Creepy old Guy - "OJ 07"

[Denmo]

If you're watching the news right now, there's the attorney defending OJ at a press conference talking about the case, and standing right next to him is a creepy old man who's been constantly breathing down his neck and grinning from ear to ear. He's missing teeth and wearing a T-shirt that says "OJ 07", and every time the attorney says he expects OJ to be released quickly, the guy high fives the attorney and shouts "YES!" right into the microphones.

CNN and MSNBC have kept him off the camera shot for good reason, because he's distracting, however Fox News has the guy in plain site.

I sure hope Youtube puts this up so I can show you later. GOD this guy is creepy!

[IRC]

Re: Creepy old Guy - "OJ 07"

In the mean time there's this.

[jvrlopez]

Re: Creepy old Guy - "OJ 07"

Fox News is so out there. You have to give it to them, love 'em or hate 'em, they got some balls. So big it's to the point of parody.

But then again, that's just Rupert Murdoch's style.

[Karr Lord of Chaos]

Re: Creepy old Guy - "OJ 07"

i think the whole thing sounds completely ludicrous but he will be put away forever because most people think he got away with murder and he had to be dumb to try to make a book that was pretty much a confession. i suppose its karma in a way through the whole case sounds entirely overplayed, like come on, kidnapping for closing a door and saying no one leave? what is he some kind of pimp villain from an action flick? i hate lawyers, they always screw around with the law to try to get people free of justice.

to bad johny cockerin isnt around now eh?

i hope they dont try to make him try on the glove the found at the scene.

[jvrlopez]

Re: Creepy old Guy - "OJ 07"

Most people think of kidnapping of like, say, taking some little kid across state lines.

What it really comes down to is holding someone against their will and preventing them from doing so as they please.

[Vanilla Iced Tea]

Re: Creepy old Guy - "OJ 07"

Someone told me that it was a guy from Jimmy Kimmel, so it might be on his show tonight.

[jvrlopez]

Re: Creepy old Guy - "OJ 07"

Yea, I heard that too after the fact.

[Denmo]

Re: Creepy old Guy - "OJ 07"

Here it is.

[Caciss]

Re: Creepy old Guy - "OJ 07"

Better one i think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql614...elated&search=

[Trebsay]

Re: Creepy old Guy - "OJ 07"

That guys an actor. Just in case you didn't know. Just youtube Jake Byrd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z3NQM-h0_8&NR=1

[The Toecutter]

Re: Creepy old Guy - "OJ 07"

Both OJ cases past and present show precisely what is wrong with our court system.

a) The court system inconsistent. If OJ hypothetically didn't kill Nicole and Ron according to the jury and judge, then why are they making him pay restitution as if he did do it?

b) The court system unjust. If you have money, you can get away with murder; your average Joe would have been locked up for life without a team of expensive lawyers to defend them.

c) The court system will throw bogus charges at defendents. As much as I hate the bastard, most of these charges pertaining to his recent stunt are greatly exaggerated.

d) It's biased. Given OJ's previous circumstances, he's not going to get a fair trial. Obtaining an impartial jury alone will be night impossible, let alone an impartial judge...

I can see why people want OJ in jail; I do too. But the courts could at least get things right the first time, and not keep making all sorts of the same mistakes. It destroys any credibility that they have...

[jvrlopez]

Re: Creepy old Guy - "OJ 07"

A) The level of proof needed in a civil case is less than that of a criminal trial.

But still, yea, its dumb.

[John Mora]

Re: Creepy old Guy - "OJ 07"

But how can you circumvent expensive lawyers? If you don't have lawyers then it'd be up to each defendant to defend himself or herself, and most of us don't have the luxury of studying law all of our lives to make a good defense. So we need people to do it on our behalf. Money motivates people almost more than anything else, so they'd have to be paid. And no one would bother to work to be a lawyer if they were all paid a fixed rate, regardless of quality. So you have to have a system where fantastic lawyers are expensive and thus at the beck and call of the rich unless you want to resort to defending yourself or having a small, unmotivated group of lawyers trying to defend you.

[jvrlopez]

Re: Creepy old Guy - "OJ 07"

...unless you want to resort to defending yourself or having a small, unmotivated group of lawyers trying to defend you.

Public defenders!

[The Toecutter]

Re: Creepy old Guy - "OJ 07"

Our entire legal system needs to be modified in such a way appropriate to reducing as much as possible the influence of money onto a ruling.

How this could be done is a matter that is up for debate and Mora's points are certainly valid.


In its current form, money matters far too much in our 'justice' system, and the unbiased facts of the issues are often glossed over...

If you have a team of lawyers to point out that a given amount of 'proof' still leaves reasonable doubt, you'll get away with the crime. The thing is, one shouldn't NEED a team of fancy lawyers to point that out. What is obvious should be seen in the first place by the jury, but the jury's ability to really do much is compromised.


Aside from the OJ case, jurors used to be able to make decisions based upon what they agreed was constitutional or not, as they are and were supposed to do, but ever since the days of the 'progressive era'(Early 1900s) when jurors started siding with workers and unions against corporations, the courts have consistently considered such actions by the jury worthy of making the case a mistrial, and jury nullification is basically dead... This has had many negative impacts upon the objectivity of our court system, especially during the war on drugs. Even knowing of the concept of 'jury nullification' will get you dismissed as a juror in most cases, when as a juror, according to our founding fathers, you're supposed to nullify unjust/unconstitutional laws by refusing to convict people for breaking an unjust or unconstitutional law.


Oh well. If the courts fail you, that's what guns are for.