He needs to man up and accept what he did. Trying to lawyer his way out of it just makes it worse.
Braylon's Continued Descent
Don't most people who get a DUI hire an attorney and try to suppress the breathalizer and field sobriety tests? Why should he be any different?
Take responsibility for a serious offense that puts yourself and everyone around you in danger. Especially when a friend of yours that you were out with (Donte Stallworth) ended a man's life with the same offense. He has no excuse for getting a DUI in a city with probably 10 million cabs, especially when he has the means to hire a limo when he knows he's going out that night.
The title of the post is a little harsh though.
The thing is, he DOESN'T need to get a cab. Or a limo. One of the perks of being an NFL player is that you get a free ride from an NFL agent - any time, any place. You call their special hotline and someone comes and picks you up in an Escalade, no questions asked.
That being said, I'm a bartender in Columbus (YTC). He and Josh Cribbs had a private event at a bar I used to manage. He was very polite, tipped well, and learned the bartenders names. Aside from a couple of dumb things, I'm under the impression that most of this negative publicity is kind of a media smear campaign. Juxtapose that against Terrelle Pryor, who IS as big a douche as people say. Uglier in person too.
I agree with people needing to look at it as if they are in Braylon's shoes . . . everyone would fight it as hard as their money would let them. However, because Braylon is a high-profile figure, it just seems to look badly on him as a person that he's fighting to get off on a technicality. The law obviously gives him the right and ability to do so, and getting out of a conviction would be big, but everyone strongly suspects he's guilty. The court of public opinion has already rules and the damage is done.
I'm sorry, I thought in the past that you have represented yourself as an attorney. If the answer is yes, how in the world can you describe Edwards exercising his constitutional rights as a 'technicality'? I might expect that from lesser informed mgobloggers, but not from you.
I think Profit was speaking to the perception of what Braylon is doing, not what he is doing, which is exactly what most of us would do, I imagine. He is exercising his rights as he should, and indeed, someone already pointed out the common strategies, like trying to get the field sobriety tests tossed. I think those are the sorts of technicalities that were being referenced.
I agree with your assessment, since it seems Profit isn't here to reply. I think he's saying that Braylon is about to be a free agent, and him having to pull an OJ in order to escape conviction just doesn't sit well with people. I would take his "court of public opinion" remark at the end to tie in.
BTW: Yes, Profit is a lawyer.
The smart people get a cab and don't get one to begin with.
is one of the dumbest things one can do.
Making the government prove its case in court is not.
I don't want it to seem like that I'm arguing his rights under the law, I'm just saying he's an idiot in the first place for driving under the influence.
for driving drunk. If he's convicted I hope he gets thrown away for a while. Just don't mind forcing the State to prove that he did it first.
But how is your car suppose to get home?
I agree that driving while intoxicated is incredibly dumb. No excusses for it.
No direct offense meant here, but that has to be the dumbest thing I've heard all day. He's wrong for legally defending himself? Where are we, N Korea?
I will never hold it against anyone for exercising their Constitutional right to a day in court.
He's using his constitutional rights! What an asshole!
People like you make my skin crawl. No sugarcoat.
neg this comment.
This is the United States. Under the U.S. Justice system, he is innocent until proven guilty. Unless you were there and saw him stumbling drunk, you shouldn't be judging him.
So are you saying the judge of that court room can't judge him because he wasn't there? its a BS excuse to give him a pass. Sure he's a good player, I loved him at M, but he's a human like all the rest of us. You make a mistake, you pay the penalty. An no, I wouldn't fight it if I got a DUI. But then again, I don't consume enough alcohol in a year to even get a DUI if I drank it all in one night.
Biggest mistake of my life! Not only are there financial consequences, but guilt, failure amongst family/friends, time consuming in court/penalties, and I am finding it even harder to find a job in this economy.
Braylon deserves his day in court. As for attempting to suppress or throw out 0.16 breathalizer evidence administered by an officer of the peace, well, good luck with that one. There's no victory for Braylon in this one.
I live out in So Cal. Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart and two friends were killed instantly when a drunk driver blowing 3 times the legal limit killed them all instantly after blowing a red light at just 65 mph. Jon Wilhite, also in Adenhart's car, suffered an internal decapitation but survived. That means he was alive though his head was cutoff. He will live the rest of his days in agonizing pain. The DUI driver had been drinking got 51 years and every family member says the same thing: "There was a miscarriage of justice".
There are stories like this every f*&king weekend, just not happening to MLB and NFL stars.
So yeah, hire your attorney, protect yourself and try to get off. It's the USA and you have that right.
I'm just surprised to read how easy it is for some to cheer on Braylon's 14th amendment rights, when examples about of every day people who have their lives literally shredded to pieces because of these dumbass and inexcusable decisions.
In 2000, a good friend of mine (and fellow Michigan undergrad) was killed by a drunk driver while driving her little sister home from her first homecoming dance. This kind of stuff strikes a chord with me. It's disheartening that so many here are so quick to rationalize away someone being an asshole and driving drunk.
Braylon is rich and because he is rich he's got fancy lawyers who are trying to have the evidence of his crime dismissed. This is a scumbag thing to do. Man up and accept your actions.
He has good lawyers, and good lawyers do their job. Ever stop to think that this offier has had issues in the past with conducting a FST? Or that unit has provided incorrect tests in the past? or any number of issues that are possible.
He may not have been driving above the limit and you are the one that is too quick to rationalize actions that are yet to be proven in a court of law. This is America and everyone is entitled to their day in court.
*In no way to I condone the actions of drunk drivers and do not understand why NFL players do not use their ability to call the league car service at anytime to pick them up if they have been drinking.
Said even more succinctly:
Braylon is an immature ass for getting a DWI.
Braylon is doing nothing wrong, however, in hiring a lawyer to exercise his constitutional right to mount a defense and make the government sustain its burden of proof.
EDIT: Redacted my comment for sounding angier and shittier than I meant to be. Plus my opinion (i.e., Braylon is an ass for allegedly driving drunk, not for getting a competent lawyer) is echoed plenty elsewhere.
Your stupidity seriously astounds me and makes me sad. It's even worse that you are one of those people that think having a "fancy lawyer" somehow puts you above the law.
Lawyers are there to protect their clients' constitutional rights. Period. It's up to the jury or judge to decide the defendant's fate once all sides of the evidence are properly screened by the judge, brought forth and discussed. There are no cases in which a fancy lawyer will get you out of a crime you are guilty for - unless you truly think the system is corrupt and bribery is rampant - only bad lawyers that fail to spot or properly argue an issue or juries/judges that simply get shit wrong.
If your case is without merit than the only thing a "fancy lawyer" will bring is a more expensive bill to go along with your fine and/or jail sentence. A shitty lawyer can lose a meritorious case for his client, however. The fact that you resent BE for hiring a lawyer he is comfortable with to defend his rights is sickening. I'll stop short of calling you a Communist but you are certainly an ignorant dipshit.
Wow, dude, really? All right, whatever.
Anyway, on topic: This has nothing to do with trying to defend himself in court. This is about Braylon having a lawyer who is simultaneously trying to:
- Argue the legality of why Braylon was pulled over;
- Argue against the legitimacy of field sobriety and toxicology tests;
- If all else fails, accept a plea bargain.
Not a single one of those options is arguing that Braylon was not, in fact, driving drunk.
So what the hell is your point? No one on mgo is saying that drunk driving is good or that Edwards was not drunk driving at the time. Most of the people are saying that Edwards has rights, no matter what the reason for him being in court is.
Getting a DUI in NYC is just mind boggling. I mean they're bad anywhere but in NYC?
Come on, Braylon!
That is of course assuming that the facts in this case are as reported.
I'm all on board with the notion that drunk driving is stupid, wrong, etc. But cops make mistakes, prosecutors make mistakes, etc., and as several commenters have noted being accused doesn't make you guilty. It just makes you a defendant.
Also, any good lawyer would evaluate Braylon's case with a lot more information than we have on the case. So unless you've read the complete arrest file with toxicology reports, have seen the breathalyzer certification, and can vouch for the chain of evidence, maybe it's best to let the system (imperfect as it is) run its course.
Dui in any state requires you to go to court regardless and you have to bring representation, ie a lawyer......
2nd Donte Stallworth, yeah what happened was horrible, what happened took a mans life, but don't let facts get in the way of what happened. The person killed was also drunk and walked into the road where stallworth was driving and all accounts stated even if sober stallworth would not have been able to avoid the accident.....
Braylon, his lawyer is doing his job, that is what lawyers do... ie make sure police followed proceedure, make sure equipment is calibrated correctly for an accurate breathalizer...But lets see you write a check to a lawyer for a few hundred beans a hr and you tell them not to do anything cause you are going to man up.......
Is there anyone alive that hasnt gone to traffic court to get out of a ticket for something that they did?
I've gotten 3 traffic violations in my life, and have sent in the fine cost and paperwork next day on all 3. much less hassle.
