Lynch to be charged with 3 misdemeanors

[Mr. WEO]

before you crucify and judge him like half of the rest of the board, don't you think we should get all the details first.

 

You wouln't want to be put in the same category as a Nancy Grace would you?

 

All those prosecutors on tv are too extreme. According to them you would think that no one is in this world is innocent

 

Nancy Grace? Why do you keep mentioning her? TV prosecutors? What does this have to do with Lynch?

 

Testing the blunts? Dumbest comment in these threads---AND you keep repeating it. Do you think those fellas tossed some FAKE blunts on the floor of the car? Do you think that the test just might come back "not Lynch's marijuana"?

 

How bout testing Lynch's urine? Case closed. Why is it important to have him suffer NO consequences of violating league conduct policy?

 

Are you two roommates or something?

[DonInBuffalo]

The accident last year was a traffic ticket. Reduced from an alleged felony. Now hw does that happen?

Lack of evidence. If they had an actual case they would have charged him.

 

 

I wish the cops had retrieved the blunts and tested them. I don't care if "it's a hassle because of the paperwork, costs money, and any charge(s) would get dropped anyway." That along with the "no one admitted it was his" excuses are ludicrous and don't provide any proof that there was indeed pot in the car. That way we would know definitively, instead of merely believing there was pot.

Regardless of what you wish, LA cops and lap testers have lots of better things to do with their time and money other than trying to prove that someone is guilty of an extremely minor drug violation.

 

 

Testing the blunts? Dumbest comment in these threads---AND you keep repeating it. Do you think those fellas tossed some FAKE blunts on the floor of the car? Do you think that the test just might come back "not Lynch's marijuana"?

 

How bout testing Lynch's urine? Case closed. Why is it important to have him suffer NO consequences of violating league conduct policy?

Of course there's no legal basis to require Lynch to submit to a urine test.

[Thurman#1]

I'm very pleased to hear that they are only charging him with a misdemeanor, Which suggests to me that they have a weak case.

 

This is good news! Hopefully the league won't suspend him

 

 

The case's strength or weakness has a great deal to do with whether they bring charges and nothing whatsoever to do with what they charge him with. You have no reason at all to think they have a weak case. Wishful thinking.

 

It is good news for Marshawn. But unless he starts making better decisions, he won't be with the Bills in another 2 or 3 years.

[Thurman#1]

Lack of evidence. If they had an actual case they would have charged him.

 

You were referring to last year's hit and run and why they downgraded the charge. Um, they did charge him. They had a case. The punishment that he received was about average for a person who committed a violation of the seriousness he committed. He apparently didn't see the woman and didn't know that the incident had even happened. However, not seeing her was his fault. That's why he DID get charged and pleaded guilty.

[Thurman#1]

Maybe he needs a stiff penalty. Maybe he'll learn from it regardless of whether he gets one or gets off, who knows?

 

 

When people don't get a serious punishment, the thing that they tend to learn is "Oh, it's OK to do this. Nobody cares."

 

OJ was charged with abusing Nicole, and was supposed to go to counseling. Because he was OJ Simpson, which meant something at that time, he was first allowed to do the counselling by phone and finally not pressured when he simply didn't make the phone calls. We'll never know, but if he had actually been forced to take some medicine, and do so me actual counseling, who knows what might have happened. Counseling does have many success stories.

 

Instead he was not punished. And we all know what happened. That's what tends to happen. When people get bad consequences from their actions, they tend not to repeat them.

[VOR]

Nancy Grace? Why do you keep mentioning her? TV prosecutors? What does this have to do with Lynch?

 

Testing the blunts? Dumbest comment in these threads---AND you keep repeating it. Do you think those fellas tossed some FAKE blunts on the floor of the car? Do you think that the test just might come back "not Lynch's marijuana"?

 

How bout testing Lynch's urine? Case closed. Why is it important to have him suffer NO consequences of violating league conduct policy?

Gee, how about CHARGING Lynch with marijuana possession? Oh wait that's right, "no one admitted it was his" and "it's a hassle..."

 

Yes, you are truly a "rube." Is Poland your roommate?

[VOR]

Regardless of what you wish, LA cops and lap testers have lots of better things to do with their time and money other than trying to prove that someone is guilty of an extremely minor drug violation.

Well then, if it's "extrememely minor," why is anyone getting worked-up over it? That's because it's not a "extremely minor" as you claim. If they wanted to use the excuse that they searched his car because of the marijuana, they should have seized the blunts and tested them for marijuana, and then tacked-on that charge to the gun charge, not given some idiotic excuse that only a rube believes like "no one claimed it was his" or "it's a hassle." Otherwise it never should have been mentioned.

[VOR]

When people don't get a serious punishment, the thing that they tend to learn is "Oh, it's OK to do this. Nobody cares."

 

OJ was charged with abusing Nicole, and was supposed to go to counseling. Because he was OJ Simpson, which meant something at that time, he was first allowed to do the counselling by phone and finally not pressured when he simply didn't make the phone calls. We'll never know, but if he had actually been forced to take some medicine, and do so me actual counseling, who knows what might have happened. Counseling does have many success stories.

 

Instead he was not punished. And we all know what happened. That's what tends to happen. When people get bad consequences from their actions, they tend not to repeat them.

The difference between OJ and Marshawn is that OJ was never charged with anything when it came to slapping-around Nicole, wasn't followed-up on as you mentioned, and there was ZERO publicity about it. He was truly, in essence, told that "it's okay." And his murdering her was a crime of passion. And ultimately he got away with murder.

 

Lynch on the other hand has had a media circus revolving around both incidents, and despite being exonerated of hit and run, still has people saying he "got away with a felony." And without any proof there was really pot in the car, a lot of people still believe there was because he's a known criminal, and the cops never lie. I think he can't help but to have learned something from those.

 

Now he was rightfully caught with a loaded, concealed, unregistered gun. One of those charges will stick and that should teach him a lesson. Whether it does remains to be seen, and if he does it again I agree with throwing the book at him, but there's no reason to think it won't. That is, it probably won't teach him any less of a lesson than getting charged with a felony, which is overkill, or even getting suspended.

[Poland]

The difference between OJ and Marshawn is that OJ was never charged with anything when it came to slapping-around Nicole, wasn't followed-up on as you mentioned, and there was ZERO publicity about it. He was truly, in essence, told that "it's okay." And his murdering her was a crime of passion. And ultimately he got away with murder.

 

Lynch on the other hand has had a media circus revolving around both incidents, and despite being exonerated of hit and run, still has people saying he "got away with a felony." And without any proof there was really pot in the car, a lot of people still believe there was because he's a known criminal, and the cops never lie. I think he can't help but to have learned something from those.

 

Now he was caught with a loaded, concealed, unregistered gun. One of those charges will stick and that should teach him a lesson. Whether it does remains to be seen, and if he does it again I agree with throwing the book at him, but there's no reason to think it won't. That is, it probably won't teach him any less of a lesson than getting charged with a felony, which is overkill, or even getting suspended.

Stay away from words like exonerated, these are words you don't know the meaning of.

Lynch was never exonerated.

They gave him a plea deal.

If Lynch was cleared of guilt there would be no plea bargain at all, the charges would have been dropped entirely.

 

I have a feeling that when you write this type of mental slop of yours that you actually believe that there are people that end up nodding their heads, like you are informing them.

All you end up doing is demonstrating your ignorance.

[DonInBuffalo]

You were referring to last year's hit and run and why they downgraded the charge. Um, they did charge him. They had a case. The punishment that he received was about average for a person who committed a violation of the seriousness he committed. He apparently didn't see the woman and didn't know that the incident had even happened. However, not seeing her was his fault. That's why he DID get charged and pleaded guilty.

To clarify, I was saying that they didn't have enough evidence to charge him with a crime. The only evidence they had, which you summarized well, was only sufficient to charge him with a traffic violation, which technically isn't considered a "crime".

 

 

Well then, if it's "extrememely minor," why is anyone getting worked-up over it? That's because it's not a "extremely minor" as you claim. If they wanted to use the excuse that they searched his car because of the marijuana, they should have seized the blunts and tested them for marijuana, and then tacked-on that charge to the gun charge, not given some idiotic excuse that only a rube believes like "no one claimed it was his" or "it's a hassle." Otherwise it never should have been mentioned.

Let's take this from the top:

 

- The police saw the car had some sort of problem with the license plates. That gives them sufficient cause to investigate further. If the car had been moving, they would have been justified in turning on their lights/siren and pulling the car over.

 

- The marijuana had to be mentioned in the police report, because that's what gave them probable cause to search the car. Otherwise, the whole case would have been tossed out already.

 

- It isn't a crime to smoke marijuana. It's a crime (or in some cases a violation) to possess it, and of course it's a crime to sell it. There was no specific evidence as to which of the three people in the car were/weren't smoking; just speculation. Testing the blunts, or even dusting them for prints, would accomplish nothing. You still wouldn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to who was smoking. Urine tests wouldn't legally prove anything because it's not illegal to smoke. You still wouldn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone possessed the pot. For example, they could all simply claim that they apparently ate some brownies and didn't know that they had pot in them.

 

Of course, anyone with even a modest amount of common sense recognizes that it's 99.9% likely that all three of them were smoking. But that's not the point. The point is there isn't enough admissible legal evidence to charge any of them with drug possession.

[VOR]

Stay away from words like exonerated, these are words you don't know the meaning of.

Lynch was never exonerated.

They gave him a plea deal.

If Lynch was cleared of guilt there would be no plea bargain at all, the charges would have been dropped entirely.

 

I have a feeling that when you write this type of mental slop of yours that you actually believe that there are people that end up nodding their heads, like you are informing them.

All you end up doing is demonstrating your ignorance.

Look up the word "context" and take a reading comprehension course, oh "intellectual superior."

 

But to edumicate ya, Lynch was exonerated from hit and run allegations. Now nod your head. Good boy.

[Poland]

Look up the word "context" and take a reading comprehension course, oh "intellectual superior."

 

But to edumicate ya, Lynch was exonerated from hit and run allegations. Now nod your head. Good boy.

Maybe someone else can take a shot at educating this moron.

 

Is there anyone on the forum with a background suitable to explain to this dingbat the difference between being exonerated and being given a plea bargain?

 

Because I give up on trying to penetrate his/her thick skull.

 

I read that a member named Lori is educated in this area, I don't know if she would be willing to make an attempt at dumbing it down for this kid.

Lori (if you are reading this) from what I gather as I sort through this kid's confused thoughts is that he/she wants in the worst way to believe that the DA and/or judge concluded that Lynch was innocent of hit and run.

He idolizes Lynch that much.

So if you would, please explain to this kid the difference between a plea down and being exonerated.

 

I'm certain that he/she also believes that a finding of not guilty by a jury equates to being found innocent.

So while you are at it, if you would, please take a minute to bring him/her up to speed on that misconception also.

[atlbillsfan1975]

At the end of the day guys/gals, Lynch did something wrong. he knew it was wrong. And whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor does not matter. He put himself in the wrong place with the wrong people. Its not like he doesnt have 20 examples of what not to do over the last 6 months. Heck look at Micheal Phelps.

I guess what i am saying is i think he needs a reality check. As a man i dont want to see anyone go down the wrong path. I think Marshawn is guilty of being careless, but thats still being guilty. He deserves some punishment which will cause him to think twice about doing something like this again. I dont want to see him sit for any period of time, as a Bills fan. However i believe it will only serve to benefit him in the long run. I dont feel sorry for him, i hope he understands that everyone has to abide by laws/rules. And for people in the public eye, it is much more important to do so.

Hopefully he will come back more dedicated and ready to be a good man first and a good Bill second.

[Mr. WEO]

To clarify, I was saying that they didn't have enough evidence to charge him with a crime. The only evidence they had, which you summarized well, was only sufficient to charge him with a traffic violation, which technically isn't considered a "crime".

 

 

Let's take this from the top:

 

- The police saw the car had some sort of problem with the license plates. That gives them sufficient cause to investigate further. If the car had been moving, they would have been justified in turning on their lights/siren and pulling the car over.

 

- The marijuana had to be mentioned in the police report, because that's what gave them probable cause to search the car. Otherwise, the whole case would have been tossed out already.

 

- It isn't a crime to smoke marijuana. It's a crime (or in some cases a violation) to possess it, and of course it's a crime to sell it. There was no specific evidence as to which of the three people in the car were/weren't smoking; just speculation. Testing the blunts, or even dusting them for prints, would accomplish nothing. You still wouldn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to who was smoking. Urine tests wouldn't legally prove anything because it's not illegal to smoke. You still wouldn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone possessed the pot. For example, they could all simply claim that they apparently ate some brownies and didn't know that they had pot in them.

 

Of course, anyone with even a modest amount of common sense recognizes that it's 99.9% likely that all three of them were smoking. But that's not the point. The point is there isn't enough admissible legal evidence to charge any of them with drug possession.

 

The problem with the license plates is that there were none. That is what initiated the suspicion of the cops. The scent of marijuana prompted the search.

 

Hey, VOR, if you want to continue to believe that those blunts did not contain MJ, then go right ahead, for whatever purpose it suits for you. But as someone else already pointed out, in court, there is no way to establish who "owned" or "possessed" the drugs, as each guy will claim it's not him but the other guy. The cops know how this goes. If they found a 16 oz. bag, the outcome would have been different.

 

Don--you've met the 0.1% who does not believe they were smoking weed.

 

Atlbillsfan is right. No one wants Lynch to miss games (he is, by far, the best player on this team), but he clearly believes that none of this other stuff matters and that, based on the response from the law, the league and his employer--there is no downside to this behavior. There is always another chance, no problem.

[MattM]

You can't win that argument because even the righties know Bush was asleep at the switch and handcuffed by a leftist Congress. Yeah, I know this is the wrong board for this, but really, throw ideology aside and lets get things right.

 

As for Lynch, he'll end up guilty on one of them, sit for a few games and all this will be forgotten by week 6 or so. Jauron will be in the center of the scope way before then.

 

Huh, nice try, but the Republicans also controlled Congress from 2000 to 2006 and with a sitting President of the opposition in power the Democrats couldn't really do anything from 2006-8 over his veto. I just love revisionist history from conservatives who've been proven to have done the worst job EVER at governing this country the last 8 years and are now seeking to play politics for their own benefit (and not America's--Rush's idiotic statement about rooting against Obama spoke volumes about their true goals) with someone who's trying to clean up the mess they made.

 

I'll grant that you're entitled to your own opinion, but you certainly are not entitled to your own facts....

[MattM]

2 game suspension then it will be over.

 

That's about what I expect as well (and which seems fair).

[keepthefaith]

Huh, nice try, but the Republicans also controlled Congress from 2000 to 2006 and with a sitting President of the opposition in power the Democrats couldn't really do anything from 2006-8 over his veto. I just love revisionist history from conservatives who've been proven to have done the worst job EVER at governing this country the last 8 years and are now seeking to play politics for their own benefit (and not America's--Rush's idiotic statement about rooting against Obama spoke volumes about their true goals) with someone who's trying to clean up the mess they made.

 

I'll grant that you're entitled to your own opinion, but you certainly are not entitled to your own facts....

 

You still don't get it. You can't win the "Repuiblicans screwed this up over the last 8 years" argument because there is no argument to be had. People on both sides of the aisle know that the Bush administration got very little done post 9/11 except manage 2 conflicts. The point is what to do going forward and that the steps taken by the current administration on the economy are disgraceful unless the real agenda is to simply create larger social safety nets for the people on the bottom rungs of the economy. Any jackass can increase government spending then later taxation. Truly capable people would have assembled a much better plan. Seriously, you and I could lock ourselves in a room for a day and probably come up with a better economic stimulus plan than what these idiots have now passed. Our country can do much better. Very seriously, we all need to be outraged by what is being done.

 

And everybody can get off my ass about putting a political message on this board. The Bills matter little right now in comparison and they're going absolutely nowhere anyway with Jauron and company at the helm or with or without Lynch in the backfield.

[VOR]

To clarify, I was saying that they didn't have enough evidence to charge him with a crime. The only evidence they had, which you summarized well, was only sufficient to charge him with a traffic violation, which technically isn't considered a "crime".

 

 

Let's take this from the top:

 

- The police saw the car had some sort of problem with the license plates. That gives them sufficient cause to investigate further. If the car had been moving, they would have been justified in turning on their lights/siren and pulling the car over.

 

- The marijuana had to be mentioned in the police report, because that's what gave them probable cause to search the car. Otherwise, the whole case would have been tossed out already.

