No soup for you!!!

[beaky]

Whether he's guilty or not, I wouldn't want him in my restaurant, either.  His mere presence is disruptive.
And of course he is letting some loudmouth lawyer turn it into a discrimination case.
 Real classy, OJ! Another victory for you! Sometimes I think he goes looking to get into a confrontation...

I mean, he's made a lot of fuss about how he's really innocent and people should accept the verdict, but he shows little respect for the fact that any reasonable person would have a really hard time believing he is innocent.  

[bok269]

Not to mention he was found liable in the Civil wrongful death suit.  So clearly he's not innocent.  Not to mention he never paid much of the millions he owes both families.

[Chris_F]

He did it.  He even wrote a book flaunting the fact that he did it.  The fact that he wasn't convicted is merely a result of the American legal system which (rightfully IMO) choses to err on the side of caution when it comes to convicting criminals.  You will notice that OJ was declared "not guilty" which is NOT the same as "innocent".

So, would you refuse service to a murderer?  I would.  Would you refuse service to a person based on race?  I wouldn't.  But the two are distinct and different.  I don't have a hard time keeping the two separate in my mind, but apparently OJ and his lawyer do.

Another fine example of the American tort system.  See the 67 million dollar pants thread elsewhere in this forum...

[Hagar]

You will notice that OJ was declared "not guilty" which is NOT the same as "innocent".

I'm no legal expert & don't wish to start a discussion on the rights or wrongs of this case. I believe that US law is the same as English law in that the only options available to a jury are 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty'. There is no option of Innocent. Therefore anyone found 'Not Guilty' in court is innocent in the eyes of the law.

PS. In Scotland there is a third option of 'Not Proven', used when the jury does not believe the case has been proven against the defendant but is not sufficiently convinced of their innocence to bring in a "Not Guilty" verdict.

[ATI_7500]

If his guilt can't be proven, it can't be proven. Period.


But still making such a fuss about what he did years ago is simply over the top.

[alrot]

[center][b]There are two things I would never understand about americans 1)If OJ Kill two persons WHY he still alive?because a (Circunstacial evidence)? and n

[Saitek]

He should be able to serve who he likes. I don't see why he should serve murderers if he doesn't want to. Screw the PC brigade and the lawyers that exploit it, it sickens me.

[Hagar]

I just claim this because USA has been an example of the civil rights to the rest of the world

Sorry Alex, I'm not sure I agree with that. :-/

[Saitek]

I just claim this because USA has been an example of the civil rights to the rest of the world

Sorry Alex, I'm not sure I agree with that. :-/

lol I can only laugh. Nothing more is allowed to be said.
*winks to Doug*

Americans, lol.

[llamedos]

[dcunning30]

If his guilt can't be proven, it can't be proven. Period.


But still making such a fuss about what he did years ago is simply over the top.

I followed the case very closely.  Does the phrase "jury nullification" mean anything to you?

This had happened all the time many years ago in The South (US).  No white person would ever be convicted for murdering a black.  That was jury nullification back then, and now the pendulum has swung the other way in the OJ case.

As a black American, I wanted to believe OJ was innocent.  I really really did.  But intellectual honesty does not allow me to believe he's innocent.

[Chris_F]

[quote][center][b]There are two things I would never understand about americans 1)If OJ Kill two persons WHY he still alive?because a (Circunstacial evidence)? and n

[Wing Nut]

If his guilt can't be proven, it can't be proven. Period.


But still making such a fuss about what he did years ago is simply over the top.

Bjorn, if he had a few parking tickets, or embezzled from his company, or screwed around on his wife; THEN it would be no big deal what he did a few years ago.  This guy KILLED two people.  He MURDERED them.  He denied them their very lives.  I know to you young people who love your Grand Theft Auto games and crap movies like Sin City, that may not mean much, but to us older folks who still value living in a society of laws, it means a lot.

Some things you do not forgive or forget, and this is one of them.

[ATI_7500]

I read the article about the trail on Wikipedia and I had the impression that nothing in this case had a solid base, neither the defense nor the prosecutors.
Simpson has the only answer to this. If he really did it, well kudos to him for a nice dramaturgical performance and hiring some good lawyers. If he didn't do it, good for him either.

The point is that you're caring *way* too much about this guy's private life. Let him do whatever he wants, as long as he doesn't murder people. And he may have a black mark in his CV because of this trail, but that doesn't make him the living devil, Hitler or Stalin.


P.S: If you want to live in a society of laws, you should have lived in a socialist country or the 3rd Reich.

[Chris_F]

I read the article about the trail on Wikipedia and I had the impression that nothing in this case had a solid base, neither the defense nor the prosecutors.
Simpson has the only answer to this. If he really did it, well kudos to him for a nice dramaturgical performance and hiring some good lawyers. If he didn't do it, good for him either.

The point is that you're caring *way* too much about this guy's private life. Let him do whatever he wants, as long as he doesn't murder people. And he may have a black mark in his CV because of this trail, but that doesn't make him the living devil, Hitler or Stalin.


P.S: If you want to live in a society of laws, you should have lived in a socialist country or the 3rd Reich.

Everyone should always gather their own information and draw their own conclusions.  I saw enough of the trial to conclude that he did murder two people.  The jury didn't come to a consensus and therefore he was declared "not guilty" (note, this doesn't mean the jury all agreed, there were some who thought he was guilty).  The legal process therefore determined that he not be punished.

This however does not prevent me and my fellow citizens from concluding he did murder people, and it does not preclude me or my fellow citizens from treating him like a murderer by refusing him service in restaurants.

The only real difference between OJ and Hitler/Stalin is one of scale.  Oh, and Hitler/Stalin were never any good at football.