Another fine prospect

[net]

Cal's Marshawn Lynch Won't Face Charges

By MARCUS WOHLSEN, The Associated Press
Jan 29, 2007 4:51 PM (17 days ago)
Current rank: Not ranked

OAKLAND, Calif. - Charges won't be filed against former California football star Marshawn Lynch despite an Oakland woman's accusations that he choked, slapped and sexually assaulted her, prosecutors said Monday.


An Alameda County Superior Court judge granted a restraining order Friday to the woman, who described herself in court documents as Lynch's ex-girlfriend. Lynch wasn't at the hearing.

The 20-year-old Lynch has left Cal to enter the upcoming NFL draft, where he is expected to be selected in the first round.

But prosecutors said a lack of evidence - including no visible injuries or photographs of injuries, a witness' statement contradicting the accuser and inconsistencies in the woman's own story - meant the case couldn't go forward.

"We have an ethical obligation that we have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don't think we can," senior deputy district attorney Kim Hunter said.

The Pac-10 Offensive Player of the Year allegedly assaulted the 20-year-old woman on Dec. 13 outside her mother's house in Oakland, according to a civil complaint she filed six days later.

 

[Tiger]

this is has been posted in draft forum about two weeks ago, lock plz.

 

[Bruce]

why lock it? Look at the high number of Moss threads.

This is a guy many think will be available when the Packers pick. This is a legit topic for discussion

 

[Krazygangsta]

why lock it? Look at the high number of Moss threads.

This is a guy many think will be available when the Packers pick. This is a legit topic for discussion

Old News...

 

[Tiger]

lol dude cos i posted the exact article on the day it was published in the draft forum... :-p

 

[warhawk]

I appears to me that the statement that went along with the dropped charges pretty much shows the accuser having nothing.

I, for one, am not about to judge a guy for something that was dropped when the statement basically says NOTHING they have indicates he did anything. Nada.

The guy looks like a gangster. I'm surprised that hasn't been brought up. Of course he could be spending his weekends at hospitals with cancer kids for all we know.

If you have no more than this you know nothing so based on this report you have nothing to say good or bad about this guy. Do you?

 

[net]

I posted this again(I know it's been discussed) as a reminder to factor this in when deciding which player you want the Packers to draft.

Some individuals will gloss this over.

Note: just because someone isn't charged doesn't mean they're innocent. What it means is prosecutors don't have enough evidence to win in court.
The fact the judge issued the restraining order proves something negative is a possibility.

 

[Zero2Cool]

Note: just because someone isn't charged doesn't mean they're innocent. What it means is prosecutors don't have enough evidence to win in court.
The fact the judge issued the restraining order proves something negative is a possibility.

Just because they accused does not mean they are guilty.

Do you know what it takes to have a restraining order placed? Not a whole lot. $50 bucks and one person fabricating things and if the person who the restraining order is placed on does not wish to contest it, it goes through. If you contest it, the court sees you as a threat to the person placing the restraining order.

I'm not gonna get into my personal life here, but I know for a fact a restraining doesn't mean squat.

 

[porky88]

I posted this again(I know it's been discussed) as a reminder to factor this in when deciding which player you want the Packers to draft.

Some individuals will gloss this over.

Note: just because someone isn't charged doesn't mean they're innocent. What it means is prosecutors don't have enough evidence to win in court.
The fact the judge issued the restraining order proves something negative is a possibility.

So are you implying we shouldn't take him with he 16th pick because of the possibility that this happen.

If the Packers pass on Lynch I hope it’s for football reasons not something like this.

 

[cheesey]

Did he do it? I don't know. Maybe this was just a scorned woman that was trying to get him cause she was mad. I really don't know either way.
We won't ever know if he was guilty of something or not.
Najeh Davenport pooped in a womans laundry basket (supposedly). Did he? I don't know. But i DID get a laugh out of that one!
"****** Davenport!"
People said not to go after him because of that, and Davenport kept his butt clean (pun intended) while he was here.

 

[net]

I posted this again(I know it's been discussed) as a reminder to factor this in when deciding which player you want the Packers to draft.

Some individuals will gloss this over.

Note: just because someone isn't charged doesn't mean they're innocent. What it means is prosecutors don't have enough evidence to win in court.
The fact the judge issued the restraining order proves something negative is a possibility.

So are you implying we shouldn't take him with he 16th pick because of the possibility that this happen.

If the Packers pass on Lynch I hope it’s for football reasons not something like this.

As Vince Lombardi pointed out...character does matter. Or do we want the Cincinnati Bengals North?

 

[net]

Note: just because someone isn't charged doesn't mean they're innocent. What it means is prosecutors don't have enough evidence to win in court.
The fact the judge issued the restraining order proves something negative is a possibility.

Just because they accused does not mean they are guilty.

Do you know what it takes to have a restraining order placed? Not a whole lot. $50 bucks and one person fabricating things and if the person who the restraining order is placed on does not wish to contest it, it goes through. If you contest it, the court sees you as a threat to the person placing the restraining order.

I'm not gonna get into my personal life here, but I know for a fact a restraining doesn't mean squat.

Sorry, but the judge has to justify the restraining order with enough evidence to issue it. Failure to do so would also cost him or her.
Fabrication doesn't lend itself to long term job responsiblities if you sit on the bench(or the prosecutor's chair).

 

[tromadz]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Raider Pride]

I have dated a few women in my lifetime where it took me a while to figure out they were psycho.

I needed to learn that one must not date strippers.

It is up to the teams to decide on character, there will be a full investigation into this kid by draft day. If he is a bad character there will be a trail of bread crumbs. If this is an isolated incident, Big deal. If it is not an isolated incident then pass on him.

None of us here know him, his record, his childhood.

This is getting so crazy that one day I fully expect an agent of a number 3 ranked running back to hire a couple of women to falsely charge the other top two running back prospects of ****** misconduct 10 days before draft day.

Raider Pride

 

[cheesey]

I posted this again(I know it's been discussed) as a reminder to factor this in when deciding which player you want the Packers to draft.

Some individuals will gloss this over.

Note: just because someone isn't charged doesn't mean they're innocent. What it means is prosecutors don't have enough evidence to win in court.
The fact the judge issued the restraining order proves something negative is a possibility.

So are you implying we shouldn't take him with he 16th pick because of the possibility that this happen.

If the Packers pass on Lynch I hope it’s for football reasons not something like this.

As Vince Lombardi pointed out...character does matter. Or do we want the Cincinnati Bengals North?

The problem now adays is.......todays atheletes are waited on hand and foot, and make more money then god. These kids are used to getting what they want. There seems to be more bad characters then good ones. Back in Lombardi's day, the players had to get jobs in the off season just to make a living. They didn't make the multi millions that players get in ONE year now (and they STILL cry a million isn't enough!) They are spoiled brats, and it shows in the way they act up. (Not all of course, but alot more then there used to be) Plus, in the old days, word didn't get around when players acted up, unless it was something really bad. There wasn't the web to instantly carry whatever they do to the entire world, litterally in seconds. Paul Hornung was kicked out for gambling for a year. Him and Max McGee were big time party boys. But it didn't get around like it does now. Now there are people who make their living LOOKING for trouble they can "report" on.
Just crap in someone's closet and see who finds out if you are an athelete.

 

[Raider Pride]

How much money does God make?

 

[all about da packers]

As Vince Lombardi pointed out...character does matter. Or do we want the Cincinnati Bengals North?

Max McGee was a Packer under Vince Lombardi.

If I am not mistaken, McGee was a player that hit up strip clubs, f'ed girls like no tomorrow (he said he worked from 9-5, then 8-11 he'd have sex with girls), and was one to smoke right after games in the locker room. He stayed out past Lombardi's curfew the night before the first Superbowl, breaking curfew by about 6-7 hours. He spent that time drinking, having sex, and hitting up strip clubs.

Now Vince Lombardi specifically said (night before Superbowl 1) if anyone broke curfew, they'd be watching the entire game instead of playing in it. McGee broke curfew, but he sure as heck played in the game and played quite a bit too.

Vince knew that there are limits you must set on people that have character issues, but you can't go on to build an NFL team without some misfits.

Every team has its share of people who have acted out. You can't build a roster of 53 men that are saints.

 

[all about da packers]

Note: just because someone isn't charged doesn't mean they're innocent. What it means is prosecutors don't have enough evidence to win in court.

MY WORD! Ok first of all, basic fundamental right is innocent until proven guilty.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, there wasn't enough evidence to continue the case BECAUSE LYNCH DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG?

 

[cheesey]

As Vince Lombardi pointed out...character does matter. Or do we want the Cincinnati Bengals North?

Max McGee was a Packer under Vince Lombardi.

If I am not mistaken, McGee was a player that hit up strip clubs, f'ed girls like no tomorrow (he said he worked from 9-5, then 8-11 he'd have sex with girls), and was one to smoke right after games in the locker room. He stayed out past Lombardi's curfew the night before the first Superbowl, breaking curfew by about 6-7 hours. He spent that time drinking, having sex, and hitting up strip clubs.

Now Vince Lombardi specifically said (night before Superbowl 1) if anyone broke curfew, they'd be watching the entire game instead of playing in it. McGee broke curfew, but he sure as heck played in the game and played quite a bit too.

Vince knew that there are limits you must set on people that have character issues, but you can't go on to build an NFL team without some misfits.

Every team has its share of people who have acted out. You can't build a roster of 53 men that are saints.

According to what i heard, the better a player you were, the more Vince would kind of turn a blind eye to the perpatrator.

 

[cheesey]

How much money does God make?

LOL! You notice i used a LITTLE "G".......not meaning GOD himself!
By the way......he doesn't NEED money!!!!















(He has the "MASTER-MASTER Card"!!!) :thumbsup:

 

[Zero2Cool]

Note: just because someone isn't charged doesn't mean they're innocent. What it means is prosecutors don't have enough evidence to win in court.
The fact the judge issued the restraining order proves something negative is a possibility.

Just because they accused does not mean they are guilty.

Do you know what it takes to have a restraining order placed? Not a whole lot. $50 bucks and one person fabricating things and if the person who the restraining order is placed on does not wish to contest it, it goes through. If you contest it, the court sees you as a threat to the person placing the restraining order.

I'm not gonna get into my personal life here, but I know for a fact a restraining doesn't mean squat.

Sorry, but the judge has to justify the restraining order with enough evidence to issue it. Failure to do so would also cost him or her.
Fabrication doesn't lend itself to long term job responsiblities if you sit on the bench(or the prosecutor's chair).

I have the papers. Perhaps the 'jusitifciation' would be coming from me when I didn't contest the order as I hadn't spoken to the individual in over 3 months.

Just because you read or know the defintion doesn't mean thats how it always goes down. I'm a living freaking 'exception' to the damn court system. Oh, this you will find funny. I am paying MORE in child support than I take home. Yet, there's laws against it. Court system kicks my *** again. Let that be a lesson to anyone who doesn't play with a raincoat too!! :stupid:

The point is, a restraining order is irrelevent and if you or anyone wants to knock someone soley on that, eat bleach an die scumphucker.




disclaimer, woke up on wrong side of bed then cat pisseed in my cheerios