Joe,
I would suggest we ask pldennison whether he agrees with you about genuinely thinking that OJ is actually a non-murderer, due to his acquittal. The old divide and conquer routine. Plus, you might be relieved of your fright at being on the same side of the debate as he.
Minor point: Not only was he acquitted, but I personally have no reason to believe he committed any murder other than the media circus that ensued. I’ve learned over the years not to blindly believe what I see on TV, even (especially!) on the news. None of the evidence I saw convinced me. I know you think it sounds ridiculous, but think about it…what exactly is your reason for believing he’s a murderer? Obviously you weren’t an eyewitness. We heard a 911 call where she said he was beating her up. Maybe. Maybe the guy is complete scum. That doesn’t mean he killed her. I’ve beaten up a lot of people, but I would never take a life except in defense of family, friend, or self. Wife-beater does not equal murderer.
In other words, the best information I have (observation of the person, coupled with jury verdict) tells me that he is an asshole, but not a murderer. I have no way of knowing he didn’t kill anybody, but the beauty of it all is that unless I have a reason to think that he committed murder, I can assume he didn’t.
Who have you beaten up? Anybody you met online?
What does my opinion of OJ have to do with the price of tea in China? I asked you for clarification, you provided me with it, I’m satisfied with your answer. I still disagree with you; absent a compelling legal justification for adding a third verdict, it seems a rather superfluous thing to do. But these are matters upon which reasonable people can disagree.
FWIW, I think OJ murdered his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. I also think the police attempted to plant evidence, or manipulated existing evidence. I also think the prosecution badly bungled the case. There were no winners in that one.
pldennison
Not a whole lot, in your case. A bit more, in Joe’s.
The point I was making was that you and Joe oppose the innocent verdict for two completely different reasons. You, because for some reason that you’ve declined to explain, you seem to believe that this would require a major overhaul of the criminal justice system, and is not worth the benefit; Joe because he believes that the current “not guilty” verdict is already a finding that the accused is actually innocent of the crime, which all must “abide by”. As in believing that OJ is not a murderer.
Well, based on what you’ve said, I no longer think that it would require a major overhaul; again, I simply think it’s superfluous if it would result in no change in the legal status of the acquitted. All it would do is provide what you (and others, I’m not singling you out) feel is a nessary stigma to those found not guilty due to prosecutorial error or evidence not meeting the burden of proof. If they are guilty, then they’re guilty; if they’re found not guilty, it shouldn’t matter whether it’s because they really didn’t do it or the prosecution messed up. Making into “not guilty, but . . .” defeats the purpose of our system, in my opinion.
I do agree with you that it’s preposterous to think I must adjust my thinking based on a jury verdict.
I never said you should adjust your thinking based on a jury verdict. What I’m saying is that none of us has any evidence that OJ killed anybody. He may have. He may not have. We did not investigate the crime, nor witness it. The point I’m making (poorly, apparently) is that you are changing your thinking based on media exposure which was tailored to win ratings and audience share, rather than to present facts. None of us knows what happened, therefore none of us is qualified to make a judgment of his guilt or innocence. In my eyes, until somebody gives me good reason to believe he killed anybody, he gets the benefit of doubt and didn’t kill anybody.
Actually, we do. It simply wasn’t sufficient to convict him of the crime, in the eyes of the jury, partly do due prosecutorial ineptness and police misconduct.
Maybe some of us have read the trial transcripts and writings by the principals in the case. I would recommend you only speak for yourself.
What a relief. I can go safely back to thinking you’re a cocky jerk. All is right with the universe again.
Cocky’s got nothing to do with it. It’s simply unwise to start making claims about what all of us do or don’t know about the OJ Simpson trial based on your own experience of it. If you only watched coverage on the nightly news, terrific, that’s your thing. Don’t assume everyone else did, too.
Sheesh.
You obviously missed the point. I don’t give a S*** about the OJ Simpson trial in particular. It was only the specific case used in this thread since the beginning to illustrate a generality. It amazes me, however, how often otherwise intelligent people on this board like to labor minor specific points, completely ignoring the big picture.
So you read the OJ transcripts. Wonderful. You obviously have much more spare time than I. Is it safe to assume that you haven’t read the testimony from every criminal acquittal that has taken place? Probably so. So, as I very carefully avoid being specific, in a trial that wasn’t forced down our collective throats via being televised nationally and whose transcripts you have not read, about which the only information you have is the verdict handed down by the jury, do you automatically assume the accused MUST be guilty because of the fact that he was tried in the first place? Or do you, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, assume that he is innocent?
(Quotes self)
Worked like a charm!
In trial in which I am interested, as a layman, I deliberately pursue other information outside of the television and newspaper coverage. If others do not, that is their problem, and not mine. Of course I do not assume that someone is guilty based simply on the fact that they underwent a trial. I also do not assume they are innocent simply because they were acquitted. Anyone who makes either of those assumptions is silly.