Thread: O.J. irony

Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1 O.J. irony 
    Senior Member AlmostThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    A Great Red State
    Posts
    1,920
    Wouldn't it be ironic if the jury in the O.J. trial came back with a conviction today? It was 13 years ago today that the jury acquitted him of those 2 murders. It would be poetic justice for sure.
    Last edited by AlmostThere; 10-03-2008 at 05:22 PM.
    Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    noonwitch
    Guest
    It would be ironic, but I doubt that he's going to be convicted in this case, either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,779
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    It would be ironic, but I doubt that he's going to be convicted in this case, either.
    If a conviction is overdue for anyone, it's Orenthal James Simpson.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    Ahem...gentlemen and ladies...innocent until proven guilty, remember?

    I have never understood this civil trial business, and in a way it's a mockery of justice. You go through a criminal trial and are found not guilty, then get taken to court for money by someone who says you're guilty anyway and I want your money...isn't this double jeopardy?

    Whether you think he was guilty or not, if a criminal trial fails to convict, wouldn't the person then be justified in asking "why am I on trial for the same crime twice"?

    Isn't this revenge? If a criminal court says "he didn't do it" then why is anyone entitled to sue them for money when a judge has already said "The wrong person is on trial"?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member AlmostThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    A Great Red State
    Posts
    1,920
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post
    Ahem...gentlemen and ladies...innocent until proven guilty, remember?

    I have never understood this civil trial business, and in a way it's a mockery of justice. You go through a criminal trial and are found not guilty, then get taken to court for money by someone who says you're guilty anyway and I want your money...isn't this double jeopardy?

    Whether you think he was guilty or not, if a criminal trial fails to convict, wouldn't the person then be justified in asking "why am I on trial for the same crime twice"?

    Isn't this revenge? If a criminal court says "he didn't do it" then why is anyone entitled to sue them for money when a judge has already said "The wrong person is on trial"?

    A criminal prosecution is protecting the interest of the state, while a civil action is filed on behalf of an individual or group. A criminal prosecution involves the finding of fact in regards to a crime being committed. A civil action typically concerns a tort.
    A criminal prosecution can result in the loss of liberty while a civil action can't. I'm not a lawyer (obviously) but I think the distinction of loss of liberty is a key difference on why both can be brought against the same person for the same offense.

    On Edit: There are millions of Americans who genuinely believe Simpson got away with murder. The forensic evidence was overwhelming but that didn't seem to matter to the jury. Motive, means, opportunity and a ton of evidence against him and the jury took 3 hours to acquit. Point being, there are millions who are so upset at that miscarriage of justice, they wouldn't care if he was convicted of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping as long as he went to jail.
    Last edited by AlmostThere; 10-03-2008 at 09:20 PM.
    Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member Zeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tiny Redneck town in Texas
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by AlmostThere View Post
    A criminal prosecution is protecting the interest of the state, while a civil action is filed on behalf of an individual or group. A criminal prosecution involves the finding of fact in regards to a crime being committed. A civil action typically concerns a tort.

    A criminal prosecution can result in the loss of liberty while a civil action can't. I'm not a lawyer (obviously) but I think the distinction of loss of liberty is a key difference on why both can be brought against the same person for the same offense.
    True dat. Though usually a successful civilsuit brought on due to criminal action hinges on a successful criminal prosecution. that was not the case for OJ.

    I think OJ is guilty as a Mofo for the murder,I also believe he had help or covered for someone else. But a jury said not guilty so therefore I think his civil suit was a bunch of PC bullshit. Someone got a nut by being able to give away someone elses money.
    The 21st century. The age of Smart phones and Stupid people.

    It is said that branches draw their life from the vine. Each is separate yet all are one as they share one life giving stem . The Bible tells us we are called to a similar union in life, our lives with the life of God. We are incorporated into him; made sharers in his life. Apart from this union we can do nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    If a conviction is overdue for anyone, it's Orenthal James Simpson.
    Really? I've always wondered if they got it wrong.See, they all assumed that she was the target. Everyone did.

    I've always wondered if HE was the target, she was wrong place, wrong time.

    The method used to kill them is the same one used in drug murders..especially ones where someone has manged to either rip off a druglord...or has crossed someone.

    You assume he did it.

    I keep an open mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member AlmostThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    A Great Red State
    Posts
    1,920
    The blood evidence against Simpson was damning but his lawyers, particularly Johnnie Cochran, were able to paint a picture of sloppy police work and a conspiracy by L.A.P.D. to railroad Simpson. Los Angeles was still reeling from the Rodney King case. All of L.A.P.D. was painted as racist against the black man and when the police who beat King were acquitted, all bets were off. This is a video of the King beating. After all these years, I still remember the first time I saw it on the evening news.

    From events sometimes spring quotes which become part of our everyday language. From Cochran we have the immortal line, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.". Those 7 words are probably some of the best known in the American judicial system.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROn_9302UHg
    Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post
    Ahem...gentlemen and ladies...innocent until proven guilty, remember?

    I have never understood this civil trial business, and in a way it's a mockery of justice. You go through a criminal trial and are found not guilty, then get taken to court for money by someone who says you're guilty anyway and I want your money...isn't this double jeopardy?

    Whether you think he was guilty or not, if a criminal trial fails to convict, wouldn't the person then be justified in asking "why am I on trial for the same crime twice"?

    Isn't this revenge? If a criminal court says "he didn't do it" then why is anyone entitled to sue them for money when a judge has already said "The wrong person is on trial"?
    Not in this case, OJ committed the murders.
    The standard of evidence isn't as strict in civil procedings. The evidence, stuff that proved him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, was effectively barred from the criminal procedings for tecnical reasons or some other weak reason. OJ did it no doubt as evidenced by the civil judgement.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •