What is the deal with OJ?!

[Royal Rapptress]

He's facing life in prison AGAIN for some ol' dumdness. I feel like they've been looking for a way to get him since he was acquited when they filed that wrongful death suit against him even though he beat the wrap. The law says you can't be tried for the same murder twice if you were found not guilty (Double Jeopardy) but they found a way to pin their deaths on him anyway. now they're tryna send him to prison on 10 counts of robbery, which could equal out to the rest of his life in prison if he's convicted on all charges. What in the world is going on with him? Was he THAT hard pressed for cash?! I think not! Regardless of how "dumb" he's thought to be he was smart enough to place a bulk of his money in Swiss accounts so that he's been able to live off of leisurely golfing since his "conviction" in the wrongful death suit that ordered him to liquidate his American assets. Plus, dude that was robbed (Beardsly or something) claims that the tapes of the encounter have been altered. And if the stuff didn't belong to him anymore (sold, auctioned or whatver out of his possesion) would he be stupid enough to actually ACCOMPANY the robbers on the assault?! (Second thought...don't answer that) LOL What do yall think. I think it's an attempt to finally get OJ off of a stupid move he made in trying to retrieve items that may have legitimately belonged to him and been sold to the guys he had accosted.

It's like someone steals your car and sells it n you go get ya boys and demend it back from the the unsuspecting guy that bought it from the theif...and YOU get arrested. That's some BS if that's the case...IMO.

[Phonix]

that wrongful death suit against him even though he beat the wrap

smh

[8th]

first off, its a shocker your standing up for OJ queen.

He keeps getting in trouble because he keeps breaking the law. Hes been arrested or in some type of legal altercation about once a year. Not to mention the fact he decapitated two people and got anyway with it. And queen, you cant be CRIMINALLY charge twice for the SAME crime. He was tried criminally for double murder and 'acquitted'. He lost a CIVIL case due to WRONGFUL DEATH. Civil and criminal cases are different.

It appears that EVERYONE involved in this story is a scum bag. It appears the OJ's possessions were stolen. That does not give you the right to storm a hotel room with gun blazing, and hold up the occupants. Thats called vigilante justice, and it is illegal. If someone comes to your house and steals your car, that doesnt give you the right to kick in the door of the person you THINK stole it, and rob them at gunpoint. You dont get that right. If he was sure he stolen stuff was there, he should have called the police. Not recreate old-west-style vigilantism .

[Royal Rapptress]

I know the difference between civil and criminal. I said "wrongful death SUIT" meaning that it was a civil case and not official charges of murder. Bottom line though it was a suit based on crimes that he was acquited for. Doesn't make any sense how you try to put it...either he's responsible or he's not. How can one case say he isn't and one case say that he is? Ridiculous.

And I'm not taking up for him. He broke the law but that doesn't mean that it's always a fair situation when the law is broken. Take for instance a man who kills his wifes rapist...he's gotta go to trial and possibly do time for something that no one can really blame him for doing. And I just can't blame a man for stealing back what was stolen from him (if that's even the case)....even if the law does. And you can "say" he's guilty all you want but a jury of his peers (black and white) found him otherwise...if it were THAT cut and dry he would have been found guilty beyond resonable doubt. He's an innocent man in that sense...as far as the robbery...he made a bad choice and he's gotta face the music but lets be real, no one was killed here, or even assualted for that matter...life in prison would be a harsh sentence for ANY man accused of stealing back merchandise that was stolen from him....OJ or not. It's an extreme punishment.

[anier lexa.]

Because the law is the law?

Just coz I killed my wife's rapist dont mean I get a free pass outta jail. The fact is that you killed another man. Its so black and white this justice system.

Let them do the damn thing, help them solve the case or what not.
Nobody is superman.

And OJ is damn stupid knowing the type of heat he got on him for even attempting that bullshit. Next to the fact that hes the killer who got away. but Cochrane is dead .. who gon save u nooow bitch?!

[Royal Rapptress]

LOL...it's funny how everyone wants to observe the law when he's accused of something but disregard it when that SAME law proves him not guilty. Baffles me. When he's accused you guys are like "he broke the law; let them do their job; you can't rob someone to get YOUR stuff back" and all that, but when he's acquited under the conditions of that same law you still lable him a murderer when that SAME law states "innocent until PROVEN guilty". Like I said, just because it's the law doesn't make it right. And you prove my thesis by having these stradle-the-fence mentalities of the law being right in the extreme punishment of him for robbery, but being wrong in not convictiing him for a murder he couldn't be proven guilty for. I'm not taking his side and saying that what he did was the correct way to go about retrieving the items...but life in prison for one incident where no one was killed or even assualted is a bit on the extreme side whether it's OJ or ya average Joe.

[K.O.S.]

the justice system is fucked up... always is and always will be... theyre just as human as the average citizen that condems a man as guilty both before and after a not guilty verdict...

[SirLozo]

I could seriously care less. 5 minutes a day of OJ is already enough...but now with hours of 'updates' shits annoying.

The guy is a piece of shit and deserves prison. BUT I think he is innocent in this new case.

[anier lexa.]

Originally Posted by Royal Rapptress

LOL...it's funny how everyone wants to observe the law when he's accused of something but disregard it when that SAME law proves him not guilty. Baffles me. When he's accused you guys are like "he broke the law; let them do their job; you can't rob someone to get YOUR stuff back" and all that, but when he's acquited under the conditions of that same law you still lable him a murderer when that SAME law states "innocent until PROVEN guilty". Like I said, just because it's the law doesn't make it right. And you prove my thesis by having these stradle-the-fence mentalities of the law being right in the extreme punishment of him for robbery, but being wrong in not convictiing him for a murder he couldn't be proven guilty for. I'm not taking his side and saying that what he did was the correct way to go about retrieving the items...but life in prison for one incident where no one was killed or even assualted is a bit on the extreme side whether it's OJ or ya average Joe.

Thats like saying .. well I killed my dog, now yall chrging me with animal cruelty?

Double standard.

Who cares tho .. dude is old.

turn over jena 6

[Noggah]

Originally Posted by Royal Rapptress

He's facing life in prison AGAIN for some ol' dumdness. I feel like they've been looking for a way to get him since he was acquited when they filed that wrongful death suit against him even though he beat the wrap.

i stopped reading after that... looking for a way to get him??? the motherfucker ran up in a hotel room with a gun and ROBBED somebody...

isnt that asking to be got... even if they werent lookin for a way to get him...

[Royal Rapptress]

Actually he didn't posess the guns and there is no PROOF that he's guilty...he's just been charged...like he was charged with Nicole's murder and later found to be NOT GUILTY. You guys jump the gun too quick on him just because he wasn't proven guilty for the murders in 96.

[Xylo]

Originally Posted by Royal Rapptress

Actually he didn't posess the guns and there is no PROOF that he's guilty...he's just been charged...like he was charged with Nicole's murder and later found to be NOT GUILTY. You guys jump the gun too quick on him just because he wasn't proven guilty for the murders in 96.

Thats real true Q but i think he should lay low for a few ticks dont you ?

[8th]

Have you not heard the audio tape of him ordering them against the wall? and saying 'dont let nobody leave' etc.

THERES CLEAR PROOF.

Just like there was when he decapitated those 2 people.

[STRONGARM]

I don't want to get involved in a huge debate here, but I disagree with that 8th. There wasn't any "clear" proof against the juice in his murder trial.. it was ALL circumstantial. If it had been "clear" he would have been easily convicted.. and the trial would have been very short. Maybe that's a difference between both of our definitions of "clear" proof though.. for me, if you have a murder weapon with prints or is tied to the accused in some way special, or a witness who saw the murder/crime.. video evidence, or DNA of some kind that's undeniable (unlike the bloody glove that was suspect as fuck with the whole Mark Furman shit.. add to that the testimony from that specialist who said it was damn near impossible for the blood stains in the glove to be like how they were, unless someone used an eye dropper to place them there.) So atleast for me.. circumstantial evidence does not equal "clear" proof. Not for me.

[Xylo]

Originally Posted by 8th

Have you not heard the audio tape of him ordering them against the wall? and saying 'dont let nobody leave' etc.

THERES CLEAR PROOF.

Just like there was when he decapitated those 2 people.

not necessarily true you nor i or anyone else is true he did it or didnt do it but he was exonerated for not doing it.