Posted on 11/22/2006 12:12:09 PM PST by color_tear
I need freeper's help on this matter. I heard many conservative talk show hosts believe that OJ is guilty of murder. Does it mean non of them believe our court system? OJ was found not guilty by 12 peers. It was not a mistrial. There was no appeal to the case. I understand he was found guilty in the civil case. I've never seen any company ask about civil lawsuits in their new employee questionnaire. My question: "How do those hosts know OJ is guilty?" I do not believe any one of those hosts was in that courtroom through the whole trial but those jurors were. I don't believe any one of those hosts studied the whole court record (transcribe), those 12 people did. I'm so confused . Where is the "reasonable doubt"? Where is the "defendent does not have to prove innocent?" I love our system but seems like most conservatives do not believe it. They are willing to condemn a person without thorough study. They do not believe their peers. I heard many times that people say most WHITE people believe OJ is gulity but I've never believed it. To tell the truth, I start having doubt now. Al Sharpton made a most outragious racist statement yesterday about Letterman show, come to think of it, he probably knows something I don't. My freeper friends, help me to understand.
No conservative worth his salt has ever believed in the infallibility of the court system.
You must be joking.
He was found guilty in civil court.
The jury was from Brentwood?
Not his peers in the strictest sense, because as far as I know, the jury didn’t include murderers.
Why that must mean Michael Jackson is innocent too! Who'd a-thunk it?
The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" binds the courts.
It does not in any way affect public opinion, personal opinion, or common sense.
IBTZ?
Show me one reasonable doubt.
The evidence is clear...as long as you aren't one of the 12 morons in the jury that inexplicably declared him not guilty.
I can't help you see if you choose to be blind.
I know OJ was guilty the same way I know water doesn't run uphill.
--verbatim quote from one of the jurors.
Why do you say that? Please explain.
I'm confused.
BTW, I'm a natuiralized American and I've always thought this is the best system in the world. If non of you believe it, why don't we change it? I don't understand. Educate me please.
I'm afriad you aren't going to get much help on this one. The premise that he is innocent because his "peers" said he was is preposterous. Our courts are not infallible, if anything they're simply laughable, but it's the best we've got.
He is no longer criminally accountable (double jeopardy). He still did it.
The system is set up so guilty people go free on occasion so that innocent person don't routinely get falsely convicted.
Basic civics.
Stop being clueless. He was not found not guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. That is very much different than he was found innocent. All it means is that the 'court system', i.e. prosecution, screwed up badly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.