Why is a murderer on the WOF?

[Reed83HOF]

3 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

Would be curious what a poll here would show. I'm all for taking it down. Even if you cling to the notion that he didn't do it, you can't avoid the reality that he was convicted in the subsequent wrongful death civil case, is a further convicted felon on other charges (Las Vegas) even after all that, and has generally speaking done everything in his power to be a terrible ambassador for what it should mean to be up on that Wall in the 1st place. I get the argument for bifurcating a player's football prowess from personal life, but there have to be exceptions for extreme egregiousness, and this should be a no-brainer accordingly.  

Polls have been done...everything has

 

[K-9]

6 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Forgetting of course that he was found not guilty, like it or not.

He was found guilty in the civil trial. 

 

I understand the difference and the ramifications, so we don’t need to go down that road. I’m just pointing out that his conviction in civil court is a matter of record, that’s all.

[Seasons1992]

18 minutes ago, Steve O said:

However, if someone were to break in and remove it, it would not go back up.

 

I'm not sure he's a good-enough cat burglar to do that.............

 

[K-9]

8 minutes ago, foreboding said:

I stated the reasons, and if you think stats are more important than a double homicide, we are not in the same realm of understanding. Is the wall about stats? I think it is whatever the owners make it to be. Good people who rep the city and team. OJ was no hero to our city, he hated it here and we won nothing with him. Big deal, he held the rushing record.

 

HOF, no, but I get it if he was. HOF is a criteria based qualification. Our wall is whatever we want it to be. What our owners want it to be about. Even if in the past is was about stats, how about we also make it about people who love and represent the team well?

This is an absurd attribution to my position on the matter. Simply asinine. We are done discussing anything regarding this matter. 

[Gugny]

I wouldn't care if he invented football, was a 25 time league MVP and helped the Bills win 19 Super Bowls .... any celebration of him is in poor taste.  There's more to life than football.

[HOUSE]

You actually watched OJ play in Buffalo? Man are you old...

 

 

..

Edited August 5, 2019 by HOUSE

[foreboding]

9 minutes ago, K-9 said:

This is an absurd attribution to my position on the matter. Simply asinine. We are done discussing anything regarding this matter. 

You argument in favor is about stats. Field performance, I am saying that the Wall should be more. Please, what about that is asinine? 

Sorry you got your feelings hurt, not my intention. But come on man, defending this POS is silly--wake up.

Edited August 5, 2019 by foreboding

[K-9]

21 minutes ago, Jobot said:

I didn't realize he was still on the wall.  Just do the right thing and take it down.  It's actually embarrassing that this hasn't happened yet.

 

Yes, remove him from the HOF as well.  Who gives a damn how great someone is at a sport when they commit such a horrific act.  I would have zero sympathy for him.

I respect your position entirely. Fully understandable. 

[BullBuchanan]

OJ's on the wall, because he's arguably the greatest Buffalo Bill of all time. To this day his guilt has never been proven, so how are you going to take him off now without new evidence? I mean, it's a really bad look, but what can you do and where do you draw the line? The requirements for being found "liable" in a civil case are extremely less rigorous than being found "guilty" in a criminal trial. If you were going to do it 25 years ago, you could make a case for it, but how and why now?

"According to The Wall Street Journal, in a criminal trial, the jury must unanimously find the defendant guilty"beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to convict. However, the same burden of proof does not exist in civil cases, which merely require what's referred to as a "preponderance of evidence." According to Cornell University Law School, that "preponderance of evidence" means that at least "50 percent of the evidence points to something," rather than requiring a unanimous decision." 

https://www.bustle.com/articles/152048-what-does-oj-simpsons-civil-trial-verdict-mean-liable-does-not-mean-guilty

[Big Gun]

Honestly, I could care less if his name is on the WOF or not. It's not going to change history of what he did so in the end I don't give a rats if his name is up there or not.

[K-9]

Just now, foreboding said:

You argument in favor is about stats. Please, that is asine. Wake up.

That’s bullcrap. My “argument” is simply why he was enshrined, and why he hasn’t been removed from either the Wall of Fame or Hall of Fame. I personally don’t give a crap if he’s on there or not. 

 

Don’t put words in my mouth by purposely misrepresenting my position on a matter you’re obviously heated about. 

 

Perhaps you should wake the F up instead. 

[foreboding]

6 minutes ago, K-9 said:

That’s bullcrap. My “argument” is simply why he was enshrined, and why he hasn’t been removed from either the Wall of Fame or Hall of Fame. I personally don’t give a crap if he’s on there or not. 

 

Don’t put words in my mouth by purposely misrepresenting my position on a matter you’re obviously heated about. 

 

Perhaps you should wake the F up instead. 

Your argument in favor of leaving him there, is that a HOF career is more important than the weight of a double murder. What is misrepresented here? The trial? C'mon it was a farce and the world knows this.

PS: You are right, we will never agree so let's not snipe. You want it left alone- I got it.

Edited August 5, 2019 by foreboding
Clarify

[NoHuddleKelly12]

11 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

OJ's on the wall, because he's arguably the greatest Buffalo Bill of all time. To this day his guilt has never been proven, so how are you going to take him off now without new evidence? I mean, it's a really bad look, but what can you do and where do you draw the line? The requirements for being found "liable" in a civil case are extremely less rigorous than being found "guilty" in a criminal trial. If you were going to do it 25 years ago, you could make a case for it, but how and why now?

"According to The Wall Street Journal, in a criminal trial, the jury must unanimously find the defendant guilty"beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to convict. However, the same burden of proof does not exist in civil cases, which merely require what's referred to as a "preponderance of evidence." According to Cornell University Law School, that "preponderance of evidence" means that at least "50 percent of the evidence points to something," rather than requiring a unanimous decision." 

https://www.bustle.com/articles/152048-what-does-oj-simpsons-civil-trial-verdict-mean-liable-does-not-mean-guilty

It actually still needs to be greater than 50%, as the party carrying the burden of proof (plaintiff) would still lose all things being "equal" with the evidence for or against. Also, the operative facts were actually developed to a higher degree in the civil matter than the botched criminal prosecution before it--fascinating to go through the depositions taken in the civil case (depositions are a civil discovery tool not available prior to a criminal trial)--he basically lays the case bare himself, and guaranteed he would be found liable:

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/oj-simpson-tapes-shocking-things-rarely-deposition-tapes/story?id=33924968

Edited August 5, 2019 by NoHuddleKelly12

[K-9]

1 minute ago, foreboding said:

So your argument in favor of leaving him there, is that a HOF career is more important than the weight of a double murder. I see, thanks for clarifying.

Wrong. I’m not arguing one way or the other in favor of leaving him there or not. 

 

You asked why is he still up there in your op.

 

I merely offered an explanation as to why. 

 

And for you to twist that into my favoring his HOF career over the weight of a double murder is as specious and disingenuous as it gets. It’s insulting. You are incapable of honest give and take. Go F yourself.

[macaroni]

34 minutes ago, foreboding said:

Why should this be locked? The forum is called STADIUM WALL ...and this is a legit issue. I also think this forum is a place where it is possible the management of the team could see how the fans really feel about him being on the wall. Please, pipe in and don't lock this.

 

It should be locked because the trial happened 25 years ago. If you had a problem then was the time you should have voiced it.

It should be locked because he was found not guilty, if you have personal information that could overturn that verdict, you should have presented it at trial.

 

So simply put;

It should be locked because your viewpoint is neither timely or factual and is clearly designed to troll.

[Just Joshin']

33 minutes ago, Jobot said:

I didn't realize he was still on the wall.  Just do the right thing and take it down.  It's actually embarrassing that this hasn't happened yet.

 

Yes, remove him from the HOF as well.  Who gives a damn how great someone is at a sport when they commit such a horrific act.  I would have zero sympathy for him.

I am curious - how is this possible that you did not know?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Masterwork in trolling.

 

[BullBuchanan]

Not sure if this site is accurate, but looks like OJ was the very first inductee in 1980 and stood alone until 1984: http://billsfans1.tripod.com/wall_fame.html

[foreboding]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

Wrong. I’m not arguing one way or the other in favor of leaving him there or not. 

 

You asked why is he still up there in your op.

 

I merely offered an explanation as to why. 

----

Go F yourself.

I shall not F myself.

You are right though, I re-read the thread and I escalated on you because it (he) pisses me off, I apologize for that. I have friends down here who see this POS out on the course, in the bar etc--

 

You did offer an explanation, not a defense. Sorry about that.

[Matt_In_NH]

"Allegedly"