No steak for O.J.

I hate to criticize someone for going after RokSki -- hey, RokSki, how's that expose on the Chronicle guys coming? -- but this is weak-ass ammunition, and you're better off just keeping your piehole shut if that's the best you've got. You do know that there was a fairly famous verdict in this case, right? A law-and-order guy like you ought to be more in tune with, you know, law and order.

I dig the individual protests against O.J. -- the guys who walk off the golf course when he's dropped into their foursome, for example. I'm all for making him a pariah socially, but if you run an establishment that's open to the public, you can't just toss him on his ear willy-nilly. Give him the worst table in the place, sure. Tacitly allow the sommelier to spit in his wine, absolutely. But in the absence of a legally sound reason to deny the scumbag, you have to serve him.

 

I will say this: the owner may not know the law, but he is a helluva businessman. I bet OJ crying foul has increased his business by a significant percentage. If I were the owner, I would want to keep this going as long as possible. Have a fucking trial. He is going to win big-time in the court of public opinion and that will just bring in more $$$$.

 

Once again, a piss brother proclaims something to be true without have the stones to back it up. You think you're better than me, prove it. I do know a couple of things -- at least I don't work at a YMCA, and at least I didn't take almost 10 years of classes for an undergrad degree. There are several people here who know me, know my work and respect it. If what you do here is any indication of your station in life, you're nothing.

 

No, you don't. That's what this whole discussion has been about. It's not a right in America to be served by a restaurant.

Also, how about this: He tried to get a book published that would theorize HOW HE MIGHT HAVE KILLED HIS WIFE.

You want to talk about a scumbag?

 

How about ifilus' argument? I don't think it'd be hard to convince a judge that having an accused murderer who seemed to revel in the publicity that resulted from it might have been bad for business.

 

Which could be argued, using Rok's link on the first page ...

"In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer's presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself."

... He could use the well-being of other patrons argument, supported by the applause he received once O.J. left.

 

Guy probably should have consulted his lawyer before talking to the media first.

 

Yes, you can. As long as you can prove that it's not because of a person's race, religion, or gender, you can absolutely discriminate against someone for pure character questions. Just like a restaurant can choose not to serve the town drunk, even if that person has no actual arrest record. I have no interest in reading all the way through this thread, so I apologize if I'm just repeating, but the frat boy, in all his inestimable wisdom, seems to have inadvertently posted a link that submarines his (and your) point. It's on the first page.

Under those terms, the restaurant owner has every right to say, "you know what? having OJ Simpson in here could cause some serious problems. I'm not serving him."

 

Well, now I've repeated anyway. Regardless, however, of what he said in the flush of the first news about this, he can still make the case.

 

but buck, he always can follow with: "and if i felt that strongly about the man being in my rest., i only can imagine how uncomfortable, possibly even fearful, some of my patrons must have felt."

there's still many "add-ons" the owner can connect to his statement.

and that's coming from a guy who's not sold on the fact oj committed the crimes. i still think they should have looked closer at his son.

 

Actually, I beleive that because punative damages were awarded, he was found to be liable not by a prepronderance of the evidence, but by clear and convincing evidence(a California law), which is between regular civil liabilit and criminal liability.

I'm wondering if all of those Klan members who were acquited in the murders of civil rights workers in the 50's and 60's enjoy the same benefits as OJ in the minds of those who constantly trumpet OJ's not guilty verdict.

 

Criminal liability -- this is "the people" a.k.a. the government, bringing charges against an individual for violating the criminal code. A jury must find that the prosecution has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed the crime for which they have been charged. That's the standard. Which is why many defendants don't even present a defense or, if they do, don't testify. The OJ jury did not find that he was "innocent", only that the prosecution did not prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe that, in the 19th century, some juries used to have the option of a "not proven" verdict, which was in between guilty and not guilty.

Civil liability -- this is an individual bringing a lawsuit against someone for a harm to that particular individual. The reason why you so rarely find civil lawsuits in these types of cases is that the defendants usually don't have enough assets to make it worthwhile, especially as these cases must occur after a criminal trial. The standard is whether the person bringing the suit has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant has committed the alleged harm. Does that mean that OJ is "guilty"? Technically, no -- only that he is liable for the deaths.