jagur1 wrote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

argh! wrote:i like to think of my posts as scarlet begonias, not daisies.

I was thinking more along the lines of knapweed.

argh! IMO has moved into the flower area since he stoped his felony stalking of Player Rep.

PlayerRep wrote:I also have solid info. GG, you asked for an explanation. I gave it. Then you doubted it. Why can't you just accept it. GB1, others and I have consistent good info. He did not get off on a technicality.

The hospital apparently said they didn't want to do it.

getgrizzy wrote:

PlayerRep wrote:I also have solid info. GG, you asked for an explanation. I gave it. Then you doubted it. Why can't you just accept it. GB1, others and I have consistent good info. He did not get off on a technicality.

The hospital apparently said they didn't want to do it.

that sounds like solid info that he got off on a technicality. what we're looking for is something along the lines that leaves us all confident that quinn simply had not been drinking. or that he wasn't past the legal limit. and an explanation for why he wouldn't take the breath analysis.

so far all we have is that he wouldn't take the breath test and that he didn't, or wasn't able to, get a bac test. neither of those things exonerates him. the only thing the events that have occured would logically show is that he was given a plea deal.

so if you have something truly solid, please let us all know. cuz we'd like to feel the same way you do and i'd think jd might want everyone to know he was representing the school properly.

Grizbacker1 wrote:It doesn't matter if the Pope gives him an alibi, people are going to believe what they wish.

getgrizzy wrote:

PlayerRep wrote:I also have solid info. GG, you asked for an explanation. I gave it. Then you doubted it. Why can't you just accept it. GB1, others and I have consistent good info. He did not get off on a technicality.

The hospital apparently said they didn't want to do it.

that sounds like solid info that he got off on a technicality. what we're looking for is something along the lines that leaves us all confident that quinn simply had not been drinking. or that he wasn't past the legal limit. and an explanation for why he wouldn't take the breath analysis.

so far all we have is that he wouldn't take the breath test and that he didn't, or wasn't able to, get a bac test. neither of those things exonerates him. the only thing the events that have occured would logically show is that he was given a plea deal.

so if you have something truly solid, please let us all know. cuz we'd like to feel the same way you do and i'd think jd might want everyone to know he was representing the school properly.

mtgrizrule wrote:

getgrizzy wrote:

PlayerRep wrote:I also have solid info. GG, you asked for an explanation. I gave it. Then you doubted it. Why can't you just accept it. GB1, others and I have consistent good info. He did not get off on a technicality.

The hospital apparently said they didn't want to do it.

that sounds like solid info that he got off on a technicality. what we're looking for is something along the lines that leaves us all confident that quinn simply had not been drinking. or that he wasn't past the legal limit. and an explanation for why he wouldn't take the breath analysis.

so far all we have is that he wouldn't take the breath test and that he didn't, or wasn't able to, get a bac test. neither of those things exonerates him. the only thing the events that have occured would logically show is that he was given a plea deal.

so if you have something truly solid, please let us all know. cuz we'd like to feel the same way you do and i'd think jd might want everyone to know he was representing the school properly.

What playerrep, gb1, and others siding with Quinn are pointing out is that the legal system has taken its course. The result indeed was that of being found innocent on the most recent charge/incident. Therefore in some of our minds he has been exhonerated. For some there is no need to dig for more trash or make this a bigger "witch hunt".

Yet the otherside of this will not let this die or want JD to move forward in his GRIZ and football life. Rather I agree or disagree with the outcome is irrelevant. Either way, I wish him and the program the best, and pray he has finally learned his lessons.

I very much doubt we will ever know the complete and TRUE story. The only ones that know that are JD and his friends he was associating on that given night. Put this to rest and move forward, as of now JD is still a GRIZ until we hear otherwise. Why not accept and respect that?

If he or any GRIZ get in trouble again lets talk about it again. In the meantime, believe what you want, like or dislike JD, support Hauck or not, just put the uncalled for acquisations to rest okay! Why continue to try adding fuel to this or any fire? Move on!

Grizbacker1 wrote:

mtgrizrule wrote:

getgrizzy wrote:

PlayerRep wrote:I also have solid info. GG, you asked for an explanation. I gave it. Then you doubted it. Why can't you just accept it. GB1, others and I have consistent good info. He did not get off on a technicality.

The hospital apparently said they didn't want to do it.

that sounds like solid info that he got off on a technicality. what we're looking for is something along the lines that leaves us all confident that quinn simply had not been drinking. or that he wasn't past the legal limit. and an explanation for why he wouldn't take the breath analysis.

so far all we have is that he wouldn't take the breath test and that he didn't, or wasn't able to, get a bac test. neither of those things exonerates him. the only thing the events that have occured would logically show is that he was given a plea deal.

so if you have something truly solid, please let us all know. cuz we'd like to feel the same way you do and i'd think jd might want everyone to know he was representing the school properly.

What playerrep, gb1, and others siding with Quinn are pointing out is that the legal system has taken its course. The result indeed was that of being found innocent on the most recent charge/incident. Therefore in some of our minds he has been exhonerated. For some there is no need to dig for more trash or make this a bigger "witch hunt".

Yet the otherside of this will not let this die or want JD to move forward in his GRIZ and football life. Rather I agree or disagree with the outcome is irrelevant. Either way, I wish him and the program the best, and pray he has finally learned his lessons.

I very much doubt we will ever know the complete and TRUE story. The only ones that know that are JD and his friends he was associating on that given night. Put this to rest and move forward, as of now JD is still a GRIZ until we hear otherwise. Why not accept and respect that?

If he or any GRIZ get in trouble again lets talk about it again. In the meantime, believe what you want, like or dislike JD, support Hauck or not, just put the uncalled for acquisations to rest okay! Why continue to try adding fuel to this or any fire? Move on!

He wasn't found inncocent, the charge was dismissed. There is a huge difference. If anyone says dismissed equals plea bargain, then I guess the Duke Lacrosse players plea bargained, because their charges were dismissed as well. I am surprised someone hasn't said the hospital was paid off by the defense so they would refuse the blood test.

Grizbacker1 wrote:He wasn't found inncocent, the charge was dismissed. There is a huge difference. If anyone says dismissed equals plea bargain, then I guess the Duke Lacrosse players plea bargained, because their charges were dismissed as well. I am surprised someone hasn't said the hospital was paid off by the defense so they would refuse the blood test.

A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal or copping a plea) is an agreement in a criminal case in which a prosecutor and a defendant arrange to settle the case against the defendant. The defendant agrees to plead guilty (and often allocute) or no contest and in some cases to also provide testimony against another person in exchange for some agreement from the prosecutor as to the punishment. A plea bargain can also include the prosecutor agreeing to charge a lesser crime (also called reducing the charges), and dismissing some of the charges against the defendant. In most cases, a plea bargain is used to reduce the number of cases and their aggregate impact on the criminal justice system as the number of cases which can be actually tried by a court system is a fraction of the number of cases filed.

PlayerRep wrote:BAC, I don't agree your legal statement. Plea bargains usually involve pleading to one or more charges from one set of charges or circumstances. Getting several matters done at the same time is not really a plea bargain in my mind--especially when one (flimsy) charge is dropped completely. You could argue it other ways too, but the point remains that there was no evidence to support the DUI charge and there is no way he would have been convicted of a DUI. The prosecutors were going to have to drop the charge, sooner or later. Settling the prior charge caused the process to be sped up on dismissing the later charge.

Someday I'll explain Reg S-X accounting to you.

PlayerRep wrote:BAC, I don't agree your legal statement. Plea bargains usually involve pleading to one or more charges from one set of charges or circumstances. Getting several matters done at the same time is not really a plea bargain in my mind--especially when one (flimsy) charge is dropped completely. You could argue it other ways too, but the point remains that there was no evidence to support the DUI charge and there is no way he would have been convicted of a DUI. The prosecutors were going to have to drop the charge, sooner or later. Settling the prior charge caused the process to be sped up on dismissing the later charge.

Someday I'll explain Reg S-X accounting to you.

A "charge bargain" occurs when the prosecutor allows a defendant to "plead guilty to a lesser charge," or to only some of the charges that have been filed against him. For example, a defendant charged with burgarly may be offered the opportunity to plead guilty to "attempted burglary." A defendant charged with Drunk Driving and Driving With License Suspended may be offered the opportunity to plead guilty to just the drunk driving charge.

Grizbacker1 wrote:

PlayerRep wrote:BAC, I don't agree your legal statement. Plea bargains usually involve pleading to one or more charges from one set of charges or circumstances. Getting several matters done at the same time is not really a plea bargain in my mind--especially when one (flimsy) charge is dropped completely. You could argue it other ways too, but the point remains that there was no evidence to support the DUI charge and there is no way he would have been convicted of a DUI. The prosecutors were going to have to drop the charge, sooner or later. Settling the prior charge caused the process to be sped up on dismissing the later charge.

Someday I'll explain Reg S-X accounting to you.

The Supreme Court couldn't convince him so why bother trying.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

PlayerRep wrote:BAC, I don't agree your legal statement. Plea bargains usually involve pleading to one or more charges from one set of charges or circumstances. Getting several matters done at the same time is not really a plea bargain in my mind--especially when one (flimsy) charge is dropped completely. You could argue it other ways too, but the point remains that there was no evidence to support the DUI charge and there is no way he would have been convicted of a DUI. The prosecutors were going to have to drop the charge, sooner or later. Settling the prior charge caused the process to be sped up on dismissing the later charge.

Someday I'll explain Reg S-X accounting to you.

The Supreme Court couldn't convince him so why bother trying.

GB1: Do you still assert that it is not possible to have a plea bargain where a defendent pleads guilty to a charge in exchange for other charges being dropped? Yes or no.

I'm curious just how far you guys are willing to argue a point that I am clearly and unquestionably correct on.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

PlayerRep wrote:BAC, I don't agree your legal statement. Plea bargains usually involve pleading to one or more charges from one set of charges or circumstances. Getting several matters done at the same time is not really a plea bargain in my mind--especially when one (flimsy) charge is dropped completely. You could argue it other ways too, but the point remains that there was no evidence to support the DUI charge and there is no way he would have been convicted of a DUI. The prosecutors were going to have to drop the charge, sooner or later. Settling the prior charge caused the process to be sped up on dismissing the later charge.

Someday I'll explain Reg S-X accounting to you.

The Supreme Court couldn't convince him so why bother trying.

GB1: Do you still assert that it is not possible to have a plea bargain where a defendent pleads guilty to a charge in exchange for other charges being dropped? Yes or no.

I'm curious just how far you guys are willing to argue a point that I am clearly and unquestionably correct on.

Grizbacker1 wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

PlayerRep wrote:BAC, I don't agree your legal statement. Plea bargains usually involve pleading to one or more charges from one set of charges or circumstances. Getting several matters done at the same time is not really a plea bargain in my mind--especially when one (flimsy) charge is dropped completely. You could argue it other ways too, but the point remains that there was no evidence to support the DUI charge and there is no way he would have been convicted of a DUI. The prosecutors were going to have to drop the charge, sooner or later. Settling the prior charge caused the process to be sped up on dismissing the later charge.

Someday I'll explain Reg S-X accounting to you.

The Supreme Court couldn't convince him so why bother trying.

GB1: Do you still assert that it is not possible to have a plea bargain where a defendent pleads guilty to a charge in exchange for other charges being dropped? Yes or no.

I'm curious just how far you guys are willing to argue a point that I am clearly and unquestionably correct on.

In general no, in this case you are clueless. Tell me some factual information, not supposition, speculation, inuendo, and flat out guesswork. But, you believe what you want, I personally don't give a shit. It is amazing how badly you want to keep this thread going though. I am guessing Quinn pancaked your fav player last year. I am sure he will pancake a couple more this year when the Griz kick your kitty asses all over the field like they did on your turf last year. I am sure you remember that.

ursusmissoulus wrote:GB1, Brad is upset that things didn't work out for him. You know when he gives his YES OR NO thing he is forming his usual constructive dilemma. Don't play and maybe he'll go home.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

PlayerRep wrote:BAC, I don't agree your legal statement. Plea bargains usually involve pleading to one or more charges from one set of charges or circumstances. Getting several matters done at the same time is not really a plea bargain in my mind--especially when one (flimsy) charge is dropped completely. You could argue it other ways too, but the point remains that there was no evidence to support the DUI charge and there is no way he would have been convicted of a DUI. The prosecutors were going to have to drop the charge, sooner or later. Settling the prior charge caused the process to be sped up on dismissing the later charge.

Someday I'll explain Reg S-X accounting to you.

The Supreme Court couldn't convince him so why bother trying.

GB1: Do you still assert that it is not possible to have a plea bargain where a defendent pleads guilty to a charge in exchange for other charges being dropped? Yes or no.

I'm curious just how far you guys are willing to argue a point that I am clearly and unquestionably correct on.

In general no, in this case you are clueless. Tell me some factual information, not supposition, speculation, inuendo, and flat out guesswork. But, you believe what you want, I personally don't give a shit. It is amazing how badly you want to keep this thread going though. I am guessing Quinn pancaked your fav player last year. I am sure he will pancake a couple more this year when the Griz kick your kitty asses all over the field like they did on your turf last year. I am sure you remember that.

So you obviously don't know anything about plea bargains ... because that's exactly the kinds of scenarios they do, in fact, include. I even provided you a couple links that stated that just in case you didn't already know that.

Thanks for the extraneous off-topic nonsensical attempts at personal slams, Cat/Griz trash talk, and whatever else you loaded up your post with to cover for the fact that you are completely and totally wrong on this argument. It's funny how you go off-topic with the personal insults at the very moment you realize that the error in your argument has been exposed. I know that my argument has been validated when you start with the off-topic stuff.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:He wasn't found inncocent, the charge was dismissed. There is a huge difference. If anyone says dismissed equals plea bargain, then I guess the Duke Lacrosse players plea bargained, because their charges were dismissed as well. I am surprised someone hasn't said the hospital was paid off by the defense so they would refuse the blood test.

Actually ... dismissing some charges while pleading guilty to others is perfectly consistent with a classical example of a plea bargain.

A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal or copping a plea) is an agreement in a criminal case in which a prosecutor and a defendant arrange to settle the case against the defendant. The defendant agrees to plead guilty (and often allocute) or no contest and in some cases to also provide testimony against another person in exchange for some agreement from the prosecutor as to the punishment. A plea bargain can also include the prosecutor agreeing to charge a lesser crime (also called reducing the charges), and dismissing some of the charges against the defendant. In most cases, a plea bargain is used to reduce the number of cases and their aggregate impact on the criminal justice system as the number of cases which can be actually tried by a court system is a fraction of the number of cases filed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain

So it is perfectly reasonable that a person would read the outcome of Quinn's multiples charges, all settled in the same hearing, and come to the conclusion that it was the result of a plea bargain. In the absence of a statement to the contrary from someone involved with the case (with their, you know, name attached to the statement to assure authenticity and reliability), it is reasonable that most people would conclude that a plea agreement took place between the parties.

ursusmissoulus wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

PlayerRep wrote:BAC, I don't agree your legal statement. Plea bargains usually involve pleading to one or more charges from one set of charges or circumstances. Getting several matters done at the same time is not really a plea bargain in my mind--especially when one (flimsy) charge is dropped completely. You could argue it other ways too, but the point remains that there was no evidence to support the DUI charge and there is no way he would have been convicted of a DUI. The prosecutors were going to have to drop the charge, sooner or later. Settling the prior charge caused the process to be sped up on dismissing the later charge.

Someday I'll explain Reg S-X accounting to you.

The Supreme Court couldn't convince him so why bother trying.

GB1: Do you still assert that it is not possible to have a plea bargain where a defendent pleads guilty to a charge in exchange for other charges being dropped? Yes or no.

I'm curious just how far you guys are willing to argue a point that I am clearly and unquestionably correct on.

GB1, Brad is upset that things didn't work out for him. You know when he gives his YES OR NO thing he is forming his usual constructive dilemma. Don't play and maybe he'll go home.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

ursusmissoulus wrote:GB1, Brad is upset that things didn't work out for him. You know when he gives his YES OR NO thing he is forming his usual constructive dilemma. Don't play and maybe he'll go home.

Ursus: Do you agree with GB1 and PR and their assertions about the term "plea bargain" not including such scenarios as a defendent pleading guilty to one charge in exchange for other charges being dropped?

ursusmissoulus wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

ursusmissoulus wrote:GB1, Brad is upset that things didn't work out for him. You know when he gives his YES OR NO thing he is forming his usual constructive dilemma. Don't play and maybe he'll go home.

Ursus: Do you agree with GB1 and PR and their assertions about the term "plea bargain" not including such scenarios as a defendent pleading guilty to one charge in exchange for other charges being dropped?

Brad....you gotta pull your head out on this one. Let me put it to you in this way. You are asserting that every time charges are dropped, it's due to a plea bargain. Right.....Yes or No? sound familiar?? Get the point??? Talk about being off topic.