OJ kicked out of restaurant

[Facetious]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...=Entertainment

It's a shame everything like this gets turned into some kind of racial argument. I don't know that OJ should have been found guilty (given how the evidence seemed like it was tampered with), but I sure as hell think he killed those people. Can't I kick him out of my own freaking restaurant without being labeled a racist? This especially bugs me because OJ was very understanding about the issue, and some idiot lawyer trying to make a name for himself is throwing around accusations. Same with the Barry Bonds deal. If Hank Aaron were white, this home run record would be a huge hot-button, and I'd be a lot more wary about expressing my thoughts that I think Barry cheats.

I feel like as a white person, I can't have a negative opinion of anyone that happens to not be white without fear of being labeled a racist. What's the solution, though? A lot of white people ARE racist, so I can certainly understand how people could perceive things that way. How can we move towards trusting each other without everyone having to tiptoe around all the time?

edit: The celebrity angle is only one part of the story, I suppose. I went to a party on St. Patrick's day where this British kid of Indian descent was making a bunch of Irish food. My drunk friend, too stupid to determine a British accent from an Irish accent, asked the kid if he was Irish at the beginning of the night. This British kid turns out to be a total jackass, was picking fights with everybody and eventually I ended up asking him to leave the party after he elbowed my friend who thought he was Irish. The next day, he wrote an e-mail to my friend that hosted the party saying he felt like he was kicked out of the party because I was a racist, since he viewed my friend's "are you Irish" question as related to the fact that he was Indian, not the fact that he had a British accent. How do I avoid shit like this? I'm sure that kid has told a ton of people I'm racist.

[Zerzera]

Ok, I didn't read the article, and I didn't read through most of your post.
But only to reply to what your stated; isn't the court where things get settled and one is found guilty or not guilty. If people would start to sanction former suspects because they think someone's guilty -while they weren't charged on criminal charges- there would be no use for a court in the first place.

[Chino]

Just ask yourself the following questions:

- Am I white?
- Am I constipated?

If you answer above questions positively you can conclude that your a racist.

[Facetious]

Ok, I didn't read the article, and I didn't read through most of your post.
But only to reply to what your stated; isn't the court where things get settled and one is found guilty or not guilty. If people would start to sanction former suspects because they think someone's guilty -while they weren't charged on criminal charges- there would be no use for a court in the first place.

The court proves that they can't be proven guilty, that doesn't mean they are proved innocent.

[PjOtTeR]

The court proves that they can't be proven guilty, that doesn't mean they are proved innocent.

It does mean they are found innocent/not guilty till they are proven guilty...
And it's kinda stupid to just assume someone is guilty because it's not proven with a 100% certainty he is innocent.

[Zerzera]

The court proves that they can't be proven guilty, that doesn't mean they are proved innocent.

No, but it means they are innocent until proven otherwise.

[PolluX]

Hold on for a minute... OJ is a ..NOT A FUNNY JOKE..
^-^

[Facetious]

No, but it means they are innocent until proven otherwise.

I'm glad the COURTS consider people innocent until proven guilty, but I don't have to abide by that. OJ was found not guilty because it appeared that the evidence had been tampered with to make him seem more guilty. If I commit a murder, and someone adds more fake evidence, I should get off of the charges. However, that does not make me any less of a murderer. Also OJ was found liable in the civil trial anyway. The point is that it's perfectly legal to refuse service to anyone anyway, and this clearly has nothing to do with race, but some idiot lawyer is pulling that card anyway.

[Zerzera]

I'm glad the COURTS consider people innocent until proven guilty, but I don't have to abide by that. OJ was found not guilty because it appeared that the evidence had been tampered with to make him seem more guilty. If I commit a murder, and someone adds more fake evidence, I should get off of the charges. However, that does not make me any less of a murderer. Also OJ was found liable in the civil trial anyway. The point is that it's perfectly legal to refuse service to anyone anyway, and this clearly has nothing to do with race, but some idiot lawyer is pulling that card anyway.

I didn't read the logs of the trial, I didn't see the evidence, and I don't intent to.
I told you that I wasn't talking about this case, I just say it's pretty useless to have a court when people don't let it rest after the verdict.
In extremer cases people think they have to kill the person they suspect committed the crime when the court turns them down. It's just not how it should work. You put a court in place to settle these things.

You do have the right to refuse service, but you don't have the right to treat someone as a criminal when they aren't convicted.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

You do have the right to refuse service, but you don't have the right to treat someone as a criminal when they aren't convicted.

I think there's a couple of things about this particular case that you're missing.

First off, it's not like the owner said "Hey buddy, I know you killed those people. Therefore, I'm not serving you. Instead, I'm going to beat you senseless." He refused service and nothing more. I've seen people who have been refused service for not wearing the proper attire at a restaurant. Same rule applies.

Secondly, OJ hasn't exactly been a prince since he was acquitted (again, he WAS convicted in civil court). Perhaps you might have heard about a little book he wrote and was trying to get published just a few short months ago--he titled it "IF I Did It" or some retarded bullshit like that. I could care less about the guy personally, but if a high-profile "celebrity" had killed a family member of mine, got away with it, then taunted everyone like that, I'd be a bit pissed about it too. The guy is a total douche, and deserves everything he gets at this point.

But let's look at it from the opposite perspective. You say

but you don't have the right to treat someone as a criminal when they aren't convicted.

If someone is wrongly convicted (and it happens quite a bit), are we supposed to blindly believe that the person 100% committed the crime? Should we treat innocent people like criminals simply because they were convicted?

I see your point, and in a Utopian society where people actually acted civil and took responsibilty for their actions, sure--it's a grand idea. But until the courts are 100% fool-proof (which will never happen), it's a fairly responsible thing to question their rulings in cases where the evidence is so strong.

[Subjugation]

I would guess the lawyer is just looking for a percentage of a possible settlement (paycheck for the lawyer) or some media coverage (a paycheck for OJ). Celebrities (which is what OJ technially is) do shit like this all the time to get publicity.

[gran guerrero]

I read the article and was about to respond to this thread until I saw this on that webpage http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...=Entertainment

[Zerzera]

I think there's a couple of things about this particular case that you're missing.

First off, it's not like the owner said "Hey buddy, I know you killed those people. Therefore, I'm not serving you. Instead, I'm going to beat you senseless." He refused service and nothing more. I've seen people who have been refused service for not wearing the proper attire at a restaurant. Same rule applies.

Secondly, OJ hasn't exactly been a prince since he was acquitted (again, he WAS convicted in civil court). Perhaps you might have heard about a little book he wrote and was trying to get published just a few short months ago--he titled it "IF I Did It" or some retarded bullshit like that. I could care less about the guy personally, but if a high-profile "celebrity" had killed a family member of mine, got away with it, then taunted everyone like that, I'd be a bit pissed about it too. The guy is a total douche, and deserves everything he gets at this point.

But let's look at it from the opposite perspective. You say

If someone is wrongly convicted (and it happens quite a bit), are we supposed to blindly believe that the person 100% committed the crime? Should we treat innocent people like criminals simply because they were convicted?

I see your point, and in a Utopian society where people actually acted civil and took responsibilty for their actions, sure--it's a grand idea. But until the courts are 100% fool-proof (which will never happen), it's a fairly responsible thing to question their rulings in cases where the evidence is so strong.

I tried to point out that he has the right to deny service, and I also said I didn't read the story. I tried to point out that it's not a good thing to treat people who aren't convicted as criminals.
We all know courts aren't foolproof, but they put a bit more effort in the investigating of 'truth'. What makes you, or the owner of the restaurant, think that you know more about the truth than the jury who represented you in court.
It's my opinion that the American courts are a total joke, and juries very subjective. A good looking white male in a suit has less chance of being convicted. But it's the system you chosen, and you should put trust in it, or abolish it. Either let people sort things for themselves, save the money those trials cost and go back to lynching like you used to do. It has nothing to do with utopia, it has to do with reducing anarchy.

At least you can be sued for "calumny".
I wish you good luck with following all those cases, because you wouldn't accidentally want to serve a unconvicted criminal.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

I tried to point out that he has the right to deny service, and I also said I didn't read the story. I tried to point out that it's not a good thing to treat people who aren't convicted as criminals.

But he was convicted--in civil court. So truthfully, the guy's guilty. By a court of law. Why are we arguing?

Seriously though, could you answer my question about innocent people who are convicted, serve long years in prison, then are eventually released? Should we not work for their freedom after conviction, simply because the courts decided their guilt? I'm playing devil's advocate, I know, but this sort of thing happens (and not just in the US), and it's basically just this case in reverse.

We all know courts aren't foolproof, but they put a bit more effort in the investigating of 'truth'. What makes you, or the owner of the restaurant, think that you know more about the truth than the jury who represented you in court.

But the restaurant owner didn't try to enforce the law--he just didn't serve him. There's a difference in not giving someone a hamburger, and locking them up indefinitely in a back room. For better or for worse, citizens of this country are allowed to have their own opinions (even about court cases). The guy didn't really do anything wrong--he was well within his rights and didn't really impede on OJ's.

It's my opinion that the American courts are a total joke, and juries very subjective. A good looking white male in a suit has less chance of being convicted. But it's the system you chosen, and you should put trust in it, or abolish it. Either let people sort things for themselves, save the money those trials cost and go back to lynching like you used to do. It has nothing to do with utopia, it has to do with reducing anarchy.

I'm not really sure how American courts are all that different from most western countries, but I won't claim to be a judicial expert. I won't claim that the US is immune from problems with race on the whole (not just in courtrooms), but I don't think we're alone on that. Not that it makes it any better or any more right, but singling out the US isn't really fair. Anarchy's kind of a strong term for this--you make it sound like there are vigilantes walking the streets, armed with machetes and hand grenades, ready to serve up some sweet, sweet justice. (Hyperbole, I know. I'm just trying to lighten the mood.)

It does have to do with Utopia, since you're implying that somewhere, there's a magical land where everyone is treated as complete equals and the law is infallible. There is no place like that. Human nature is unfortunately far too greedy and "us vs. them"-oriented to have that be a reality.

I wish you good luck with following all those cases, because you wouldn't accidentally want to serve a unconvicted criminal.

I think you're overstating what happened, though. Owners of eating/drinking/retail establishments in the US have the right to serve (or not serve) anyone they want. They can do it because you're being disruptive, they can do it because you're not wearing enough clothing, they can do it because they think you smell--it doesn't matter what you think, they have the final say. As long as the owner has a reason dealing with something that you can control (can't be because of race, sex, etc.), it's a fairly decent law. It's a law that has been around for YEARS and no one's really had a problem with it.

Don't you understand that you're guilty of the same "crime" that you're occusing the restaurant owner of? You say you didn't read the article--well then, how would you know if what he did was wrong or not? You're passing judgement on something that you didn't have knowledge of.

[Epinephrine]

Conc, civil courts do not determine guilt or innocence. They determine whether someone is liable or not. The bar that is set is FAR lower than a criminal court.

The entire system is based on the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty. This is not just the 'court system'. This is part of the greater system of democracy and freedom that the United States and most Western countries pride themselves on. If the courts aren't deciding who is guilty and who is not, then who is? What's the point of having a court system in the first place anyway then? We should be like one of those dictatorships then where they just lock you up because 'well we think they probably did something'.

Unless you want to completely renounce the entire idea of freedom, justice and democracy, you should at least acknowledge that there is a reason for the existance of the courts.

Yes the courts are ultimately run by people, who are fallable. But they are also a LOT more fair than the average guy on the street who doesn't have all the facts and who isn't fully versed in the traditions and code of law that the society is governed from... rules mind you that are agreed to by act of democracy.