elegantelliotoffen Posted June 28, 2008 Author Share Posted June 28, 2008 Me thinks you get frustrated alot.... life's too short brother.... have a good weekend to you and all So you agree with me that he was probably drinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 So you agree with me that he was probably drinking? If you are trying to point out that a 22 year old kid may have had a lapse in judgment, I commend you for your tenacity. The DA obviously did not have enough evidence (circumstantial, collaborated or anything) to pursue the drinking angle. Marshawn probably hit a lot of bars that night with a lot of folks watching him--someone surely would have stepped up if they saw him sloppy or even a little drunk. So my question to you, is given this, who gives a flying !@#$. Expressing the opinion once or twice is tolerable. Then leave people free to agree or disagree with you. Express it 50 times and put yourself up for ridicule because you have crossed the line of sanity. You have now probably expressed this opinion in half your posts. What's the !@#$ing point? You think if you say it 50 times people will call you a God? Doubtful. Anyway..I am sure this will cause another inane diatribe..so have at it soldier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ1 Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 So you agree with me that he was probably drinking? A drunken Canadian most likely walked into his vehicle because SHE was paying no attention. The Law automatically sees otherwise. The Law is an ass. He should sue HER for car damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 28, 2008 Author Share Posted June 28, 2008 A drunken Canadian most likely walked into his vehicle because SHE was paying no attention. The Law automatically sees otherwise. The Law is an ass. He should sue HER for car damage. Pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodnarb Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Another non-response response. Let me ask this again, If Marshawn wasn't drinking why didn't he come out and say so in his statement? How could that negatively affect his civil case? Why wouldn't he want to end the speculation that he was drunk? You are officially the most tedious poster in this place. Get a point, and make it once. If you can't do either, then please spare us your relentless self-puffery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodnarb Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Another brilliant response. Big surprise, noone can offer a reasonable explanation why he didn't say he wasn't drinking in his statement. Do you think you have the market cornered on brilliance? You haven't impressed anybody yet. You've only annoyed and ignored many replies. Give it up. The bottom line is, the DA investigated. Are you the better or more informed authority? And if you don't understand the concept of saying as little as possible when you know there's a potential money grab in the future, then you should try the R.I.F. remedial courses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodnarb Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 This silence is deafening! So can we all agree then that he was drinking? No, we can all agree that it's a good thing you're not in law enforcement or reporting. And that you've turned this into your own strange soap box of sorts. That's about it when it comes to you and this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 28, 2008 Author Share Posted June 28, 2008 Do you think you have the market cornered on brilliance? You haven't impressed anybody yet. You've only annoyed and ignored many replies. Give it up. The bottom line is, the DA investigated. Are you the better or more informed authority? And if you don't understand the concept of saying as little as possible when you know there's a potential money grab in the future, then you should try the R.I.F. remedial courses. How exactly would Lynch saying that he wasn't drinking that night (assuming he was being truthfull) cost him more money in the civil suit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 How exactly would Lynch saying that he wasn't drinking that night (assuming he was being truthfull) cost him more money in the civil suit? Are you for real? For what situation do you think a jury would award more money: someone getting hitting accidentally or by a drunk driver? And again, what evidence is there that Lynch was drinking, much less drunk? Are you saying that everyone who goes to a bar always drinks? Or that everyone who leaves a bar is always drunk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 28, 2008 Author Share Posted June 28, 2008 Are you for real? For what situation do you think a jury would award more money: someone getting hitting accidentally or by a drunk driver? And again, what evidence is there that Lynch was drinking, much less drunk? Are you saying that everyone who goes to a bar always drinks? Or that everyone who leaves a bar is always drunk? Are you for real? You're still not understanding my question. Let's assume he wasn't drinking, if this were the case why wouldn't he say so in the statement? It would actually cost him less money in the civil suit. His statement left the ambiguity that he may have been drinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Or he could just be nervous because he isn't comfortable speaking in public? Especially in a situation like this? Just a thought. First thought in the thread, too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Are you for real? You're still not understanding my question. Let's assume he wasn't drinking, if this were the case why wouldn't he say so in the statement? It would actually cost him less money in the civil suit. His statement left the ambiguity that he may have been drinking. I answered your question. He could have said all the things he WASN'T doing that night. And no one has come forward and said that he was drinking that night. On the contrary, one witness said he was just drinking water. So again I ask you, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS DRINKING? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 28, 2008 Author Share Posted June 28, 2008 I answered your question. He could have said all the things he WASN'T doing that night. And no one has come forward and said that he was drinking that night. On the contrary, one witness said he was just drinking water. So again I ask you, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS DRINKING? Just like you said the victim was lying because she said Lynch stopped too right? Funny you have yet to mention the witness from the video who corrobarated her version of events. But I guess he's a liar too right. If you want to ignore reality and live in a better world where NFL players aren't getting drunk at bars and then driving home at 3:30am then more power to you I guess. I'm sorry if I'm not that naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodnarb Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 How exactly would Lynch saying that he wasn't drinking that night (assuming he was being truthfull) cost him more money in the civil suit? The fact that he didn't address it does not mean that he had been drinking. He also made no mention of being attacked by mutant green flamingos wearing taffeta Bird-Fit tutus. And even if he HAD been drinking, that doesn't mean that he was legally DUI. Just because YOU make a big deal of the omission doesn't make it worth all the breath you've wasted on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 28, 2008 Author Share Posted June 28, 2008 The fact that he didn't address it does not mean that he had been drinking. He also made no mention of being attacked by mutant green flamingos wearing taffeta Bird-Fit tutus. And even if he HAD been drinking, that doesn't mean that he was legally DUI. What are you out to prove? Thats probably the worst strawman any Lynch apologist has put out there yet. Can you get this through your thick skull- LYNCH LEFT A BAR! THAT'S AN ESTABLISHMENT WITH NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO SERVE DRINKS!!!! HE DIDN'T LEAVE A MUTANT GREEN FLAMINGO RESERVE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Just like you said the victim was lying because she said Lynch stopped too right? Funny you have yet to mention the witness from the video who corrobarated her version of events. But I guess he's a liar too right. If you want to ignore reality and live in a better world where NFL players aren't getting drunk at bars and then driving home at 3:30am then more power to you I guess. I'm sorry if I'm not that naive. Dude, you are so right in this entire thread. Not since the dude who figured out the entire Sean Taylor murder in 15 minutes from newspaper accounts has anyone been this brilliant. The question is what should we as fans do about Lynch? I think you should go on the Gretchen Van Buskirk show and analyze the film and that will shirley get Lynch kicked off the team. That is until everyone realizes he only hit some Drunk Canadian Broad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
folz Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 A drunken Canadian most likely walked into his vehicle because SHE was paying no attention. The Law automatically sees otherwise. The Law is an ass. He should sue HER for car damage. A little more speculation... Living in New York City, where we jaywalk all the time, you get used to judging when a car will pass you...you move out into the street, and just as the car passes you walk behind it. And the same when you're driving, (especially when making a turn) you determine if you have enough space between, say one pedestrian passsing in front of you and the one just starting to cross the street. So, maybe Marshawn makes the judgement that he can pass between the girls, the first girl passes by dancing, the victim lets the car go but expects it to pass at the speed it is currently going, Marshawn puts on the brakes to look at dancing girl, which is not expected by the victim and there is some contact. Since Marshawn has slowed down or stopped when the collision occurs, he thinks some drunk girl walked into his car, so he continues on, not thinking its his fault and expecting the girl to be fine, like when a drunk friend falls down and you laugh about it, and then he is surprised later on to find that it has become a hit and run scenario. Also, for witnesses, with Marshawn putting on the brakes and the collision occurring at virtually the same time, a split second, maybe a witness thinks the hit came before the brakes, while Marshawn thinks the brakes came before the hit. The victim may not really have known what happened. If it was late and she was drinking, being hit by or colliding with a car, she may just be thinking what the hell happened and then her friends or witnesses tell her "He hit you and then drove off." Then you get pissed. I know it's pure speculation (but so is the idea that Marshawn is a convicted liar based on that brief interview), but its a scenario I hadn't thought about until I read AJ1's post. And in which, no one is really lying, they're just reacting to how they thought it all went down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 28, 2008 Author Share Posted June 28, 2008 A little more speculation... Living in New York City, where we jaywalk all the time, you get used to judging when a car will pass you...you move out into the street, and just as the car passes you walk behind it. And the same when you're driving, (especially when making a turn) you determine if you have enough space between, say one pedestrian passsing in front of you and the one just starting to cross the street. So, maybe Marshawn makes the judgement that he can pass between the girls, the first girl passes by dancing, the victim lets the car go but expects it to pass at the speed it is currently going, Marshawn puts on the brakes to look at dancing girl, which is not expected by the victim and there is some contact. Since Marshawn has slowed down or stopped when the collision occurs, he thinks some drunk girl walked into his car, so he continues on, not thinking its his fault and expecting the girl to be fine, like when a drunk friend falls down and you laugh about it, and then he is surprised later on to find that it has become a hit and run scenario. Also, for witnesses, with Marshawn putting on the brakes and the collision occurring at virtually the same time, a split second, maybe a witness thinks the hit came before the brakes, while Marshawn thinks the brakes came before the hit. The victim may not really have known what happened. If it was late and she was drinking, being hit by or colliding with a car, she may just be thinking what the hell happened and then her friends or witnesses tell her "He hit you and then drove off." Then you get pissed. I know it's pure speculation (but so is the idea that Marshawn is a convicted liar based on that brief interview), but its a scenario I hadn't thought about until I read AJ1's post. And in which, no one is really lying, they're just reacting to how they thought it all went down. This is probably the most reasonable description I've heard of the accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Just like you said the victim was lying because she said Lynch stopped too right? Funny you have yet to mention the witness from the video who corrobarated her version of events. But I guess he's a liar too right. If you want to ignore reality and live in a better world where NFL players aren't getting drunk at bars and then driving home at 3:30am then more power to you I guess. I'm sorry if I'm not that naive. Why did the DA refute the "the driver slowed down and then stopped" claims by Shpeley and her friends then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 28, 2008 Author Share Posted June 28, 2008 Why did the DA refute the "the driver slowed down and then stopped" claims by Shpeley and her friends then? He didn't, he just said their were witnesses (unnamed of course) who saw differently. The witness who said he stopped went ON THE RECORD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts