It is.That would all over the news if true.
Just saw it. It just went out because I read the news all the time.It is.
I don’t think it was social justice. It was money. Robert Durst and Robert Blake weren’t found innocent because of social justice.OJ Simpson killed two people and was acquitted in the name of social justice.
Justice would have been the parties involved being viewed as individuals: Two innocent people murdered, one guilty person convicted.
Social justice views people not as individuals but as members of a group: Two white people murdered, one black person acquitted as payback for past injustices perpetrated by white people against black people.
To be clear, there were injustices committed by the LAPD against members of the black community in the early nineties. However, Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman had nothing to do with these injustices. And these injustices had nothing to do with the crimes committed by OJ Simpson.
Any time you hear the relatively new term social justice, you should think of OJ Simpson. By definition, it is something different than justice. Otherwise, why make the distinction? It is similar to when we say something is politically correct. We aren't saying it's correct. In the same way, when we say something is right according to the concept of social justice, we aren't saying that it is right according to our existing concept of justice.
That's a nice bit of fiction. But there's zero chance that's what happened.Take this with a grain of salt but it is interesting. Back in the mid 2000's when I was living in San Diego, a co-worker told me that his wife worked at the courthouse during the trial. He said that she told him the rumor floating around the courthouse during the trial was that OJ didn't do it but he was there when it happened and he knew who did it. The word was that Nichole had a pretty hefty cocaine addiction and ran up a huge debt to the dealer. OJ had paid it off once for her but wouldn't pay a 2nd time. He got word they were going to knock her off and tried to get there to warn her. And since he knew that if he talked, he would be next so he had to keep quiet and leave his fate up to a jury.
I still think he did it. Even if that 'rumor' were true, he would still have been a loose end and would have been sleeping with the fishes shortly after.
Exactly. See my last sentence.That's a nice bit of fiction. But there's zero chance that's what happened.
a drug dealer aint gonna stab a dude 22 times and try to cut a lady's head almost offTake this with a grain of salt but it is interesting. Back in the mid 2000's when I was living in San Diego, a co-worker told me that his wife worked at the courthouse during the trial. He said that she told him the rumor floating around the courthouse during the trial was that OJ didn't do it but he was there when it happened and he knew who did it. The word was that Nichole had a pretty hefty cocaine addiction and ran up a huge debt to the dealer. OJ had paid it off once for her but wouldn't pay a 2nd time. He got word they were going to knock her off and tried to get there to warn her. And since he knew that if he talked, he would be next so he had to keep quiet and leave his fate up to a jury.
I still think he did it. Even if that 'rumor' were true, he would still have been a loose end and would have been sleeping with the fishes shortly after.
Damn, sad day.
Take this with a grain of salt but it is interesting. Back in the mid 2000's when I was living in San Diego, a co-worker told me that his wife worked at the courthouse during the trial. He said that she told him the rumor floating around the courthouse during the trial was that OJ didn't do it but he was there when it happened and he knew who did it. The word was that Nichole had a pretty hefty cocaine addiction and ran up a huge debt to the dealer. OJ had paid it off once for her but wouldn't pay a 2nd time. He got word they were going to knock her off and tried to get there to warn her. And since he knew that if he talked, he would be next so he had to keep quiet and leave his fate up to a jury.
Yeah.. if you owe me money, there's one sure fire way I'm never getting paid.a drug dealer aint gonna stab a dude 22 times and try to cut a lady's head almost off
Exactly. This was a crime of passion. Despite of what an earlier poster said, behavioral evidence is admissible in court. And all the behavioral evidence points very strongly to Simpson. This was as much of a slam dunk case as a murder trial gets.a drug dealer aint gonna stab a dude 22 times and try to cut a lady's head almost off
I'm sure OJ has CTE, and that doesn't excuse what he (allegedly) did. However, I'd love to see if there could be any research done on his brain.
but the Bronco never didDang, he ran out of juice!***
Yep. Good lawyers and a high profile are a big assist in working the system to your advantage.I don’t think it was social justice. It was money. Robert Durst and Robert Blake weren’t found innocent because of social justice.
I agree it shouldn't be, but behavioral evidence is increasingly being admitted via 911 recordings:behavioral evidence is not admissible in court, but I will tell you this.
This is a reach. He was convicted for reasons:OJ Simpson killed two people and was acquitted in the name of social justice.
Justice would have been the parties involved being viewed as individuals: Two innocent people murdered, one guilty person convicted.
Social justice views people not as individuals but as members of a group: Two white people murdered, one black person acquitted as payback for past injustices perpetrated by white people against black people.
To be clear, there were injustices committed by the LAPD against members of the black community in the early nineties. However, Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman had nothing to do with these injustices. And these injustices had nothing to do with the crimes committed by OJ Simpson.
Any time you hear the relatively new term social justice, you should think of OJ Simpson. By definition, it is something different than justice. Otherwise, why make the distinction? It is similar to when we say something is politically correct. We aren't saying it's correct. In the same way, when we say something is right according to the concept of social justice, we aren't saying that it is right according to our existing concept of justice.