If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
All: The new Billszone site with the updated software is scheduled to be turned on Tuesday, May 21, 2024. The company that built it, Dynascale, estimates a FOUR HOUR shut down, from 8pm Pacific, (5pm Eastern) while they get it up and running. Nobody will be able to post in any forum until they are done. Afterwards, you may need to do a web search for the site, as old links will not work, because the site is getting a new IP address. Please be patient. If there are bugs, we will tackle them one at a time. Remember the goal is to be up and running with no glitches by camp. Doing this now assures us of that, because it gives us all summer to get our ducks in a row. Thank you!
O.J. has turned into a worthless human being, but I don't see what his activities over the last 14 or so years have to do with his much earlier football career in Buffalo. The Wall of Fame honors Bills' players for their accomplisments on the field. He should stay on the wall for those exploits.
His problems after his time in Buffalo are a totally separate matter.
Should have known, way back in 1960 when we drafted Richie Lucas Number 1, that this would be a long, hard ride. But who could have known it would be THIS bad?
i think its bs. he didnt get a fair trial. what happened in the past is in the past. sure he was let off the hook in '95. but thats the way the justice system works. you are fooling yourself if you think that was an impartial jury. everybody has an opinion on the juice. this has mistrial written all over it. those people just want to see him rot in bars for what he did in the past. and no, im not one of those "oj didnt do it" people, but the fact is the man didnt have an impartial jury. and it would be near impossible for him to have one. hopefully OJ's defense appeals this. but the sad thing is 95% of america wants this man to rot in jail for a previous crime. its not OJ's fault that the prosectution in his murder trial dropped the ball.
i think its bs. he didnt get a fair trial. what happened in the past is in the past. sure he was let off the hook in '95. but thats the way the justice system works. you are fooling yourself if you think that was an impartial jury. everybody has an opinion on the juice. this has mistrial written all over it. those people just want to see him rot in bars for what he did in the past. and no, im not one of those "oj didnt do it" people, but the fact is the man didnt have an impartial jury. and it would be near impossible for him to have one. hopefully OJ's defense appeals this. but the sad thing is 95% of america wants this man to rot in jail for a previous crime. its not OJ's fault that the prosectution in his murder trial dropped the ball.
and btw, im white
cue the haters
I respect your opinion, but I disagree.
Since when is pulling a gun and taking something from somebody by force not a crime? This is exactly what happened.
You can argue that it was his stuff anyway, and he was just trying to get it back, but that doesn't take away what actually happened. Also, that WASN'T his stuff...it belonged to the Goldmans. As I understand it, among the items seized was the suit he wore to his bogus not guilty verdict; that suit would reportedly fetch a minimum of $50,000. As per the terms of the civil case, he would have had the obligation to turn such items over to the Goldmans. Do you think that was his intention?
I agree with the verdict, all other things aside. I do think that the sentence will be way too harsh, but hey, that's the law. I don't have one shred of sympathy for OJ Simpson. He's where he belongs.
The trial was fair. He was guilty.
The jury was taken from a 500 person pool. A lot of care was taken to sift through the biased people you are talking about. They acted on the evidence and convicted him accordingly.
Are you saying that he didn't commit crimes? Are you aware of the particulars in the case?
Since when is pulling a gun and taking something from somebody by force not a crime? This is exactly what happened.
You can argue that it was his stuff anyway, and he was just trying to get it back, but that doesn't take away what actually happened. Also, that WASN'T his stuff...it belonged to the Goldmans. As I understand it, among the items seized was the suit he wore to his bogus not guilty verdict; that suit would reportedly fetch up to $50,000. As per the terms of the civil case, he would have had the obligation to turn such items over to the Goldmans. Do you think that was his intention?
I agree with the verdict, all other things aside. I do think that the sentence will be way too harsh, but hey, that's the law. I don't have one shred of sympathy for OJ Simpson. He's where he belongs.
but why the kidnapping charge? people are just trying to avenge what happened in the past, and that is wrong. oj didnt pull a gun on anybody. it was one of his buddies. the kind of people oj associaltes himself with is another issue entirely, but to say he planned an armed robbery and a "kidnapping" is insane. guarantee that if it was OJ's first brush with the law, that the outcome of this would be a lot different. im not saying innocent, but no way he would be serving a MINIMUM of 15 years behind bars brought on by a jury with a chip on their shoulders. just my opinion
but why the kidnapping charge? people are just trying to avenge what happened in the past, and that is wrong. oj didnt pull a gun on anybody. it was one of his buddies. the kind of people oj associaltes himself with is another issue entirely, but to say he planned an armed robbery and a "kidnapping" is insane. guarantee that if it was OJ's first brush with the law, that the outcome of this would be a lot different. im not saying innocent, but no way he would be serving a MINIMUM of 15 years behind bars brought on by a jury with a chip on their shoulders. just my opinion
Dude, it's the law.
People aren't trying to avenge what happened in the past. You have nothing to base this on. Read my post again if you want... I edited my post to include the fact that the jury was selected from a pool of 500 people...a lot of care was taken to make sure that your revenge theory didn't happen. Do you not think that OJ's own lawyer didn't play a big part in the jury selection process? The world doesn't revolve around OJ; there are a lot of people out there without an opinion on his murder case. You can be sure that all twelve members of the jury weren't blood-thirsty vigilantes.
And it doesn't matter if you aren't the one that pulled the gun or even knew that the gun existed. Each person is equally as guilty as his accomplices for any actions any of them might perform together. It's the law. If I rob a store with you and I shoot and kill somebody, you'll be charged with murder too even if you didn't know that I had a gun.
OJ was the ringleader of this whole thing, so it makes sense that he would be the main guy to go after.
You can have an opinion, but the law doesn't care about opinions.
People aren't trying to avenge what happened in the past. You have nothing to base this on. Read my post again if you want... I edited my post to include the fact that the jury was selected from a pool of 500 people...a lot of care was taken to make sure that your revenge theory didn't happen. Do you not think that OJ's own lawyer didn't play a big part in the jury selection process? The world doesn't revolve around OJ; there are a lot of people out there without an opinion on his murder case. You can be sure that all twelve members of the jury weren't blood-thirsty vigilantes.
do you know these jurors personally? how do you know that they didnt think to themselves "this is my chance to put that bum behind bars for good." im not saying all of them, but i am willing to bet that there was at least one juror there that had a chip on their shoulder. the judge cant read these people's minds. and you would have to find someone who lives under a rock who has never heard of OJ's murder trial.. and anybody who knows anything, even the slightest amount, will have an opinion on it.
And it doesn't matter if you aren't the one that pulled the gun or even knew that the gun existed. Each person is equally as guilty as his accomplices for any actions any of them might perform together. It's the law. If I rob a store with you and I shoot and kill somebody, you'll be charged with murder too even if you didn't know that I had a gun.
agreed on being responsible (to a certain extent) for your accomplices and OJ being the leader of the "robbery" (note i did not say armed robbery). however, to say OJ "planned an armed robbery and kidnapping" is bogus. you could pin the robbery on him if indeed those items did not lawfully belong to OJ, but everything else is a bogus charge. OJ didnt pre-meditate any "armed robbery". he may have planned a "robbery" but the intent to use a lethal weapon was not in his plans, therefore that charge should have been dropped. as for the accomplace with the gun, OJ must take some responsibliity for it, but not full responsibility. so you're saying if we went to Mighty Taco to steal 2 super mighty's and some pop, that I would share the same responsibility as you if you pulled out a gun and blew off the cashiers head? same principle applies. you have to look at the intent. its clear that both OJ and his crew had different intentions. not to say OJ shouldnt take some responsibility for it (because he should) but to say equal punishment for them both is absurd. if you want to get legal, you could say OJ was the accomplice to the "armed robbery and kidnapping" since he was not the one in possession of the weapon. and you see many burglars getting charged with kidnapping these days? because i sure dont. now im not a lawyer by any stretch, but that seems fishy to me. the tape recorder is another thing that is sketchy. was OJ set up? its not out of the realm of the possibility.
OJ was the ringleader of this whole thing, so it makes sense that he would be the main guy to go after.
You can have an opinion, but the law doesn't care about opinions.
Tweet
Comment