🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <46ohqu$769@gazette.tandem.com>, Aqua <reif_andrea@tandem.com> wrote:
>rcb@intsyson.com (Rich Bland) wrote:
>> 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.

Never stated otherwise.  BUT, 'you are over/under qualified' is a FAR
cry from:

      YOU WERENT CONVICTED, BUT *i* THINK YOUR A MURDERER!
                           GET OUT!
                       NEVER COME BACK!

Isnt that more along the lines you were originally thinking?

So, your statement that you can freely choose NOT to employ Simpson
SOLELY becuase he was not convicted is questionable.

>Why do you think people with pleasant personalities are hired more easily
>than those who are less pleasant?

I'm not arguing reality, just your presumption on how people can go about it.
As long as you hire an equally qualified candidate, there is NO problem, BUT,
people have gotten substantial judgements in the face of job discrimination...

>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

Dont know what State you live in, but here in Californy, Race isnt the only
factor.  Lemme see, gender, sexual orientation, physical appearance/disability,
lots of things you cant *arbitrarily* refuse a job for....

>as it well should but if I own a business I shouldn't have to hire someone I
>don't want to.

Tell that to any White Supremesist, I'm sure they will explain how 'screwed'
the system is exactly because they CANT.

>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. 

Far cry from what you stated before.  You're saying you would have to use
SUBTERFUGE here, now, and LIE.  Entirely different statement.  Done all the
time, just dont get caught!  You'll pay big...  (!!actionable alert!!)

>> >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.

You are entitled.  Enjoy your opinion.  People died defending your right to it.
  
>A. Illegal immigrants do not receive welfare only education
>   and medical care.

I wont go into the sidebar issue, but will only say, studies have shown again
and again that Illegal Immigrants, as a unit, take out more in benefits than
they pay in taxes.  Like it or not, facts is facts.

>B. The costs of not providing these outweigh the costs of providing
>   them.

No, the cost would be better allocated paying the salaries of CITIZENS and
LEGAL immigrants to patrol our borders to keep the job theives OUT!

>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.

Nah, see, in my vision, they arent here in the first place, they are home,
waiting their turn.

(Disclaimer)  Political Asylum is a totally different issue, get here however
              you can.  Just clean up the legal ends of things just on the
              other side of the border...  Economic opporutnists need not apply,
              till we get things straightened out, and then, ONLY as the
              economy will allow...
  
>> 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

Nope, the theory that the paradox exists is a red herring.  Aint no
such thing.  The only solution I see is as I outlined later...  Now,
mind you, 100% efficiency will not be a reality.  But, I'm sure we
can do a DAMNED sight better than we have seen of late...

[snip]
>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.

Ok.
 
>> 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.

Damn.  Neither do I.  
 
>> Seems to me we dont even need a TRIAL for that one!  Its already been
>> proven!!
> 
>> BUT, thats just MY analysis.  !!YMMV!!
>
>I agree.

Hey!  Common ground.  Bingo!
 
>[snip]
>
>> I'm SICK of OJ, and the WHOLE DAMN THING!
>
>Amen.

And Hallelujah.
 

Rich Bland
rcb@intsyson.com