That is a false analogy Shane. OJ was found not guilty in trial. That is the legal system...as I noted earlier Oliver Wendell Holmes (I think) said "Better 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent be wrongly convicted" His point is that the criminal justice system is not and never will be perfect and it is MUCH better to ere on the side of letting a criminal off than convicting an innocent. Yes I know innocent sometime are convicted and guilty are freed. Any institution of man is imperfect. THAT my friend is why you ere on the side of leniency. Remember it is the duty of the prosecution to prove TO THE JURY the guilt of the defendant BEYOND a Reasonable doubt. The defense DOES NOT have to prove innocence. Now as no one posting on this board is doing so as an officer of the court, we are entitled to our opinion AND to express it. What we are also bound to do is understand the difference between justice and revenge. Now as to your question OJ was FOUND innocent by the jury and had the right to go free. IMO he got away with murder. As a private citizen I can hold that opinion but can't act on it by...say killing OJ. Then I would be the murderer. That is the difference between a functioning society and chaos. NO ONE can justify going outside of the legal system NO MATTER what your personal opinion of its success or failure in a case is.
The point of all this foolishness is any of you that refuse to admit that Doucet had that boy in a motel in California 1000 miles away from his home. There is testimony from Jody saying what he did to him. It isn't speculation. To sit back and say "well we don't know cause it didn't go to trial" is fucking chicken shit and narrow minded. God damned liberals.
In the criminal trial, yes. In the civil trial, no. Careful. You were correct the first time....not guilty is a whole different concept than "innocent". I suspect there are a few instances where people CAN justify it. Like say, Christopher Scarver.
I think this point is very relevant, at least to the mindset of the dad in this case. There is no doubt that upon his return to La, his son told him what had happened over a long period of time at home and then what happened in CA.
{deep sigh} Once more, and I'll use small words . . . your logic is deeply flawed. I have not spoken about the guilt or innocence of OJ, Doucet, or the driver. My POINT is that anybody is entitled to a trial. Did OJ get a friggin' trial? Hell brother, he got TWO. The verdicts--not guilty in criminal court . . . guilty in civil court. Shit, I actually can have it both ways!
No he didn't, he gave a statement. Testimony happens in court under oath. The accused get have their say, too. Why do you think this is unnecessary? Narrow minded is convicting someone in your mind based on what you imagine you know. Goddamned fools.
You seem to have a purty fine understandin for someone who didn't know about innocent people not being able to post bail.
Your response in post 96 made no sense at all. And you have been off on a tangent ever since. Put the whiskey away and go to bed.
