MarkAF43 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBillsFanSince1973 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 maude, grab my alka seltzer...I can't believe I ate the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4_kidd_4 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 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??!? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiotAct Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 because of his accomplishments with the Buffalo Bills as a running back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 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. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreboding Posted August 5, 2019 Author Share Posted August 5, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest K-GunJimKelly12 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 I'm all for the removal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLongBall Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 When they build a new stadium I doubt his name will go back up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreboding Posted August 5, 2019 Author Share Posted August 5, 2019 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest K-GunJimKelly12 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 INteresting topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lothar Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 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' .... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 (edited) 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 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 1 hour ago, whatdrought said: ...breaking news!........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts