Marshawn Lynch Update
Here's the link from PFT:
A few more details have come to light.
1. The woman, according to a witness, was hit and 'flew'. Thankfully, her actual injuries seem to be minor. Never mind for the moment that her made up injuries will possibly be far more serious when this eventually hits a civil courtroom. Whether Lynch was driving or not it was his car and that means that he and his fat wallet are involved...at least as far as scumbag trial lawyers are concerned.
2. The woman, according to the same witness, had a green light while the SUV had a red light. Naturally, pedestrians always have the right of way even when they do something stupid. She wasn't doing anything stupid, so whether she was drunk or not won't matter in the least.
3. The cops have impounded Lynch's SUV.
4. The SUV was damaged during the hit-and-run and at least one piece of it was left at the scene. The cops have that piece. It stands to reason that they wouldn't have impounded the vehicle if Lynch's SUV wasn't missing that very same piece.
5. A surveillance camera caught at least some part of the hit-and-run (before, during or after isn't clear) and we don't yet know if the tape shows the driver or not. More importantly, the driver doesn't yet know if the tape shows him or not. This could be huge given that the driver may make false statements that can be easily disproved. It could also lead to the driver simply not saying anything at all so as not to either lie or incriminate himself. The idea of a friend of Lynch's taking the bullet for him (if Lynch was indeed driving and has a friend who will take a pile of cash and some jail time) pretty much goes right out the window.
6. The cops want to talk to Lynch, which kind of implies that they haven't already. The story points out that the cops wouldn't state if they had already spoken to him. With his attorney apparently still on hiatus I can't imagine Lynch making a statement if he was the driver or in the SUV.
If Lynch positively absolutely wasn't anywhere in the area--much less in the vehicle--I can't see a rationale for him not stating publicly that he was in no way involved. I'm not talking about Lynch going into the grim details of who was driving or under what circumstances but rather him stating only that he wasn't in the vehicle. Any further questions could be put off for when his lawyer was present.
Everything points to Lynch being in the vehicle and that is bad, bad news for Bills fans.
So now what? Here's how I see it playing out.
First, the woman wasn't badly hurt and Lynch is rich. I can see them coming to an arrangement which will put the civil issue to rest before it really even fully wakes. If you know a sleazy trial lawyer in the Buffalo area you might want to cozy up to him as he might be in for a substantial windfall.
Second, the cops aren't going to let this go regardless of what kind of deal Lynch strikes with the woman. They've got witnesses, physical evidence and tape which may or may not show who was driving. Because the woman wasn't seriously injured the driver might not be hit with the proverbial book. Then again, an agressive prosecutor (in an election year) might be inclined to push this case to the max. All to make an example, of course, not to pad his resume and improve his chances for higher office....
Third, the NFL will almost certainly suspend Lynch whether he was the driver or not. Naturally, if he was the driver his suspension will be much longer (perhaps indefinite) than if he was a passenger. My personal guess is that Lynch will be suspended for 4 games if he wasn't the driver and all season if he was.
This FanPost was written by a registered user of Buffalo Rumblings. Its views do not necessarily reflect the views of Rumblings' editorial staff, but are just as valued as our own.
2 recs |
85 comments
Comments
Thanks for the update
Wow, this is getting worse and worse. Are there suggestions that drugs/marajuana are involved? I’d have to think that is a possibility for not stopping.
by labill on Jun 2, 2008 11:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Reasons for not stopping
DUI is the obvious choice for not stopping after sending a woman ‘flying’.
Drugs and/or illegal weapons are another possible reason. The cops are probably going to want to have a look around a vehicle that has just been involved in an accident.
The fear of being caught with a transvestite hooker (and who of us haven’t known that dread?) could motivate a guy to flee the scene of an accident. Hugh Grant’s career has just never recovered and hasn’t Eddie Murphy been reduced to sappy animated voice overs?
by Ron From NM on Jun 2, 2008 11:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Lynch
The latest news is not good at all. If true, and Lynch was the driver, has anyone thought the worst? That when we look back on this week years from now, we can point to it as the beginning of the end of the franchise in Buffalo. I know that is doomsday thinking, but this is our best player, who will be suspended for at least this year, not-to-mention serve jail time. And is it that far-fetched to think the Bills will not attempt to void his contract entirely?
Southern PA (and Poz) Bills Fan
by ChipShot on Jun 3, 2008 7:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not to worry
Running backs grow on trees. I like Lynch but lets be honest the Bills could fine a replacement easily.
Look at the Packers with Grant, and the Broncos with Young. If you have a sound O-Line and acceptable passing game, you can find a good running back anywhere.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
by sireric on Jun 3, 2008 7:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Lynch is going to miss a lot of time
I wouldn’t be opposed to that at all.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
by sireric on Jun 3, 2008 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anytime you lose
a 1st round pick, it sets your team back.
by Joe P. on Jun 3, 2008 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
But Running Backs are easy to replace.
Example: If Marshawn were to be suspended for the year, and the Bills signed Travis Henry would the drop off be the big? I say no.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
by sireric on Jun 3, 2008 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Completely agreed..
As much as I don’t like him, you’d have to consider Alexander as a replacement as well, right?
If I’m Fred Jackson’s agent, I’m calling the Bills right now, and I’m asking if they want to have a sit down, and maybe talk a little about a contract extension..
by krytime on Jun 3, 2008 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
As much as I don’t like him, you’d have to consider Alexander as a replacement as well, right?
The guy is downright terrible. Having watched some Seahawks games the past 2 seasons, he is pitiful. He makes Cedric Benson look like Walter Payton. I wouldn’t sign Alexander even if he agreed to play for free.
~K
by Kurupt on Jun 3, 2008 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t sign Alexander even if he agreed to play for free.
Is that really a signing then?
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
by sireric on Jun 3, 2008 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just saying...
Personally, I don’t like the guy at all. I wish he was still lining up for the Hawks, if only for the home opener. But, if Lynch does get some lengthy suspension, I’m sure his name would come up.
by krytime on Jun 3, 2008 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The better your O-line,
the easier it is to replace running backs. Denver used to have an elite O-line, as did the Seahawks. Do we? Henry has fought injury most of his career and he is not getting any younger. Alexander will probably be in the broadcast booth by mid-season. I say give the young kids a shot.
by Joe P. on Jun 3, 2008 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no problem giving the Ball to F-Jack/D-Wright/X-Mon. If one of them steps up and is able to prove himself capable, then I’m fine with that too.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
by sireric on Jun 3, 2008 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Love the X-mon nickname
Now, I think I will watch X-men tonight. Nothing better than seeing Rebecca Romijn prance around in sprayed on blue latex.
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/388/rebeccaromijnstamos3qj6.jpg
by Joe P. on Jun 3, 2008 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not good or bad
Lynch not speaking at this point is not a reflexion of his guilt, IMO. He absolutely, positively, 100% should not a say word without his lawyer, whether he was behind the wheel with a beer-bong doing horse tranquilizers or at his church (or synagogue, mosque, temple, etc.) doing late night volunteer work while a friend borrowed the car.
A civil lawsuit is a guarantee, not a possibility. He has everything (ok, just lots of money if he wasn’t in the car) to loose by making any statement sans attorney at this point, regardless of guilt. The pro to him speaking right now and proclaiming his innocence? Bills fans could stop with the doomsday predictions. I don’t know if that is enough incentive for him to say something stupid (i.e. “No I didn’t do it. I gave the keys to my boy, DCRumbler. I’ve known him forever and he hardly ever drinks while driving”). Making a statement anywhere near close to that assures that, after suit, he’ll be driving a 1997 GMC Jimmy and not a 2008 Porsche.
by DCRumbler on Jun 3, 2008 8:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
How can it hurt to proclaim (truthfully) that you weren't at the scene of a crime?
If someone gets shot in my house I have nothing to lose by telling the cops that I wasn’t home if I really wasn’t at home. Getting into the details might get me into trouble (Well officer, I lent out my keys to a friend and I guess the dominatrix and 6 whoring midgets he invited over got into the stash of blow and then something bad must have happened.) but a general statement of my absence from the scene will not.
Lynch has more to worry about than fans on these boards. He’s in a PR business. So far, all we’ve heard is that someone drove his car into a woman. It won’t take long before the mental image of some woman bouncing off the hood of his car becomes ingrained. That will certainly hurt his marketability and his personal bottom line. Adding a fairly simple line to the story in which Lynch stated he was in Toronto scoping out seats for family members (or anywhere other than the intersection in question) at the time of the accident would keep the story from being so one-sided. Lynch is a very likeable guy but this incident has the power to change that—and keep him from getting endorsement deals.
by Ron From NM on Jun 3, 2008 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damage control is my thought
I definitely hear what you’re saying there Ron. In the hypothetical you describe in which some dude gets shot in your home, I suppose there would be no harm in proclaiming your innocence.
However, lets take your hypothetical one step further: what if you’re Heff and you go on a camping trip with The Girls Next Door (pretty good hypothetical so far, huh?). Your buddy, DCRumbler (presumptive, I know), asks you if he can crash at your mansion while you’re away. While you’re asleep in your custom made sleeping bag for four, I host a party. Wild and crazy; booze abounds and illicit drugs are plentiful. Though the DCRumbler is a peaceful man, some does get shot. Then before you know it, police at the scene, you know what I mean and pass me up, confronted all the dopes (too cold)?
OK here’s the deal: you go ahead and issue a statement right away, saying you were out of town, have proof to that affect and had no idea what was going on. Are you legally responsible for the shooting? I don’t think so, but if there is a lawyer on the site, they can probably provide you with case precedent at least showing an attempt by some state attorney to nail somebody in a similar situation with negligence. Especially if its a big time celeb.
But in a civil suit, there is no doubt that you will be taken to court and I bet you would loose. Whether or not your statement fails to mention that I was invited by you to stay won’t matter. All you have done is temporarily ease the minds of the public. But failing to mention me and your knowledge of my proclivity to host awesome parties (the hypothetical continues) will probably get you nailed. You’re Playboy fans might turn to the Victoria Secret catalog in disgust with your affiliation with me and your failure to distance yourself from me. How many times have we seen a player get nailed by the public and media for keeping it close to home? Result: millions gone, reputation still ruined.
No matter what, Lynch has already taken a huge shot on his PR front. So we’re now in damage control: either he was driving while tripping and believing he’s in GTA 4 or lent car to friend with sadomasochistic gnomes as you describe. A poor choice was probably made by him somewhere. So we’re now in damage control mode: If he is innocent, the best thing he can do is wait for the lawyer, issue a controlled, well-planned and rehearsed official statement, say no more, settle with the lady (because she’ll sue and you don’t want to you image to take bigger PR hit through a long trial) and get back onto the field.
Lynch waiting to speak is not that big of an issue, IMO. But what kind of lawyer does he have representing him that doesn’t come back immediately when big time client gets falls into this situation? That part worries me the most: indication of bad representation.
by DCRumbler on Jun 3, 2008 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not following your logic
If Hef was away with the girls, lent you the keys to the mansion (Can you believe he bought that place for only $1.2 mil?), and someone got shot in his absence how would it hurt him to state that he wasn’t there-abstaining from commenting on anything else related to the shooting? I’m sure the scumbag trial lawyers (Sorry Rexbob but you know that most of them are indeed John “I once channeled the spirit of a kid with cerebral palsy in my closing statement to wring a few more dollars out of a doctor who had done nothing wrong” Edwards wannabes-even if there are a few upstanding ones here and there.) would try to get a piece of Hef, just because they go after whomever has money. (His girls fly Southwest so I think they’re off the hook.) While they can sue Hef I doubt they’d win and his statement that he wasn’t there certainly wouldn’t hurt his case.
Basically, if Lynch wasn’t at the scene he’s got nothing to lose by saying that he wasn’t at the scene and refusing further comment. He’s going to get sued or at least threatened with a lawsuit anyway just because it was his car and he’s rich. Of course, if Lynch lies about his whereabouts he’ll be completely screwed.
by Ron From NM on Jun 3, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm getting the feeling he was at the scene.
Otherwise, they’d have said something by now.
by krytime on Jun 3, 2008 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was being too cute
The point I was trying to make is that any lawyer worth his salt would tell his client to keep quiet in a situation such as this because the risk of incriminating yourself (in both a criminal and civil trial) would be incredibly great. Any type of statement you make (no matter how terse) can be manipulated in court by scumbag ambitious attorneys.
But like krytime, I think his lawyer should have issued a more definite statement then the one that was offered yesterday if he wasn’t there. No bueno.
However, on the bright side, that Oman pick looks a lot better right now!
by DCRumbler on Jun 4, 2008 8:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Confusing witness
On point #2 – I’m not so sure the SUV turned on red. It was turning left from Chippewa onto Delaware, and the woman was crossing Delaware. So if it turned on a red light, the woman would have been crossing the street against traffic on Delaware.
After watching the video on the first link, the witness seems to agree – it’s hard to tell with the random pointing, but I think the SUV had a green light and turned left; the woman had a green walk sign to cross Delaware and thus had the right of way.
Not that it matters much… it sounds the car was going too fast through the intersection anyway.
One other point – the police impounded the car (and really fast, too, so a witness or the camera must have seen the license plate) but still want to talk to Lynch. I doubt they came to the house and just took the car without asking to talk to him, so either: he said he wouldn’t say anything without his lawyer (good), he wasn’t there because he wasn’t driving (even better), or he ran/hid from the police (much worse).
by Krenn on Jun 3, 2008 8:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hamburg?
Just saw the report from WKBW that says his Cayenne was recovered in Hamburg. Anyone know if that would mean it was from/near his house or not? Certainly nowhere close to the scene right?
N8
by marv4prez2012 on Jun 3, 2008 8:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Probably his house, yeah
According to this site: http://www.sportshometribune.com/archives/archives9.shtm, he bought a house in Hamburg this year. For fans outside the WNY area, that’s about half an hour away.
by Krenn on Jun 3, 2008 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ron - You've taken all the words out of my mouth...
I think the longer this drags on, the worse it will get. Some kind of statement via his lawyer must be issued soon, proclaiming his innocence of course. If not, it does look like he might have been in the vehicle. And hopefully, w/o the transvestite hooker(s).
How did they impound the car? Did they just find it, and take it? Isn’t there some sort of legal process that must be followed? I really don’t know, as I’ve never hit and run a canuck (she was from Ontario – more on that below) while driving drunk on Chippewa while scolding the midgets in the backseat for dropping the bag of coke.
Also, can the car be searched while in custody? God forbid they find the remnants of that spilled bag of goodies…
One thing that maybe will go in Lynch’s favor, is the DA. Frank Clark is not running for re-election this year (http://albanysinsanity.wnymedia.net/blogs/2008/05/12/da-frank-clark-not-running-for-re-election/). Maybe I am naive, but I’m hoping this isn’t the sort of thing that he will want to pursue, given his health/age etc…
With that said, one thing that could nix that is the fact that the woman is from Ontario. Right now, the influx of Canadian money into WNY is the only thing that’s saving this area from a total recession. If an image is painted that it’s unsafe for our friends from the north to come on down, who knows how that could affect the local economy.
I also hope the Bills have been proactive on this, and called Goodell’s office immediately, and explained the situation thoroughly (ie – told them the things the cops haven’t been told yet). It is in Lynch’s best interests to stay in his good graces. While I’m sure legally he will get out of this (my guess is the woman would be very happy with a hundred thousand loonies or so), Goodell is the judge, jury, and executioner for the NFL, and so far, his wrath has been rather fierce compared to other commissioners.
by krytime on Jun 3, 2008 9:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Goodell's Super Powers
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but as of June 1st, doesn’t Goodell now have the ability to punish teams as well as players for their indiscretions?
Also, would it be from the date of the incident (alleged), or the date of an arrest?
I don’t know if I’d be more PO’d at Lynch for missing games due to a suspension, or if the Bills lose a mid round draft pick next year because of this.
by krytime on Jun 3, 2008 10:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It looks bad, but let’s not jump to any conclusions yet. It’s very possible that Lynch isn’t saying anything right now on advice of counsel, even if he had nothing to do with the incident. Remember, just because his attorney is out of town doesn’t mean they haven’t been in touch. I seriously doubt they haven’t talked about what’s going on.
Also, I have to take issue with this:
Whether Lynch was driving or not it was his car and that means that he and his fat wallet are involved…at least as far as scumbag trial lawyers are concerned.
That’s just obnoxious and unnecessary. If Lynch was driving, he deserves any consequences he gets, including getting sued for a fat settlement. If he wasn’t driving, his liability is lessened, but it was still his car and that means he still bears some of the responsibility.
Further, those “scumbag trial lawyers” are who you would call if a hit-and-run driver ran you over. I was hit by a car when I was a kid; my parents called a “scumbag trial lawyer” and sued the driver and her insurance company because they failed to pay the rather extensive medical bills they were obligated to pay under New York State law, as the driver was not paying attention to what she was doing and was completely at fault when she hit me.
Look, I hope this is just a matter of Lynch letting some stupid friends borrow his car and they screwed up. But if he was the driver, I hope he gets locked up for a long time and I don’t care how badly that hurts the Bills. If he was the driver, he’s a menace to the people around him and it’s only by the grace of God that he didn’t kill someone. That’s a hell of a lot more important than the Bills’ playoff prospects, no matter how much we all love football.
by rexob on Jun 3, 2008 10:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
On lawyers and punishment
We’ll have to agree to disagree as to our take on trial lawyers, Rexob. Some lawyer helped you and your family out once upon a time. I see them as partly responsible for the enormous medical bills you piled up as a result of your unfortunate encounter with a vehicle. I get irritated every time I see a sign in a McDonald’s window warning that the coffee is hot (Duh!)—a holdover from a $4.4 million judgement against the chain because some scumbag trail lawyer convinced 12 dolts that an idiot woman was a victim….when anyone with half a brain knows that using your crotch as a cup holder for a hot (Duh!) beverage is a really bad idea.
With that said, I’m with you on punishing the driver whether that person was Lynch or someone else. I don’t think the driver will get locked up for long though…and that’s if he gets locked up at all. The lack of lasting injury is certainly a lucky break for the driver. Once the lady’s eyes glaze over when she gets her monster check (which shouldn’t happen but that’s the way it goes) she may not be quite the witness the prosecution would like (which also shouldn’t happen).
My personal guess is that the driver, assuming he doesn’t fight it tooth and nail, will do very little jail time, a ton of community service, years worth of probation and make a healthy donation to the state.
by Ron From NM on Jun 3, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
lynch
will be fine. Its impossible to charge him at this point unless surveilance has 100% incriminating evidence. Or unless he confesses, or an eye witness confesses. But even so its their word vs. Lynch.
Hopefully he learns his lesson. I don’t see how you see this coming to fruition with possible jail time and tons of community service? But I don’t want to get into that. Lynch is fine. He or someone in his posse did something stupid. Lets hope he learns from it all
MARVelous
by MARVelous on Jun 3, 2008 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I tend to think the shattered arm had more to do with the extensive medical bills than any lawyer.
And while I agree with you that any idiot who doesn’t realize coffee is hot doesn’t deserve a multi-million dollar settlement, my point is that you’re advancing a ridiculous stereotype based on the bad behavior of a small number of unethical lawyers. If you can’t find a similar proportion of pracititioners of just about any other profession who are equally unethical, you’re not trying very hard.
by rexob on Jun 3, 2008 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
More on trial lawyers--no football content so ignore if not interested in this thread
Rexob, I’m sure there are ethical lawyers. You’d have to be a good person to be a public defender with the low pay, long hours and horde of lowlifes parading through your office on a daily basis.
Texas had become the nation’s capital for asbestos lawsuits. When the state decided to require proof of actual asbestos damages the cases suddenly dried up. Why? The trial lawyers knew they couldn’t chase large cash payouts or intimidate compaines with the threat of an expensive lawsuit to defend. Those lawyers (tens of thousands of cases) weren’t good guys looking out for the little guy. They were an entire industry of ambulance chasers. Here’s a link:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17343
Here’s a telling quote: “Business owner Greg Scofelia of Galveston illustrated the problems with the old system, according to the May 19 Houston Chronicle. According to the Chronicle, Scofelia’s auto parts company has been sued more than 30 times for selling auto parts manufactured with asbestos. All of the lawsuits were determined to be without merit, but the legal costs were daunting, even though Scofelia prevailed in each one.”
How much of your medical bills went to the doctor’s medical malpractice insurance? You know, the insurance costs driven up by trial lawyers interested more in lining their own pockets than anything else. Those costs get passed on to all of us in the form of higher medical insurance premiums and medical bills.
Adopt a loser pays system, mandate proof of injury/loss, cap pain and suffering damages and deny lawyers enormous contingency payouts. Costs-for just about everything-will come down and the only losers will be the trial lawyers.
Okay, here’s a little bit of football content. How much of your ticket price is going to cover insurance that pays off lawyers if something bad happens at The Ralph?
by Ron From NM on Jun 3, 2008 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
good lord
Loser pay system? Are you serious? How would that work out for you Ron? Say your school wrongfully fires you. Say you sue them. Say you lose. Ron, now you are unemployed, and have to pay the school that wrongfully fired up hundreds of thousands of dollars that you don’t have. I guess you have learned a lesson though, right.
Say you get injured terribly. Say you sue an insurance company that is refusing to pay. Say you lose. Now you are injured, probably can’t work, have no money for medical bills, and have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to an insurance company.
That sounds like a great system Ron. Really. Really.
by jmorris0823 on Jun 4, 2008 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, I'm sure sure of bills went to cover malpractice insurance
I’m also sure I’m lucky I wasn’t killed, got to keep my arm, and made nearly a full recovery thanks to intensive treatment and therapy. And I still got to go to college and grad school because my lawyer’s actions forced the driver’s insurance company to live up to their obligations under the law. What a bastard!
by rexob on Jun 4, 2008 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think its fair to attack trial lawyers
If I remember in a very recent post a poster was assailing you about teachers and state/county employees for not having to perform up to a standard which was essentially lumping a profession into one all-encompassing perspective which you rightly defended as untrue of all teachers. Don’t you think you might be doing the same thing here about trial lawyers. I agree with you that some trial lawyers have damaged the legal system in this country but for every unethical lawyer there is a righteous one, same as there is a teacher who truly cares about the education of their students for everyone that doesn’t.
McKelvin and Hardy - rookies of the year
by poz on Jun 3, 2008 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Poz, I respectfully disagree here...
What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
I too think most lawyers are worthless. The only one who I can think of who did some good, was the South Park version of Johnny Cochran, when he displayed his “look at the little monkey” defense.
by krytime on Jun 3, 2008 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
fair enough
I am not usually one to defend lawyers but let us not forget that it was trial lawyers who became responsible for defending the idealism of the founding fathers in this country and who through their protection of individual rights and grievances helped build this country on equality and protection under law. Corruption will find its way into any institution over time but that does not take away the value of those who still represent the original intention of the practice.
And I’m curious now, what do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? I feel like I should know that.
McKelvin and Hardy - rookies of the year
by poz on Jun 3, 2008 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
a good start I believe is the punch line
Not all lawyers are scum. I’m married to one and Jri111 is an lawyer in the making.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
by sireric on Jun 3, 2008 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a litigation lawyer...
and I like to think I’m a good guy. I regularly turn down cases that I’m not comfortable pursuing even if there is an angle that could be worked. Remember, the cases that you hear about are the outrageous ones. You don’t hear about the cases that I think most people would agree are just, like where a manufacturer, in an effort to cut costs and increase profit margins, made a product less safe, or willfully decided to not add a safety feature, leading to a person being seriously maimed or even killed.
On one hand you can chalk it up and say, life is dangerous. On the other, you can see how someone made a few extra bucks by putting a member of the public unnecessarily at risk. Are you saying that cutting corners is OK? Do you really want to go back to Hammurabi’s code and just say, buyer beware and let people do whatever they want to make a buck?
Also, you may want to consider, the way our system works, safety in products and the environment is largely enforced through tort law suits, by scumbags like me. I like to look at my efforts as a public service. Because people like me lurk out there, a company will make sure a product they put out is not made of toxic substances or intrinsically more dangerous than necessary because they are afraid of getting sued. Without these lawsuits, there is no negative impact for a person who puts products out there in the market when they know its dangerous. Its about the most efficient allocation of risk.
The alternative to achieve similar safety standards is that you can have more government regulation to make sure products are safe. Pick your poison.
by oompaloompa on Jun 4, 2008 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm being harsh on the lawyer thing. I really don't have beefs with them.
I was looking for a laugh. Sireric does have the correct punch line though. And, I was hoping you’d get the SP reference. That was a great episode as well.
by krytime on Jun 3, 2008 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh dont worry about the SP reference
I got that alright and yes it was a great episode, the monkey and Chewbacca defenses are absolutely brilliant, “just think about that ladies and gentleman…it doesn’t make any sense!” Priceless.
McKelvin and Hardy - rookies of the year
by poz on Jun 3, 2008 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm glad you finally got yourself an avatar
Now all you need is Chuck in a Bills uni. That would kick serious A**!!!
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
by sireric on Jun 3, 2008 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chuck
I figured there was no one I wanted representing myself more than the great Chuck Norris. Because as many may know, Chuck Norris doesn’t cheat death, he beats the hell out of him fair and square.
McKelvin and Hardy - rookies of the year
by poz on Jun 3, 2008 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Poz is Chuck Norris?
Two of my students met him on the set of the Walker TX Ranger show and he took the time to get to know them a bit. He’s a real class act.
I don’t recall defending some, many or all teachers. Here’s what I wrote:
“By the way, Buffalonian, I’m with you on merit pay for teachers. My loathing for teachers unions and their knee-jerk protection of awful teachers is almost boundless. Bad teachers need to be axed just like bad salesmen or politicians or strippers.”
Education needs an overhaul almost as much as the criminal legal system. The problems in education, in my view, are nowhere near as bad as those in the civil legal system. In fact, I’d put reformation of the civil legal system right up there with reformation of the tax code, social security and Medicaid/Medicare systems in terms of importance.
Now, as I’ve wrote several times, I’m sure there are ethical lawyers who do good work and are interested primarily in their clients. I can’t name any.
by Ron From NM on Jun 3, 2008 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How's this for law
Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
McKelvin and Hardy - rookies of the year
by poz on Jun 3, 2008 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow
Ron,
Please stop embarassing yourself. Your childish and violent anger towards attorneys is pathetic. If you took five minutes to learn about the McDonald’s case you would know that McD’s had thousands of pages of internal documents warning about the scalding nature of its coffee. The tempature of the coffee was kept well above required safety standards. The company decided not to change their approach despite hundreds of complaints from burned victims. The woman who was burned had THIRD DEGREE burns on her genitalia, stomach, and legs. She required dozens of surgeries and never came close to full recovery.
Would you feel the same way if that was your wife? Mother? Would you say, “Oh, McDonald’s knew but who cares, lawyers are scumbags.”
I haven’t read other responses as I don’t have the time right now, but for somebody who was angrily defending the teaching profession your attack on another profession is sad and small.
