That depends. Are you done trying to tease this and basically trying to come as a guy trying to nitpick?
Originally Posted by Sarcasman
No because not saying he's an innocent bystander means you're saying he's a murderer or an accomplice. If you're seriously trying to be "technical" about it by saying oh technically he wasn't an innocent bystander cause of the lesser charge then we're done here cause then you're just trying to nitpick the whole thing. You say he didn't do it but then bring up all this other stuff about it. I'm sorry if he wasn't an angel.
I should also mention that the limo had 11 other passengers. Not to mention the limo driver was watching Lewis the whole time and never saw him even hit anyone let alone commit double murder. Gun shots were fired AT the limo. I'm not surprised the limo had blood. So if he did it then who the hell was shooting at him?
If the guy isn't an innocent bystander then he's a guilty bystander. Yet you say he didn't do it. Coming off as a guy whose saying he didn't do it but then constantly teasing it as if he did do it is way more annoying then anything I said cause it comes as trying to flame something. We're not talking about whether or not he's an innocent bystander for something irelevant like a lesser charge. We're talking about whether he did or not. You know what's more annoying? Trying to figure out why a guy keeps bringing up "innocent bystander" then realizing he's not talking about the actual point of this and trying to change the subject from "did he do it?" to "is he an angel?"
Was it really that hard to finally say "I don't think he did" instead of using this innocent bystander jargon?
If you don't think he did it then why are you coming off as if he did? And race being mentioned is a big deal seeing as Lewis has been working in humanitarian groups and charity and yet people still talk about this. Point is if Drew Brees or tebow were in the same situation as Lewis there would by less hate and you know that.
its not like Lewis has given off that "thug" vibe, i couldn't imagine him having any other part in that stabbing aside from being in the same area. he's crazy, but he doesn't seem like the type that would go ahead and murder someone in such a way. and for what, what would have been the motive?
he will always go down as the defensive player with the single best defensive performance in the super bowl. son of a ***** was everywhere, getting his hands on the ball all the time. it was unreal. tackles for losses, passes defensed, tips, everything. ridiculous performance
Originally Posted by NYG 5
I recomend watching "a football life ray lewis". The whole "crazy" thing is an act.
well yeah, i meant he's crazy as in football crazy, not like OJ simpson crazy
Originally Posted by GentleGiant
Originally Posted by GentleGiant
I'm neither teasing it nor nitpicking.
I initially reacted to this stupid and indefensible statement: "Next time you hear gunshots nearby, I'll be sure to report you for shooting someone as soon as possible. Especially if you're famous." because that's exactly what it is.
So, I'm sorry you don't like the followup conversation. It could have been easily avoided had you simply acknowledged immediately that that statement was completely incorrect and that while Lewis almost certainly didn't stab anyone himself, he was absolutely involved and that he learned something important early in his career and then decided to change his life. That would have been correct, defensible and all good. But you didn't; instead you decided to try to attempt to argue it and when that failed, you then complained that the argument is splitting hairs.
So if you're unhappy about what you call "what's more annoying", blame yourself because it's a door you opened. I didn't.
To answer your question, yes, I could have quickly and easily said that I do not believe he did the actual stabbing. But again, that's a far cry from not being involved at all and miles away from what you initially claimed. Those are facts, not message board blather.
If all you ever intended to talk about was whether he did the actual stabbing, then you should limit your comments to that specifically, more than that and it begins to get messy as you can now see. Because there's your perspective and then there's the legal perspective and from a legal perspective he was absolutely and completely criminally involved. That much is of record. And you clearly have no interest in either understanding or acknowledging how the law works with regard to that. Or you think it's not important or nitpicking. That's fine, I have no desire to argue the details of the law with you about whether he was an accomplice or an accessory, that was for the courts to decide and they did.
Your last hypothetical may have some validity from a social point of view but it's irrelevant to me since you're discussing it from a media and fan perspective. Because this specific situation is a matter of black and white letter of law, I have no desire to speculate what the public, social media or any other demographic might think about it. I'd view it exactly the same because Brees or Tebow's hypothetical culpability would be exactly the same.