LabattBlue Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 There is no difference to you with a guy who has a handgun, say, tucked in the waistband of his jeans, and a guy with his gun locked in a box in the trunk? Who was portraying that he had a handgun tucked in his jeans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Could it not be, that Lynch's case is but small peanuts in their overall case load? Here in Hamilton County, OH, there are large numbers of arrests reduced to misdemeanors, if one is to believe the press (and I do.). Not necessarily for lack of proof, moreso because of a heavily backlogged court calendar as well as little jail space. Hundreds and and hundreds of folks with long arrest and conviction records walking freely every day... Well, I would argue that because he was originally pinched on a felony that this was a different kettle of fish. I would also argue that there are "Hundreds and and hundreds of folks with long arrest and conviction records walking freely every day" is somewhat ambigous. Do these people have misdemeanor arrests? For example, you are always going to have part of the population (I call them sh-- birds) with 7 or 8 drunk and disorderly type arrests. This is a nuisance, but in the end they are really hurting themselves as much as anyone else. People may not want to face it, but the system is designed to churn through those smaller items and try to make room to aggressively prosecute felons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 17, 2009 Author Share Posted March 17, 2009 Who was portraying that he had a handgun tucked in his jeans? It doesnt matter. The point is, you don't think there is a difference between a guy carrying a gun on his person or right next to him with easy access, versus one locked in the trunk? I do. I suppose having a loaded gun on a table with a kid around is the same as having a loaded gun locked in a safe with a kid around, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Again, likely back to probably cause. His attorney would have had to been insane to at least not make the arguement in LA County that this was a DWB related stop. Or, in this case, a Parking While Black offense. There was no such argument to make or of course he would have made it. This car had no plates---that's going to get you a tap on the window in every county in this country, Mr. Cochran. Then, there was the fresh marijuana stench. That gets the car door opened. Then there were the blunts. That gets the trunk searched. Case closed. This was bounced to a misdemeanor, like many others are for a guy with no such record in the state and not on probation. As soemone else already said, this is like a traffic case for the LA DA's office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 It doesnt matter. The point is, you don't think there is a difference between a guy carrying a gun on his person or right next to him with easy access, versus one locked in the trunk? I do. I suppose having a loaded gun on a table with a kid around is the same as having a loaded gun locked in a safe with a kid around, too. So, back to the original question, how was the incident portrayed wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 The pot allegations were fabricated. There is no other explanation for the cops not charging.him with possession seeing as how it was his car, when it was the basis for the search and they tagged him for the gun. Not to mention Santonio Holmes was nailed just a few months prior for the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 17, 2009 Author Share Posted March 17, 2009 So, back to the original question, how was the incident portrayed wrong? First, I am not saying that it should not have been reported as it was, with little bits of information coming out at different times, because that's how these things work. But I'd argue that because of how it was reported, the general fan across the country thought that Marshawn Lynch was found with a gun on his person and was smoking pot. Again, I am not blaming anyone for this perception, most people aren't Bills fans and arent going to read 20 articles about it and talk on message boards about it. But I have seen some sites after the arrest where fans of different teams were commenting on the thug and carrying a gun. It's my opinion that's what Lynch's lawyer was talking about when he said it wasn't how it is being portrayed. The people think he had a gun on him and was smoking pot, when the facts seem to indicate the gun was locked in a trunk and we don't know if he was smoking the little pot that there was in the three blunts. And myself, I thought he had the gun on him and was smoking pot myself when I first heard it. And I personally think there is a big difference between having the gun on you or next to you, and having it locked in the trunk. I think the police did, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I know the DA press release said it was his car.....but I could have sworn that the Culver City cops believed the car belonged to someone else. You also have to wonder if this car was on a temp (paper) plate (which usually hang in a window). Because, otherwise you would have expected to see charges related to an unregisterd car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Well, I would argue that because he was originally pinched on a felony that this was a different kettle of fish. I would also argue that there are "Hundreds and and hundreds of folks with long arrest and conviction records walking freely every day" is somewhat ambigous. Do these people have misdemeanor arrests? For example, you are always going to have part of the population (I call them sh-- birds) with 7 or 8 drunk and disorderly type arrests. This is a nuisance, but in the end they are really hurting themselves as much as anyone else. People may not want to face it, but the system is designed to churn through those smaller items and try to make room to aggressively prosecute felons. Come to Hamilton County. These aren't folks with just with misdemeanors. Jail overcrowding is a fact. Just a few months ago, the County had to close down their Queensgate prison - OH State laws require that Counties keep a balanced budget. Approximately 850 were released, and you seldom get incarcerated for any length of time for misdemeanors here (if at all) unless some judge wants to hop in front of the popular parade of the moment, to get himself face time. The citizens of Hamilton County gleefully passes a bond issue of 450 million (and half-cent sales tax increase) for Mike Brown's free play palace. Since then, two bond issues for a new jail were voted down in flames... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 The pot allegations were fabricated. There is no other explanation for the cops not charging.him with possession seeing as how it was his car, when it was the basis for the search and they tagged him for the gun. Not to mention Santonio Holmes was nailed just a few months prior for the same thing. The pot was fabricated?? Show me any credible source to substantiate that claim. First you said they should "test" the pot to see if it was indeed real pot and the guys were not just pretending to be in possession of pot. Then you wanted to check it for DNA to exclude your man ML as the possessor of the possibly fake pot. Now, simply, there was no pot. You do what ever it is you have to do to convince yourself that Lynch isn't a knucklehead and deserving of all the "respect" you have invested in him. Possession of less than a ounce of weed is a misdemeanor in California. He would have gotten an appearance ticket and a fine. The DA instead went with the felony gun charge and allowed Lych to plea down to a misdemeanor, but with communtiy service and 3 years of probation. Seeing as Lynch couldn't stay out of trouble for more than 9 months, the gun conviction is much more serious for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 The pot was fabricated?? Show me any credible source to substantiate that claim. First you said they should "test" the pot to see if it was indeed real pot and the guys were not just pretending to be in possession of pot. Then you wanted to check it for DNA to exclude your man ML as the possessor of the possibly fake pot. Now, simply, there was no pot. You do what ever it is you have to do to convince yourself that Lynch isn't a knucklehead and deserving of all the "respect" you have invested in him. Possession of less than a ounce of weed is a misdemeanor in California. He would have gotten an appearance ticket and a fine. The DA instead went with the felony gun charge and allowed Lych to plea down to a misdemeanor, but with communtiy service and 3 years of probation. Seeing as Lynch couldn't stay out of trouble for more than 9 months, the gun conviction is much more serious for him. Show me any credible evidence to substantiate the claim that there was pot. The word of the cops? Oh wait, I forget who I'm talking to here. I'm sure sometime in the past Lynch smuggled his own pot into a bar. Or at least failed a drug test. But I guess that last one is a "moot point." Look, the cops needed justification to search the car and they tossed-out the oldest trick in the book: "we smelled pot." That's why there was no charge for pot and the officers didn't even bother collecting the "blunts." But since the Commish is judge, jury, and executioner, he can order Lynch into the drug program to test for pot. And if he fails, then we'll have our answer, won't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Show me any credible evidence to substantiate the claim that there was pot. The word of the cops? Oh wait, I forget who I'm talking to here. I'm sure sometime in the past Lynch smuggled his own pot into a bar. Or at least failed a drug test. But I guess that last one is a "moot point." Look, the cops needed justification to search the car and they tossed-out the oldest trick in the book: "we smelled pot." That's why there was no charge for pot and the officers didn't even bother collecting the "blunts." But since the Commish is judge, jury, and executioner, he can order Lynch into the drug program to test for pot. And if he fails, then we'll have our answer, won't we? So it was the cops' fault that he had a gun that wasn't registered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 So it was the cops' fault that he had a gun that wasn't registered? Yes, that's EXACTLY what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Yes, that's EXACTLY what I said. Sorry- still go glue in my mouth.......going to the orthodontist when you are in your 30's in incredible fun........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Sorry- still go glue in my mouth.......going to the orthodontist when you are in your 30's in incredible fun........... It wasn't much fun in my teens, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Show me any credible evidence to substantiate the claim that there was pot. The word of the cops? Oh wait, I forget who I'm talking to here. I'm sure sometime in the past Lynch smuggled his own pot into a bar. Or at least failed a drug test. But I guess that last one is a "moot point." Look, the cops needed justification to search the car and they tossed-out the oldest trick in the book: "we smelled pot." That's why there was no charge for pot and the officers didn't even bother collecting the "blunts." But since the Commish is judge, jury, and executioner, he can order Lynch into the drug program to test for pot. And if he fails, then we'll have our answer, won't we? Foolish post. No need to use "the oldest trick in the book" when the vehicle has no plates on it. Besides nobody cares whether you believe he had pot in the vehicle or not. He didn't get charged with it, and you or anyone else on this site don't know why. Keep plugging away with your conspiracy theories and trumped up charges nonsense. Maybe it wasn't even Marshawn. Prove to me he doesn't have a gun toting double that has pot in their car and doesn't smoke it. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Foolish post. No need to use "the oldest trick in the book" when the vehicle has no plates on it. Besides nobody cares whether you believe he had pot in the vehicle or not. He didn't get charged with it, and you or anyone else on this site don't know why. Keep plugging away with your conspiracy theories and trumped up charges nonsense. Maybe it wasn't even Marshawn. Prove to me he doesn't have a gun toting double that has pot in their car and doesn't smoke it. LOL Fortunately in this country, there needs to be proof, not baseless allegations. If you had your way, the Duke lacrosse players would be in jail for rape. As I said, IF Lynch tests positive for pot, seeing as how he was "obviously" smoking blunts, then we'll talk. Until then it sounds like the bull sh-- it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Fortunately in this country, there needs to be proof of things, not baseless allegations. If you had your way, the Duke lacrosse players would be in jail for rape. As I said, IF Lynch tests positive for pot, seeing as how he was "obviously" smoking blunts, then we'll talk. Until then it sounds like the bull sh-- it is. Right Buddy! Like I said nobody cares about charges that never saw the light of day. Please keep on fighting the good fight though! Perhaps the crooked cops ran that girl over last year. Prove to me they didn't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Right Buddy! Like I said nobody cares about charges that never saw the light of day. Please keep on fighting the good fight though! Perhaps the crooked cops ran that girl over last year. Prove to me they didn't! Wait, nobody cares about the charges that never saw the light of day? Like the pot charges? Who are you trying to kid? And I don't have to fight any fight. Lynch got a traffic ticket last year for what the authorities and the vic's own lawyer even said appeared to be an accident, and he wasn't charged with pot possession, even though he should have been if there in fact had been pot. In both instances, it makes you wonder why he got off/so lightly. But he was caught with an illegal gun and got charged, rightfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 BTW, John Clayton repoorted that Lynch asked for the meeting with Goodell. Good move on Lynch's/his handlers' part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts