Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

My Turn · Senior Member

RE: OJ

My Turn · Senior Member

Psych Lit wrote:

My Turn wrote:

hey there my turn...thats a very distracting avatar lol

well thank you psych....it's all me, bay bay!

Psych Lit · Guru

milo wrote:

Psych Lit wrote:

My Turn wrote:

hey there my turn...thats a very distracting avatar lol

it didn't distract me, made me smile

no doubt:)

milo · Veteran Member

Psych Lit wrote:

My Turn wrote:

hey there my turn...thats a very distracting avatar lol

it didn't distract me, made me smile

Psych Lit · Guru

My Turn wrote:

BoxDog wrote:

I'm amazed that we allow civil suits in cases where persons have been declared "not guilty" in a criminal case. That, to me, is a tremendous distortion of the process as well. <--bd

the reason the civil actions come into play where a not guilty verdict was rendered in the criminal proceedings is because of the difference in the bar that needs to be reached. in a criminal case, that bar is guilty beyond all resonable doubt. in a civil case, that bar is simply a preponderance of the evidence. i am not sure i see it as double jeopardy (not that you said it was) because in a civil matter, there is no jail time at stake.<--mt

yep but it does seem a bit off that someone could be found to be not criminally responsible but civily responsible. i get the concept and im sure that its been appealed numerous times and found valid but still. it sort of reminds me of saturday morning cartoons where the mouse makes it past the cat only to have the housewife whack it with a broom when its guard is down:)

Psych Lit · Guru

My Turn wrote:

hey there my turn...thats a very distracting avatar lol

BoxDog · Guru

My Turn wrote:

BoxDog wrote:

I'm amazed that we allow civil suits in cases where persons have been declared "not guilty" in a criminal case. That, to me, is a tremendous distortion of the process as well. That said though, in this and several other high profile and plain ole local cases, I couldn't give a crap what happens to him. He had a 13 year reprieve in which to "do good", make an impact, socially redeem himself. He vowed to search the ends of the earth for the "murderer" of Nicole and the Goldman fellow. Instead? He goes nuts in vegas kicking in doors and taking prisoners for sports trinkets? Yeah, it may not be justice, but the karma door swings both ways. I imagine it would be a good time for him to learn about humility.

the reason the civil actions come into play where a not guilty verdict was rendered in the criminal proceedings is because of the difference in the bar that needs to be reached. in a criminal case, that bar is guilty beyond all resonable doubt. in a civil case, that bar is simply a preponderance of the evidence. i am not sure i see it as double jeopardy (not that you said it was) because in a civil matter, there is no jail time at stake. and i can see where a jury might see the person is probably guilty but not without reasonable doubt. in the civil case, at least the victim or family can seek some vindication that the person most likely was at fault and can receive monetary compensation for the wrong, thereby punishing the accused. plus this only comes into play where and when the person is found not guilty in the criminal process....if found guilty than the victim cannot persue the civil case as the accused is being punished via the jail time imposed.

for whatever reason, the jury in the criminal case obviously had some doubt that oj was not the perpetrator, even tho most i think feel he was. also, i think those viewing the case via the media were provided some facts that the jury was not allowed to hear/see due to the rules of evidence applied in criminal proceedings. agree or not, these rules are in place in an attempt to assure that an innocent person is not put in jail for something they did not do. yes, innocent people have gone to jail, however, imo, it is better to let one guilty person walk than to have one person wrongfully sent to jail for a crime they didnt commit.

perhaps oj was found guilty on all these charges due to a bias of the jury...i dont know, i didnt follow the trial either....however in this case, the jury was presented with video and audio evidence of his participation, while in the murder trial, there was no such evidence. pretty hard to dispute a video and audio tape......

i do agree that he is a royal dumb ass for participating in this current mess....one would think that having beaten the murder wrap, he would have done everything he could to keep his a** clean from that point on.....on the other hand, it is really not surprising considering his level of arrogance.

So, in essence, the civil case is for the cash. Period. What I was trying to say is that I do not think there should be both. Understandably the bar is lower for the civil suit, they are almost token gestures, and accordingly so are the expectations of the efforts of any jury. No jury is forced to decide the fate of anothers life, or of any criminal "punishment". That's when a jury changes from being in awe of a star defendant to an oh he's got plenty of money, nail him...in theory. As a matter of fact, they need not even concern themselves with the presence or absence of anything more than Monopoly money. Most folks knowing they have a civil suit pending liquidate their assets before the case is even filed. I say if one is found "not guilty" in the criminal courts, lowering a "bar" to "get even" somehow seems silly to me. It's in no way double jeopardy though, you're right. That would only apply in a criminal case.

My Turn · Senior Member

well thank you milo for the welcome...very thoughtful indeed. i have to say i love the quote on your posts.....i agree that a bit of pleasure is very much worth the pain....i have had lots of pain....but i still seek the pleasure, with my garden very much open to any passerby....to surround your garden with brick walls and barbed wire fences is truly a sad thing....

hopefully, your right wing nut can hang with my left wing nut and provide some very fun discussions!

have a beautiful day! wink

milo · Veteran Member

welcome in My Turn, nice to have ya.
I am the resident right wingnut, but I am funny and cute so they forgive me.

My Turn · Senior Member

BoxDog wrote:

I'm amazed that we allow civil suits in cases where persons have been declared "not guilty" in a criminal case. That, to me, is a tremendous distortion of the process as well. That said though, in this and several other high profile and plain ole local cases, I couldn't give a crap what happens to him. He had a 13 year reprieve in which to "do good", make an impact, socially redeem himself. He vowed to search the ends of the earth for the "murderer" of Nicole and the Goldman fellow. Instead? He goes nuts in vegas kicking in doors and taking prisoners for sports trinkets? Yeah, it may not be justice, but the karma door swings both ways. I imagine it would be a good time for him to learn about humility.

the reason the civil actions come into play where a not guilty verdict was rendered in the criminal proceedings is because of the difference in the bar that needs to be reached. in a criminal case, that bar is guilty beyond all resonable doubt. in a civil case, that bar is simply a preponderance of the evidence. i am not sure i see it as double jeopardy (not that you said it was) because in a civil matter, there is no jail time at stake. and i can see where a jury might see the person is probably guilty but not without reasonable doubt. in the civil case, at least the victim or family can seek some vindication that the person most likely was at fault and can receive monetary compensation for the wrong, thereby punishing the accused. plus this only comes into play where and when the person is found not guilty in the criminal process....if found guilty than the victim cannot persue the civil case as the accused is being punished via the jail time imposed.

for whatever reason, the jury in the criminal case obviously had some doubt that oj was not the perpetrator, even tho most i think feel he was. also, i think those viewing the case via the media were provided some facts that the jury was not allowed to hear/see due to the rules of evidence applied in criminal proceedings. agree or not, these rules are in place in an attempt to assure that an innocent person is not put in jail for something they did not do. yes, innocent people have gone to jail, however, imo, it is better to let one guilty person walk than to have one person wrongfully sent to jail for a crime they didnt commit.

perhaps oj was found guilty on all these charges due to a bias of the jury...i dont know, i didnt follow the trial either....however in this case, the jury was presented with video and audio evidence of his participation, while in the murder trial, there was no such evidence. pretty hard to dispute a video and audio tape......

i do agree that he is a royal dumb ass for participating in this current mess....one would think that having beaten the murder wrap, he would have done everything he could to keep his a** clean from that point on.....on the other hand, it is really not surprising considering his level of arrogance.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

O.J. Simpson Had an Acquittal Party Planned

Posted Oct 6th 2008 11:15AM by Will Brinson (author feed)
Filed under: NFL Police Blotter, NFL Media Watch

O.J. Simpson has made lots of mistakes in his life ... some allegedly and some actually quantifiable within a court of law. The latest "real" mistake though, is just an example of Juice messing with the karma that has been so kind to him (lost Heisman trophies or no, he still got off on the Brown - Goldman thing).

