Re: SF Politics and Super Tuesday

In article <fofauq$77n$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Michael Alan Chary <mchary@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <fof9n1$on1$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>James Nicoll <jdnicoll@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>	Unless he's appearing as a witness for the defence. Jimmy
>>Olsen gets arrested for turning himself into a giant turtle and
>>tra****ng Metropolis
>
>Well, in that case Superman wouldn't be the only witness, no?

	That has no bearing on the need to discredit him. It just
means he will have company in the discredited witness box.

>> or Lex is arrested for something he didn't 
>>do and knows Kal El, whatever his flaws, won't let an innocent
>>man be convicted for a crime that he didn't commit.
>>
>
>Butr, and here's the thing, why would any prosecutor proceed against 
>someone they know to be innocent? Well, okay, in the DC Universe, why 
>would any prosecutor, etc.

	Obviously, they don't know him to be innocent. If I wanted to
frame someone for a crime, a known supervillain is a good choice (Ignoring
their inevitable revenge) and there's always the chance the cops jumped
to the wrong conclusion on their own. 

	Ontario recently noticed that a pathologist whose testimony
led to at least 12 convictions is woefully incompetent, that many
and perhaps all of the people convicted were innocent and in at least
one case the person appears to have been convicted of a crime that 
never occurred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Randal_Smith
	

>Additionally, in the real world is you player hated on a witness as 
>insanely popular as Superman is meant to be in the DCU, the jury would 
>hate you, and you'd lose.

	I have no idea what this sentence is trying to say.
-- 
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll
(For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-****rt, cup and tote-bag needs)