What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Briggs charged with misdemeanor (1 Viewer)

jeter23

Footballguy
Lance Briggs has been charged with misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident after his Lamborghini was found along the highway late Sunday.

He posted $100 bond and was given an October 4 court date. Briggs admitted he was driving the car when it crashed. No one was hurt as a result.

 
I think it is reasonable to assume he was drinking and driving. Right?

ETA, just my opinion based on what we know so far.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it is reasonable to assume he was drinking and driving. Right?

ETA, just my opinion based on what we know so far.
You'll get the same jokers coming out of the woodwork that defended Vick, Johnson, Jones, etc. on the innocent-until-proven-guilty angle. But, the only reasonable explanation is he feared he'd blow > .08.
 
Pro sports has become a freakin circus. Some new clown act every day. These guys think that the world is their little game room and that society's rules don't apply to them.

Ok...rant over. Everyone go back to their trite little worlds....

 
You'd think that a guy who can afford a $350,000 car, could afford $50 on cab fare.

I guess like many, he wasn't drafted for his brains.

 
I think it is reasonable to assume he was drinking and driving. Right?ETA, just my opinion based on what we know so far.
Doesn't matter, though, since DUI tests aren't required for non-injury accidents in that state. It's only a misdemeanor and it can't get worse, unless they find a body in the trunk he's pretty much clear of anything.
 
I think it is reasonable to assume he was drinking and driving. Right?

ETA, just my opinion based on what we know so far.
You'll get the same jokers coming out of the woodwork that defended Vick, Johnson, Jones, etc. on the innocent-until-proven-guilty angle. But, the only reasonable explanation is he feared he'd blow > .08.
This case is completely different from your Vick,Jones comparisons , we have no evidence from any source as to what happened at the accident except what Briggs says. You cannot assume Brigs was DUI because of this. He has no prior history, this is an isolated incident. So many of us automatically assume with Pro athletes but if there is no track record of trouble than that player has to be given the benefit of a doubt at least once

Local TV, Radio says that Lance called the Cops himself to report the accident shortly thereafter, Brigs has recently bought this car so its not unreasonable to say that he was testing it out and lost control of it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0...i-sportstop-hed

 
I think it is reasonable to assume he was drinking and driving. Right?

ETA, just my opinion based on what we know so far.
You'll get the same jokers coming out of the woodwork that defended Vick, Johnson, Jones, etc. on the innocent-until-proven-guilty angle. But, the only reasonable explanation is he feared he'd blow > .08.
I guess if Lovie Smith is one of those jokers you're right. He really teared into someone today who mentioned drinking and driving.
 
I think it is reasonable to assume he was drinking and driving. Right?

ETA, just my opinion based on what we know so far.
You'll get the same jokers coming out of the woodwork that defended Vick, Johnson, Jones, etc. on the innocent-until-proven-guilty angle. But, the only reasonable explanation is he feared he'd blow > .08.
This case is completely different from your Vick,Jones comparisons , we have no evidence from any source as to what happened at the accident except what Briggs says. You cannot assume Brigs was DUI because of this. He has no prior history, this is an isolated incident. So many of us automatically assume with Pro athletes but if there is no track record of trouble than that player has to be given the benefit of a doubt at least once

Local TV, Radio says that Lance called the Cops himself to report the accident shortly thereafter, Brigs has recently bought this car so its not unreasonable to say that he was testing it out and lost control of it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0...i-sportstop-hed
Not sure about the "benefit of the doubt." It has nothing to do with being a pro athlete. If a sports car of mine ends up wrecked at 3:00 a.m., I'll guarantee that I was drunk.
 
I think it is reasonable to assume he was drinking and driving. Right?

ETA, just my opinion based on what we know so far.
You'll get the same jokers coming out of the woodwork that defended Vick, Johnson, Jones, etc. on the innocent-until-proven-guilty angle. But, the only reasonable explanation is he feared he'd blow > .08.
I guess if Lovie Smith is one of those jokers you're right. He really teared into someone today who mentioned drinking and driving.
Did it maded them cry when he teared into them?
 
I think it is reasonable to assume he was drinking and driving. Right?

ETA, just my opinion based on what we know so far.
You'll get the same jokers coming out of the woodwork that defended Vick, Johnson, Jones, etc. on the innocent-until-proven-guilty angle. But, the only reasonable explanation is he feared he'd blow > .08.
I guess if Lovie Smith is one of those jokers you're right. He really teared into someone today who mentioned drinking and driving.
He might have one or two reasons to come to the defense of the guy. Any objective observer who has an IQ north of 70 would be reasonable in suspecting alcohol was involved.
 
I think it is reasonable to assume he was drinking and driving. Right?

ETA, just my opinion based on what we know so far.
You'll get the same jokers coming out of the woodwork that defended Vick, Johnson, Jones, etc. on the innocent-until-proven-guilty angle. But, the only reasonable explanation is he feared he'd blow > .08.
This case is completely different from your Vick,Jones comparisons , we have no evidence from any source as to what happened at the accident except what Briggs says. You cannot assume Brigs was DUI because of this. He has no prior history, this is an isolated incident. So many of us automatically assume with Pro athletes but if there is no track record of trouble than that player has to be given the benefit of a doubt at least once

Local TV, Radio says that Lance called the Cops himself to report the accident shortly thereafter, Brigs has recently bought this car so its not unreasonable to say that he was testing it out and lost control of it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0...i-sportstop-hed
:blackdot:
 
I think it is reasonable to assume he was drinking and driving. Right?

ETA, just my opinion based on what we know so far.
You'll get the same jokers coming out of the woodwork that defended Vick, Johnson, Jones, etc. on the innocent-until-proven-guilty angle. But, the only reasonable explanation is he feared he'd blow > .08.
This case is completely different from your Vick,Jones comparisons , we have no evidence from any source as to what happened at the accident except what Briggs says. You cannot assume Brigs was DUI because of this. He has no prior history, this is an isolated incident. So many of us automatically assume with Pro athletes but if there is no track record of trouble than that player has to be given the benefit of a doubt at least once

Local TV, Radio says that Lance called the Cops himself to report the accident shortly thereafter, Brigs has recently bought this car so its not unreasonable to say that he was testing it out and lost control of it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0...i-sportstop-hed
Not sure about the "benefit of the doubt." It has nothing to do with being a pro athlete. If a sports car of mine ends up wrecked at 3:00 a.m., I'll guarantee that I was drunk.
While it wouldn't surprise me if alcohol was involoved, it's not a reach to suggest that a 640 HP Lamborghini might have just been too much car for Briggs.
 
If your sober theres no reason to not call a tow truck and/or a cab to scoop you up.

I could so picture him running through some brush drunk, thinking about what this could do to his contract status.

.......What about this conspiracy theory. The cop came to his aid, saw it was Briggs and got him out of there so he could help the Bears win the bowl this year.

 
My first thought when I saw this story...what a bonehead, leaving your lamborghini on the side of the road after getting in an accident. Uh, it wasn't my car officer.... The only story that I can think of that makes sense is that he was drinking, otherwise he would have just got his car towed and there wouldn't have been a story.

 
mbuehner said:
There's a big different between suspicion and assumption.
I suspect he was drunkI assume he was drunk:2cents:
Of course! To think otherwise is as crazy as, say, believing a woman would lie about being raped by 3 spoiled rich lacrosse hulligans. You're building a mighty big assumption on pure circumstance. You could very well be right. Then again maybe he was sober and he hit his head and wandered off in a daze. Or he had a girlfriend with him he needed to broom. Or he's a secret transvestite. Or a million other improbable but entirely possible explanations. You see, this is why we have trials instead of mobs- because the unlikely does happen. After all the odds of your grandparents ever meeting were infintesimal. By your logic I should assume you dont exist.
 
mbuehner said:
There's a big different between suspicion and assumption.
I suspect he was drunkI assume he was drunk:unsure:
Of course! To think otherwise is as crazy as, say, believing a woman would lie about being raped by 3 spoiled rich lacrosse hulligans. You're building a mighty big assumption on pure circumstance. You could very well be right. Then again maybe he was sober and he hit his head and wandered off in a daze. Or he had a girlfriend with him he needed to broom. Or he's a secret transvestite. Or a million other improbable but entirely possible explanations. You see, this is why we have trials instead of mobs- because the unlikely does happen. After all the odds of your grandparents ever meeting were infintesimal. By your logic I should assume you dont exist.
Occam's Razor is your friend.He can have his day in court and offer one of these crazy explanations. Until that time, the most likely and plausible explanation is that he was blitzed and abandoned his 350k vehicle to go sober up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hakim's Razor is your friend.
Did you mean Occams Razor by any chance? There is irony here.
He can have his day in court and offer one of these crazy explanations. Until that time, the most likely and plausible explanation is that he was blitzed and abandoned his 350k vehicle to go sober up.
Thats one plausible explanation amongst many. Perhaps the most likely, but only one is the truth.
 
Recent Local TV (ABC local 7 news) have reported he was spotted at two upscale Bar and Restaurants that day, I forget the name and couldn't find a link but this certainly validates peoples theories of drunk driving and leaving after crash, Anyways he probably got away with a big Roger Goodell fine and suspension, whew Briggs is smarter than i thought...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
gianmarco said:
How do you think he got home after he fled the scene?
He was still in the city. He had to walk (stumble) about half a mile to the Peterson ramp and was at a major intersection. At that time of the morning, it wouldn't have taken long for a friend to get there and pick him up. Tank Johnson probably wasn't busy and would have been a straight shot down 94. Otherwise, he could have taken bus to the El, grabbed a cab, or found somewhere for a cup of coffee to get his #### together.Considering the explanation and timing of events so far (the reports are the police contacted him about the vehicle this morning, as opposed to him reporting it) the only plausible explanation seems to be he had something/someone in him/on him that he didn't want police, tow truck driver, IDOT worker, etc to find out about. Assuming that was the case, with no witnesses (yet), all in all, a smart move. Misdeamor that will draw no penalty from the Bears or NFL seems to be a better result for him than dealing with whatever made him run.
 
I'm a Chicago guy here - not too long ago we had a cop beating a female bartender (I'm sure some of you saw the video). I'd venture to say that he was escorted home by Chicago's finest (as someone else mentioned) - it's not like honesty is part of the job description.

 
mbuehner said:
There's a big different between suspicion and assumption.
I suspect he was drunkI assume he was drunk:shrug:
Of course! To think otherwise is as crazy as, say, believing a woman would lie about being raped by 3 spoiled rich lacrosse hulligans. You're building a mighty big assumption on pure circumstance. You could very well be right. Then again maybe he was sober and he hit his head and wandered off in a daze. Or he had a girlfriend with him he needed to broom. Or he's a secret transvestite. Or a million other improbable but entirely possible explanations. You see, this is why we have trials instead of mobs- because the unlikely does happen. After all the odds of your grandparents ever meeting were infintesimal. By your logic I should assume you dont exist.
Quite honestly, that was one of the best posts I have ever read in the four plus years that I have been frequenting this forum. Very :goodposting:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top