So the steakhouse owner kicks out OJ and his friends since he is still sickened by the fact that OJ garners attention when he goes out. Good for him. And it looks like OJ left without a fuss.
However, OJs attorney, Yale Galanter, it seems wants to play the race card and say the incident was about race.
You dumb cock sucker. You give black people with legitimate gripes about being discriminated against a bad name. When there is real discrimination going on and there are people who devote their lives to fighting it and you come along and cry wolf you just set everyone back years and years.
The black community should lynch you themselves for making such an asinine comment. Dumb ass.
That makes sense on its face, but I don’t think it can be applied here. I’d be willing to bet black and white murderers alike have eaten there without incident. It’s not about race, it’s about notoriety. Maybe Scott Peterson would be shown the door too.
Under the law, His Juiciness is not a murderer, since he was acquitted. It would be interesting to know if the restaurant has discriminated against white people found liable for wrongful death, though.
But I believe the restaurant owner stated as his reasons that he was disgusted by OJ’s attempted book deal, and his failure to pay on his civil judgments, not for being a murderer.
If he knew their background. How would he know if they were murderers? Most don’t get widely publicized.
The idiot lawyer gives idiot lawyers a bad name. OJ had eaten there before. He was not kicked out because of his race. The owner took a picture with him which he hung on the wall. Then OJ brutally murdered two people. The restaurant owner took down the picture. Now years later he comes back and the owner doesn’t want him there. How does race enter into it?
A question for the legal minds here: Is there some precedent that says, in effect, that even a not guilty verdict doesn’t mean a shield from all possible repurcussions of a violent act? I have something niggling at the back of my head along those lines, but I can’t make it gel. Given that OJ was found not guilty, but also found to be liable for the wrongful deaths, I’d think there’s even more room for legitimate doubt than there would be with a more straightforward legal situation.
Either way, I’ll admit that I wouldn’t care to eat in the same establishment as OJ Simpson.
Though, I’ll confess to a certain level of doubt as to whether this suit is as unwinnable as some Dopers seem to think. I’d never have imagined that a spur-of-the-moment conspiracy involving tens of people would seem a reasonable doubt to any rational mind.
Doesn’t the owner of any establishment have the right to refuse service to anyone, without explanation? Most of the establishments I’ve ever entered have a sign (or rules) to that effect. If he doesn’t want OJ in his restaurant, he has that right.
Myself, I would make a point of not frequenting an establishment where OJ is welcomed.
I am not a legal expert but given the fact that O.J. was found not guilty for murder but then lost the wrongful death lawsuit I’d imagine that it would be really hard for O.J. or his lawyers to argue that the resturant owner is being unreasonable if the owner states that he believes O.J. actually did the killings.
The fact that O.J. was sued for wrongful death, and lost, pretty much proves that the innocent verdict for murder isn’t a sheild.
That’s a fact in most places, IANAL (heh-heh) and I’m not familiar with the laws of that state, but I’d hazard a guess that the law is the same there, too.
Me? I say good on the owner. Out you go, if for nothing else, just for being a douchebag.
In general, businesses can refuse service to anyone for any reason other than a few specifically prohibited reasons (e.g. race). That exception doesn’t apply here, this legal beagle’s efforts to assert the contrary notwithstanding.
