Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by EdSutton, May 9, 2007.
O.J.Simpson booted from a KY steakhouse.
Bravo to Kentucky. Hope he goes to Florida. You deserve him.
message was too short
OJ probably heard that the "real killer" was in the restaurant.
OJ lives not far from my Wife's Aunt and Uncle in Miami, FL. I wonder if he left Kato housesitting in Miami while he was in Kentucky?
Yeah, he checked all of the golf courses around the country...now for the restaurants. What a detective
Its unAmerican to kick him out of that restaurant. He got stabbed in the back.
They were probably just worried about him having a steak knife. They feared for their customers.
Drink milk, 'cuz O.J.'s a killer.
I have no opinion on Mr. Simpson's guilt or innocence since ALL information I have about that incident is colored by media bias one direction or the other.
With that being said; the restaurant owner is within his rights to refuse service to anyone. I'll not say "good for him" nor will I castigate his actions.
Frankly; I think this is a non-issue. O.J. Simpson? Big deal.
In His service;
As a Kentuckian I can say I'm proud of that restaurant owner. He took a stand based on his convictions, and it was the correct stand imo.
And I'm glad he got the applause from the patrons.
It amazes me how you can murder someone...and it couldnt be more clear that you did...and get away with it if you are a Hollywood celebrity.
(OJ and Robert Blake)
Now OJ's Attorney is claiming that the restaurant owner's refusal to serve OJ and his party is racially motivated.
Oh well, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton didn't have anything planned this week anyway.
Their bank account must be low.
How many people would allow Manson into a restaurant? Just because Simpson was found not guilty by that useless jury in the criminal case (he was found liable when ALL the evidence was entered in the civil case, remember), doesn't mean he's not a murderer.
AWWWWWW. Poor OJ. -Plays violin- :applause:
FTR, O.J. was found "Not guilty" by a jury of his peers (He was not found 'innocent', for that is not a jury verdict, but the standing of anyone whether or not accused of any crime.) in the criminal case, and found to be 'responsible for wrongful death' in the civil case.
I've always thought that one should be able to serve or not serve who one pleases in his or her private establishment, so I'll applaud that, without passing judgment on anyone as to any 'guilt'. I merely saw this as a "news/current events" item, and posted it.
The legal system is pretty messed up if you can be not guilty...but held liable for someone's death when there is no other suspect besides yourself. :tear:
My statement that OJ "murdered" someone had absolutly nothing to do with how he was "found" by those jurists.
It had to do with what is true regarding OJ Simpson.
OJ Simpson savagely slaughtered his ex-wife and that other man.
I know it. OJ knows it. The whole world knows it. Truth is truth.
A man is not guilty of murder when a verdict says he is "found" to be "guilty".
He becomes guilty of murder at the moment he murders his victim. (or victims, in this case)
I disagree with this, completely. Our American system under the Constitution states the following:
This is the basis for 'criminal proceedings'. I have served (including as foreman) on both a trial (petit) jury and grand jury. I think I know a bit about the procedures involved.
An "indictment" (known as "a true bill") is based (at least in KY) on whether there is enough evidence to the charges, presented by the Commonwealth atttorney and with some, but not necessarily all, witnesses called, to warrant a criminal trial in the opinion of 9 of 12 jurors. If that answer is "Yes.", the case then moves toward a trial. If the answer is "Yes", in the opinion of fewer than the 9 of 12 (or "No" in the opinion of four or more of the twelve), the charges are dropped, and the 'case' is reported out as "not a true bill", with no further action at the time.
The petit jury is somewhat different. In a criminal trial (at least in KY), a jury must reach one of three possible unanimous verdicts. (Anything less than a unanimous verdict results in a "hung jury", hence "no verdict", and the case is reevaluated and usually considered by another jury, but sometimes is dismissed by the state.) Those verdicts are "Not guilty!"; (occasionally) "Guilty, but mentally ill!"; and "Guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt!". There is no such verdict as (unfortunately too often stated), "Guilty, beyond all doubt!", or "Guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt!" In every 'criminal' case, on which I have personally served, I had two, and only two choices as a juror - that of finding someone "Not guilty!" or finding him or her "Guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt!". There is, fortuantely, no such verdict as "I know someone is guilty, I just can't prove it!" I hate to see such judgments offered by anyone, FTR, as I am seeing here on this thread. Also fortunately, I never have had to consider the question of 'sanity', which would have introduced another variable and opinion into the questions of fact.
Civil proceedings are another matter. The "standard of proof", is far less. It is the "preponderance of the evidence" in the opinion of 9 of 12. And any penalties are also less. Criminal conviction can and does extend to imprisonment and jeopardy of life or limb. (Amendment V) Civil penalties are far less, and do not include the above, but may include monetary judgments. They are and should be different, as per the Constitution, and also, IMO.
With all due respect, I hope I never am in any criminal proceeding and have you on the jury. You might read my above post. And I disagree that " The whole world knows it." That obviously was not the case, given the verdict in the criminal case. No real or substantive allegation or mention of wrongdoing, wrongful conclusion, or malfeasance on the part of the juries, was presented in either of the jury verdicts, to my knowledge.
I do happen to agree with both verdicts, from what I was able to ascertain in the O.J.Simpson cases. "Not guilty!", as per my above post, in the 'criminal case', And, yes, responsible for the "wrongful death", in the civil case. Those are the exact same verdicts I would have agreed to, based on what I understand, had I been on either of the juries, again as per the above post, and as one who has served more than once, BTW, as a petit juror, including as a jury foreman, and that more than once, as well.