eball Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Gee...how objective of you. For some reason, I get the idea you identify extremely well with the individual depicted in your avatar. The things John Daly has done and said reflect a complete lack of common sense and intelligence as well. For your sake, I hope you can hit a golf ball a long way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Indeed I do...how's bout you, sister? No thanks, cupcake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 For some reason, I get the idea you identify extremely well with the individual depicted in your avatar. The things John Daly has done and said reflect a complete lack of common sense and intelligence as well. For your sake, I hope you can hit a golf ball a long way. I see...so anyone who doesn't agree with you about something lacks common sense and intelligence. Great, now I can just stop thinking for myself and do what you say - makes my life easier, so I guess I should thank you. Er...maybe I should wait for you to tell me if I can thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Yes, it is possible that a lot of things in this world happen or don't happen. He pleaded DOWN to a charge that doesn't force him to admit he knew he hit her, the DA accepted it rather than drag this out for another year, and now we move along. I've been busted for speeding before, hired a lawyer who was able to get me off with just court costs but no conviction or record of my speeding on my license, and that was the end of that. Does that mean I wasn't actually speeding? You decide for yourself. The bolded part pretty much shows what a hypocrite you are WRT how you believe other people should own-up to their crimes, but you don't need to do the same. Typical. Lynch got the punishment that was fitting. It's not like he was going to get off scot-free. All objective evidence points to him not knowing he hit her. There were things that distracted him and/or made it hard to see the victim, he never slowed down, much less stopped, after hitting her, and he parked his car in plain sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 The bolded part pretty much shows what a hypocrite you are WRT how you believe other people should own-up to their crimes, but you don't need to do the same. Typical. Lynch got the punishment that was fitting. It's not like he was going to get off scot-free. All objective evidence points to him not knowing he hit her. There were things that distracted him and/or made it hard to see the victim, he never slowed down, much less stopped, after hitting her, and he parked his car in plain sight. Objective can be subjective apparently. I also find it quaint and idealistic how you identify speeding to be on the same level as hit-and-run. Very similar to those on the other extreme who equate Lynch with OJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Objective can be subjective apparently. As I said, all the objective evidence points to Lynch not knowing he hit her. Only using a subjective interpretation does one come to the conclusion that "there's no way he didn't know he hit her unless he was drunk" or that "he knew he hit her but didn't even slow down because he was drunk and didn't want to get charged with DUI." Unless there is proof he was impaired while driving, that's an assumption. I also find it quaint and idealistic how you identify speeding to be on the same level as hit-and-run. Very similar to those on the other extreme who equate Lynch with OJ. The point wasn't to compare the severity of the crime. It was to point out the hypocrisy in thinking that Lynch should get the maximum punishment coming to him and hid behind his lawyer, yet when it came time for you to pay the piper, you did exactly what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 The bolded part pretty much shows what a hypocrite you are WRT how you believe other people should own-up to their crimes, but you don't need to do the same. Typical. Lynch got the punishment that was fitting. It's not like he was going to get off scot-free. All objective evidence points to him not knowing he hit her. There were things that distracted him and/or made it hard to see the victim, he never slowed down, much less stopped, after hitting her, and he parked his car in plain sight. Both sides have very legitimate points, and both are easily imagined scenarios. I don't think it's fair to say "all objective evidence points to him not knowing he hit her". It could easily be your scenario, but to me, it could just as easily be that he was drunk, felt something, didn't bother to stop, parked his car in his driveway because he was drunk and that's the way he parks it, didn't answer the door when the cops came because he was nervous and wanted it to go away, and then texted the security guy six hours later to see what he should do once he sobered up. It's just as easily imagined that the tunes were blasting at level ten, he saw the dancing girl, didn't feel the little bump when he hit her, got home and went to sleep for a couple hours, only to find a cop card on his door and a message on his machine and a dent in his car and then texted the security guy. Personally, I just don't know. I want to believe scenario two but that may not be what happened. There hasn't been any real evidence from witnesses that he was hammered THAT WE KNOW ABOUT. I'm really not sure what the truth is of what happened at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 The bolded part pretty much shows what a hypocrite you are WRT how you believe other people should own-up to their crimes, but you don't need to do the same. Typical. Lynch got the punishment that was fitting. It's not like he was going to get off scot-free. All objective evidence points to him not knowing he hit her. There were things that distracted him and/or made it hard to see the victim, he never slowed down, much less stopped, after hitting her, and he parked his car in plain sight. Absolutely, I've gotten in tons and tons of accidents with considerable front end damage to my SUV without myself or my passengers realizing it. Very believable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Both sides have very legitimate points, and both are easily imagined scenarios. I don't think it's fair to say "all objective evidence points to him not knowing he hit her". It could easily be your scenario, but to me, it could just as easily be that he was drunk, felt something, didn't bother to stop, parked his car in his driveway because he was drunk and that's the way he parks it, didn't answer the door when the cops came because he was nervous and wanted it to go away, and then texted the security guy six hours later to see what he should do once he sobered up. It's just as easily imagined that the tunes were blasting at level ten, he saw the dancing girl, didn't feel the little bump when he hit her, got home and went to sleep for a couple hours, only to find a cop card on his door and a message on his machine and a dent in his car and then texted the security guy. Personally, I just don't know. I want to believe scenario two but that may not be what happened. There hasn't been any real evidence from witnesses that he was hammered THAT WE KNOW ABOUT. I'm really not sure what the truth is of what happened at all. I'm talking about evidence that has been revealed so far. I would think that someone would have come forward by now saying they saw Lynch drinking heavily that night/early morning. They seem to have gotten a lot of other details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Absolutely, I've gotten in tons and tons of accidents with considerable front end damage to my SUV without myself or my passengers realizing it. Very believable. Once again, you call "how could he not know he hit her" objective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 As I said, all the objective evidence points to Lynch not knowing he hit her. No, it points to the fact that they have agreed to the plea and that it MAY be possible he didn't know he hit her. I say he did, you say he didn't, but only Lynch in his heart knows for sure, and you can be sure he'll take it to his grave if he did. The point wasn't to compare the severity of the crime. It was to point out the hypocrisy in thinking that Lynch should get the maximum punishment coming to him and hid behind his lawyer, yet when it came time for you to pay the piper, you did exactly what he did. I believe that if he actually did do something so horrible as hit-and-run the punishment should be a lot more severe than a little fine and no criminal record. Do you feel that people who get parking tickets and do 70 in a 55 on an open highway deserve much worse than a fine and a lawyer who negotiates the penalty off your record? If so, well, you'd make a great meter maid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I'm talking about evidence that has been revealed so far. I would think that someone would have come forward by now saying they saw Lynch drinking heavily that night/early morning. They seem to have gotten a lot of other details. I'm sure their are hordes of 20 something Bills fanatics who were on the Chipstrip that night who just can't wait to come forward and drop a dime on arguably the Bills best and most popular player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Both sides have very legitimate points, and both are easily imagined scenarios. I don't think it's fair to say "all objective evidence points to him not knowing he hit her". It could easily be your scenario, but to me, it could just as easily be that he was drunk, felt something, didn't bother to stop, parked his car in his driveway because he was drunk and that's the way he parks it, didn't answer the door when the cops came because he was nervous and wanted it to go away, and then texted the security guy six hours later to see what he should do once he sobered up. It's just as easily imagined that the tunes were blasting at level ten, he saw the dancing girl, didn't feel the little bump when he hit her, got home and went to sleep for a couple hours, only to find a cop card on his door and a message on his machine and a dent in his car and then texted the security guy. Personally, I just don't know. I want to believe scenario two but that may not be what happened. There hasn't been any real evidence from witnesses that he was hammered THAT WE KNOW ABOUT. I'm really not sure what the truth is of what happened at all. Then the objective evidence points to two. If you have