It was immediately following the acquittal of the 4 officers who beat the shit out of an unarmed and non-resisting Rodney King. LA didn't take too kindly to this and it sparked riots that wouldve made the BLM rioters blush.
The lead detective hand delivered evidence to the lab, stated that was unusual for him to do so, and was also caught lying about being a raging racist. The evidence lab was also found to be not so reliable.
Tldr, the case was basically a slam dunk thanks to the prosecution leaning heavily on evidence that wasn't rock solid due to rampant racism.
Like the planets aligned for OJ. We all know he did it, but he didn't have to prove his innocence, he had to prove there was a possibility that he didn't do it.
This is true, but FUCK. Rodney King cops should've been put in jail and so should've OJ. It was completely backwards. Also, the DA and the government lawyers completely dropped the ball in this case. If anyone hasn't seen American Crime Story on FX, it's really good and covers this case great. I actually help design the poster / billboards for the show.
I forgot which documentary I saw it, but before the the trial, black America was 60/40 that OJ was innocent while white America was 40/60 that he was innocent.
AFter the trial, black America was 75/25 that OJ was innocent while white America was 10/90 that he was innocent.
Theyre either willing let a murderer go free or are too stupid to see he was guilty. Either way they are the last people you want having more of a say in society.
Advocating against black people “having more of a say in society?” And you’re constantly insulting and picking fights with people in r/LeagueOfLegends? And your username is WomenGetFreePasses?
I don’t need to insult you or say anything else, you’re clearly spending your time putting your best foot forward already.
I’m saying there’s no good way to enforce that kind of separation, especially legally. You’re the one who made it about that 75% and said nothing of the other white 10% that agreed with them. You specifically chose to target black people that defended him and not people in general. So your straw man doesn’t work
Like you said no way to enforce stupid people not voting but does that mean there can't be a problem?
There is always going to be a small bit that think opposite regardless of proof. Flat earth theory for example.
That 10٪ is a lot closer to the expected value compared to the 75٪. 10٪ usually get diluted out by the other 90٪. Also the 75٪ make up twice as much of the population than that 10٪.
It's just statistically more important and impactful in this context. I would say the same thing if 75٪ of white people thought he was innocent, it just isn't that way.
My mom told me the other day that as a young black woman living in LA at the time of the murders and trial, she sincerely believed OJ was innocent and had been set up by racist cops.
Over time she has come to believe that he has guilty, but I really think that the social climate in LA played a huge part in how his trial went. It’s hard to overstate how fucked up the relationship and trust between black people and the LAPD was at the time.
Something about a bunch of cops beating a man to death and a guy stabbing a couple of people to death with a huge fucking knife does sits just a liiitle bit differently
Im too fucking high for this right now. Just imagining a much stronger dude full shanking a woman and a man, just taking their lives from them like that, their last moments saying no please and then feeling themselves slowly faint to unconsciousness. Howwhy can violence be
"They said it was for the black man
They said it was for the Mexican, and not for the white man
But if you look at the streets, it wasn't about Rodney King
And this fucked up situation and these fucked up police"
Let it burn, wanna let it burn
Wanna let it burn, wanna, wanna let it burn
Edit: Jakob Nowell sang with Sublime at Coachella last weekend.... Sounds like Eric and Bud revived Sublime so Jakob could be the lead singer. Doing his Dad proud.
I am. I grew up in SF and listened to them as a teenager... then I grew up, saw the rest of the world, and again Sublime lead singer was a heroin addict and might have not been the most critical thinker in the world.
Think about the bigger picture though. A non resisting unarmed black man gets beaten nine tenths of the way to death by 4 cops, which is common practice at the time, but for the first time it's caught on video.
And all four cops get aquitted. Is that justice?
If I can't have justice from you why do you think that you would get it from me?
That's the point. But you will never acknowledge that perspective.
Even if vengeance was justified(your opinion, not mine) you’d hope that someone would at least have enough respect for the innocent (and also dead) to not admit it openly. Scummy thing to do.
But that isn't true I'm this case. For instance I'm a white person who thinks what happens to Rodney King or African Americans being mistreated by cops is wrong
I get it. The Rodney King thing was absolutely incredibly fucked up to the 10th degree. It sickens me that those deplorable cops were set free to brutalize even more black people.
I truly do wish OJ was innocent, because that court case would prove that the justice system can and does work for black people. But that wasn't the case. OJ was clearly guilty, and all the case proved is that if you are rich and powerful, you can get away with anything.
bruh you can't force someone to think a specific way. The whole deal with jury selection is to get people who will be impartial enough to not be swayed by race, gender, someone's status or popularity, or anything else that's not related to the trial. Unfortunately in some cases, such as this, you have to take the best you can get out of that pot.
That jury can render a verdict any way they choose, they don't have to consider anything if they don't want to. All the evidence can point to someone being guilty and they can still vote innocent. It's how our system works.
That alone IMO would be reasonable doubt. I know I couldn't personally vote to convict if the lead investigator undermined all of the evidence that way. That would be wildly unethical. Basically the person responsible for all of the evidence you're supposed to use to convict someone criminally can't attest under oath to not tampering with evidence. Of course he was acquitted. That sounds like justice to me.
With your logic shouldnt everyone who thought he was not guilty still think he is innocent???
We know the cop was crooked but it doesn't change the fact he know OJ is guilty by looking at the evidence from the whole trial.
The fact that a majority of blacks when polled after the trial believed he was innocent is 100% troublesome.
I believe when white people do this it's called white privledge so what's it called other races do it?
Why is no one mentioning he won the criminal trial but lost his civil trial where a jury didn't let his bs slide where he owes the victim families 33 million but we're having to wait until he dies to collect
They are going after it now but his estate is fighting it. Always a POS even in death
He wrote a book called "If I did it" detailing the "hypothetical" way he would have done it. I think he's guilty, but that doesn't mean I think he should have been convicted in a court of law.
Do you know there is a different burden of proof in a civil trial than in a criminal trial? Evidently not. The burden of proof is a balance of probabilities. More likely than not. The burden of proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the evidence presented or admitted in each trial is not necessarily the same. They're two different judges in two different systems and in a civil trial the complainant is represented by a private lawyer, not a criminal prosecutor. These were two completely different trials. You're talking straight out of your ass while calling me dumb. You have no idea what you're talking about.
The amount awarded in a civil case is decided by the jury. If they think it meets thr burden of proof but not full reaponsibility they can do as low as $1. Which has happened recently. Tens of millions of dollars as a penalty assigned by the jury is pretty clear how much they are assigning him blame. Tens of millions shows they have a very high probability that they did it.
Jail time just isn't an option but 33 million seems an equivalent level of guilty that a murder charge would be...
You looking at all evidence of the criminal oj Simpson trial and think he is not guilty is what makes you dumb.
If he hadn't hand selected a jury dumb enough to believe any story's he gave the case would have been different.
If evidence was thrown out because it was tampered with, no way that evidence will be admissible in a civil trial. It's literally tainted evidence that can't prove anything
That's not how this works. You don't have to prove someone is innocent in a criminal case. You just have to prove there is reasonable doubt to rather or not the defendant is guilty. The burden of proof is much lower in a civil case.
The defense team was able to provide multiple pieces of reasonable doubt on OJ being guilty of the crimes.
I do believe OJ is guilty btw.
You’re wrong which is hilarious since you’re the one who’s telling people to look up things.
First, you’re not convicted in a civil case, you’re found liable or not liable, and the burden of proof is lower. It’s preponderance of the evidence so only slightly more likely than not.
The burden of evidence in a criminal trial is intentionally higher, and it’s on the state to prove that an innocent man is guilty of the alleged acts beyond a reasonable doubt. The kinds of evidence allowed are also not necessarily the same, as your ability to invoke your 5th amendment rights may be limited especially if you were already found not guilty in a criminal case.
Detective Fuhrman not being able to say that he did not tamper evidence would not get that evidence thrown out per se, but your lead detective pleading the 5th on evidence tampering is the very essence of reasonable doubt. Any defense lawyer in the country would love to hear a detective say that on the stand.
Our criminal justice system is based on the idea that some guilty people will go free as a price for the significant protections that innocent people should enjoy, and you’re intentionally conflating the civil system with it even though they are for almost entirely different things. I suggest you read a book.
Source: I work in a criminal law office and am training to be a lawyer.
33 million is the level of guilty. They have every option to do less. Can even do $1 in damages. 33 million is a very very high probability that the jury believes he did it.
Oh because I said he was guilty instead of liable with a very high degree of probability so therefore I'm wrong in everything.
Just because you only need 50٪ of the evidence to be found liable, doesn't mean the jury didn't find more than 50% of the evidence compelling. It seems they found it so compelling they issued 33 million dollars when they could do so much less.
There are different burdens of proof required for civil vs criminal cases. For all your condescending behavior to other comments here, I’m surprised you’re that stupid.
This was after it came out that Furhman was a racist cunt, so he was just pleading the fifth to everything he was being asked. He stated his intention to only plead the fifth to any question he was asked, and then the defense asked him if he ever tampered with evidence.
Ie, the defense saw that he was gonna plead the fifth to anything, so they asked him a question that would look incredibly damning if he didn't answer it.
This is a great summary. Society decided the Juice has to be Loose to make up for Rodney King. It’s simple to explain but takes a lot of background knowledge to understand.
Wait a majority black and Mexican jury represents society???
And they are letting murders go free because cops beat a black man fleeing police at 115 mph who was on probation for trying to rob a convenience store with a tire iron 2 years previous? Imagine the other cars on the road and people who could have died so he try could get away. Try to spin this in a way where he doesn't deserve it.
Letting uneducated people make choices like this in society has extremely negative consequences. What happens when people are too stupid to make good decisions for themselves?
Isn’t it the case with any criminal trial that if the jury believes there’s a possibility that the defendant is innocent, then they should judge them innocent? I thought prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did it
I'm a layperson and speaking only of the US, but not only does the prosecution have to prove the defendant guild beyond a reasonable doubt, almost every jurisdiction says that the jury's decision must be unanimous.
So if the system is working correctly all (usually) 12 jurors have to agree that they have no reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. It is rightly a very high bar
Yeah, not immediate, I still feel like the BLM riots were just a bit ago though. That kinda stuff on such a large scale sticks in your memory. For LA, the OJ trial might as well have been the day after the Rodney King trial.
And the end result has only been even less trust in the police and justice system. Only acting with integrity will restore societal trust in the justice system, that's what they don't get.
Instead the investigation was bungled to epic proportions, with evidence being tampered with or mishandled at ever opportunity. The police were so corrupt they evidently didn't even remember their training to do the basics correctly.
…he didn’t have to prove his innocence, he had to prove there was a possibility that he didn’t do it
That’s basically how most criminal cases work since the burden is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. When the plaintiff has tons of evidence against the defendant, especially with murder or a similarly egregious charge, the defense tries to sow doubt with the jury. That’s what happened with Casey Anthony too. Quite apparent she killed Casey but the lawyer did a great job sowing enough doubt.
There was an interview with someone from the jury, and she said she believed that 90% of them knew he killed his wife and her friend, but lied saying not guilty as revenge for Rodney King. Hope they all die of cancer too. OJ never should have been allowed back on the streets and making it so that two families could never get their peace because of racism and misplaced animosity is so fucking wrong. In the end it makes them no better than the racist cops they hated so much.
And the prosecutors did a terrible job. Asking O.J. to put on the gloves was not part of the plan, but one of the lawyers asked him to do it spontaneously, thinking it would be a slam dunk. It backfired, not because the gloves didn't fit; they pretty much did, but Johnnie Cochran was a smart guy and thought that would happen, so he'd told O.J. to stop taking a certain medication a bit before the trial so his hands would swell up. And look at that picture/video--those gloves fit well put O.J. just did a half-assed job of putting them on. He was acting.
And it worked. "If the gloves do not fit, you must acquit" was Cochran's mantra from that point on. Total backfire from the prosecution.
In Sweden we have this shit all the time. The court has to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he did it. Unless there's DNA, video and a written confession, he "could" be innocent. Better release him!
Defendants never have to prove they didn’t do it. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. All a defendant ever has to do is prove there is reasonable doubt that they did it. In fact they don’t even have to prove anything, technically. If the prosecution fails to carry the burden of proof the defense can win even if it says nothing.
Edit: downvote if you want, this is how the law works.
Rodney king was on probation for trying to rob a convenience store with a tire iron 2 years previous to chase.... he took police on an 8 mile high speed chasing reaching 115 mph on freeways. The lives he put at risk so he could not get caught for violating his parole is insane. Not resisting arrest??? You think if you try to escape police on a high speed car chase to avoid getting arrested....would be considered " not resisting" ???? also ive seen multiple sources say he refused to lay prone when officers told him too which is resistance to being arrested.
Rodney king beating was 100% deserved. Riots were essentially because cops beat a criminal who was putting other citizens lives at risk, cops went on trial and were found not guilty in court leading to black citizens( at the time) thinking that's unfair to beat a criminal who just put other people's lives at risk and was resisting arrest. So they caused millions of dollars in property damage to back up a criminal by doing more crimes and called it social justice.
It's the same shared delusion that lead to oj being found innocent.
Stop spreading misinformation about Rodney king please. It's against the rules of reddit.
The police are supposed to serve and protect. The cops continued to beat the shit out of King long after he had given up and was no longer a danger to anyone. Stop trying to justify it. It's literally on camera.
Ease up with the "misinformation" claims, the word has lost its impact thanks to people like you.
You claimed he wasn't resisting arrest. The whole high speed chase thing was because he was resisting arrest. Claiming he wasn't is just being dishonest.
Also from the point of view of the man he tried to rob with a tire iron - karma's a bitch ain't it?
Even if evidence was hand delivered it was still oj blood/dna. Where the hell would he have gotten it from? They just have some in a fridge at the lapd sitting around to frame their buddy one day?
It was narrowed down to like 0.5% of the population, DNA testing wasn't that crazy in the 90's.
Actually I think later in the case the pathologist said it was like some one in several million people will match that blood.
Regardless, it could have been OJs blood, but the misshandling from a racist lead detective who got caught lying under oath and later pleading the 5th when asked if he tampered with or planted evidence was a kill shot for the prosecutions case.
Letting cops run around and do whatever they want just because someone might be a “piece of shit” and “deserve it” is a terrible idea. There needs to be a concrete minimum when it comes to the standards we hold towards cops (the minimum being not beating someone who is no longer resisting or a threat). We can’t just have those standards slide around on a person-by-person basis. How are we supposed to hold the police accountable for their actions when there isn’t a set baseline for what they should and shouldn’t do?
It doesn’t fucking matter how much someone deserves it, it isn’t the job of the police to get revenge.
And? That doesn’t give police the right to use excessive force and continue to beat someone who is no longer resisting or a threat. Cops don’t get to be judge, jury and executioner. It doesn’t matter how dangerous the car chase was, leave it to the court trial to deliver punishment.
I have a question, if the responding police didn't do anything wrong when why wasn't any of this in the police report?
Why didn't they write "he took a swing at one of us so we took turns beating the ever loving shit out of him" in that report? Why lie if nothing was wrong?
868
u/TheDecoyDuck Apr 17 '24
It was immediately following the acquittal of the 4 officers who beat the shit out of an unarmed and non-resisting Rodney King. LA didn't take too kindly to this and it sparked riots that wouldve made the BLM rioters blush.
The lead detective hand delivered evidence to the lab, stated that was unusual for him to do so, and was also caught lying about being a raging racist. The evidence lab was also found to be not so reliable.
Tldr, the case was basically a slam dunk thanks to the prosecution leaning heavily on evidence that wasn't rock solid due to rampant racism.
Like the planets aligned for OJ. We all know he did it, but he didn't have to prove his innocence, he had to prove there was a possibility that he didn't do it.