🚀 go-pugleaf

rcb@intsyson.com (Rich Bland) wrote:

> >or refuse to give him a job.
> 
> BZZT!  Wrong.  Thank you for playing, here's a copy of the home game.
> 
> >That's American, it's a free country.
> 
> To a point, perhaps, but I dont think _you_ are the final arbitrator
> of 'whats American'.  And, not all that is Americana is right, or
> reasonable.  We got major problems.  I've reasonable doubt we will
> get through it 'near-long term' (another 100 years) without some
> serious conflict, bullshit, and/or bloodshed.

 
> Makes on think of moving overseas.

> >Not that I will ever be in a position to do any of these things.  Of
> >course noone has the right to do damage to his property or person or to
> >invade his privacy.
> 
> Denying employment simply because of the case *would* be 'damaging his
> person', and would probably be actionable.  Not sure, I'm not a lawyer,
> but, perhaps someone else here will clarify.  Might vary by State a
> little, but, an acquital is an acquital, and discriminating based
> on not agreeing would certainly seem like a litigious lode o gold to
> me...

People who do hiring have been picking and choosing who they hire from
day one and always will.  Why do you think people with pleasant person-
alities are hired more easily than those who are less pleasant?  Because
the person doing the hiring would rather have people he likes around.
Of course if it can be shown there is a racial pattern then the problem
starts as it well should but if I own a business I shouldn't have to
hire someone I don't want to.  
Of course noone would say they weren't hiring him because of
the case just like noone at Victoria's Secret would tell a 300 pound 
woman or someone with severe acne that they wouldn't hire her because
of her appearance.

> >Someone being found not guilty by a jury only means that there was a
> >reasonable doubt not that anyone should want to associate with the
> >defendant.
> 
> Uhm, _it_ (the verdict) merely _means_ the prosecution failed, nothing
> more, nothing less.  They didnt convince the jury.  The only job with
> which they were legall vested.  Anyone who wants to dispute this fact
> is cordially invited to direct all responses to /dev/null.  I dont even
> want to hear it.

I wouldn't dispute it.
 
> >I agree that the system could use some reform.
> 
> You bet.  Drug War, OUT!  Welfare for illegal immigrants (no matter what
> their race) OUT!  Demipubs and Republicrats, OUT!  Hunger, OUT! Nafta, OUT!
> Gatt, OUT!  Government overspending, OUT!  PACs, OUT!  Professional Lobbyists,
> OUT!  Foriegn Lobbyists, DEAD!  Curbs on importing immigrant labor IN!
> Re-evaluation of our monetary policy which currently REQUIRES a certain % of
> unemployment, YOU BET!  Re-evaluation of our electoral process, which keeps the
> right people out, and the wrong people in, YOU BET!  Pensions for Elected
> Officials, OUT!  Professional Politicians PERIOD, OUT! 'Foriegn Aid' while
> Americans go hungry, OUT!  BILLION DOLLAR BOMBERS when schools need computers,
> OUT!  ARRESTING PEOPLE FOR FEEDING PARKING METERS, *OUT* (yes folks, just look
> at Santa Cruz, for crying out loud)!

I agree with all of the above except possibly the welfare for illegal
immigrants.  
A. Illegal immigrants do not receive welfare only education
   and medical care.
B. The costs of not providing these outweigh the costs of providing
   them.  Increased crime because of people without education. Treatment
   in emergency rooms because of lack of routine medical care.  Disabled
   children due to lack of prenatal care.  Prison costs more, bottom
   line.
  
> Lots of work needs to be done...  
> 
> >But a perfect system is impossible because the evidence is never complete.
> >It is often impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is
> >guilty.
> 
> Then that person SHOULDNT be convicted!  Jeez, are you saying the Reasonable
> Doubt standard has got to go?  Is that what you're trying to pawn off on us?

> Please!!!

Never said any such thing.  Read on.  Just that there is a paradox
here where convicting all guilty and aquitting all innocent is 
impossible.  All you can really do is strike a balance and I think
we all would agree that it should be closer to aquitting guilty people
rather than at the other extreme. 

> >But if you allow a laxer standard [more] innocent people will be convicted.
 
> Exactly!  I inserted the qualification, a certain number of innocent people are
> convicted already, today, here and now.  Most get out on appeal, years later,
> the damage done.  This would increase, dramatically.
 
> >I can't readily see a solution except perhaps in some utopian society where
> >the desire to do wrong is virtually eliminated.

> Nah, lemme pose this one.  What if we could go back in time, and REPLACE
> Fuher-Man/MadHatter (ok, and the rest of the dept) with non-racist cops, and
> simply re-run the 'computer model'?  If all the facts where still there,  I bet
> the case would fly, like a fucking bird.
 
> If the tapes HAD NEVER HAPPENED.  This case PROBABLY would have resulted in
> a conviction.  All the jury needed, in todays reality, was mere re-enforcement
> on how tight the timeframe was (or impossible, YMMV) in ADDITION to Fuher-mans
> lie (which was a fact the *Jury* _witnessed_), to, IMO, provide reasonable
> doubt.

I was speaking of the more general question of justice in the jury
system.  I'm sick of the OJ trial and besides it's an anomaly in every
sense so it's not really that important except in a mass consciousness
sense.
 
> I've this question for you.  If it was ok and legal for the prosecution to
> put Fuher-man on the stand, where he LIED on the stand, why the hell isnt it
> 'ok' to make him TAKE THE FIFTH in FRONT of the JURY?  Hmmm?

> How come ole Fuher-Man isnt being PROSECUTED by the LA area DA for PERJURY?

Don't know.
 
> Seems to me we dont even need a TRIAL for that one!  Its already been proven!!
 
> BUT, thats just MY analysis.  !!YMMV!!

I agree.
 
[snip]

> I'm SICK of OJ, and the WHOLE DAMN THING!

Amen.
 
> Rich Bland
> rcb@intsyson.com

Aqua