Exactly. If it was found that the owner routinely turned away black patrons, he would be in violation of the law. He turned away one patron who so happened to be black who was also notorious.
Don’t know enough about Blake, but OJ killed two people. I am talking about reality, not the law.
Question for the SDMB Legal Eagles - if OJ sued the restaurant owner and I was on the jury, could we find for the defendent and direct the plaintiff to pay the restaurant owner ten million dollars in punitive damages? Do we have to have a good reason, or can we just say because we know for a fact that he killed Nicole and Ron with a knife?
Either that, or suspend the damages unless he confesses to the killings. And kisses Fred Phelps on the mouth for at least twelve minutes, with tongue.
Regards,
Shodan
You probably couldn’t.
If OJ sued, he’d be suing for a violation of his civil rights. The question that you, as a jury would have to answer, would be: was OJ refused service because he was in a member of a protected class (race)?
You would have to find your answer by preponderance of the evidence.
If plenty of other black people ate there and weren’t kicked out, or if the evidence shows that it was more likely than not that the owner kicked OJ out for being a dine/dash risk, for being someone he personally did not like, for being gay, for having a disagreeable hairstyle, for playing for the Buffalo Bills, whatever, then you would say:
“We the jury find in the negative.”
And OJ would lose the suit.
You can’t turn around and grant damages to the owner; he’s not the plaintiff.
The owner might then turn around and sue OJ. If you were on that jury, and the question was “Did OJ’s suit against the owner cause the owner some measure of harm that can be quantified?” then the owner would have to show by preponderance of the evidence that, because of the suit, he lost business or somehow suffered. Then you could award him actual damages.
You could also award him punitive damages as a way to “convince” OJ not to go around accusing people, but no, you could not base the amount of punitive damages on your belief that OJ killed people.
In fact, if I were OJ’s lawyer in this case, I would use that as part of my defense: “There is no way that the injury to the restaurant owner was as grievous as he claims, because, as a person who has accumulated a high degree of bad will, Mr. Simpson is not listened to by many people, and, in fact, the damages should be LESS because it can be demonstrated that more people WOULD eat there when they found out that my client, Mr. Simpson, didn’t like the place.”
So, probably not.
Remember that I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice, and if OJ asked for steak sauce, he’d get tossed out of the steak joint that I don’t own as well.
I thought the law established, by virtue of both verdicts, that Simpson did not murder the two victims but he did kill them. Am I mistaken in that interpretation?
IIRC, he was found “not guilty” of their murder, but he was found civilly responsible for their deaths.
Which doesn’t mean that he killed them. What DOES it mean? I dunno, but it doesn’t mean that he killed them.
Well at least if it goes to court the owner is safe. No jury in their right mind would side with OJ.
That’s what I thought in the first trial, too.
Legally, I thought the correct way of expressing it was that he was found not guilty of killing them, but the civil trial established that he was responsible for causing their deaths. IANAL.
What I was talking about is that OJ did, in fact, go to Nicole’s house and cut her throat with a knife, and stab Ron Goldman to death with the same knife. He did these things, regardless of what the jury said.
And, since I would like to think that reality and morality take precedence over legal fictions, I want to fantasize about a universe where OJ is treated like the pariah he deserves - no decent person will recognize his existence, interact with him as if he were worthy of courtesy or respect, piss on him if he happens to catch on fire - that sort of thing. If he sits down at a table in a restaurant, the wait staff ignores him. If he calls the pizza place and they recognize his address, they hang up on him.
Ideally, he gets hit by a car, and the ambulance workers pull up, recognize who he is, and get back in the ambulance and drive back to the hospital.
Regards,
Shodan
I will likely never type these words again, but I agree 100 percent with Shodan on this.
Besides the fact I’m against the death penalty, I can’t get behind this idea anyway. The restauarant is a business which has no obligation to provide service to those whom the management does not (provided, of course, they’re not making such a decision illegally). An emergency service worker is responsible to provide emergency service regardless of his feelings about the victim.
Many ambulances are private and as such aren’t obligated to do jack shit.
If someone is employed as an emergency service worker, even for a private company, and they respond to an emergency, they are obligated to provide emergency care.
Where on Earth did you get that notion?
I suppose I got that notion due to the big fat contract I had to sign before the ambulance would take me to the ER last year. I freely admit IANAL.
Except where reality involves outing a CIA agent to reporters, right? 
In that case, you definitely seemed to think that the legal status of the accusation took precedence over the mere “reality and morality” issue of whether Rove had actually done something wrong.
Retired E.M.T. here. It works like this. You call for an ambulance. OR, you call 911. Either way, a rig is dispatched.
Where I come from, if that rig does not have a New York State Dept. of Health sticker in the window certifying that it is approved to be on the road, by god it ain’t on the road. In addition to hardware and supplies, the DOH certifies only ambulances that are in compliance with state regulations.
Ambulances can not pick and choose patients. In fact, while I was carrying a valid EMT card, I could not refuse to become involved in an incident I was witnessing if care could be rendered by myself. To do so would risk revocation of my card and possible charges of malpractice. ( I always though that was odd, although upon reflection, doing nothing in that case is a crime… )
IF there is a municipality in the United States where an ambulance can pull up, stop, have the crew jump out, recognize the potential patient as O.J. Simpson and legally hop back into their rig and drive away, I want to know where that is because I call bullshit.
NO state-certified emergency services worker can pick and choose. We are charged to respond, like it or not. ( Yes, there are plenty of mitigating circumstances that can prevent one from responding, such as immediate danger to the crew. That’s not what I’m talking about here. )
Cartooniverse
Thanks for the reply, Cartooniverse. I admit my misguided statement is probably deeply rooted in my serious mistrust and dislike of the private ambulance industry.
No worries- and I am really sorry you had to sign a damned thing BEFORE being treated.
Where I come from, that’s grounds for firing.
My goodness, we are stretching a bit, aren’t we?
By golly, you got me there - confirming cocktail party gossip is exactly the same as a double murder.
Pick the appropriate from the below -
:o :rolleyes:
Regards,
Shodan
Oh yeah, I know that blowing a secret agent’s cover isn’t exactly on a par with killing people!
I just found it a little funny that in the one case, you seemed completely indifferent as to whether Rove had actually acted unethically; all that mattered to you was whether there was adequate evidence to arraign him of acting illegally.
Whereas in the other case, you’re completely indifferent as to whether Simpson is legally guilty or innocent; all that matters to you is your conviction that he actually acted unethically, “regardless of what the jury said”.
I suppose it would be too unkind of me to remark “Neener neener neener”? 
NAIAL, but I know enough to see that the first part of your sentence is incorrect. Legally, he was found not guilty of murdering the victims. Whether or not he killed them is another matter; the jury may have concluded that OJ killed but did not murder Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. “Killing” is simply an act, whereas “murder” is the crime of killing unlawfully.
There are many ways of killing someone without committing murder. Killing someone in self-defence is not necessarily murder. Killing someone by accident or by negligence is usually not murder, but rather manslaughter. Killing someone by state-sanctioned execution is not murder. Killing an enemy soldier in combat is not murder. Killing someone for euthanasia is not murder in some jurisdictions.