I've gotten a couple of speeding tickets and honestly, both times I deserved it. I paid up.
Got a seatbelt ticket in MI when you had to be pulled over for another violation to be issued a seatbelt ticket. The officer was on alcohol and seatbelt duty and pulled me over for going 35 in a 25 and gave me a seatbelt ticket, but not a speeding ticket. I fought based on him pacing me to get the speed (he was in outside lane going around a corner and I was inside) and the fact that the speed limit sign where he clocked me had a posted speed of 35. I even took in a picture of the sign, but the Magistrate told me it didn't matter that I wasn't speeding because the officer thought I was which gave him a reason to pull me over.
On the bright side, that $60 ticket has gotten me out of jury duty. I'm pretty sure I'll never have to serve because I'm still bitter about the whole incident.
Lot of people arguing really hard that Braylon is perfectly in the right for trying to have the case against dismissed on technicalities. So, a question:
If it comes out in next few weeks that
- Braylon was indisputably drunk when he was driving;
- Braylon is not convicted because his lawyer succesfully argues that the tint on Braylon's windows were not dark enough to warrant being pulled over.
Then what? Are you fine with what Braylon did? Are you ok that he escaped any legal consequences?
I ask because the most vocal here have been arguing that he is doing nothing wrong in trying to avoid punishment, without really addressing the question of if he did anything wrong in the first place.
So basically are you asking if the board accepts the fact that the legal system isn't 100% fool-proof? Or are you particularly incensed by this case in particular?
Aside from the fact that it's Braylon, I really don't see how this particular case is all that different from countless other legal cases.
I wasn't asking anything at the start. I was declaring that Braylon needed to be a man and accept the consequences of his actions. Then a lot of people went apeshit about how unreasonable I am being about Braylon making use of the legal system.
So my question became: does this board not give a shit about what he is accused of doing? And would the board be cool with him if he technically was not convicted of anything, but was obviously guilty?
To answer your question: this particular case is different from countless other legal cases because the accused is a former Michigan great.
Look, I'm not going to argue for drunk driving, I think it's terrible.
But if the cop had no business pulling Braylon over in the first place, it's a slippery slope to find him guilty of something discovered because of it. To follow through all the way, a cop could conceivably break into homes or cars, and as long as he found something illegal all would be well. The fact that the cop needs to justify pulling him over is a good thing; it's a guard against civil liberties violations.
If this is the case, hopefully Braylon has learned his lesson without court mandated sanctions.
We CAN'T address the question of whether he did anything wrong in the first place - that's for the court to decide. Us discussing it is beyond pointless - we don't have personal knowledge of the situations, all the facts or (most of us, and especially you) a solid grasp of how the laws work. Your hypo is ridiculous and stupid. Something pretty much everyone can agree on is that if he's found guilty he deserves to be punished.
Your understanding of a technicality is pretty close to that of an 8 year old. Not sure that further elaboration will help. Regardless, the "technicality" would be that of an illegal search and seizure and a violation of constitutonal rights. In other words, regardless of whether truly guilty or not, you are GODDAMN RIGHT I'd want him to walk free if the stop was illegal. We are a nation of laws. No one is above the law, especially those charged with enforcing our laws. Cops need to follow the rules too. To argue otherwise is to endorse a police state, Communism, etc., whatever.
You are a kind of super genius. You went from an honest question based on the reality of what was being done in this case, to declarations of a commo-facist police state in fewer than 3 steps.
that a person accused of a crime hired a lawyer and is requesting a trial.
Your argument is invalid.
come on.... I have had tickets, some I did, some I didn't do. Ones I did I paid the fine, took the class, ones I didn't I stated my case... Been pulled over for speeding and told I was going far faster then I was by the officer..... It happens to everyone....
Honestly, this board is one step away from a Sparty hangout. There's some reasonable counter-arguments, but they're drowned out by the name calling. Really? That's the best you guys got?
Reality is Braylon's got a lawyer whose trying to dismiss the DUI charge by arguing, amongst other things, against the reliability of field sobriety and toxicological tests. This is what people here are so eager to defend? Really?
Do any of you really believe these are the kinds of lessons Bo or Lloyd taught? That if you're caught doing something wrong, to try to weasel out of responsibility for it? Come the f on, guys. Would any of you be acting the same way if this wasn't a "hero"?
If a wife beating child molester got a DUI, I would have the exact same reaction. I don't know if people are given the option of a public defender for a DUI, but I would expect even a third year law student, operating on a 711 license (student law license) for the public defender's office or some other legal clinic to use the exact same strategy. You try to throw out the traffic stop, you try to discredit the breathalizer, you try to discredit the field sobriety tests.
