billsfan_34 Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Geez, sorta makes Lynch's troubles look like child's play. How is drugs and a loaded gun childs play? He is just lucky that nothing bad happened thats all.
R. Rich Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Don't be so sure. Ever heard of Leonard Little? Goodell wasn't the commissioner then. I'd hope he would handle that situation differently than Tags did. I've also lost friends to a drunk driver. But since (I think) BAC testing is an automatic part of any accident involving a fatality, I'll wait until the numbers come back to convict Stallworth. Also, wasn't Little a Pro Bowl/All Pro player (once) 5 years after he killed that woman?
VOR Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 How is drugs and a loaded gun childs play? He is just lucky that nothing bad happened thats all. It was "luck" that he wasn't charged for allegedly having pot in his car, and that the gun in the trunk didn't hurt anyone?
WellDressed Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Steely, don't believe everything you read, my friend! This article is laced with so many errors or factual omissions, that it made me laugh out loud. First, the "Breathalyzer" hasn't been used in God knows how long (here in Florida, at least). We do have the Intoxilyzer 8000, which prints results, constantly monitors itself, goes through self checks, yada yada yada. Basically, what the article says this "Alcotest" does. It makes it sound as if law enforcement is using antiquated 1950s technology in DUI investigations, and this is certainly not the case. Another case of the media misleading the public - shocking! EDIT - I just noticed the date on the article - 1998! Give me something a little more updated, Steely! Is that the cousin of the Relaxacizor??
Mr. WEO Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 If the DA can't make the case of DUI, why are you? Why can't you and others like you admit that you're just mad that Lynch did what his lawyer told him to do, and kept quiet? There is no other explanation for you irrationally ignoring the evidence that supports his contention of not knowing he hit her. You have NOTHING except for the silly "he brought his own alcohol into bars in the past" and "he didn't come forward fast enough." Please. And since you're asking me what I would do if someone walked in my path, I sure as hell would slow down and make an attempt to avoid hitting them, not honk my horn and flash my lights. I also certainly wouldn't have admitted to drinking the night before. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. It's called self-preservation and something most people would do, despite what they claim on a message board or when they're not the ones affected. I have no respect for Stallworth for admitting what he did. Obviously he's your hero. What Stallworth has admitted to (drinking the night before and seeing the pedestrian but not slowing down) is enough to hang him not only legally, but with the Commish. Lynch's traffic incident is no worse than Stallworth being in the drug program, because both would have needed to be "talked to" by the Commish. Now Lynch has a gun charge and Stallworth killed someone, and both came clean immediately in these latest incidents because they were caught dead-to-rights. But in Lynch's case, no one died, or was even close to dying. So who should get a suspension, and for how long? Because I am free to make conclusions that the DA can't, genius. You have no respect for Stallworth admitting what he did? Yet you respect an "innocent" Lynch for refusing to cooperate with a simple investigation? Nice!! Anyway, Lynch didn't contact his lawyer for several hours after he saw the cops (for some goddawn reason) towing away his SUV out of his driveway. When the cops knock on your door, and you have no idea why, nor do you recall hitting anyone with your SUV at 3 AM after a night of bar-hopping, do you come out and say "hey, why are you impounding my car?" or do you stay inside for a few hours and then contact your lawyer? He knew what was going on. If he had done nothing wrong, and there was no evidence to the contrary, why would his lawyer tell him not to cooperate in any way? How could he "innocently" incriminate himself? What "evidence" could he have inadvertantly provided for the cops if there is none? Unlike you, I don't need to believe this guy is an unfortunate victim of coast to coast overzealous police activity while he's "livin' the life". He's an entertainer and if he entertains me on Sunday afternoon, that's enough for me. I don't have to completely suspend disbelief to make the whole fan thing work me. You're in too deep, bro. And by the way, when I roll into a neighborhood that is not my own and I got the car with no tags, and I'm smokin a coupla bones---that gun is comin' out!
H2o Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-s...o&type=lgns The investigation is ongoing but DUI, vehicular manslaugher, and reckless driving are among the possible charges. There's still no word if Stallworth was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A witness claims the accident happened when Stallworth drove his Bentley around a stopped car to beat a red light. If this is what actually happenned, he's going to jail. Money or no money, it doesn't matter.
