1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

O. J. Booted

Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by EdSutton, May 9, 2007.

  1. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    How can you be not guilty of something you are responsible for happening? :confused:

    I, too, have been on a criminal jury. All it takes is "reasonable doubt"...and from what I remember, I do not know how there could be any. Putting a leather glove over a latex glove? I tried it...doesn't fit. Does that constitute reasonable doubt? Hardly. It constitutes pure stupidity. His dna everywhere... bloody footprints in the Bronco...taking cash and trying to escape...fighting the prosecution on exactly how many hairs they can use for dna testing (if you were innocent, wouldn't you gladly give your whole scalp for testing?!)...his motives...his alibi....suicide watch...I can go on and on. Anybody who thinks he's not guilty of that crime chooses to think that way, particularly now after his pulled book basically was saying how and why he killed them.
    I think the huge public view and pressure on this jury...along with the very real fear of being labeled a "racist" played into the jury's decision. I remember the black communtiy cheering and celebrating the decision. Why? Who knows!
    Remember that this wasn't too far removed from the Rodney King incident, and the Reginald Denny beating. Imagine the pressure and threats from the black community if you were the one to find OJ guilty! The way they cheered for him, you wold have thought he was representing the entire black community.
    I disagree with your post...and not out of fear you may harm me :)
     
    #21 webdog, May 10, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2007
  2. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have posted for now the third time that "Not guilty!" is the legal verdict. And the difference is the level of proof, as I posted above. I do not disagree that the jury may well have been influenced, even if subtly, by circumstances.

    But I would greatly 'fear' a different standard than our own, such as exists in much of the world where basically one is "guilty until proven innocent", like that ever happens. Today, in this country, that only happenes in tax cases with the IRS. That is the only time one is required to "prove innocence", to my knowledge.

    BTW, that was also the effective standard at the Salem Witch Trials. Glad I wasn't one of the 'accused' there. :rolleyes:

    Ed
     
  3. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ed,

    I said...



    And you said...

    But it was during the criminal proceeding that it became evident that OJ did it. Before that...when OJ was fleeing in the Bronco being followed by the helicopter, turning himself in, before the trial started, etc...I had no idea if he did it or not. I was completly in the dark.

    During the trial is when it became crystal clear that OJ slaughtered those two people. The evidence is overwhelming. Undeniable. It couldnt possibly be more clear.

    I'll take the lazy way out..:thumbs: ..and just copy and paste what Webdog posted...

    Mike




     
Loading...