Conference back40::soapbox

    John Hinkley Jr. shot Reagan, and you're correct, he was found insane.
    I can't think of any professional football  player pleading insanity,
    just a recent one who proved his innocence. I don't want to open a can
    of worms about that, though.
    
    						lunchbox

    >I can't think of any professional football  player pleading insanity,
    >just a recent one who proved his innocence. 
    
     Hmm. I'm drawing a blank on this one. Just how did this professional
    football  player prove his innocence? Did he demonstrate that someone
    else committed the crime? Did he show it was impossible that he could
    have committed the crime by providing an alibi? Or was the evidence
    against him merely found to be insufficient to find him guilty?

re: "Did he demonstrate that someone else committed the crime? "

         Unnecessary.

re: "Did he show it was impossible that he could have committed the
crime by providing an alibi? "

         Also unnecessary.

re: "Or was the evidence against him merely found to be insufficient
to find him guilty?"

         Now you're getting the idea. That is how this system is
         supposed to work, and did.

         Pete

    My point, since you so clearly missed it, is that OJ did NOT "prove his
    innocence" despite the fact that he was found not guilty. Glad to have
    helped.

    re.62
    >My point , since you so clearly missed it, is that OJ did NOT "prove
    > his innocence" despite the fact that he was found not guilty.
    
         Exactly, in the US, your are presumed innocent until proven
    guilty.He was found to be not guilty, thus we must assume he is
    innocent. Glad to have helped.
    
    				lunchbox

    
    	Uh oh.  Incoming!!
    
    	[Cue edp]
    

    Incoming what?

You're new here, aren't you.

:-)

    
    	If the 2 choices were "guilty" or "innocent", he would have
    	been found "innocent".
    
    	He was not found "innocent", he was found "not guilty".  And
    	that means that he could have been as guilty as ever, but
    	there wasn't enough evidence to convince the jury of same.
    

    Wicked new, man. I keep needing people to walk me through these things.
    So what's incoming?

I disagree (and this rathole is getting deep). Webster's defines
'innocent' as "free from guilt or sin esp. through lack of knowledge
of evil", which says to me that 'not guilty' == 'innocent'.

Pete

    
    	If you compare the findings to the results of same, then yes,
    	"not guilty" might as well be "innocent" because the accused
    	is set free and declared blameless.
    
    	But an accused person who is found "not guilty" of a certain
    	crime might still have done it, but that fact wasn't proven
    	to the jury.  And this person is not "innocent", rather "not
    	guilty".
    
    	The legal system isn't perfect, so un-innocent people some-
    	times are set free.
    

    
    	Actually, this almost goes full-circle to the reply that started
    	this thread in the 1st place:
    
    	He wasn't proven innocent, rather he was not proven guilty.
    

    But in this country you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. So,
    if guilt isn't proven=innocent. Hence, not guilty=innocent, regardless
    of what all the armchair jurors said. Nobody has proven you, Shawn,
    guilty of the Goldman/Simpson murders, and I presume you are innocent
    accordingly.
    
    					lunchbox

    
    	Gee, thanks, Dave ... but I wasn't charged with the crime.
    
    	8^)
    
    	So I'm considered "innocent".  OJ is considered "not guilty".
    

    OJ is certainly considered "Not guilty", which is "innocent" in this
    country. You'll be thankful of the rules here if you're ever falsely
    accused of a crime.
    
    
    					lunchbox

    
    The legal choices for the verdict are guilty and not guilty.  There is 
    no legal choice of innocent.
    

    You're innocent until you are proven not guilty, at which time you are
    no longer innocent, just not guilty.

    In France,you`re guilty until proven innocent.
    
    Er,I think.
    
    

    >     Exactly, in the US, your are presumed innocent until proven
    >guilty.He was found to be not guilty, thus we must assume he is
    >innocent. 
    
     Looks like MADHATTA would be more aptly named MTHATTA.
    
     The presumption of innocence is unrelated to whether a particular
    person actually committed a particular crime. It is a legal concept
    which places the burden of proof on the prosecution; nothing more and
    nothing less. If the prosecution fails to present evidence that the
    jury believes to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they have no
    choice but to acquit the defendant. OJ Simpson did not by any stretch
    of the imagination pprove his innocence. The prosecution of OJ Simpson
    failed to present a case that the jury would accept, and he was
    found "not guilty" of the crimes. This does not in any sense mean that
    OJ Simpson is innocent (in other words that he did not do the crime for
    which he had been charged.) It means only that the jury did not find
    the prosecution's case to be adequate. It's really that simple.

	yar.  whyddya think they call it "not guilty", anyways?

    .87
    
    guilt�y adj. guilt�i�er, guilt�i�est. ... 2. Law. Adjudged to have
    committed a crime.
    
    Like the Doctah said, the jury did not adjudge OJ to have committed the
    crime.  They may very well have believed that he did, but the law
    requires the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a
    reasonable doubt.  In the minds of some of the jururs, the prosecution
    failed to so prove.  The only verdict other than guilty that is allowed
    by our judicial system is not guilty.  Scottish law provides a third
    verdict, not proven, that is actually what should apply to the OJ case.

  .88  er, if you're trying to explain that to me (since you referenced
       my note) - i already knew all that.  i was agreeing with the doctah.

    .89
    
    .87 looked like a full load of sarcasm aimed at the Doctah. 
    Appearances, it would appear, can be deceiving.

   my point was that if "not guilty" meant "innocent", in a legal
   sense, they prolly would have used the word "innocent".

    What we seem to have heah....
    
     is a failure to communicate. :-)

       richard thinks i'm a simpleton, too.  that's the sad part. ;>

    .93
    
    notatall.  richard thought you were being extremely witty.  turns out
    richard was being entirely too witty for his own good.

   .94  you thought i was being extremely witty, so you decided to explain
	the basics of guilty/not guilty to me?  okay, that makes sense. 
	NOT.

    the hell with it.  you want to pick a fight, find someone else.

  .96 not looking for a fight - just a little honesty.  hard to come
      by in these parts, at times. ;>
  

    .97
    
    well fine.  i thought you were being witty.  i thought you were using
    sarcasm to take a shot at the doctah.  so i was wrong, so crucify me.

    I'll get the nails!

  .98  nice try, but you forgot the part about how you thought i
       needed guilty/not guilty explained to me.  i mean - let's
       go for the whole truth and nothing but the truth!!  ;>

| <<< Note 669.101 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


| let's go for the whole truth and nothing but the truth!!  ;>

	Ok...how old are you milady????  heh heh

    wow, OJ's even bleeding into the Salvi note! 

>	Ok...how old are you milady????  heh heh

	old enough to think that asking a woman how old she is
	is less than gentlemanly.  heh heh

    
    	Ooh ... that old, eh?
    

>    	Ooh ... that old, eh?

	yup.
    

    I've been called ancient.
    
    8^)

    .101
    
    (Excuse the delay, but my PPP line just got dropped by the DS700.)
    
    You are apparently laboring under the misapprehension that the words of
    the subject reply were intended only for you.  Allow me to remind you
    that this is a public forum, not a private t�te-�-t�te, and in such
    fora it is not at all uncommon for a party to a certain discussion to
    make remarks that are intended for those who may overhear, as well as
    or even instead of for the other party in the discussion.  You want
    honesty, you got it.  Full disclosure.  If you are not satisfied with
    this resolution of your problem, see Figure 1.

   .108  you are apparently laboring under the misapprehension that
	 i will now believe that you weren't explaining guilty/not guilty
	 for my benefit, just because you might have been explaining
	 it for the benefit of others as well (which i had assumed in
	 the first place to be true, btw).

    .109
    
    I was explaining it for the benefit of whoever might not understand the
    concept.  If you choose to class yourself among the people whom I deem
    that poorly educated, that's your business.  I've had enough of this
    bickering, I'm gonna go piss somebody else off in some other topic.

>             <<< Note 669.110 by SMURF::BINDER "Manus Celer Dei" >>>
>  If you choose to class yourself among the people whom I deem
>  that poorly educated, that's your business.  

	no, i don't choose to class myself that way.  that's why i
	was bemoaning the fact that you had, you see.  

    See why I stay outta these things???  8)

>    See why I stay outta these things???  8)

	no.

    -1 Well, that's part of the reason.  8)

   .114  some 'boxers don't like to argue, i guess.

    Why do you say that?  All boxers love to argue.  

	correction - some 'boxers don't like to argue if they start
	losing. ;>

    
    	AND some 'BOXers don't like to admit they're losing an argument.
    
    	Not mentioning any names, of course.
    

    >	correction - some 'boxers don't like to argue if they start
    >	losing. ;>
    
     Still others argue loudest after they've lost.

    No they don't 

>     Still others argue loudest after they've lost.

	you mean, like, capitalizing whole words and stuff like that? ;>

    This is the last time I'm going to attempt this:
    
    
    In this country, the criminal justice system operates by a creed of 
    
    "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"
    
    The prosecution did NOT prove OJ to be guilty, until  the day he is
    proven guilty, The Juice is innocent.
    
    
    				lunchbox

    
    	Lunchbox, did you hear the reading of the verdicts on the last
    	day of the trial?
    
    	If so, would you care to enter them here, word for word?
    
    	Thank you.
    

   lunchbox, keep reading .86 until it sinks in, will ya?

    Am I typing in Spanish? What is it about "innocent until proven guilty"
    that everybody has a hard time grasping? It's a simple concept. GEEZ!!

    re.124
    
    I may be misquoting, but it was something like this:
    
    "We the jury find the defendant, Orenthol James Simpson(she flubbed his
    name the first time) not guilty of the crime of first degree murder of
    one Nicole Simpson and one Ronald Goldman....."
    
    
    
    He wasn't found guilty, and maybe when cows fly he committed the
    crimes, so maybe he isn't innocent, per se, but in the law's eyes, he
    is innocent until proven guilty, he wasn't proven guilty, etc.
    
    
    				lunchbox
    
    
    
    		

    .126  sumpin' tells me he ain't gonna git it.  nope.

    .127
    
    lunchbox, you still don't get it.  there is a colossal difference
    between "not guilty," which the law interprets as meaing "the
    prosecution didn't prove he did it," and "innocent," which means "he
    didn't do it."  you are going to have a serious problem in your chosen
    career if you fail to understand the semantic subleties of the law.

    Why don't people listen to the Criminal Justice major who is graduating
    in the fall? If you don't think I had to spend 3 hours with OJ every
    day for the past 2 years discussing the ramifications of the case and
    the mechanics of the case and the outcome of the case you're completely
    mistaken. We are still talking about it to this day!!! My professors
    are lawyers and police officers who have been studying/teaching
    criminal justice for years!!! What don't you get about innocent until
    proven guilty? Take this test...
    
    
    In the US, is a defendant presumed to be innocent until proven guilty?
    
    
    
    Was OJ Simpson proven guilty?
    
    
    Based on your answers for 1 and 2, what can be concluded about the OJ
    Simpson verdict?

    .130
    
    You answer this question:
    
    Why, if a failure to prove guilt is equivalent to innocence, does the
    law differentiate between the word "innocent" and the phrase "not
    guilty"?

    There is no longer a verdict of "innocent". It's either "guilty", "not
    guilty" or a hung jury.

hung jury?

    Twelve dangly men.
    

He's guilty, so get off it already!!  :)

    .132
    
    > There is no longer a verdict of "innocent".
    
    Bingo.  Could it be that the law has chosen to acknowledge that the
    prosecution's failure to prove guilt does not equate to innocence? 
    "Not guilty" in US law equals "not proven" in Scottish law.  It does
    not equal "innocent" in anybody's law except, maybe, lunchbox's.

Presumed innocent before the law.

That doesn't mean "is" innocent, nor does it mean that the people must
individually or collectively presume him innocent in our private or
public dealings with the murderer of Nichole and Ron.

    There were only 12 opinions that mattered in the Simpson trial, and I'm
    sick of all the armchair jurors second guessing the decision. People
    have a hard time seperating all the garbage they heard on "A current
    Affair" and the actual evidence that was allowed in court. We're
    beating a dead horse, here, but I still stand by the statement of
    Innocent until Proven Guilty. He can come out and go into great detail
    about committing the murders and aside from the pending wrongful death
    civil suits, nobody could touch him. He's not going to prison, so white
    America needs to let it go and get on to something that matters.

>               <<< Note 669.71 by CSLALL::SECURITY "MADHATTA" >>>
>         Exactly, in the US, your are presumed innocent until proven
>    guilty.He was found to be not guilty, thus we must assume he is
>    innocent. Glad to have helped.

	okay, how about this - here you say that we must "assume" he
	is innocent.  that is incorrect.  the jury had to "presume"
	he was innocent.  to "presume" is "to suppose that something
	is reasonable, justifiable, sound, or possible in the absence
	of proof to the contrary".  it was indeed possible that he was
	innocent.  to "assume" is "to accept something as existing or
	being true without proof or on inconclusive grounds".  neither
	we, nor the jury, must "assume" he is innocent.  

    
    >He's not going to prison, so white
    >America needs to let it go and get on to something that matters.
     
    Oh, puh-leeze.
    

    > He's not going to prison, so white
    > America needs to let it go and get on to something that matters.
    
    No, white/black/yellow/red/brown/pink America needs to straighten out a
    legal system that is so hung up on technicalities that it can let a
    perp who is caught in the act (not OJ) go because his name is spelled
    wrong in an indictment.  This happened in a federal court.

    Oh, puh-leeze get on to something that matters.

    
    You've got almost 700 topics to choose from, and tons of other
    notesfiles.  If you don't want to discuss it, don't discuss it.
                   
    
    

    You don't think a screwed-up legal system matters?  I fear for our
    country if the future of law enforcement is in the hands of such as
    you.

  _,   __     _, _ _, _ __,  _,  _, _, _
 / \  , |    (_  | |\/| |_) (_  / \ |\ |
 \ /, ( |,   , ) | |  | |   , ) \ / | \|
  ~ ~  ~~~    ~  ~ ~  ~ ~    ~   ~  ~  ~


 ___  _,  _, _,_    _,   _,_ _, _ _ __, __,  
  |  / \ / \ |_/   /_\   |_/ |\ | | |_  |_   
  |  \ / \ / | \   | |   | \ | \| | |   |   ,
  ~   ~   ~  ~ ~   ~ ~   ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~   ~~~ '


  _, _, _ __,    _, _,  _ ___   ___ _,_ __,   ___ _,_ __,  _,  _, ___
 /_\ |\ | | \   (_  |   |  |     |  |_| |_     |  |_| |_) / \ /_\  | 
 | | | \| |_/   , ) | , |  |     |  | | |      |  | | | \ \ / | |  | 
 ~ ~ ~  ~ ~      ~  ~~~ ~  ~     ~  ~ ~ ~~~    ~  ~ ~ ~ ~  ~  ~ ~  ~ 


  _, __,   _,_ _  _,   __, _  ,    _  _ _ __, __, 
 / \ |_    |_| | (_    |_  '\/     |  | | |_  |_  
 \ / |     | | | , )   |    /\  ~~ |/\| | |   |  ,
  ~  ~     ~ ~ ~  ~    ~~~ ~  ~    ~  ~ ~ ~   ~~~~


  _, _, _ __,   _  _ _,_ __, _, _   ___ _,_ __,    __,  _, __,
 / \ |\ | | \   |  | |_| |_  |\ |    |  |_| |_    , |  / \ |_)
 |~| | \| |_/   |/\| | | |   | \|    |  | | |     ( |  \ / |_)
 ~ ~ ~  ~ ~     ~  ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~  ~    ~  ~ ~ ~~~    ~~   ~  ~  


 _  _  _,  _,   _, _ _  _, __, _,  , _   __,  _, _, _ __,  
 |  | /_\ (_    |\ | | / ` |_  |   \ |   | \ / \ |\ | |_   
 |/\| | | , )   | \| | \ , |   | ,  \|   |_/ \ / | \| |   ,
 ~  ~ ~ ~  ~    ~  ~ ~  ~  ~~~ ~~~   )   ~    ~  ~  ~ ~~~ '


 _,_ __,   _,_ _ _,  _,  __, __,   __, __, __, __,
 |_| |_    |_/ | |   |   |_  | \   |_  |_) |_  | \
 | | |     | \ | | , | , |   |_/   |   | \ |   |_/
 ~ ~ ~~~   ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~     ~   ~ ~ ~~~ ~  
                                                  
  _,  _, _,  __, _, _  _, _, _ ,  _,
 / _ / \ |   | \ |\/| /_\ |\ | ' (_ 
 \ / \ / | , |_/ |  | | | | \|   , )
  ~   ~  ~~~ ~   ~  ~ ~ ~ ~  ~    ~ 


  _, _, _ _,  , _    _,  _, _, _ 
 / \ |\ | |   \ |   (_  / \ |\ | 
 \ / | \| | ,  \|   , ) \ / | \|,
  ~  ~  ~ ~~~   )    ~   ~  ~  ~~
               ~'                

    Rough crowd lately, like sharks at feeding time.

>    Oh, puh-leeze get on to something that matters.

	a Criminal Justice major graduating in the fall who doesn't
	know the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty" matters
	somewhat.  it's sorta scary.

    Lovely limerick there, John.  How bout a catchy second verse?

I dunno.  Did the Lizzie Borden rhyme it was patterned upon have a 2nd verse?

    I think a screwed up system is terrible. But as screwed up as our
    system is, it's still the best in the world. Crime is so out of control
    right now, it's beyond anybody saving it: me, my classmates, the
    president, the president's husband, Batman, nobody can stop it. I'm
    doing juvi probation because the only way to do anything at all. I'm
    glad John R. Covert was there to see OJ commit the crimes, as he's so
    sure of it. Everybody is still crying about this crap and it's long
    over with. LET IT GO!!!! OJ is free, and unless he does something
    illegal, will remain free regardless of how much time you spend making
    your lovely poetic epitaph. If the problems of the legal system are
    what you desire to discuss, then do so. But the OJ trial worked as the
    system intended it to work, for better or worse. Maybe OJ bought
    justice through pricey lawyers, and if he was broke I believe he would
    have been convicted, but he wasn't broke, he wasn't convicted, and the
    future of criminal justice is much better off in my hands than that of
    the corruption ridden jurisdictions we know today.
    
    
    				lunchbox

    Pack it in, lunchbox, you are clearly in the wrong notesfile.

    
    	RE: Covert
    
    	The rhyme was close enough in spirit to the Lizzie Borden
    	rhyme that it was recognizable as such [at least to me].
    
    	And no, there was no 2nd verse.
    

    .151  How can you say that?  He's clearly riled you.  That would put
    him in the right notesfile, no?  Isn't that in the Soapbox mission
    statement somewhere??

    .153
    
    > He's clearly riled you.
    
    Pity you can't see the wicked grin on my face.  Riled me?  Hardly.

    I know the difference between "innocent " and "not guilty" thank you.
    There is no verdict of innocent anymore, so it is somewhat
    irrelevant. As I've tried to explain, the system today warrents that a
    person is innocent until proven guilty. OJ was not proven guilty.
    Everybody thinks just because they watched Greta Van Lastname on CNN 
    that they know what they are talking about. What is going on here is
    either a lack of ability for us to communicate on common ground, or a
    lack of understanding of the system on your part. I think you are
    confusing the legal and the moral aspects of "innocent". Of course, OJ
    wasn't innocent. Yes, he beat his wife, yes he's cocky and
    arrogant,etc. From that standpoint he isn't innocent. But in the
    court's eyes, he is innocent of the crime he was charged with because
    he was not convicted. I'll admit being wrong in saying he "proved his
    innocence" way back when I said I didn't want to open a can of worms
    (sheesh), I should have said was found "not guilty", OK? What everybody
    seemingly is hung up on is the verdict being "not guilty" instead of
    "innocent". There is not a verdict of "innocent", as has already been
    established. The burden of proof is put on the prosecution, as it
    should be. Marcia Clark had a police force of buffoons to work with.
    Had they not botched the investigation OJ would probably have been
    convicted. Her star witness practically perjured himself, evidence was
    missing, evidence was misplaced, etc. Maybe OJ did it, but how can you
    convict a person based on her case? I understand it's a tough pill to
    swallow, but if this verdict and the light this case shed on police
    misconduct will bring up the standards of police, at least some good
    will come of it.
    
    
    					lunchbox

You're beginning to get it.

If you keep listening, maybe it will become clear.

In the court's eyes, O.J. is innocent until proven guilty.  And he
wasn't proven guilty.

But for the rest of us, he's guilty.  Guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty!

/john

    John-
    
    	What does your Guilty guilty guilty guilty idea count for? Nada ,
    nil, zilch, zippo. You're entitled to your opinion and you're entitled
    to state it, I'm glad you've echoed my point on the court's stand on
    innocent until proven guilty, though.
    
    					lunchbox

    .154 Yes, pity!  8)

 .156 speak for yourself, John, as they say.

    
    	Who are these "they" people, and where are "they"?
    

    ....the dark clouds are lifting....

    By the by Fred Goldman could easily be sued for slander.

>               <<< Note 669.155 by CSLALL::SECURITY "MADHATTA" >>>

>    What is going on here is
>    either a lack of ability for us to communicate on common ground, or a
>    lack of understanding of the system on your part. 

	since you've made more than one erroneous statement, i'd say
	it's at least the former.

    I'd like to see more than one erroneous statement, other than the
    initial statement about OJ proving his innocence, which was due to an
    attempt to hasten my response.
    
    				lunchbox

   .164   see .71

    Is there an error there? Maybe presumed would have been better than
    assumed, but the gist of the whole thing is fine.

>    Is there an error there? Maybe presumed would have been better than
>    assumed, but the gist of the whole thing is fine.

	we do not have to assume he is innocent.  your statement
	was erroneous.  you asked for a pointer - i gave you one.
	that is one of the erroneous statments that set off the
	discussion.

    Just give up, Dave!!!  People will always find things to nitpick at.
    
    And they've had lots of practice in here, so they're very good at it!!!

    .155
    
    > As I've tried to explain, the system today warrents that a
    > person is innocent until proven guilty.
    
    You are still unable to see the crucial distinction here.  (And it's
    warrant, not warrent.)  The distinction was beautifully laid out for
    you by Lady Di, to wit, the system today PRESUMES that a person is
    innocent until proven guilty.  There is a vast gulf between presuming
    something and warranting it.  I presume that my house will stand
    another 150 years, but I'll be damned if I'd warrant that for anyone.

  .168  why don't you stop complaining about Soapbox and go to the
	Friends conference?

    Make me.  8P

    Let me correct my minor error:
    
    			He was found not guilty, thus, in the court's eyes,
    he is innocent and can never be tried criminally again. Mr. John Covert
    and the slanderous Fred Goldman are, of course, allowed to form their
    own opinions, as is the rest of America. 
    
    
    				thank you for this opportunity

    re.169
    
    	But the presumption of innocence is what I'm talking about. How's
    this:
    
    		The court warrants that he is to be presumed innocent due
    to the fact that he was not proven guilty.

    
    	Ummm, no.
    
    	In the court's eyes, he's still "not guilty".
    
    	In his eyes, he's "innocent", which doesn't count for much.
    	Especially if he did indeed do it.
    
    	Maybe you're confusing a finding with a mindset.  A verdict
    	of "not guilty" is a finding, which contributes to the mind-
    	set that he's innocent.  At least he's treated that way, and
    	is a free person.
    

    > and can never be tried criminally again.
    
    Boy, you really *are* a loser.  He can never be tried criminally again
    for the crime of murder in the first degree against the persons of
    Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.  He can most assuredly be
    tried criminally again for the crime of murder in the SECOND degree
    against the persons of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, if the
    state of California so desires.  I was involved as a witness in just
    such a case in the mid-1980s.

    
    	That was in response to .172.
    
    	.173 is much better.
    

    I'm the loser? He was also found not guilty of the crime of second
    degree murder, BTW, so he cannot be tried for that either. I'm glad
    that you're an expert just because you served as a witness years ago.

    Ah.  I had not been aware that he was simultaneously tried for
    second-degree murder.  Guess I should waste more of my time watching
    Court TV or reading the tabloids, eh?  My apologies.

    So, does calling him a loser make you feel better?

    Maybe you should spend more time ... ah, never mind.
    

    
    	Dick, you might remember that Ito instructed the jurors that
    	they could find him guilty of 2nd degree murder in both
    	deaths if the jurors thought that appropriate, and the def-
    	ense apparently didn't like that too much.
    

    Yeah, DICK, and they also said, just after the initial not guilty
    verdict, that they found him not guilty of second degree murder in the
    deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. You didn't have to watch TV
    or read a tabloid to know that, the best newspapers in the country
    included the information. I think it's silly that you called me a loser
    just prior to making such a stupid statement, Mr. Expert Witness.
    
    				lunchbox

    .182
    
    You seem to think I care enough about the fate of OJ to have read any
    newspaper article in detail.  I said once that I was UNAWARE that he'd
    also been tried for murder 2.  I was not aware of Ito's insructions to
    the jury, nor was I aware of their statement that they found him not
    guilty of murder 2.  You may rest assured that I was vastly more
    interested in the case in which I was involved, given that the victim
    was a close friend and given that the defense chose to use me as a red
    herring to create the famous "reasonable doubt."  I went to court
    twice, once when the perp was tried for murder 1 and once when he was
    tried for murder 2 after the first jury convicted him and the judge
    threw out the verdict saying that the state hadn't proven its case.
    
    I even apologized for the reply in which I called you a loser.  You may
    never receive that kind of courtesy from me again, so enjoy it while
    you can, okay?

    Your apology seemed a little sarcastic, as it was just after you made
    the reference to "wasting more time watching court TV or reading the
    tabloids". Your apology, no matter how insincere, is accepted. I just
    found it amusing that you were so sure of yourself and so insulting and
    you fell on your face.
    
    
    				lunchbox

    .184
    
    The apology, rest assured, was quite sincere.  You see, I'm not afraid
    to admit it when I'm wrong.
    
    The reference to watching Court TV was also sincere.  I consider Court
    TV and the vast majority of all programs on the tube to be a waste of
    time.  I consider all of the yellow tabloid press utterly worthless,
    and in that class I include Hard Copy and its clones on TV.

    His apology was sincere, and I respect that.

    His tautology was unclear, and I suspect that.

    I agree with the TV reference, I myself only watch sports, but you
    seemed to be implying that I watch court TV, and read tabloids, doing
    nothing more than wasting my time. I had to watch a majority of the
    Simpson trial, due to the examples that were extracted from it in my
    classes. A lot could be learned from the whole thing, believe it or
    not. You forced me to the defensive by calling me a loser, and I
    sincerely apologize for questioning the sincerity of your apology.
    We both could have been more mature about the whole thing, I guess.
    
    					lunchbox
    

<----  maturity is for a conference other than SOAPBOX.  nnttm.  :)

	Lunchbox.....welcome to soapbox! You're officially a member now. You
have survived your first battle!

    It wasn't easy, Glen. Thank goodness April backed me up once in a
    while!!
    
    				lunchbox

	I would have gladly back you up....but not sure if you would have liked
it...heh heh

    Err, no glen, I wouldn't. You can stand by me in a battle though!!!

    Bottom line is, lunchbox, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY is not a
    verdict, it's a condition the court places onto a defendant until a
    verdict by said court.
    
    The two results a jury can find a defendant is GUILTY or NOT GUILTY.
    Guilty means that the prosecution has proven it's case "beyond a
    a reasonable doubt".  Not Guilty means the PROSECUTION failed to prove
    it's case "beyond a reasonable doubt."  This is the situation we have
    in this particular instance.  The jury never says that "OJ, we find you
    INNOCENT, it acquitted him of the charges due to the one and only FACT
    we do know, and that is the prosecution failed to prove it's case
    beyond a reasonable doubt.
    
    You might think it is only a semantical difference between 'Boxers. 
    Actually, in the real world, it is a world of difference.  You need to
    read between these lines in the real world because you'll find you're
    future career to be much more rewarding.  Just ask the Dream Team.
    
    I sincerely hope you take the emotion out of this issue and see it only
    for the grammatical issue that it was brought up.  
    
    BTW, if you understand this concept, THEN you have really won in
    Soabox, not because Gleny said you did...  :')
    
    Ron 
    reasonable doubt."  NOT 

| <<< Note 669.193 by CSLALL::SECURITY "MADHATTA" >>>

| Err, no glen, I wouldn't. You can stand by me in a battle though!!!

	Sure...no prob....

    
    
    Silva, you queer or sumpthin?
    
    
    signed,
    
    an old friend
    

    
    
    This guy lunchbox sounds more like a barf bag.....

    .196/.197
    
    That "an old friend" was using my account again, I see...I wonder where
    he'll turnip next...

    re: .130
    
    aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
    
    lunchbox:
    
    one thing you should learn in soapbox is that you (specific) CAN
    learn from your elders.  I have a B.S. in Criminal Justice and have
    worked in my chosen field for 10 years.  Dick and Mark are right.  I'm 
    only up to note .130 in this string, but couldn't bring myself to keep
    reading without responding.   I find it hard to believe you've managed
    so far with your education without failing to recognize the simple fact
    that being found not guilty is NOT the same as being innocent.  You do
    take copious notes, don't you?  And you read them, study them, try to
    understand them, don't you?  Apply this to what you can learn here.

| <<< Note 669.196 by USAT02::HALLR "God loves even you!" >>>

| Silva, you queer or sumpthin?

	Aren't we all a little odd? :-)


Glen

    .199 That's why I try to read through all the replies first.  8)

    i see OJ is still bleeding into this topic. the man is as ubiquitous
    as his DNA.

    Not only that, you find him everywhere you go too!

    
    Thanks, little buddy.
    

    To clarify my stance on this whole thing:
    
    I don't think OJ is innocent. I really don't think anybody is innocent,
    as innocent is  defined as sinless and uncorrupted. What I was trying
    to say is, OJ was not proved to be guilty of his crime, and therefore,
    IN THE EYES OF THE COURTS, he is considered to be innocent. I
    understand that this is an emotional issue, and I think people balk at
    the idea of the word "innocent" being used in the same sentence as
    "OJ". I think people have a hard enough time swallowing "not guilty".
    I admit being wrong initially by saying he proved his innocence. I
    think what everybody got hung up on was my stance of "innocent until
    proven guilty". This is the creed I've been taught, this is the creed
    of the criminal justice system in this country. Of course, OJ isn't
    innocent. Whether he committed this crime or not, nobody with the
    exception of OJ (or the real killer, if it wasn't him) can say. I'm not
    innocent, Glen isn't innocent, Mz. Deb isn't innocent; sinning is human
    nature. Maybe the word innocent shouldn't be used to describe anybody
    over 4 years of age. I sincerely meant the finding of "not guilty" is,
    to the court, a message to the courts that 12 people didn't think there
    was sufficient evidence to send OJ to prison for the rest of his life.
    "Innocent", I admit, was thrown around a little to freely on my part.
    The discussion began to get a little personal, and I went on the
    defensive and between defending myself and trying to explain myself I
    think I may have set myself up to be misunderstood. I thank all of you
    who gave their opinions in a polite and dignified manner, others I lost
    a lot of respect for. Here, (I hope) is my final summary of what I've
    been trying to say, what I've neglected to say, etc.
    
    
    INNOCENT- nobody over age 5.
    
    OJ- not innocent, but not proven to be guilty either.
    
    LAPD- as bad, if not worse than OJ. Bumbling crop  of fools.
    
    
    
    					lunchbox

    >I admit being wrong initially by saying he proved his innocence. 
    
    >"Innocent", I admit, was thrown around a little to(sic) freely on my part.
    
     Just think about how differently the last 130+ notes would have gone
    if that had been your response in .71 . Food for thought.

    re.208
    
    > Just think about how differently the last 130+ notes would have gone
    >if that had been your response in .71. Food for thought.
    
    
	My problem was people started questioning my ability to perform the
    job I aspire to do, and I began defending myself, and I was so busy
    replying to all the accusations and negative comments that I ignored my
    erroneous statement. I hope I've stated my viewpoint better in .207.
    Besides, think of how boring the last 130+ notes would have been
    without people jumping all over me!!!
    
    
    				lunchbox

    
    	Dave, "innocent" isn't balked at just because it is being used
    	in reference to OJ.  It would be wrong regardless of the case
    	being discussed.
    
    	And, considering that the courts are an arm of the law, OJ [and
    	anyone else who has gone to court and not been proven guilty of
    	whatever charges were brought up against him/her] is considered
    	"not guilty" by the courts.  He will proclaim his innocence, but
    	he's still considered "not guilty".
    

    
    > Just think about how differently the last 130+ notes would have gone
    > if that had been your response in .71 . Food for thought.
    
    
    	Serious case of deja vu here.
    
    	8^)
    

  .209  oh, so it's someone else's fault that you made yourself look as
	though you didn't know what end was up.  i see. ;>

    re.212
    
    No, I admit I got defensive, and I apologized for it. It's my own fault
    I didn't say what I meant way back when, which is what I said in my
    attempt to set everything straight. Maybe nobody understood that,
    either.
    
    				lunchbox

   my impression of your noble attempt to set everything straight was
   the same as Shawn's (.210).  i think it's safe to say that none of
   us thought "innocent" was being used in the sense of "free of sin"
   or whatever.

    Another thumper topic...

    I think people thought I was saying OJ was innocent, which I guess is
    what I was saying, but not what I meant. As I said, I was so busy
    trying to address what everybody was saying, that I pushed the original
    issue to the back and defended myself. You, Shawn and everybody else
    were on a completely different track than I was, regardless of whose
    fault it was(probably mine, I admit), which is why I couldn't grip what
    you were saying and you couldn't grip what I was saying.

    >which is why I couldn't grip what you were saying 
    
     Well, that much is true.
    
    >and you couldn't grip what I was saying.
    
     I don't think anyone was missing anything you were saying. Some might
    have missed what you _meant_ as a result of your imprecise verbiage,
    but you can hardly blame them for that.

    re.217
    
    I am not blaming anybody for misunderstanding me, I took the blame
    myself, which, at least, I stated very clearly.

>               <<< Note 669.130 by CSLALL::SECURITY "MADHATTA" >>>

>    ... What don't you get about innocent until
>    proven guilty? Take this test...
    
>    In the US, is a defendant presumed to be innocent until proven guilty?
    
>    Was OJ Simpson proven guilty?
    
>    Based on your answers for 1 and 2, what can be concluded about the OJ
>    Simpson verdict?

	Dave, could you do me a favor and answer this yourself?  I'm
	curious as to what you think the response should have been.

    re.219
    
    1. yes, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
    
    2. No, OJ was not proven to be guilty.
    
    3. In the court's eyes OJ is innocent and will never be tried for this
    crime criminally again.
    
    
    				hth. Lunchbox

    
    	There he goes again.
    

    Shawn, what is wrong???

    
    	You said, again, "He's innocent in the eyes of the court".
    

    Tomorrow, I will bring in a quote from a textbook that states that a
    person is considered to be innocent until proven guilty, in the eyes of
    the court, OK?

    
    	And I can bring in a book that states that toast is considered
    	to be bread until it goes into a toaster.
    
    	After it comes out of the toaster, it's not bread any more.
    
    	[This sounded like an excellent analogy before I typed it in,
    	 but now I'm not so sure.  Especially since I don't know if I
    	 have a book that says that.  8^)]
    

    I can find a book that states that batter is considered to be batter
    until it goes into an oven. If you leave it in the oven and then take
    it out, it would most likely still be batter because, you doodlehead,
    you forgot to turn the oven on.

    life is like an analogy...

    By the way. Slab's toast theory could be disproven very easily.

    Hey, last game in the Forum tonight, huh?

an analogy is like a metaphor

    I used to have a Camen, which is like a crocadile only smaller.

    
    crocodile
        ^
    

    Yeah, but I'm on spring break so I can spel wrong if I want to!!!!

    
    	Alright, Glenn, is there more to disproving my analogy than un-
    	plugging the toaster?
    

    
        Lunchbox, stop exposing yer reptile collection.
    
        bb

    The toaster could be plugged in.

    Why do people keep correcting my spelling? I had one, I have volumes of
    books on the creatures, I know how it is spelled. I'm being improper
    due to spring break! I'm not going to Florida, so I have to do
    something that makes me feel like I'm breaking the educaitional chains.
    (that was intended as well).

    It is the Soapbox way. 

    You people won't let me misspell and have fun, so I won't do it. My
    attempt at rebellion has proven to be futile...

        You should take a lesson from our Jack Martin. He's relentless.

    I've taken lessons from Jack Martin, can't you tell? 

    >Why do people keep correcting my spelling? 

Because it pisses you off.  NNTTM, HTH

    .224
    
    > Tomorrow, I will bring in a quote from a textbook that states that a
    > person is considered to be innocent until proven guilty, in the eyes of
    > the court, OK?
    
    If your wonderful textbook says a person is "considered" to be innocent
    until proven guilty, you should trade it in on a textbook that says
    "presumed" - because these two concepts are *not* the same thing.  We
    went through the difference between "assume" and "presume" - any good
    dictionary, probably even Black's Law Dictionary, will tell you that
    "consider" means "deem" and is a lot closer to "assume" than it is to
    "presume."

    Are you going to call me a loser again and then make an erroneous
    statement? Just wondering...

    
    	Ow ... that's gotta hurt.  8^)
    

    .244
    
    No.  I learn from my mistakes.  Why don't you?

    I can participate in a discussion without acting like a 5-year old, do
    you think that's admirable since I'm probably half your age and at
    least can do that better?

    Zing!

    .247
    
    > I can participate in a discussion without acting like a 5-year old...
    
    Ask me if I care.  I can do so, too, when it suits me.  You'll be
    pleased, I'm sure, to know that you're rather less than half my age. 
    Allow me to remind you of a remark made by one Samuel Langhorne
    Clemens:
    
    	"When I was fifteen years old, my father was the stupidest man on
    	earth.  When I got to be twenty-five, I was amazed at how much he'd
    	learned in the meantime."
    
    One thing your father might learn sometime in the next five years is
    that discussions can be undertaken with the understanding that nothing
    said should be taken personally.  You may be able to teach him that
    after you've participated in this file for a little while.

Does somebody put dog manure in lunchbox's lunchbox each morning? He sure 
is testy!

    I think he's testing his testes.

    How am I to be called a loser and not take it personally? I responded
    to opposing viewpoints and even questions about my character and
    intelligence with some degree of dignity. I had nothing against you
    until you pulled that remark out of some cavity of your body and threw
    it out for all to see, then went on to make a statement, in error, all
    the while proclaiming your expertise. If you had wanted to make the
    second-degree murder remark, you certainly could have done so without a
    personal attack. By the way, where are the spelling police after .247?
    
    
    						lunchbox

	some of the 'boxers like to say that nothing should be
	taken personally.  that's not _always_ true.  if i insult
	you, you should take it personally, for instance.  i might
	apologize later, which you should discard as obsequious
	rubbish.  unless it's a Tuesday, in which case i will have
	meant it sincerely. ;>

	is this helping any?

    Until that point I had taken nothing personally. If there is a
    disagreement or conflicting points of view I truly enjoy engaging in
    the verbal pugilism that ensues, provided there is a hint of respect in
    the whole thing. That "Boy, you really *are* a loser" remark was way
    beyond the scope of the argument. Up to that point, it wasn't personal.

    > How am I to be called a loser and not take it personally?
    
    Engage in a little illicit trade and purchase an elephant's hide or,
    failing that, try Grade III full body armor.  This, although said in a
    jocular way, is serious advice.  If you can't shrug off being called a
    loser in SOAPBOX, you're never going to make it out there in the cruel
    world where coming back at someone who calls you a loser can get you
    wasted.
    
    Learn that everyone makes mistakes, including you, me, and everyone
    else who notes here.  When somebody makes a mistake and gets called on
    it, the person who screwed up has the opportunity to learn something. 
    The person who called him or her on it also has the opportunity to
    learn something from the response.

    by the way, Richard starts practically every other note with
    "you call that little barely-detectable speck of grey matter
    a brain?" or some such charming lead-in, so being called a
    loser is sort of a compliment coming from him.

    I think you're overreacting there, lunchbox. SOAPBOX is not like real
    life. It enables you to discuss things in a way that wouldn't be
    possible face to face. If someone calls you a loser, it may or may not
    be serious, but who cares right? It's what you know about yourself that
    counts.

    This isn't parliament.

    If I was wrong, which I admitted being to a point, you could have
    called me on it without calling me a loser. That whole opening sentence
    did nothing but anger me and make you sound foolish. I can shrug off
    being called a loser, but you certainly were wrong to do so and I'm
    calling you on it. If you think it's something I'll soon forget, you're
    wrong again. As far as making it in the real world where coming back at
    someone who calls you a loser can get you wasted is concerned, part of
    the real world is knowing who poses a threat to you. Calling somebody a
    loser can also get you wasted, Dick, but you know I pose no threat to
    you within the confines of soapbox, so you did so freely. I know you
    pose no threat to me within the confines of soapbox, which is why I
    knew I could come back on you safely without getting "wasted".  If you
    think I would come back on 3 rednecks in a pickup truck while I was by
    myself, that's a different situation. But here, you can't threaten me,
    and I suspect on the street you couldn't either, so I can tell you just
    how I feel when you call me a loser.

    Holy sheizerballs! You're a very insecure young man.

    .258
    
    > I can shrug off being called a loser...
    
    Which is why we've engaged in a nontrivial number of replies discussing
    just that point.  Clearly, you did not shrug it off at first, and your
    refusal to let the matter drop with a simple "Okay, next insult" makes
    it clear that you have still not done so.
    
    You've called me on it.  I apologized.  Drop it, or I'll have to insult
    you again.  Maybe I'll say, "Your mother was a hamster and your father
    smelled of elderberries."
    
    I don't pose a threat to you in the real world?  John Wayne Gacy didn't
    pose a threat to anyone until somebody discovered a lot of dead bodies
    buried under his house.  Have no illusions about real-world threats, my
    young friend.

    Not insecure, I just want what I deserve, and I don't think I deserved
    to be called a loser, that's all. I think I've come a little further
    than that in a few short years. In fact, I think it's Dick who's
    insecure, finding it necessary to hurl an insult as a beginning to his
    note. Perhaps he knows how secure I am and why I am that secure, which
    makes me a threatening figure to him.

    I think we have another SCOTTK here.

    
    	Dick, he's got a very good point.
    
    	If nothing in an argument should be taken personally, maybe it
    	shouldn't be worded so that it's received as such.
    
    	"You're a loser, but don't take it personally" doesn't make a
    	whole lot of sense, especially coming from someone as versed
    	as you are in language[s].
    

    You apologized for your wrong statement, I don't think you've
    apologized for calling me a loser. If you were to make a note of what a
    foolish thing that was to say, I would gladly drop the issue and get
    back to John Salvi, who hasn't been discussed in about 200 notes. John
    Wayne Gacy was a threat to tiny children, I am neither tiny nor a
    child. He certainly wasn't a threat to most of us at large, look what
    his little "killer clown" masquerade got him. Nifty paintings,
    though...

    .263
    
    Shawn, insults are like gifts.  They work only if taken.  If lunchbox
    has a problem with what I said, it's his problem, not mine.  That I
    apologized for it was entirely a gesture of grace on my part - there
    was no real need to do so.  I've looked foolish in this forum before,
    and I'm pretty sure this set-to with lunchbox won't prove to contain
    the last instance thereof.

    Bzzzzzt.

    Gacy was a threat to young men. But I digress.

    The sooner you learn that you don't deserve anything in life, the
    better you will be.

    I've been called lots of things, which wasn't deserved. But, I know
    what I'm worth, so it doesn't mean anything. I've been insulted in this
    forum by the very best. The fact that they even bothered to call me
    names is an accomplishment. It means I was noticed. 
    
    And, I'd say you are insecure if being called a loser could bend you so
    much.

    .264
    
    To save you the trouble of going back to dig up my apology, here it is
    in all its glory.  I challenge you to find anything in it that suggests
    which, if either, of the remarks to which you took offense, is excluded
    from the apology.  I suspect that most people with a good command of
    the English language would accede that a nonspecific apology can be
    interpreted as being a general one.
    
           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
    
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 669.178                       Salvi Trial                        178 of 264
SMURF::BINDER "Manus Celer Dei"                       3 lines   8-MAR-1996 17:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ah.  I had not been aware that he was simultaneously tried for
    second-degree murder.  Guess I should waste more of my time watching
    Court TV or reading the tabloids, eh?  My apologies.

    But it was an apology wrapped in an insult. You hinted that I wasted my
    time watching Court TV and reading tabloids. While I'll admit to
    watching Court TV (not so much a waste of time as watching one of these
    situation comedies, which are neither a situation nor a comedy) my
    tabloid reading experience goes no further than the check-out aisle in
    the supermarket. You've indirectly apologized, which I will accept.
    Remarks of my insecurity can be applied to Dick's refusal to issue an
    actual apology. I'm not insecure, I just feel that my people have been
    kicked around long enough that it's time we stand up for ourselves. Not
    that I think the insult was directed at my heritage, mind you, but I
    feel I have a lot to be proud of and I don't need somebody telling me
    I'm worth less than I really am , even when I'm wrong.

    
    
    	Lunchbox, wait to you get Mr. Bill on yer tail. You ain't even been
    CLOSE to insulted yet....:*)
    
    
    jim
    
    p.s. - think of it this way, they wouldn't speak to you if they didn't
    like you. ;*)

    Our people?

    So, if someone calls me a loser, I have no right to be upset because my
    people dished it out in the past?

    You know, I'm kinda surprised at this. I never even thought of you
    being different than me for a moment. that's the way it should be
    right?

    You're right, but I really am not any different from you. Maybe younger
    and not so clever sometimes for lack of experience. I'm kind of sorry
    that I made that remark, it's nice to hide behind a cloak of anonymity
    sometimes. I will be more graceful about taking insults in the future,
    the first time always hurts, you know?
    
    				lunchbox

    Be thankful CALLME::MR_TOPAZ isn't here, young man.
    
    8^)
    
    Stick around, this place has helped me an awful lot. It can help you
    and you can help others.

    Help me do what? Verbally joust?

    Oh, God, I'm sorry!  O great lunchbox, sir, please allow me to abase
    myself at your feet and kiss the soles of your boots in a vain attempt
    to convey the utter depth of my sincerity in offering to you this
    unqualified apology for everything I've ever said and everything I ever
    will say to you or to anyone else in the entire world.
    
    Waitaminnit here!  REBOOT!
    
    Your people?  Your PEOPLE????  Let me tell you this once, little boy,
    and pray you never make the same mistake with someone who might
    actually be offended enough to take you to task:  I do not give a $#!+
    for "your people" or "my people" or for anyone else's "people."  I
    judge people by what they do, not who their fathers and mothers were. 
    I don't care what color your skin is, and I won't stand to have some
    wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper like you imply that I do.  Your
    precious "people" are human beings, just like all the rest of us -- we
    all bleed the same color -- and if you want to make an issue of race,
    you came to the wrong party.  Go home to your own sick, bloody hatred,
    you little racist pipsqueak.  If you ever grow up, let me know and
    maybe we'll have something to say to each other.  Until then, piss off.

    Lunchbox - Dick Binder *really, really* likes you now.  :)
    
    (After this, he starts sending poetry and flowers.)

    What qualified me as a racist? For that matter, what qualified me as a
    pipsqueek? I'd much rather be a wet behind the ears whippersnapper
    than a boring old bingo bat at the prime of his impotence!!!! If being
    proud of who I am and where I come from makes me a racist in your eyes
    then I feel sorry for you, really sorry. My people are human beings as
    you said, and human beings have something called pride, which is
    probably hard to understand if you have nothing to be proud of. I told
    you I accepted your apology, that gangly adolescent attempt at humor
    was pathetic. You really need to grow up, because for all of the
    language you've learned and all the degrees you may have acquired
    you're still a scared little boy who doesn't like to go outside at
    night because that's where the "bad people" are.

    .279
    
    > What qualified me as a racist?
    
    How about this:
    
    .268> I'm not insecure, I just feel that my people have been
    .268> kicked around long enough that it's time we stand up for ourselves..
    .268> ... I have a lot to be proud of
    
    Maybe you do, but you aren't showing it.  Your pride in being black is
    apparently so ingrained that it overrides any pride you could have in
    being a person who accomplished what he accomplished on the only scale
    that means anything.  You are a racist.  And I despise racists.  You
    are deserving of the insult I hurled at you; you are indeed a loser.
    
    > For that matter, what qualified me as a pipsqueek?
    
    Duhhh...

    
    	Can you 2 hold on for a few minutes?
    
    	I'm gonna run down the hallway and grab ALOT of popcorn.
    
    	Thanks!!
    
    	[ZOOM!!]
    

    .279
    
    OBTW, I got no degrees.  I ain't a highfalutin' kollidge graduet like
    you're gonna be reel soon now.  I quit skool and got married and had
    two kids and worked my butt off to get where I am.  I'm damn proud of
    where I am because I didn't get here from being white or from being
    black, I got here from being real good at what I do.  Wake up and smell
    the toast, boy, your likely to end up flippin burgers like all them
    other kolleg graduits.

    Nice !
    
    

    Who said I was black?!!! They lied. You assume a lot, there, Dick.

    
    	Then I guess Dick [and the rest of us] are wondering what "your
    	people" refers to.
    

    BTW, I just re-read your note and I forgot to say something...
    
    I don't hope to accomplish anything because of my heritage, I aspire to
    earn everything I get, and I've achieved a lot in my short life,
    regardless of my race and without scholarships from my race. I'm proud,
    not racist, there's a big difference.

    My heritage doesn't matter, which is why I'm sorry I mentioned it. I
    was afraid of  a similar scenario to the one we are in now. I don't
    want to be thought of as "lunchbox the black" or "lunchbox the irish"
    or "lunchbox the native american" or "lunchbox the samoan" etc. I have
    pride in my heritage, that's all. If he has a hard time seperating
    pride and prejudace that's his problem.

    .287
    
    > My heritage doesn't matter, which is why I'm sorry I mentioned it.
    
    It doesn't matter, but it did matter enough that you mentioned it.  If
    I believed that statement, I'd consider you an admirably fast learner.
    
    > pride and prejudace
    
    Pride and Prejudice.  Jane Austen.  A good read; I recommend it.  When
    you're ready to apologize for your (maybe unintentional) implication
    that I'm a bigot, I'm ready to accept your apology.  Then, both having
    apologized, each to the other, we could even try to start afresh.  My
    hand is out.  Will you take it or spit on it?

    
    	If you choose the latter, Dave, use 19.1892
    

    Shawn, you are NOT helping.  :-)

    I never implied that you are a bigot, Dick. In fact, I'm sure this is
    the first time I mentioned that I am other than anglo. I'm sure you
    have nothing                                                         
    against any race besides your own. Why I fight so adamently against
    those that insult me is that I refuse to be kicked around, and part of
    the reason for it is because I'm proud of my race, and I refuse to be
    kicked around in a public forum, both for my pride in myself and all
    I've accomplished, and for my race. I'm sorry if you thought I was
    calling you a bigot, I wasn't, which is more than can be said about
    your comments toward me.

    I do accept your apology, and I thank you for being man enough to
    accept mine. You've been good about admitting when you are wrong,
    certainly better than I have. I'm sorry poor Mr. Salvi got pushed to
    the back burner so I could argue with everybody. As I said earlier,
    I'll be more gracious about accepting insults.
    
    
    					lunchbox

    Thumbs up for the Lunchbox!
    
    Suzanne

    Hay, Lunch ?
    
    
    
    S:*)

    Gotta hand it to him, he didn't cut and paste 19.1892, guess he ain't
    all bad.
    
    Gawd, this sounds like ::FRIENDS.  Somebody wake me up, please!  :-)

    waddup, Scott? 

    How's it going down there?  (WOO?)
    
    
    
    S:*)

    ssdd

    I understand :*)
    
    
    
    
    S:*)

    Single Sided Double Density?  Jeez, I thought that went out with the
    Macintosh 512ke!

    
    
    	Hey, I once backed up my ol' 120meg hard-drive to single sided,
    360K disks.....I think it took about 4-5hrs (I was sick and in bed and
    I could reach the drive door on my pc). :*)

    I used to have an atari 2600. The "people" in the games looked like
    this:
    
    
    			O
                     ___|____
                        |   o
                       / \
    
             The above is a guy playing basketball.

    Zounds!

    MOUNDS

| <<< Note 669.274 by CSLALL::SECURITY "MADHATTA" >>>

| the first time always hurts, you know?

	But it gets better as time goes on.... 

    I said that forgetting that you are always lurking around looking for a
    phrase to twist into innuendo, Glen!!! You're as bad as Charles Manson
    thinking The Beatles were talking to him via The White Album!!!

| <<< Note 669.282 by SMURF::BINDER "Manus Celer Dei" >>>

| OBTW, I got no degrees.  I ain't a highfalutin' kollidge graduet like
| you're gonna be reel soon now.  I quit skool and got married and had
| two kids and worked my butt off to get where I am.  

	Dick, to be where you are today, to have the brains you have, and to do
it the way you did it, impresses me even more. Talk about maturity.




Glen

| <<< Note 669.287 by CSLALL::SECURITY "MADHATTA" >>>

| My heritage doesn't matter, which is why I'm sorry I mentioned it. I
| was afraid of  a similar scenario to the one we are in now. I don't
| want to be thought of as "lunchbox the black" or "lunchbox the irish"
| or "lunchbox the native american" or "lunchbox the samoan" etc.

	I would have guessed...lunchbox is short. :-)



Glen

    >I would have guessed...lunchbox is short.
    
    HA!! Anybody can see that you are trying to get me to expose myself to
    prove you wrong, Silva-rado!!!!

| <<< Note 669.308 by CSLALL::SECURITY "MADHATTA" >>>

| I said that forgetting that you are always lurking around looking for a
| phrase to twist into innuendo, Glen!!! 

	Why whatever do you mean, Dave?  :-)

| You're as bad as Charles Manson thinking The Beatles were talking to him via 
| The White Album!!!

	My hair is MUCH nicer than Manson's. So I DON'T see the connection! :-)

| <<< Note 669.311 by CSLALL::SECURITY "MADHATTA" >>>

| HA!! Anybody can see that you are trying to get me to expose myself to
| prove you wrong, Silva-rado!!!!

	I said short, not small. :-)

          Whoa, I was wondering where everyone went. You guys had a war
    going on. MADHATTA, it looks like you got attacked from all sides. Too
    bad I missed the action. 

    > Too    bad I missed the action.
    
    so'd I?
    
    bummer.

    At least you can go back and read the play-by-play. How did I do? I
    mean, it's over, now of course, but how did I do?

    You are real sad, lunchbox, real sad...
    
    Ron

    Why would you say that?

         Yeah, I'm afraid Ron is right. You were kind of sad, lunchbox. You
    became too defensive, and sounded genuinely offended by their remarks.
    People like that self-righteous BINDER clown need to be slammed one at
    a time. Otherwise they bring all their little friends in to flood the
    conference. My next suggestion would be to take the fight where you
    have friends of your own. 

    I thought I did ok considering I was ganged up on. Next time back me
    up!!!

>    People like that self-righteous BINDER clown need to be slammed one at
>    a time.

Ok, Sammy me boy. It wasn't exactly lost to everyone that you entered
a similar reply, quickly deleted, under the username of Epperson just
a few minutes ago.

There's some history in here relative to pretentious dweebs who slam
Mr. Binder. You'll have no more success than the rest of them. But it's
pretty clear that you're inept as a masquerader bouncing amongst counterfeit
accounts, as well. You'll have to consult with your betters if you really
expect to pull off some true masquerades. Try /john.

         I don't really have multiple accounts. When Epperson noticed the
    all-out assault on MADHATTA, he called me over to the terminal. In the
    confusion, I'm afraid I accidentally sent out my note on his account.
    He was quick to point out my error. Since Epperson happens to be my
    supervisor, I thought an apology was in order. 
    

    You`re damn right an apology is in order.  You almost got that madman 
    intellectual on my case Ed.  I bet you`ll be hearing more from this
    Binder guy.

         Uh, oh. I have awakened the fury of a Decnet hero. I'll have to
    prepare myself to face the wrath.....
    

OK, "Epperson". As another DIGITAL manager, I'd like to have a "conversation"
with you, offline, about the propriety of letting others share the use of 
your account, specifically regarding Email or Notes postings. Brush up on 
PP&P and Corporate Information Security guidelines first, if you don't mind.

    I can`t help it that Ed mistakenly used my account while I was busy 
    relieving myself in the mens room.  I swear, you can`t even take a 
    crap around here.  And as if that`s not enough, I got you barking at me
    on the tube about security guideline.  Give me a break, pal.

         Wait a minute, hold everything. This isn't my fight. This is
    between MADHATTA, BINDER, and BINDER's evil minions. Sorry, folks, I
    keep getting involved in conversations that don't concern or interest
    me. It was pathetic to see MADHATTA beaten down like that, however. The
    reason he couldn't spell was probably because he had been crying all
    over his keyboard. I have enough enemies out here without making more.
    I really don't want some net-thug like BINDER on my case. 

    
    
    	Must be something in the water out there at BSS::......
    
    
    

    
    Blimey!
    
    You're in early today Chico....couldn't keep away huh?

    
    
    	I just loves this place so....:)
    
    	I'm usually in from 6:30am to 8pm Mon-Wed. Compressed work week and
    all that...
    
    jim

    
    I'd need the extra days to recover...........:^}
    
    
    
    
    I.

    What a rash of crybabies.

    Lunchbox;
    
    Your performance was so sad.  Period.  You wanted an outsider's
    assessment, you got it.
    
    Sammy:
    
    You're a poor excuse for a friend, a dweeb and an employee.  You may do
    better being in the Suburbians Conference.
    
    Ron

    
    
    	re: .336
    
    	Hey, you take that back!
    
    	<thrust out quivering lower lip>
    
    
      ;*)
         

        Well, thank pitchforks and pointed ears! It's over.

    
    	Dave, if you'd been right, then I for one would have taken
    	your side and gone against Binder.  I've done it before,
    	and there's no reason I wouldn't fo it again.
    
    	But you weren't right, so I didn't take your side.  And I
    	would bet that that was the reasoning behind everyone else's
    	decision not to take your side as well.
    

| <<< Note 669.318 by BSS::E_WALKER "The Friendly Talker" >>>

| MADHATTA, it looks like you got attacked from all sides. Too bad I missed the 
| action.

	I was kind of saying the same thing myself... :-)

    
    >I really don't want some net-thug like BINDER on my case.
    
    
    {snicker}... net-thug...
    
    
    
    >   -< BAILING OUT >-
    
    
    So? What else is new??

    Actually, after our little tet-a-tet, Binder and I spoke and cleared
    things up. He's not half-bad, just stubborn like myself. I still
    maintain that I argued my point effectively considering I was getting
    hit from all sides.
    
    
    					lunchbox

    
    t�te-�-t�te
    

    That would be the French version, the American is tet-a-tet.

  .349  if, by "effectively", you mean "convincingly", don't count
	me amongst those it was effective with.

    No, I didn't mean "convincingly". I mean that I defended myself despite
    the odds being stacked against me.

>    No, I didn't mean "convincingly". I mean that I defended myself despite
>    the odds being stacked against me.

	ah.  so the "effectively" part was superfluous.  you argued with
	a bunch of people and didn't just abandon the discussion.  yes,
	well done.  i still think this "in the eyes of the court, he's 
	innocent" bit is wrong though. ;>

	

    
    Really now.  What's a tet, lunchpail?
                 

    >Really now.  What's a tet, lunchpail?
    
     I dunno, but I gather it's offensive.

    Suggestion: start a separate string.

>    No, I didn't mean "convincingly". I mean that I defended myself despite
>    the odds being stacked against me.
    
     Picking the losing side of an argument will do that to ya.
    
    >you argued with a bunch of people and didn't just abandon the discussion.  
    
     He failed to recognize his error for a long time, then tried in vain
    to ignore it, then admitted it, then backpedaled. Sounds familiar, I
    must say.
    

    AHHH, I forgot my textbook, from which I was to quote the "innocent
    until proven guilty" stance. As for .355, I am taking the 5th in regard
    to JOYOFLEX catagories of errors.

    
    .356
    
    The Doctah is quite a wordsmith today 8^).
    

	Don't worry, Lunchbox. I'll protect ya! 

    mr. pail-
    
    don't forget to include 'presumed, presume or presumption' when you
    look up your text.
    
    also, minor nit-for those more familiar with exact wording, is it
    presumed innocent until proven guilty or presumed innocent unless
    proven guilty?

    I will be sure to include "presumed, presume, or presumption" in my
    textbook quote.
    
    >is it presumed innocent until proven guilty or presumed innocent
    >unless proven guilty?
    
    I think "unless" is more appropriate, as "until" implies that the
    person's guilty verdict is impending. I'm not sure how it reads in the
    book though. I'll be sure to remember it tomorrow.
    
    					lunchbox

    
    	I remember it as "until", but Dave's right in that it doesn't
    	seem to be the ideal word choice.
    

Re: Note 669.349 

    >I still maintain that I argued my point effectively considering I was 
    >getting hit from all sides.
    
  There was a point??

    RE .337
        WHOA, hold everything HALLR. You can't call me a poor excuse for an
    employee. You've never seen me work. I work most people into the
    ground. I bet you wouldn't last five minutes on my pack line. 

| <<< Note 669.366 by BSS::E_WALKER "The Friendly Talker" >>>

| WHOA, hold everything HALLR. You can't call me a poor excuse for an
| employee. You've never seen me work. 

	And that is why he called you a poor excuse of an employee. 

| I work most people into the ground. 

	You have worked at a cemetary I see. It shows as you keep digging a
bigger and bigger hole for yourself.

| I bet you wouldn't last five minutes on my pack line.

	Not if you're gonna bury him.

    re .367
    
    Hey, I know Ed "sammyboy" Walker and he works just as hard as the rest
    of us...hehe:)_
    
    Lunchbox,why are you called lunchbox.  I really think you need to draw
    more pictures. Quit trying to make "points" and draw! IMHO
    
    -ss

         I'm really no worse than you guys. You just have more experience
    insulting people in this conference. You wait for some chump to stumble
    in here so you can all attack and demonstrate your vast intellectual
    superiority. What is this "snarf 69" thing? I notice I'll be .369.
    

>         I'm really no worse than you guys. You just have more experience
>    insulting people in this conference. You wait for some chump to stumble
>    in here so you can all attack and demonstrate your vast intellectual
>    superiority.

bugger off, you daft git.

Chris.

    
    
    	:)
    
    

    People started calling me lunchbox for some reason. I think there was
    another dave or something.

    Another Dave in security, could be !!!!!
    
    
    
    s:*)

    Maybe this should go in the TTWA topic (I'm just catching up, work
    keeps interfering with my noting) ;-)
    
    Is it possible that this lunchbox/Madhatta person has relatives
    named Mewoski?
    
    Dear Mr. Lunchbox:
    
    Trust me, you haven't been insulted until a 'boxer who shall remain
    unnamed screams at you "YOU LIE, WHY DO YOU LIE?"  When this happens,
    then you truely have been insulted ;-)
    
     

    Insulted or annointed?

    
    	I think the word is actually "annoyeded".
    

    
    
    
    re: .282 and .285
    
    'scuse me???
    
    
    Didn't you "bail out"??
    

    Alright, here's the quotes everybody has been waiting for:
    
    These are from the book , "Criminal Justice Today" by Frank
    Schmalleger, Ph.D Pembroke State U., North Carolina. 1993 by
    REGENTS/PRENTICE HALL, a division of Simon and Schuster NJ, 07632
    
    
    The first example is Table 1-1, in the chapter "What is Criminal
    Justice?". The table is titled "Individual rights guaranteed by the
    Bill of Rights".
    
    A Right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty
    
    A right against unreasonable searches of person and place of residence
    
    a right against  arrest without probable cause
    
    a right against unreasonable seizures of personal property
    
    
    The list goes on, but the first line is what we're concerned with.
    
    In the chapter "The courtroom work group and the criminal trial", under
    the subtitle "The role of the defendant in a criminal trial" on page
    311, comes the following:
    
    " Even the most active defendants suffer from a number of
    disadvantages, however. One is the tendency of others to assume that
    anyone on trial must be guilty. Although a person is "innocent until
    proven guilty", the very fact that he or she is accused of an offense
    casts a shadow of suspicion that may foster biases in the minds of
    jurors and other courtroom actors."
    
    I'm sure I can find other examples. I'll mosey through the book when I
    have more time and try to find a more descriptive passage. Anybody who
    thinks I have fabricated these statements is welcome to give me their
    adress and I'll be happy to send them a photocopy of the above, and any
    others I may come across. 
    
    
    Interesting to note, that under table 1-1, the term used is "assumed".
    If anybody feels like criticizing the author or book, I'd ask you to be
    gentle, as I paid $42.00 for a used  copy.
    
    
    							lunchbox

   so this means i should change the topic title to "Assumption
   of Innocence" then? ;>  i didn't think so.

    .294
    
    > A Right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty
    
    The book is wrong.  Here, for your reference, are the entire contents
    of the Bill of Rights:
    
        1.  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
        religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
        the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
        peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
        of grievances.
    
        2.  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
        free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
        be infringed. 
    
        3.  No Soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house,
        without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a
        manner to be prescribed by law. 
    
        4.  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
        papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
        shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
        probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
        describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
        be seized. 
    
        5.  No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise
        infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
        Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in
        the Militia, when in actual service in time or War or public
        danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be
        twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in
        any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
        of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
        shall private property be taken for public use, without just
        compensation. 
    
        6.  In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
        to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
        district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
        district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
        informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
        confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
        process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
        Assistance of Counsel for his defence. 
    
        7.  In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
        exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
        preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
        reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the
        rules of the common law. 
    
        8.  Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
        imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 
    
        9.  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
        not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
        people. 
    
        10.  The powers not delegated to the United States by the
        Constitution; nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
        the States respectively, or to the people. 
    
    Now then.  The Fifth and Sixth Amendments discuss criminal
    prosecutions.  Nothing in either of these Amendments, nor in fact in
    any of the other eight, says the accused enjoys even the right to
    PRESUMPTION of innocence, let alone ASSUMPTION of innocence.
    
    What is said about the accused is that the accused shall enjoy the
    right not to be tried twice on the same charge, the right to be
    indicted before being tried, the right not to incriminate himself, the
    right to due process, the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury,
    the right to know what the charges are, the right to subpoena
    witnesses, and the right to a lawyer.  There's nothing about the right
    to be {pre|as}sumed innocent.  Your book is in error despite its hefty
    price tag.

    Are the entire contents of the book to be disregarded for this? As I
    said, I'm about to go into the chapter on trial process to look for
    more on this issue. I'm just repeating what I'm taught on a daily
    basis.
    
    					lunchbox

   .297  we could presume there are other errors in the book, but
	 we can't assume it. ;>

    I asked everybody to go easy on the book, as it's a big investment.
    Anyway, I found this bit which doesn't neccesarily address "innocent
    until proven guilty", but a point I made some time ago.
    
    From the same book, chapter 9 "the courtroom work group and the
    criminal trial", page 314:
    
    "One is that the primary purpose of any criminal trial is the
    determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence. In this regard it
    is important to recognize the crucial distinction made by legal
    scholars between legal guilt and factual guilt. Factual guilt deals
    with the issue of whether or not the defendant is actually responsible
    for the crime of which he or she stands accused.  If the defendant 'did
    it', then he or she is, in fact, guilty. Legal guilt is not so clear.
    Legal guilt is established only when the prosecutor presents evidence
    which is sufficient to convince a judge (where the judge determines the
    verdict) or jury that the defendant is guilty as charged. Legal guilt
    necessitates the adequate presentation of proof by the prosecution that
    the defendant is the guilty party. The distinction between legal guilt
    and factual guilt is crucial, because it points to the fact that the
    burden of proof rests with the prosecution.
    
    
    This echoes my sentiment of "in the eyes of the court". 
    
    
    
    						lunchbox

>               <<< Note 678.299 by CSLALL::SECURITY "MADHATTA" >>>
    
>    "One is that the primary purpose of any criminal trial is the
>    determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence..." 

	based on that, i'd trash the book. ;>

    re.300
    
    
    
    What, then, is the primary purpose of a criminal trial? AND STOP
    TRASHING MY $42.00 BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    
    	Dave, 1st you say not to trash the book, then you want to know
    	what we believe to be wrong with your way of thinking.
    
    	Make up your mind.  After seeing the couple of passages that
    	you've entered here, the aforementioned issues ARE mutually
    	exclusive.
    
    	8^)
    
    
    	Dave, a court/jury can not determine that a person is in-
    	nocent.  It can only determine, based on evidence presented,
    	whether or not there is enough evidence to find the defend-
    	ant guilty.
    
    	I hate to do it, but let's go back to OJ for a minute here.
    	He was not found guilty of either homicide, but that doesn't
    	mean he's innocent of both/either.  It means that there was
    	reasonable doubt that he commited them.
    

    You didn't hate doing it at all Mr. Slab.

    
    	Was it that obvious?
    

    Isn't it time for lunchbox to crow about how well he's holding
    his own against the mob?

    Ya.

    \john

    
    	Maybe he simply meant to say he was holding his own?
    

    I'm defending the book because I feel the price is scandelous. I'm not
    even going near any psychology related topics because that one cost me
    $59.00. Anyway, you are correct in that a judge and jury are not
    responsible for determining a person's innocence. A person does not
    have to prove his innocence, as long as the case against him/her is
    weak enough, as in the (I'm sick of talking about the) OJ trial. A jury
    does not even have to have a reasonable doubt to acquit a person.
    Somebody said long ago and far away that there is a good chance some or
    all jurors thought OJ committed the crimes he was charged with, but
    that the prosecution's case was too pathetic to convict him. 
    
    
    
    						lunchbox

    Well, based on the book you have, I can see why you thought what you
    did.
    
    So, if the book is in error, how could this glaring error come to be?

   >Isn't it time for lunchbox to crow about how well he's holding
   > his own against the mob?

No, some people just don't know when to sit down a shut up.

Sometimes me for example.  :)

    Why is it assumed that the book is in error? I think the initial table
    1-1 is embellishing a little on the due process amendment, but where
    are the errors concerning the court's stand on innocence/ legal guilt/
    actual guilt? And what is the primary purpose of a criminal trial if
    not to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused party?
    
    						lunchbox

    
    	The court determines guilt or lack thereof.  It does not det-
    	ermine innocence.
    
    	As has been said, lack of guilt doesn't necessarily mean in-
    	nocence.
    

    These sentiments are not exclusive to this textbook, though. In all of
    my classes for the 2 years I've attended Bunker Hill, I've been fed
    this "innocent until proven guilty" stuff. I can see where a book could
    error, but 10-11 books on the same subject? A dozen or so professors?
    There have been many conflicting opinions coming from my professors and
    my classmates, but "innocent until proven guilty" has pretty much been
    uniform for all.
    
    						lunchbox

    .297
    
    Instead of repeating what you are taught like a good little parrot, you
    are encouraged to investigate and evaluate.  See what a look at the
    Bill of Rights just taught you?

    I was already familiar with the Bill of Rights before you were kind
    enough to post them, Dick. However, as everybody has seen with the
    second amendment, the Bill of Rights are open to interpretation. The
    author of this book took the liberty of interpreting the 6th, as did
    the entire system, apparently. 
    
    					lunchbox

    .314
    
    The Sixth defines the constraints under which the court system must
    operate.  It does not say, or even imply, anything whatever about
    innocence or the presumption thereof.  All it says that could even be
    construed as having application to the question of guilt or innocence
    is that the jury must be impartial.  The Fifth comes a little closer in
    saying that nobody can be tried without being indicted first.  The
    requirement for an indictment places the burden on the system to
    produce enough evidence that there is sound reason to suspect the
    accused's guilt.  This requirement, however, does not assume innocence
    - it merely enforces a lack of bias, a willingness to accept compelling
    evidence that accused MIGHT be innocent or that he MIGHT be guilty.
    
    Reading between the lines does not usually include making wholesale
    additions to the words in question.  The latter is what your book does. 
    The entire system is another story entirely - I'm not familiar with the
    statutes of the United States or those of the several States, and it
    may well be that those books specify the presumption of innocence.  I'd
    like to see such a statute.

    Perhaps "innocent until proven guilty" is a common law practice so
    basic and ancient that it has only been passed on verbally...
    I can't think of any other examples of such an occurrance, but it's not
    beyond imagination for something like that to happen, hence the absence
    of a clearly defined statute stating as such.
    
    
    						lunchbox

    RE: .307
    
    I'm defending the book because I feel the price is scandAlous. I'm not..
    							    ^
    	
    NNTTM, HTH, FFR, ICYC.

    Apparently, Lunchbox would defend a large turd if he paid a lot of
    money for it...

    
    Hey Lunchbox!!
    
    Maybe you can get some extra credit from your prof if you debated some
    of the points raised here... (with him, of course)
    
     Just cause he/she's a prof and it's in a book, don't make it right...

    .318
    
    On the other hand, 'boxers will leave no turd unstoned in their
    efforts to get at the truth.