Thurman#1 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 That's because you're a rube. Click the link in this thread to find out why: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=82935 And keeping silent worked for Lynch, to the tune of getting a $100 traffic ticket for what people were sure was a felonious hit and run. Because when it came down to it, there was no evidence to convict him of anything, and he sure as hell wasn't going to make the DA's case for him. No, keeping silent worked for Lynch, to the tune of getting a $100 traffic ticket AND ALSO a month's worth of horrendous publicity which has probably lost him and will continue to lose him thousands and thousands of endorsement, signing and merchandising dollars. Way to go. And after all that, he recieved about the average penalty for that type of offense, considering that nobody was seriously hurt and that it was obvious that there was no proof that Lynch had ever even seen the girl or realized that an incident had happened. How is that a big win? He got an average penalty for that type of crime and lost thousands and thousands of bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Imbecile ?Hahaha you should learn to spell imbicile before you call an intellectual superior one. Oh, my God, I almost split a gut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Since I cannot express my personal opinions on the civil rights of Lynch & others being violated (My post Gestapoly taken off the board earlier), I will post this article that explains it better. http://www.realfootball365.com/articles/bills/13643 First, am I the only one who had no clue what the word "gestapoly" meant? At first, I thought it was some kind of a board game. Bringing the subject back to Bialy's idiotic article, I wanted to say one more thing. Bialy said "charge of owning a gun is like arresting someone who owns a car and bottle of Jack Daniels on a charge of drunk driving. Lynch has been charged with possessing a concealed firearm, as if it’s preferable that he instead waves it around. Either way, it doesn’t sound as if he actually did something naughty with the gun, which should be the standard for arrest regardless of whether it is the standard." That comparison makes no sense whatsoever. A better alcohol-related comparison is the guy who gets drunk and drives. Hey, he didn't really do anything naughty, as long as he didn't hit someone, right? If we go by Bialy's standard, it's OK to break laws and regulations as long as nobody is hurt, whether you are talking about guns or alcohol. If you don't hit anybody, you should be allowed to drive drunk. It's your right to own alcohol, and to drink it. California had a huge wave of shooting incidents on freeways about 15 or 20 years ago. That is why road rage became a popular idea. The laws on transporting guns in cars, which have proven effective based on the almost total disappearance of this kind of crime, was that if you can carry a loaded gun next to your leg as you drive, you are much more likely to shoot some moron who cuts you off than you are if your gun is in the trunk in a box and unloaded. This law has worked extremely well. It's not a stupid pointless law. It's an effective deterrent and a great example of a successful law. I actually like a lot of what Bialy writes. I was surprised to see him produce this illogical and stupid piece of tripe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 No, keeping silent worked for Lynch, to the tune of getting a $100 traffic ticket AND ALSO a month's worth of horrendous publicity which has probably lost him and will continue to lose him thousands and thousands of endorsement, signing and merchandising dollars. Way to go. And after all that, he recieved about the average penalty for that type of offense, considering that nobody was seriously hurt and that it was obvious that there was no proof that Lynch had ever even seen the girl or realized that an incident had happened. How is that a big win? He got an average penalty for that type of crime and lost thousands and thousands of bucks. If he did lose any money/endorsements (and it's hard to prove if that's true or not), it wasn't as a result of keeping quiet; it was for being involved in the incident in the first place (and I blame him for being at the wrong place at the wrong time and failing to avoid hitting the girl). Most people made up their minds about it in the beginning and wouldn't have changed it, period. Even if it had been settled early, people would have been saying "well, he settled before any real evidence surfaced." And had the DA simply offered the plea deal in the beginning, it would have been over within a week or so. Why did he wait so long to offer it and waste resources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Oh, my God, I almost split a gut. I couldn't have scripted that any better had I logged-onto Poland's account and wrote that brilliant response myself. Stupid is as stupid does, but Poland's rewritten the record books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damj Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Since I cannot express my personal opinions on the civil rights of Lynch & others being violated (My post Gestapoly taken off the board earlier), I will post this article that explains it better. http://www.realfootball365.com/articles/bills/13643 The author of the article should wait for the facts to come out before he tries to exonerate Lynch. So we need to wait until Lynch guns someone down before we put down the pom poms and hold him accountable? In his 2 years here, he has consistently shown poor judgement, and it is not railroading him to hold him accountable for his actions, especially when the team is counting on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 It's hialrious that a guy using the "Ron Paul" tag would start a post about "civil rights" and "gun rights". The actual Ron PAul is a Liberterian, or so the Dr. says. And he does feel that Americans should be armed as they see fit...... ......so they could protect themselves from urban minorities! Check out some nuggets From "Ron Paul's Report" from back in the day: "Violence will fill our cities" with " mostly black welfare recipients feeling justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves'". "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to provide self dfense, for the animals are coming." How bout this? When MLK day was made a holiday, he called it "our annual Hate Whitey Day". When some NYC pol suggested renaming the City after King, Paul suggested instead: "Zooville, Rapetown, Dirtburg, and Lazyopolis." Of the LA riots, his letter claimed "order was only restored in LA when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after the rioting began." What do you think "Dr. Paul" would have thought of those three young black men smoking weed while driving around an upscale neighborhood with a concealed weapon? Dude, maybe you should change your name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Get this through your head lynch is stupid, his IQ is south of 80, in all likelihood that retard did something open and observable that drew the attention of the police. I knew you'd make me laugh at some point. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 In his 2 years here, he has consistently shown poor judgement, and it is not railroading him to hold him accountable for his actions, especially when the team is counting on him. Particularly since he's a menace to WNY mailboxes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 The author of the article should wait for the facts to come out before he tries to exonerate Lynch. So we need to wait until Lynch guns someone down before we put down the pom poms and hold him accountable? In his 2 years here, he has consistently shown poor judgement, and it is not railroading him to hold him accountable for his actions, especially when the team is counting on him. Weren't we Bills fans counting on those bookend "boy scouts" Schoebel and Kelsay to live up to their new and improved and way over-inflated contracts? Sorry pal, I'd rather have a bad ass like Lynch who gets suspended every now and then, than those two pansies any day of the week. When the hell do we hold those two losers accountable for their two million dollars per sack output???? NFL football players (especially many of the good ones) all have a little crazy in them doing what they do for a living. So YES, I WILL wait until Lynch guns down a day care center with two uzis and a hail of bullets before I put down the pom poms. You guys are ridiculous with this. You might qualify to be a local sportswriter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Weren't we Bills fans counting on those bookend "boy scouts" Schoebel and Kelsay to live up to their new and improved and way over-inflated contracts? Sorry pal, I'd rather have a bad ass like Lynch who gets suspended every now and then, than those two pansies any day of the week. When the hell do we hold those two losers accountable for their two million dollars per sack output???? NFL football players (especially many of the good ones) all have a little crazy in them doing what they do for a living. So YES, I WILL wait until Lynch guns down a day care center with two uzis and a hail of bullets before I put down the pom poms. You guys are ridiculous with this. You might qualify to be a local sportswriter. Ladies and Gentlemen..... Still, your reigning "1billsfan". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Imbecile ?Hahaha you should learn to spell imbicile before you call an intellectual superior one. This thread just keeps getting better. You are supremely stupid.They didn't reduce charges for any other reason then his pleading guilty......... Don't you mean than....or was your supreme intelligence just testing us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 NFL football players (especially many of the good ones) all have a little crazy in them doing what they do for a living. So YES, I WILL wait until Lynch guns down a day care center with two uzis and a hail of bullets before I put down the pom poms. You guys are ridiculous with this. You might qualify to be a local sportswriter. So you are willing to condone the off-field actions of sportsmen as long as they are superstars on the field ? Sorry, I just do not agree. First of all, it is morally wrong and will not condone illegal behavior by a Bill. Secondly, off-field transgressions frequently affect the net contribution to the team - think Pacman Jones, Michael Vick. Lastly, why equate off-field agression to on-field competitiveness ? There are plenty of examples of intense competitors being good citizens - Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, McNabb come to mind. Note - I am not making a judgement about Lynch's guilt, just talking philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloJBill Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I could not care less what players do during the off seasons as long as they are on the field for opening day. If they get in enough trouble to get suspended for even one game, THEN and only then do I get pissed at them. Anyone saying we should get rid of Lynch is and idiot. If every team got rid of every player with legal issues there wouldn't be enough players to put together a game let alone a league. These players are treated like superhumans from a young age, contantly pampered, given special and preferential treatment. Why is anyone surprised when they get to the NFL and go from (often times) poverty to having millions, that they make bad decisions and are unaware of how normal people live and function in society? There is no doubt NFL players are groomed to think and act like they are above and more privilaged than the average person. Why do we then villify them when they simply continue with this mind set in their professional careers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 So you are willing to condone the off-field actions of sportsmen as long as they are superstars on the field ? Sorry, I just do not agree. First of all, it is morally wrong and will not condone illegal behavior by a Bill. Secondly, off-field transgressions frequently affect the net contribution to the team - think Pacman Jones, Michael Vick. Lastly, why equate off-field agression to on-field competitiveness ? There are plenty of examples of intense competitors being good citizens - Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, McNabb come to mind. Note - I am not making a judgement about Lynch's guilt, just talking philosophy. Don't you think there are levels of egregiousness in actions? Sitting in a car and doing some blunts with a few friends with a pistol in the trunk of a car is bad, but it's certainly not close to be of the level of slaughtering dogs for pleasure of beating down strippers and ordering hits on patrons of strip clubs. If you thought that Marshawn Lynch was going to be like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady and their "Ken Doll" model behavior then you sir have been smoking waaaay too many blunts yourself. I pretty much expected a few incidents like this with Marshawn and I'm sure the Bills did as well. There was always going to be a tradeoff with Lynch. You people who are acting like this is surprising are being silly IMO. So far the trade off of bad behavior to on field production with Lynch is still way in the Bills favor. Did you honestly think that Marshawn wasn't going to get into some trouble from time to time? As long as it's of the non-violent variety, I can handle these dust ups. Philly fans forgave Allen Iverson for his car smoking gun toting immature incident like this one and we Bills fans should all eventually forgive Marshawn as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Don't you think there are levels of egregiousness in actions? Sitting in a car and doing some blunts with a few friends with a pistol in the trunk of a car is bad, but it's certainly not close to be of the level of slaughtering dogs for pleasure of beating down strippers and ordering hits on patrons of strip clubs. If you thought that Marshawn Lynch was going to be like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady and their "Ken Doll" model behavior then you sir have been smoking waaaay too many blunts yourself. I pretty much expected a few incidents like this with Marshawn and I'm sure the Bills did as well. There was always going to be a tradeoff with Lynch. You people who are acting like this is surprising are being silly IMO. So far the trade off of bad behavior to on field production with Lynch is still way in the Bills favor. Did you honestly think that Marshawn wasn't going to get into some trouble from time to time? As long as it's of the non-violent variety, I can handle these dust ups. Philly fans forgave Allen Iverson for his car smoking gun toting immature incident like this one and we Bills fans should all eventually forgive Marshawn as well. I will give you this - that the nature of the crimes between Pacman/Vick and (allegedly) of Lynch's are different in magnitude. But if it is a crime, it needs to be punished. If there is a developing pattern of mis-behavior it will eventually escalate. At a minimum, it will affect his time on field but worse it will be a distraction to the team. I have not followed his pre-Bills life but if it is indeed as checkered as it is turning out to be with the Bills, I see this going more the Travis Henry way - spiraling downward to eventual (career) doom. I feel the trade-off is not one we have to make. I wish that he will turn it around and be a model citizen and live up to his tattoo of being a 'Mamma's boy' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 A trade made in heaven...RB Marshawn Lynch from BUF to CIN for WR Chris Henry plus cash. Both clubs gain needed firepower! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloJBill Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Perhaps we should try holding atheletes accountable for their actions from the time they are in high school. I'm sure everyone has examples of atheletes (or perhaps you were one) in high school or college that had things like underaged drinking, bad grades, minor run-ins with the law swept under the rug, in order to allow them to play in the schools big game, or keep them on the team. This is a pattern that snowballs into the individual thinking the rules don't apply to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I will give you this - that the nature of the crimes between Pacman/Vick and (allegedly) of Lynch's are different in magnitude. But if it is a crime, it needs to be punished. If there is a developing pattern of mis-behavior it will eventually escalate. At a minimum, it will affect his time on field but worse it will be a distraction to the team. I have not followed his pre-Bills life but if it is indeed as checkered as it is turning out to be with the Bills, I see this going more the Travis Henry way - spiraling downward to eventual (career) doom. I feel the trade-off is not one we have to make. I wish that he will turn it around and be a model citizen and live up to his tattoo of being a 'Mamma's boy' But there always was a trade off with Lynch and if the Bills weren't willing to deal with the trade off they would have never drafted him. The guy came from a very rough and tumble neighborhood. He's clearly not a perfect human being. However, the thinking that this will eventually escalate or start spiraling downward is bunk to me. BTW, if anyone could use the medicinal purposes of a big fat blunt it's Marshawn after seeing him get him beat up by four to five defenders every time he runs it up the gut. He's young, he'll learn and if he starts majorly screwing up the next couple of years he'll no doubt be gone. To me this is a 4 out of a possible 10 on the screw up meter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 So you are willing to condone the off-field actions of sportsmen as long as they are superstars on the field ? Sorry, I just do not agree. First of all, it is morally wrong and will not condone illegal behavior by a Bill. Secondly, off-field transgressions frequently affect the net contribution to the team - think Pacman Jones, Michael Vick. Lastly, why equate off-field agression to on-field competitiveness ? There are plenty of examples of intense competitors being good citizens - Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, McNabb come to mind. Note - I am not making a judgement about Lynch's guilt, just talking philosophy. Athletes shouldn't get special treatment, but like most who are rich, famous, powerful, etc., they just do. That's the way it's been and the way it will always be. It sucks, but life isn't fair, is it? However in Lynch's case, whether it be the hit-and-run last year, or the weapons charge this year, I wouldn't want him to be charged with anything more than I'd expect anyone else to be charged with, given a relatively clean past history, the evidence, and the circumstances. I saw no evidence that he was drunk and knew he hit the girl last year, therefore even misdemeanor charges weren't appropriate. And I just cannot accept that having a loaded gun in the back of his car is enough reason to charge him with a felony. Maybe a misdemeanor, but even then, the laws weren't created for guys like him; they were created for violent criminals. If he does it again, of guns someone down, then throw the book at him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts