Kelly the Dog Posted March 19, 2009 Author 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? It's a semantics argument. I don't think there were two plea deals, there was just one. They thought he could have been "charged" with a felony but they decided to "charge" him with three misdemeanors instead. Then the plea bargain to plead guilty to one misdemeanor charge if the other two are dropped. I don't think he was ever charged with a felony. He was "arrested" for a concealed weapon. Reports in the news said it was "felony possession" but that may or may not have been officially true. The arrest and the charge and the plea were three different things. But he was never charged with a felony, he was charged with three misdemeanors and pleaded down to one.
VOR Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 Los Angeles County DA's Office: NFL Running Back Pleads to Firearm Charge Okay Lori, you got me. But I meant a plea deal from a felony to the one misdemeanor, which is a MUCH bigger step than from three misdemeanors down to one. Lynch received the plea deal to reduce the three misdemeanors to one in exchange for admitting guilt and avoiding trial, as anyone in that situation would do and as the DA would like to see done. And that had nothing to do with the pot allegations.
VOR Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 It's a semantics argument. I don't think there were two plea deals, there was just one. They thought he could have been "charged" with a felony but they decided to "charge" him with three misdemeanors instead. Then the plea bargain to plead guilty to one misdemeanor charge if the other two are dropped. I don't think he was ever charged with a felony. He was "arrested" for a concealed weapon. Reports in the news said it was "felony possession" but that may or may not have been officially true. The arrest and the charge and the plea were three different things. But he was never charged with a felony, he was charged with three misdemeanors and pleaded down to one. It's not semantics. Lynch was never charged with felony gun possession, period. He was arrested and booked on suspicion of felony gun charges, but was never formally charged with a felony. And you're right that they don't offer 2 plea deals. It was just the three misdemeanors down to one, as Lori just pointed-out to me.
BillsBum11 Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 whatever he gets, he'll appeal it and get it reduced, thats why i think he'll miss two games at the most
The Dean Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 whatever he gets, he'll appeal it and get it reduced, thats why i think he'll miss two games at the most I don't believe he will appeal. He will get one, or two games, at the most, and he will serve the suspension as delivered.
Erik Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 I don't believe he will appeal. He will get one, or two games, at the most, and he will serve the suspension as delivered. That's what I'm guessing. Unless it's more than two games. I'm sure if he gets more than two the union will urge him to appeal, even if he doesn't want to, to preserve current precedent.
The Dean Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 That's what I'm guessing. Unless it's more than two games. I'm sure if he gets more than two the union will urge him to appeal, even if he doesn't want to, to preserve current precedent. I have no problem with that assessment. I seriously doubt he will get more than two games, though.
VOR Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 I'm guessing 2 games reduced to 1, with an outside chance at 1 game reduced to a hefty fine.
The Dean Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 I'm guessing 2 games reduced to 1, with an outside chance at 1 game reduced to a hefty fine. I like your thinking, on this.
VOR Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 I like your thinking, on this. I just can't see that what Lynch did (again, forgetting the incident last year which was a "terrible accident" and the pot allegations in light of him never having failed a drug test) as being even as bad as what Brandon Marshall did, and Marshall just missed 1 game. That's why I say that he has an outside chance at 1 game reduced to no suspension and just a fine. It was a wholly victimless crime, but one for which he'll be on probation for 3 years.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 20, 2009 Author Posted March 20, 2009 I'm guessing 2 games reduced to 1, with an outside chance at 1 game reduced to a hefty fine. I don't think there is a chance of just a fine but I do think he misses only one game, and at most two. I know you have defended him a lot, and at times I have, too. But if you had to guess, you do think he was smoking pot, don't you? Which is illegal and which is against his contract and NFL rules. I know there isn't going to be, and there shouldn't be, any kind of penalty from the NFL at all about that, outside of a decent chance that they will give him random tests now. But you don't really believe that he was sitting there watching two guys smoke.
Bill from NYC Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 But you don't really believe that he was sitting there watching two guys smoke. I believe this because he is a "target."
VOR Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 I don't think there is a chance of just a fine but I do think he misses only one game, and at most two. More than 1 game missed would be a farce. Again based on Marshall's case. I know you have defended him a lot, and at times I have, too. But if you had to guess, you do think he was smoking pot, don't you? Which is illegal and which is against his contract and NFL rules. I know there isn't going to be, and there shouldn't be, any kind of penalty from the NFL at all about that, outside of a decent chance that they will give him random tests now. But you don't really believe that he was sitting there watching two guys smoke. The best answer I can give you is it seems like he would also be smoking, but then again, he might not have. You would think that Michael Phelps would know better than to smoke pot at a party. And that's assuming there was in fact pot. I still don't buy the "no one admitted it was his" and "it isn't worth it..." excuses for not charging him with pot possession, since it was his car and since Holmes got nailed for it. Why not just give Lynch a warning about the gun, that everyone knows was for protection, and charge him with pot instead? But Goodell can believe what he wants and order Lynch into step 1 of the drug program. And if he fails a test, he's in big trouble.
VOR Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 I believe this because he is a "target." He said he's a "target" of the police?
Bill from NYC Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 Why not just give Lynch a warning about the gun, that everyone knows was for protection Yeah, next time he is boozing and driving he can shoot the girl instead of mowing her down and splitting.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 20, 2009 Author Posted March 20, 2009 More than 1 game missed would be a farce. Again based on Marshall's case. The best answer I can give you is it seems like he would also be smoking, but then again, he might not have. You would think that Michael Phelps would know better than to smoke pot at a party. And that's assuming there was in fact pot. I still don't buy the "no one admitted it was his" and "it isn't worth it..." excuses for not charging him with pot possession, since it was his car and since Holmes got nailed for it. Why not just give Lynch a warning about the gun, that everyone knows was for protection, and charge him with pot instead? But Goodell can believe what he wants and order Lynch into step 1 of the drug program. And if he fails a test, he's in big trouble. Right. I think fans give Goodell too much leeway, even though he has a ton of leeway. Sure he CAN suspend players for just believing something, like smoking pot, even though he has no proof. But in the real world he just can't. The union would be all over him. It's the same thing with the hit and run incident. Goodell can think whatever he wants, and even pretty much know for sure Lynch did something wrong, but without proof, he really can't, and he knows he can't. That would open up a can of worms that he doesn't want, and it wouldnt be worth it just to suspend one player an extra game. Now someone will come on and say he can do whatever he wants, but that's only true in theory. When there isn't any proof, there isn't much he can do. What he CAN do is what he did with Pacman who already had numerous allegations. That's a totally different story. IMO he pretty much knows that Marshawn was smoking pot, and pretty much knows he can't do anything about it as far as a suspension goes. So he will put him in the step 1 of the program. Which is what he should do, and hopefully it will scare Marshawn a little.
VOR Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 Yeah, next time he is boozing and driving he can shoot the girl instead of mowing her down and splitting. If that's what it takes to keep drunk chicks from damaging his car...
VOR Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 Right. I think fans give Goodell too much leeway, even though he has a ton of leeway. Sure he CAN suspend players for just believing something, like smoking pot, even though he has no proof. But in the real world he just can't. The union would be all over him. It's the same thing with the hit and run incident. Goodell can think whatever he wants, and even pretty much know for sure Lynch did something wrong, but without proof, he really can't, and he knows he can't. That would open up a can of worms that he doesn't want, and it wouldnt be worth it just to suspend one player an extra game. Now someone will come on and say he can do whatever he wants, but that's only true in theory. When there isn't any proof, there isn't much he can do. What he CAN do is what he did with Pacman who already had numerous allegations. That's a totally different story. IMO he pretty much knows that Marshawn was smoking pot, and pretty much knows he can't do anything about it as far as a suspension goes. So he will put him in the step 1 of the program. Which is what he should do, and hopefully it will scare Marshawn a little. Well, he can do what he wants, but the NFLPA will fight him and he knows this. And reportedly the new NFLPA director is going to try to stop Goodell's one-man show when it comes to suspending players.
Erik Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 He said he's a "target" of the police? Nope...it was pretty clear he meant that he was going to be under the microscope so to speak so he needed to watch his actions and stay out of trouble but of course people take the words literal and put them in whatever context they want.
Bill from NYC Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 Nope...it was pretty clear he meant that he was going to be under the microscope so to speak so he needed to watch his actions and stay out of trouble but of course people take the words literal and put them in whatever context they want. I can't speak for others, but why would I want him to say something so stupid. If he meant the league and not the police, then quite frankly I'm impressed. But, who really knows? Do you?
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts