Krakaeur's book "Missoula" to be released April 21

[getgrizzy]

....but on the other hand, it is convenient to always assume guilt when it fits your personal crusade.

Again, hypocrite.

and where exactly did i assume guilt? i never have. i assume neither. it's a perfectly reasonable stance. i'm also perfectly ok with the not guilty verdict. sorry for not leaving you with a leg to stand on.

 

[getgrizzy]

it goes well beyond rape, but you aren't grasping that because you're still trying to defend instead of understand you can't KNOW the truth. many murder, rape robbery, etc cases fall into this category. a charge is made, a trial begins, evidence is presented, then a jury rules guilty or not guilty. the evidence isn't always strong enough to return a guilty verdict. there have been many instances where those who have actually committed a crime are found not guilty and there have been instances where those who did not commit a crime were found guilty. of course you know this, but it isn't convienient for you right now.

You don't know what you are talking about, nor can you spell "convenient." The difference is that the Jury can only "find" that the State did or did not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the function of the jury and the trial process. But, only a finding of "guilty" rebuts the presumption of innocence, and if the presumption is not rebutted, the defendant continues to be entitled to the presumption.

The Federal Criminal Jury Instruction makes that clear.

1.03 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, REASONABLE DOUBT
(1) As you know, the defendant has pleaded not guilty to the crime charged in the indictment. The indictment is not any evidence at all of guilt. It is just the formal way that the government tells the defendant what crime he is accused of committing. It does not even raise any suspicion of guilt.

(2) Instead, the defendant starts the trial with a clean slate, with no evidence at all against him, and the law presumes that he is innocent. This presumption of innocence stays with him unless the government presents evidence here in court that overcomes the presumption, and convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

(3) This means that the defendant has no obligation to present any evidence at all, or to prove to you in any way that he is innocent. It is up to the government to prove that he is guilty, and this burden stays on the government from start to finish. You must find the defendant not guilty unless the government convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

(4) The government must prove every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable
doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt. Possible doubts or doubts based purely on speculation are not reasonable doubts. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It may arise from the evidence, the lack of evidence, or the nature of the evidence.

(5) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means proof which is so convincing that you would not hesitate to rely and act on it in making the most important decisions in your own lives. If you are convinced that the government has proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, say so by returning a guilty verdict. If you are not convinced, say so by returning a not guilty verdict.

You are confusing a standard of proof with a legal presumption. One is not the other. A jury measures the standard of proof. Only one result from that measurement can rebut the presumption of innocence. The other result cannot.

i don't speak in legal terminology just laymans. so don't intertwine the two. so when i say not guilty from a jury doesn't mean innocent it's the same as saying not guilty doesn't always mean the crime wasn't committed. you probably knew that but are avoiding it to falsely enhance your views.

 

[getgrizzy]

I have read all of Krakaeur's books other than the one about Pat Tillman. "Into thin Air" was the book that made him famous. He was accused by several people, including Anatoly Bucharev (sp), of distorting the facts and being downright reckless with the truth about the events that happened on Mount Everest. I have no doubt he'll give himself free reign in this book to prove his point.

writers of non-fiction almost always have critics, especially when more than one person experiences something at the same time. if two people stand side by side and watch a car wreck their stories will vary greatly.

boukreev's main complaint about krakauer criticized him for not using supplemental oxygen while working as a guide. had he done so, krakauer thinks boukreev would've been able to assist more people down the mountain.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Sounds like everyone's in agreement in this thread. Cool. Lock it up, I guess.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Sounds like everyone's in agreement in this thread.

No we're not.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Sounds like everyone's in agreement in this thread.

No we're not.

Damn. It sure seemed like it.

 

[billingsgriz]

With the recent disintegration of the story in Rolling Stone about a gang rape at a fraternity at The University of Virginia, I think the audience for this book has massively shrunk from what it would have been had The Rolling Stone article been true--instead, it was retracted, Rolling Stone apologized to its readers, and UVA had to reinstate all the fraternities it had banned after Rolling Stone originally published the false gang rape UVA story.

As it is, I believe the audience for this book will be primarily Missoulians locally, and to a lesser extent, GRIZ alum and Montanans.

The primary national audience: feminists.

While the book may creep onto The NY Times bestseller list, it may just as well fall short. Maybe I am all wet, but no way do I see it as garnering the sales to put it at No. 1 or even in the top ten since JJ was acquitted, and our problems with rape in Missoula appear to be similar to most other universities across the country: troubling, yes, but also typical for a major US university.

 

[mtgrizrule]

With the recent disintegration of the story in Rolling Stone about a gang rape at a fraternity at The University of Virginia, I think the audience for this book has massively shrunk from what it would have been had The Rolling Stone article been true--instead, it was retracted, Rolling Stone apologized to its readers, and UVA had to reinstate all the fraternities it had banned after Rolling Stone originally published the false gang rape UVA story.

As it is, I believe the audience for this book will be primarily Missoulians locally, and to a lesser extent, GRIZ alum and Montanans.

The primary national audience: feminists.

While the book may creep onto The NY Times bestseller list, it may just as well fall short. Maybe I am all wet, but no way do I see it as garnering the sales to put it at No. 1 or even in the top ten since JJ was acquitted, and our problems with rape in Missoula appear to be similar to most other universities across the country: troubling, yes, but also typical for a major US university.

BG, the problem with this book is that Krakhaeur does not take the time to get facts as to what led to JJ's being found not guilty. He still paint's the picture of JJ being a rapist. At least in his own preview of his book at his site.

 

[UMGriz75]

i don't speak in legal terminology just laymans. so don't intertwine the two. so when i say not guilty from a jury doesn't mean innocent it's the same as saying not guilty doesn't always mean the crime wasn't committed. you probably knew that but are avoiding it to falsely enhance your views.

Baloney. What you said was this:

grizpack wrotelease explain the difference between not guilty and innocent? Who makes that determination? If you are charged but not convicted are you innocent or not guilty? Are innocent people ever found "not guilty? Are innocent people ever charged? If they are found not guilty, are they still innocent? I am anxiously awaiting your definitions, and how you definitely apply the labels....

When you ask "Is there a difference between "not guilty and innocent" you are are not asking about it in "laymen's terminology" since you used the legal terms. It's a little difficult to get around the fact that these are legal terminology, used in a legal setting, by people who know what they mean.

You don't.

But, that allows the freedom to make up new meanings, doesn't it? No doubt to "enhance your views" by trying to distort meaning rather than seek out how the real world uses these terms in the places where they are specifically used and applied without the additional burdens of your imagination and needs.

 

[getgrizzy]

i don't speak in legal terminology just laymans. so don't intertwine the two. so when i say not guilty from a jury doesn't mean innocent it's the same as saying not guilty doesn't always mean the crime wasn't committed. you probably knew that but are avoiding it to falsely enhance your views.

Baloney. What you said was this:

grizpack wrotelease explain the difference between not guilty and innocent? Who makes that determination? If you are charged but not convicted are you innocent or not guilty? Are innocent people ever found "not guilty? Are innocent people ever charged? If they are found not guilty, are they still innocent? I am anxiously awaiting your definitions, and how you definitely apply the labels....

When you ask "Is there a difference between "not guilty and innocent" you are are not asking about it in "laymen's terminology" since you used the legal terms. It's a little difficult to get around the fact that these are legal terminology, used in a legal setting, by people who know what they mean.

You don't.

But, that allows the freedom to make up new meanings, doesn't it? No doubt to "enhance your views" by trying to distort meaning rather than seek out how the real world uses these terms in the places where they are specifically used and applied without the additional burdens of your imagination and needs.

you quoted grizpack, not me.

 

[PlayerRep]

Let's try it this way since you want to disagree so badly.

Nope, you either can't read or comprehend this subject. Thank you for the insult.

Under current law (Title IX), a university is obligated to proceed to investigate and pursue accusations of sexual assault, without regard to any current or parallel criminal investigation or proceeding, subject to the minor investigation delay exception mentioned in one of my prior posts. Right, and I'm saying this needs to be changed because it's fundamentally unfair.

The standard for the university proceeding is now mandated to be the very low preponderance of the evidence. Right, and I'm saying this isn't fair to the accused.

The state criminal standard remains at the higher beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Precisely.

The penalties in universities are set by universities and have nothing to do with the penalties for criminal violations. I agree, and my opinion is that colleges and universities need to have the option of deferring to the criminal justice system, although you apparently disagree.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. It's not, but thanks for the additional insult.

Some of the accuseds are starting to fight back and I believe almost 60 lawsuits by accuseds are pending nationally against universities. Good. They should fight back.

The basic arguments are lack of due process, as well as application of the unfair preponderance standard. ....which is exactly the point I'm making.

Actually, I would be happy if universities deferred to the criminal justice system. Well, then we are in agreement. Glad you finally came around on this. You are welcome for the "insults", but they weren't intended as insults. They were just observations.

 

[PlayerRep]

Let's try it this way since you want to disagree so badly.

Nope, you either can't read or comprehend this subject. Thank you for the insult.

Under current law (Title IX), a university is obligated to proceed to investigate and pursue accusations of sexual assault, without regard to any current or parallel criminal investigation or proceeding, subject to the minor investigation delay exception mentioned in one of my prior posts. Right, and I'm saying this needs to be changed because it's fundamentally unfair.

The standard for the university proceeding is now mandated to be the very low preponderance of the evidence. Right, and I'm saying this isn't fair to the accused.

The state criminal standard remains at the higher beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Precisely.

The penalties in universities are set by universities and have nothing to do with the penalties for criminal violations. I agree, and my opinion is that colleges and universities need to have the option of deferring to the criminal justice system, although you apparently disagree.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. It's not, but thanks for the additional insult.

Some of the accuseds are starting to fight back and I believe almost 60 lawsuits by accuseds are pending nationally against universities. Good. They should fight back.

The basic arguments are lack of due process, as well as application of the unfair preponderance standard. ....which is exactly the point I'm making.

AWF, you are not going to win any kind of rational argument with that mental midget. His insecurities seem to stem from an obsessive need to prove he is smarter than he actually is. He makes personal attacks when none are necessary or warranted. His reading comprehension of anyone else's posts is quite poor. And the fact I know more about his personal life than any should on an ostensibly anonymous forum almost literally screams "look at me, look at me". AWF - you are in my estimation one of the most level headed posters here and I agree completely with what you are saying on this matter. I am now steeling myself for the veritable textual barrage headed my way... And no I won't bother to read it.

Several points. AWF was missing and misinterpreting virtually everything I said. Also, AWF is the one who has been starting the zings and personal attacks. Just returning some of medicine. You actually know virtually nothing about my personal life.

 

[EverettGriz]

Let's try it this way since you want to disagree so badly.

Nope, you either can't read or comprehend this subject. Thank you for the insult.

Under current law (Title IX), a university is obligated to proceed to investigate and pursue accusations of sexual assault, without regard to any current or parallel criminal investigation or proceeding, subject to the minor investigation delay exception mentioned in one of my prior posts. Right, and I'm saying this needs to be changed because it's fundamentally unfair.

The standard for the university proceeding is now mandated to be the very low preponderance of the evidence. Right, and I'm saying this isn't fair to the accused.

The state criminal standard remains at the higher beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Precisely.

The penalties in universities are set by universities and have nothing to do with the penalties for criminal violations. I agree, and my opinion is that colleges and universities need to have the option of deferring to the criminal justice system, although you apparently disagree.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. It's not, but thanks for the additional insult.

Some of the accuseds are starting to fight back and I believe almost 60 lawsuits by accuseds are pending nationally against universities. Good. They should fight back.

The basic arguments are lack of due process, as well as application of the unfair preponderance standard. ....which is exactly the point I'm making.

Actually, I would be happy if universities deferred to the criminal justice system. Well, then we are in agreement. Glad you finally came around on this. You are welcome for the "insults", but they weren't intended as insults. They were just observations.

God, you are one pompous son of a bitch.

Which would be tolerable if you had any reason to actually be pompous.

 

[PlayerRep]

....but on the other hand, it is convenient to always assume guilt when it fits your personal crusade.

Again, hypocrite.

and where exactly did i assume guilt? i never have. i assume neither. it's a perfectly reasonable stance. i'm also perfectly ok with the not guilty verdict. sorry for not leaving you with a leg to stand on.

When you list all of the "crimes" committed by players, you assume they are guilty when they have only been charged or an article has been written about some situation. Even after they charges have been dropped or reduced, or the player has won the case, you continue to list the allegations have crimes and wrongdoing. You have done this at least a half dozen times.

 

[PlayerRep]

Let's try it this way since you want to disagree so badly.

Nope, you either can't read or comprehend this subject. Thank you for the insult.

Under current law (Title IX), a university is obligated to proceed to investigate and pursue accusations of sexual assault, without regard to any current or parallel criminal investigation or proceeding, subject to the minor investigation delay exception mentioned in one of my prior posts. Right, and I'm saying this needs to be changed because it's fundamentally unfair.

The standard for the university proceeding is now mandated to be the very low preponderance of the evidence. Right, and I'm saying this isn't fair to the accused.

The state criminal standard remains at the higher beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Precisely.

The penalties in universities are set by universities and have nothing to do with the penalties for criminal violations. I agree, and my opinion is that colleges and universities need to have the option of deferring to the criminal justice system, although you apparently disagree.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. It's not, but thanks for the additional insult.

Some of the accuseds are starting to fight back and I believe almost 60 lawsuits by accuseds are pending nationally against universities. Good. They should fight back.

The basic arguments are lack of due process, as well as application of the unfair preponderance standard. ....which is exactly the point I'm making.

Actually, I would be happy if universities deferred to the criminal justice system. Well, then we are in agreement. Glad you finally came around on this. You are welcome for the "insults", but they weren't intended as insults. They were just observations.

God, you are one pompous son of a bitch.

Which would be tolerable if you had any reason to actually be pompous.

God, you sure don't know what you're talking about. At least, you have been spewing quite as much incorrect information about UM and UM athletics lately, compared to what you have done in the past. I'd be happy to match my life up to yours anytime.

 

[EverettGriz]

At least, you have been spewing quite as much incorrect information about UM and UM athletics lately

Sadly, you have been, however.

I'd be happy to match my life up to yours anytime.

Well, you're used to losing and feeling small and insignificant, so....

 

[PlayerRep]

At least, you have been spewing quite as much incorrect information about UM and UM athletics lately

Sadly, you have been, however.

I'd be happy to match my life up to yours anytime.

Well, you're used to losing and feeling small and insignificant, so....

My UM info is almost always good. Don't recall losing very often either. Again, let's go head-to-head and compare our lives and accomplishments. We can do it in PM's, or through a mutual friend poster.

 

[EverettGriz]

At least, you have been spewing quite as much incorrect information about UM and UM athletics lately

Sadly, you have been, however.

I'd be happy to match my life up to yours anytime.

Well, you're used to losing and feeling small and insignificant, so....

My UM info is almost always good. Don't recall losing very often either. Again, let's go head-to-head and compare our lives and accomplishments. We can do it in PM's, or through a mutual friend poster.

Pompous and creepy.

 

[getgrizzy]

....but on the other hand, it is convenient to always assume guilt when it fits your personal crusade.

Again, hypocrite.

and where exactly did i assume guilt? i never have. i assume neither. it's a perfectly reasonable stance. i'm also perfectly ok with the not guilty verdict. sorry for not leaving you with a leg to stand on.

When you list all of the "crimes" committed by players, you assume they are guilty when they have only been charged or an article has been written about some situation. Even after they charges have been dropped or reduced, or the player has won the case, you continue to list the allegations have crimes and wrongdoing. You have done this at least a half dozen times.

i assume they're guilty by listing all their charges? you're just being ridiculous now. happy hour?

 

[getgrizzy]

At least, you have been spewing quite as much incorrect information about UM and UM athletics lately

Sadly, you have been, however.

I'd be happy to match my life up to yours anytime.

Well, you're used to losing and feeling small and insignificant, so....

My UM info is almost always good. Don't recall losing very often either. Again, let's go head-to-head and compare our lives and accomplishments. We can do it in PM's, or through a mutual friend poster.

this crap is just bizarre. i wasn't going to mention your cheerleader thread from yesterday but combined with this its obvious you have problems.