"You gotta think about O.J.'s situation: $25,000 a month, another man drivin' around his car ... his wife in a house he's still payin' the mortgage on. I'm not sayin' he shoulda killed her. But I understand." - Chris Rock
you're probably right...but those people are ostracized for the most part...they're the butts of jokes...i can't imagine being happy about either outcome...at all. i don't care what color you are...if you beat someone down or you murder someone, the law has some punishment allocated for you. this just makes me sad all the way around...for all the talk of racial equality, we still, unfortunately, have people who either legitimately or illegitimately believe they don't get a fair shake in our society because of their color...we still have people "rooting" for people who share their skin color over concepts like justice. even to the point of "rooting" for people who they believe are cold-blooded murderers.
But don't you think that to a degree people with similar skin colors share the sometimes negative perceptions generated by other skin colors? That feeling that they're expected or warranted to be treated as lower class citizens when compared to others? This mentality didn't grow overnight. And even if racist laws aren't officially sanctioned any longer, there are still many who believe that way and are in a position of power to enforce their beliefs. So maybe this concept of justice wasn't taught properly in the first place... Pointing fingers is a casual guilt free way to look at this. We have to take a step back in order to journey onward.
i totally agree with everything you just posted. if they feel that way, let's figure it out...but let's don't automatically presumed that the race card can be drawn at every occassion. Let's don't automatically assume that when the white guy gets the job it's because he's white. that's my concept of justice, by the way...as i understand it. i'm not saying everyone subscribes to it...but it seems fair to me.
There was no film of OJ killing Nicole and Ron. Remember George Holliday? He is the difference between the two cases. Irrfutable evidence made 'Rodney King' what it was, LAPD reduced OJ's prosecution to supported conjecture. Your race point is valid, but we don't really know who stabbed those people to death.
Oh and by the way - OJ was NEVER found innocent in the criminal case, as the title of this thread suggests. He was found not guilty. That is an important distinction. He WAS found liable in the civil suit.
You know, from what I know about the OJ trial (which I admittedly did not watch, so I did not get as much info as many others), as well as what I have known about police officers (especially the LAPD), I might well have had a hard time voting to convict had I been on that jury deciding OJ's fate. Yes, each individually suspicious thing the LAPD or others did can likely be explained, and many of those things are likely irrelevant to the case itself. But taken as a whole while also considering the other things LAPD and other departments have engaged in, it would probably be enough to create at least some doubt in my mind of OJ guilt, despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence. Given all that, I don't know that I could vote to convict. Add in the fact that I didn't want OJ to be guilty. When you see a guy on the football field and on television and in interviews and in movies, you think you get to know a good bit about them. You feel like you know them, even though you don't really ever know them. The OJ Simpson I saw in TV and in the movies, etc. would never have done the things he was accused of doing. It wasn't in that OJ's nature. So no matter how the evidence stacked up, I was going to give OJ the benefit of the doubt. It takes a lot to overcome those feelings, even though those feelings and opinions were always based on a very limited view of the man. If that makes any sense at all. (And for the record, I was shocked that the officers who beat Rodney King were acquitted. It didn't make any sense to me).
Yeah he does. And, someone has to ask him this, AB if OJ were white, would you be so vehement in defending him? I think I was 16 or so when the OJ crap started. I didn't want him to be guilty and didn't think he was. One of the main reasons was that he was black. I didn't want him to be guilty because he was black. But, the evidence was so overwhelming. Also, what was the rioting about? Their guy got off, didn't he?
thats the whole point. thats been going on for centuries in this country. WIth the OJ trial the tables were turned. White people got a taste of their own medicine. The anger and frustration that white people felt after the trial is what blacks have been feeling for the past 150+ years. Blacks have been screaming that the judicial system was bullsh*t for decades but after the OJ trial the world witnessed that it was bulsh*t. Thats why blacks were celebrating.
misery loves company, huh?? so how much further do we have to go before people will be upset at injustice no matter the color of the perpetrator's skin?
I'm defending my position, not OJ. I have said a few times that I am uncomfortable with the way I felt after the trial. Happy, but uncomfortable as to why I was happy. In terms of OJ and blackness, he is black by electorial college vote, not popular vote. As for your Sharpton/Jackson comment, shouldn't Trent Lott be clumped in those references, speaking of vehement.
this highlights a key difference, perhaps...Trent Lott is being dealt with..in all likelihood, this guy will lose the position of senate majority leadership. how about sharpton and jackson? these guys haul off and make irresponsible comments all the time...they're called on the carpet for it rarely...instead they are asked to speak at national political conventions and championed by their communities...can you imagine the response to a group of people who champion Trent Lott at this point??? we'd label them klan members.
To bring down the system from the inside. Truthfully, though, I'm sure there were as many different reasons for those celebrations you saw (and those elsewhere) as there are different opinions on anything. Even among the group at UH, I'm sure you could've found several different reasons just by asking. I refuse to believe that all African-Americans (or anyone else)share one monolithic opinion on things.
Definitely. I think Lott is worse than Jackson or Sharpton. For the record, I'm not pissed that a black man got off; I really could give a ****. I'm pissed that what I believe to be a guilty man got off for brutally murdering two people.
You imply that people are insensitive to lost lives, that isn't the case. People are just MORE sensitive to historical injustices. Because it's a job, not a religion.
