04-20-2018, 02:23 PM
(04-20-2018, 01:23 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: A guilty plea is a "yeah, I did it" plea.
An Alford plea is a "no, I didn't do it, but you got me on tape doing it" plea. It's the Shaggy "It Wasn't Me" of plea deals.
It's like my wife asking me, "Did you go to the Cheetah strip club last night."
"No, I didn't go to the Cheetah Club last night."
Because I went to Tattletales instead. What I told her is 100% correct,but it isn't honest, either
I see it more like this.
Mixon is admitting that he is going to lose the case and be convicted based on the overwhelming video evidence.
He is admitting that should the case continue, he will lose.
For whatever reason, the Court cuts him a deal where he admits that the evidence will lead to his conviction (the Guilty aspect of the Alford plea) then he is also allowed to not admit that he did the actual act that he just admitted there was enough evidence to that he would lose should the case go forward and he also gets to assert his innocence since the case did not proceed to it's ultimate conclusion of him losing.
Ridiculous, politician style BS of a ruling in my opinion but the Legal system allows for this type of deal.
You may want to focus on some of your other Anti-Mike issues more so than this one because even the very definition of the Alford plea calls it a Guilty plea. There are nuances to it but it is more of a "I know you did it", "we know you did it", "the video shows you did it", "witnesses watched you do it" and "Mixon admits that he is going to lose the case based on the evidence" so Mixon knows he did it.
Yet we all get to allow Mixon to legally pretend that he could still be innocent even though we all know he isn't.
Having venom towards Mike over this issue doesn't shake out that well for you. Mike seems to ultimately have you on this issue.
Some of your other Anti Mike issues may offer you a better chance to gain some traction.
