Yeah, the lawyer did a great job creating “reasonable doubt.” I think if we want a justice system that defaults toward innocence, we have to be willing to let a murderer out on the streets for every 100 innocents who also walk. I’d rather have that result than jailing 100 innocents so we can catch the one murderer.
I really don’t think the doubt was reasonable. At least I’m 100% certain he was guilty and was ever since I watched the car chase. The cops fucking up the investigation has no impact on what I saw with my own eyes.
An innocent rich man doesn’t fucking run away from the cops and have to be talked out of suicide to face trial. No fucking way.
You think so? I don’t know… I mean, he did publish a book that detailed exactly how the crime happened and why but the title is called “If I Did It” not “I Did It” so we can’t be sure…
Because the prosecution failed to make their case, mishandled the evidence, and were torn apart by a well funded defense.
Nothing justifies the deaths, and I would not try to. But being able to mount a defense against charges made on you by the government is a cornerstone of our justice system.
Thus I do feel comfortable saying that I think he was guilty and that the jury acted properly. The case was NOT well presented at all, even with all the evidence they had.
Are you intentionally missing the point that someone still has to prove you did it? Or do you just want random people to be convicted of murder since murder isn’t allowed?
And you realize that when someone explains why X happened, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they want X to happen?
I thought I was being excessively cautious when I threw in the statement that “OJ was the villain”, I figured that went without saying but that I should put it in anyway just in case someone thought I was justifying his actions. But I guess I had to be even more explicit than that, there are folks who are really eager to have a fight here.
I personally think he was guilty and that the jury made the right decision. Such a fucking mess.
Yeah, the lawyer did a great job creating “reasonable doubt.” I think if we want a justice system that defaults toward innocence, we have to be willing to let a murderer out on the streets for every 100 innocents who also walk. I’d rather have that result than jailing 100 innocents so we can catch the one murderer.
I really don’t think the doubt was reasonable. At least I’m 100% certain he was guilty and was ever since I watched the car chase. The cops fucking up the investigation has no impact on what I saw with my own eyes.
An innocent rich man doesn’t fucking run away from the cops and have to be talked out of suicide to face trial. No fucking way.
Tell us more about your illustrious legal career.
Reasonable doubt is a question for the jury, which requires no legal experience at all. Don’t you feel silly?
You may need to retake criminal law.
I like to smoke whatever it is you’re smoking, cause you’re dense. A jury requires no criminal law expertise to come to that conclusion.
Mostly weed, but I have been to law school, have you? It’s not quite so simple.
And jurors haven’t
I’d rather let 100 guilty men go free than chase after them
They tried to frame a guilty man.
You think so? I don’t know… I mean, he did publish a book that detailed exactly how the crime happened and why but the title is called “If I Did It” not “I Did It” so we can’t be sure…
if
Damn that’s a small if.
That was the result of a lawsuit from the parents of the man he murdered. They got the rights to the book and released it that way.
The Goldman family bought the rights to OJs book and redid the cover to make it look like that so that “I Did It” jumps out at you.
Well it wasn’t the first part that would be controversial.
So do the rest of us, there’s mountains of evidence to prove that he was guilty.
So you think he was guilty, and that it was appropriate for the jury to acquit him for the murder?
Explain to me please, why you think deaths were justified and that OJ deserved to walk free if he’s guilty?
Because the prosecution failed to make their case, mishandled the evidence, and were torn apart by a well funded defense.
Nothing justifies the deaths, and I would not try to. But being able to mount a defense against charges made on you by the government is a cornerstone of our justice system.
Thus I do feel comfortable saying that I think he was guilty and that the jury acted properly. The case was NOT well presented at all, even with all the evidence they had.
“Justice” system. I have money so I can kill people.
The prosecution shit the bed so I can kill people.
OJ was the villain when it comes to the murdering, the prosecution team was the villain when it comes to bringing him to justice.
Ok, now, listen to me very carefully. It doesn’t matter, how shitty the prosecution is, You still can’t kill people. You realise that, right?
Are you intentionally missing the point that someone still has to prove you did it? Or do you just want random people to be convicted of murder since murder isn’t allowed?
deleted by creator
And you realize that when someone explains why X happened, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they want X to happen?
I thought I was being excessively cautious when I threw in the statement that “OJ was the villain”, I figured that went without saying but that I should put it in anyway just in case someone thought I was justifying his actions. But I guess I had to be even more explicit than that, there are folks who are really eager to have a fight here.
deleted by creator
“why you think deaths were justified”
They didn’t say that.