William "Bar Gun" Floyd

--William Floyd

"[T]he law was broken in this case."

--Deputy District Attorney Timothy McInerny

Perhaps someone should sit Floyd down and explain to him what it means to be "innocent" -- that is, if they can get him to stop referring to himself in the third person as Bar None and talking nonsensical for a second or two. Since nobody else is offering, we at NHS will explain why Floyd doesn't meet his own label of being an "innocent" man.

First off, Floyd was found guilty of carrying a concealed, loaded weapon in his car and sentenced to two years probation, community service, and a 10-day suspended jail sentence.

His explanation is that he didn't know it was a crime to tote a gun around in your car in California. He comes from Florida, where carrying a gun is legal, but poor Floyd wasn't aware of the law here in backwards California. "It was a technical violation." claimed Floyd's lawyer.

Judge Jerome Block had a different take: "It scares the hell out of me," said the Judge, referring to the fact that Floyd was packing while drinking.

But you have to understand 49er arrogance to understand why Floyd still maintains his innocence. First and foremost, there's the law of William Floyd, and then, in a distant second, comes that little thing known as the California Criminal Code. In his mind, the rules of California are just technicalities. Kind of reminds you of the mental process when the 49ers look at NFL by-laws and consider them just technicalities.

Aside from being found guilty for the concealed weapon, Floyd was acquitted on the driving under the influence charge because of "reasonable doubt." Does this mean Floyd was innocent on that night in October? You decide: police pulled him over, found a .375 liter bottle of cognac in his car that was 1/4 empty. Floyd failed 5 roadside sobriety tests, was taken to the police station, and there, upwards to an hour and a half after he was initially driving around on the streets, tested once on a Breathalyzer at .07 and another time at .09 BAC. Over two hours from the time of arrest, a urine sample put the blood-alcohol level at .07. The legal limit in California is .08 BAC.

The jury felt that the above amounted to "reasonable doubt." In other words, Floyd wasn't found "innocent", he was found "not guilty" because the prosecution couldn't reach their burden of proof. The jury couldn't determine if the .07 or the .09 was the right result. Of course, helping the jury find in Floyd's favor was a touch of O.J.-itis -- that is, here's Floyd, a local sports player right in front of their eyes, and not just a player for any team, but the lovable 49ers, and would a classy 49er drive drunk?

Once again, we can relate this concept to the larger picture. Upon hearing the verdict, Floyd called KNBR minutes after to, in essence, brag that he won. The fact that Floyd thinks he's a winner because the jury found he was .07 BAC -- that's .01 shy of the legal limit -- is demonstrative of the sickness of the "it wins, doesn't it?" mentality of the 49ers. The 49ers are always quick to expose a loophole and brag when it brings them victory, but they never stop to examine the moral side.

Maybe, perhaps once, it would have been nice to hear Floyd say, "I shouldn't drink and drive." But no. All he said was, in essence, that the verdict made him "innocent." No concept of what is right. Just like to this day, 49er fans brag about their 5th Super Bowl victory after bringing in Deion Sanders under less than honorable circumstances. But still, 49er fans don't admit buying a Super Bowl isn't the right way to win, they simply pass it off by saying "it wasn't illegal."

So, William, if you've been listening, there lies the difference. There's a big gap between being an "innocent man" and a man found not guilty by a jury. But, never fear, as long as William Floyd thinks Bar None is innocent, all is right in his little world.

Media coverage meets expectations

Naturally, there's always another willing party ready to believe in the 49er facade: our friends in the local media. Floyd was found guilty on one of two charges, so what does the San Jose Mercury headline read?: "49ers' Floyd acquitted on drunken-driving charge."

Yep, if you were to simply glance at the article, you'd think that the jury stood up and declared Floyd innocent of everything

The San Jose Mercury, led by beat writer Clark Judge, prides themselves on being on top of every 49er story, from Steve Young's hangnail to Jerry Rice losing an eyelash. Yet from October, 1996, to June 18th, 1997, almost 8 months, not one word was printed about Floyd's drunken driving charge and court date. They waited until the verdict came in -- perhaps the rationale being that the fact that Floyd was being dragged into court to face a trial wasn't newsworthy. Maybe they were too busy ripping on the reputations of Michael Irvin and Marv Albert, even though those verdicts have yet to come (and in the case of Irvin, proved false, despite the media slander campaign).

It must be nice being a 49er. Most other players fear being tried in the media. But in the Bay Area media, a 49er is innocent until proven guilty -- then they are still innocent.

Innocence in the Eye of the Beholder: Himself

With facade of innocence, Floyd and Media are just fooling themselves

Media coverage meets expectations