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

[Allezchat]

you said "proven" wrong, not dropped, acquitted or pled to a minor charge. none of those is the same as "proven".

Oh please, don't start this dumb argument that someone acquitted of a crime at trial isn't innocent or hasn't been shown to be innocent. That's just plain silly. 75 will blow you out of the water on that one again. If someone is not convicted at trial, or charges are dropped or reduced, that almost always means that the charges were not correct, could not be proven, and/or should never have been brought or alleged. What's left is the presumption of innocence.

i never once said that someone accused or acquitted ISN'T innocent or factually didn't commit the crime they were accused of. all i've ever said is that a guilty or not guilty verdict doesn't "prove" that someone is or isn't guilty or not guilty. it's a finding, not an irrefutable truth. a presumption of innocence doesn't "prove" anything either. just like we can't KNOW why engstrom release pflugrad from his contract. there's knowing something and there's going with the best evidence. they aren't the same thing.

Why can't you admit, and believe, that getting arrested, accused in a newspaper, charged, etc. doesn't necessarily mean that the accuseddid what they were accused of, or that there was a valid basis for the arrest, allegation, or charge. Incorrect arrests, allegations, charges, etc. are made all the time. It's not uncommon. Charges sometimes are never brought. Charges are often dropped or reduced. People win their cases.

Why can't you admit that just because charges were dropped, not brought forward, ect. that it doesn't mean they were innocent? It means that they might be innocent, they charges might not be able to be proven, some key piece of evidence is not admissible but would prove that the person is guilty for whatever reason. But you can't say it means they absolutely beyond a doubt did not do it. We just don't know either way.

 

[UMGriz75]

The fact is, if such things are relevant to getgriz and poorgriz is that the accused rarely "get off" due to good lawyering.

If Mr. Kassab had pleaded guilty, he would have joined a growing number of federal defendants who take that option, often to avoid the lengthy prison sentences that can come with losing at trial. These days, not many people exercise their right to a jury trial; even fewer hear a "not guilty" verdict read by their peers.

The triumph of plea bargaining in the federal system, which has gathered pace in recent years, is nearly complete. Guilty pleas last year resolved 97% of all federal cases that the Justice Department prosecuted to a conclusion. That is up from 84% in 1990. During that period, the number of federal defendants nearly doubled amid a crackdown on crimes ranging from drug trafficking to fraud, while the number going to trial fell by nearly two-thirds.

This relentless growth in plea bargaining has sparked a backlash among lawyers, legal scholars and judges—evidenced by recent federal court decisions, including two from the Supreme Court. Weighing on many critics is the possibility illustrated by the Kassab case: that the innocent could feel pressured into pleading guilty. -- Wall Street Journal, September 23, 2012. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443589304577637610097206808" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It rarely has anything to do with "good lawyering." It has more to do with the infinite resources of the State, and the limited resources of Defendants.

 

[UMGriz75]

Look at what an accused, athlete or otherwise, endured in Missoula, if somebody wants to write a non-fiction book about it.

1) the prosecution assembled litigation staffs composed of private pro bono, County and State attorney general offices.

2) The private, County, and State litigation budgets had no practical limit compared to the accused, (whose parents generally have to mortgage their house, or take the plea bargain because they are litigated into bankruptcy). No prosecutor has ever gone bankrupt, Mike Nifong excepted, by pursuing a legal vendetta with political advantages in mind.

3) The local newspaper, captured by "social justice" warriors out to gain a Pulitzer Prize, as thoroughly contaminated the jury pool as it possibly could, to the extent that those who actually attended the trial came to the opposite conclusion as to the likely outcome as those exclusively reading about in that local newspaper.

Or. someone could write a book that takes the opposite view, and get away with calling it non-fiction.

 

[PlayerRep]

Oh please, don't start this dumb argument that someone acquitted of a crime at trial isn't innocent or hasn't been shown to be innocent. That's just plain silly. 75 will blow you out of the water on that one again. If someone is not convicted at trial, or charges are dropped or reduced, that almost always means that the charges were not correct, could not be proven, and/or should never have been brought or alleged. What's left is the presumption of innocence.

i never once said that someone accused or acquitted ISN'T innocent or factually didn't commit the crime they were accused of. all i've ever said is that a guilty or not guilty verdict doesn't "prove" that someone is or isn't guilty or not guilty. it's a finding, not an irrefutable truth. a presumption of innocence doesn't "prove" anything either. just like we can't KNOW why engstrom release pflugrad from his contract. there's knowing something and there's going with the best evidence. they aren't the same thing.

Why can't you admit, and believe, that getting arrested, accused in a newspaper, charged, etc. doesn't necessarily mean that the accuseddid what they were accused of, or that there was a valid basis for the arrest, allegation, or charge. Incorrect arrests, allegations, charges, etc. are made all the time. It's not uncommon. Charges sometimes are never brought. Charges are often dropped or reduced. People win their cases.

Why can't you admit that just because charges were dropped, not brought forward, ect. that it doesn't mean they were innocent? It means that they might be innocent, they charges might not be able to be proven, some key piece of evidence is not admissible but would prove that the person is guilty for whatever reason. But you can't say it means they absolutely beyond a doubt did not do it. We just don't know either way.

I believe in the US Constitution and the presumption of innocence. Others like 75 have discussed this in detail on multiple occasions. Generally, I believe that if charges are not brought, are dropped, or an accused is acquitted, then everything reverts back to the presumption of innocence. In some cases, and those cases would be the exception, I can accept a view that, despite that, someone may have done something wrong. However, that is the exception. It is often impossible to prove a negative. I don't believe anyone should have to prove a negative in this type of situation.

Why don't you believe in the US Constitution?

 

[PlayerRep]

Look at what an accused, athlete or otherwise, endured in Missoula, if somebody wants to write a non-fiction book about it.

1) the prosecution assembled litigation staffs composed of private pro bono, County and State attorney general offices.

2) The private, County, and State litigation budgets had no practical limit compared to the accused, (whose parents generally have to mortgage their house, or take the plea bargain because they are litigated into bankruptcy). No prosecutor has ever gone bankrupt, Mike Nifong excepted, by pursuing a legal vendetta with political advantages in mind.

3) The local newspaper, captured by "social justice" warriors out to gain a Pulitzer Prize, as thoroughly contaminated the jury pool as it possibly could, to the extent that those who actually attended the trial came to the opposite conclusion as to the likely outcome as those exclusively reading about in that local newspaper.

Or. someone could write a book that takes the opposite view, and get away with calling it non-fiction.

Good points. Why aren't people like gg concerned about people without means, or the ability to hire lawyers or good lawyers, or too out of it to get a lawyer, getting convicted or pushed around by good police investigators, good prosecutors, and the sometimes significant or massive resources of the federal and sometimes state governments?

 

[PlayerRep]

gg and certain others seem to believe in the Presumption of Guilt. And then when arrests or allegations don't result in anything, or charges are dropped, or the accused is acquitted, gg then starts saying that those things don't prove that person was innocent. Can you imagine living in a country or place where that was the government/legal situation?

 

[getgrizzy]

you said "proven" wrong, not dropped, acquitted or pled to a minor charge. none of those is the same as "proven".

Oh please, don't start this dumb argument that someone acquitted of a crime at trial isn't innocent or hasn't been shown to be innocent. That's just plain silly. 75 will blow you out of the water on that one again. If someone is not convicted at trial, or charges are dropped or reduced, that almost always means that the charges were not correct, could not be proven, and/or should never have been brought or alleged. What's left is the presumption of innocence.

i never once said that someone accused or acquitted ISN'T innocent or factually didn't commit the crime they were accused of. all i've ever said is that a guilty or not guilty verdict doesn't "prove" that someone is or isn't guilty or not guilty. it's a finding, not an irrefutable truth. a presumption of innocence doesn't "prove" anything either. just like we can't KNOW why engstrom release pflugrad from his contract. there's knowing something and there's going with the best evidence. they aren't the same thing.

Why can't you admit, and believe, that getting arrested, accused in a newspaper, charged, etc. doesn't necessarily mean that the accuseddid what they were accused of, or that there was a valid basis for the arrest, allegation, or charge. Incorrect arrests, allegations, charges, etc. are made all the time. It's not uncommon. Charges sometimes are never brought. Charges are often dropped or reduced. People win their cases.

i do admit and believe all those things. sometimes there's indisputable evidence that actually proves or disproves something. sometimes not. not a problem for me at all.

 

[getgrizzy]

An example for you grizzy.

John Doe is accused of murder. He is charged, tried and found not-guilty.

I come on here and say “you know guys, there is a big difference between not-guilty and innocent.”

What would you assume I am implying by making that statement?

that's not the same thing. you leave out the part about false charges and it never should've went to trial and the verdict "proving" he's innocent. include that and re-read what you wrote there.

 

[getgrizzy]

Look at what an accused, athlete or otherwise, endured in Missoula, if somebody wants to write a non-fiction book about it.

1) the prosecution assembled litigation staffs composed of private pro bono, County and State attorney general offices.

2) The private, County, and State litigation budgets had no practical limit compared to the accused, (whose parents generally have to mortgage their house, or take the plea bargain because they are litigated into bankruptcy). No prosecutor has ever gone bankrupt, Mike Nifong excepted, by pursuing a legal vendetta with political advantages in mind.

3) The local newspaper, captured by "social justice" warriors out to gain a Pulitzer Prize, as thoroughly contaminated the jury pool as it possibly could, to the extent that those who actually attended the trial came to the opposite conclusion as to the likely outcome as those exclusively reading about in that local newspaper.

Or. someone could write a book that takes the opposite view, and get away with calling it non-fiction.

Good points. Why aren't people like gg concerned about people without means, or the ability to hire lawyers or good lawyers, or too out of it to get a lawyer, getting convicted or pushed around by good police investigators, good prosecutors, and the sometimes significant or massive resources of the federal and sometimes state governments?

i am concerned about that. always have been. not sure why you'd think i'm not. other than you're trying to paint me as someone other than who i am in order to turn people against me.

 

[getgrizzy]

gg and certain others seem to believe in the Presumption of Guilt. And then when arrests or allegations don't result in anything, or charges are dropped, or the accused is acquitted, gg then starts saying that those things don't prove that person was innocent. Can you imagine living in a country or place where that was the government/legal situation?

i believe in the presumption of innocence. i also believe in pointing out to people saying a not guilty verdict is proof of someone's innocence or that guilty verdict is proof of their guilt. thousands of people have had their guilty verdicts overturned. that alone proves that not all verdicts are absolute proof of anyone's guilt or innocence.

 

[Raider]

An example for you grizzy.

John Doe is accused of murder. He is charged, tried and found not-guilty.

I come on here and say “you know guys, there is a big difference between not-guilty and innocent.”

What would you assume I am implying by making that statement?

that's not the same thing. you leave out the part about false charges and it never should've went to trial and the verdict "proving" he's innocent. include that and re-read what you wrote there.

What!!??

When did I ever comment on false charges or a verdict proving someone is innocent?

Go back and read my example. If someone made that comment (which you have) what you assume they were implying?

Good lord!

 

[mtgrizrule]

I think PR's main point are to those who are still labeling JJ as a rapist despite the fact he was found not guilty. To be honest, I also don't like it. That is my problem with this book as well as those who are coming off that he is still guilty of it.

Yes, sometimes verdicts are proven to be wrong. However, just because that has happened a very small percentage of the time, it is wrong to continue to classify JJ or anyone who has been found not guilty of a crime as whatever category they were accused of. Sometimes, the evidence of guilt is overwhelming yet somehow the person is still found not guilty (cough, OJ).

As for JJ's case, would anyone care to tell us this, what evidence in his trial would lead anyone to believe he was guilty of rape? Honestly, what evidence was presented, that was enough to bring this man to trial? Anyone trying to make the public think otherwise in this case, in my opinion has some sort of hidden agenda. Fine, if years later JJ commits a sexual related crime, then I can see the reason for doubt of this outcome.

I find Krakaeur is totally in the wrong using JJ and his trial as the main source to this tabloid book. If he wanted to bring attention to this, he should have used people actually found guilty of the crime!!!!!!

GG, I am disappointed you even went where you did regarding JJ. I hope it was more of a matter of your word coming out wrong than this being your actual true feelings toward the outcome of this case. No doubt in my mind and the majority of those who followed this case, indeed JJ is an innocent man of this crime. The only thing he and the girl were guilty of was bad judgement.

 

[grizcountry420]

Since this has gone 17 pages, its time for intermission..

Enjoy!


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU2hy0L5lgg[/youtube]

 

[getgrizzy]

An example for you grizzy.

John Doe is accused of murder. He is charged, tried and found not-guilty.

I come on here and say “you know guys, there is a big difference between not-guilty and innocent.”

What would you assume I am implying by making that statement?

that's not the same thing. you leave out the part about false charges and it never should've went to trial and the verdict "proving" he's innocent. include that and re-read what you wrote there.

What!!??

When did I ever comment on false charges or a verdict proving someone is innocent?

Go back and read my example. If someone made that comment (which you have) what you assume they were implying?

Good lord!

is your example supposed to relate to the conversation on this message board? if so, then you have to include the language i inserted to be relevant. my responses are motivated by those comments.
no. i'm not saying they're you're comments.

 

[getgrizzy]

I think PR's main point are to those who are still labeling JJ as a rapist despite the fact he was found not guilty. To be honest, I also don't like it. That is my problem with this book as well as those who are coming off that he is still guilty of it.

Yes, sometimes verdicts are proven to be wrong. However, just because that has happened a very small percentage of the time, it is wrong to continue to classify JJ or anyone who has been found not guilty of a crime as whatever category they were accused of. Sometimes, the evidence of guilt is overwhelming yet somehow the person is still found not guilty (cough, OJ).

As for JJ's case, would anyone care to tell us this, what evidence in his trial would lead anyone to believe he was guilty of rape? Honestly, what evidence was presented, that was enough to bring this man to trial? Anyone trying to make the public think otherwise in this case, in my opinion has some sort of hidden agenda. Fine, if years later JJ commits a sexual related crime, then I can see the reason for doubt of this outcome.

I find Krakaeur is totally in the wrong using JJ and his trial as the main source to this tabloid book. If he wanted to bring attention to this, he should have used people actually found guilty of the crime!!!!!!

GG, I am disappointed you even went where you did regarding JJ. I hope it was more of a matter of your word coming out wrong than this being your actual true feelings toward the outcome of this case. No doubt in my mind and the majority of those who followed this case, indeed JJ is an innocent man of this crime. The only thing he and the girl were guilty of was bad judgement.

no one i know of is labeling j.j. a rapist. where are you coming up with that? if you think i am you're reading waaaaaaaaay too much into what i said. waaaaaaaay too much. huge leap, because saying you don't know for sure (and no one other than him and his accuser do know) is in no way, shape or form calling him a rapist.

 

[zengriz]

...threads that deserved it...
...this one didn't...
...17 pages...

... :roll: ...

 

[Grisly Fan]

@getgrizzy: Your "non-accusation accusation" is sickening. It is a twist on the tactic of "damn with faint praise". Oh yeah, you never said he was a rapist but you sure as heck never said he wasn't. You seem to want to believe that you know better than all of the processes that have been in place for hundreds of years to adjudicate guilt. Why can't you deal with two simple concepts "presumption of innocence" and "not guilty" is beyond me. Forget pretending you have inside knowledge and accept that justice was done and shut the hell up. Or show us the proof the prosecution missed. Anything else smacks of a sad attempt to simply be the center of attention.

 

[PlayerRep]

The discussion with gg over this subject has been going on for sometime. I don't recall all of what he has said on JJ, but my gripe is that he has refused to admit the significance and extent of the jury's decision in the case and of the testimony, keeps bring up the not-guilty doesn't mean innocence nonsense, and, like in the below post, wants to give the accuser's accusations equal weight as JJ's denials--even though the accuser's views were very much discredited and the jury decided against the accuser in almost record time for an almost 3-week trial. See below. The 2d and 4th paras are gg's.

by getgrizzy » Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:36 pm

PlayerRep wrote:

getgrizzy wrote:

GrizPony wrote:
No you aren't "living with the facts". Even if you believed her testimony 100% it didn't rise to the level of the legal definition of rape. That's why the not guilty verdict was so quick. The law has precise standards and her testimony, even if believed, did not meet the standard for conviction. Those are the "facts". :thumb:
never said her testimony warranted a conviction. in fact i just got done saying i'm satisfied with the verdict. regardless, it doesn't mean i or anyone besides j.j. and his accuser knows what happened. so it's no more o.k. for someone to say the accuser was full of isht and that this was a false accusation, than it is for someone to say that j.j. is a rapist. fans simply want to believe he didn't do it and when someone tells them as a matter of fact that there's no way to know for sure, they can't handle it. it's just the way it is. you may as well accept that and move on. its not brain surgery.

Jeez, how about if JJ had been convicted, and now Pony and I were posting that he may have been found guility, but that doesn't mean he actually did it (ya know, only 2 people were there and know what occurred, and none of us were there).

if people were acting like they knew for a fact j.j. did it, i'd be right there with you. that's why i'm saying what i'm saying. you and others act like there's no way he could've done it and the girl is a slut and a liar. that b.s. makes our fan base looks like a bunch of morons. the only thing i should stop is thinking that it isn't. i realize egriz is very small x-section but its still embarrassing.

 

[Raider]

@getgrizzy: Your "non-accusation accusation" is sickening. It is a twist on the tactic of "damn with faint praise". Oh yeah, you never said he was a rapist but you sure as heck never said he wasn't. You seem to want to believe that you know better than all of the processes that have been in place for hundreds of years to adjudicate guilt. Why can't you deal with two simple concepts "presumption of innocence" and "not guilty" is beyond me. Forget pretending you have inside knowledge and accept that justice was done and shut the hell up. Or show us the proof the prosecution missed. Anything else smacks of a sad attempt to simply be the center of attention.

Great post.

Her response will be a massive spin job, but you hammered the nail on the head.

 

[mcg]

The only thing we know with 100% dead solid confidence about the whole 'JJ incident' is that JJ didn't commit rape. We know this because the jury told us so. Much of everything else is conjecture or opinion.