Well O.J.Simpson has been in the news again.I would like some discussion,not only about him being refused service....but also on your thoughts of him in general.

MY thoughts are GOOD don't serve him!The owner had valid reasons NOT to.
As for the question of his guilt? I think he is a murderer,and is a prime example of a piece if slime.

Now tell me what YOU think and why.

I think he deserved to get turned down service no doubt about it. Hes just a walking attention magnet and if the guy doesn't want him in his resteraunt then thats his own choice.

He was guilty. The first mistake (and probably what led to him being acquitted) by the prosecution was to have the trial moved to downtown L.A. from Santa Monica so there were more black people in the jury pool. It gave the defense a better opportunity to use the race card.

If the Glove dosnt fit ... make it fit.... he is a pure killer and Monster. and Justic fails once more

The reason the glove didn't fit was most likely because it shrunk because the blood was all over it. It was proved that he had the exact same type of gloves. Oh and liquid shrinks leather. Owned.

The reason the glove didn't fit was most likely because it shrunk because the blood was all over it. It was proved that he had the exact same type of gloves. Oh and liquid shrinks leather. Owned.

Oh and let us NOT forget he had on rubber gloves...trying to fit a shrunken leather glove over that.
Please...comon sense went out the window in that trial.The idiot is now hard pressed to even make money.Nobody wants him.

What happened with him recently; was turned down what service?

And of course he did it. Not much discussion there.

He was guilty. The first mistake (and probably what led to him being acquitted) by the prosecution was to have the trial moved to downtown L.A. from Santa Monica so there were more black people in the jury pool. It gave the defense a better opportunity to use the race card.
He wasn't guilty, he was acquitted. He went through the trial, so in the face of the law, he is innocent. I don't know the details of what happened now, but if he was refused service because of his past, then there is either something wrong with your legal system or society.

He is innocent, so leave the poor ****er alone.

amen frater
this highlights a bigger problem in america, that you can be refused service due to past history. he was tried, and acquitted. he was proven innocent by a legitimate court. it does not matter if he actually did the murder or not, he was proven innocent in a court of law

He wasn't guilty, he was acquitted. He went through the trial, so in the face of the law, he is innocent. I don't know the details of what happened now, but if he was refused service because of his past, then there is either something wrong with your legal system or society.

He is innocent, so leave the poor ****er alone.

Actually that is inaccurate.He was refused service because the media follows him around and the owner serves a high class clientell.He did not want his other patrons harrassed by the media.He was found innocent in 1 court and guilty in another.Pertinent evidence in 1 trial was not allowed.In the second trial (Civil) he was proven guilty...beyond a shadow of a doubt.

amen frater
this highlights a bigger problem in america, that you can be refused service due to past history. he was tried, and acquitted. he was proven innocent by a legitimate court. it does not matter if he actually did the murder or not, he was proven innocent in a court of law

He was refused service because he is a media whore...and brings attention to himself wherever he goes. He is NOT innocent...and EVERYONE is leaving *the poor Bastard* alone...as stated...no one wants him.

He wasn't guilty, he was acquitted. He went through the trial, so in the face of the law, he is innocent. I don't know the details of what happened now, but if he was refused service because of his past, then there is either something wrong with your legal system or society.

Well obviously the civil lawyers did a better job of proving it, well they didn't make a shit case like the prosecution. The prosecution could have nailed OJ if they actually used half of the evidence they had properly.

Actually that is inaccurate.He was refused service because the media follows him around and the owner serves a high class clientell.He did not want his other patrons harrassed by the media.
Wrong. He was refused service because of his past.
The owner of the restaurant, Jeff Ruby, said: ""I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families".
CNN affirms: "Ruby said the incident had to do with Simpson's past."
He was found innocent in 1 court and guilty in another.Pertinent evidence in 1 trial was not allowed.In the second trial (Civil) he was proven guilty...beyond a shadow of a doubt.
He wasn't proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in civil court. In America, if you want to win the case in a civil court, more than 50% of the evidence has to support your cause, so there is no such margin as "beyond a shadow of doubt". If you are being prosecuted in a criminal court, there has to be no doubt whatsoever, so about ~95% evidence has to prove one cause. That's where "beyond shadow of doubt" comes in. During the his criminal trial, the police were suspected of meddling with the evidence and not following procedure. It would have been an outrage if he had actually been convicted. Such a conviction would put the U.S. legal system in very bad light indeed. He knew the system and he beat it. You, nor anyone can prove that he's guilty, so leave him alone.
He was refused service because he is a media whore...and brings attention to himself wherever he goes. He is NOT innocent...and EVERYONE is leaving *the poor Bastard* alone...as stated...no one wants him.
The fact that someone was persecuted for their past is outrageos, especially since he was found innocent. The fact that the civil court found him guilty doesn't mean jackshit, as explained above. It shows just how little confidence your citizens have in their legal system, if they don't even trust the judgments.


EDIT: Well obviously the civil lawyers did a better job of proving it, well they didn't make a shit case like the prosecution. The prosecution could have nailed OJ if they actually used half of the evidence they had properly.
Wrong, for reasons explained above.

I say if he is persecuted GOOD! I hate the guy and think he is guilty as hell.
I would like him to stick his head in a plastic garbage bag and tape it shut...
followed by *Stop breathing and die moron*

Just my opinion. I do NOT harrass the guy....but I hope he suffers IRL .

He wasn't proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in civil court. In America, if you want to win the case in a civil court, more than 50% of the evidence has to support your cause, so there is no such margin as "beyond a shadow of doubt". If you are being prosecuted in a criminal court, there has to be no doubt whatsoever, so about ~95% evidence has to prove one cause. That's where "beyond shadow of doubt" comes in. During the his criminal trial, the police were suspected of meddling with the evidence and not following procedure. It would have been an outrage if he had actually been convicted. Such a conviction would put the U.S. legal system in very bad light indeed. He knew the system and he beat it. You, nor anyone can prove that he's guilty, so leave him alone.

Judge Ito (Iro maybe?) should have declared a mistrial at the very least. Yes there were alot of shady things but the gloves and the blood in his Bronco undoubtedly linked him to the crime. Not to mention the fact that when he was apprehended he ran. If you are not guilty then why would you run instead of staying and taking it to trial without question?

Judge Ito (Iro maybe?) should have declared a mistrial at the very least. Yes there were alot of shady things but the gloves and the blood in his Bronco undoubtedly linked him to the crime. Not to mention the fact that when he was apprehended he ran.
There was nothing wrong with the trial (except for the fact that it lasted like a year, lol, that's speedy justice for you). The fault was with the evidence. I already explained you how your very own legal system works, now try to think a little.
If you are not guilty then why would you run instead of staying and taking it to trial without question?
Maybe, like you, he apparently has no belief in the legal system? You argument fails, there are so many reasons for which he could have ran.

wow. very good explanation frater. where did you learn all of this? i could not have said that any better.

the fact of the matter is that you cannot be denied service if you are black, white, purple, innocent, guilty, famous or whatever the hell they have against you.

he was found guilty in a civil court, but civil court and criminal court are entirely different things, as frater said. in civil, your dealing with lawsuits and such. in criminal, your dealing with offenses against the state, other human beings, etc etc.
he got sued and lost

My only question Frater is that if the evidence doesn't point to him then to who does it point to?

There was nothing wrong with the trial (except for the fact that it lasted like a year, lol, that's speedy justice for you). The fault was with the evidence. I already explained you how your very own legal system works, now try to think a little

You said that you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant is guilty. That is the law, very true.

What I am saying is that it could have been done if the prosecution was not flawed beyond belief. The prosecution had plenty of evidence linking him to the crime they just did not prove their case to the extent that they should have. DNA evidence should be the be-all end-all in court in proving guilt. Back then they did not use DNA evidence, but blood evidence. The blood found in his Bronco was of her type. I can almost guarantee if the trial was held again today he would be proven guilty(well I can guarantee because he won't have Johnny Cochrane pulling the race card).

The first and biggest mistake the courts made was moving the trial. He was not tried by a jury of his peers.
peer1 http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fpeer) /pɪər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[peer] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1.a person of the same legal status: a jury of one's peers. 2.a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.



IMO this means he was not tryed by a jury of his peers. There is a specific jury screening in the USA in which the defense and prosecution must agree on the jurors. The prosecution possibly did a very poor job here, that is not for me to say but I believe they did not do very well in the jury selection phase.

This case should have been easy for the prosecution is what I am saying but they screwed themselves.

when you say a jury of peers.. a jury is supposed to be made up of 12 people, each one impartial and unbiased. there was nothing wrong with the jury. they responded according to what was presented to them. we as jury stand by this saying. "it is better to let a guilty man walk free than to condemn a free man to death." the jury saw something wrong with the evidence, and found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
remember, in order to convict someone in a criminal trial, there must be a unanimous decision

He should have been tried where the crime was committed also. The reason they moved it is because of a lack of black people in Santa Monica. That is not right.

Off topic: Frater is studying law and we debated on MSN...Both of us drunk off our ass and he owned me....LOL I should have saved that Convo.
But yah...he owned me. It is not a question of if he was guilty(I think he was) but were procedures followed correctly,and how it was handled.

Frater set me on my ass...I was laughing,and when I went potty...came back...MISSED the chair,got pounced by cat,and tangled in my sweater.
I was on the floor hearing MSN go off and yelling(like a retard) WAIT I have to get up there first!

It was hilarious...Frater wanted pics....yah...I missed the chair...highly doubtfull I will SEE the camera.