• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

O.J. Tossed from Restaurant (MERGED)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
WoodyWorshiper;836576; said:
Dude, nice work but i'm sure our "slurpy-server" is long gone by now. Your synopsis was WAY too detailed for Tibor to comprehend. It's "stool sample" time and I'm sure our friend is busy doing what he does best.
Click to expand...
i agree that my response likely went right over his head. regardless, i'd still like for tibor to cite the portion of the constitution that discusses presumption of innocence. after all, he did imply that the constitution isn't that hard to understand. :roll1:
 
Upvote 0
OSU_Buckguy;836578; said:
i agree that my response likely went right over his head. regardless, i'd still like for tibor to cite the portion of the constitution that discusses presumption of innocence. after all, he did imply that the constitution isn't that hard to understand. :roll1:
Click to expand...

Well, we can disregard to some extent the not guilty verdict. He was found by a jury to have committed the murders under the civil standard in an entirely different trial. A court has found him liable for their murders. Under an entirely different standard (more likely than not verus beyond a reasonable doubt), one that is less strict, he was found to have done it. So while he is indeed innocent under criminal statutes, that does not mean that he "did not do it".

It just means that he does not have to go to prison for it.

Under civil law he has been found to have intentionally murdered his wife and the poor dude she was with. Case over, appeal done.
 
Upvote 0
OSU_Buckguy;836566; said:
no, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. by the way, please cite the amendment that addresses presumption of innocence.
Click to expand...

OSU_Buckguy;836578; said:
i agree that my response likely went right over his head. regardless, i'd still like for tibor to cite the portion of the constitution that discusses presumption of innocence. after all, he did imply that the constitution isn't that hard to understand. :roll1:
Click to expand...

I guess we might have to cut a little slack. Laws of our Nation probably got to be a little much for our pal to understand when he was studying for the test for his "citizenship." Peace.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;836588; said:
So while he is indeed innocent under criminal statutes, that does not mean that he "did not do it". It just means that he does not have to go to prison for it.
Click to expand...
thanks for, uhh, rehashing one of my previous messages. by the way, your reply has nothing to do with what you quote. :roll1:
Under civil law he has been found to have intentionally murdered his wife and the poor dude she was with. Case over, appeal done.
Click to expand...
yes, some of us know that. did you read #25?
 
Upvote 0
Tibs =

pwned-facekick.jpg
 
Upvote 0
OSU_Buckguy;836593; said:
thanks for, uhh, rehashing one of my previous messages. by the way, your reply has nothing to do with what you quote. :roll1:
Click to expand...
So you're saying it's as non-helpful as your Massachusetts law quote?

yes, some of us know that. did you read #25?
Click to expand...

Sorry. The aluminum foil cap was malfunctioning, and so I was unable to read your thoughts. Yepper. Read #25. Substitute "proven" for "presumed" and he'd have it.
 
Upvote 0
OSU_Buckguy;836572; said:
:slappy:

by the way, do we have a "dumbass" award?

do you honestly think that if a trial finds a defendant not guilty, it then means that the defendant is found innocent? .
Click to expand...

A trial is not used to determine innocence. Only guilt. Because we are all innocent until proven to be guilty.

By definition, OJ is innocent.

and yes, it's not in the Constitution. My bad. The only thing that is this:

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law ..."
 
Upvote 0
WoodyWorshiper;836576; said:
Dude, nice work but i'm sure our "slurpy-server" is long gone by now. Your synopsis was WAY too detailed for Tibor to comprehend. It's "stool sample" time and I'm sure our friend is busy doing what he does best.
Click to expand...

If by stool sample, you mean changing diapers you were correct. :roll1:
 
Upvote 0
tibor75;836828; said:
By definition, OJ is innocent.
Click to expand...
again, being found not guilty is not the same as being innocent. there is a difference.

anway, let's talk about that "innocent until proven guilty" that the constitution discusses. would you please cite this part of the constitution that you don't think is so hard to understand?
 
Upvote 0
OSU_Buckguy;836835; said:
again, being found not guilty is not the same as being innocent. there is a difference.

anway, let's talk about that "innocent until proven guilty" that the constitution discusses. would you please cite this part of the constitution that you don't think is so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

I agree.. The court's job is not to find somebody 'innocent.' Only to determine guilt.
 
Upvote 0
OSU_Buckguy;836835; said:
again, being found not guilty is not the same as being innocent. there is a difference.
Click to expand...

Also, being found 'guilty' is not the same as actually being guilty, as shown by numerous overturned convictions. :wink2:
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top