OJ Simpson: "Back in the Saddle Again..."

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gvf

Moderator
So, think the charges are 1) Due to his actions or due to his past?
2) Will result in time in prison?


Seems to me the DA is finding every charge that was ever existed on this. That's my reaction. Along with this one: fine with me! Hate to say that as I believe the law is to be applied "blindfolded", not sure that it is in his case but I can't separate what I believe of his past. My emotions get in the way.

One thing's for sure: this is a guy that goes out of his way to step in it, that's for sure. Unbelievable.
 
I DON'T CARE, honestly.

The news has once more become useless.

I turn on the news, and it's "some soldiers got killed but FIRST MORE OJ! OJ! OJ! Experts talking about OJ! Opinion about OJ! Look, old stock footage of a chase over a decade ago! Old trial footage! Loooooook! OJ!!!!!!"

*TV out window...*
 
I was watching the game Monday night and one of the commentators quoted another commentator who said something like,

"Wow, both the Cowboys and Redskins are doing well, and O.J.'s in prison... it must be the 90's again!"

Relevance to L&P?
 
Relevance to L&P?

probably not much, 'cept as how does the Law stay blind in such circumstances.
But I'm not pushing the topic, I could say goodbye to OJ. Just interesting how the Law can possibly stay blind sometimes with some people's historical baggage. Maybe it can't.
 
Here is WAs Rule of Life 45(B)(c)(3)...

The use, by any person, of the abbreviation "OJ", on more than one occasion, unless in conjuction with a breakfast menu or in a Courtroom itself, is prima facie evidence that that person actually buys and reads the National Enquirer.


WildnextAlaska TM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top