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.

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.

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.

I misread your post. My bad. My double-negative tripped me up.

ursusmissoulus wrote:

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.

I misread your post. My bad. My double-negative tripped me up.

Ahhh...trolling the internet for arguements. PMS usually effects the female gender. Is there something we don't know???? Yes or NO Brad!!

Bay Area Cat wrote:Actually, there was. I phrased the question in the "not" form (and then forgot that I did), and then he answered "no."

So I read it is him answering "no" to a positive assertion when in fact he was replying no to a negative assertion ... which means he was replying "yes" to the positive assertion I had in my head.

So I was wrong. I readily admit that, and apologize for the confusion and the angst my mistake unnecessarily caused.

ursusmissoulus wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:Actually, there was. I phrased the question in the "not" form (and then forgot that I did), and then he answered "no."

So I read it is him answering "no" to a positive assertion when in fact he was replying no to a negative assertion ... which means he was replying "yes" to the positive assertion I had in my head.

So I was wrong. I readily admit that, and apologize for the confusion and the angst my mistake unnecessarily caused.

Yes, you were wrong. But your understanding of the double negative and your penchant for arguing is lacking. Did....Do...What are you talking about???. How's this....plug in your own example; Do you assert that it's not possible for Brad to be Einstein? It's a query of opinion yes.......or no Brad?

mcg wrote:It was obviously a plea bargain. No jury, no witnesses, no trial. The district attorney and Mr. Quinn's counsel had obviously agreed to what the plea would be and that the state would accept it. They probably had a pretty strong idea what sentence the judge would impose.

Plea bargain only means that the outcome was entirely pre-negotiated before anybody appeared in court. That pretty standard procedure and obviously happened here.

How long to the first kick-off?

Bay Area Cat wrote:Actually, there was. I phrased the question in the "not" form (and then forgot that I did), and then he answered "no."

So I read it is him answering "no" to a positive assertion when in fact he was replying no to a negative assertion ... which means he was replying "yes" to the positive assertion I had in my head.

So I was wrong. I readily admit that, and apologize for the confusion and the angst my mistake unnecessarily caused.

Grizbacker1 wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:Actually, there was. I phrased the question in the "not" form (and then forgot that I did), and then he answered "no."

So I read it is him answering "no" to a positive assertion when in fact he was replying no to a negative assertion ... which means he was replying "yes" to the positive assertion I had in my head.

So I was wrong. I readily admit that, and apologize for the confusion and the angst my mistake unnecessarily caused.

If I print this, enlarge it, to say the size of the NEZ at WaGriz, mind signing it?

GrizMania wrote:

CerealCityGriz wrote:At least his lawyer seems smarter than Michael Vicks. He had the smarts to not say that Quinn looked forward to joining his teammates at spring training.

His Lawyer is one of the best in western montana imho.
and no we're not friends so its not that i'm biased.

Grizbacker1 wrote:I posted my info but according to the resident expert on everything it isn't credible because I didn't leak the names of the people who told me. This of course coming from someone posting blog info as relevant. go figure. Either way, time to let the Quinn thread die, at least for me. It doesn't matter if the Pope gives him an alibi, people are going to believe what they wish.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:Actually, there was. I phrased the question in the "not" form (and then forgot that I did), and then he answered "no."

So I read it is him answering "no" to a positive assertion when in fact he was replying no to a negative assertion ... which means he was replying "yes" to the positive assertion I had in my head.

So I was wrong. I readily admit that, and apologize for the confusion and the angst my mistake unnecessarily caused.

If I print this, enlarge it, to say the size of the NEZ at WaGriz, mind signing it?

I'd be happy to.