SACTOBILLSFAN Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I think so, but due to Double Jeopardy, he could never be charged again. 837589[/snapback] Actually thats not true if i remember correctly. They couldn't try him on the murder charge but they would definitely go after him for violating their civil rights. One of which is the right to life, and can carry a heavy jail term if he's convicted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I'm too young to remember OJ from when he was on the Bills. What was he like back then? What did the city think of him? Any stories from his playing days that show a bit of the wacko side he's got now? 837762[/snapback] Welll.. I knew him a bit back then. He F'd every chick he could even when married. He actually had a decent side to him---would visit the kids at Roswell when no one was looking--bring them footballs etc. Problem with him--was that everyone kissed his ass since his college days--and he could get most of the women he wanted anytime etc etc.So he was never prepared for any humilty--for anything to go against him.He freaked cuz he couldnt control his wife in california and get away with pulling the same s he always got away with. He turned into a control freak sociopath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Actually thats not true if i remember correctly. They couldn't try him on the murder charge but they would definitely go after him for violating their civil rights. One of which is the right to life, and can carry a heavy jail term if he's convicted 839347[/snapback] Ya don't say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 He admits it and the Feds could pop him for a Civil Rights violation. New trial for a different crime under a different law is not double jeopardy. They might even make it a hate crime. 839261[/snapback] Not even a small chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5THXIT Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 If it is double jeopardy wont he have to phrase his book in the form of a question? 837601[/snapback] java script:emoticon('') smiliejava script:emoticon('') smiliejava script:emoticon('') smilie Best thread I've read in a while Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Actually thats not true if i remember correctly. They couldn't try him on the murder charge but they would definitely go after him for violating their civil rights. One of which is the right to life, and can carry a heavy jail term if he's convicted 839347[/snapback] I have never heard of a jail sentence for Civil Cases ... besides, OJ was already tried in Civil Court .. I believe he owes about 30 million to the Goldmans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I think OJ was framed... by Tom Donahoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I have never heard of a jail sentence for Civil Cases ... besides, OJ was already tried in Civil Court .. I believe he owes about 30 million to the Goldmans. 839642[/snapback] This might be the funniest (albeit, unintentionally) post I've ever ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 This might be the funniest (albeit, unintentionally) post I've ever ready. 839671[/snapback] im pretty much sleeptyping but i still fail tos see what is funny about that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generaLee83 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I have never heard of a jail sentence for Civil Cases ... besides, OJ was already tried in Civil Court .. I believe he owes about 30 million to the Goldmans. 839642[/snapback] Thank you Daq, as a cop I've testified in numerous civil trials, and not one person has ever gone to jail after being found against etc. It's usually money or restitution in some form or manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 im pretty much sleeptyping but i still fail tos see what is funny about that 839676[/snapback] Civil rights would be a federal court issue not a civil court issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Civil rights would be a federal court issue not a civil court issue. 839896[/snapback] You can sue someone in civil court if you believe that violated your civil rights ... A civil court is primarily for monetary restitution. You (the defendant) has made the plantiff damaged by what you did to him or a family member of his (deceased) and he is suing you for monetary damages, so that he can become "whole" again. I believe OJ was tried in civil court on a "right to life" charge and was found guilty ... forced to pay 30 some million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I think OJ was framed...by Tom Donahoe 839663[/snapback] Oh, OJ was definitely framed. Which is what was so embarrassing: how incompetent is the LAPD for failing to frame a guilty man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 You can sue someone in civil court if you believe that violated your civil rights ... A civil court is primarily for monetary restitution. You (the defendant) has made the plantiff damaged by what you did to him or a family member of his (deceased) and he is suing you for monetary damages, so that he can become "whole" again. I believe OJ was tried in civil court on a "right to life" charge and was found guilty ... forced to pay 30 some million. 839907[/snapback] A "wrongful death" suit. Not a "right to life" charge. Basically, he was found personally responsible for the deaths in the civil suit, even though he wasn't criminally responsible according to the criminal case. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense...but hey, welcome to the US legal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 A "wrongful death" suit. Not a "right to life" charge. Basically, he was found personally responsible for the deaths in the civil suit, even though he wasn't criminally responsible according to the criminal case. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense...but hey, welcome to the US legal system. 839912[/snapback] Ah. Mix up of words. Its been a while. Although to be honest, I have never heard of a right to life charge going against a ... ah , nevermind its not worth it. None-the-less. Its actually really simple. Criminal case you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt ... civil its just a preponderence of the evidence. Basically you need 3 less jurors to side with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 You can sue someone in civil court if you believe that violated your civil rights ... A civil court is primarily for monetary restitution. You (the defendant) has made the plantiff damaged by what you did to him or a family member of his (deceased) and he is suing you for monetary damages, so that he can become "whole" again. I believe OJ was tried in civil court on a "right to life" charge and was found guilty ... forced to pay 30 some million. 839907[/snapback] You can sue someone in civil court for pretty much anything but this has nothing to do with what the poster you replied to was saying. The poster you replied to said they could attempt to charge him for something else, like violating their civil rights to which you replied (paraphrasing), "they already tried him in a civil court and you can't go to jail for being convicted in a civil court." While this is true it has nothing to do with what was posted. You can most certainly go to jail if convicted in FEDERAL court of violating someone's civil rights. A Federal civil rights case has absolutely nothing to do with civil court. Of course there are other problems with trying to try him in a federal court for violating his victims civil rigthts but that's another issue altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 You can sue someone in civil court for pretty much anything but this has nothing to do with what the poster you replied to was saying. The poster you replied to said they could attempt to charge him for something else, like violating their civil rights to which you replied (paraphrasing), "they already tried him in a civil court and you can't go to jail for being convicted in a civil court." While this is true it has nothing to do with what was posted. You can most certainly go to jail if convicted in FEDERAL court of violating someone's civil rights. A Federal civil rights case has absolutely nothing to do with civil court. Of course there are other problems with trying to try him in a federal court for violating his victims civil rigthts but that's another issue altogether. 839928[/snapback] This whole time I was under the assumption that he said they should try him for violating his civil rights in a civil court Thats just my fault for not reading correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Well, I think this article: http://www.slate.com/id/2153863/ does a good job of explaining any legal problems OJ could now face in light of all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Well, I think this article: http://www.slate.com/id/2153863/ does a good job of explaining any legal problems OJ could now face in light of all this. 840192[/snapback] He wont be admitting he did it in the book or the interview. Its all hypothetical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 He wont be admitting he did it in the book or the interview. Its all hypothetical. 840215[/snapback] I am not sure how this relates to what I posted, but as that article at least alludes to, the fact that he calls this all hypothetical is fairly irrelevant for a number of reasons: the accuracy of his description and consistency with any non-public information about the murder scene, inferences that a jury can make about what OJ is actually saying despite language to the contrary, and how this lines up with all the other terribly incriminating evidence we already know about. What keeps OJ from being prosecuted for anything having to do with the murders again exist with or without this near-confession. Double-jeopardy stands in the way of another murder trial and alternative laws on the basis of which there could be federal prosecution (i.e. civil rights charges) are difficult to apply to the facts of the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts