Justice finally served... 13 years after the fact...
Mad Mike
I'm sure they're resting just a little bit easier today.
Gary G.
wrote:
>While I know that O.J.'s conviction won't bring Nicole and Ron back,
>I'm sure they're resting just a little bit easier today.
I don't think Nicole is resting easy, her damn head is still cut off!
LMFAO!!!
breastfish_loves_penis
damm RON COULD HAVE GOTTEN SOME WORN OUT PUSSY THAT NIGHT!
INSTEAD HE GOT 26 KNIFE WOUNDS!
TALK ABOUT A BAD NIGHT!
"Gary G." <gar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:48e829ec....@news.easynews.com...
The Man
news:4738b5a8-e61b-491d...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> While I know that O.J.'s conviction won't bring Nicole and Ron back,
> I'm sure they're resting just a little bit easier today.
They wont rest until he is in jail getting pounded in the ass 15 times a day
and then finally murdered and dies a slow and painful death.
stuth...@comcast.net
> While I know that O.J.'s conviction won't bring Nicole and Ron back,
> I'm sure they're resting just a little bit easier today.
Nope. Still dead.
Hall
"Mad Mike" <BassP...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4738b5a8-e61b-491d...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> I'm sure they're resting just a little bit easier today.
A serious misuse of the term "justice" in the subject line. "Revenge" would
be the more accurate term for what was served. A trumped-up charge, where
every one involved gets a "get-out-of-jail-free" card can hardly be viewed
as just.
This was O.J. being totally railroaded for what most of you percieve as
getting away with murder...
Not a proud day for the judicial system, even if I'm alone in admitting it.
Hall
Phil
I'm fairly indifferent to this particular result. If we still had a
constitution, I might feel differently.
RWF
> This was O.J. being totally railroaded for what most of you percieve as
> getting away with murder...
Yep, rounding up a gang of armed thugs, busting into a hotel room and
holding people against their will at gunpoint isn't a crime, is it?
The true perversion of justice was when OJ wasn't convicted of
murdering two people.
Bigolhomo
In this case, the ends justify the means.
Our judicial system is already a joke anyway.
Anim8rFSK
Bigolhomo <no...@none.com> wrote:
The joke is that EVERYBODY in that room didn't go to prison.
--
Third root canal - averted.
Hip Hip Hurrah!
Bigolhomo
wrote:
Most of them were smart enough to take plea deals.
Anim8rFSK
Bigolhomo <no...@none.com> wrote:
But the original criminals weren't even charged.
Bigolhomo
wrote:
What are you talking about? 4 of the guys pled guilty before trial,
and the one that didn't was tried with OJ. Of course they were
charged.
Anim8rFSK
Bigolhomo <no...@none.com> wrote:
How about the 'victims' that stole the stuff in the first place? Those
are the original criminals. Everybody in that room should go to prison.
number6
>
> > What are you talking about? 4 of the guys pled guilty before trial,
> > and the one that didn't was tried with OJ. Of course they were
> > charged.
>
> How about the 'victims' that stole the stuff in the first place? Those
> are the original criminals. Everybody in that room should go to prison.
>
Maybe they didn't "steal" the stuff in the first place ... You are
basing your accusation on OJ's excuse for doing what he did ... OJ's
credibility is zero ... and there have been no indictments on anyone
for stealing the supposed items originally ... no complaint ever
issued by OJ ... for a good reason ... no probable cause ...
My opinion ... OJ gave some items (not necessarily those in question
here) to someone ... to keep hidden for him so they wouldn't be part
of the judgement against him ... That someone sold the items ... and
OJ believed that downstream they ended up with this dealer ...
Never proven that any of the items were OJ's at the time of the
incident ...
In fact some if not most that were taken were even proven not to be
his at the time of the incident ...
Anim8rFSK
<2abef787-bdcb-4f4e...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
number6 <snum...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:46 pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > > What are you talking about? 4 of the guys pled guilty before trial,
> > > and the one that didn't was tried with OJ. Of course they were
> > > charged.
> >
> > How about the 'victims' that stole the stuff in the first place? Those
> > are the original criminals. Everybody in that room should go to prison.
> >
>
> Maybe they didn't "steal" the stuff in the first place ...
They didn't deny it. Even in the trial the prosecution didn't deny it.
They said he should have persued civil action instead of what he did,
which is certainly true, but it doesn't make the guys that stole his
stuff any less criminals.
You are
> basing your accusation on OJ's excuse for doing what he did ... OJ's
> credibility is zero ... and there have been no indictments on anyone
> for stealing the supposed items originally ... no complaint ever
> issued by OJ ... for a good reason ... no probable cause ...
>
> My opinion ... OJ gave some items (not necessarily those in question
> here) to someone ... to keep hidden for him so they wouldn't be part
> of the judgement against him ... That someone sold the items ... and
> OJ believed that downstream they ended up with this dealer ...
> Never proven that any of the items were OJ's at the time of the
> incident ...
> In fact some if not most that were taken were even proven not to be
> his at the time of the incident ...
Then the prosecution should have said "hey, look, these guys owned this
stuff legally" not "OJ shoulld have sued them to get his stuff back, not
taken the law into his own hands"
number6
>
> Then the prosecution should have said "hey, look, these guys owned this
> stuff legally" not "OJ shoulld have sued them to get his stuff back, not
> taken the law into his own hands"
Stealing is not a civil suit matter ... it is a criminal case ... No
criminal complaint was ever issued ... no report the items were ever
stolen ... OJ has never filed a complaint ... A civil case would
needed for OJ to prove his ownership ... much less any theft on
someone's part ...
The prosecution doesn't have to say they owned things legally ... they
made no judgement on that ... It was OJ's burden of proof to establish
that ... and that is done in a civil court ... but they were stressing
that is how an honest person should go about doing that ...
and if he ever did file a civil case ... and was successful ... both
of which I highly doubt would ever happen ... that is still a far cry
to putting anyone in jail as thieves ...
Again my opinion ... he could never do that ... because doing that
would be admission that what he did with whatever items he was
referring to was to avoid paying the civil damages that he is charged
with ...
Anim8rFSK
<2655508a-5514-4b7f...@f37g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
number6 <snum...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2:36 pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Then the prosecution should have said "hey, look, these guys owned this
> > stuff legally" not "OJ shoulld have sued them to get his stuff back, not
> > taken the law into his own hands"
>
> Stealing is not a civil suit matter ... it is a criminal case ... No
I agree, but that's what the prosecutor said, which I thought was pretty
stupid
> criminal complaint was ever issued ... no report the items were ever
> stolen ... OJ has never filed a complaint ... A civil case would
> needed for OJ to prove his ownership ... much less any theft on
> someone's part ...
>
> The prosecution doesn't have to say they owned things legally ... they
> made no judgement on that ... It was OJ's burden of proof to establish
> that ... and that is done in a civil court ... but they were stressing
> that is how an honest person should go about doing that ...
>
> and if he ever did file a civil case ... and was successful ... both
> of which I highly doubt would ever happen ... that is still a far cry
> to putting anyone in jail as thieves ...
>
> Again my opinion ... he could never do that ... because doing that
> would be admission that what he did with whatever items he was
> referring to was to avoid paying the civil damages that he is charged
> with ...
So we're agreed; the 'victims' were in fact thieves, and everyone in the
room should have gone to prison.
number6
>
> > criminal complaint was ever issued ... no report the items were ever
> > stolen ... OJ has never filed a complaint ... A civil case would
> > needed for OJ to prove his ownership ... much less any theft on
> > someone's part ...
>
> > The prosecution doesn't have to say they owned things legally ... they
> > made no judgement on that ... It was OJ's burden of proof to establish
> > that ... and that is done in a civil court ... but they were stressing
> > that is how an honest person should go about doing that ...
>
> > and if he ever did file a civil case ... and was successful ... both
> > of which I highly doubt would ever happen ... that is still a far cry
> > to putting anyone in jail as thieves ...
>
> > Again my opinion ... he could never do that ... because doing that
> > would be admission that what he did with whatever items he was
> > referring to was to avoid paying the civil damages that he is charged
> > with ...
>
> So we're agreed; the 'victims' were in fact thieves, and everyone in the
> room should have gone to prison.
HUH ???
RWF
>
> Hip Hip Hurrah!
I keep tellin ya, nobody gives a flying fuck about you OR your dental
health, you ridiculous ninny.
Anyway, I guess you also believe the Juice didn't kill his wife or the
Goldman kid, since you find him so credible.
Other things Anim8rFSK finds credible:
The National Inquirer
The Onion
Spam email business offers from Nigeria