Re: SF Politics and Super Tuesday

In article <fofc2i$qc6$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
James Nicoll <jdnicoll@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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.

Well, no, I'm saying that even if Superman says something other than 
"Yeah, Jimmy grew fifty yards and ate the city," then the prosecution can 
bring on a hundred or so residents to say "Well, he was taller and looked 
like a turtle, but, yep, that's the guy who ate my house." Superman might 
testify that Jimmy was intoxicated or not in his right mind or mentaly 
unbalanced by a scientific experiment, but that won't make it reasonable 
to try to question his identity on the stand. It's just going make them 
look stupid.


 > >>> 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. 
>

See, but in Lex's case that would be bad real world legal strategy, 
because a) you know you can't keep Luthor in prison anyway, b) he going to

commit another crime even if you lose this case, and c) antagonizing 
Superman makes you look like an idiot in front of the judge and jury, so 
you lose anyway.


>	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
>	
>

See, here in the United States that could never happen. 

>>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.

To player hate is to criticize a person harshly on a personal level just 
because of who they are.  some personal level in front of the jury, they'd

hate you fro doing it. They would not want to rule in your favor, and 
you'd lose.
-- 
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons