Did he do it?

Good enough for Al Capone, good enough for OJ

>the only reason they believe he's innocent is because other black men have unjustly gone to prison

You also forgot the fact that the officer who found the evidence (Mark Fuhrman) had hours of tape of him describing himself as "framing niggers," "beating niggers," wanting the entire NAACP to be blown up, and more. Oh and when they asked him on trial (in front of the jury) whether he "had ever falsely planted evidence or filed a police report" he pleaded the 5th amendment.

But ofc I agree OJ definitely did it. If it wasn't for racial tensions and DNA being a new thing in the legal field he would have been convicted for sure. The OJ case is absolutely fascinating desu.

No, it's not good enough for anyone.

The true application of justice is the firmest pillar of good government. His previous acquittal should have been irrelevant.

>Oh and when they asked him on trial (in front of the jury) whether he "had ever falsely planted evidence or filed a police report" he pleaded the 5th amendment.
I think it's terrible that the 5a is seen as an admission of guilt, that is not the purpose of that right.

>commit another violent crime
>get book thrown at you
wow how terrible

IF THE GLOVE DOES NOT FIT

>You also forgot the fact that the officer who found the evidence (Mark Fuhrman) had hours of tape of him describing himself as "framing niggers," "beating niggers," wanting the entire NAACP to be blown up, and more.

You're fucking shitting me. Where was he saying this shit?

What do you mean another?

>But I should be able to stay silent and not garner any suspicion!

armed robbery?

He was bragging about it to some women writing a book or screenplay, he really holds nothing back.

>The Fuhrman tapes are 13 hours of taped interviews given by Los Angeles police officer Mark Fuhrman to writer Laura McKinny between 1985 and 1994. The tapes include many racist slurs and remarks made by Fuhrman, including uses of the word "nigger," descriptions of police brutality perpetrated on black suspects, misogynist slurs and descriptions of the harassment and intimidation of female Los Angeles police officers by male officers. Portions of the tapes were admitted into evidence during the O. J. Simpson murder case. In the tapes Fuhrman also made many references to the "planting of evidence" and implied that police brutality and evidence planting were common practice in the Los Angeles Police Department.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuhrman_tapes

Yes, what was the other one?

Silence is not an admission of guilt.

cutting nicole simpsons throat open and leaving her to drown in her own blood

It doesn't matter what *should* be constituted as an admission of guilt.

Not answering because you don't want to get perjured is a good call, but you should still get judged accordingly and people should be able to read between the lines as to why you plead the 5th instead of answering. I think that's fair, we aren't automotons who evaluate everything like an instruction set.

>If it wasn't for racial tensions and DNA being a new thing in the legal field he would have been convicted for sure.
That obviously had a lot to do with it, but the cops and prosecutors dropped the ball hard enough to introduce some reasonable doubt, and they really deserve some of the blame, too. It really seems like everyone was so convinced it was an open and shut case they they didn't even bother with proper procedure most of the time, and later, publicity was such an issue, the prosecutors did a lot of things wrong out of fear of publicity.

I agree about it being fascinating, but most because the case is such a clusterfuck, it's easy in hindsight to see how pretty much everyone involved did something wrong at some point.

He was acquitted of that charge. Legally it is completely irrelevant.

civil court found him liable for the deaths

Yes, but it is a refusal to provide evidence in your own defense.

>we aren't automotons who evaluate everything like an instruction set.

Never been to divorce court or family court have ya?

And?

You know blacks were only lynched for crimes like rape, right?

>blacks were only lynched for crimes like rape
no they were lynched because the populace was unsatisfied with the judicial process. There was a homeless nigger in Florida who was lynched because he went door to door begging for food. I could go through over 3000 reported lynching cases and give a brief synopsis over each one but there's multiple sites that do that already.

Emmett Till?

Do you also believe Trayvon Martin was innocent?

no, he was guilty of aggravated assault and Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter. I don't see Travon martin is relevant to the discussion of a man who was locked up for being a public nuisance and later lynched.

meant unaggravated assault

I'd honestly recommend looking into the history of lynchings in the states. Some of the justification of killing them was shocking.

There was actually a slew of lynchings targeted against returning black service members after WW1. The reason for said lynchings was because people feared black veterans would get too uppity about their service and believe it would make them feel entitled to more rights. Part of it was also motivated by a fear that being around white European women would make them feel like they would have more liberties with white American women.

Also, look into Emmett Till like suggested.

>and Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter.
"no"

He was held liable in civil court.

That means he's guilty.

There are people alive who lived through the tail end of the barbarism.

the blood they found was from the lab, it was a set up from the get-go, the actual killers were going after the friend and she happened to be with him.

>T.

By definition, you can't plead the 5th unless you would incriminate yourself, so it really is.

nah Flordia's Stand your ground law is centered around home defense, it was a involuntary manslaughter case that got drummed up for murder because the victim was a underage nog and the prosecutor wanted to make a name for himself instead of actually doing his job.

prosecutorial grandstanding doesn't mean Zimmmerman is guilty of manslaughter.

Not true

He was acquitted of any criminal wrongdoing and then handed an unfair criminal sentence later because of name recognition bias. Jury by public opinion isn't and shouldn't be a thing. Being guilty of wrongdoing in a civil case shouldn't mean you "get the book" in later criminal cases. There's a difference. If live in a country that has that kind of justice system, you should be very thankful for the protections you have.

Having said that, the dude probably did it. The criminal justice system can't catch em all but that's not an excuse to tweak judicial protections for revenge. That's how you degrade the institutions of a functioning society.

Close enough to 25 years I guess

When would he have had time to bury it?

Sometimes pragmatism trumps principle

Juries don't hand down sentences though.

Judges do.

lrn2commonlaw

Not an admission of guilt, but it does create reasonable doubt. The prosecution didn't have to prove he didn't do it.

Generally if one narrowly escapes a homicide conviction due to a biased jury, one shouldn't push their luck with an armed robbery a decade or so later. OJ is clearly a dumb violent impulsive dude, locking him up before he kills someone else is simply a matter of public safety.

"allegedly"

your right, he'd have to be tried for it and be found guilty first. But like I said it was an involuntary manslaughter case that stemmed from a neighborhood watch member who sought to take the law into his own hands after alerting authorities of a suspect. Zimmerman never wanted to kill Trayvon but shit happened after he made the call and at the end he pulled the trigger.[spoiler]the case is way to fucking new to be discussed here so I'm going to stop talking about it now.[/spoiler]

>arrive at 911 call
>one guy has bruises all over his face
>one guy has bruises on his hands and a gunshot wound to the chest
>coroners report later finds that the gunshot occurred at contact range

All of this is extremely strong reasonable doubt that any crime was committed at all.

True. I forgot judges were incapable of bias.

He didn't kill anyone, he was acquitted.

user if a person calls the authorities about a crime/criminal/suspect being in the area and then proceeds to stop/apprehend then they absolve themselves of any innocence should something happen. In my very limited dealings with the law said person is charged with obstruction of justice and depending the mood of the department more charges are added.

YOU MUST ACQUIT

That's not really how it works, user.

educate me then, as I said in my limited dealings with the law that's what happened

It's a very fascinating aspect of American history, in that every case you read about makes you lose just a little more faith in humanity. Still, it paints a more complete picture of that time in history, which is always the goal, and helps explain why up to 3,000,000 blacks decided leaving their homes and heading North was a good idea.

>dutch name
of course he did.

>It really seems like everyone was so convinced it was an open and shut case they they didn't even bother with proper procedure most of the time, and later, publicity was such an issue, the prosecutors did a lot of things wrong out of fear of publicity.
Kinda like the 2016 election.

maybe in 2041 we can discuss this

CTE did it.

why the fuck did this retard think that committing armed robbery was a good idea

It wasn't armed robbery per se. Some of his memorabilia was stolen and he went to retrieve it from the thieves. Some guy he was with pulled out a gun and it escalated into 'armed robber'y.

>Some of his memorabilia was stolen and he went to retrieve it from the thieves. Some guy he was with pulled out a gun and it escalated into 'armed robber'y.
Alright, thats enough OJ.

it wasn't an armed robbery, he went to go get his Heisman trophy with his body guard who so happened to be armed.

>If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!

Whoever came up with this tactic was brilliant, you have to admit that.

I find it funny that Nicole Brown was a childhood friend of my mother in post war Frankfurt. That's the only connection I have to any relevant people.

The bloody footprints were confirmed to be that of a luxurious shoe brand and only 20 or so of these particular shoes were ever made

The shoes were not found but there are multiple pictures of OJ wearing the shoes. This is how OJ was found liable for the murders in the civil case

most likely yes.

Not that guy, but Zimmerman was well within his legal rights to approach Martin and question him. Martin could obviously leave at any time, and we'll never know what happened, but all the facts of the case point to Zimmerman approaching Martin, a scuffle ensuing, Martin beating Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shooting Martin. Nowhere in the facts presented was a crime committed. It was not "involuntary manslaughter" as the shooting was in self-defense, and there was no evidence that Zimmerman provoked Martin by threatening his life or anything else that could justify Martin beating Zimmerman. I'm not saying that didn't happen, but it is pure speculation and not supported by the evidence at hand.

Fun Fact, according to California law at the time, the prosecution could have had OJ try the glove on outside away from the jury, the fact they didnt was astoudning to the defense asfter the fact

Doesn't everyone ITT know that OJ basically admitted he did it?

Furthermore, you do not give up your right to self defence just because you called the cops beforehand.

can someone explain this glove shit to me, please?

If the glove doesn't fit, you MUST acquit.

but that's stupid. he puts the gloves on in court. does ill fitting gloves make it impossible to hold a knife?

I agree, but the defense did a really good job of hammering in this idea that the glove was fake evidence planted by police to frame an innocent black man.

now that is a ridiculous dodge if I've ever seen one

I recommend you watch this lecture from a law professor about just this topic
youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

>you can't plead the 5th unless you would incriminate yourself

This is wrong.

Not true, read the unanimous decision of the US Supreme court in Ohio v. Reiner, which was over the question of whether a person who claims they had no involvement in a crime can then plead the fifth as a way to protect themselves. Ohio said that claiming your innocence waives that right because you are in effect saying truthful testimony would not be incriminating. The supreme court overruled that.

Here's a bit from the decision
>We have held that the privilege's protection extends only to witnesses who have "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer." But we have never held, as the Supreme Court of Ohio did, that the privilege is unavailable to those who claim innocence. To the contrary, we have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent men 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.' We recognize that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth.

The glove didn't fit, user. How could a man commit murder with such small, tight gloves? It would have been extremely uncomfortable.

During the robbery he said "nobody move" so they convicted him of kidnapping. OJ is obviously a criminal, but that was just predatory.

>drink-driving

???

based RDJ

Using a gun to prevent somebody from leaving a location is legally kidnapping. There is nothing "predatory" about that.

so the thief called the cops on them for stealing it back? lol what a bitch

to the letter of the law yes, but it was excessive to give the guy 30+ years

I can accept that analysis.