I just don’t understand drinking and driving

I am not sure who you are, but this is neither accurate nor true. Unless you are using an alias, there is no friend named "Jonathan" who is close to Thom. I have read through this topic and you are doing nothing but posting wrong and misleading information. I can tell you for certain that there isn't a "Jonathan" and that any information or counsel given was not shared with other people. You need to stop posting gossip and hearsay.

If you read the thread then you saw that JCBOY said that he does not really know Thom, though he has seen him about town, that Thom is a friend of a friend.

If you dont know JC then you must not be a part of the St Pete Gay scene, as St Pete is not that big and he has posted a pic.

I 've lost my memory of that.

Hawkeye, Yes, I'm part of the St Pete scene... nope, don't know this JC person... yes, I understood JC wasn't/isn't close to Thom (based on his posts), but that he has been citing this Jonathan person, whoever this is (which is why I mentioned the possibility of the use of an alias for the name Jonathan), as the source of info. Again, not credible, not accurate, not true. No one close to what is going on is or has been talking, which is how it should be. This is all petty gossip and bar talk. For those using his information to demonize and pass judgement, they should wait for the facts.

OK, I get it now.


One thing, gossip is the best we are going to get to hear of Thom's side of the story, which is better than nothing when the state is putting out press releases with its side of the story, leaving out the parts that dont paint Thom as a complete ass-hole like that he called either the police or 911. The facts?? There is not going to be a trial here, we are never going to get a good accounting of the facts, our system does not work like that. Thom will plead to the best deal that he can get from the state, the state will put out a press release declaring victory, Thom will go to jail, and that will be the end of it. Anyone waiting for the hard facts will wait forever, cause it will never happen.

Well FRIEND I know who you are and you’re in denial! But you wouldn’t know that because you spend every night drinking at Georgie’s. Wake up!

You're part of the scene? If sitting at the bar seven nights a week is part of the then you're correct.

It makes me happy to reflect upon the fact
that I 've never had much interest in alcohol.





David

I know who JC is and I know which Jon he’s talking about and if you think Thom hasn’t talked you’re crazy. You wouldn’t know them because the only two places you ever go is Georgies and Flamingo! Everything he said here I already heard before reading it here.

My guess according to the time you started posting was about the time you stumbled home from one of the bars! usual night for you!

Oh, knock it off.

When a defense attorney thinks he/she has a good chance with a jury, because the state may have problems proving elements of their case, or because they can discredit or counter the state's evidence, they will suggest to the client that they go to trial.

You only take a plea deal when that is the better alternative.

Hawkeye, you are only entitled to "an accounting of the facts" when the information is publicly available--the exact criminal charges and the defendant's behavior that justified the charges, proceedings that take place in open court, information presented at trial, etc. If a defendant takes a plea, you will know "the facts" of the reduced charges and the sentence given. You are not a party to the actual plea deal negotiations, so why would you think you are entitled to such information?

On the one hand, you carry on about the fact that our criminal justice system even reveals the names and identity of those who are arrested, and then you turn around and want to know everything about the person--including what they do for a living, whether they have a professional license, etc.

The only relevant factual information about Thom, that is publicly available, is the nature of the criminal charges against him. Thom's side of the story would come from his defense attorney, but the defense is under no obligation to say anything to the press unless it benefits the client in some way. And press statements made by defense attorneys are not considered "facts", they are spin. So, you'll just have to live without your fill of unsubstantiated info in this case.

Our system works just fine. If Thom wants to take his case to trial, that is certainly an option for him. If he decides to take a plea, it will be because that is the better alternative for him. In either case, his decision will be based on what is better for him and not on what will best satisfy your need for "a good accounting of the facts".

If you were truly a champion of justice, you wouldn't place your need to know something above what a defendant and his lawyer believe to be the best course of action. You are not the one who gets to decide the outcome of this case, or to influence it in any way, no matter how self-important you think you are, and your right to certain information is, therefore, limited--and that's because the defendant is exercising his rights, including the right to remain silent.

LOL less then 10 percents of all cases on the states or fed levels go to trial and it not because all 90 plus are guilty!!

If the case is weak the plead deal offer will be better.

Only the people like DSK with the resources to get out of prison for the year or so before trial and have a few hundreds thousands dollars to mount a defense can even picture going to trial.

Most take a plead deal as the best choice in dealing with the state power and overwhelming resources.

Look you whiney ass little bitch, pull your head out of your ass! Be careful who you try to **** with!

No, the case is what is charged by the state.. As usual, you have it backward. It is the state's case to prove. If the state's case is weak, you go to trial.


Most take a plea deal in a DUI case because they cannot dispute the evidence that they were driving drunk.

If DSK was an average joe when the state case fell apart the likely outcome would not be the case being drop but the person being offer a plea deal for time serve on some far lessor charge,

So Joe could had look forward to another year or so sitting in prison for his case to come up or walking free that day.

That how our so call justice system work in real life.

Vance tried for couple weeks to get DSK to plead to some non felony charges that would have gone to time served, but DSK refused on principle. US prosecutors are allegic to walking away from a case with out anything, as they consider punishing the citizens as their primary job, it is not seeing that justice is done.

You should be a little more careful. Considering whats gone down, probably not a good idea of you to be checking yourself in on facebook everytime you walk in the bar.

Seems to me that Casey Anthony did pretty well countering all those massive resources of the state. And she sat in prison prior to her trial. And she was declared indigent. So, your blanket, over-generalized statement lacks veracity.

But, we aren't discussing DSK, or Casey Anthony, or murder, or sexual assault, we are talking about a DUI case in this thread.

Are you having another "brain frog"? All those froggies jumping around in your head causing you problems remembering the topic?

The fact is, most defendants in DUI cases plead guilty because they cannot dispute the state's evidence that they were driving drunk--they are guilty.

Both of these idiots are just looking for an excuse to talk about child porography and rape, they're salivating about it already.

LOL a front page news story case that got free lawyers coming out of the wood work!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh as far as being indigent if memory serve me correctly she sold pictures of the child for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Sorry dear but we had a plead bargain justice system with little justice in it.