That's because, while heading towards the conclusion of his Las Vegas armed robbery trial, O.J. planned an acquittal party. I wish I was joking.

Simpson associate Thomas Riccio, after an in-studio interview Friday with radio talk-show host Anthony Crivello and retired Las Vegas police detective Phil Ramos, invited them to join O.J.'s entourage at an undisclosed location.

"That's how certain he was," Crivello said during an interview on Saturday, a day after Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart were found guilty on all counts, including armed robbery and kidnapping with a deadly weapon.

"He's been predicting a hung jury," said Ramos, who attended the trial and provided expert commentary on Crivello's show, "The Sicilians" on Fox Sports Radio KBAD-AM, 920.

Maybe that prediction just stemmed from prior experience? Who knows.

What I do know is that you never plan a party like that so early, because it always comes back to bite you, like Simpson now.

It's pretty phenomenal though, and a testament to the type of person that Juice really is, that he actually went this far. In other words, we see (I think) O.J. as some bungling murderer in the Naked Gun fashion, but in reality, he's an incredibly ****y criminal who is finally getting his come uppin's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

BoxDog · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

We all have our own feelings about him, and I'd wager they're pretty similar.

Here's my deal: As much as I'd like to seen him put away forever, I don't care more about him than I do our justice system.

I have no reason to think he got anything less than a fair trial.

I guess ... the reason I started this thread this morning was that I was mildly irked by an AO* poll: "Do you agree with the verdict?"

How on earth would the average AOL reader have any way on earth of responding to that without bringing into the equation bias about a prior case?

This wasn't about re-trying him for murdering his wife, nor can it be. That would be a tremendously damaging distortion of the judicial process.

Unless we heard the evidence, and possibly were in the courtroom, or at least were able to view both the jury selection process, every ruling from the bench, and all the evidence, there's just no way, IMO, we can either agree or disagree with the verdict.

these days those high profile cases are covered in full on what was formerly court tv with highlights on some of fox news and cnn's shows. so those who have that kinda time can watch the whole thing.

im with you on the he isnt worth distorting the justice system but i think thats where the aol question becomes valid. from the tidbits i have seen of this the story is that simpson discovered that a sports dealer was selling some property of his that he claimed was stolen from him.(they may have been auctioned off as a part of the goldman attachment of assets and not stolen but the items are big things like his heisman trophy and superbowl ring. so the dealer is selling out of a hotel room in vegas so one day hes in vegas for other reasons and decides to get his stuff back so he and some of his buddies cook up this scheme to go into the room, meet with the guy and steal back the stuff. oj says no guns were shown and at the time of his arrest everyone concurs. two of his buddies are later offered a light charge in exchange for their testimony against oj. the two friends now say guns were involved. oj and one other poor slob who had the misfortune of not being offered the deal but also was unsuccessful in getting his trial cut from ojs trial are found guilty and might serve life in prison. the guilty verdict happens on the exact day he was found not guilty of nicole browns and ron goldmans murder only 13 years later.

now this is obviously a dumb stunt and if he werent oj hed probably be charged with simple armed robbery and, since stupidity isnt a crime, little else and hed do a year or something but he is oj and so its not one charge of armed robbery they throw everything else in there including kidnapping. so hes found guilty of all of the charges but so is his friend, the one who couldnt get his trial separated. of the 4 idiots who pulled off this stunt two walked and two get a potential life sentence.

so there are a lot of issues in there for me. first was he charged appropriately?
did the other man get a fair trail or was his tainted by oj stench? and last does the crime warrant a life sentence and is his outcome comparable to others who have done similar crimes? personally i think this will put oj where he belongs but it will do so at a cost to justice.

I only see one possible issue successfully challenged within the very limited time constraints of Nevada law. If the court doesn't approve the accomplice with the shyt for luck of having a shared trial, I certainly think an appellate court will grant a new trial for him. NOBODY should be so unlucky as to share a trial with the likes of that pos. Simpson, I don't think it a far stretch to believe that he was so arrogant, and so savvy, to instruct his henchmen to "bring the guns". And that all white jury? No grounds for appeal, his attorney had every opportunity to nix them during voir dire. His fate is sealed. I don't think lady justice will shed a tear for him. Unless we want to discuss the last thirteen years of endless golfing and willy nilly living he's had. He had vowed to go to the ends of the earth to find the "murderer" of Brown and Goldman. Yeahhh, ok. Then, the Brown-Goldmans can tell us all about justice. I say,

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

We all have our own feelings about him, and I'd wager they're pretty similar.

Here's my deal: As much as I'd like to seen him put away forever, I don't care more about him than I do our justice system.

I have no reason to think he got anything less than a fair trial.

I guess ... the reason I started this thread this morning was that I was mildly irked by an AO* poll: "Do you agree with the verdict?"

How on earth would the average AOL reader have any way on earth of responding to that without bringing into the equation bias about a prior case?

This wasn't about re-trying him for murdering his wife, nor can it be. That would be a tremendously damaging distortion of the judicial process.

Unless we heard the evidence, and possibly were in the courtroom, or at least were able to view both the jury selection process, every ruling from the bench, and all the evidence, there's just no way, IMO, we can either agree or disagree with the verdict.

these days those high profile cases are covered in full on what was formerly court tv with highlights on some of fox news and cnn's shows. so those who have that kinda time can watch the whole thing.

im with you on the he isnt worth distorting the justice system but i think thats where the aol question becomes valid. from the tidbits i have seen of this the story is that simpson discovered that a sports dealer was selling some property of his that he claimed was stolen from him.(they may have been auctioned off as a part of the goldman attachment of assets and not stolen but the items are big things like his heisman trophy and superbowl ring. so the dealer is selling out of a hotel room in vegas so one day hes in vegas for other reasons and decides to get his stuff back so he and some of his buddies cook up this scheme to go into the room, meet with the guy and steal back the stuff. oj says no guns were shown and at the time of his arrest everyone concurs. two of his buddies are later offered a light charge in exchange for their testimony against oj. the two friends now say guns were involved. oj and one other poor slob who had the misfortune of not being offered the deal but also was unsuccessful in getting his trial cut from ojs trial are found guilty and might serve life in prison. the guilty verdict happens on the exact day he was found not guilty of nicole browns and ron goldmans murder only 13 years later.

now this is obviously a dumb stunt and if he werent oj hed probably be charged with simple armed robbery and, since stupidity isnt a crime, little else and hed do a year or something but he is oj and so its not one charge of armed robbery they throw everything else in there including kidnapping. so hes found guilty of all of the charges but so is his friend, the one who couldnt get his trial separated. of the 4 idiots who pulled off this stunt two walked and two get a potential life sentence.

so there are a lot of issues in there for me. first was he charged appropriately?
did the other man get a fair trail or was his tainted by oj stench? and last does the crime warrant a life sentence and is his outcome comparable to others who have done similar crimes? personally i think this will put oj where he belongs but it will do so at a cost to justice.

BoxDog · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

We all have our own feelings about him, and I'd wager they're pretty similar.

Here's my deal: As much as I'd like to seen him put away forever, I don't care more about him than I do our justice system.

I have no reason to think he got anything less than a fair trial.

I guess ... the reason I started this thread this morning was that I was mildly irked by an AO* poll: "Do you agree with the verdict?"

How on earth would the average AOL reader have any way on earth of responding to that without bringing into the equation bias about a prior case?

This wasn't about re-trying him for murdering his wife, nor can it be. That would be a tremendously damaging distortion of the judicial process.

Unless we heard the evidence, and possibly were in the courtroom, or at least were able to view both the jury selection process, every ruling from the bench, and all the evidence, there's just no way, IMO, we can either agree or disagree with the verdict.

Now, if they'd asked: "Would you like to see OJ Simpson locked up for the rest of his life?" That might at least approach reason, but to ask AO* readers if they agree with the verdict is just .... leading, and, IMO, "dumb."

Unfortunately, there wasn't a box to check for any of that, so you have to suffer that consequence by reading this post.

I owe ya.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 09:00, 2008-10-04

I'm amazed that we allow civil suits in cases where persons have been declared "not guilty" in a criminal case. That, to me, is a tremendous distortion of the process as well. That said though, in this and several other high profile and plain ole local cases, I couldn't give a crap what happens to him. He had a 13 year reprieve in which to "do good", make an impact, socially redeem himself. He vowed to search the ends of the earth for the "murderer"

of Nicole and the Goldman fellow. Instead? He goes nuts in vegas kicking in doors and taking prisoners for sports trinkets? Yeah, it may not be justice, but the karma door swings both ways. I imagine it would be a good time for him to learn about humility.

MyCat8it · Senior Member

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

We all have our own feelings about him, and I'd wager they're pretty similar.

Here's my deal: As much as I'd like to seen him put away forever, I don't care more about him than I do our justice system.

I have no reason to think he got anything less than a fair trial.

I guess ... the reason I started this thread this morning was that I was mildly irked by an AO* poll: "Do you agree with the verdict?"

How on earth would the average AOL reader have any way on earth of responding to that without bringing into the equation bias about a prior case?

This wasn't about re-trying him for murdering his wife, nor can it be. That would be a tremendously damaging distortion of the judicial process.

Unless we heard the evidence, and possibly were in the courtroom, or at least were able to view both the jury selection process, every ruling from the bench, and all the evidence, there's just no way, IMO, we can either agree or disagree with the verdict.

Now, if they'd asked: "Would you like to see OJ Simpson locked up for the rest of his life?" That might at least approach reason, but to ask AO* readers if they agree with the verdict is just .... leading, and, IMO, "dumb."

Unfortunately, there wasn't a box to check for any of that, so you have to suffer that consequence by reading this post.

I owe ya.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 09:00, 2008-10-04

I wondered the same thing myself. When I heard the 12 guilty verdicts and that he could spend the rest of his life behind bars, I wondered how many jurors convicted him just to make sure he went to jail this time? Even if they didn't say so in the deliberation room, did they all convict because the evidence was so stacked against him? Or, did they convict because there was evidence, whether compelling or not, and it was a second chance to put him away for his bogus acquittal 13 years ago?

I can't say because I wasn't there. I didn't hear the case. I didn't even follow it.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

We all have our own feelings about him, and I'd wager they're pretty similar.

Here's my deal: As much as I'd like to seen him put away forever, I don't care more about him than I do our justice system.

I have no reason to think he got anything less than a fair trial.

I guess ... the reason I started this thread this morning was that I was mildly irked by an AO* poll: "Do you agree with the verdict?"

How on earth would the average AOL reader have any way on earth of responding to that without bringing into the equation bias about a prior case?

This wasn't about re-trying him for murdering his wife, nor can it be. That would be a tremendously damaging distortion of the judicial process.

Unless we heard the evidence, and possibly were in the courtroom, or at least were able to view both the jury selection process, every ruling from the bench, and all the evidence, there's just no way, IMO, we can either agree or disagree with the verdict.

Now, if they'd asked: "Would you like to see OJ Simpson locked up for the rest of his life?" That might at least approach reason, but to ask AO* readers if they agree with the verdict is just .... leading, and, IMO, "dumb."

Unfortunately, there wasn't a box to check for any of that, so you have to suffer that consequence by reading this post.

I owe ya. wink

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 09:00, 2008-10-04