DrDawkinstein Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Let me ask you a question Mr. Overreaction, when Bruce Smith was suspended for drug use and being arrested for driving blitzed out of his mind drunk, were you crying in your Buffalo Bills jammies clamoring for him to be traded? I'll go ahead and answer that one for you, NO you were not. Marshawn Lynch will get his one or two game suspension and then rightfully take Jackson's place in the lineup. Just like what happen when Bruce's fountain of stupidity overflowed. We're all big boys here, time to get over it and move on. i do enjoy it more when we agree on things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poland Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Because if he knew he hit her and left, it's hit and run. DUH! Wow are you stupid, how can I get this through your thick skull? They don't base the charges on whether they believe someone knows they comitted a crime. Did you ever hear the adage that ignorance is no excuse under the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poland Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 As I said, the DA didn't believe he knew he hit her. Otherwise he would have convened the grand jury to get a hit and run conviction. Yeah you said it and you are wrong, just as you are with just about everything else regarding this. They did move to call witnesses in front of the grand jury dumbo. LINK:Read this and if you have trouble comprehending it let us know so we can try to help you. From the article: In the weeks immediately after the accident, investigators grew frustrated by a lack of cooperation from Lynch and the Bills. That eventually led Erie County District Attorney Frank Clark to subpoena three players and at least two Bills officials, including chief operating officer Russ Brandon, to appear before the grand jury. The grand jury was dismissed without hearing testimony once the agreement was reached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Wow are stupid, how can I get this through your thick skull? They don't base the charges on whether they believe someone knows they comitted a crime. Did you ever hear the adage that ignorance is no excuse under the law? Um, that's ignorance of the law, like having a loaded weapon in your trunk, not ignorance in general, or specifically in this case, of hitting someone. Hence the reason Lynch wasn't charged with hit and run and instead got a traffic ticket for failing to avoid hitting a pedestrian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Wow are stupid, how can I get this through your thick skull? They don't base the charges on whether they believe someone knows they comitted a crime. Did you ever hear the adage that ignorance is no excuse under the law? That's a very broad brush of generalization you are using there. Charges are often based upon the intent(perceived intent or provable intent) of the person involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Yeah you said it and you are wrong, just as you are with just about everything else regarding this.They did move to call witnesses in front of the grand jury dumbo. LINK:Read this and if you have trouble comprehending it let us know so we can try to help you. From the article: In the weeks immediately after the accident, investigators grew frustrated by a lack of cooperation from Lynch and the Bills. That eventually led Erie County District Attorney Frank Clark to subpoena three players and at least two Bills officials, including chief operating officer Russ Brandon, to appear before the grand jury. The grand jury was dismissed without hearing testimony once the agreement was reached. Semantics, since by "convening" I meant physically assembling people and hearing testimony to conclusion. If the DA was truly interested in getting a hit and run conviction, because "obviously it was hit and run," he wouldn't have settled for a traffic ticket (A TRAFFIC TICKET versus A FELONY) instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 That's a very broad brush of generalization you are using there. Charges are often based upon the intent(perceived intent or provable intent) of the person involved. Exactly and thank you. I was beginning to think that people were as stupid as Poland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poland Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 If you read the articles at the time, an official in the police department said that in the footage, the car kept moving like the driver didn't know the victim was hit. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them and the DA who let him off with a traffic ticket. Yeah sure that is why the judge said this: Bills running back Marshawn Lynch had his driver's license revoked in traffic court on Friday after saying he didn't know he hit someone while driving on a Buffalo street last month. Administrative Law Judge Thomas Gagola found Lynch's behavior on May 31 "constituted a reckless disregard of human life or property." He also imposed the maximum $100 fine and $50 surcharge after Lynch pleaded guilty to failure to exercise due care toward a pedestrian. The judge said that because the video supposedly showed how innocent lynch was? Maybe you think that the judge didn't get to see the supposed video? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poland Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Semantics, since by "convening" I meant physically assembling people and hearing testimony to conclusion. If the DA was truly interested in getting a hit and run conviction, because "obviously it was hit and run," he wouldn't have settled for a traffic ticket (A TRAFFIC TICKET versus A FELONY) instead. Pea brain, don't you realize that DA's negotiate plea bargans? It was clearly stated that they had every intent of going to a grand jury because he was stonewalling, they began to assemble witnesses for testimony, his guilty plead brought the matter to a close dumbo. It was a plea down. How did I know you would have trouble with comprehension? A plea down does not constitute innocence fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Yeah sure that is why the judge said this:Bills running back Marshawn Lynch had his driver's license revoked in traffic court on Friday after saying he didn't know he hit someone while driving on a Buffalo street last month. Administrative Law Judge Thomas Gagola found Lynch's behavior on May 31 "constituted a reckless disregard of human life or property." He also imposed the maximum $100 fine and $50 surcharge after Lynch pleaded guilty to failure to exercise due care toward a pedestrian. The judge said that because the video supposedly showed how innocent lynch was? Maybe you think that the judge didn't get to see the supposed video? Not watching where you're driving and as a result hitting someone constitutes "a reckless disregard of human life or property." As the $100 traffic violation specifies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rackemrack Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 80 posts in one day, all on the same subject, that has to be a record... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 You pea brain don't you realize that DA's negotiate plea bargans?It was clearly stated that they had every intent of going to a grand jury because he was stonewalling, they began to assemble witnesses for testimony, his guilty plead brought the matter to a close dumbo. It was a plea down. How did I know you would have trouble with comprehension? A plea down does not constitute innocence fool. You imbecile, do you think that DA's plea down felonies (that's what drunk hit and run is, moron) to traffic tickets, just because a suspect was "stonewalling?" To answer for you since you don't have a single neuron in your cranium, no, they don't. They plea down when they have a weaker case than they thought, and want to cut their losses, while offering the defendant the opportunity to cut his/her losses and get the ordeal over with faster. And why didn't the DA offer this plea deal in the beginning? It would have been as simple as "if Lynch admits he was driving, I'll give him a traffic ticket." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 even in Blunt Mode, this thread is hard to read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 even in Blunt Mode, this thread is hard to read Sorry. I just felt very argumentative today, and Poland just wouldn't get the point and shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 80 posts in one day, all on the same subject, that has to be a record... Nope. Wait till draft day and watch the board explode if we take another 1st round DB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DazedandConfused Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 "Anyone who takes any extreme view is wrong wrong wrong" ? Get this through your head lynch is stupid, his IQ is south of 80, in all likelihood that retard did something open and observable that drew the attention of the police. However, I agree with you Lynch is stupid, Its fine with me to get rid of him as long as we replace him at a reasonable cost (or a benefit) with an RB capable of making the Pro Bowl and being a great tandem with a find like Jackson. However, I also realize that folks who want to jettison this idiot when I suspect he will beat this rap like he beat running over a woman on Chippewa are not emphasizing appropriately for those who care about how the Bills perform that sticking with him as long as he beats the rap until and unless we get appropriate value for him is just dumb. It would not surprise me if the cops were in black. Hello Bueller, black folks can misuse their power and be prejudiced as well as some white folk can. Do you think that if the officers were black they are somehow immune to being prejudice or making false conclusions even though they pledge to uphold the law. If so, take note that some of officers who shot the black guy minding his own business out for his batchelor party were black. The race of the officer does not make doing wrong right. Asserting their is probable cause in a case where they MIGHT have found none if it was a bunch of young white stupid punks rather than the black stupid punks there were in the Benz would not make this right either. Folks need to get a clue that just because Lynch was wrong here (he certainly appears to be IMHO) does not mean that the cops were right (they might be but do not appear to be from what I have read about the case and from what has happened time and again here in reality where some of us hang out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poland Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Folks need to get a clue that just because Lynch was wrong here (he certainly appears to be IMHO) does not mean that the cops were right (they might be but do not appear to be from what I have read about the case and from what has happened time and again here in reality where some of us hang out. Why, in your mind isn't it the opposite? Why do you choose to believe that the cops stepped out of line rather than believe that the idiot gave them probable cause? He is an idiot, we agree on that, so it stands to reason that it is more likely that the idiot gave them reasonable cause. You have no evidence that the cops lacked reasonable cause, just suspicions. Remember the first case he was involved in where people circulated all kinds of theories including the most popular one that lynch wasn't the driver, in fact some people said he couldn't have been. Then what happened in the end? He confessed and plead guilty. Wait until all the details come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poland Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Sorry. I just felt very argumentative today, and Poland just wouldn't get the point and shut up. The only point a moron like you has is on the top of his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poland Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 You imbecile, do you think that DA's plea down felonies (that's what drunk hit and run is, moron) to traffic tickets, just because a suspect was "stonewalling?" To answer for you since you don't have a single neuron in your cranium, no, they don't. They plea down when they have a weaker case than they thought, and want to cut their losses, while offering the defendant the opportunity to cut his/her losses and get the ordeal over with faster. And why didn't the DA offer this plea deal in the beginning? It would have been as simple as "if Lynch admits he was driving, I'll give him a traffic ticket." Imbecile ? Hahaha you should learn to spell imbicile before you call an intellectual superior one. And as far as this moronic question of yours goes ..... And why didn't the DA offer this plea deal in the beginning? It would have been as simple as "if Lynch admits he was driving, I'll give him a traffic ticket." YOU need to READ the article, as I said if you have problems comprehending we'll spoonfeed you dumbo. so here is your spoonfeeding... In the weeks immediately after the accident, investigators grew frustrated by a lack of cooperation from Lynch and the Bills. That eventually led Erie County District Attorney Frank Clark to subpoena three players and at least two Bills officials, including chief operating officer Russ Brandon, to appear before the grand jury. The grand jury was dismissed without hearing testimony once the agreement was reached. Do you also need that explained to you child? The DA did not immediately plea the charge down because Lynch initially refused to talk to the police, once he admitted guilt then the DA reduced the charges. If that is still too complex for your pea brain, then I cannot help because I am at a loss for how to dumb it down further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poland Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Um, that's ignorance of the law, like having a loaded weapon in your trunk, not ignorance in general, or specifically in this case, of hitting someone. Hence the reason Lynch wasn't charged with hit and run and instead got a traffic ticket for failing to avoid hitting a pedestrian. You are supremely stupid. They didn't reduce charges for any other reason then his pleading guilty, it has nothing to do with him saying ....duh I didn't know it happened, I didn't know I hit her. BTW "Ignorance is no excuse under the law" is the exact equivalent of "Ignorance of the Law is no Excuse". And it is used in both forms. And if you understood that adage you wouldn't be insisting that they reduced charges because that moron Lynch claimed that he didn't know he hit a pedestrian. Also anyone who believes that this moron Lynch was sober and yet didn't know he hit a pedestran, can't tie his own shoe. You must have been the dumbest kid in the class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts