TimGraham Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 Hold the phone ... Now I'm being told they haven't been dropped.
BillsNYC Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 Hold the phone ... Now I'm being told they haven't been dropped. Oh boy
TimGraham Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 A lot of procedural semantics. Possible that no charges were filed at all. Possible they were filed and dropped. Possible he was charged and bailed out. But he has been released from jail at least. I'll keep looking into it.
TimGraham Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 Here's where the confusion comes from, and this is official as of 4:13 p.m. The charges weren't dropped because no charges have been filed. So he was let go without having to post bond because there were no charges. But there could be.
lets_go_bills Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 Here's where the confusion comes from, and this is official as of 4:13 p.m. The charges weren't dropped because no charges have been filed. So he was let go without having to post bond because there were no charges. But there could be. Doesn't make sense to not charge him right away. I'm guessing there wasn't much to go on and a lot of people to deal with in the "brawl." My guess is the DA will review it and decide if there's enough to go on. Keep us posted Tim.
TimGraham Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 Doesn't make sense to not charge him right away. I'm guessing there wasn't much to go on and a lot of people to deal with in the "brawl." My guess is the DA will review it and decide if there's enough to go on. Keep us posted Tim. I've been told there was no prosecutor to consult because of Easter weekend. So charges still are quite possible.
Stenbar Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 Instead of tasering him they couldve just called Sammy Morris to take care of his arse
lets_go_bills Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 I've been told there was no prosecutor to consult because of Eastern weekend. So charges still are quite possible. Damn. Sounds we're playing the waiting game until at least Tuesday then.
davefan66 Posted April 12, 2009 Posted April 12, 2009 Damn. Sounds we're playing the waiting game until at least Tuesday then. First offense, will probably get off with a slap on the wrist. Commish will talk with, and again first offense (that we know of), and he'll be back on the field. Different NFL player, same story...again, and again, and again... Funny thing though. I used to laugh at the Bengals for hiring thugs!
The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ. Posted April 12, 2009 Posted April 12, 2009 Doesn't make sense to not charge him right away. I'm guessing there wasn't much to go on and a lot of people to deal with in the "brawl." My guess is the DA will review it and decide if there's enough to go on. Keep us posted Tim. Not sure if this is everywhere but where I work it is not uncommon that in a bar brawl unless someone has been hurt bad to take what seems to be the person or persons who started the fight and people who might carry the problem over to another area and hold them till they atleast sober-up. It often is more about ending the problem then making arrests.
VOR Posted April 12, 2009 Posted April 12, 2009 Here's an idea for an article, Tim. You could discuss the Lynch suspension and compare it to the Brandon Marshall suspension, which was also (at least initially) 3 games. You could then ask why Marshall didn't have to meet with the Commish after his domestic violence case and especially after his DUI case, and wonder if the Commish doesn't view these to be serious problems, unlike traffic violations and guns in trunks. You could then also wonder why the Commish hasn't suspended Marshall again for getting arrested a 4th time, or even had another "sit down" with him.
Steely Dan Posted April 12, 2009 Posted April 12, 2009 Here's an idea for an article, Tim. You could discuss the Lynch suspension and compare it to the Brandon Marshall suspension, which was also (at least initially) 3 games. You could then ask why Marshall didn't have to meet with the Commish after his domestic violence case and especially after his DUI case, and wonder if the Commish doesn't view these to be serious problems, unlike traffic violations and guns in trunks. You could then also wonder why the Commish hasn't suspended Marshall again for getting arrested a 4th time, or even had another "sit down" with him. Excellent.
VOR Posted April 12, 2009 Posted April 12, 2009 Excellent. Thanks. But for some strange reason, I doubt an article like that ever gets written.
BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land Posted April 12, 2009 Posted April 12, 2009 Here's an idea for an article, Tim. You could discuss the Lynch suspension and compare it to the Brandon Marshall suspension, which was also (at least initially) 3 games. You could then ask why Marshall didn't have to meet with the Commish after his domestic violence case and especially after his DUI case, and wonder if the Commish doesn't view these to be serious problems, unlike traffic violations and guns in trunks. You could then also wonder why the Commish hasn't suspended Marshall again for getting arrested a 4th time, or even had another "sit down" with him. Pretty sure that Lynch (or his reps) asked for the meeting with the Commish. He wasn't called in.
The Dean Posted April 12, 2009 Posted April 12, 2009 Pretty sure that Lynch (or his reps) asked for the meeting with the Commish. He wasn't called in. That's what has been reported. You'd think that would help his case. An article comparing Lynch's crimes and punishment to those of Marshall, is not likely to be written by an objective and competent journalist, like Tim. But, I would like to see a real hard look at offenses, and NFL punishment, overall, with case-by-case analyses.
Lori Posted April 12, 2009 Author Posted April 12, 2009 Here's an idea for an article, Tim. You could discuss the Lynch suspension and compare it to the Brandon Marshall suspension, which was also (at least initially) 3 games. You could then ask why Marshall didn't have to meet with the Commish after his domestic violence case and especially after his DUI case, and wonder if the Commish doesn't view these to be serious problems, unlike traffic violations and guns in trunks. You could then also wonder why the Commish hasn't suspended Marshall again for getting arrested a 4th time, or even had another "sit down" with him. Or, y'know, he could think for himself instead of writing what someone tells him to write because it fits with their own personal crusade.
VOR Posted April 13, 2009 Posted April 13, 2009 Or, y'know, he could think for himself instead of writing what someone tells him to write because it fits with their own personal crusade. I would hope this is "personal" for most of us here, Lori. Even for Tim, a Buffalo guy. Whether it's a "crusade" is debatable, but despite your classification as such, I think you know EXACTLY what I'm getting at. But since (as I alluded to) this article has no chance of being written, maybe Tim can shed some light on how the Commish might have come to his decision?
Lori Posted April 13, 2009 Author Posted April 13, 2009 I would hope this is "personal" for most of us here, Lori. Even for Tim, a Buffalo guy. Whether it's a "crusade" is debatable, but despite your classification as such, I think you know EXACTLY what I'm getting at. But since (as I alluded to) this article has no chance of being written, maybe Tim can shed some light on how the Commish might have come to his decision? From the TBD Terms of Service, on the list of things NOT to post: "Personal 'crusades' (posting the same information/opinion in an excessively repetitive manner. We want posters to share opinions not bludgeon others to death with them.)" And suggesting an idea for a story is one thing, but telling someone what opinion to put under his own byline? Seriously? That wouldn't fly at my small-town weekly, much less anything larger, and I'd be offended if anyone tried it -- including my editor. Sorry, Tim. You can have your thread back now.
BillsNYC Posted April 13, 2009 Posted April 13, 2009 Tim - tasering aside, how do the Bills view Donte Whitner as a player? Is he one of those players that needs a huge pro bowl caliber year? Are the Bills disappointed that he hasn't reach #8 overall pick potential yet? Or is he doing everything asked of him and they understand they need to do a better job of putting him in the right position? I'm wondering if Safety could be a surprise pick in the first 3 rounds as a successor to Whitner when his contract is up.
The Dean Posted April 13, 2009 Posted April 13, 2009 Tim - tasering aside, how do the Bills view Donte Whitner as a player? Is he one of those players that needs a huge pro bowl caliber year? Are the Bills disappointed that he hasn't reach #8 overall pick potential yet? Or is he doing everything asked of him and they understand they need to do a better job of putting him in the right position? I'm wondering if Safety could be a surprise pick in the first 3 rounds as a successor to Whitner when his contract is up. FYI, from earlier in this thread: I like Donte Whitner. The thing about safeties, however, is that no other position's naked-eye performance is as dependent on the overall strength of a team's defense. Put Ed Reed on the Bills defense, and he'll look average.
Recommended Posts