OJ!

[Mem]

Yeah that is a fucking joke. People don't go to jail for that kind of shit, they don't even go to trial for it. .

If they don't get caught they don't. Trust me that if people didn't go to jail for these things that OJ woud not be going to jail.

He did the crime, he serves the time. Fuck his murdering ass.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

OJ has gone out of his way to not pay one penny to the Goldman family. OJ is a murderer and only cares about himself.

That's why he dealt with memorabilia in the first place. He earned his money under the table and didn't legally declare his income. The only thing that he had to declare were his book sales--the profiits went to his victim's families.

 

[Skull Mason]

If they don't get caught they don't. Trust me that if people didn't go to jail for these things that OJ woud not be going to jail.

He did the crime, he serves the time. Fuck his murdering ass.

he was set up!!!

 

[D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III]

This was so unfair it puts our legal system in a very bad light. The judge ONLY hit him so hard ONLY to feather her own nest-to butter her own bread. Because she will be up for reelection and wanted to make sure she will be reelected. And she was so disrespectful!!! All people deserve respect at all times--when she said right to his face before sentencing--"You are both ignorant and arrogant"--that was so wrong and unprofessional. She only did it as a grandstand play...very very unprofessional. Sentencing is a time for dignity on ALL sides INCLUDING the judge. Disgraceful---AND Goldman showing up for something that was DONE of his business. Another GRANDSTAND play. OJ in his own humble words was only recovering property that was stolen from him for his family and the Brown family-NOT for himself!!. It was a brave and compassionate act on his part. The cops wouldn't help--so he HAD to organize this sting operation--which no one at all was hurt in. OJ was totally abused and it makes me sick.

The is nothing wrong or unprofessional with the statement "you are both ignorant and arrogant" he got away with murder and he just had to go back to well for more.

It was a brave and compasionate act? Who the hell are you and what planet do you live on? OJ is a piece of shit and is getting exactly what he deserves!

 

[Mem]

he was set up!!!

Then he deserves the maximum time in jail for his stupidity.

 

[MarkLondon]

<snip> And don't tell me that he isn't a murderer. He was found GUILTY in the civil trial.

I dunno about the States, but in the UK the burden of proof is lower in a civil trial ("the balance of probabilities") than in a criminal trial ("beyond a reasonable doubt").

Having said that, I do think the criminal trial was a farce and a media-circus and I don't think justice was done there. But I think it's wrong to let that influence the sentencing in a different case, though it is legitimate for the defendant's personality to be taken into account in the UK.

 

[atomicTIGER]

Being found not guilty does not mean that he is innocent.

In this country it is our system of justice that there is NO possible way to find a person innocent! SO because they couldn't in any possible way find him "Inoccent" you then jump to the conclusion--- "well he must be guilty since he wasn't found inocent" SO with no disrepsect but that attitude is from a person who has no understanding about the fundimentals of our justice system. It what we have!! --imperfect as it may be-- it is what we have and what we live by in this country. If you were charged with a crime you would be very assured our system will protect you from false charges as other countrys do allow.

 

[Industrialsize]

I dunno about the States, but in the UK the burden of proof is lower in a civil trial ("the balance of probabilities") than in a criminal trial ("beyond a reasonable doubt").

Having said that, I do think the criminal trial was a farce and a media-circus and I don't think justice was done there. But I think it's wrong to let that influence the sentancing in a different case, though it is legitimate for the defendant's personality to be taken into account.

In the USA

Civil trial: "a preponderance of the evidence"
Criminal Trial: "beyond a reaonable doubt and to a moral certainty"

I watched the sentencing and the Judge was very careful and said the only matter before her was the crimes Mr. Simpson has been convicted of. She was not sentencing him for what he may or may not have done in the past. Legal analysts are all saying that the sentence he received today was fairly lenient for the crimes of which he was convicted.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

I dunno about the States, but in the UK the burden of proof is lower in a civil trial ("the balance of probabilities") than in a criminal trial ("beyond a reasonable doubt").

Having said that, I do think the criminal trial was a farce and a media-circus and I don't think justice was done there. But I think it's wrong to let that influence the sentancing in a different case, though it is legitimate for the defendant's personality to be taken into account.

It's the same in the US. They often refer to the civil trial judgments as a "preponderance of the evidence."

Anyone claiming that his sensational murder trial affected the outcome of this criminal trail needs to consider what "beyond reasonable doubt" is. If any jury member had any "shadow of a doubt" of his innocence--regardless of their feelings for him-- then they must find him innocent. Apparently there was overwhelming evidence against OJ.

 

[Mem]

In this country it is our system of justice that there is NO possible way to find a person innocent! SO because they couldn't in any possible way find him "Inoccent" you then jump to the conclusion--- "well he must be guilty since he wasn't found inocent" SO with no disrepsect but that attitude is from a person who has no understanding about the fundimentals of our justice system. It what we have!! --imperfect as it may be-- it is what we have and what we live by in this country. If you were charged with a crime you would be very assured our system will protect you from false charges as other countrys do allow.

No he must be guilty because he left blood at the scene. Hit the wall coming home in the guest house. Wore his "ugly ass shoes" that were so ugly that he only used them for killings. Had a cut on his finger. Many other reasons that he should have been found guilty.

 

[atomicTIGER]

I dunno about the States, but in the UK the burden of proof is lower in a civil trial ("the balance of probabilities") than in a criminal trial ("beyond a reasonable doubt").

Having said that, I do think the criminal trial was a farce and a media-circus and I don't think justice was done there. But I think it's wrong to let that influence the sentencing in a different case, though it is legitimate for the defendant's personality to be taken into account in the UK.

You are correct in the UK you are "presumed guilty until proven innocent" That is opposite of the US system..Maybe one is better than the other--but who is to decide that? Someone with a much higher pay grade than us.

 

[Xcuze]

He got mighty damn lucky last time.

He maybe got a little unlucky this time.

He's an absolute idiot for gifting them a 2nd shot at him.

Now Im off to Celeb forum to see his Cock pics..

 

[Skull Mason]

He's an absolute idiot for gifting them a 2nd shot at him.

So true. He should of thanked god and moved to an island in the caribbean and wasted the remaining years of his life on the beach. Maybe after possibly beating the system once he felt untouchable. I would think a trait like that would be common among extremely high caliber successful athletes. I do think it was kind of bogus he got an all white jury this time around, however.

 

[D_Marazion Analdouche]

The real Killer is hiding with the WMDs.

And as Chris Rock says........

YouTube - Chris Rock on OJ Simpson

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

No he must be guilty because he left blood at the scene. Hit the wall coming home in the guest house. Wore his "ugly ass shoes" that were so ugly that he only used them for killings. Had a cut on his finger. Many other reasons that he should have been found guilty.

He claimed to have never worn those "ugly ass shoes" during the trial. There are photos of him wearing those shoes. This makes him guilty of fashion crimes too.

 

[D_Marazion Analdouche]

He claimed to have never worn those "ugly ass shoes" during the trial. There are photos of him wearing those shoes. This makes him guilty of fashion crimes too.

Whoa whoa whooooooa......say what you want about OJ but leave Bruno Magli shoes out of this.

I am very found of mine thank you very much.....they are a little old and worn but still feel great.

Hey Rec, still fitting that stero-type at the gun range? :tongue:

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

Hey Rec, still fitting that stero-type at the gun range? :tongue:

I am starting to have my doubts... although mullets can be hidden with a hoodie and a ball cap.

 

[D_Marazion Analdouche]

I am starting to have my doubts... although mullets can be hidden with a hoodie and a ball cap.

That's why I shave my head, it's too compelling to let the mullet grow out, and I'm weak......so weak.

 

[ZOS23xy]

I am thinking, why do "famous" people get off lighter than a ghetto brother for a much more minor crime (say, selling heroin)....

 

[MarkLondon]

You are correct in the UK you are "presumed guilty until proven innocent" That is opposite of the US system..Maybe one is better than the other--but who is to decide that? Someone with a much higher pay grade than us.

No no, Tiger. Innocent until proved guilty. I think you got the idea from us, historically. In Scotland, which has it's own legal system, the jury has the option of a third verdict - "Not Proven" which falls between guilt and innocence but still results in the aquittal of the defendant. Actually, the choice for the jury in England and Wales is not Guilt or lnnocence, it's Guilty or Not Guilty, a subtle difference.

One big difference between our systems (UK/US) is that judges are not elected, but appointed, so they don't have to pander to the electorate. Though they can be subjected to ridicule in the press if they make a spectacular bad decision, and there is a mechanism for removing bad judges.