McBeane Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 Is there any news as to the results of this meeting? Sorry if it has already been said, I tried to read over everything.
The Senator Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 Is there any news as to the results of this meeting? Sorry if it has already been said, I tried to read over everything. meeting is over - goodell's decision will probably come in a couple of days - 3 articles on TBD home page
PushthePile Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 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. Correct moron, the pot charges that didn't see the light of day. The same charges that you find a need to defend against nobody. Who am I trying to kid? WTF? You have lost it. I was simply saying that you look like a je$k*ff when you say the pot charges were fabricated. How in the world would you know that? What is the point of even trying to speculate on what happened with the supposed pot situation? I don't have a clue, and furthermore what the hell does it matter? He didn't get charged. You chose the path of speculating that the police were corrupt. Then you defended Lynch's honor against dropped charges. So again I say you look foolish. On a side note people get let go on possession of minimal amounts of pot, all the time. That sounds a little more realistic than your fabrication theories.
Adam Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 One or two is better than four. Not if you go to Teds!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. WEO Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 Correct moron, the pot charges that didn't see the light of day. The same charges that you find a need to defend against nobody. Who am I trying to kid? WTF? You have lost it. I was simply saying that you look like a je$k*ff when you say the pot charges were fabricated. How in the world would you know that? What is the point of even trying to speculate on what happened with the supposed pot situation? I don't have a clue, and furthermore what the hell does it matter? He didn't get charged. You chose the path of speculating that the police were corrupt. Then you defended Lynch's honor against dropped charges. So again I say you look foolish. On a side note people get let go on possession of minimal amounts of pot, all the time. That sounds a little more realistic than your fabrication theories. Pile's right. Look, VOR, the pot charges would add nothing to this guys conviction other than a couple of bucks. The felony was charged. In standard fashion, a plea bargain was arranged/offered/accepted. Justice was served. If there was not pot, then ML would NEVER have accepted any plea offer. A second year law student from any communtiy law clinic could have had the search tossed. But alas, NOBODY challenged the search. NOBODY challenged the police report (I haven't heard ML or his lawyer do so--have you?). You look foolish.
BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 Pile's right. Look, VOR, the pot charges would add nothing to this guys conviction other than a couple of bucks. The felony was charged. In standard fashion, a plea bargain was arranged/offered/accepted. Justice was served. If there was not pot, then ML would NEVER have accepted any plea offer. A second year law student from any communtiy law clinic could have had the search tossed. But alas, NOBODY challenged the search. NOBODY challenged the police report (I haven't heard ML or his lawyer do so--have you?). You look foolish. I don't know, and neither do you, because plea agreement discussions are not a matter of public record. Were you mopping the floors while the LA County DA & Sensabaugh had their discussions??
VOR Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 Pile's right. Look, VOR, the pot charges would add nothing to this guys conviction other than a couple of bucks. The felony was charged. In standard fashion, a plea bargain was arranged/offered/accepted. Justice was served. If there was not pot, then ML would NEVER have accepted any plea offer. A second year law student from any communtiy law clinic could have had the search tossed. But alas, NOBODY challenged the search. NOBODY challenged the police report (I haven't heard ML or his lawyer do so--have you?). You look foolish. I can't even come close to how you've made yourself look in a few weeks' tiume, especially considering what you wrote above and comparing it to what you previously wrote: 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. So you first said that this was obviously (as any first year law student could tell you) never going to be a felony gun charge, which meant it was going to be a misdemeanor charge, period. Yet NOW it was a plea deal because he was obviously smoking pot, which was never retrieved and thus never tested, for which he was never charged, and for which he's never tested positive in the past, and when no news source has reported it as a plea deal, unlike last year's incident? Come back to me when you get your stories straight. Or get a coherent story. And ultimately, whether the search was legal or not, he was still caught with a gun in his trunk.
BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 I can't even come close to how you've made yourself look in a few weeks' tiume, especially considering what you wrote above and comparing it to what you previously wrote: So you first said that this was obviously (as any first year law student could tell you) never going to be a felony gun charge, which meant it was going to be a misdemeanor charge, period. Yet NOW it was a plea deal because he was obviously smoking pot, which was never retrieved and thus never tested, for which he was never charged, and for which he's never tested positive in the past, and when no news source has reported it as a plea deal, unlike last year's incident? Come back to me when you get your stories straight. Or get a coherent story. And ultimately, whether the search was legal or not, he was still caught with a gun in his trunk. Thanks for the feedback, Justice Brandeis.
Mr. WEO Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 I can't even come close to how you've made yourself look in a few weeks' tiume, especially considering what you wrote above and comparing it to what you previously wrote: So you first said that this was obviously (as any first year law student could tell you) never going to be a felony gun charge, which meant it was going to be a misdemeanor charge, period. Yet NOW it was a plea deal because he was obviously smoking pot, which was never retrieved and thus never tested, for which he was never charged, and for which he's never tested positive in the past, and when no news source has reported it as a plea deal, unlike last year's incident? Come back to me when you get your stories straight. Or get a coherent story. And ultimately, whether the search was legal or not, he was still caught with a gun in his trunk. Wow. This is work! Actually that's not what I said. OK, one more time boys. The DA, any DA, is going to start with the most consequential charge--in this case a felony. He is free, on behalf of the people, and considering the record of the criminal, to offer a reduced charge to which the perp can plea to (a "plea bargain") in order to get a conviction. When you get arrested on a felony charge and you plead guilty to a misdemeanor, a plea bargain has been made and accepted between you and the State. "News sources" don't usually have to explain that part. The pot is YOUR fixation, not mine. The plea deal had nothing to do with the drugs. The DA is basically ignoring the weed because it is, at MOST, a misdemeanor---a fine. He has Lynch on a felony charge, why would he add what amounts to a parking ticket?? The only significance of the drug is that it provided cause for the car search. But tell us this, let's assume your from-another-planet contention that the cops fabricated the weed part (did they "plant it" or did they simply pencil it into the report?), why on earth would Lynch's hardball legal counsel allow him to accept ANY plea? NO judge would allow such a bogus search and the case would be tossed. Come on, you must have worked this all out (your "coherent story") before you blurted it out---let's hear it.
VOR Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 Wow. This is work! Actually that's not what I said. OK, one more time boys. The DA, any DA, is going to start with the most consequential charge--in this case a felony. He is free, on behalf of the people, and considering the record of the criminal, to offer a reduced charge to which the perp can plea to (a "plea bargain") in order to get a conviction. When you get arrested on a felony charge and you plead guilty to a misdemeanor, a plea bargain has been made and accepted between you and the State. "News sources" don't usually have to explain that part. The pot is YOUR fixation, not mine. The plea deal had nothing to do with the drugs. The DA is basically ignoring the weed because it is, at MOST, a misdemeanor---a fine. He has Lynch on a felony charge, why would he add what amounts to a parking ticket?? The only significance of the drug is that it provided cause for the car search. But tell us this, let's assume your from-another-planet contention that the cops fabricated the weed part (did they "plant it" or did they simply pencil it into the report?), why on earth would Lynch's hardball legal counsel allow him to accept ANY plea? NO judge would allow such a bogus search and the case would be tossed. Come on, you must have worked this all out (your "coherent story") before you blurted it out---let's hear it. What you said initially (obviously unwittingly), was right. No DA in his right mind would have ever charged "a guy with no such record in the state and not on probation" with a felony for possessing an unlicensed, loaded gun in his trunk, i.e. a totally victimless crime. So the starting charges would have been misdemeanors for each charge relating to having an unlicensed, concealed, and loaded weapon. It's what you also would have been charged with, if you decided to "go ghetto" and put a loaded glock in your trunk (assuming you have no criminal record). And it was common knowledge that he was ultimately only going to be charged with one misdemeanor, since all the charges were related to that one incident, and lo and behold, that's what happened! Therefore there was no plea deal and no reason to plea deal since he got what he was going to get anyway. Moreover we never heard a single report that he agreed to a plea deal. As for the pot allegations, they're moot, if not totally bogus. He wasn't charged and obviously the blunts weren't seized along with the gun, so the DA couldn't use this against Lynch, to get him to accept a plea deal. What, was he magically going to produce them and then add those charges? LOL! And Lynch has never tested positive for drugs in the past, and that's the only fact we have as far as this is concerned. I suggest you just be happy that Lynch will possibly face a 1 game suspension. Consider it payback for last year's "terrible accident."
BEeEassyy Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 He should only get one game. Cant see him getting more than that. lets hope its only at least!
Poeticlaw Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 He should only get one game. Cant see him getting more than that. lets hope its only at least! http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true Doing some research on suspensions passed down TWO would be the absolute max I can see Marshawn getting because last years offseason incident would come into play here.
The Senator Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 I don't see any suspension coming at all. Lynch already said he's really sorry. Case closed.
Mr. WEO Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 What you said initially (obviously unwittingly), was right. No DA in his right mind would have ever charged "a guy with no such record in the state and not on probation" with a felony for possessing an unlicensed, loaded gun in his trunk, i.e. a totally victimless crime. So the starting charges would have been misdemeanors for each charge relating to having an unlicensed, concealed, and loaded weapon. It's what you also would have been charged with, if you decided to "go ghetto" and put a loaded glock in your trunk (assuming you have no criminal record). And it was common knowledge that he was ultimately only going to be charged with one misdemeanor, since all the charges were related to that one incident, and lo and behold, that's what happened! Therefore there was no plea deal and no reason to plea deal since he got what he was going to get anyway. Moreover we never heard a single report that he agreed to a plea deal. As for the pot allegations, they're moot, if not totally bogus. He wasn't charged and obviously the blunts weren't seized along with the gun, so the DA couldn't use this against Lynch, to get him to accept a plea deal. What, was he magically going to produce them and then add those charges? LOL! And Lynch has never tested positive for drugs in the past, and that's the only fact we have as far as this is concerned. I suggest you just be happy that Lynch will possibly face a 1 game suspension. Consider it payback for last year's "terrible accident." Look, the guy was arrested and charged with felony possession of a concealed weapon. Are you now disputing this too?? What I said was that it was easy to predict that the DA would ultimately charge him with less, given his record. That's how it goes, sonny boy. The charge is a felony. The DA and the defense attorney chat. An offer is made to the perp, accept a guilty plea to the reduced charge or exercise your right to trial--and take your chances. It's called a "plea bargain". It probably took them 10 minutes, max, to hash this one out. It usually doesn't need to be pointed out and you may not understand it, but that's how it's done---every day in every urban and suburban courtroom. The DA can't spend a lot of time with a BS case like this, so he spends the vast majority of his time making deals to dispo his caseload. His attorney was positively elated that he was ultimately being charged with a midemeanor. Which means, of course, that he's guilty of legal malpractice as he should NEVER agreed to accept the reduced charge, right? Still waiting to hear back from you on this one. Come on, stick to your guns, bro---why didn't ML demand his day in court to get his case tossed and to expose once and for all the notoriously crooked Culver City Police force?
PushthePile Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 Look, the guy was arrested and charged with felony possession of a concealed weapon. Are you now disputing this too?? What I said was that it was easy to predict that the DA would ultimately charge him with less, given his record. That's how it goes, sonny boy. The charge is a felony. The DA and the defense attorney chat. An offer is made to the perp, accept a guilty plea to the reduced charge or exercise your right to trial--and take your chances. It's called a "plea bargain". It probably took them 10 minutes, max, to hash this one out. It usually doesn't need to be pointed out and you may not understand it, but that's how it's done---every day in every urban and suburban courtroom. The DA can't spend a lot of time with a BS case like this, so he spends the vast majority of his time making deals to dispo his caseload. His attorney was positively elated that he was ultimately being charged with a midemeanor. Which means, of course, that he's guilty of legal malpractice as he should NEVER agreed to accept the reduced charge, right? Still waiting to hear back from you on this one. Come on, stick to your guns, bro---why didn't ML demand his day in court to get his case tossed and to expose once and for all the notoriously crooked Culver City Police force? That is 99.9 % likely to be the exact way this played out. Like you said it happens over and over again in every courtroom, every day. I have also read in various reports that a plea bargain was struck, further making your example a reality. I'm sure Lynch was more than happy to take the deal. I can understand the idea of disputing the severity of the crime, from a morality standpoint. I fail to understand how or why anyone would create a fantasy scenario that incriminates others, just to deny a player's mistake.
VOR Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 Look, the guy was arrested and charged with felony possession of a concealed weapon. Are you now disputing this too?? What I said was that it was easy to predict that the DA would ultimately charge him with less, given his record. That's how it goes, sonny boy. The charge is a felony. The DA and the defense attorney chat. An offer is made to the perp, accept a guilty plea to the reduced charge or exercise your right to trial--and take your chances. It's called a "plea bargain". It probably took them 10 minutes, max, to hash this one out. It usually doesn't need to be pointed out and you may not understand it, but that's how it's done---every day in every urban and suburban courtroom. The DA can't spend a lot of time with a BS case like this, so he spends the vast majority of his time making deals to dispo his caseload. His attorney was positively elated that he was ultimately being charged with a midemeanor. Which means, of course, that he's guilty of legal malpractice as he should NEVER agreed to accept the reduced charge, right? Still waiting to hear back from you on this one. Come on, stick to your guns, bro---why didn't ML demand his day in court to get his case tossed and to expose once and for all the notoriously crooked Culver City Police force? Lynch was charged with 3 misdemeanors. Go look it up. He was never charged with a felony. And his lawyer was "positively elated" because he wasn't involved in the process, much less involved in any plea deal. Had he worked-out a plea deal, he would have admitted as such. And again there has been NO report of a plea deal. Show me one, anywhere. As for the Culver City police being crooked, take your pick. Either they fabricated the pot charges, or totally ignored them for some unknown reason (sorry but "it adds nothing" is a worthless excuse), while (I guess non-crooked) police in other cities actually DO charge people, NFL players in fact, with pot possession. And again, Lynch has never failed a drug test. So even if there was pot in the car, you can claim that he was smoking, but without failing a drug test, there's no proof of that and instead proof to the contrary. But hey, if he fails a drug test, I'll be all over him, as will the Commish. Oh and your paragon of DWI vehicular injury, Donte Stallworth, lied about his alcohol intake. Funny because I thought that if you talked immediately, you were innocent?
Lori Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 Lynch was charged with 3 misdemeanors. Go look it up. He was never charged with a felony. And his lawyer was "positively elated" because he wasn't involved in the process, much less involved in any plea deal. Had he worked-out a plea deal, he would have admitted as such. And again there has been NO report of a plea deal. Show me one, anywhere. Los Angeles County DA's Office: NFL Running Back Pleads to Firearm Charge LOS ANGELES –Buffalo Bills running back Marshawn Terrell Lynch pleaded guilty today to a misdemeanor count of occupant with a concealed firearm in a vehicle. Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Ralph Amado immediately sentenced the defendant to three years of summary probation and 80 hours of community service, said Deputy District Attorney Joel Wilson of the Airport Branch Office. Under the terms of negotiated plea agreement, two misdemeanor counts were dismissed at sentencing.
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts