O.J. Simpson Thrown Out by "Racist" Restauranteur. Yeah Right. That's What Happened

|

A Louisville restaurant owner, Jeff Ruby, told O.J. Simpson, "I'm not serving you." The Associated Press reports:

Simpson's attorney, Yale Galanter, said the incident was about race, and he intended to pursue the matter and possibly go after the restaurant's liquor license.

"He screwed with the wrong guy, he really did," Galanter said by telephone Tuesday night.

That seems implausible to me. In fact, Ruby told the AP:

"I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families," Ruby, owner of Jeff Ruby's Steakhouse, said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "The way he continues to torture the lives of those families … with his behavior, attitude and conduct."

Frankly, it's OK for people to be disgusted by those who would feed off the dead

Whole AP story here .  

NEXT: Jim Beam Goes the Extra Five Percentage Points

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No soup for you!

  2. “He screwed with the wrong guy, he really did,” Galanter said by telephone Tuesday night.

    You’re damn right he did. Doesn’t Ruby know that OJ is a blade man? He’ll cut you as soon as look at you. And he gets away with that shit, scott free.

  3. Hmm. If this “incident was about race,” what does that say about OJ’s murder of his white ex-wife and her white friend?

  4. For the sake of playing Devil’s Advocate:

    Why not claim racism? Many whites also get away with murder “scott free”. Maybe the fact that he’s black and got away with murder is what so infuriated this nation…more so than a famous white guy getting away with murder. Possible?

    /prepares to be called a troll…

  5. WELCOME TO THE FOLD, jimmy.

  6. jimmydageek,

    I’m not saying race played no role, in fact it was at the heart of the popularity of the crime, but most people I have ever talked to about it are infuriated by three things:

    1. He so obviously committed the crime.

    2. He has always been so smug about it.

    3. So many people wanted to make it about race instead of murder.

    The white community’s reaction to the OJ Simpson trial was the first mass backlash against political correctness. The pendulum has now swung back to the opposite extreme with Imus. It will swing back again soon enough.

    And, as a fellow Kentuckian: Jack Ruby = Awesome.

  7. Shouldn’t this guy be under a bridge eating balogna sandwiches, since he lost a civil suit to the tune of a gazillion dollars?

  8. The AP story mentions that the restaurant displays plenty of pictures of the owner and celebrity diners. A picture of Ruby with OJ was removed after the murders. That would discount the racist angle.

    Since Ruby obviously is prejudiced against knife wielding murderers who get off scott free wouldn’t refusing to serve OJ constitute a hate crime?

  9. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”

    Especially people who are bad for business.

    OJ needs to thank his lucky stars he’s not in jail and stfu.

  10. Jimmydageek, I agreee whole heartly. If it was a white guy that did this, he could probably eat anywhere he wants. The fact that it was a black man killing 2 white people probably would offend a lot of people in the south if not from many places in the US. I agree the race card may have had little to do with his trial but the incompetant LA district attorneys who presented the case had idiots for witnesses. Anyway, I bet if Tony Barretta showed up at Mr. Ruby’s restaurant, he would not ask him to leave.

  11. I don’t see much of a racist angle here. Who would want to serve OJ Simpson, other than the characters on cable news?

    As far as the original trial went, I’ll second SugarFree’s statement, “The white community’s reaction to the OJ Simpson trial was the first mass backlash against political correctness.” I never heard white people use the n-word so much in my entire life as during and immediately after the OJ Simpson trial.

  12. Fark had the best headline for this story:

    “Louisville steakhouse opts not to serve O.J. Simpson instead of going through trouble of removing knives from all its tables”

  13. It is about time a black person got away with murder. White people have been doing it since the beginning of time. I’m happy he was acquitted. As far as the civil trial, fuck it. OJ can hide more money than the average white rich man. Go OJ!

  14. joe,

    I was thinking more along the lines of “race should not be used as an affirmative defense against charges of murder” but I agree with your statement as well. The fracture lines between black and white in this country was thrown in fairly sharp relief by this saga. So much so, that I think the white community’s utter bafflement at the black community’s belief in OJ’s innocence (see Nothingbetta2do’s caricature above) is becoming another Things We Don’t Bring Up In Polite Conversation.

  15. Yeah, like, I totally murdered like, ten, no…wait…fourteen people.

    All while on my lunch break.

    Hopefully I’ll get to tag a few more with my car on the way home from work.

