. But again, it's not my interpretation. That's what the DA is accepting. Why is that a leap? Is it really unconceivable that Lynch was drinking that night? Last time I checked he's not a teetotaller and there is an epidemic of NFL players getting DWI's lately. Will you at least concede that Lynch is more likely than not to be drinking when he's on Chippewa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I disagree. If you hit something, you at least slow down, if not stop to see what happened. It's a leap to think that Lynch knew he hit a person but was so mind-numbingly drunk that he didn't care and kept going, and somehow made it home safely. Or that he was impaired and knew he hit her, but didn't slow down, much less stop, to see what the noise was because he knew it was a person and that he'd get caught for DUI. But again, it's not my interpretation. That's what the DA is accepting. Well, the DA is ONLY basing this on what he can or can't prove in court. This really has little to do with what he believes happened, what any number of witnesses said happened, and what did happen. He doesn't have a lot to go on so he can't prove anything and wants to get something so he agrees to a plea. And I don't agree with what you are saying in your first point because it was obviously some kind of slight brush against her. It caused some damage to his car but not to her body, although it was strong enough to knock her down. She could have been trying to get out of the way at the last nanosecond and was going to fall anyway. If he ever so slightly brushed her, he may not have noticed at all. If he felt something he may not have thought it was anything and just kept going. You don't even have to be drunk for that to happen. He doesn't need to know he hit a person, just that he hit something, or even that something like a snowball (I know that wasn't it) hit the car. You can smack against a curb lightly and keep on going because you know you didn't do much damage or you can stop and get out of your car and look to see if there is any scrap or dent, but both scenarios you know you brushed against something. But again, I have no idea the severity of the impact whatsoever other than it probably wasn't solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 What's so bad about the punishment for speeding, that you needed to hire a lawyer? Again, why not take what was coming to you? The insurance companies tend to frown on speeding. The lawyers costs plus the court costs add up to roughly the same as the charge for the fine of the ticket, but you avoid the points on your record that could cause your insurance company to either severely jack up your rates, or drop you altogether. Seems a bit much for cruising 70 in a 55. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Nice. I am starting to get the impression that Endzone Animal lied to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 The insurance companies tend to frown on speeding. The lawyers costs plus the court costs add up to roughly the same as the charge for the fine of the ticket, but you avoid the points on your record that could cause your insurance company to either severely jack up your rates, or drop you altogether. Seems a bit much for cruising 70 in a 55. You intentionally broke the law. Hence you should pay the price. Regardless of your opinion regarding the excessiveness of the penalty for going 15 MPH over the limit, the law is what it is and thankfully you didn't crash while speeding. But again, why is it okay for you to lessen the charges against you but it isn't okay for Lynch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Well, the DA is ONLY basing this on what he can or can't prove in court. This really has little to do with what he believes happened, what any number of witnesses said happened, and what did happen. He doesn't have a lot to go on so he can't prove anything and wants to get something so he agrees to a plea. If he has reason to believe that Lynch is lying, again based on the evidence he has, he'd have pursued it further. I suspect he thought there was more evidence he was going to get, hence the reason he didn't agree to this plea deal in the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 If he has reason to believe that Lynch is lying, again based on the evidence he has, he'd have pursued it further. I suspect he thought there was more evidence he was going to get, hence the reason he didn't agree to this plea deal in the beginning. This case was never going any further than a plea deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 If he has reason to believe that Lynch is lying, again based on the evidence he has, he'd have pursued it further. I suspect he thought there was more evidence he was going to get, hence the reason he didn't agree to this plea deal in the beginning. DA's believe, and have very good reason to believe, that virtually everyone is lying, especially suspects. It was just a simple case of no evidence to prove something because of the circumstances. I would bet you anything that the DA believes Lynch was driving, drunk, and lying to him. But that's just because 1] That's how DA's are, and 2] Most suspects are lying to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 But again, I have no idea the severity of the impact whatsoever other than it probably wasn't solid. Applying Newton's Second Law in this case, and where we would assume her mass to be substantially less than that of the 7,000 pound vehicle with two NFL players in it, she would have been moving at a pretty good clip to do the damage to his vehicle I saw in a photo unless he actually hit her pretty convincingly. I don't know anything about her- is she athletic and do we have a reason to believe she may have been sprinting through downtown at the time of the incident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 You intentionally broke the law. Hence you should pay the price. Regardless of your opinion regarding the excessiveness of the penalty for going 15 MPH over the limit, the law is what it is and thankfully you didn't crash while speeding. But again, why is it okay for you to lessen the charges against you but it isn't okay for Lynch? Who was the victim in my speeding? When you find one, I'll start feeling guilty. By your moral equivallence, I would presume we should all really turn ourselves in when we commit speeding violations, even if the police never detected that we went too fast. Look, stop playing avoidance here with the real issue: I don't believe Marshawn's alibi. It may say that according to the law he is innocent unless proven guilty, but that doesn't hold true in the court of public opinion. Morally, well, maybe for you meter maids minor traffic violations are the moral equivalence of a hit-and-run, but to most people I think they are very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Applying Newton's Second Law in this case, and where we would assume her mass to be substantially less than that of the 7,000 pound vehicle with two NFL players in it, she would have been moving at a pretty good clip to do the damage to his vehicle I saw in a photo unless he actually hit her pretty convincingly. I don't know anything about her- is she athletic and do we have a reason to believe she may have been sprinting through downtown at the time of the incident? You tell me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Applying Newton's Second Law in this case, and where we would assume her mass to be substantially less than that of the 7,000 pound vehicle with two NFL players in it, she would have been moving at a pretty good clip to do the damage to his vehicle I saw in a photo unless he actually hit her pretty convincingly. I don't know anything about her- is she athletic and do we have a reason to believe she may have been sprinting through downtown at the time of the incident? Applying logic to the case, combined with all physics theories, a 7000 pound vehicle going about 10-20 mph that hits a woman and knocks her to the street with any degree of severity causes more than two large hip bruises and a seven stitch cut, all three of which could have been caused by the pavement and not the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 DA's believe, and have very good reason to believe, that virtually everyone is lying, especially suspects. It was just a simple case of no evidence to prove something because of the circumstances. I would bet you anything that the DA believes Lynch was driving, drunk, and lying to him. But that's just because 1] That's how DA's are, and 2] Most suspects are lying to him. Yes, I realize that DA's think everyone is guilty. They are also under political pressure to get as many serious convictions as they can. I highly doubt that Clark wanted to agree to a traffic violation, but given the lack of evidence, he really had no choice. And since he didn't offer it in the beginning, he probably thought there was more, only to find out there wasn't. Again if there were evidence that Lynch was drunk or even drinking heavily, there probably wouldn't have been a plea deal, and we would have heard about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Who was the victim in my speeding? When you find one, I'll start feeling guilty. By your moral equivallence, I would presume we should all really turn ourselves in when we commit speeding violations, even if the police never detected that we went too fast. Thanks for taking the bait. So I guess someone getting picked-up for DUI should be able to "hide behind a lawyer" even after repeated offenses, because he/she didn't have a victim. Isn't that what you're saying here? Or is it only a crime when there's a victim, but only in certain circumstances, and which don't involve just speeding? Look, stop playing avoidance here with the real issue: I don't believe Marshawn's alibi. It may say that according to the law he is innocent unless proven guilty, but that doesn't hold true in the court of public opinion. Morally, well, maybe for you meter maids minor traffic violations are the moral equivalence of a hit-and-run, but to most people I think they are very different. What you and the court of public opinion believes means little in the grand scheme. Lynch got a slap on the wrist, will still make millions, still be cheered-for loudly when he scores TD's, and probably won't "run over" anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Yes, I realize that DA's think everyone is guilty. They are also under political pressure to get as many serious convictions as they can. I highly doubt that Clark wanted to agree to a traffic violation, but given the lack of evidence, he really had no choice. And since he didn't offer it in the beginning, he probably thought there was more, only to find out there wasn't. Again if there were evidence that Lynch was drunk or even drinking heavily, there probably wouldn't have been a plea deal, and we would have heard about it. When Marshawn wasn't talking, why on earth would he offer that at the beginning? He didn't know what happened and was still trying to ask Bills officials, players, the victim and witnesses in and out of the bars on Chippewa. He did what he should have done, tried every way to scare the truth out of Lynch and his attorney. When weeks later it appeared that not enough real evidence was coming forward, and that Lynch was getting good legal advice, he copped the plea. I think the plea has nothing to do with what Clark thought actually happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 When Marshawn wasn't talking, why on earth would he offer that at the beginning? He didn't know what happened and was still trying to ask Bills officials, players, the victim and witnesses in and out of the bars on Chippewa. He did what he should have done, tried every way to scare the truth out of Lynch and his attorney. When weeks later it appeared that not enough real evidence was coming forward, and that Lynch was getting good legal advice, he copped the plea. I think the plea has nothing to do with what Clark thought actually happened. Why would sources from inside the department come in, and say it was a strong possibility that he didn't know he hit her, then? If they truly believed he knew, they wouldn't say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Why would sources from inside the department come in, and say it was a strong possibility that he didn't know he hit her, then? If they truly believed he knew, they wouldn't say that. That actual statement, which was never really attributed to anyone specific outside of "officials" close to the case, as far as I know, was right around the time the plea was being made. It surely wasn't early in the case. We all speculated that may be the case right off the bat (some of us did anyway), but what you are talking about came just before the plea was announced. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure it was last week. By then it was over, and it could have been for a variety of reasons, the most obvious of which is saving face for the department for not getting a stronger conviction. I am just playing devil's advocate here, as I see it. I have no idea if he was guilty, I think what he got (the plea for traffic violation) was probably fair based on what we and the police know for sure and could prove in court. If he did it and knew it I think he should go to jail for a month or so because it would be inexcusable, but there is no real proof of it. This is all conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 What you and the court of public opinion believes means little in the grand scheme. Lynch got a slap on the wrist, will still make millions, still be cheered-for loudly when he scores TD's, and probably won't "run over" anyone else. Probably? Probably? So you have as little faith in Lynch learning from this experience as I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Yes, I realize that DA's think everyone is guilty. They are also under political pressure to get as many serious convictions as they can. I highly doubt that Clark wanted to agree to a traffic violation, but given the lack of evidence, he really had no choice. And since he didn't offer it in the beginning, he probably thought there was more, only to find out there wasn't. Again if there were evidence that Lynch was drunk or even drinking heavily, there probably wouldn't have been a plea deal, and we would have heard about it. I really don't think that Clark ever wanted any other thing than a quick resolution to this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts