What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- mookiemookie, on 10/12/2007, -15/+133If only this could happen at every restaurant that this piece of trash visited, everywhere.
- nsummy, on 10/12/2007, -120/+27@mookiemookie Why is he a piece of trash? He was found not guilty by a jury of 12 of his peers. By your reasoning we should shun everyone who has been accused of a heinous crime whether they were convicted or not.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+105What happened? Did he order his steak "bloody?"
- OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/12/2007, -85/+20"If only this could happen at every restaurant that those Duke Lacrosse pieces of trash visited, everywhere."
There's a reason we have juries and trials in court. Regardless of how you feel about the case, if the defendant is found not guilty, then as far as you should be concerned concerned, he didn't do it. Sucks but that's our judicial system for you. - benijuana, on 10/12/2007, -10/+142@nsummy and omgwtf
When you're found innocent, thats fine
when you're found innocent and then wait a few years and write a book saying "well, lets say hypothetically for a minute that I MAY have done it, here's how I WOULD POSSIBLY have killed the bitch"
thats a different story - OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/12/2007, -54/+9@benijuana
That's called "playing the public". Ever stop to think that maybe he just wanted to use the controversy to make money, and you know the book would have been a best seller had it been released, off of idiots with nothing better to do than get worked up over the trial? I think I remember reading that the few copies of the book that were leaked to the public were going for hundreds of dollars on ebay. I know if I were in that position and had no other sources of income, other than my NFL pension, I would milk the controversy for all it's worth.
Hey, it beats getting a 9 to 5 or ending up homeless. - Homunculiheaded, on 10/12/2007, -6/+40"Why is he a piece of trash? He was found not guilty by a jury of 12 of his peers." But by essentially flaunting that he got away with murder by actually having the audacity to write about 'how I would have done it' undermines the whole process. Getting away with murder is one thing, but then mocking everyone else is another. It makes people wish that there wasn't double jeopardy laws, which is a very dangerous thing to do. Far worse then getting away with murder is making people feel like suckers for having a fair and just legal system.
- truspector, on 10/12/2007, -14/+58@nsummy and omg
If you two fools think OJ is innocent you have both already failed at life. That trial was bought and sold like a three dollar whore and don't forget but but but racism. - cardyology, on 10/12/2007, -6/+66Wasnt OJ found guilty or "liable for the two deaths" in the civil trial which followed? I believe he was. I also belive he was ordered to compensate the family of the victims to the tune of $33.5 million. I believe I am right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson - VeritasAequitas, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19the prosecution dropped the ball on that one big time, and the police botched the case, the idiot was guilty and anyone with half a brain knew it.
also @ omgwtfroflmaox2 WTF does that have to do with the Duke Lacrosse Players they weren't found "not guilty by a jury of their peers" the charges were dropped showing that it wasn't even a legit claim the DA in that case was chasing glory and votes and the accuser was chasing $$.
Other than the fact that both cases involved people being accused of something your statement is irrelevant. - GraceMolloy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+46And then he tried to release a book/tv special called "If I did it"
THE ***** KILLED THAT WOMAN, GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS! He used the Chewbacca defense and got off. That doesn't make him innocent, it makes him wealthy. - Fhwqhgads, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28"If only this could happen at every restaurant that this piece of trash visited, everywhere."
Why only restaurants? - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Actually, I don't just blame the prosecutors for blowing the OJ trial. The old saying that "They Framed a Guilty Man" seems most apt. He was clearly guilty. But the cops ***** their whole case by planting/moving evidence and being racist pricks on demand.
I don't want OJ to have another free day in his life. But I'd rather he go free than some other truly innocent man go to prison for being framed, and/or black.
Justice wasn't served either way, but this is the lesser of two evils, and the issues are much bigger than OJ or his crimes. - GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7"Regardless of how you feel about the case, if the defendant is found not guilty, then as far as you should be concerned concerned, he didn't do it."
B.S. As far as the Legal system should be concerned, he didn't do it. The law does not require me to be concerned about it one way or the other. I can even still write on digg about how I think he did it and that he is an attention whore killer. The law, on the other hand, can do no such thing. - r00tus3r, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Guilty until proven innocent ... and even after ... ?
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"attention whore killer".... That came out wrong. "attention whore, and a killer".... There, better.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14But guys... if the glove don't fit, you must acquit.
- EmoSLWarrior, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5@veritasdoritos
OK simian. Here's how it works.
OJ = Accused but cleared even if he DID do it
Duke Lacrosse Players = Accused but cleared even if they DID do it
Therefore OJ situation = Duke Lacrosse Players Situation except for the race of the defendants. Even though that shouldn't figure into this it seems to. In that the people who support the lacrosse players typically feel that "a ***** is always guilty" and "a white man never commits any violent crimes". Just speaking in general terms.
There is no clear evidence in either case that the accused were guilty or innocent. Therefore there was no way for the juries to reach a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. So the comparison is quite apt. If you think the lacrosse players were squeaky clean, it is you who have failed at life. You may now go play in traffic simian. - Cwo655321, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21he probably scared the hell out of everyone when he said
"who do you gotta kill to get a table here?" - raynar, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4"Wasnt OJ found guilty or "liable for the two deaths" in the civil trial which followed?"
Civil trials don't require unanimous votes. - nutsackninja, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I bet he gets much enjoyment using that steak knife.
- OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3Bury me all you want but that won't change the verdict or bring the only other 2 people that really know what happened back to life.
Bottom line, he was found not guilty. Regardless of what you or I think, as far as the US is concerned, he didn't do it. Because he has committed no crime, he deserves the same freedoms and rights that you or I do. Unless new evidence is found, a retrial occurs, or he just breaks down one day and turns himself in, then this is the way it is. That's the justice system. You might want to accept it and move on with your lives. Either that or work to change it.
He can write all the books, make all the public appearances, and do all the TV shows he wants that will get you easily-aroused, grudge-holding, kneejerk folks to tune in (out of hate or curiosity) as he wants. - Rooster99, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42Anyone else remember this old joke??
Q: Whats the password to O.J's computer?
A:[enter] [slash] [backslash] [slash] [backslash] [escape] - thatsmyaibo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The staff knew something was fishy when he kept asking for new steak knives.
- ubuwalker31, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@EmoSLWarrior
"Therefore OJ situation = Duke Lacrosse Players Situation except for the race of the defendants."
No, not even close. Duke Lacrosse Players case was dismissed because of Prosecutorial misconduct, namely that there was NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME. OJ situation was a criminal aquital and a civil wrongful death verdict, where there was plenty of evidence pointing to a crime and civil wrongdoing.
"There is no clear evidence in either case that the accused were guilty or innocent."
BS - there was no DNA evidence that linked the Duke players to the incident. The witnesses testimony kept on changing. The victim couldn't get her story straight. - RenoSJ, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4The guy killed 2 people.
The evidence was overwhelming, but not enough to convict him. He should be shunned like this everywhere he goes. He's a freaking douchebag. - phike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@omgwtf
If you kill someone and then are found innocent, that doesn't mean he is actually innocent. Evidence that proves his guilt has been leaked twice since the trial. When you ACTUALLY kill someone, society should not care what a court says about the murder. HE KILLED HER. Everyone knows it. Why do you think that a jury's decision should excuse him from all consequences actually killing someone? - dwrunyon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@Fhwqhgads
""If only this could happen at every restaurant that this piece of trash visited, everywhere."
Why only restaurants?"
He was also "ran out of town" by Panama City Beach Florida while shopping around for a home... there are some golf communites / resorts there that he was interested in living at. The whole town let him know that he was NOT welcome there... and this was a good while back, long before the book. - l33tone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1FTA: "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." - end quote
But your honor, I couldn't have thrown Mr. Simpson out of my establishment - I have painful arthritis in my hands. I couldn't possibly pick the man up, let alone THROW him!
...
I find the defendant not guilty for reasons of Irony. - AegisGFX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Fact is, when a woman is killed there is over 90% odds that its someone in her immediate family or her spouse that did it.
Who else would have been mad enough at Nichole and her new boyfriend to kill them, other than her old boyfriend/husband? Maybe a one time serial killer who just happened to be crossing the street at the time and who never killed again???I mean come on!!! - jtcalhoun, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Wow. Thanks, Digg! If O.J. Simpson can be eternally blamed, ostracized, and exiled by the court of public opinion for murder charges for which he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, then I guess most White Americans can also be held eternally responsible for the horrible injustices committed by their ancestors during and after slavery. ...you know, since we're just arbitrarily assigning blame to people who could be found not guilty. Innocent until indicted apparently.
Do I think he did it? Yeah, probably. Yet as he was acquitted by the very system endowed with the authority to make such determinations, it is morally unjust to treat him any differently for a crime he (legally) didn't do. Using this logic, I would be completely justified in picking any of you off the street, labeling you "trash", and blacklisting from every establishment from the city. Senator McCarthy would be proud!
--
And for those who keep bringing up Simpson's liability in the civil trial which followed, if you'd actually lookup the details of the case rather than blindly quoting one sentance in Wikipedia, you'd see that the majority of the $33.5 million he was ordered to pay was in punitive damages to deter him profiting off of the case and the deaths of Goldman and Brown through book deals, appearances, and ***** T.V. movies for the rest of his life (i.e. the horrendously distasteful "If I Did It" fiasco). - cdahlkvist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@jtcalhoun
"If O.J. Simpson can be eternally blamed, ostracized, and exiled by the court of public opinion for murder charges for which he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, then I guess most White Americans can also be held eternally responsible for the horrible injustices committed by their ancestors during and after slavery"
How dense. First, your comparison sucks. Blaming a white person for having ancestors with slaves is not even close to the same thing. That would be like blaming O.J.'s KIDS for killing their mother.
O.J. did it. No sane person has ever felt otherwise. Even the jury felt he did it but that is not how the legal system works. Nor is it how it is suppose to work. They were left with a reasonable doubt. That means that the screw ups made by the prosecution and the police were enough to make the jury think it was reasonably POSSIBLE that O.J. didn't do it. Being found "not guilty" is NOT being found "innocent".
Furthermore, had you read the article, you would see that this man did not ask O.J. to leave because O.J. is a murderer. He asked him to leave due to what O.J. did to the Goldman and Brown families. He has screwed them over financially and made their lives hell.
You also should keep in mind that O.J. LOST in civil court. The court determined he was directly responsible for the murders of Nicole and Ron and therefore finacially liable.
Get it through your thick, down with the man attitude. O.J. is a murdered. So is Robert Blake and Robert Wagner.
This isn't an issue about color. It's an issue of O.J. being a sleazeball that got away with murder and looks for any way possible to avoid his finacial responsibilities and the fact that he would have the audacity to write a book about how he allegedly would have done it if he were the perpetrator. In other words he is spitting in everyone's face and essentially saying "I am a killer and I got away with it, suckers! Now pay me money!" - paidhima, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@phike
"When you ACTUALLY kill someone, society should not care what a court says about the murder. HE KILLED HER. Everyone knows it. Why do you think that a jury's decision should excuse him from all consequences actually killing someone?"
A jury's decision should excuse him from all consequences because that's the justice system we have. Violate that and our entire system crumbles. I believe he did it. I believed he did it from the moment we heard the words "white Bronco." Just because I believe it, however, doesn't make me right and does give me the right to overrule the system. That's dangerously close to a "lynch him" philosophy. It's great when the person is guilty, but what if he's innocent? Due process, and our justice system, can be really crappy at times. Sometimes guilty men go free. It sure beats the alternative, however: mob justice. - jtcalhoun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@cdahlkvist
What's amusing here is that I think you agree with me more than you're willing to admit.
"That would be like blaming O.J.'s KIDS for killing their mother."
The whole point of my previous post is that it is morally irresponsible to ridicule and exile a person which, by a jury of his peers (the judicial system we have in place), is found not guilty of a criminal act. In that regard, it would indeed be quite ridiculous to shun and exile O.J.'s "KIDS" if (hypothetically) they were to ever be put on trial and obviously acquitted for their mother's murder.
If we are going to continue to socially convict the accused after they've been acquitted, then what's point of having a trial at all? Why not simply follow Orwell or the Patriot Act and simply throw anyone who might be guilty of any crime in jail? Actually, skip the jail, let's just execute all accused and convicted criminals alike as in the eyes of society, they'll both always be guilty regardless of what any stupid verdict says.
"O.J. did it. No sane person has ever felt otherwise. Even the jury felt he did it but that is not how the legal system works. Nor is it how it is suppose to work. They were left with a reasonable doubt. That means that the screw ups made by the prosecution and the police were enough to make the jury think it was reasonably POSSIBLE that O.J. didn't do it."
By your own admission, it sounds that your anger is better directed at the prosecution and the police. Each side of the courtroom had equal opportunity to influence the jury to make a favorable decision for their side. That the prosecution did not make a compelling enough case to remove all reasonable doubt is not O.J. Simpson's fault. If you feel that the judicial system acted erroneously, then your argument should be with the judicial system, and not with the person on trial.
"You also should keep in mind that O.J. LOST in civil court. The court determined he was directly responsible for the murders of Nicole and Ron and therefore finacially liable."
No one is disputing that O.J. LOST in civil court. Furthermore, the civil court determined that O.J. was liable (not "guilty") for the wrongful deaths (not "murders") of Nicole and Ron. "Murder" is a crime, "wrongful death" is a tort. A person does not have to be wholly responsible for another's death to be charged with wrongful death. (Example: A psychologist can be charged with wrongful death if a patient commits suicide, even though the psychologist is not the one who pulled the trigger.)
Just as "being found 'not guilty' is NOT being found 'innocent'," being found "liable" is NOT being found "guilty."
"Get it through your thick, down with the man attitude. O.J. is a murdered."
Ha! Your assessment of my motives could not be further from the truth. I too think that O.J. is a "murdered." Yet, neither of our personal opinions are relevant as evidence in a trial. On the other hand, what is relevant is factual and conclusive evidence, which by your own statements, the prosecution failed to provide. Furthermore, our untested opinions should not give us the moral authority to denounce Simpson or any other accused criminal just because they were once accused.
My "down with the man attitude" is actually quite the opposite. If anything, I'm trying to uphold the "man" or the "system" by recognizing the U.S. judicial process (and not the court of public opinion) as the only legal authority able to convict someone of murder. - jcembree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I live in Louisville, and this has been on the news for a while. OJ and his lawyers are claiming that it is racial discrimination, and that he was kicked out because he is black, and are trying to get the restaurant's liquor license revoked. http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/050907whasmjdTopOJRedux.5272183f.html
- cbasst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@GeneralFault
"If the glove don't fit, you can't sit"
/triv... - 4answer2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He wasn't found to be innocent in the criminal trial, he was found to be "not guilty".
There is a difference. - SIRBERUS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know the owner of the store where O.J. bought the knife, and he is sick of people coming in and asking where the "OJ knives" are.
- maximusGeek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34I thought he was too broke to pay off his law suite. What is he doing at an "upscale" restaurant?
- aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Because the Goldman family can't touch OJ's NFL pension, which is hundreds of thousands per year.
- Azimuth1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+62Before I read the description, I was going to comment on what a waste of orange juice that was.
- Rooster99, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3But 'the juice' is a waste...
- mrzack, on 10/12/2007, -23/+29/11 = Inside Job
O.J. knew - MercedRocks, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27Bravo Mr Restaurant guy.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7I tried to read the article but I couldn't stop looking at how big that chicks ***** are behind OJ. She is dressed kinda strange but I'd still hit it.
What was this story about again?- MannyHills, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3It very well looks like that could be a dude, damn trannies
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3If that's a dude then I'd like to give compliments to his surgeon
- Calann, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41I bet O.J. even brought his own knife.
- Dolomite, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5The glove didnt fit. He is innocent.
- Crispin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but this was debunked on Charles Grodin's TV show. They made OJ put the leather gloves on *while wearing rubber gloves underneath*. Grodin took a pair of his own fitted leather gloves and showed that the rubber gloves kept his hands from fitting in the leather ones.
- andshewas, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31I just can't believe OJ's attorney is pulling the race card. I'm sure the restaurant owner throws out all his black clientèle.
- helf, on 10/12/2007, -8/+65dude, EVERYONE, except 'white people' can and DO pull the ***** race card.
I'm SICK of this *****. People claim they want equal treatment for everyone, yet everyone accuses 'whites' of being racist while they, themselves, are the most racest people on the planet.
Sickens me. And, yes, I'm "white".
Your skin color does not matter. Also, it's HIS business. He can do what he wants.
Pieces of *****. - euro22, on 12/17/2008, -5/+29@helf
I wish I can digg you up more than once because of how ***** right you are. Racial sympathy is BS and has gone way too far in today's world. - Fhwqhgads, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20helf is absolutely right
- pokjob, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Race card... that reminds me -- it's time for me to play it.
I'm white (yay!) and I recently got ticket for (allegedly) running a red light. Ticket was issued to me by a black cop.
I plan to fight this thing.... I'm trying to think how I might be able to use the race card in favor...so any suggestions would be greatly appreciated my fellow Diggers (yes that's Diggers -- with a "D").
(my car is black -- not sure if that helps me or hurts me -- but it shows I like black things at least) - bsmang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yes, helf is absolutely right while at the same time, there are also still way too many uncivilized [pick-a-color] people who still hate [pick-another-color] people because they are [another-color]. Which is still the original piece of the problem that caused the rest of the problem. And probably gets agitated by the "rest of the problem" even more than those who just want racism to go away.
- gquaglia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'm waiting for Al Sharpton to call for a boycott of the restaurant.
- helf, on 10/12/2007, -8/+65dude, EVERYONE, except 'white people' can and DO pull the ***** race card.
- Grova, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Simpson'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.- andshewas, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I'd like to tear up the race card. The restaurant owner didn't like OJ because of his "popularity" not the color of his skin.
- krewemaynard, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3"He screwed with the wrong guy, he really did," Galanter said by telephone Tuesday night.
Was he talking about Jeff Ruby or Ron Goldman? - airquotes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1***** LAWYERS
- gquaglia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why does everyone hate lawyers, oh yeah, this *****.
- bschonec, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29I've met Jeff Ruby many times -- spent time in his box at Paul Brown Stadium in Cincy. A punkish Jersey-boy he may be. A racist, he is not.
Bravo, Mr. Ruby.- AaronTyler, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1He also has a hemorroid problem...CVS can't keep enough preparation H in stock....
- badjoke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Yeah, play the race card. Classy.
- Kossic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3""He screwed with the wrong guy, he really did," Galanter said by telephone Tuesday night." Uh-oh, I hope OJ doesn't do anything drastic.
- Illon, on 10/12/2007, -46/+0Dim vote(150) As Single, candidate(84) As String, votepercent(84) As Single
Private Sub mnuclear_Click()
lstbox.Clear
End Sub
Private Sub mnuelectionresults_Click()
Open "H:/vote.txt" For Input As #1
x = 0
Do While Not EOF(1)
x = x + 1
Input #1, candidate(x)
Input #1, vote(x)
Loop
Close #1
numberofcandidates = x
totalvotes = 0
For z = 1 To numberofcandidates
totalvotes = totalvotes + vote(z)
Next z
For p = 1 To numberofcandidates
votepercent(p) = vote(p) / totalvotes
Next p
For j = 1 To numberofcandidates - 1
For i = 1 To numberofcandidates - j
If vote(i) < vote(i + 1) Then
temp = vote(i)
vote(i) = vote(i + 1)
vote(i + 1) = temp
temp = candidate(i)
candidate(i) = candidate(i + 1)
candidate(i + 1) = temp
temp = votepercent(i)
votepercent(i) = votepercent(i + 1)
votepercent(i + 1) = temp
End If
Next i
Next j
lstbox.AddItem "Candidate Name" + Chr(9) + "Votes" + Chr(9) + "Vote Percent"
For y = 1 To numberofcandidates
lstbox.AddItem candidate(y) + Chr(9) + Str(vote(y)) + Chr(9) + Format(votepercent(y), "Percent")
Next y
End Sub
Private Sub mnuquit_Click()
End
End Sub
Private Sub mnuupdate_Click()
Open "H:/vote.txt" For Input As #1
x = 0
Do While Not EOF(1)
x = x + 1
Input #1, candidate(x)
Input #1, vote(x)
Loop
Close #1
Do While vote(x) -9
x = x + 1
candidate(x) = InputBox("Enter name of candidate, type -9 to exit.")
If candidate(x) "-9" Then
vote(x) = Val(InputBox("Enter the number of votes. Type -9 to end."))
ElseIf candidate(x) = "-9" Then
Exit Do
End If
Loop
x = x - 1
Open "H:/vote.txt" For Output As #1
For z = 1 To x
Write #1, candidate(z)
Write #1, vote(z)
Next z
Close #1
End Sub
Private Sub mnuvotinginfo_Click()
lstbox.AddItem "Candidate Name" + Chr(9) + "Number of Votes" + Chr(9) + "Percentage of Total"
x = 0
vote(x) = 0
Do While vote(x) -9
x = x + 1
candidate(x) = InputBox("Enter name of candidate.")
If candidate(x) "-9" Then
vote(x) = Val(InputBox("Enter the number of votes. Type -9 to end."))
ElseIf candidate(x) = "-9" Then
Exit Do
End If
Loop
x = x - 1
Open "H:/vote.txt" For Output As #1
For z = 1 To x
Write #1, candidate(z)
Write #1, vote(z)
Next z
Close #1
End Sub
Crap, sorry...- jamend, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9If Diebold codes like you do, it's no wonder how easily they are rigged.
- airquotes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0He just h4x0red all your boxes lolz!1
- MikeOSX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29I'm surprised. OJ usually gets away with murder!
- conna, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I wish somebody would just whoop OJ's ass.
- pathy, on 10/12/2007, -21/+4Like used to happen to the slaves?! You ***** racist pig.
- biuku, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2he was found criminally "not guilty" but also "responsible" for the deaths in civil court. he doesn't have to be executed, but I don't think he has a right to nice steak dinners the rest of his life.
there's a lot of racism in this world, and it ain't just about one race. Al Sharpton, Johnnie Cochran and OJs new lawyer dilute a big global problem over BS.- MisterFlaut, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2"I don't think he has a right to nice steak dinners the rest of his life."
No less than you should.
He was found "not guilty" in a court of ***** law.
You have no right to judge, neither does anyone else.
Opinions? Sure. But you can't out someone from society because of it. That's ignorant and very ***** hypocritical.
I can't believe people are this stupid. No wonder our country is in the ***** it's in. - Crispin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4He was also found responsible in a civil court of two counts of wrongful death. You can keep saying he was found not guilty, but everyone knows between the LA cops botching the investigation, the limp prosecution and the courts not wanting another inner city riot that the correct verdict was not handed down.
- datagrim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@MisterFlaut
He was found not guilty of "murder", but he was found responsible for their deaths. That means that he did kill them, he just didn't "murder" them. Legally, that makes him a killer and not someone I'd care to have dinner with. - MisterFlaut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Civil suits don't matter.
What matters is that his trial found him not guilty.
It's not really something to be argued. It's not a subjective opinion. He was found not guilty and is free. Treat him as such.
If he committed a crime and was a criminal, the court system would've found him as such and dealt with it. They didn't.
It's done with. Leave it alone. - Fhwqhgads, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@misterflaut
Are you really that stupid or are you just a troll?
- MisterFlaut, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2"I don't think he has a right to nice steak dinners the rest of his life."
- bschonec, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5OJ Simpson gets better treatment than the Duke Lacrosse players. In the Duke case, it actually WAS a case of racism.
- empeethree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6surprise surprise he is using the race card again.. well it got him off murder charges...
- borchard76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There is no reason that the man has to serve Simpson. IF the lawyer wants to show it is about race then he will have to find a bunch of other blacks who have also been refused treatment. Then to counter that, all Mr. Ruby has to do is show a substantial pattern of blacks that he HAS served. At that point the lawyer is pretty much screwed.
- daschupa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Unless Mark Ferman was the waiter (which is a possibility), I doubt OJ will get anything.
- carbonetc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Bravo to the owner for throwing anyone out. I wish more restaurants would do that. "The customer is always right" has turned so many patrons into spoiled demanding asshats.
- ronjohn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2OJ was pay back for all the killings of black people and when certain whites got off. REMEMBER EMMMIT TEAL!!!
- ilovethissite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8It's 2007, I say its time people move on with the OJ Simpson case.
- pegisys, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I couldn't agree more, and I really don't see how people stress themselves out about something that they had no involvement or relations in
If he did do it it's not the first time someone has gotten away with murder, and probably not the last, but people take it personal like it was their sister was killed - Fhwqhgads, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Justice has not been served so no we will NOT move on. This ***** got away with murder. It's happened before and it will happen again. Whether or not we had nothing to do with it personally is irrelevant. We see a miscarriage of justice, and then the ***** comes out with his confession book and we are suppose to believe he is innocent? He must be the world's greatest crime detail guesser!
- CircleFusion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Fhwqhgads
Then lobby to change the legal system.
Oh ... I guess you really don't care _that_ much. - Fhwqhgads, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh yes, I'm going to have a profound effect on the system.
Idiot.
- pegisys, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I couldn't agree more, and I really don't see how people stress themselves out about something that they had no involvement or relations in
- bigjoeystud, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3This is ridiculous. Simpson was found not guilty. Whether or not you believe it or not is your own business. Is he going to be continuously ostracized for the rest of his life? What if he really was not guilty? Would you want him to go through with it? What if it were you or someone you loved? If they were not guilty and they had to go on trial everyday for the rest of their life? I feel like he went through the trial and made it. That's it. He should be left alone.
- frickafracka, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3"This is ridiculous. Simpson was found not guilty. Whether or not you believe it or not is your own business. Is he going to be continuously ostracized for the rest of his life? What if he really was not guilty? Would you want him to go through with it? What if it were you or someone you loved? If they were not guilty and they had to go on trial everyday for the rest of their life? I feel like he went through the trial and made it. That's it. He should be left alone. "
yes, it is my own business. it is the restaurant owner's own business. hence, he followed his belief that OJ got away with murder so he shouldn't enable him to eat at his restaurant. his choice. i'm pro-choice.
- frickafracka, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3"This is ridiculous. Simpson was found not guilty. Whether or not you believe it or not is your own business. Is he going to be continuously ostracized for the rest of his life? What if he really was not guilty? Would you want him to go through with it? What if it were you or someone you loved? If they were not guilty and they had to go on trial everyday for the rest of their life? I feel like he went through the trial and made it. That's it. He should be left alone. "
- MisterFlaut, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9In this thread and story: hypocrites and idiots (surprise)
100% fact.
Regardless of YOUR feelings on the situation, the man had a trial and was found not guilty. At least have some respect for the very system you pretend to care about.
Remember, innocent until proven guilty? Verdict: not guilty. Yes, the trial was botched all over, but that's the system we have. Either work to fix it, or don't complain about the outcome.
You're the same ***** people that call out "rapists" because a guy was on trial and found not guilty, even though a woman called "rape!".- MisterFlaut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The Duke Lacrosse players. That's what I was thinking of. Media sensationalizes everything, people claiming, "Oh yeah, they're guilty," even though they don't know a thing about them or the situation. Anyway, found innocent/not guilty.
But their lives are ruined. Forever these guys will be called out as "rapists" because of this type of ***** thinking.
You can't have selective attitude when it comes to this. It could be you up there, accused of a crime you didn't commit. Eventually freed, but treated as if you were guilty. It's not right. - Crispin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Duke case is not relevant to the OJ case. At no time did investigators have any evidence to back up the stripper's story and in fact most evidence went against it. The investigators in OJ's case *did* have plenty of evidence and witness accounts to place OJ at the crime, but botched the investigation and prosecution badly.
I'll agree with you that the media flew wayyy off the handle during the Duke allegations though. Especially CNN's blonde pit bull Nancy Grace. - Fafnir43, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2And if he hadn't a) effectively been found guilty of murder in a civil suit following the criminal suit and b) written a book how he *would* have done it (wink wink), I would be much more inclined to believe him.
- MisterFlaut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It is the same as the Duke case.
People forget about "innocent until proven guilty". The kids lives are still ruined. They were found not guilty of that crime.
Same with OJ. Everyone claimed he did it. How would they know? Instinct? Instinct isn't proof. The case was botched, but still, they had their chance and blew it. And so it is - he is free.
This same line of thought applies to people who commit crimes and serve their time, yet after they're released people still treat them like *****. People really have no right to do that. Otherwise, what's the point of putting them in prison?
Writing a "hypothetical" book doesn't equate to guilt. Hell, if I'm ever in his position of being accused of a murder, I'd do the same exact thing just to ***** with the system and how people would react. It really doesn't matter at this point - he could flat out say, "I did it," and no one can really do anything about it. Fact of the matter is, he was tried and found not guilty.
Face it, it's hypocrisy. It's not an easy thing for people to admit, but that's exactly what it is. Reason it's so hard is because most people reading this are guilty of it. Then they feel a little angry because I'm calling them out, even though in reality their anger towards OJ is unfounded and unnecessary.
- MisterFlaut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The Duke Lacrosse players. That's what I was thinking of. Media sensationalizes everything, people claiming, "Oh yeah, they're guilty," even though they don't know a thing about them or the situation. Anyway, found innocent/not guilty.
- Betacamman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1A longer video interview with the steakhouse guy can be found here:
http://www.wlwt.com/video/13284753/index.html?source= - shadowhander, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I would counter with a complaint that he's just pulling the race card because the owner is (white/hispanic/asian etc.). Don't you love that the "victims" in most "hate crimes" are the real racists?
- cookdsc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"@mookiemookie Why is he a piece of trash? He was found not guilty by a jury of 12 of his peers. By your reasoning we should shun everyone who has been accused of a heinous crime whether they were convicted or not."
and by your reasoning whether an individual is guilty or not is irreleant, but what is relevant is if the court finds them to be guily or innocent. - Smog2k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11OJ Simpson timeline:
1995: not guilty
1997: guilty
2007: no steak allowed
2010: ???- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Confess?
- 8270369, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10This is professional journalism? "was found innocent in 1995 of killing his ex-wife" -- He was found "not guilty." "Not guilty" is not "innocent." Anyone who's seen an episode of Law & Order knows that. To be declared innocent in such a case is to be declared innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt, which is exceedingly rare in any case lest the individual is followed with a video camera every minute of every waking day and sleeping night. Did me down for thinking American wire services hire illiterates to write copy.
- LGFAlbatross, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The OJ Simpsons:
http://www.broadcaster.com/fresh/oj/index.html?bcsrtkr=a85d2&utm_campaign=Traffic&utm_source=valueclick&utm_medium=popunder - Fredtheviking, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I am so glad we don't have mob justice.
- jamesallen74, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4First of all, OJ was found guilty or "liable for the two deaths" in the CIVIL TRIAL which followed? Stop complaining that he is innocent and use your energy to get the innocent convicted people (people who were wrongfully CONVICTED) out of prison. If you think he is really innocent, you are a moron! Getting kicked out of a restaurant is a CAKE WALK compared to life in the joint.
Second, true. Jeff Ruby isn't perfect. I know someone who used to work directly for him in the past back when he ran a hotel restaurant near downtown Cincinnati. He treated his female employees like dogs. Female guests, no problem. Male employees, no problem. But if you were a female employee, forget about it.
But racist, he is not. True, about 90% of his clientelle are non-black (white, asian, indian, etc.), but the 10% that do eat at his restaurants are NOT discriminated against. - fant0m, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Man, they really squeezed the juice out of O.J.!
- misimiki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"The management has the right to refuse service". In how many places have you seen a sign like or similar to this. The owner acted within his rights and his conscience. Bravo
- Saryon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Who cares? Why is this on the front page, and WHY is this man still getting attention from the public and Press?!?!
- andy78, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4he owner of an upscale steakhouse in Louisville said he asked O.J. Simpson to leave his restaurant the night before the Kentucky Derby because he is sickened by the attention Simpson still attracts....
so the answer is to kick him out of the restaurant and then send out a statement to the media about it. that should help... "he owner" is a friggin genius- Crispin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You should probably get that t key looked at.
- SigmaDraconis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7So Jeff Ruby is "sickened by the attention Simpson still attracts" and decided to oust him from his restaurant, which in turn will get him even more attention.
Mission Accomplished.- ilovethissite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0lol, your comment cracks me up on so many levels.
Especially the "Mission Accomplished" part
- ilovethissite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0lol, your comment cracks me up on so many levels.
- banjokelly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why are people arguing about if he did the murders or not? This story is about taking the consequences of your actions to me.
1) OJ has to take the consequences of trying to profit from the murders of his wife and her friend. That's something we all know he DID do.
2) The restaurant owner has to take the consequences to him and his business of refusing to serve people just because he doesn't like them. He's mixing business and personal there, and that can be risky, but its his place and his choice how to run it. - reed311, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I'm not sure why so many of you hate America so much. People have fought and died over the right of innocent until proven guilty. I don't care if he wrote a fictional book or if he was found liable in a CIVIL suit. You should consider moving to a different country that will rig trials and allow you no lawyers. We are damn lucky that we have such a decent justice system.
- Crispin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So by your logic, people who turn over verdicts with DNA evidence hate America. We don't have a perfect justice system. Sometimes the wrong verdict gets handed down. The OJ trial was an extremely bad example of our "decent justice system." And I'm allowed to have my own opinion, because *that's* what people fought and died over.
- jlawson1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3One time I'm proud to be from Kentucky!
- ibeetle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sense we all know he is really guilty, and the jury got it wrong I say we all get together and kill OJ.
No? Isn't it funny how we respect the process of the law but we rarely respect the out come. - LocalScope, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3The only reason he found not guilty is so that black people wouldnt riot. As it says on wiki: "Racial tensions grew through the trial and officials feared a repeat of the 1992 Los Angeles riots if Simpson received a guilty verdict."
Thats the only reason he got off. - colinmhayes, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5This is ***** ridiculous.
the man came into my restaurant the night before (thursday) and was extremely nice. he never once did anything that would be considered rude or anything.
anyways, jeff ruby's isn't that great of a restaurant.- colinmhayes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2on a side note, we even gave him a steak knife.
- MamaDukes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4As a restaurant owner, I believe Mr. Ruby has the right to refuse service to anyone. Would we have heard about this if it was you or me that was refused service? I think not. Now we get to see O.J. or his attorney all over the T.V. talking about how he was refused service because of the color of his skin.
Just like Paris, way too much attention on poor misunderstood celebrities that are mistreated. - LGFAlbatross, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1RE: The OJ Simpsons, apparently the cartoons are no longer available.
- LGFAlbatross, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1RE: The OJ Simpsons.... Doh! So sorry diggers, the link worked a week ago.
- demonsnake69, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Does the restaurant owner have the right to refuse OJ--yes...but his reason is pretty bsish. It's not about whether OJ did the killings or not, but should restaurant owners background check patrons to see if they've been convicted of any crimes or not?
- hammr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I too, like many others am completely sickened by the overplaying of the race card.
Selfishly, they only hurt those of their own color who have legitimately experienced racism.
Every time it is said that it was because of skin color when it clearly was not, they tarnish the credibility of all other claims.- demonsnake69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1No, they don't--they only tarnish the credibility of their own claim. If you think that someone else falsely playing the race card hurts other, true claims of racism, then that's your problem. But the reality is that one stupid claim someone makes in no way represents a whole group of people.
-
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is