Why is a murderer on the WOF?

[foreboding]

2 minutes ago, macaroni said:

 

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.

How is a troll, is the name still there? Did we have an internet back then? Does each year make it any less shameful or more?

 

Look at this lovely piece:

 

https://innerloopblog.com/2019/05/04/oj-simpson-to-be-removed-from-bills-wall-of-fame-replaced-with-arthur-shawcross/

[Tisker A Tasker]

2 minutes ago, mattynh said:

"Allegedly"

 

[foreboding]

2 minutes ago, Tisker A Tasker said:

 

hahaha - never saw that.

[Tisker A Tasker]

1 minute ago, foreboding said:

hahaha - never saw that.

 Its pretty new - apparently someone spotted this guy wearing it at training camp last week.

[Dablitzkrieg]

50 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Because what he did on the field preceded his criminal life by over two decade and had nothing to do with those later events. Nothing. At. All.

 

Should he be removed from the HOF as well?

yes

[foreboding]

1 minute ago, Tisker A Tasker said:

 Its pretty new - apparently someone spotted this guy wearing it at training camp last week.

Bet the marketing dept loves seeing that bad boy on the sideline.

[Royale with Cheese]

48 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.

 

Even though I firmly believe he did do it....he was found not guilty.  I would think a guilty conviction would be the only thing that would un-enshrine him.

[Rocket94]

There have already been several threads covering the subject OJ Simpson. He is on the wall for his play long ago in another life.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Rocket94

[NoHuddleKelly12]

6 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Even though I firmly believe he did do it....he was found not guilty.  I would think a guilty conviction would be the only thing that would un-enshrine him.

Wonder if the Pegulas would settle/make an exception for a finding of wrongful death liability? It's not like the famous criminal verdict was the end of the story, legally speaking.  

[Bill from NYC]

If I owned the Buffalo Bills, he would be taken down. That said, a poster raised the point about the not guilty verdict and it is a good one.

 

As for jail terms on civil rights cases, my thing is this:

A jury found OJ to be not guilty. I don't believe in double jeopardy and do not think that he should have done time. I also apply this theory to the cops in the Rodney King case.

All of the above appeared to me to be guilty mind you. I just have an issue with being found not guilty by a jury and still doing time.

 

This is jmo, and I completely expect others to disagree. I am NOT trying to sway anyone, and I respect your opposing views. The is simply an opinion.

[aristocrat]

Last I checked he was found not guilty and that matters in this country 

[Dopey]

53 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

Blame the jury that acquitted him.  

but we have the best judicial system in the world, don't we?

[Gugny]

6 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

If I owned the Buffalo Bills, he would be taken down. That said, a poster raised the point about the not guilty verdict and it is a good one.

 

As for jail terms on civil rights cases, my thing is this:

A jury found OJ to be not guilty. I don't believe in double jeopardy and do not think that he should have done time. I also apply this theory to the cops in the Rodney King case.

All of the above appeared to me to be guilty mind you. I just have an issue with being found not guilty by a jury and still doing time.

 

This is jmo, and I completely expect others to disagree. I am NOT trying to sway anyone, and I respect your opposing views. The is simply an opinion.

 

He did time for burglary, not for when he brutally murdered two innocent people.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

So I’m hearing they should cut it from the new stadium wall of fame.

 

Fine by me. 

[MarkAF43]

55 minutes ago, foreboding said:

No one in the whole world thinks he was innocent. Because he "got away with it" doesn't mean he has to get away with it on the WOF.

 

 

You know everyone? 12 jurors collectively believed he was innocent. 

[Mat68]

Wasnt convicted.  He was the best player in franchise history.

[TuelTime]

Take it down to make room for Chris Kelsay! Break out the pitchforks and Zubaz!

[MarkAF43]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

Because what he did on the field preceded his criminal life by over two decade and had nothing to do with those later events. Nothing. At. All.

 

Should he be removed from the HOF as well?

 

42 minutes ago, foreboding said:

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.

 

 

He asked questions.  he didn't state an argument one way or another.  Your response was unnecessary and incorrect based on his initial response.

[billsfan1959]

2 minutes ago, MarkAF43 said:

 

 

You know everyone? 12 jurors collectively believed he was innocent. 

A jury of twelve acquitted him. It doesn't mean they thought he was innocent. Those are two separate issues - particularly with that trial.

[foreboding]

3 minutes ago, MarkAF43 said:

 

 

 

He asked questions.  he didn't state an argument one way or another.  Your response was unnecessary and incorrect based on his initial response.

I agree, see my later response.

[MarkAF43]

1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:

A jury of twelve acquitted him. It doesn't mean they thought he was innocent. Those are two separate issues - particularly with that trial.

 

Fair enough, I get the point, my wording was awfully poor.  thank you for pointing that out, I agree with your statement.

 

 

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

maude, grab my alka seltzer...I can't believe I ate the whole thing.

[MarkAF43]

1 minute ago, foreboding said:

I agree, see my later response.

 

 

I did, my bad.  I got wrapped up in replying before I read to the end.

 

I understand your position, but as others have stated I wouldn't expect action to be taken unless some new evidence confirming guilt comes to light.

 

 

 

[4_kidd_4]

That time he just casually showed up at a game. Ha...just a normal dude taking in an afternoon of football, what’s everyone looking at??!?

[RiotAct]

because of his accomplishments with the Buffalo Bills as a running back.

[GunnerBill]

You either believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty or you don't. 

 

There are miscarriges of justice all the time (most of them far less high profile than OJ). The quality of your legal representation in court is a significant contributory factor in your likelihood to be convicted or acquitted. OJ almost certainly did it. But the court said not guilty. And that is that. 

[foreboding]

1 minute ago, RiotAct said:

because of his accomplishments with the Buffalo Bills as a running back.

Of course. But do you think that egregious personal conduct should or could affect that standing? Especially something as horrific as murdering your kids mom? I mean we are talking about a monument to players on the wall of the stadium. Not some plaque in a museum.

[Guest K-GunJimKelly12]

I'm all for the removal.

[AllenLongBall]

When they build a new stadium I doubt his name will go back up.

[foreboding]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

You either believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty or you don't. 

 

There are miscarriges of justice all the time (most of them far less high profile than OJ). The quality of your legal representation in court is a significant contributory factor in your likelihood to be convicted or acquitted. OJ almost certainly did it. But the court said not guilty. And that is that. 

No, not really. Just because the court clearly got it wrong because of...well you have seen the numerous documentaries. Does that mean that an independent owner, not bound by a court decision, should also get it wrong?

[Guest K-GunJimKelly12]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

You either believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty or you don't. 

 

There are miscarriges of justice all the time (most of them far less high profile than OJ). The quality of your legal representation in court is a significant contributory factor in your likelihood to be convicted or acquitted. OJ almost certainly did it. But the court said not guilty. And that is that. 

That is for the courts.  The public and the Pegula's/Bills have absolutely no obligation to adhere to innocent until proven guilty.  

[Gugny]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

You either believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty or you don't. 

 

There are miscarriges of justice all the time (most of them far less high profile than OJ). The quality of your legal representation in court is a significant contributory factor in your likelihood to be convicted or acquitted. OJ almost certainly did it. But the court said not guilty. And that is that. 

 

That really isn't that when another jury found him legally responsible for the two deaths.

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

INteresting topic 

 

 

[Lothar]

I think the OP is a Russian troll bot trying to see what issues matter to upstate New Yorkers and weave that into their next electoral attack. Just sayin' ....

[Malazan]

1 hour 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.

 

The problem is then you open a can of worms on debating the virtue of everyone in HOF. A lot of them weren't very good people. Removing him would shine a big light on him and his removal. it would be an endless debate whether so and so should be removed from the Hall.

..and miscarriage of justice that it was, he wasn't convicted. So you'd have that debate of is it a legal conviction or public opinion?

 

Sometimes, it's better to let sleeping dogs lie.

[K-9]

17 minutes ago, MarkAF43 said:

 

 

You know everyone? 12 jurors collectively believed he was innocent. 

Allow me to quibble a bit. I don’t necessarily believed they all thought he was innocent, just not guilty, and I see a clear difference. 

 

About the jurors, I read a post up thread saying we should blame them. They are the last people anyone should blame.  For a myriad of reasons that would take forever to discuss in a limited forum.

[GunnerBill]

9 minutes ago, foreboding said:

No, not really. Just because the court clearly got it wrong because of...well you have seen the numerous documentaries. Does that mean that an independent owner, not bound by a court decision, should also get it wrong?

 

They can't take him off the wall because he is murderer, because in the eyes of the law he isn't. You might think the law is an ass but you either take the justice system with all of its flaws or you don't. You can't pick and choose when you like its decisions. I actually think the previous owner was given a pretty nice out when OJ was imprisoned for the later offenses. That was an opportunity to remove him from the wall and link it to that period of imprisoment as a rationale for the decision. I don't know whether anyone else on the wall has been imprisoned and whether that might have had a knock on effect? But having missed that opportunity I think it is difficult now. 

8 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

That really isn't that when another jury found him legally responsible for the two deaths.

 

 

Against a lower burden he was found civilly liable, yes. But I will say it again. You either accept a justice system with all of its flaws or you don't. Justice systems get things wrong. They make mistakes. Clever counsel gets people who have committed offenses off every day of the week both over there in the US and over here in the UK. But you can't pick and choose the judgments you like. 

 

 

EDIT: I am not defending OJ by the way. Or disagreeing that he is a POS. I am just an absolute defender of the principles on which our justice systems are based. 

Edited August 5, 2019 by GunnerBill

[Gugny]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

They can't take him off the wall because he is murderer, because in the eyes of the law he isn't. You might think the law is an ass but you either take the justice system with all of its flaws or you don't. You can't pick and choose when you like its decisions. I actually think the previous owner was given a pretty nice out when OJ was imprisoned for the later offenses. That was an opportunity to remove him from the wall and link it to that period of imprisoment as a rationale for the decision. I don't know whether anyone else on the wall has been imprisoned and whether that might have had a knock on effect? But having missed that opportunity I think it is difficult now. 

 

Against a lower burden he was found civilly liable, yes. But I will say it again. You either accept a justice system with all of its flaws or you don't. Justice systems get things wrong. They make mistakes. Clever counsel gets people who have committed offenses off every day of the week both over there in the US and over here in the UK. But you can't pick and choose the judgments you like. 

 

I'm simply opining that being found legally responsible for two people's deaths - one of whom, a woman half his size, was nearly decapitated - is enough to warrant the removal of that person's name from the WOF.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

 

I'm simply opining that being found legally responsible for two people's deaths - one of whom, a woman half his size, was nearly decapitated - is enough to warrant the removal of that person's name from the WOF.

 

It doesn't override a not guilty verdict. We either believe in innocent until proven guilty or we don't. We don't get to pick and choose when we abide by a fundamental principle of our justice system. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 hour ago, whatdrought said:

...breaking news!........