VOR Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 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. Everything I've presented to you is evidence, not assumptions. Assumptions is believing he was drunk with no one seeing him drink (do you REALLY think the cops didn't investigate the accident? Really?); or assuming he saw and heard her even though the footage never shows him slowing down after hitting her with his (actually) side-view mirror, which is the universal reaction to hearing or seeing something hit your car; or believing he knew the cops were at his house, yet no contact with ANYONE, not even mom, until the Bills' director of security contacted him four hours later because the police couldn't get through to Lynch. The DA had no case against Lynch except failure to avoid hitting a pedestrian. Everyone was satisfied with the outcome of the case, even the vic's lawyer. And even the cops offered-up the "he didn't know he hit her" defense. Time to move past it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Everything I've presented to you is evidence, not assumptions. Assumptions is believing he was drunk with no one seeing him drink (do you REALLY think the cops didn't investigate the accident? Really?); or assuming he saw and heard her even though the footage never shows him slowing down after hitting her with his (actually) side-view mirror, which is the universal reaction to hearing or seeing something hit your car; or believing he knew the cops were at his house, yet no contact with ANYONE, not even mom, until the Bills' director of security contacted him four hours later because the police couldn't get through to Lynch. The DA had no case against Lynch except failure to avoid hitting a pedestrian. Everyone was satisfied with the outcome of the case, even the vic's lawyer. And even the cops offered-up the "he didn't know he hit her" defense. Time to move past it. They could have had 10 witnesses and video footage of Lynch chugging a bottle of Jack Daniels, it wouldn't have mattered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 They could have had 10 witnesses and video footage of Lynch chugging a bottle of Jack Daniels, it wouldn't have mattered. Well that would be an interesting question. If there were evidence that Lynch had downed a bottle of JD just moments before hitting the vic, would that have made a difference or not? I think it would have, both legally AND public opinion-wise. I certainly wouldn't be defending him if that were the case. But without anyone seeing him drink, I cannot make the claim that he was impaired when he hit the vic. That is the biggest assumption of all, because the majority of people who go out to bars don't drink/enough to become impaired while driving home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Well that would be an interesting question. If there were evidence that Lynch had downed a bottle of JD just moments before hitting the vic, would that have made a difference or not? I think it would have, both legally AND public opinion-wise. I certainly wouldn't be defending him if that were the case. But without anyone seeing him drink, I cannot make the claim that he was impaired when he hit the vic. That is the biggest assumption of all, because the majority of people who go out to bars don't drink/enough to become impaired while driving home. How would you know if he did. It's not like he stuck around or even admitted to it for almost a week. he could have been drugged up, drunk, etc,, and a week later when he was finally charged nothing would have been in his system. Pretty easy to say you weren't drunk, drugged, etc... when the police are given the run around on who was driving for that long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 How would you know if he did. It's not like he stuck around or even admitted to it for almost a week. he could have been drugged up, drunk, etc,, and a week later when he was finally charged nothing would have been in his system. Pretty easy to say you weren't drunk, drugged, etc... when the police are given the run around on who was driving for that long. Without getting blood samples from Lynch within a few hours of the accident, the time course after that didn't matter. But again, the fact that he didn't contact anyone and had to be contacted by the head of security tells me that he was sleeping and wasn't cowering in fear and looking for advice because he knew he had done wrong and felt guilty. Plus I think that Steve Johnson has enough sense to not get into a car with someone who is impaired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Without getting blood samples from Lynch within a few hours of the accident, the time course after that didn't matter. But again, the fact that he didn't contact anyone and had to be contacted by the head of security tells me that he was sleeping and wasn't cowering in fear and looking for advice because he knew he had done wrong and felt guilty. Plus I think that Steve Johnson has enough sense to not get into a car with someone who is impaired. Or he is smart enough to know that the police can't enter his home without a warrant if he just lays low. Don't know if that is what happened in this case, but I do know people who have done it. I'm not saying it's was right of them to do it, but they got away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Or he is smart enough to know that the police can't enter his home without a warrant if he just lays low. Don't know if that is what happened in this case, but I do know people who have done it. I'm not saying it's was right of them to do it, but they got away with it. That's a lot of deep thought for a guy who is supposed to be impaired. And it's odd that he didn't try and initiate contact with anyone, like his lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 That's a lot of deep thought for a guy who is supposed to be impaired. And it's odd that he didn't try and initiate contact with anyone, like his lawyer. Impaired doesn't mean wasted. Why would he need to call a lawyer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Impaired doesn't mean wasted. Why would he need to call a lawyer? Why would he need to call a lawyer? If he was impaired and knew he hit the vic and ran, cops were pounding on his door, and he knew they couldn't come in without a warrant, he'd be contacting his lawyer sooner rather than later. After being first contacted by the Bills' head of security, he contacted his lawyer. And in the text messages to him, there were no incriminating messages like "I hit someone and left the scene." But I suppose it was all luck that no one saw Lynch drinking, it appeared on video that he didn't know he hit someone, and that he didn't do anything except for cower behind his door for hours after the accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 How would you know if he did. It's not like he stuck around or even admitted to it for almost a week. he could have been drugged up, drunk, etc,, and a week later when he was finally charged nothing would have been in his system. Pretty easy to say you weren't drunk, drugged, etc... when the police are given the run around on who was driving for that long. And that is why you NEVER voluntarily submit to a test unless you are TOTALLY clean and you know it. All you are doing is giving the authorities iron-clad evidence. Evidence that they will surely use against you. I know it sounds bad, but dems the workings of self persaverence. As much as I hate it, they have really nothing iron clad on ML. ML=1 Authorites/victim=Zip Now... Donte's situation... He did kill someone and from what it appears, the authorities have iron-clad evidence on him. He is screwed (and rightly so) IMO. Shame that an innocent died at the hands of this puke. Don't get me wrong, both ML and DS are pukes... Just that DS is a bigger puke because of the way his incident played out. It could have easily played out this way for ML. Hope ML learns something from his recent scraps with screwing up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Why would he need to call a lawyer? If he was impaired and knew he hit the vic and ran, cops were pounding on his door, and he knew they couldn't come in without a warrant, he'd be contacting his lawyer sooner rather than later. After being first contacted by the Bills' head of security, he contacted his lawyer. And in the text messages to him, there were no incriminating messages like "I hit someone and left the scene." But I suppose it was all luck that no one saw Lynch drinking, it appeared on video that he didn't know he hit someone, and that he didn't do anything except for cower behind his door for hours after the accident. I wouldn't contact my lawyer if I were in that situation, I would sit back like nothing happened and say "what, someone was hit"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 And that is why you NEVER voluntarily submit to a test unless you are TOTALLY clean and you know it. All you are doing is giving the authorities iron-clad evidence. Evidence that they will surely use against you. I know it sounds bad, but dems the workings of self persaverence. As much as I hate it, they have really nothing iron clad on ML. ML=1 Authorites/victim=Zip Now... Donte's situation... He did kill someone and from what it appears, the authorities have iron-clad evidence on him. He is screwed (and rightly so) IMO. Shame that an innocent died at the hands of this puke. Don't get me wrong, both ML and DS are pukes... Just that DS is a bigger puke because of the way his incident played out. It could have easily played out this way for ML. Hope ML learns something from his recent scraps with screwing up! 'Funny' how people on this board were laughing about that girl that ML hit because she wasn't attractive. ML needs to grow up SOON-as well as some TBD members. You get caught twice means you were doing bad stuff 200 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Or he is smart enough to know that the police can't enter his home without a warrant if he just lays low. Don't know if that is what happened in this case, but I do know people who have done it. I'm not saying it's was right of them to do it, but they got away with it. Or he is smart enough to know that he grew up in OakTown and knows the workings of the system... Again it comes down to a better sense of self persaverence and "playing his cards right" when a situation dictates. It bothers me to say this trying to be an honest man... But one has to ask themselves a question: "Is ML in jail right now?" Given his track record (cite-Wiki): Legal Issues On June 14, 2006, Lynch was the victim of mistaken identity when unknown assailants shot at his car outside his high school alma mater as he was about to visit his little sister on her graduation day. He was not the intended target of the shooting, and no one was injured. The shooter phoned Lynch's mother to apologize. On January 25, 2007, Lynch was accused of sexual assault by his former girlfriend. The incident reportedly happened on December 13, 2006, outside the woman's home in Emeryville, California. On January 29, 2007, an Alameda County Deputy District Attorney who specializes in domestic violence cases declined to press charges, citing a lack of evidence and "grave inconsistencies" in the alleged victim's accusations. Lynch was never arrested or charged. On March 3, 2007, an Alameda County judge threw out a restraining order that Lynch's ex-girlfriend had issued against him because it was obtained improperly. During June 2008, Lynch was under investigation for his involvement in a hit and run accident that occurred in Buffalo on May 31, 2008. His 2008 Porsche Cayenne struck and injured a female pedestrian before leaving the scene. After the 27 day saga, on June 26, 2008, Lynch apologized and accepted a guilty plea to a single count of failure to exercise due care to avoid striking a pedestrian, a traffic violation. He was assessed a $100 fine, and his driver’s license and car registration were revoked. Because a Buffalo police officer gave testimony that the victim did not suffer "severe physical injury", Lynch avoided being criminally charged for the incident. Three days after his 2009 Pro Bowl appearance, Lynch was arrested on February 11 in Culver City, California after police approached a running 2006 Mercedes-Benz that he and two companions were occupying. After smelling marijuana, they discovered a loaded gun in the car that was determined to belong to Lynch. He was released the same day after paying $35,000 bail. Lynch's felony charge was reduced to three misdemeanors, and no drug charges were filed. On March 5 Lynch pled guilty to a misdemeanor gun charge and was sentenced to three years of probation, 80 hours of community service. He also agreed to submit to police searches at any time. The two other misdemeanor gun charges were dismissed. I think his "self persaverence power bar" is running mighty low in the video game This is your life: Marshawn Lynch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 'Funny' how people on this board were laughing about that girl that ML hit because she wasn't attractive. ML needs to grow up SOON-as well as some TBD members. You get caught twice means you were doing bad stuff 200 times. Exactly... More than twice! See my post above! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 I wouldn't contact my lawyer if I were in that situation, I would sit back like nothing happened and say "what, someone was hit"? And you'd leave your car out in the driveway? Like I said, that's some pretty deep thought for a guy who is impaired and as stupid as many here make him out to be (and as he may be, given the arrest for the gun). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 And you'd leave your car out in the driveway? Like I said, that's some pretty deep thought for a guy who is impaired and as stupid as many here make him out to be (and as he may be, given the arrest for the gun). Sure if I wanted to make it look like I didn't know what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 'Funny' how people on this board were laughing about that girl that ML hit because she wasn't attractive. ML needs to grow up SOON-as well as some TBD members. You get caught twice means you were doing bad stuff 200 times. LOL! I'd like to see that kind of scrutiny being applied to the high and mighty "grown ups" here on TBD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 More details are coming in. Sounds like the pedestrian may have been more at fault. Yes, Stallworth's BAL may have been elevated, but it doesn't absolve the other guy from trying to run across a 6 lane highway away from a crosswalk. News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 More details are coming in. Sounds like the pedestrian may have been more at fault. Yes, Stallworth's BAL may have been elevated, but it doesn't absolve the other guy from trying to run across a 6 lane highway away from a crosswalk. News Ah, so now it's okay to blame the victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Just like the victim of Lynch's hit-and-run was at the very least equally culpable, same apparently holds true with the victim of Stallworth's incident. People are very quick to rush to judgment, but when we wait for the truth to come out before snapping to form an opinion we so often realize everything is not as it seems. Neither Lynch nor Stallworth would ever have been automatically presumed guilty if their skin color was white instead of black. Let's face facts, our society is still very racist underneath the surface, and these two cases are evidence of how far we still have to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts