1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

No steak for O.J.

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Bob Slydell, May 9, 2007.

  1. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    Restaurateur should have fired back: "Why? Am I a bus boy or a blonde hottie and I don't know it?"
  2. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    buh... buh... buh... isn't not guilty the same as innocent?
  3. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    Not guilty only means he wasn't found guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt."
  4. ondeadline

    ondeadline Well-Known Member

    If the lawyer didn't make race an issue here, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson probably would have. But obviously it's not a race issue, it's a murderer issue.
  5. novelist_wannabe

    novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

    I remember there being a lot of discussion at the time about the distinction, but with it being 12 years ago and all, and with me not having written a headline since 1999, I'm having a hard time recalling what the distinction was. Was it the Globe and Mail (I almost typed "Glove and Mail" there...) that went with "O.J. Walks"?
  6. RokSki

    RokSki New Member

    As laudable as this action might seem from an emotional standpoint, legally, it's a very dubious move to make as an owner of a restaurant which serves the general public, IMO. I guess we'll find out.

    I'm not a fan of OJ, but Ruby might have done more harm than good here, as he could serve to make OJ look like a victim of discrimination. I'm not talking about racial discrimination, but discrimination based on one's own interpretation of events above and beyond what a jury decided. As far as I know, no individual is allowed to serve as their own judge and jury in this country.

    Besides, even if you agree with the assumption (as most do) that OJ killed those two people, does that mean he can't eat at this restaurant? Has the restaurant ever refused other murderers? Is there a standing policy on the books at the restaurant to not serve murderers and/or felons?

    People are not legally permitted to dispense their own version of justice because they feel a jury got a verdict wrong.

    The last thing we need is OJ as 'victim,' part II, IMO.
  7. John

    John Well-Known Member

    But -- correct me if I'm wrong -- the owner of a restaurant, or clothing shop or whatever, has the right to refuse service to anyone.
  8. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

    Call me T-Bone!

    "That's not zero-zero. It's ooh, as in ooh-ooh, ahh-ahh."
  9. RokSki

    RokSki New Member

    No, they don't. There are restrictions on this ability. This is why OJ's lawyer was playing up the race card:

  10. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    "Fine, if I eat the cat poop, will you bring me a steak?" [/ojburgundy]
  11. kingcreole

    kingcreole Active Member

    Check out the AP Style book. That could help.
  12. Bob Slydell

    Bob Slydell Active Member

    I think I'll call you Coco instead.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page