You look uneducated and ignorant. I love how you bring up the McDonald’s case when you don’t have the first clue about the facts or background. But hey, keep spreading the hate!
by jmorris0823 on Jun 4, 2008 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of not taking five minutes...
“I haven’t read other responses” Well, okay then.
Also, you clearly didn’t read the passages where I was “angrily defending the teaching profession” as I was neither angry nor did I defend the profession. Here’s what I wrote:
“By the way, Buffalonian, I’m with you on merit pay for teachers. My loathing for teachers unions and their knee-jerk protection of awful teachers is almost boundless. Bad teachers need to be axed just like bad salesmen or politicians or strippers.”
by Ron From NM on Jun 4, 2008 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks Ron
The other comments people made in response to your post were irrelevant to your scathing review of attorneys as well as their ethics and reasons for choosing the legal profession. Using a word like “scumbag” to describe people that do good work for people like Rexob is deplorable. I would hope words like “scumbag” are left for people who say, oh, kill somebody. Feel free to continue to be non-responsive (to the McDonald’s post as well as the ridiculous implication that a loser pays system is anything but repugnant), but in the future, if you are going to use the McDonald’s case as a reason to trash lawyers, realize that anybody who has read a single article about the case will immediately know you have no idea what you are talking about and have some strange unsubstantiated vendetta against an entire group of people.
Brian,
I’ve been reading (and posting sparingly) on your blog since you opened shop over a year ago. I’m not starting a political debate, but when somebody attacks an entire profession based on erroneous and uneducated innuendo while also repeatedly using derogatory slurs towards those involved within that line of work, you should expect some heated responses.
I didn’t comment when I saw Ron’s post in the diaries, but when you elevated that to the main page, and Ron continued with unprovoked slurs towards attorneys, I felt a response was necessary. I find any type of prejudice based on rash generalizations grouping individuals based on some common (in itself inoffensive) trait disgusting. If you want to avoid societal discussions like these in the future you should edit main page posts that call a group of people “scumbags” and “sleazy” for no apparent reason other than perhaps the author’s personal feelings of inadequacy or repressed rage.
Meanwhile, Go Bills!
by jmorris0823 on Jun 4, 2008 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No argument there, jmo. I front-paged that post in the last 47 seconds of my lunch break on my first day of my new job, so I believe I have a valid excuse for not reading the entirety of the article – I assure you I’ll try to be more picky when reading a post before front-paging. I still feel that Ron did a great job summarizing and following through logically (in most cases) on the latest Lynch developments.
by Brian Galliford on Jun 4, 2008 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
nice
Not blaming you or telling you how to run your site, just explaining my reasons for skewing from Bills talk. I’ve told you before and will again, your site has by far the best Bills content available on the net, including the team site.
Good luck with the new job and finishing school. I’m sure you will be an excellent representative of your profession (which is also unnecessarily ripped and stereotyped too often).
by jmorris0823 on Jun 4, 2008 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
whats your new profession?
McKelvin and Hardy - rookies of the year
by poz on Jun 4, 2008 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He teaches polititans to love lawyers.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
by sireric on Jun 4, 2008 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I work in the IT Department at the University of Rochester in a highly entry-level position. :)
by Brian Galliford on Jun 4, 2008 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This thread is getting kind of ridiculous, guys. We’re here to talk about the Bills, not teaching, lawyers, politics, et al. It’s actually quite tiresome to sift through. Can we just get back to football talk?
by Brian Galliford on Jun 4, 2008 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can't be too bad...
CB says he’s at today’s OTA. That’s an encouraging sign to me. That’s assuming that the team woudn’t let him practice without talking to the cops first, which I think is a safe bet.
N8
by marv4prez2012 on Jun 3, 2008 11:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not suggesting that Lynch will be radioactive if he was the driver
People do stupid things and whomever was driving Lynch’s SUV the other night certainly lived down to that expectation. It’s not like the driver arranged for the murder of his baby-momma a la Rae Carruth.
With that said, the driver will certainly be prosecuted and faces jail time. Fleeing the scene of a hit and run just doesn’t go over very well with prosecutors. The lady wasn’t hurt badly so it won’t necessarily be a lot of jail time. Fair or not, if Lynch was the driver the court could look to make an example of him and give him more time than it would for someone else. Even then I’d be surprised if it were a lot of jail time. The driver wasn’t bashing old ladies for their social security checks so I can see the time being fairly short just to make sure violent criminals had bed space in prison.
Another interesting question is whether Lynch would be criminally responsible for allowing someone else who was drunk or high to drive his SUV.
by Ron From NM on Jun 3, 2008 3:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What is the Lynch camp thinking?
Mike DeGeorge (how do you go from sports reporter to the voice of the police) sounded pretty terse in the press conference from what I heard, if you ask me. “It’s safe to say the ball is in their court, and the clock is ticking,” he says. To me that sounds like the police want some answers.
If the Lynch camp doesn’t fully cooperate soon, they are going to be digging a bigger hole for themselves then they already are. I’m really surprised the Bills team lawyers haven’t jumped in and taken control over this from Lynch’s guy.
On a side note – Mike DeGeorge will be on WGR550 at four today. Should be interesting.
[Note – that was not a plug. I no longer work for WGR550]
by krytime on Jun 3, 2008 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A couple things...
It is going to be very difficult for the cops to “place” Lynch at the scene of the crime. Security cameras rarely have good resolution and it’s unlikely it was close enough for a positive ID. The camera will likely prove it was Lynch’s SUV, which we apparently already know. If there was enough evidence already to place him or someone else in the vehicle, he would already have been arrested. Also, Lynch will likely only be suspended if he serves jail time. Goodell won’t suspend a player for simply having charges brought against him. AND if it is proven that Lynch wasn’t in the SUV, there won’t be much of a civil case, either… although Lynch will probably settle with her out of court to avoid any kind of civil lawsuit.
"I don't agree with a damn thing you say, but I would die for your right to say it."
by ForeignArrow on Jun 3, 2008 4:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Pacman Jones
His suspension is one year and counting and he’s never served any jail time. Yes, he had a number of incidents but Goodell used him as a way of demonstrating that discipline will be meted out independent of the legal process.
by Ron From NM on Jun 3, 2008 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
PacMan Jones
was a menace. He had about 9 separate run-ins with the law. If Lynch comes out clean and Goodell suspend him, the NFLPA will have Gooell’s nuts in a jar.
"I don't agree with a damn thing you say, but I would die for your right to say it."
by ForeignArrow on Jun 4, 2008 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NFLPA
Except for a vague murmur we haven’t heard much of anything from the NFLPA regarding Pacman. Even if he were somehow completely cleared of every accusation he still will have missed a year and counting of football without doing any jail time. If Lynch was in the vehicle I’d be very surprised if he didn’t draw a suspension.
by Ron From NM on Jun 4, 2008 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Foreign, I disagree on some points here..
The cameras employed are very state of the art. The problem indentifying the driver won’t be a grainy picture, but the angle that the car was caught.
Also, don’t be so certain on Goodell going soft. You just have to act like a jerk, and he’ll suspend you. The fact is, Lynch’s ride hit someone, and ran away. He also might not like the way that the Lynch camp is going about this, which will certainly hurt Lynch and his chances to stay in the commish’s good graces.
I do agree with you on the civil suit. A gift certificate to the Walden Galleria is all it’ll probably take to settle out of court.
by krytime on Jun 3, 2008 5:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
and
The problem indentifying the driver won’t be a grainy picture, but the angle that the car was caught.
I’m guessing tinted windows won’t help either, unless the camera has a shot looking directly in through the windshield.
~K
by Kurupt on Jun 3, 2008 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you positive the windows were/are tinted? I don't know..
Are you also sure the windows weren’t rolled down? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to slay Lynch here. If the cops want to get him for this, they will. And his lack of co-operation so far his not helping him, if you ask me..
by krytime on Jun 3, 2008 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've got no clue
I’m just saying if the windows are tinted, the only clear view would seem to be the windshield. That would contribute to any roadblock in ID’ing the driver…
What lack of cooperation? His lawyer advised him to keep quiet for now.
~K
by Kurupt on Jun 3, 2008 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My take is that they're not..
I know Mike DeGeorge said they were cooperating, but come on, you know they’re thinking, “Dude, just tell us who was driving the flipping car.” Why is he being so secretive? If he did it, just admit it. He probably won’t get jail time. He’ll just pay a load of money and maybe have to do a little public service. If he didn’t do it, why not just say so?
by krytime on Jun 3, 2008 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its scary what the cameras can do...
I was at a BBQ on Sunday talking to a buddy of mine who owns a company that installs security equipment – hi-tech stuff like fingerprint, retina and palm print scans, face recognition surveillance equipment, etc. He was telling me how the City of NY is installing cameras all over the city hooked up to computers that can do face recognitions, etc. He said its scary how powerful the systems are. Its all part of the Homeland Security upgrades. My understanding is that the Buffalo has gotten a good chunk of Homeland Security money given its proximity to the border with Canada – would not be surprised if ML’s car was captured on one of these types of cameras.
I don’t know if you’ve been busted by a traffic camera, but I got a ticket for running a red. I got in the mail, the ticket and a picture of me driving, very clear, with my plates clearly readable. I gave up all hope of contesting and paid the fine and took the points.
by oompaloompa on Jun 4, 2008 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said...
if the cameras provided a positive ID, Lynch would be in jail already. If Lynch is suspended, I can only imagine it being for a game. We’ve all seen Lynch and heard him and he’s not some A-hole like PacMan. He’s not going to get into Goodell’s office and tell him to shove it or something.
"I don't agree with a damn thing you say, but I would die for your right to say it."
by ForeignArrow on Jun 4, 2008 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The horror show continues
Here is a PFT link: http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/06/03/police-want-marshawn-to-talk/ and a USA Today link: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/bills/2008-06-03-marshawn-lynch_N.htm
The cops have apparently not spoken to Lynch and it doesn’t appear that Lynch is inclined to speak to them. The USA Today piece states that, “The SUV was impounded after being discovered near Lynch’s home shortly after the accident. DeGeorge said police were unable to contact Lynch over the weekend, and even attempted to reach him through the Bills.” and “DeGeorge said police were not allowed to approach Lynch at practice because he has invoked his right to representation by an attorney.”
The fact that the SUV was found at his house “shortly” after the incident is not good. Suggestions that Lynch wasn’t in the vehicle are beginning to strain credulity. Why would someone drive the SUV to Lynch’s house after hitting a pedestrian if Lynch wasn’t in the car? Assuming Lynch was in the vehicle he either hid in the basement or took off with a friend after driving home. Either suggests that he had something to hide.
by Ron From NM on Jun 3, 2008 7:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Great. Just great.
Chris Brown on buffalobills.com notes that the cops are going to speak to Lynch’s lawyer and that no charges have been filed. He then lists a time (1:20 p.m.) as though he expects his story to be outdated sometime this afternoon.
by Ron From NM on Jun 3, 2008 7:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Insensitive monster or innocent man?
I noticed something on the video of today’s practice that I had overlooked before. Lynch’s teammates described him as being his usual self.
I want to believe that this is due to Lynch knowing that he’s got nothing to worry about and all of this will go away when the facts are known. Man, wouldn’t that be sweet after all of this hand wringing? It doesn’t seem very plausible but maybe his lawyer just has a tin ear for PR issues.
If, on the other hand, Lynch was in some way involved and this goes to trial his teammates’ comments could come back to haunt him. “The defendant, just days after callously running down a woman, showed no remorse or sorrow for his indefensible actions and instead was his usual self at work….”
by Ron From NM on Jun 3, 2008 7:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Suspension
4 days if driving and none if not.
He is a first time offender and will not be persecuted to the fullest by the league.
Legally, if the woman is not seriously injured, is this than what Hargrove did, and Hargrove had prior problems.
The Bills can win every game
by killascript on Jun 4, 2008 12:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
My Comments
First, I am a lawyer but not a trial lawyer for those running jokes and these are some of my thoughts. Circumstantial evidence points to Lynch in the car but that will be tough to prove. Apparently witness’s have him on Chipewa; and the car went to his house. If they can prove he was on Chippewa then they will try to find witness’s (people who he was with at the end of the night) to see if he made any comments about leaving and going home. A question I have is does the tapes show how many people were in the car? It might not be hard to gather enough evidence to put Lynch in the car, yet may be hard without a statement to determine he was the driver (unless the tapes indicate otherwise). One point to make is Lynch does not have to make any statement now, yet will be forced to later.
In regards to NFL suspension, the NFL has set rules and procedures which allows them to penalize for actions that are not penalized by law. It is a tough and odd line the NFL is drawing as it seems they have the discretion to basically be above the law. However, it is the NFL’s view that it is a priviledge to play in the NFL and therefore they can control the penalties even when no civil or criminal charges are filed.
Can Lynch get in trouble if he was not the driver & was in the car? Yes.
Will it be as bad as if he was the driver? Of course not.
However, If Lynch was in the car he has a moral obligation to not help facility the crime (here a hit and run).
Sorry if thoughts crossed over as I was typing fast and am not re-reading it.
by Berg79 on Jun 4, 2008 10:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Correct me if I am wrong, but
someone was driving the car. If they can put Lynch in the car, then all you have to do is charge everyone who you think was in the car and wait to see who gets nervous and rolls over.
by Joe P. on Jun 4, 2008 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Driving or not
If Lynch was in the car and the car hit someone Lynch (and everyone else in the car) had an obligation to stop and render aid. They didn’t do that. Okay, let’s assume Lynch wasn’t the driver. After hitting the woman and driving on wouldn’t Lynch be obligated to report what had happened? I think Berg is right in that everyone in the vehicle will get into trouble with the driver getting into a deeper hole than everyone else.
by Ron From NM on Jun 4, 2008 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends
There is an accomplice element at stake for sure of hiding the hit & run by any passenger. However, they have to figure out who was in the car besides Lynch (if anyone even was); maybe Lynch was driving home alone. Maybe he had his boys in the car; maybe a girlfriend. Point is, if no one comes forward and the survellance has nothing then all they would have is Lynch’s statement or non-statement as the owner of the vehicle. Theoretically, Lynch could be the only one in the car, have done this on his own and therefore can stay quiet to avoid incriminating one’s self (5th amendment). Based on the rules of evidence neither a jury nor judge can not use Lynch’s silence against him. I did not account for Lynch being the only one in the car when I wrote he will be forced to make a statement in the above post.
The kicker to all of this is the NFL can hold Lynch’s silence against him. This is why I dont agree with the NFL arbitrary punishment guidlines; yet that is a conversation for another day.
by Berg79 on Jun 4, 2008 11:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If witness can put Lynch
downtown, then how did he get home? If he wasn’t in the car, we would have heard about it already.
by Joe P. on Jun 4, 2008 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One more thing
There is a big difference between a civil suit and criminal suit. What I dont know is if being an accomplice to a hit & run is criminal. I believe it is, but I am not positive. Also 5th Amendment protects you from criminal liability not civil.
And the NFL says a first time offender cannot be suspended absent sustantail physical injury. I would argue getting hit by a car and ending up in a hospital would suffice as substantial physical inj.
by Berg79 on Jun 4, 2008 11:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Lynch Mob
What if Lynch was in the backseat, either sleeping or passed out – and one of his friends was driving. Lynch wouldn’t have seen the accident so he wouldn’t be responsible for fleeing the crime scene. If I was Lynch that’s how I’d be playing it (and paying it). The league can’t suspend him for that story.
Maybe he’s not talking until his boys rehearse their lines perfectly – don’t want to mess up in front of the police!
by Benaconda on Jun 4, 2008 11:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thought of That
I actually have thought of that story. Again, depends on the survellance tapes. That is the best story I could come up with. He can even say he was drunk and passed out which is why he didn’t wake up when they hit the young lady. For all practicality there is little dispute that Lynch was in the car, your story is probably the best one.
The league may (while unlikely) still suspend him as he was involved in a situation that led to substantialy physical inj. However, the league would really be pushing its limits on that.
One of the biggest indicators is when will the police or will the police figure out who else was in the car.
by Berg79 on Jun 4, 2008 11:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Great story
Lynch better have some “honest” friends.
by Joe P. on Jun 4, 2008 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
























