10-04-2008, 01:00 AM | #1 | ||
Head Coach
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Whittier
|
So Long OJ
Guilty on all 12 counts
|
||
10-04-2008, 01:06 AM | #2 |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
Sentancing is Dec 5th and he faces life
|
10-04-2008, 01:07 AM | #3 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Where Hip Hop lives
|
I don't know the facts too well on this case, so for all I know, it was an open and shut case. But you can't tell me those jurors didn't at least a little have 13 years ago in mind. I wonder if OJ was really convicted of armed robbery, or if he just had a long delayed sentencing for double murder?
__________________
. . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready. |
10-04-2008, 01:11 AM | #4 |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
He definantly got tried for a crime he was already cleared of
|
10-04-2008, 01:17 AM | #5 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Whittier
|
|
10-04-2008, 01:23 AM | #6 |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
|
10-04-2008, 01:26 AM | #7 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
|
Glad to see these people didn't drop the ball.
He should have been executed by now for chopping off his ex's head. |
10-04-2008, 01:27 AM | #8 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
|
dola
But please, no Fred Goldman. Don't ever need to see that guy again. |
10-04-2008, 01:41 AM | #9 |
Poet in Residence
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charleston, SC
|
|
10-04-2008, 01:46 AM | #10 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
From what I was able to pick up about this case the evidence was not really very persuasive - it seemed to me that he was indicted mainly for being OJ. I didn't think he was going to be convicted of anything.
|
10-04-2008, 01:46 AM | #11 |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
|
10-04-2008, 01:49 AM | #12 |
Poet in Residence
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charleston, SC
|
|
10-04-2008, 01:52 AM | #13 |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
I think OJ kiled his wife and Goldman and got away with murder. I also think since he was found innocent of those crimes the jury in his current trial needed to seperate the two and I doubt that happened which is unfair to OJ. That being said I have no problem with him going to jail for the rest of his life. |
10-04-2008, 01:54 AM | #14 | |
Poet in Residence
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charleston, SC
|
Quote:
Okay. So in terms of his second trial...the sense I'm getting is that you're not up on the details? Not trying to pin you into a corner or anything, but with some pretty strong statements I guess I'm just trying to figure out why you don't seem to think he's guilty of his latest apparent transgressions. |
|
10-04-2008, 02:02 AM | #15 |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
Again you are putting words in my mouth.
I never said I think he is guilty or not guilty. I said I dont think it was possible for him to get a fair trial based on his history, anyone that thinks otherwise is naive, IMO. |
10-04-2008, 02:04 AM | #16 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dayton, Ohio
|
Quote:
I understand what you are saying, and agree. But with your original statement I can see where people would assume you were implying that the current trial was bullshit and he was guilt based upon his prior trial. You might say that's idiotic, but I could see it. |
|
10-04-2008, 02:05 AM | #17 | |
Poet in Residence
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charleston, SC
|
Quote:
Not putting words in your mouth -- just trying to figure out your position on the latest trial. I suppose I'll just settle for "not going to give an answer". Fair enough. You and I are certainly agreed on his first trial, and on the odds that the second trial's jury was tainted. |
|
10-04-2008, 02:08 AM | #18 | |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
Quote:
to be honest if jurors went into this trial with preconceived notions about his guilt or innocence then I do think the recent trial was bullshit. That being said I think he is probably guilty in this case Last edited by Lathum : 10-04-2008 at 02:09 AM. |
|
10-04-2008, 02:15 AM | #19 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dayton, Ohio
|
Quote:
Agreed 100%. I felt the only way O.J. was walking away from this one is if something major happened for his side. I felt the evidence was there for a guilty charge, and with his past, it was a guarantee. |
|
10-04-2008, 02:17 AM | #20 |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
yup
|
10-04-2008, 02:38 AM | #21 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Oct 2003
|
Guilty is guilty, regardless of his past there was enough evidence to find him guilty in this case by just about anyone, even if they never heard of OJ.
|
10-04-2008, 02:45 AM | #22 |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
|
10-04-2008, 03:16 AM | #23 |
n00b
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
i think lathum was the whiny child that so wanted to physically assault me or whatever extremely immature/borderline illegal threat he made w/ regard to my last post, but I completely agree with him. It's highly doubtful that it was an "unbiased" jury; and frankly is yet another example of what a complete joke the jury system is. Any intelligent person that has suffered the pain of being on a jury w/ 11 average americans knows just how easily stupid people are swayed not by facts but by the most expensive/talented lawyer.
That said, from what I've seen, there is fairly substantial evidence that "OJ did it!" as the white people as my HS screamed 13 years ago in both cases. So maybe jury trials actually do work ~50% of the time. Or maybe OJ just didn't have enough $$$ left to buy the case. |
10-04-2008, 03:29 AM | #24 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Jose, CA
|
I'm fine with OJ being locked up. At best, he was an abusive husband that dared to behave irresponsibly afterward.
At worst, he is a double-murderer that dared to behave irresponsibly after getting away with the most heinous crime there is. See ya, OJ, you fucking idiot.
__________________
Look into the mind of a crazy man (NSFW) http://www.whitepowerupdate.wordpress.com |
10-04-2008, 03:45 AM | #25 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: PDX
|
There was another dude found guilty with him. Despite the fact that no jury may not be able to give OJ a completely fair trial, I also believe no jury would knowingly send another person to jail as well, possibly for life, for OJs actions 13 years ago.
|
10-04-2008, 07:11 AM | #26 |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
on stupidity alone he's guilty.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
10-04-2008, 08:06 AM | #27 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NYC
|
Amazing to me that this verdict came 13 years to the day after the last one.
|
10-04-2008, 08:54 AM | #28 |
The boy who cried Trout
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: TX
|
OJ got a second chance, and he blew it. I guess in the realm of right and wrong it sucks that he could probably never get an impartial jury, but in the realm of karma, it's quite a juicy kettle of fish.
|
10-04-2008, 09:22 AM | #29 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
You overestimate juries IMO.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
10-04-2008, 10:14 AM | #30 |
World Champion Mis-speller
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Covington, Ga.
|
|
10-04-2008, 10:20 AM | #31 |
Death Herald
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Le stelle la notte sono grandi e luminose nel cuore profondo del Texas
|
So who is now going to carry on the search for the killers? Or maybe that was OJ's plan all along, and he was almost certain that the killer is in the Nevada State prison system, and this is his way of continuing the search.
__________________
Thinkin' of a master plan 'Cuz ain't nuthin' but sweat inside my hand So I dig into my pocket, all my money is spent So I dig deeper but still comin' up with lint |
10-04-2008, 10:44 AM | #32 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
What's your point? Should OJ just get a pass the rest of his life because he lucked out once? He wasn't "cleared" or "found innocent" last time. He WAS found responsible in a civil trial. It's impossible to have a perfect criminal system (if our system were perfect, OJ would already be doing life). If you are charged with 4 crimes, plead guilty to 2 and have 2 dismissed per plea deal, at your next sentencing, the judge WILL consider all 4 crimes. The prosecutor will consider ALL 4 crimes when deciding whether to charge you next time, or when deciding how many crimes to charge you with, or when deciding what penalties to ask for. And that's not really a bad thing, because generally, innocent people do avoid even criminal charges. If you'd prefer a criminal justice system in a vacuum, I anxiously await your law review article about how such a thing is possible, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested. But as for OJ, he got a lucky break, and STILL threw it all away. What a moron. It's a great day for justice. MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY criminals walk free, most without being charged. I'm not going feel bad about enjoying the fate of one of the worst criminals who walked free, who's now going back where he belongs. OJ of ALL people, should understand a perfect criminal justice system is impossible, and he should have certainly known that he ran the risk, the rest of his life, of scrutiny from not only law enforcement, but regular people walking down the street. Wouldn't you live a different kind of life? Wouldn't you be a tad more careful about bullying drivers and schemes with guns? He thought he was above the law. Last edited by molson : 10-04-2008 at 11:03 AM. |
|
10-04-2008, 11:08 AM | #33 | |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
Quote:
Gimme a break. You were probably the kid who got stuffed in lockers and got his ass kicked everyday then yelled "I'm gonna sue you!" "Illegal threat" don't be such a faggot about what someone says to you on a message board you little bitch. End of threadjack |
|
10-04-2008, 11:12 AM | #34 | |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
Quote:
Not really sure what you are getting at other then trying to pick a fight. I made it very clear I am glad he was found guilty and I hope he goes away forever, he is an idiot, etc... My only point was ( and many others agreed) was that there is no way he got a fair trial based on his last trial. And you may not like it but in the eyes of the law he is innocent of the last charges against him, despite what the outcome was of the civil suit. |
|
10-04-2008, 11:18 AM | #35 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
There IS a legal difference between innocent and not guilty in the eyes of the law. He's not innocent in the eyes of the law, for purposes of sentencing, prosecutorial discretion, etc. The fact that he was charged, and found responsible in a civil trial can fairly be considered. The facts of the first trial could even be potentially relevant evidence in this trial in certain circumstances - though I'm sure the defense was careful not to "open the door" for such relevance, and the prosecutor was reluctant to go there since they had a slam dunk case. It's just kind of telling (to me) that your first reaction to this news is noting the trial's unfairness, even though you clearly don't know anything about the second case. "He definantly got tried for a crime he was already cleared of". Geez, you sound like his defense attorney. Last edited by molson : 10-04-2008 at 11:19 AM. |
|
10-04-2008, 11:19 AM | #36 |
Checkraising Tourists
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
|
Guilty on all counts:
COUNT 1 Conspiracy to Commit a Crime: 1 year in prison COUNT 2 Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping: 1 to 6 years in prison COUNT 3 Conspiracy to Commit Robbery: 1 to 6 years in prison COUNT 4 Burglary with a Deadly Weapon: 2 to 15 years in prison COUNT 5 First-degree Kidnapping with a Deadly Weapon: 15 years OR life in prison, both with parole eligibility after 5 years (plus 1 to 20 years with deadly weapon enhancement) COUNT 6 First-degree Kidnapping with a Deadly Weapon: 15 years OR life in prison, both with parole eligibility after 5 years (plus 1 to 20 years with deadly weapon enhancement) COUNT 7 Robbery with a Deadly Weapon: 2 to 15 years in prison (plus 1 to 15 years with deadly weapon enhancement) COUNT 8 Robbery with a Deadly Weapon: 2 to 15 years in prison (plus 1 to 15 years with deadly weapon enhancement) COUNT 9 Assault with a Deadly Weapon: 1 to 6 years in prison COUNT 10 Assault with a Deadly Weapon: 1 to 6 years in prison COUNT 11 Coercion with a Deadly Weapon: 1 to 6 years in prison (plus 1 to 6 years with deadly weapon enhancement) COUNT 12 Coercion with a Deadly Weapon: 1 to 6 years in prison (plus 1 to 6 years with deadly weapon enhancement) |
10-04-2008, 11:21 AM | #37 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Whittier
|
Quote:
That's true, it's not like OJ was found liable for the murders either. He was found guilty for committing a crime that was recorded on tape. The only change he had of escaping was if the tape had been thought to have been tampered with Last edited by MrBug708 : 10-04-2008 at 11:21 AM. |
|
10-04-2008, 11:21 AM | #38 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hometown of Canada
|
in
|
10-04-2008, 11:24 AM | #39 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Whittier
|
|
10-04-2008, 11:25 AM | #40 | |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
Quote:
well maybe you should read all of what I said instead of picking the parts you can argue about. For fucks sake, I wasn't even the first one to suggest that the jury wasn't impartial. I think he is guilty and hope he goes away for life, not sure how many times I can say that, but frankly you are an idiot if you dont think the jury wasn't somewhat infuenced by his first trial. That doesn't mean he isn't guilty. I was mearly making 2 seperate points and you are trying to make something out of nothing. |
|
10-04-2008, 11:29 AM | #41 |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
|
10-04-2008, 11:29 AM | #42 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
Maybe you're right, I don't know. Tip though, if you're at a party, you might rub people the wrong way if you started saying how OJ "was cleared", "was found innocent", and that these jurors were prejudiced and that OJ didn't get a fair trial. All of that is wrong except maybe the 3rd one, and in this case, it's a completely moot point - if you have a crime committed on tape, are the jurors really "prejudiced" when he's found guilty? Whatever. Don't be all shocked if people think you're defending him. Last edited by molson : 10-04-2008 at 11:32 AM. |
|
10-04-2008, 12:00 PM | #43 |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
he was cleared and found innocent in his first criminal trial so I'm not sure why people would be upset.
As for his second trial I hope he gets prison raped over and over and over... |
10-04-2008, 12:23 PM | #44 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2006
|
Karma's a bitch...see ya OJ.
|
10-04-2008, 12:25 PM | #45 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwest
|
Quote:
It's seems sort of hookie that they can piggy back counts on top of each other... I mean don't you have to normally conspired to commit? |
|
10-04-2008, 12:27 PM | #46 |
High School Varsity
Join Date: Jun 2007
|
|
10-04-2008, 12:28 PM | #47 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwest
|
Quote:
Yeah I thought people are innocent until proven guilty. He was never found guilty in criminal court. Thus he is innocent... Unless there is some other form of logic that people are using to say he's "not guilty" instead. |
|
10-04-2008, 12:28 PM | #49 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Oct 2003
|
Quote:
If he was guilty for what he did this second time, how does it even matter? If the end result was they had him on audiotape, with 5 or 6 guys testifying against him who were directly involved and something like 19 witnesses who had other information - again, if the information was so sure fire that doesn't matter who it was, he was going to be found guilty. There's nothing impartial about that. |
|
10-04-2008, 12:33 PM | #50 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
You have to prove different elements for each, and can be found guilty of one and not the other. No, you don't have to have conspired to commit, or vice versa. Last edited by molson : 10-04-2008 at 12:36 PM. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|