OJ Simpson sentenced to 15 years

2»

Comments

  • TheDecline13
    TheDecline13 Posts: 990
    Jason P wrote:
    One final volley before I retire from "A Moving Train" (this place is too depressing) . . . he wrote a book called "I Did It".

    Yahtzee!

    no it was called "If I Did It"

    Uno!
    Tour with fucking NOFX
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    Jason P wrote:
    One final volley before I retire from "A Moving Train" (this place is too depressing) . . . he wrote a book called "I Did It".

    Yahtzee!


    lol.. I love how you turn me into an O.J. fan when I actually think he probably did kill those 2 people.... congratulations... youre a superstar
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    Jason P wrote:
    One final volley before I retire from "A Moving Train" (this place is too depressing) . . . he wrote a book called "I Did It".

    Yahtzee!


    is depressing to you when you have to actually open your mind and be willing to learn reality... or would you just rather lay back in a chair and claim to know things the rest of your life...


    sorry if that seems mean... but i have a feeling no one has ever said that to you :)

    Jason P would make outrageous claims.. like he invented the question mark...sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    macgyver06 wrote:
    no need to try and educate someone.. I know there were two cases and he was FOUND INNOCENT ON CHARGES OF MURDERING 2 PEOPLE.... READ YOUR ORIGINAL REPLY... in the civil court he was found responsible... not guilty of murdering. BOO NOTHING... my god.. this place doesn't change... people arguing facts presented clearly to them... ABSURD!

    and guess what... I WAS AROUND FOR THE TRIAL... lol the whole world was...hehe and guess what else.. we all remember the trial... and you know what the key part of a trial is???


    THE VERDICT


    INNOCENT

    Just to clairify, the jury didn't find him "innocent", he was found "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". The jury never said he didn't do it, all they said was that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he did it.
  • chromiam
    chromiam Posts: 4,114
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    Just to clairify, the jury didn't find him "innocent", he was found "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". The jury never said he didn't do it, all they said was that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he did it.

    Correct.. the prosecuters dropped the ball and never proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Hell even I, as a college freshman, could see that by watching the daily trial playbacks on E! :D
    This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.

    Admin

    Social awareness does not equal political activism!

    5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    Just to clairify, the jury didn't find him "innocent", he was found "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". The jury never said he didn't do it, all they said was that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he did it.


    So you are saying the jury didn't find him innocent... the jury didn't find him guilty because there was a reasonable doubt? And than you say the jury never said he didn't do it... all they said is that there was not enough evidence.... is this what you are saying is in the record books??


    I am sorry... but you have got to look up what I said than look up the word innocent...

    I'm not sure exactly why you are trying to bend words and repeat the sames things already said...

    I just don't get it anymore... is this a joke?? are you guys fucking with me??


    the jury doesnt say anything at all.. one preson reads the verdict... lol its a court system.. there are laws in place...


    HE WAS FOUND INNOCENT or you can say he was found NOT GUILTY


    lol.... is that a joke what you wrote?
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    chromiam wrote:
    Correct.. the prosecuters dropped the ball and never proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Hell even I, as a college freshman, could see that by watching the daily trial playbacks on E! :D


    No... that isnt correct chromiam... he was not found innocent because the prosecutors dropped a ball and he wasnt found innocent because they never proved beyond a reasonable doubt... he was found not guilty because of the jury's verdict. And don't downgrade your intelligence just because you are a college freshman... there are lots of people who write on the internet that can not sort out fact and opinion... its troubling
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    I don't think he is innocent... I just think there is a good chance he didn't do it from the evidence I've gathered :)


    ohhh those crazy jurys
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    Just to clairify, the jury didn't find him "innocent", he was found "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". The jury never said he didn't do it, all they said was that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he did it.


    upon further thinking... '' not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'' ... can you explain this to me???


    because its ''found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt''...what you are saying is that in the jurys thinking (which is on no records anywhere) is that they found him innocent with absolutely no doubt.
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    macgyver06 wrote:
    So you are saying the jury didn't find him innocent... the jury didn't find him guilty because there was a reasonable doubt? And than you say the jury never said he didn't do it... all they said is that there was not enough evidence.... is this what you are saying is in the record books??


    I am sorry... but you have got to look up what I said than look up the word innocent...

    I'm not sure exactly why you are trying to bend words and repeat the sames things already said...

    I just don't get it anymore... is this a joke?? are you guys fucking with me??


    the jury doesnt say anything at all.. one preson reads the verdict... lol its a court system.. there are laws in place...


    HE WAS FOUND INNOCENT or you can say he was found NOT GUILTY


    lol.... is that a joke what you wrote?

    In a criminal court no one is ever found innocent. They are either found GUILTY or NOT GUILTY. For someone to be found guilty the proceutor has to present evidence that proves beyond a resonable doubt that the defendant comitted the crime. If they can not provide that level of evidence (which is called the burden of proof), then the defendant walks, even if they actually did it. The reason he was found liable in civil court is because the burden of proof is lower (I believe the wording is something along the lines of more likely than not). So to sum it up for you INNOCENT and NOT GUILTY are not the same thing in a criminal court.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    In a criminal court no one is ever found innocent. They are either found GUILTY or NOT GUILTY. For someone to be found guilty the proceutor has to present evidence that proves beyond a resonable doubt that the defendant comitted the crime. If they can not provide that level of evidence (which is called the burden of proof), then the defendant walks, even if they actually did it. The reason he was found liable in civil court is because the burden of proof is lower (I believe the wording is something along the lines of more likely than not). So to sum it up for you INNOCENT and NOT GUILTY are not the same thing in a criminal court.


    ??? what are you talking about ???

    why are you telling me how the process works???

    and are you suggesting the jurys verdict doesnt mean anything???
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    In a criminal court no one is ever found innocent. They are either found GUILTY or NOT GUILTY. For someone to be found guilty the proceutor has to present evidence that proves beyond a resonable doubt that the defendant comitted the crime. If they can not provide that level of evidence (which is called the burden of proof), then the defendant walks, even if they actually did it. The reason he was found liable in civil court is because the burden of proof is lower (I believe the wording is something along the lines of more likely than not). So to sum it up for you INNOCENT and NOT GUILTY are not the same thing in a criminal court.


    we are not in a court right now.. and I have watched enough court cases to know the jury or the judge does not stand up and say the defendant is found innocent... lol... im simply saying that the definition of innocent means not guilty....
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    macgyver06 wrote:
    we are not in a court right now.. and I have watched enough court cases to know the jury or the judge does not stand up and say the defendant is found innocent... lol... im simply saying that the definition of innocent means not guilty....

    But that is not the correct definition. All "Not Guilty" means is that in the jury's opinion the prosecutor did not provide enough evidence to prove murder. That is all they are deciding on. It is not like they are saying, no OJ didn't do it someone else did, which would be the definition of innocent.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    But that is not the correct definition. All "Not Guilty" means is that in the jury's opinion the prosecutor did not provide enough evidence to prove murder. That is all they are deciding on. It is not like they are saying, no OJ didn't do it someone else did, which would be the definition of innocent.


    see what you are doing... I am saying Innocent means not guilty and than you say... NOT GUILTY means whatever... why are you trying to fool unsuspecting people... is has nothing to do with the prosecutor either... you are putting opinions in the jurys head Kel..... When you are presented evidence in any way and are left to determine whether or not enough the evidence at hand is enough to convict a person on trial... you are in FACT and REALITY determining whether or not this person is GUILTY or NOT GUILTY... Its guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... so a NOT GUILTY verdict means that the person has been determined innocent of the accusations against him. YOU CANT BE TRIALED FOR THE SAME THING TWICE...

    OJ SIMPSON WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF THOSE CRIMES.... which means as a citizen I must put aside my opinions and prejudices and treat him as an innocent person. OTHER WISE I WOULDNT BELIEVE IN THE COURT SYSTEM... which is another argument Kel....

    When I say the definition of Innocent means not guilty and you respond as if I am saying a Not Guilty verdict means he is an innocent makes you look like you don't understand the concepts.
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    But that is not the correct definition. All "Not Guilty" means is that in the jury's opinion the prosecutor did not provide enough evidence to prove murder. That is all they are deciding on. It is not like they are saying, no OJ didn't do it someone else did, which would be the definition of innocent.
    While you are correct about the definition of "not guilty," one is still innocent until proven guilty, which is why I can see why someone would use the two terms synonymously.
  • brandon10
    brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    _outlaw wrote:
    While you are correct about the definition of "not guilty," one is still innocent until proven guilty, which is why I can see why someone would use the two terms synonymously.

    Bingo.....And an innocent man "not guilty" just got railroaded in Nevada.

    I'm not saying for sure he was innocent, because i wasn't an eye witness. But according to the law of the land he was not guilty.

    And everything about this new case is seriously messed up. I hope he gets off on appeals.

Categories