 

- It isn't a crime to smoke marijuana. It's a crime (or in some cases a violation) to possess it, and of course it's a crime to sell it. There was no specific evidence as to which of the three people in the car were/weren't smoking; just speculation. Testing the blunts, or even dusting them for prints, would accomplish nothing. You still wouldn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to who was smoking. Urine tests wouldn't legally prove anything because it's not illegal to smoke. You still wouldn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone possessed the pot. For example, they could all simply claim that they apparently ate some brownies and didn't know that they had pot in them.

 

Of course, anyone with even a modest amount of common sense recognizes that it's 99.9% likely that all three of them were smoking. But that's not the point. The point is there isn't enough admissible legal evidence to charge any of them with drug possession.

I asked a lawyer who has been following the case every step of the way to weigh-in on the situation. He said that merely having "improper" plates isn't enough to search the car, but seeing and smelling marijuana was enough. However since they didn't charge him with marijuana possession as they could/should have (because it was his car and he's responsible for what's in it), it throws into doubt that the "blunts" were there at all and thus the legality of the search (and yes they would have have had to retrieve the blunts and test them). If Lynch's lawyer wants to, he can fight the charges and get them dropped down to a traffic ticket if not dropped entirely on that technicality, and with LA's desperate economic situation, going to a jury trial for a non-violent weapons charge (where anyone with even a modest amount of common sense recognizes that it's 99.9% likely that the gun was there for protection and not criminal purposes) with possible illegal search and seizure isn't going to happen.

 

However what he suspects is that since Lynch was caught breaking the law with the gun, even if it might have been illegally seized, he'll accept the misdemeanor charge, go to the Commish and say he could have fought it based on illegal search and seizure, but instead took his lumps, and hope for clemency in the form of just a fine, because it's his first true offense.

 

So you see Don and Mr. WEO, I'm not just in the 0.1% (it's probably much higher) that thinks he didn't smoke pot, I'm in the group that questions whether there was pot at all.

[Poland]

I asked a lawyer who has been following the case every step of the way to weigh-in on the situation. He said that merely having "improper" plates isn't enough to search the car, but seeing and smelling marijuana was enough. However since they didn't charge him with marijuana possession as they could/should have (because it was his car and he's responsible for what's in it), it throws into doubt that the "blunts" were there at all and thus the legality of the search (and yes they would have have had to retrieve the blunts and test them). If Lynch's lawyer wants to, he can fight the charges and get them dropped down to a traffic ticket if not dropped entirely on that technicality, and with LA's desperate economic situation, going to a jury trial for a non-violent weapons charge (where anyone with even a modest amount of common sense recognizes that it's 99.9% likely that the gun was there for protection and not criminal purposes) with possible illegal search and seizure isn't going to happen.

 

However what he suspects is that since Lynch was caught breaking the law with the gun, even if it might have been illegally seized, he'll accept the misdemeanor charge, go to the Commish and say he could have fought it based on illegal search and seizure, but instead took his lumps, and hope for clemency in the form of just a fine, because it's his first true offense.

 

So you see Don and Mr. WEO, I'm not just in the 0.1% (it's probably much higher) that thinks he didn't smoke pot, I'm in the group that questions whether there was pot at all.

There is no talk of a possible illegal search and seizure with the exception of you and maybe 1 or 2 other dumbasses on a Buffalo Bills forum.

It's not even getting a mention in Culver City and they don't read this forum.

Your campaign to push this screwball idea is futile and mindless.

 

 

As far as this comment of yours goes...

I asked a lawyer who has been following the case every step of the way to weigh-in on the situation. He said that merely having "improper" plates isn't enough to search the car, but seeing and smelling marijuana was enough. However since they didn't charge him with marijuana possession as they could/should have (because it was his car and he's responsible for what's in it), it throws into doubt that the "blunts" were there at all and thus the legality of the search (and yes they would have have had to retrieve the blunts and test them).

I think we all know that this 'lawyer' you refer to is yourself.

No lawyer would ever say that "improper" plates isn't reason enough to warrant a search.

A lawyer would ask what constitutes "improper" because if for example the plates don't belong to that vehicle it most definitely warrants a search.

 

The more you spew your BS the deeper you bury yourself it.

[Kingfish]

So you see Don and Mr. WEO, I'm not just in the 0.1% (it's probably much higher) that thinks he didn't smoke pot, I'm in the group that questions whether there was pot at all.

 

 

This guy can't be for real, right?