Another Tucker SMACK DOWN when will he learn Al Sharpton..

[bigdarryl]

SMACKED his little ass down to a peanut

[Ninja Jordan]

1. Sharpton lost me when he said he thought OJ didn't do it.

He needs to get off the TV

[DaveinMD]

2. he lost me

with Tawana Brawley (sp?)

[jumpoffdaplanet]

10. I know it's not the popular opinion but

I wasn't convinced OJ did either.

Not saying he's a good person and all but I just didn't hear any real evidence he did it.

And oh boy, do I get flamed by my family when I say that. So anything DUers have to say has probably been said to me by my family.

Only in person and sometimes real real real closeup. :)

[Ninja Jordan]

13. his DNA all over the crime scene kind of sealed it for me (nm)

[Booster]

21. What sealed it for me was his bloody shoe print in his own car

and the blood turned out to be Nichol's. How they lost that case I'll never know.

[okieinpain]

22. they put a lying ass cop on the stand. n/t

[Skittles]

26. one witness did not negate all the evidence

not even f***ing close

[greenbriar]

14. I watched too...I do not believe he did the crimes

when I looked at his face when he saw the crime scene photos for the first time, no one can fake that look

he was totally sickened and upset.


and don't tell me he was an actor...I saw naked gun and he wasn't an actor

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. And I looked at his face when he was pronounced "not guilty"

Do a thought experiment. Suppose you are an innocent person on trial for first-degree murder in a death penalty state. Even if you don't get the death penalty, you may still get life in prison without parole. Your best-case scenario is decades behind bars.

You wait for the jury's verdict. Your whole future hangs on these words.

You hear, "Not guilty."

How do you react? Burst into tears? Hug someone? Start celebrating?

That's what OJ's relatives did. OJ himself did none of the above.

All that happened was that a slow smile spread across his face.

To me, that slow smile said, "Damn, I got away with it."

[SaveElmer]

17. Yeah there was overwhelming evidence he did it...

The prosecutors were successful at demonizing the police department and crime scene investigators in order to acquit him...

[ClassWarrior]

34. He didn't say that.

He said the jury wasn't convinced by the evidence. As a matter of fact, he was very careful to say that. What's your agenda in distorting his words?

NGU.

[EST]

3. Sharpton was wrong on at least one point-his claim that

Simpson was acquitted. He wasn't.
He was found not guilty. Acquittal implies innocence, while "not guilty" merely means that the state failed to prove its case.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. LOL

Acquittal means "not guilty."

[TankLV]

5. and since we are "innocent until proven guilty", OJ's "innocent" then...

or don't you agree with the foundation of american jurisprudence?...

[William769]

6. OJ is innocent in the eyes of the law.

ANd we all know how fucked up the law can be.

[atreides1]

7. Why is it

When we don't agree with the law it's fucked up, but when it does something we do like, it's just great?

One thing, either provide the evidence of his guilt or a confession, because personal feelings don't count for squat!!!!!

Until solid proof or OJ confesses on a national news program that he did it, he didn't do it, it's that simple.

[madmunchie]

9. Simple logic and analysis and tons of evidence is all that is needed.

In case you need more than that, the 2nd trial (civil) DIDN'T say he was "innocent, not guilty, nor was he "acquitted". In fact Simpson LOST that trial.

I watched that trial every day that it was on, I watched the T.V. coverage before the trial, during the trials and after the trials. The dumb ass jury could have watched Simpson commit the murders and they wouldn't have convicted him. It was a combination of "payback" (otherwise called "jury nullification" and really dumb ass jurists as well as some misteps by the procecutors.

Having the judge cry during the trial didn't help with the seriousness of the trial. The Mark Furmann side tracking didn't help either. It was a poorly run trial that was totally sensationalized by the media and turned into a circus.

[Debs]

20. Well I didnt watch the TV

I read the newspaper accounts every day and I dont believe the jury was stupid. The Prosecution screwed the case up, ruining the most important witnesses by making them lie right off the bat then it was pretty well established that the LAPD DID plant evidence. The bloodspatter expert said for instance the socks couldnt POSSIBLY have had the blood on them while they were being worn they HAD to have been pressed into the blood as it soaked through to both sides. There was a photo of the gate that showed no blood in the center then AFTER Van Atter was shown ON VIDEO with OJs blood AT the crime scene Voila a new photo showed blood drops on the center of the gate. They never tried to show it could have involved an accomplice always maintaing that OJ did it alone but Goldmans hands showed the sort of damage that could ONLY have happened if he had beaten his assailant yet there wasnt a single bruise on OJs body. They went over his including the drain yet found NO BLOOD yet whoever did it HAD to have been covered with blood. Personally I think OJ either did it with an accomplce or watched but the story the prosecution stuck with was not believable. I can definitly see why he was aquitted.

[TankLV]

30. "I'm not a jurror, but I watched one on TV"

So you know fucking EVERYTHING that the jurors did...

CLUE: YOU DID NO SUCH THING...

The jurors saw different - I trust the jurors...

[Skittles]

27. some of us are not fooled by a steaming pile of so-called "reasonable doubt"

sold to us by high-powered lawyers - we simply are not fooled by garbage

[TankLV]

29. Unfortunately, the concept is lost on too many...

[EST]

8. Although the standards of proof are not the same in civil vs

criminal trials, if one is truly, factually "innocent," as in Simpson was in Europe at the time of the murders, then there would be no basis for the suit that held him civilly responsible.

I labored for years, thinking if one were found "not guilty," it meant one was innocent. Not so, the lawyers explained to me, it just meant that the state failed in its mission to convict and could not try again on that particular charge.

So, although the words used in the legal playground assume entirely different meanings from those in every day understanding, they are apparently quite precise in specific surroundings.

Another happy example is the use of the word "continue." If I'm giving you a back rub and you ask me to continue, it means "don't stop!"
If a legal action is continued, it means stopped - perhaps to be continued later.

Ah, piss on it! To wonder I am not a lawyer!:toast:

[Robbins]

11. Simpson

People may be shocked but I am a white man and I have never been convinced he did It.But,regardless
I will admit he might have done but when will others at least conisder the possibilty he didn't do
It.And don't use the civil case to say it proves he did that was over before It begain.I also
believe If the victims was black hardly anyone would have screamed when he was acquated.And It should be noted there were 2 white members of the jury that acquated him and most of the black jurors were women.Black women can be tough.And the next time Republicans cry about Jury awards consider Civil trils for Wrongful death after an acquatal

[beaconess]

12. A "Not Guilty" verdict IS an acquittal!

They're the same thing.

[Toots]

16. The jury has three options only

Guilty, Not guilty or can't make up their mind (hung jury) there is no acquittal available to them. Not Guilty is aquittal...and OJ was acquitted of the crime but then he was tried a second time for it and found guilty. The second trial was a civil trial but still a trial and they ruled out his acquittal as evidence that could be used..IMO it was double jeopardy....another supposed constitutional right that now lives in a grey area..

[EST]

18. Thanks for your excellent elucidation.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. The 2nd trial was not double jeopardy and he was not found guilty

It was a civil action (he wasn't in any jeopardy), and he was found culpable.

[Debs]

19. In the American Justice system

A not guilty finding is considered an aquittal. Dont get me wrong, I think OJ probably did it. Once they basically showed the LAPD planted evidence how is anyone to trust the REST of the evidence? The prosecution screwed up the case by sticking to a story line that even I dont believe and by putting Furman and Van Atter on at the very beggining of the case to not only LIE to the jury but tell a lie NO ONE could possibly believe. They testified that when they went to OJs house they didnt consider him a suspect they were worried about his safety. EVERYONE knows when a woman dies her husband or ex husband is immediatly a suspect.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. You're wrong

Acquittal means being found "not guilty." Nobody is ever found "innocent" in criminal trials. That's the point of "reasonable doubt" being the standard. The defendant doesn't have to prove innocence, so there is no verdict of "innocent." Basic fucking law, my friend.

[Bombtrack]

15. No, he really didn't

Al Sharpton is just living up to the stereotype he has that clouds any worthwhile action he does do with this mission to complain about where Michael Richards attempted to apoligize. There is nothing suggesting he isn't just complaining for the sake of complaining, or that had Michael Richards gone to a "black venue" that he wouldn't have complained about that too.

Anywhere Richards went would have been picked up by everyone else no matter what.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. And there's no reason not to think the opposite...

Or something...

:crazy:

[beaconess]

28. How did an Al Sharpton v. Tucker Carlson thread turn into a rehash of the OJ trial?

[Ninja Jordan]

32. You know Tucker has Sharpton on his show in order to make Dems look bad?

You know this right?

[ClassWarrior]

33. Thank you for your concern.

NGU.