VOR Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Because I am free to make conclusions that the DA can't, genius. You have no respect for Stallworth admitting what he did? Yet you respect an "innocent" Lynch for refusing to cooperate with a simple investigation? Nice!! Anyway, Lynch didn't contact his lawyer for several hours after he saw the cops (for some goddawn reason) towing away his SUV out of his driveway. When the cops knock on your door, and you have no idea why, nor do you recall hitting anyone with your SUV at 3 AM after a night of bar-hopping, do you come out and say "hey, why are you impounding my car?" or do you stay inside for a few hours and then contact your lawyer? He knew what was going on. If he had done nothing wrong, and there was no evidence to the contrary, why would his lawyer tell him not to cooperate in any way? How could he "innocently" incriminate himself? What "evidence" could he have inadvertantly provided for the cops if there is none? Unlike you, I don't need to believe this guy is an unfortunate victim of coast to coast overzealous police activity while he's "livin' the life". He's an entertainer and if he entertains me on Sunday afternoon, that's enough for me. I don't have to completely suspend disbelief to make the whole fan thing work me. You're in too deep, bro. LOL! So says the guy who claims that no one having seen Lynch drink is moot, because, well, he was obviously impaired and somehow got that way. You don't need no stinkin' evidence, just what you believe! Then you ignore that the actual videotape footage showed the distractions that were mentioned and how car proceeded after hitting the vic as if nothing ever happened. I guess that was pure luck, right? And Lynch obviously knew the cops were at his house to nail him for hit and run, yet no calls or messages to his agent, lawyer, mother, etc. to ask for advice for hours. Again pure luck. Are you stupid, a troll, or just so disillusioned after 9 years of missing the playoffs that you're become stupid and troll-like? Because if it's the latter, it's time to find a new team. If it's the former like I suspect...
Dawgg Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 He should rot in jail rest of his life! He probably won't see a day of jail. Our society prefers to punish people who mistreat/kill dogs
Mr. WEO Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 LOL! So says the guy who claims that no one having seen Lynch drink is moot, because, well, he was obviously impaired and somehow got that way. You don't need no stinkin' evidence, just what you believe! Then you ignore that the actual videotape footage showed the distractions that were mentioned and how car proceeded after hitting the vic as if nothing ever happened. I guess that was pure luck, right? And Lynch obviously knew the cops were at his house to nail him for hit and run, yet no calls or messages to his agent, lawyer, mother, etc. to ask for advice for hours. Again pure luck. Are you stupid, a troll, or just so disillusioned after 9 years of missing the playoffs that you're become stupid and troll-like? Because if it's the latter, it's time to find a new team. If it's the former like I suspect... Maybe if I say it a different way, you will understand. The DA could bring 100 people to declare that they saw him drinking that night, but that is NOT evidence of DUI. If he was not obvioulsy impaired to these these witnesses, then this info is useless for prosecution. Thus, moot. Without a timely blood sample, the DA knows he cannot win a felony hit and run in this case. Also, how does the fellow bar patron "witness" imbibement of alcohol by a guy who sneaks booze into bars and mixes it with his soda? And you still cannot articulate exactly what Lynch was protecting himself from if he did not commit a crime. Also, why didn't his passengers cooperate? They had no liability in this case. Why didn't they come forward and simply tell the cops: he wasn't drinking, he didn't see second, obese, slow moving lady in the path of his car in the middle of the street? Why was everyone refusing to cooperate in a simple accident investigation? Tell me. Yep, I must be "stupid" for pointing this stuff out. Or even questioning the character of such a legendary Buffalo Bill like...........Marshawn Lynch. But if you want to go on thinking that this young guy was not drinking (at all!) with his new friends showing them a night on the town, then go right on. In fact you probably don't think Lynch was smoking that weed in that car in Cali. Wait...aren't you the guy who demanded that those cops test to see if was weed and then to "check it for DNA"? Funniest thing I read all year!
VOR Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 So I'll ask you once again Judge Wapner, how is it that Lynch became "impaired" without anyone ever seeing him drinking? Did he inhale the fumes at the bar? Was he wearing one of those "Beer Belly" thingies? Mainlining it? Or do you not care about actually needing proof and just need your wild ASSUmptions? I think we know the answer, and bringing his own alcohol into bars in the past is worth less than you believe people seeing him drinking (which they didn't) that night is. And without any evidence AT ALL that he was impaired, the sole reason he purportedly "ran" after "hitting" is gone. Bye bye. Sayonara. Not that any of the evidence from the time of the "terrible accident" onwards even suggested that Lynch knew he hit her, until informed of it much, much later. As I said, you just can't stand that he kept quiet, LIKE HIS LAWYER TOLD HIM TO DO. And that's pretty much ALL you have, along with the silly "he brought his own alcohol into bars" as "proof" that he was guilty of DUI hit and run. But keep fighting the good fight.
Sig1Hunter Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 Why don't you look at the date on the article. It was merely meant as an article on the breathalyzer being phased out since 1998. Since so many people were referring to the breathalyzer I posted that article, boneeous headius. Gotcha... Problem is, "Breathalyzer" is the generic term that people use for the breath testing instrument. It is also the trademarked product name, which was the reference in the article. So, when someone says to me "give me a breathalyzer!" to prove to me their innocence, I am not going to go to the old junk closet at the station and pull out the actual Breathalyzer. Maybe now you see the irrelevance of the article? Eh...probably not...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Yep... He was drunk. Never go against those 2-3 odds. It would have been a long shot that he wasn't drunk. Donte was snottered when he became a murderer
WellDressed Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Yep... He was drunk. Never go against those 2-3 odds. It would have been a long shot that he wasn't drunk. Donte was snottered when he became a murderer The link you just provided says nothing officially released about his bac. Anyway, don't believe your prescription bottle when it comes to date to discard, I found a "few things" that were close to being two years after the original fill date to be as effictive as day one.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 The link you just provided says nothing officially released about his bac. Anyway, don't believe your prescription bottle when it comes to date to discard, I found a "few things" that were close to being two years after the original fill date to be as effictive as day one. I am bad. Sorry... WSVN-TV reported Thursday that unnamed sources with knowledge of the investigation say that Stallworth's blood-alcohol level was between .08 and .16. The legal limit is .08. The Miami Herald also reported Thursday that an unnamed source says Stallworth's blood-alcohol level was above the legal limit. Ya... It is unnamed and "unofficial"... Hey... You can play the 100-1 odds if you like... Just don't come crying to me when you lose your shirt. Why do so many try and protect these pukes?
PushthePile Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 So I'll ask you once again Judge Wapner, how is it that Lynch became "impaired" without anyone ever seeing him drinking? Did he inhale the fumes at the bar? Was he wearing one of those "Beer Belly" thingies? Mainlining it? Or do you not care about actually needing proof and just need your wild ASSUmptions? I think we know the answer, and bringing his own alcohol into bars in the past is worth less than you believe people seeing him drinking (which they didn't) that night is. And without any evidence AT ALL that he was impaired, the sole reason he purportedly "ran" after "hitting" is gone. Bye bye. Sayonara. Not that any of the evidence from the time of the "terrible accident" onwards even suggested that Lynch knew he hit her, until informed of it much, much later. As I said, you just can't stand that he kept quiet, LIKE HIS LAWYER TOLD HIM TO DO. And that's pretty much ALL you have, along with the silly "he brought his own alcohol into bars" as "proof" that he was guilty of DUI hit and run. But keep fighting the good fight. VOR, you can't have it both ways. In order to even picture your wild scenario playing out we have to assume all sorts of ridiculous things. First we have to assume that Marshawn was out on Chippewa all night, and didn't partake in any drinking or other partying. This isn't impossible to picture in my mind, not likely but not impossible. We have to assume that no one in the vehicle noticed when it struck the pedestrian and given the schematics of the accident, highly unlikely. We have to assume that Marshawn didn't hear the cops pounding on his door. Keep in mind he is still sober. We have to assume he didn't notice or hear his vehicle being towed away. We also have to ignore the fact that he didn't come to the cops when he discovered his vehicle missing and refused to cooperate with the police on what you claim to be a routine accident. How do you have the ignorance to call somebody out on assumptions? Assuming Marshawn Lynch noticed hitting the girl with his car and fleed for a reason is alot less outlandish than what you choose to believe. Just be happy that the court system is set up in his favor on this one and you can root for him this year (at some point).
WellDressed Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 I am bad. Sorry... WSVN-TV reported Thursday that unnamed sources with knowledge of the investigation say that Stallworth's blood-alcohol level was between .08 and .16. The legal limit is .08. The Miami Herald also reported Thursday that an unnamed source says Stallworth's blood-alcohol level was above the legal limit. Ya... It is unnamed and "unofficial"... Hey... You can play the 100-1 odds if you like... Just don't come crying to me when you lose your shirt. Why do so many try and protect these pukes? No need to be, but how does it go when you flow backwards??
