O.J.'s Latest Attempt to Make Me Puke

I believe it was in the bible...

 

Where?

 

I think it's alluded to in the "eye for an eye" part. I'm no Biblical scholar by any stretch. However, some friends are DEVOUT Christians (almost to the point I think they're loony) and they can very eloquently argue in favor of the death penalty, which seems counterintuitive to me. I suppose it's the same argument in this regard.

And the more I think about this OJ book and interview, the sicker it makes me. I firmly believe that an occassional not guilty of a guilty party is completely justified in order to protect the rights of the wrongly accused.

However, it is reprehensible for someone to so baldly flaunt and taunt the general public. In my opinion, such actions can discourage reasonable and objective juries, who may be more eager to convict based on perception than proven guilt through evidence.

 

there is no way your loony friends believe anything more loony than your more moderate christian friends.

a sufficiently studied religious bloke can convincingly argue that their religion provides for them to support anything. it is completely a waste of everyone's time to use religion to argue for or against anything, because there is no reality or reason to any of it. you might as well place your arguments on a dartboard and have a retarded insane monkey fling feces at it.

do you think the oj case qualifies as one of these cases?

or maybe this will make juries less likely to let obviously guilty men go free because of whatever stupid reason the oj jury did. although it is hard to know exactly why they did. you cant really ascribe any sort of logic to that gang of maniacs.

 

I guess it does, though I would probably rather see an aforementioned case be a bit more in doubt. :hihi: There's no accounting for inept prosecutors, and there's REALLY no accounting for inept juries.

Obviously I wasn't in the jury room, but remembering the context of the trial, those new fangled concepts like "DNA" were wholly unpersuasive to most folks (blame prosecution for spending multiple days on what should have been a brief, non-scientific explanation.) And having OJ try the glove on was incomprehensible. Rule 1 for attorneys at trial: never ask a question for which you don't already know the answer. They violated that and lost. Dummies.

 

Was wondering since this story broke what the pricetag would be. This morning's radio reports indicate $3 million was deposited in a Cayman Islands account for O.J. Now, I know that I should never be amazed by what some folks will do for money, but somehow, I sometimes am.

 

You are probably right, but an eye for an eye is not talking about vigilante justice. An for an eye really means that the punishment should fit the crime. It does not mean two wrongs make a right, and it certainly does not justify contract killing.

 

Not disagreeing with your explanation at all. It is interesting, folks various interpretations of bible passages with most very "absolute" about what is meant, "eye for an eye" being a good example.

 

So often misunerstood. "An eye for an eye" as described in the bible is old Judaic law that basically means the punishment should fit the crime. The exact interpretation is debatable. However when Jesus talks about "an eye for an eye" there is debate over whether or not he criticizes this form of law. Regardless of whether he criticizes "an eye for an eye" or not (that's up to biblical scholars, not a 25 year old LSU fan), he does in fact give what he sees to be a better rule/law, which is "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

This always confuses me when Christians say an eye for an eye. Because really in Jesus's eyes this was not the best solution, perhaps acceptable (once again, up to the biblical scholars), but not ideal.

Oh yeah, and OJ is a sick bastard. Anyone who buys the book is sick too because they are supporting him.

One more thing. The reason the Goldman's wont get any money off of this is because O.J. will probably have the proceeds go to his kids or offshore or some other maneuver to avoid being collected.