Maybe you don't have any experience with the legal system, in which case consider yourself lucky, but that's the way it works. Everyone is entitled to a defense, no matter the crime.
Anyone charged with a crime (other than a summary offense, I believe, which a DUI is not) is entitled to a court-appointed attorney, just FYI.
Thanks, I couldn't remember where the line was drawn.
I didn't realize that Bo and Lloyd were lawyers.
My sister is a defense attorney. She defends accused rapists, drug traffickers, etc. This is what lawyers do for their clients. They try to get the evidence thrown out. It's the way the justice system works.
You're asking, "What if it comes to light that Braylon was obviously drunk, but he gets out of it on a technicality?" My opinion of Braylon will be lowered, but my opinion of the justice system will not. If it's an illegal search, it's an illegal search. You don't get to convict people with that stuff. However, if it's revealed that it WAS an illegal search, but Edwards gets convicted anyway, that is a shitstorm, and a brutal miscarriage of justice.
This is exactly what the courts are for. I'd be saying it this if it was Braylon, or if it was Charles Manson. You don't get to mess with people's rights just because you don't like the fact that they may have done the things they are being accused of.
Invoking Bo and Lloyd is completely irrelevant, here. If he's convicted, he'll take responsibility for it. If he's not, it legally didn't happen, and the only thing left is public opinion, which Profitgoblue alluded to earlier.
I refuse to criticize a guy who wants his case heard in full. It's not weaseling out of punishment. It's called "due process." You're entitled to it.
Also, calling this a Sparty hangout? Who's name-calling now?
You realize there's another option, right? One beyond hiring a lawyer to publically call into question the police's methods while also hinting you'd settle for a plea bargain? It's called pleading guilty.
Every single person that has argued what Braylon is doing is fine is taking it from the angle of "this is his legal right". Absolutely it's his right - no one can dispute that because the fact he's even trying it proves it's indisputable.
And all of that is separate from a discussion of the quality of Braylon's character. There is abso-fucking-lutely nothing brave or noble or high minded about committing a crime and trying to not be convicted for it. That makes you a survivalist, but it does not make you a role model. Maybe every one of us would do the same (although that presupposes we all have money for the kind of legal team Braylon has), but that doesn't make us good people.
Braylon trying to dodge responsibility for his actions is a scumbag, childish maneuver. And what's sad is that "childish behavior" is becoming a pattern for the guy, be it publically interjecting himself into Michigan's coaching situation by telling the world he went to "Lloyd Carr's University of Michigan" or taunting opposing players as a Jet.
But hey negbang me to hell for voicing a dissenting opinion, while throwing pejoratives along the way. When you're done though explain to me how this isn't what we'd expect of Sparty.
Pleading guilty to the DUI would be almost as dumb as drinking and driving in the first place.
Are you seriously telling me that if for some reason you made a really dumb mistake one night, drove drunk, and got a DUI, you wouldn't fight the charge to keep yourself out of jail?
Pleading guilty would be insane.
Yes, I would plead guilty. But then again I'm a man, and not a spoiled, entitled child.
You may be a man, but you'd be a very stupid, stubborn man.
Wife, is that you?
And if it turns out he didn't have a drink and all of the cops instruments were not working correctly, you look like a complete fucking idiot. See, it works both ways. Instead of Edwards looking like a childish foolish immature idiot, you look like somone who not only rushes to judgement but also doesn't care about a person's constitutional rights and believes someone is guilty until proven innocent. The only thing different in this case is that most on this board understand the law. You don't.
It takes a special kind of suspension of disbelief to argue that an entire police department is crooked, and that both field sobriety and toxicological tests are wrong. Oh, and also that his lawyer is incompetent by signalling he'll accept a plea bargain.
But yeah, you're right. It doesn't sound likely that Braylon was driving drunk at all.
I'm not going to throw insults, because frankly, it's not worth it.
Just suffice it to say that you have a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the criminal justice system. You are also blind to the fact that the standard you're holding Braylon Edwards to is a standard that every single defense attorney in the country would advise you against.
Edwards' concern should NOT be his status as a role model. It should be what every other person accused of DUI's focus should be - damage control.
What you are suggesting is inhuman and uninformed, and if your family heard you say what you just said they'd call it a lot worse.
As for the discussion of State: Braylon Edwards is not a college athlete. He no longer participates as a football player for Michigan. He is a well-paid professional, and his eligibility at a college program is not affected. If Michigan had him suit up for the opener, we'd be having a different conversation.