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 No need to be, but how does it go when you flow backwards?? Kind of a my moniker... As everybody (I think) knows, I am a lock and dam operator... And where I work we make the river flow "backwards" than how God naturally intended... Not TO Lake Michigan/Great Lakes basin... But AWAY towards the MS/Gulf. Actually, the crossover point where the Great Lakes navigation system meets the Western Rivers nav system. In general water only leaves the lakes in two spots... The SeaWay (NYS/Canada) and diverted away from the lake at Chicago (to the tune of about no greater than the Supreme Court dictated amount of 3600 cfs/cubic feet per second)... One is at downtown on the Chicago River and the other (where I am) is on the Calumet to the south.
VOR Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 VOR, you can't have it both ways. In order to even picture your wild scenario playing out we have to assume all sorts of ridiculous things. First we have to assume that Marshawn was out on Chippewa all night, and didn't partake in any drinking or other partying. This isn't impossible to picture in my mind, not likely but not impossible. We have to assume that no one in the vehicle noticed when it struck the pedestrian and given the schematics of the accident, highly unlikely. We have to assume that Marshawn didn't hear the cops pounding on his door. Keep in mind he is still sober. We have to assume he didn't notice or hear his vehicle being towed away. We also have to ignore the fact that he didn't come to the cops when he discovered his vehicle missing and refused to cooperate with the police on what you claim to be a routine accident. How do you have the ignorance to call somebody out on assumptions? Assuming Marshawn Lynch noticed hitting the girl with his car and fleed for a reason is alot less outlandish than what you choose to believe. Just be happy that the court system is set up in his favor on this one and you can root for him this year (at some point). Actually PtP, I'm using the evidence, or lack thereof, to prove my case. You and others only have assumptions on which to go. When you start tossing-out the "he HAD to have been drinking" or "he HAD to have known he hit her," or "he HAD to have heard the cops knocking," you've got a weak argument. I'll "simply" rest on the facts that no one saw Lynch drinking, there were distractions that night that prevented him from seeing and hearing her hit his car, and he didn't contact anyone for hours after the accident, much less provide incriminating evidence.
Magox Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 I think it's awfully presumptuous for anyone to compare Lynch's traffic incident with Stallworth. The only thing that anyone can bring up about Lynch drinking is all just speculation. Which doesn't amount up to jack sh*t Where Stallworth's incident has been unofficially confirmed to have been drinking, and to make things worse at the expense of someone's life.
PushthePile Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Actually PtP, I'm using the evidence, or lack thereof, to prove my case. You and others only have assumptions on which to go. When you start tossing-out the "he HAD to have been drinking" or "he HAD to have known he hit her," or "he HAD to have heard the cops knocking," you've got a weak argument. I'll "simply" rest on the facts that no one saw Lynch drinking, there were distractions that night that prevented him from seeing and hearing her hit his car, and he didn't contact anyone for hours after the accident, much less provide incriminating evidence. I never said he" had to have been drinking" or he "had to have known he hit the girl". See that's what you do in order to spin your argument. I made the point that you continue to call people out for assuming things. At the same time your entire argument is one big assumption. 1. Nobody saw Marshawn drinking. You bring this gem up over and over again. Do you really think that the cops went through Chippewa and asked all patrons if they saw Marshawn drinking? Like I said in my other post, I don't know if he was or wasn't drinking. Neither do you. Assumption #1 2. You assume he didn't notice he ran over a girl in the street. WTF? A car full of passengers and a girl bounces off the front corner of the vehicle and no one notices. I don't know that they didn't notice but you assume they didn't. A far more ridiculous assumption on your part. Assumption #2 3.The cops pound on Marshawn's door and no one answers. You assume Marshawn didn't hear. Assumption #3 4. The cops tow Marshawn's vehicle out of his driveway and you assume again he doesn't notice. Assumption #4 5. Marshawn wakes up in the morning and finds his vehicle missing. You then say he calls his lawyer first before calling the police. Makes sense! Then you assume Marshawn is notified (that he ran over a girl) by someone that morning and is advied to keep quiet, about a routine accident. Assumption #5 Your entire story is one big assumption. I don't think you are foolish enough to believe this. I think you are either a homer to the extreme or you enjoy debating. Either way your argument is full of outlandish assumptions that you call facts.
Recommended Posts