OK, OJ clearly killed his wife and Ron Goldman. I don't think there's anyone in the country who disputes this anymore. Subsequently, OJ got off. A guilty man did not go to jail. He had good lawyers. It happens.
Now, fast forward 13 years. Just as clearly as OJ killed Ron and Nicole, OJ was set up. With startling speed, OJ was arrested, arraigned, and charged with a lot of crimes that no other defendent would have been charged with. He's also being held without bail. For going unarmed into a hotel room and trying to get his stuff back? No, this is all because OJ got off 13 years ago. The police weren't screwing him then, but they sure are now! So OJ's finally going to go to jail, maybe for life, and definitely because he murdered two people in 1994, not because he took some stuff from a hotel room. Here's my question: is it fair? Is justice being served by railroading him for a bunch of bullsht he didn't do to make up for something he really did do? Is that our system?
2007-09-18 11:03:37 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
O.J. is innocent ! they are so focused on O.J. they have totally stopped pursuing the true killers, wow, and that Goldman man who keeps chasing O.J. around the country, looking for money needs to get a life, and accept the fact that he didn't do it. I hope O.J. does not have to do any jail time, because he just wanted to recoup some of his stuff after being falsely accused....man!
2007-09-19 12:00:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Only too the ignorant. Not liking a verdict does not make a person anti American justice system. That's like saying that people who didn't like the verdict in cases were they believe the convicted is innocent are anti American justice system. No one is always going to agree with a Jury. I'm sure you wouldn't like a verdict in a case if someone you believed killed a loved one or friend was guilty but was found not guilty or the accused was a loved one you believed was innocent but the Jury didn't agree. Good for you for thinking that the Jury's decision is justice but not everyone is going to share that view and they have as much right to express it as you do yours. Personally I don't think allowing a woman who taped up her daughter's mouth, hid her body in the woods and then went out and partied without a care in the world while lying about her daughter's whereabouts and creating a bunch of other lies when busted; to go free is justice but that is just my opinion. It really is debatable that they looked at all the evidence because Casey's behaviour is not the behaviour of an innocent woman, people do not make an accidental death look like a murder. [People who reached their verdict through the sensationalism of the media are idiots. I couldn't watch more than a few minutes of interviews with dimwits outside the courthouse. It doesn't matter what they think. We can all be indignant. So what?] The same can be said about the people who reached their verdict because of the Jury's decision. As for the "dimwits" outside the courtroom, what they think obviously matters to you otherwise you wouldn't have been so bothered by their interviews. By the way, unless you are one of the jury members, it doesn't matter what you think either. You might want to think about that the next time you say that about the opinion of people you don't agree with because it also applies to you if you are not involved in the case. People are going to express their opinions about issues in the news including high profile criminal cases, it's human nature.
2016-05-17 23:10:28 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, you are jumping to conclusions. You claim that he is being railroaded...based on what facts? From what we have heard so far, he and his posse forced there way into a hotel room with weapons and took the items at gunpoint. If property did belong to him. he actions were reckless and he should have involved local law enforcement. If the merchandise didn't belong to him, armed robbery is a very serious crime.
From what I have observed so far, the Las Vegas police and prosecutors are being very careful on this. He will eventually be judged based on the merits of this case. The fact that he got away with murder won't even be admissible in this new case. The State of Nevada has no axe to grind with O.J. It was the prosecutors in Los Angeles that botched his prosecution in the murder case.
2007-09-18 11:19:06 · answer #3 · answered by Carl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Another conspiracy theorist. Why don't you look at the facts in this case. Even if you take out the police factor, why would a judge allow him to be held in jail if there wasn't evidence.
After everything OJ has done, you believe him still today?
If he committed the crime then I hope he goes to prison. I don't know if he did because he isn't worth spending 5 seconds of my time reading about, he is a piece of crap.
2007-09-18 11:11:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Did you pay attention to the news? Here's the deal oj and some of his body guards went into another persons hotel room and took things that use to belong to oj. /ojs bodyguards had guns and they took things that belonged to someone else. Those objects were confiscated from oj and purchased by the man that they took the items from.
Let me put it this way. If a drug dealer gets caught, their cars get confiscated and sold at auction. When they get out of jail those cars don't belong to them and it is against the law for them to pull guns out and take back their cars from the people who bought them at auction. Does that make sense to you?
2007-09-18 11:19:25 · answer #5 · answered by miss m. 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What are you talking about? He went in a building with guns drawn and stole his old football stuff. Even if it was stolen your not allowed to go get it yourself with guns drawn screaming at people. Sorry thats not how it works. They even have him on tape, Screaming at people not to move, and to stay where they are... Go listen to it. He wasn't set up he's just an idiot. Thats what a man with a gun does, not not someone calmly getting his stuff back, which by the way would still be illegal because he took about 20 friends along with him for intimidation purposes... The gun was just the supidest part of a very stupid plan.
2007-09-18 11:17:57 · answer #6 · answered by scorch_22 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. The thing is, in the Legal sense, he did not kill her. he was found innocent by a jury of his peers. Justice in this case would be served only if he got a normal sentence for what he did, if he even actually did anything.
2007-09-18 11:08:30 · answer #7 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Look, like it or not, OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial for the murders...and I heard the tape of this Vegas thing, and he sounds like a guy trying to get his own stuff back, not a robber (to me, and I only heard it once). So if justice is going to be served, and we believe in the US criminal justice system, he won't go to jail on this. (Again, this is based solely on my initial take of hearing the tape, if he is really in the wrong he should go to jail, but NOT because of Karmic "justice").
2007-09-18 11:10:54 · answer #8 · answered by makrothumeo2 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Probably for life? Who feed you that BS? Not likely. Unarmed? Sorry, no. He had a gun.
With startling speed? Again, not likely. He was readily identified and arrested. Happens when someone that recognizable commits a crime and then is easy to find.
2007-09-18 11:09:33 · answer #9 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why do his current troubles with the law have something to do with the 1994 killings?
2007-09-18 11:07:57 · answer #10 · answered by Lost Poet 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