O J Simpson

---

well if people cant figure it out as she and Damien said, then itd be nice of her to do so, i wasnt copping any sort of attitude if thats how it came of, but if its being misunderstood id like to know what she meant by it, if anything

She's saying that Simpson is a douchebag because, since there's so much racial polarization, he makes all black men look bad (in fulfilling the old "black men are a danger because they kill attractive white women" thing).

alright i figured as much , but with Kristal's sometimes, not so sunny demeanor it can lead one such as myself to wonder

Fair point Steve; but I doubt casting negative aspersions on the black community in America was the objective at the forefront of Simpsons mind while he was throttling the life out of his wife..

Surely not, but it has had that unfortunate effect.In the Old South (at least through the 1950's), a black man could be lynched for looking at a white woman the wrong way, or saying the wrong thing. (Black men were supposed to keep their eyes cast downward, and they were not supposed to say much beyond "Good evening, Miss Sally" to a white woman, if even that.) The memories are still strong for people who have lived through that era.Radekl:In reply to:I don't believe that's true. It could be done legally.I'm innocent and it's being done to me by a company that either suspects I'm guilty or just doesn't want to pay.Either way, it continues in court and all very legal.I have no idea what some company is doing to you, but criminal prosecutions are brought by the government, not private parties. Since Simpson has already lost a lawsuit for far more than his total assets, further lawsuits would be pointless. He could just not pay attention, have a default judgement rendered against him, and not care. The new plaintiff can get in line behind the old plaintiff, who is never likely to see a dime as long as Simpson lives (after that, they can claim his house in Florida).

He can't be taken to court on criminal charges for the same crime again once a verdict has been rendered, and if the trial was not a sham. An example of a sham trial would be if the judge were bribed to give the jury bogus instructions for their deliberation.He could be charged with a different federal crime if there were one that existed, falling under federal jurisdiction. There seems to be no applicable federal statute, unless you can think of one.You can be charged with more than one crime for the same incident; for example kidnapping, murder, and conspiracy.And finally, you assume context that we don't have, as is often the case when you post something completely cryptic. I have no idea what your issue is with the company you mention, and I doubt that anyone else here does.

although there are guilty people found innocent, it is just as important to realize that innocent get convicted of crimes. Id say 50 percent of people in jail are actually guiltyAnd thats not a bad percentage, 50 percent

50 percent? So we can replace trials and jury verdicts with a coin toss?Where do you get that number? It sounds absurdly high to me. And you don't think that it would be a problem if half the people in prison were innocent?

One of the really interesting aspects of the OJ phenomina is it keeps bringing out the armchair jurors of the world.So many people are fully convinced that he did it, even though the prosicution couldn't convince the actual jury.And for the life of me, I can't quite grasp why people keep playing the race card in the discussion. If anything the issue isn't race but rather wealth and fame.

I can't quite grasp why people keep playing the race card in the discussion.Because you're not familiar enough with American culture and the history of American race relations.There is a long history of black defendents getting railroaded in this country. In any case, the prosecution in the Simpson criminal case was unable to convince a jury that he was beyond a reasonable doubt guilty. It really appears that it was due to their incompetence. Simpson went on to lose the civil suit, which has a lower threshold (prepnderance of evidence).

I'm not unaware of America's racial history though it is true I am quite removed from it.When I think along the lines of race playing a role in legal precedings, I think more along the lines of "To Kill a Mockingbird" as an example. I've just never quite been able to grasp how OJ's race played into this situation (other than that moron Mark Ferman). It just looks more like another rich and famous man thinking he can do whatever he wants and being able to afford the legal team to get him out of trouble. btw, I'll admitt that I still share that jury's reasonable doubt.

It didn't play a role in the trial except that one of the main witnesses for the prosecution seemed to have an affinity for the word "nigger", and there were people on the jury who didn't buy into the American legal system, and for whom race did play an issue.It was a racial issue for a lot of the black community of the U.S.

It was a racial issue for a lot of the black community of the U.S.yes, I neither deny nor critisize that. But, in retrospect, I should modify my statement "I can't quite grasp why people keep playing the race card in the discussion" I do understand why the card is played because many in the US, white and black, took issue with the racial aspects of the case. It was those racial aspects that I didn't quite understand from my vantage point. Like I said, I saw a rich man on trial for murder rather than a black man on trial for murder.

In reply to: I said it could be done because it’s happening to me.What’s cryptic about that? You’re asking for an explanation you don’t need. but that is cryptic. Are you suggesting you are being tried for a crime for wich you have been previously aquitted?

In reply to: I said it could be done because it’s happening to me.What’s cryptic about that? You’re asking for an explanation you don’t need. but that is cryptic. Are you suggesting you are being tried for a crime for wich you have been previously aquitted?

you assume a superior knowledge you don’t haveNo, I assume a lack of knowledge, which is why I don't understand what your own case is about, or how it applies to the discussion. You occasionally drop in pieces of information in your discussions that are not well-described, and then you just repeat what you said rather then explaining them.The way you've sectioned off and bracketed the post I'm responding to, I'm not sure what your point is, and I'm not going to spend fifteen minutes trying to dissect it.Here's a summary of what I said:o If the trial was a sham trial, or the jury was hung, than the jury has not reached a decision. The defendant can be tried again for the same crime -- this is not double jeopardy.o If the defendant were found not guilty in a state criminal proceeding, then the federal government can try the defendant for a different crime, such as civil rights violation, or perhaps racketeering. If he were found guilty of murder, could the federal government do that? I don't know, but I've never heard it done. If anyone has any counterexamples, I'd be interested to learn about them.o The civil and criminal systems are separate, with different kinds of laws and different procedures. Simpson could be sued until the cows come home, if courts don't find the suits to be frivolous. If a defendant has no assets and is not likely to acquire more assets, and/or if all of his present and future assets are already claimed by another judgment, such a suits would be pointless. No lawyer would bother.O.J. Simpson is widely-reviled, and any political entity (to wit, the federal or state government) that could drag him into another criminal trial would come out looking very good. They would do it if they could.I'm not a lawyer or a Constitutional expert, so I don't guarantee what I said above. We also give medical opinions on this site, but we're not doctors. So, it would be much more constructive if, rather than just critcizing what I say and how I say it, if you could bring some new information to the table, and explain how and why I am wrong, with regard to the Constitution and federal and state statues and processes.

He mentioned a company, so I don't know if they're trying to sue if, or are trying to press some kind of criminal charges. He could give some more details about the legal issues without giving specific details about the case, but he hasn't. To paraphrase, "It can happen because it's happened to me. Just believe me." I'm not sure what that adds to the O.J. discussion.

"It can happen because it's happened to me. Just believe me." implies that he is in the exact same situation.

Yes. It would be a lot more useful if he could point to a case that he could discuss, or point to the relevant legal (constitutional and statutory) issues. Instead we get the usual cryptic thing, if the usual pattern is followed, he won't add any more detail, but will just get more angry.

yes, let's watch