ChevyVanMiller Posted June 10, 2008 Author Share Posted June 10, 2008 There are two different levels of judgment that Lynch should be held accountable for: A) His short term judgment- following the incident, where there seems to be no question that he is in the vehicle that leaves the scene. B) His long term judgment- in the hours after fleeing, and when there was no doubt under any excuse regarding details of the incident that the police wanted to talk with him about the situation and more importantly that someone had been hurt by his actions. While it might not be unreasonable- if you assume the occupants didn't think anyone was injured- to take the position to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" on A), there's simply no excuse for his failure to man up in the hours following the event. If that was any one of us John Q Public types, the Buffalo PD would have been dragging us out of our home, with or without our cooperation. And short of the girl having thrown herself against his car in some poorly devised suicide attempt, Lynch's actions in these days following the incident are absolutely inexcusable. I thought I got a read on this guy from his mother's statements after he was drafted, but the guy who right now is following some seriously dishonorable advice is not the person I was pitched by his mother. Well said. I really, really want to like Marshawn. I bought into the whole "My mother's coming with me so long as there's a phone company for her to work at in Buffalo" schmaltz like a hayseed just off of the farm. This mess has sure made that seem like an orchestrated sham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Well said. I really, really want to like Marshawn. I bought into the whole "My mother's coming with me so long as there's a phone company for her to work at in Buffalo" schmaltz like a hayseed just off of the farm. This mess has sure made that seem like an orchestrated sham. His mother may have diminished influence on him these days- or maybe I got hoodwinked by her seeming genuineness. I never felt one way or another about his character, but hers seemed pretty bulletproof a year ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 His mother may have diminished influence on him these days- or maybe I got hoodwinked by her seeming genuineness. I never felt one way or another about his character, but hers seemed pretty bulletproof a year ago. Ummmm, yeah! He has lawyers now. The obvious reason he has not "manned up" as you call it is that his lawyer is telling him to "STFU and let me handle it." That is what he is being paid for. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, the kid is listening to his attorney. Under the circumstances, it is probably the wise thing to do. There is a lot at stake here and his lawyer is protecting his interests. It may very well be that Marshawn's initial reaction was to run down to the police station and "man up." But wisely, he called his lawyer and things are now proceeding as things often do between lawyers. It is a slow dance that will continue until Marshawn's lawyer decides he has minimized the damage as much as is possible. Again, that is what he is paid to do. All you have to do is watch a few episodes of Cops and/or The First 48 to know why anyone hauled in or sought for questioning by the police should STFU and demand a lawyer to handle it or be present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLiveRalph Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 If that was any one of us John Q Public types, the Buffalo PD would have been dragging us out of our home, with or without our cooperation. Good post, I only disagree with the line above. The law is the law, and no proof is no proof. If they wanted to drag John Public out of his home, he can still exercise his 5th Ammendment rights, and in a situation like this, while the cops may "unofficially" come to a conclusion based on the silence, there is little recourse in the criminal justice system. Conversely, John Q Public doesn't get his name dragged through the mud on TV, radio, newspaper, and Internet before the facts come to light. No doubt Lynch's cred (and the cred of those who ride in and/or drive his car) has taken a hit, but thus far, he and his friends are only guilty of not appeasing a segment of the population who has already convicted them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Good post, I only disagree with the line above. The law is the law, and no proof is no proof. If they wanted to drag John Public out of his home, he can still exercise his 5th Ammendment rights, and in a situation like this, while the cops may "unofficially" come to a conclusion based on the silence, there is little recourse in the criminal justice system. If I'm a common citizen living in the Buffalo area and an automobile registered to me hits someone in the wee hours at Delaware and Chippewa before fleeing the scene, the law needs nothing else to show up at my home or place of work to conduct their investigation and seek my story. It's only at that point at which 5th amendment rights become pertinent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 If I'm a common citizen living in the Buffalo area and an automobile registered to me hits someone in the wee hours at Delaware and Chippewa before fleeing the scene, the law needs nothing else to show up at my home or place of work to conduct their investigation and seek my story. It's only at that point at which 5th amendment rights become pertinent. True, but in either case, you're not talking. So it's semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Accountability to who? You? Fine, stop watching the games and contributing to Lynch's paycheck. But spare the rest of us your incessant whining about it. You really don't burden yourself too much with thought, do you? It starts with accountability to the person who was hit by HIS CAR. We have rules in our society, not JUST laws, that we are expected to abide by to maintain peace and order. It's been found that fessing up /apologizing for hurting others is a great way to avoid the age old, uncivilized resolution process of escalation/revenge/untimely death/more innocent victims. How basic do I have to make it for you guys? If for no other reason, we apologize to the people we hurt to achieve closure and prevent further damage. Even people not directly affected by the crime are expected to reject people who commit crimes against other people because it is against the rules of our society, not just THE LAW. How many people here have considered the idea that maybe Marshawn should be afraid of retribution from the victim's family? I'm sure none. It's not because you think the victim's family has no right to seek retribution. It's because we expect the victim to be civilized. Civilized behavior is to be EXPECTED. If you are still hung up on the idea that the guys car was involved but he might not know anything about the crime that's fine. But if he has nothing to hide, he should just say so. Otherwise it's to be expected that society will reject his behavior and break your selfish little heart by calling the guy out for being a creep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 But if he has nothing to hide, he should just say so. Otherwise it's to be expected that society will reject his behavior and break your selfish little heart by calling the guy out for being a creep. Everyone should know, unless there is formal charges placed on him... he should ONLY talk through his lawyer. Not one reason for him to say anything at all. We all know words can be taken out of context, if he's says the wrong thing, etc., etc. he can be in even more trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Everyone should know, unless there is formal charges placed on him... he should ONLY talk through his lawyer. Not one reason for him to say anything at all. We all know words can be taken out of context, if he's says the wrong thing, etc., etc. he can be in even more trouble. how about he speaks the truth if he is innocent. He could say "I am innocent and I was not involved and I have no further comment" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 He could do that, but many lawyers would advise their clients not to say anything at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 how about he speaks the truth if he is innocent. He could say "I am innocent and I was not involved and I have no further comment" That would make it far worse for everyone including him. Reporters and fans and everyone would badger him to no end about things they knew nothing about. Who are you lying for? Who are you protecting? Why are you saying just that but nothing else. Suddenly all his friends and some of his teammates would be subject to all that badgering too. Was it you? Are you the guy he is lying for? Suddenly 10 people are subjected to this impatience instead of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 If you are still hung up on the idea that the guys car was involved but he might not know anything about the crime that's fine. Yeah, I'm "hung up" on a minor technicality like whether or not he's actually guilty of the crime. But if he has nothing to hide, he should just say so. And how do you know that hasn't happened? Simple: you don't. But what you are "hung up" about is that no one has apologized....TO YOU! And then you talk about selfish?? Get off your pathetic ego trip....you aren't that important and nobody really gives damn what you think people should be accountable for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Does the etiquette rule book state that you have to apologize immediately, or can you apologize at a later date? Like say, when you write a big old check? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Is it just me or is anyone else having a hard time with the Lynch hit and run aftermath? According to Channel 2 four witnesses say that Marshawn was at the wheel and that other Bills were in the car with him. If true, what does that say about the moral fiber of this team? The old Polian/Levy "draft only character guys" philosophy is dead. I can't imagine Jim Kelly being in a similar scenario back in the glory days and hiding behind attorneys for days on end. What kind of a team do we really have if players (plural) would hit a citizen of the community and leave her laying in the road. For all they knew they may have killed her. I'm starting to think that Beast Mode may have a double meaning. He is following the advice of his lawyer. Obviously if these witnesses were so credible, Lynch would already have been charged. How someone can see who is driving when it is dark, rainy, and thru darkly tinted windows is beyond me tho...Add in there is a good chance these "eyewitnesses" had been drinking that night, and their testimony basically can be discredited quickly, and the DA knows it. IMHO, the ONLY way Lynch gets charged, is if the DA can find out who was in the car with him, and can get them to testify that he was driving, but I find that nearly impossible to find or prove... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_soul-dier Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 just wondering...but how many of us are not gonna care about anything mentioned in this thread by week 3 if marshawn has 6 touchdowns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 You really don't burden yourself too much with thought, do you? It starts with accountability to the person who was hit by HIS CAR. We have rules in our society, not JUST laws, that we are expected to abide by to maintain peace and order. It's been found that fessing up /apologizing for hurting others is a great way to avoid the age old, uncivilized resolution process of escalation/revenge/untimely death/more innocent victims. How basic do I have to make it for you guys? If for no other reason, we apologize to the people we hurt to achieve closure and prevent further damage. Even people not directly affected by the crime are expected to reject people who commit crimes against other people because it is against the rules of our society, not just THE LAW. How many people here have considered the idea that maybe Marshawn should be afraid of retribution from the victim's family? I'm sure none. It's not because you think the victim's family has no right to seek retribution. It's because we expect the victim to be civilized. Civilized behavior is to be EXPECTED. If you are still hung up on the idea that the guys car was involved but he might not know anything about the crime that's fine. But if he has nothing to hide, he should just say so. Otherwise it's to be expected that society will reject his behavior and break your selfish little heart by calling the guy out for being a creep. If he apologized, that would be admissible against him in a civil case as an admission of fault. You know nothing about the pedestrian's actions so even if you assume Lynch was driving which you clearly do, you have no way of knowing if she had any comparative fault. Was she crossing at a corner, in a cross walk, did she dart out, between cars, etc, etc,. Apologizing won't "prevent further damage", it will just make it easier for her attorneys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Yeah, I'm "hung up" on a minor technicality like whether or not he's actually guilty of the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwight Drane Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 It's a whole new ballgame now. Police are talking about all the "high character" little goodies our favorite RB has been up to since coming to Buffalo. There is going to be an arrest, and if someone with the Bills Brass doesn't get these guys to talk, Clark is going to put on a show that the commisioner won't be able to turn his back on. Instead of fessing up, paying a few bucks to the girl and getting 6 months probation....we are looking at almost a certain NFL suspension and a PR disaster. There are 4 other Bills involved at this point and they are talking about bringing them in front of the Grand Jury to get them on the spot. No more bluffing, cops are at the stadium. What a F'n nightmare. This really is a bad Chapelle Show skit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a player to be named later Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/368141.html According to this article it doesn't look the Police have much. Do you really think that Lynch or any of the other players are just going to spill their guts with their lawyers in the room? Also these reports of Lynch bringing in his own bottles, seems like "the snooze" really have nothing to report. I'm sure if they had anything on him and he isn't talking they would bring him in "Lenny Brisco Style". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 It's a whole new ballgame now. Police are talking about all the "high character" little goodies our favorite RB has been up to since coming to Buffalo. Yeah, what a "ghetto punk!" Bringing his own liquor into bars, running into a pole in December, and letting a relative use his car. Lock him up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts