449
O.J. Simpson, former football star acquitted of murder, dies at 76.
(abcnews.go.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
449 points (97.3% liked)
News
37850 readers
716 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I personally think he was guilty and that the jury made the right decision. Such a fucking mess.
Yeah, the lawyer did a great job creating "reasonable doubt." I think if we want a justice system that defaults toward innocence, we have to be willing to let a murderer out on the streets for every 100 innocents who also walk. I'd rather have that result than jailing 100 innocents so we can catch the one murderer.
I really don't think the doubt was reasonable. At least I'm 100% certain he was guilty and was ever since I watched the car chase. The cops fucking up the investigation has no impact on what I saw with my own eyes.
An innocent rich man doesn't fucking run away from the cops and have to be talked out of suicide to face trial. No fucking way.
Tell us more about your illustrious legal career.
Reasonable doubt is a question for the jury, which requires no legal experience at all. Don't you feel silly?
You may need to retake criminal law.
I like to smoke whatever it is you're smoking, cause you're dense. A jury requires no criminal law expertise to come to that conclusion.
Mostly weed, but I have been to law school, have you? It’s not quite so simple.
And jurors haven't
I'd rather let 100 guilty men go free than chase after them
You think so? I don't know... I mean, he did publish a book that detailed exactly how the crime happened and why but the title is called "If I Did It" not "I Did It" so we can't be sure...
^if^
Damn that’s a small if.
That was the result of a lawsuit from the parents of the man he murdered. They got the rights to the book and released it that way.
The Goldman family bought the rights to OJs book and redid the cover to make it look like that so that "I Did It" jumps out at you.
Well it wasn't the first part that would be controversial.
They tried to frame a guilty man.
So do the rest of us, there's mountains of evidence to prove that he was guilty.
So you think he was guilty, and that it was appropriate for the jury to acquit him for the murder?
Explain to me please, why you think deaths were justified and that OJ deserved to walk free if he's guilty?
Because the prosecution failed to make their case, mishandled the evidence, and were torn apart by a well funded defense.
Nothing justifies the deaths, and I would not try to. But being able to mount a defense against charges made on you by the government is a cornerstone of our justice system.
Thus I do feel comfortable saying that I think he was guilty and that the jury acted properly. The case was NOT well presented at all, even with all the evidence they had.
"Justice" system. I have money so I can kill people.
The prosecution shit the bed so I can kill people.
OJ was the villain when it comes to the murdering, the prosecution team was the villain when it comes to bringing him to justice.
Ok, now, listen to me very carefully. It doesn't matter, how shitty the prosecution is, You still can't kill people. You realise that, right?
And you realize that when someone explains why X happened, that doesn't necessarily mean that they want X to happen?
I thought I was being excessively cautious when I threw in the statement that "OJ was the villain", I figured that went without saying but that I should put it in anyway just in case someone thought I was justifying his actions. But I guess I had to be even more explicit than that, there are folks who are really eager to have a fight here.
Are you intentionally missing the point that someone still has to prove you did it? Or do you just want random people to be convicted of murder since murder isn't allowed?
"why you think deaths were justified"
They didn't say that.