  16. Any other white people wanna go out a-murderin’ tonight? Give me a call!

    We’ll totally get away with it!

  17. something tells me that charlie manson or richard speck would have trouble getting served, their leucochromic epidermises notwithstanding.

  18. Unless, of course, there were some meddling kids around.

    Then they might catch us.

    But, c’mon, how likely is that?

  19. Way to go, Jeff Ruby!!!!! Thanks for saying what others would love to have said to that murder. Why is O.J. eating out? He lost a civil suit!!!! I thought he was poor and couldn’t pay his fine, what’s up, O.J. ?????

  20. SugarFree, I was pretty much aghast at everyone back then.

    Seriously, celebrating his acquittal? I thought Mark Fuhrman was a racist liar too, but how does that mean you’re supposed to support OJ?

    That was a dark period. About a year after the LA riots. I’m glad the atmosphere isn’t like that anymore.

  21. Nobody has noticed the best part of this story?

    “I asked him to leave and we immediately seated Michael Jordan at his table,” Ruby said.

  22. joe,

    It’s definitely one of those times that seems worse in retrospect. It never seems to take on that rosy glow the past normally does.

  23. I thought he was poor and couldn’t pay his fine

    They can’t touch his NFL pension. Something like $30k a month.

  24. Seriously, celebrating his acquittal?

    With the history of the justice system towards blacks, I’m not suprised.

    But OJ? Every time I’ve seen him on TV since then, he’s golfing with a bunch of white dudes.

  25. Golfing?

    Or biding his time until he can beat whitey down with a 9-iron?

  26. Glad he got thrown out — he has been flaunting his crime in our faces for long enough.

  27. Or biding his time until he can beat whitey down with a 9-iron?

    They have nothing to fear. He doesn’t golf in his Bruno Magli’s.

  28. I’m having trouble following Mr. Ruby’s account, which seems to shift from hour to hour. First, he was upset by the response of an employee, described as “giddy” about seeing Mr. Simpson. Then it became a customer. Then he supposedly gave OJ’s blonde companion a parting shot, which just might be where the racism came in. The fifty customers who gave Ruby an ovation has, in later editions, doubled to one hundred.
    Having seated Mr. Simpson and his party, he has in effect, accepted their patronage. You usually, under most civil rights public accomodations laws, have to have a compelling reason to eject someone. Since by Mr. Ruby’s own statements, OJ was a picture of grace while exiting, he has no defense here.
    As for the trial itself, no panel has ever been convened that has accepted the prosecution’s absurd time-line,including the grand jury, three or four mock juries in the criminal case, even the mock jury in the civil case. The criminal jury members asked to hear one piece of timeline testimony, and then promptly acquitted him.

  29. I think that “he screwed with the wrong guy” is about the worst possible soundbite a lawyer could give when representing O.J. Simpson.

  30. “He screwed with the wrong guy, he really did,”

    translation = “What really happened doesn’t matter, less so what is right or wrong. I’m going to sue this guy and otherwise fuck with him just because I can.”

  31. No kidding, I toyed with the idea of posting this at Urkobold as a joke–you know, OJ again subject to racism, that sort of thing. It’s getting so the joke lags behind the reality.

    One can argue about whether OJ should’ve been convicted. The prosecution screwed up in a number of ways, and the presentation of the DNA evidence was mishandled (though that’s in part due to the then-novelty of such evidence). Still, there’s quite a bit of evidence that makes it clear that he did murder two people. People like to throw a cloud up about whether some of the evidence could’ve been planted, but let’s not forget some of the other circumstantial evidence that was quite damning. Not to mention his bizarre trip in the white Bronco.

    Just for the record, I liked OJ before the trial and thought there was no way that he did it before the evidence began to mount against him. I was wrong. His behavior since getting off has been reprehensible, to make things worse.

  32. What evidence?? The prosecution knew before the trial their case was a loser, and that their main police witness was a liar, malingerer, and evidence-tamperer.

  33. I eagerly await the day when no respectable restaurant owner will serve George Bush.

  34. Now I know what Bill Cunningham will be talking about for the next month.

    Shouldn’t this guy be under a bridge eating balogna sandwiches, since he lost a civil suit to the tune of a gazillion dollars?

    I seem to remember reading somewhere that under California law they can’t touch his NFL pension, no matter how much he owes.

  35. That seems implausible to me. That Radley really posted this. Is that you Mr. Mitnick?

  36. Historians will mark the O.J. acquittal as the point in our long struggle for racial equality when at last a rich, famous black man could get away with murder, too.

  37. A couple of points from a Louisvillian bar owner. First, Gywn Thomas, sorry to inform you that Mr. Ruby and myself are perfectly legal in refusing service to anyone we choose, so long as it is not due to race, religion, gender or age, all of which do violate the civil rights act. Finding a murderer who got off scott free in your restaurant and being discusted by it and refusing service is perfectly legal. OJ has NO case here for damages. Second, we have a very infamous local man here who was inexplicably aquitted for a murder here in Louisville in a manner similar to OJ. After the aquittal, undeveloped film was found in a home he had sold, which depicted pictures of him committing the crime. Having been aquitted he could not be retried for the crime but did end up serving time for lieing under oath about his relationship with the woman he murdered. He is reviled here as much or more than OJ. The man is white. If he and OJ walked into my bar (they would make a great couple) I would throw his white ass out in the street right next to OJ’s black butt…and be perfectly within my legal rights to do so. Third, has everyone forgotten the DNA evidense that indicated there was like only a one in some odd hundreds of millions of chance someone OTHER than OJ committed this crime and that was somehow ignored by the jury???

  38. I should point out that even if Mark Fuhrman was David Duke in disguise, he couldn’t have planted evidence. He was something like the seventeenth cop at the scene of the murders, and at that time, nobody knew but that Simpson had an airtight alibi.

  39. Am I the only one who finds it interesting that a guy who owes some other folks around $30,000,000 and has a court order hanging over his head ordering him to pay up with every cent he can scrape up has the cash to:

    1. Go out to eat
    2. In a city where he doesn’t live and likely had to fly on an airplane to get to
    3. And pay for someone else’s meal, too
    4. And then pay a lawyer to threaten the restaurant owner

    Looks to me like the Goldman family and Brown family have good reason to drag his worthless butt back to court again…

  40. Somebody should just Wack that Prick and be done with it. He doesn’t deserve any attention what so ever. Mr.Goldman should of had it done along time ago.

  41. Surely it is the job of the government to tell restaurant owners whom they must serve.

    OJ got his feelings hurt. Boo-hoo.

  42. I can see protecting a widow’s house and pension against being seized to pay a judgment, but protecting a retired football player’s pension? Can’t they change the law so at least some of that pension can be levied against?

    Couldn’t they force him to sell his old sports uniforms, personal effects, etc. on ebay and give the proceeds to his victims?

  43. “Mr.Goldman should of had it done along time ago.”

    Goldman could tell the jury that he was at home the whole time, and he has no idea how his DNA got all over the crime scene.

  44. Shouldn’t this guy be under a bridge eating balogna sandwiches, since he lost a civil suit to the tune of a gazillion dollars?

    One Word: TRUST

    Irrevocable, legal, hard and fast trusts.

  45. > Couldn’t they force him to sell his old sports uniforms, personal effects, etc. on ebay and give the proceeds to his victims?

    Who would buy O.J. memorabilia?

  46. “It is about time a black person got away with murder. White people have been doing it since the beginning of time. I’m happy he was acquitted. As far as the civil trial, fuck it. OJ can hide more money than the average white rich man. Go OJ!”

    There you have it folks, mindless racism in a nutshell.

  47. If they can’t get at his pension, they should sue him for $30k each month until hell freezes over.

    What a stupid law. Pensions “protection” should be capped at no more than twice poverty level, at most.

    Bologna under the bridge…sounds fair to me.

  48. Didn’t the OJ trial take place around the same time John Gotti was winning his repuration as “the Teflon don”? People seemed to be delighted when Gotti got away with murder. Even to this day, his daughter celebrates his legacy in her reality series. I guess not all un-convicted murderers are created equal.

  49. Michael Chaney – Not only that, but Jeff Ruby does not have inexpensive restaurants, as the midwest goes anyway.

    Also, if he sues and wins, wouldn’t he have to give the winnings to the Goldmans as part of the civil suit?

  50. To Michael the bar owner: Most civil rights attorneys I’ve seen quoted agree with you; they also wouldn’t recommend such action-“asking for trouble” is how one of them put it. It would depend on what Mr. Ruby said and did, and so far we’ve only heard his version, which is evolving, as they say. This morning, it’s the OJ book that got up his nose so. He also admits that OJ was served in another of his restaurants five years ago, and that he “just stayed away”.
    The idea that Fuhrman could not have planted evidence because the crime scene was already crawling with cops is pretty convincingly refuted by a photo of him pointing to said evidence, at a time when it was claimed he was standing in the street awaiting his replacements.The other evidence he “found” appeared when he had gone off by himself, for some reason.
    The comments about the civil suit are charming in their cluelessness. If the Goldmans were serious about collecting on their judgement, they would take it to Florida instead of California, where OJ doesn’t live and has no assets.

  51. The comments about the civil suit are charming in their cluelessness. If the Goldmans were serious about collecting on their judgement, they would take it to Florida instead of California, where OJ doesn’t live and has no assets.

    OJ moved to florida from California because Florida law doesn’t allow a creidtor ina civil action to take the debtor’s house. In plain English, OJ found a state that would allow him to sink his money into real estate where the Goldmans couldn’t legally touch it.

    Still, I think your right that the Goldmans could care less about OJ’s money. They’d probably rather have their son back.

  52. No, they care very much about OJ’s money–they spent a year in court over a pair of Olympic press passes that OJ had left with a friend. They also got the rights to his residuals, a sum which, after Monday, will not be enough to buy a postage stamp. They’re currently trying to get OJ’s book rights from the bankruptcy judge.

  53. Actually, Gwyn, I doubt they care so much about the money as about the opportunity to hound the soulless fuck until the day he dies.

  54. Excuse me. Has anyone seen the killer here? No? Thank you for your time.

  55. I wouldn’t mind having OJ in my restaurant, but I draw the line at serving the guy OJ paid to kill his wife.

  56. The civil courts do not allow you to “hound” anyone, soulless fuck or not. They award you a judgement, and then you’re on your own trying to collect. Since the Goldmans, by their own admission, have collected virtually nothing toward the judgement going on ten years, I think it’s time Fred and Kim got a new hobby.

  57. Technically speaking, OJ Simpson could sue for libel everybody on this thread who has written that he is a “murderer”, since he legally is not.

  58. Constitutional-law guru Eugene Volokh agrees that OJ would have to prove that Ruby singled him out b/c of his race in order to have any claim:

    If Ruby has been serving notorious white killers, but rejected O.J. because he’s black, that’s illegal. But somehow I doubt that this is what was happening.

    As for the Goldmans, it seems that what they want is revenge. I can’t say I blame them.

  59. Libel regarding a public figure requires malice. Malice is usually shown by a speaker making a comment that the speaker knows or should know to be false. I doubt anyone here knows or should know that OJ is not a murderer. There’s plenty of evidence to make that a reasonable conclusion, such as OJ’s own attempt at marketing a confession.

  60. The civil courts do not allow you to “hound” anyone, soulless fuck or not. They award you a judgement, and then you’re on your own trying to collect. Since the Goldmans, by their own admission, have collected virtually nothing toward the judgement going on ten years, I think it’s time Fred and Kim got a new hobby.

    Once you have an unsatisfied judgment in hand, you can keep suing indefinitely until it is paid.

  61. Yes, you can sue–if you renew the judgement. And it’s expensive to collect on a judgement, you have to go through sheriffs and auctioneers and the like, all getting a cut off the top, not to mention lawyer bills. If the last ten years have produced nothing for them, why would the next ten be any different?
    As for Volokh, he thought the Goldman’s nutty scheme to seize OJ’s “right of publicity” was “interesting” and sounded “credible” to him. The judge tossed it right out.

  62. I really never thought I’d see an OJ Apology-Bot lose on the internet. It’s really quite amazing.

  63. You do mean “loose”, don’t you? And thank you, I am rather amazing.

  64. Libel regarding a public figure requires malice. Malice is usually shown by a speaker making a comment that the speaker knows or should know to be false. I doubt anyone here knows or should know that OJ is not a murderer. There’s plenty of evidence to make that a reasonable conclusion, such as OJ’s own attempt at marketing a confession.

    But we all do know that OJ is not a murderer. He was acquitted of the charge of murder.

  65. it’s expensive to collect on a judgement, you have to go through sheriffs and auctioneers and the like, all getting a cut off the top, not to mention lawyer bills. If the last ten years have produced nothing for them, why would the next ten be any different?

    If they want to spend their money that way, who cares?

  66. OJ is a public figure, and saying that he committed murder is not the same as saying that he was convicted of committing murder. My opinion about him deprives him of neither property nor liberty, which is why it need not be at the same standard as when he’s in court.

    Good luck proving “actual malice” when the facts supporting an opinion that he’s a murderer were good enough to pass the more-likely-than-not standard in civil court. He’s certainly a wrongful deathinator, in any case.

  67. This is a fine example of why we should like freedom of association.

  68. Did I miss something–is OJ suing one of you now?

  69. I was foolishly responding to Dan T.’s remarks about defamation. It’s very difficult to lodge a defamation claim when one is (1) a public figure and (2) actually prosecuted (and successfully sued in civil court) for the “bad act” in question.

  70. Oh, I see–this is the part of the thread where we abandon argument and set to giving Mr. Strawman a right good kicking.

  71. As much as it pains me to align myself with OJ Apology Bot (TM), what’s been posted here on Hit ‘n Run and elsewhere has led me to see police planting of evidence as eminently possible. For the first time, I’m beginning to understand where some of the jurors were coming from in their hatred for the police. I was about 13 or so at the time of the OJ trial, and had a very naive view of the police back then. No more.

    On the other hand, writing a book about how you would have killed your wife and an innocent bystander is not only a good indication that you’re one sick fuck, but also that you’re as guilty as…well, I was going to say “as guilty as OJ”, which is my standard idiom, but it doesn’t really work here, does it?

  72. The civil courts do not allow you to “hound” anyone.

    You’ve obviously never been involved in civil litigation.

    They award you a judgement, and then you’re on your own trying to collect.

    If someone was maniacally persistent in pursuing your assets and filing motions to enforce a judgment against you, I think you would say you were being hounded.

    Good on the Goldmans, I say. I think they show admirable restraint in not finding some gangbangers willing to put a bullet in OJ for a fraction of what they have spent on lawyers.

  73. What does that make the Goldmans then? They want to get the rights to said book, reissue it and profit from it. By the way, how do you know that Ron Goldman was a bystander and not the main target of the crime?

  74. Just to clarify, if A has a judgment against B that B refuses to pay, and A has reason to believe that B has assets that are not exempt from execution (such as a “homestead”), then A is entitled to be maniacally persistent in pursuing B.

    Of course, if A lies in affidavits or files frivolous motions in an effort to execute against assets that clearly don’t exist or are exempt, A could be sanctioned and could wind up, among other things, paying fines or paying B’s attorney fees.

  75. Dan T. has a point, and I parodied earlier. OJ is an innocent man, at least when it comes to murder charges. We all just assume that OJ did it even though the evidence we know of can be trusted about as much as a Rube Goldberg device. I’m not saying he didn’t do it, but I really can’t say that I know.

  76. Maniacal persistence is not enough; OJ is by all measure “judgement-proof”, and cannot be hounded, especially not from from any actions in California where he has no assets. I’ve been involved with civil litigation from both sides, and will provide photos of my battle scars upon request. Fred Goldman shares your murderous fantasies in the family book “His Name Is Ron”.

  77. Dear OJ Apology Bot (TM),

    It probably makes them eager to collect on their civil suit. I imagine I would be, too, especially since Simpson seems to be living well enough for all of his supposed penury. If I thought he’d killed my child or my brother, and managed to prove it in civil court instead of criminal, I’d want to see him suffering.

    The problem with Apology Bots, though, is that you occasionally have difficulty parsing complex sentences. If Simpson writes a book about how he would have killed his ex-wife and a waiter at a restaurant, it is reasonable to assume within the logical structure of the book that his primary target is someone known to him and not a total stranger. If it was a total stranger, and his wife was the bystander, that would not only be a huge coincidence but indicative that Simpson is psychotic. And I can’t imagine that the OJ Apology Bot (TM) would brook that suggestion.

    Sincerely,

    Shannon

  78. Maniacal persistence is not enough; OJ is by all measure “judgement-proof”, and cannot be hounded, especially not from from any actions in California where he has no assets.

    Huh? You wouldn’t by any chance be the same guy who keeps sending me garbled emails about moving your uncle’s assets to a U.S. bank?

  79. I’ll try to be more careful wading through your “complex” sentences. Have you actually read the book you’re relying on, or are you going by press accounts of what’s in it??

  80. Oh, Zeus. It takes some tortuous reasoning indeed to come to the conclusion that Simpson is more likely than not innocent. Think about this forum–we’re much more inclined to believe that the government is corrupt and up to no good than most people, but I’ll bet that most of us think that OJ probably did commit murder. If Fuhrman’s evidence were all there were to it, then I’d have more doubts. But the evidence is much greater than that, and Simpson’s actions since then do little to dispel the belief that he did it. Whether he should’ve been convicted is another question as is whether one can be certain of anything.

    Incidentally, I wasn’t attacking a strawman, I was explaining to another troll that defamation wouldn’t fly here. Jeez.

    I will agree with one thing. The Goldmans should be trying to enforce their judgment in Florida. Although we have greater protections than most states as far as the homestead is concerned, I think we’re actually not so bad when it comes to going after assets that are not attached to the homestead. I wonder why they don’t act more aggressively here. Maybe it’s the cost of litigation?

  81. If restaurants aren’t willing to serve OJ, how the hell is he ever gonna get food poisoning?

  82. No, since OJ was acquitted on a standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, believing him more likely than not innocent is a dawdle. So you believe that the government is corrupt–except in matters of criminal law, where they always act honourably. What major piece of evidence was not collected or observed by Mr. Fuhrman, by the way??

  83. If I told you there was a white man responsible for irresponsibly having over 5000 people killed in over 7 yrs, would you agree he should not eat at any restaurant in america? Would you still agree if I told you it was your current president?

  84. I guess above all else, you can be white and hire black strippers to rape and torment them and say you didn’t do anything so you’ll get off scott free.

  85. On the other hand, writing a book about how you would have killed your wife and an innocent bystander is not only a good indication that you’re one sick fuck, but also that you’re as guilty as…

    Good lord, did anyone happen to see the Ruby Wax interview of OJ? This was several years ago. Wax kept it all really friendly because she wanted to see how he behaved if he felt comfortable. And she got a fantastic closing shot for the program; she set up a shot where she would knock on his door and he would answer. When they did it, he actually opened the door to his apartment and pretended to stab her repeatedly with a banana, grinning the whole time. I so wish someone would post this on YouTube, but it’s not there.

    After her interview of OJ, she was interviewed and asked if she thought he did it. She said she honestly didn’t know. But later on she was quoted as saying “OJ is a psychopath.” It seemed pretty clear that she was just afraid to say what she actually believed.

  86. “Now, it’s quite simple to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana. First, you force him to drop the banana; then you eat the banana, thus disarming him.”

  87. Oh, you promised you wouldn’t do fruit this week.

  88. If I told you there was a white man responsible for irresponsibly having over 5000 people killed in over 7 yrs, would you agree he should not eat at any restaurant in america? Would you still agree if I told you it was your current president?

    Oh, zing! But you are about a day late to the party, my angry friend.

  89. “””The prosecution screwed up in a number of ways, and the presentation of the DNA evidence was mishandled (though that’s in part due to the then-novelty of such evidence).””””

    Mishandled is an understatment. There was the question of the “missing blood” from the sample that took from OJ. When the officer who carried the blood was asked about it, he plead the 5th amendment. How often does an officer, in the chain of custody, plead the 5th about his role in that chain? That placed doubt about the credibility of the DNA evidence.

  90. Restaurants aren’t serving OJ?!

    Ah well, if it’s fresh, I prefer grapefruit juice anyway.

  91. Beautiful, highnumber–beautiful.

  92. “something tells me that charlie manson or richard speck would have trouble getting served, their leucochromic epidermises notwithstanding.”

    Edna, you’re right. Speck is dead and Manson is in stir.

  93. “If I told you there was a white man responsible for irresponsibly having over 5000 people killed in over 7 yrs, would you agree he should not eat at any restaurant in america? Would you still agree if I told you it was your current president?”

    I’ll do you one better. If the prez came into my restaurant, I’d not only demand he leave, I’d suggest he run out the door double time so he can catch a ride with O.J.

  94. Lamar wrote:

    Dan T. has a point, and I parodied earlier. OJ is an innocent man, at least when it comes to murder charges.

    No, the court found him Not Guilty. That is not the same thing as “innocent.”

  95. JGR:

    Re: “the court found him Not Guilty. That is not the same thing as ‘innocent.'”

    If we are innocent until proven guilty, then a court finds us “not guilty,” then we are innocent.

    Sorry I didn’t make that more clear. Your distinction doesn’t exist in America because (1) we are innocent until proven guilty and (2) double jeopardy rules out being found guilty after being found not guilty.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.