evidence for one thing, and not another... why believe the one that has no evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I'm talking about evidence that has been revealed so far. I would think that someone would have come forward by now saying they saw Lynch drinking heavily that night/early morning. They seem to have gotten a lot of other details. I don't agree I guess. The only real EVIDENCE so far, to me, would make a reasonable person think he did it. He was driving, his car hit a pedestrian that knocked her to the ground, his car was damaged where it hit her, it was parked in his driveway later, he didn't answer his door. There really isn't much more evidence at all except peripheral evidence that it was dark, and raining, and there was another girl in the street. Most of the time a car hits something you feel something. Not always. We don't know the severity of the hit. It doesn't really matter if he was distracted or he wasn't. He either knew he hit her or he didn't. The only evidence that says he didn't know he hit her was slight, that he parked in his driveway and didn't hide the car. That was a small factor. The fact he didn't stop doesn't mean a thing either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 No, it points to the fact that they have agreed to the plea and that it MAY be possible he didn't know he hit her. I say he did, you say he didn't, but only Lynch in his heart knows for sure, and you can be sure he'll take it to his grave if he did. True. Thankfully the woman wasn't hurt and hopefully Lynch has learned something from this, whether he's guilty or innocent. I believe that if he actually did do something so horrible as hit-and-run the punishment should be a lot more severe than a little fine and no criminal record. Do you feel that people who get parking tickets and do 70 in a 55 on an open highway deserve much worse than a fine and a lawyer who negotiates the penalty off your record? If so, well, you'd make a great meter maid. What's so bad about the punishment for speeding, that you needed to hire a lawyer? Again, why not take what was coming to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Once again, you call "how could he not know he hit her" objective? How do you explain the Steve Johnson didn't feel it either? If they were making a left from Chippewa onto Deleware the impact would have occured right on top of him. The only way I'd belive that neither of them realized they hit her is if they were both hammered or stoned out of their gourds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 No, it points to the fact that they have agreed to the plea and that it MAY be possible he didn't know he hit her. I say he did, you say he didn't, but only Lynch in his heart knows for sure, and you can be sure he'll take it to his grave if he did. So much for taking your own advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 So much for taking your own advice. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I don't agree I guess. The only real EVIDENCE so far, to me, would make a reasonable person think he did it. He was driving, his car hit a pedestrian that knocked her to the ground, his car was damaged where it hit her, it was parked in his driveway later, he didn't answer his door. There really isn't much more evidence at all except peripheral evidence that it was dark, and raining, and there was another girl in the street. Most of the time a car hits something you feel something. Not always. We don't know the severity of the hit. It doesn't really matter if he was distracted or he wasn't. He either knew he hit her or he didn't. The only evidence that says he didn't know he hit her was slight, that he parked in his driveway and didn't hide the car. That was a small factor. The fact he didn't stop doesn't mean a thing either way. I disagree. If you hit something, you at least slow down, if not stop to see what happened. It's a leap to think that Lynch knew he hit a person but was so mind-numbingly drunk that he didn't care and kept going, and somehow made it home safely. Or that he was impaired and knew he hit her, but didn't slow down, much less stop, to see what the noise was because he knew it was a person and that he'd get caught for DUI. But again, it's not my interpretation. That's what the DA is accepting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 How do you explain the Steve Johnson didn't feel it either? If they were making a left from Chippewa onto Deleware the impact would have occured right on top of him. The only way I'd belive that neither of them realized they hit her is if they were both hammered or stoned out of their gourds! To me, at this point, the only thing that matters in this entire ordeal is if Steve Johnson and Marhsawn Lynch are lying or telling the truth. There is no indication either way. They could easily be lying, and then Marshawn is guilty although he would never be proven so in court. Or they are telling the truth they didn't know and he shouldn't really be blamed for it. It's also possible, very possible in fact, that one of them felt it or noticed it and one of them didn't. Then when they discussed it with themselves, they decided to both say neither felt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts