NationStates Jolt Archive

Jeff Ruby, the owner of a steak house, booted OJ Simpson out of his restaurant yesterday possibly preventing the psycho celebrity from going on a rampage with a serrated steak knife or maybe just enjoying a nice steak. Ruby also tried to help OJ's date out by giving her the following advice.

'Listen, you're blonde – if I was you, you better be careful. He might slit your throat,

Simpson's lawyer said the incident was racial discrimination despite the fact that Michael Jordan and his friends took OJ's table after he was ejected.

It's about time OJ faced some penalty for murdering two people. I hope more folks start refusing him service and making sure he's never allowed to forget that he's a repulsive murderer.

That's a good idea; piss off the murderer. :p

Simpson's lawyer said the incident was racial discrimination despite the fact that Michael Jordan and his friends took OJ's table after he was ejected.
Psh, everyone knows Michael Jordan is really on the white team.

Psh, everyone knows Michael Jordan is really on the white team.

Yeah, if he was really black he'd have killed somebody or gotten busted with some crack by now.

http://www.wmur.com/entertainment/13283450/detail.html

What a bizarre story.

I don't think OJ's lawyer will win this one. It's obvious he got kicked out of the restaurant for who he is, rather than his skin colour.

Bravo to that restauranteur! He has every right not to allow that scumbag in his establishment. In fact, I think that OJ Simpson should be excluded not just from restaurants, but from every place except Antarctica (maybe. The polar bears might find his presence distasteful.)

Meh, why'd we bother with the trial? Coulda just declared him guilty, let him go and it wouldn't've been all over the news for weeks on end. Things'd be about as they are now.

its private property- he can refuse service to anyone for any reason.

F OJ and his lawyer.

its private property- he can refuse service to anyone for any reason.

um...no. No he can't.

um...no. No he can't.

He can ban anyone he likes from his establishment. Many businesses have this policy, if you piss them off you're out and not allowed back.

OJ is on their list, it's the proprietor's prerogative to ban whomever he likes.

While I agree that the owner can refuse service to anyone (as long as it's not for discriminatory reasons like ethnicity, age, religious reasons, etc), he better watch his comments. Regardless of whether you think O.J. did it or not, he was proven innocent in a court of law, and the restaurant owner could probably be sued for slander or defamation of character (can't remember which right now) for what he said to O.J.'s date.

Good show.

He can ban anyone he likes from his establishment. Many businesses have this policy, if you piss them off you're out and not allowed back.

OJ is on their list, it's the proprietor's prerogative to ban whomever he likes.

Read the post that I was responding to.

He said "he can refuse service to anyone for any reason".

This is untrue. You can not refuse service for any reason. There are PLENTY of reasons for which refusing to serve someone would be illegal.

he was proven innocent in a court of law, and the restaurant owner could probably be sued for slander or defamation of character (can't remember which right now) for what he said to O.J.'s date.

Slander is a form of defamation.

Which is to say, defamation comes in two forms, slander and libel.

And, as an aside, nobody is ever proven innocent in an american court.

Slander is a form of defamation.

Which is to say, defamation comes in two forms, slander and libel.

And, as an aside, nobody is ever proven innocent in an american court.


See, I wasn't sure. Thanks for the clarification. :)

ETA: As a correction to my statement, he was proven not guilty.

And, as an aside, nobody is ever proven innocent in an american court.

Not oficially. But that doesn't mean you can't prove they are innocent anyway.

Jeff Ruby, the owner of a steak house, booted OJ Simpson out of his restaurant yesterday possibly preventing the psycho celebrity from going on a rampage with a serrated steak knife or maybe just enjoying a nice steak. Ruby also tried to help OJ's date out by giving her the following advice.

Simpson's lawyer said the incident was racial discrimination despite the fact that Michael Jordan and his friends took OJ's table after he was ejected.

It's about time OJ faced some penalty for murdering two people. I hope more folks start refusing him service and making sure he's never allowed to forget that he's a repulsive murderer.

Dude, that's funny. And OJ deserves whatever he gets.

If i owned any sort of business, I would not let him in or make transactions with him.

That despicable man deserves to be ostracized.

I don't know THAT much about the O.J Simpson case, but I would just like to know why every is so sure that he is guilty?

And, as an aside, nobody is ever proven innocent in an american court.

I was under the impression that in some states (Illinois, possibly?) it is possible to be proven innocent but it requires a higher burden of proof. To get a verdict not guilty requires simply reasonable doubt, while a verdict of innocent requires the defense lawyer to prove that it would have been impossible for the defendant to have commited the crime.

Mind you, I got this from an episode of The Practice, so my sources are questionable.

I don't know THAT much about the O.J Simpson case, but I would just like to know why every is so sure that he is guilty?

His aborted confession-book last year is certainly one reason...

I was under the impression that in some states (Illinois, possibly?) it is possible to be proven innocent but it requires a higher burden of proof. To get a verdict not guilty requires simply reasonable doubt, while a verdict of innocent requires the defense lawyer to prove that it would have been impossible for the defendant to have commited the crime.

OK, you're sorta half right half wrong. I was being a bit to hasty when I said you are not proven innocent in any court in america.

It is perhaps more appropriate to say nobody is found innocent in any TRIAL court.

On a trial court level, there is no need for a "innocent" verdict, simply because of double jeopardy. What functional method an "innocent" verdict would serve is quite beyond me. not guilty verdicts preclude any trial on that matter ever again.

Now, however, if one is convicted of a crime, it's REALLY hard to reverse, absent actual reversable error. For example if i go to court, and am convicted, any appeals court will assume that the verdit was proper, absent evidence otherwise, unless there was something illegal going on.

Like, if I'm convicted of murder, falsely, and nnobody did anything wrong, no witness tampering, no contamination of evidence, no police coersion, nothing illegal went on, but i just got shafted, I am presumed guilty.

Once that occurs, if I can't find something illegal went on in trial, the only way I can get free is if i prove innocence. This is a lot of what happened with DNA evidence in old cases for example.

Once you are convicted of a crime, you must actual prove your innocence. Merely providing evidence that casts doubt on your guilt isn't enough.

So appellate courts can bring down a verdit of "innocent".

I don't know THAT much about the O.J Simpson case, but I would just like to know why every is so sure that he is guilty?

There is a whole lot of evidence against him.

http://www.justicejunction.com/judicial_injustice_oj_evidence.htm

His aborted confession-book last year is certainly one reason...
There's that and the wrongful-death civil trial. So he's in the peculiar position - as far as the court system is concerned - of his wife having been murdered, his being found responsible for her death, and yet not being a murderer.

There's that and the wrongful-death civil trial. So he's in the peculiar position - as far as the court system is concerned - of his wife having been murdered, his being found responsible for her death, and yet not being a murderer.

ahh the wonders of civil law versus criminal law. TO be more accurate perhaps it is more appropriate to say that he is in the legal situation of having enough evidence to prove, more likely than not, that he is responsible for her death, but not beyond all reasonable doubt.

He shouldn't have done it. It was rude. No matter if OJ really did it or not, he was aquitted.

I'm left with the impression that the restaurant owner is a real self-righteous bastard.

I'm left with the impression that the restaurant owner is a real self-righteous bastard.
He probably frequents NSG, then.
I hope the jerk gets poor marks on his next restaurant inspection.

He probably frequents NSG, then.
I hope the jerk gets poor marks on his next restaurant inspection.

Surley you can't think this site is full of bastards with self-inflated egos...I'll have you know I'm merely an egotistical jackass...

I hope the jerk gets poor marks on his next restaurant inspection.

Karma suggests there'll be rat shit in the kitchen when inspectors come through.

While I agree that the owner can refuse service to anyone (as long as it's not for discriminatory reasons like ethnicity, age, religious reasons, etc), he better watch his comments. Regardless of whether you think O.J. did it or not, he was proven innocent in a court of law, and the restaurant owner could probably be sued for slander or defamation of character (can't remember which right now) for what he said to O.J.'s date.


But he was found guilty in a civil court, which greatly muddys yer waters there...

But he was found guilty in a civil court, which greatly muddys yer waters there...
Alot of things happen in civil court.

so what does this mean for Michal Jackson...

yes I just made a joke about Michael Jackson being a pedophile oh I'm so original :p

While I agree that the owner can refuse service to anyone (as long as it's not for discriminatory reasons like ethnicity, age, religious reasons, etc), he better watch his comments. Regardless of whether you think O.J. did it or not, he was proven innocent in a court of law, and the restaurant owner could probably be sued for slander or defamation of character (can't remember which right now) for what he said to O.J.'s date.
By that logic, I can sue someone for slander or defamation of character (whichever) whenever they insult me in public. I should have taken my fourth grade class to the cleaners... along with half the highschool. :P

By that logic, I can sue someone for slander or defamation of character (whichever) whenever they insult me in public. I should have taken my fourth grade class to the cleaners... along with half the highschool. :P

How do you think Bill Gates got started?

Bravo to that restauranteur! He has every right not to allow that scumbag in his establishment. In fact, I think that OJ Simpson should be excluded not just from restaurants, but from every place except Antarctica (maybe. The polar bears might find his presence distasteful.)

Surely you mean the penguins?

Anyway... OJ is a killer, and should be in prison, not restaraunts.

By that logic, I can sue someone for slander or defamation of character (whichever) whenever they insult me in public. I should have taken my fourth grade class to the cleaners... along with half the highschool. :P

first off, as I said, slander is A FORM of defamation.

And, under the laws of slander, it is important to note, that merely insulting does not rise to the level of defamation.

The insult has to be outragious, to imply a thing unacceptable in society.

"you are a poopy head" does not qualify.

however, it is worth noting, that the courts have adopted a series of pers e catagories. Claims that the implication of defamation is implied. Things so bad to say about people that they are automatically considered defamation.

Saying, falsely, that one comitted a high crime is one of them.

But he was found guilty in a civil court, which greatly muddys yer waters there...

actually he was fould liable in a civil court. Which is something ENTIRELY different than guilty.

so what does this mean for Michal Jackson...

yes I just made a joke about Michael Jackson being a pedophile oh I'm so original :p

Oh Jesus.... not the MJ jokes! :headbang: I swear, I know somebody who thinks I'm the incarnate of Michael Jackson or something :(

And he shouldn't be allowed around kids...

Well, when you charge for libel or slander, the burden of proof is again on the accuser. So, while to be convicted of a crime, one needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one was guilty, others can still claim that you did it if you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one was innocent. It's a poor place to be in, and certainly rude, but defamation charges are unlikely if there's reasonable doubt of innocence as well.

There is certainly reasonable doubt of OJ's innocence.

There is a whole lot of evidence against him.

http://www.justicejunction.com/judicial_injustice_oj_evidence.htm

Gee, if you take all the possible evidence and implications against Simpson at face value, leave out the defense entirely, and speculate wildly you can make it seem like OJ was obviously guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I wonder why we bother with trials.

Well, when you charge for libel or slander, the burden of proof is again on the accuser. So, while to be convicted of a crime, one needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one was guilty, others can still claim that you did it if you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one was innocent. It's a poor place to be in, and certainly rude, but defamation charges are unlikely if there's reasonable doubt of innocence as well.

There is certainly reasonable doubt of OJ's innocence.

No, not exactly. When making a claim of defamation, the burden on the accuser is:

1) a defamatory statement has been made

2) that defamatory statement has caused harm

3) that the defendant made the defamatory statement

Truth is a DEFENSE to a claim of defamation. As such it is the affirmative burden of the defendant to prove the statement true, not the other way around.

As such to assert the DEFENSE of truth, the burden is on you to prove it true.

additionally proof "beyond reasonable doubt" is inapplicable to a claim of defamation, which is a civil act. "more likely than not" is the standard of proof.

edit: CAT TRIBE!!!!!!

Well, when you charge for libel or slander, the burden of proof is again on the accuser. So, while to be convicted of a crime, one needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one was guilty, others can still claim that you did it if you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one was innocent. It's a poor place to be in, and certainly rude, but defamation charges are unlikely if there's reasonable doubt of innocence as well.

There is certainly reasonable doubt of OJ's innocence.

Um, the highlighted portion is wrong. The standard of proof at defamation trial would be more likely than not -- not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nonetheless, I agree Mr. Simpson is not in a position to sue for defamation.

Oh Jesus.... not the MJ jokes! :headbang: I swear, I know somebody who thinks I'm the incarnate of Michael Jackson or something :(

And he shouldn't be allowed around kids...

Micheal Jackson, or the kid you know?

No, not exactly. When making a claim of defamation, the burden on the accuser is:

1) a defamatory statement has been made

2) that defamatory statement has caused harm

3) that the defendant made the defamatory statement

Truth is a DEFENSE to a claim of defamation. As such it is the affirmative burden of the defendant to prove the statement true, not the other way around.

As such to assert the DEFENSE of truth, the burden is on you to prove it true.

additionally proof "beyond reasonable doubt" is inapplicable to a claim of defamation, which is a civil act. "more likely than not" is the standard of proof.

edit: CAT TRIBE!!!!!!

:D We're tripping over ourselves again.

We could really confuse things by noting that OJ probably counts as a public figure, so only actual malice would suffice for defamation.

:D We're tripping over ourselves again.

We could really confuse things by noting that OJ probably counts as a public figure, so only actual malice would suffice for defamation.

I didn't want to go there.

additionally, a defense of "it is more likely than not that my statement is true" is a proper defense, and a jury already found that, more likely than not, he did in fact do it...would this not be an issue preclusion matter?

IE the verasity of the claim, more likely than not, has already be assessed by a jury, so Simpson would be precluded from relitigating a matter on that point

Gee, if you take all the possible evidence and implications against Simpson at face value, leave out the defense entirely, and speculate wildly you can make it seem like OJ was obviously guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I wonder why we bother with trials.

Is there a site that details the defense team's arguments? I've never actually heard the defense's arguments except from soundbytes on news and pop culture.

Bravo to that restauranteur! He has every right not to allow that scumbag in his establishment. In fact, I think that OJ Simpson should be excluded not just from restaurants, but from every place except Antarctica (maybe. The polar bears might find his presence distasteful.)

Penguins. Penguins are in the antarctica. Polar bears are arctic.

Jeff Ruby, the owner of a steak house, booted OJ Simpson out of his restaurant yesterday possibly preventing the psycho celebrity from going on a rampage with a serrated steak knife or maybe just enjoying a nice steak. Ruby also tried to help OJ's date out by giving her the following advice.



Simpson's lawyer said the incident was racial discrimination despite the fact that Michael Jordan and his friends took OJ's table after he was ejected.

It's about time OJ faced some penalty for murdering two people. I hope more folks start refusing him service and making sure he's never allowed to forget that he's a repulsive murderer.

Racial discrimination? It's not racial discrimination it's self-defense...

Racial discrimination? It's not racial discrimination it's self-defense...
Which makes it discrimination still.

I don't know THAT much about the O.J Simpson case...same here.. but I do know he was declared Innocent by the US justice system.

(he was declared Innocent) But he was declared guilty in a civil court...awww the great US justice system.

Racial discrimination? It's not racial discrimination it's self-defense... it is NOT self defense.

I've eaten at that steakhouse several times. It's a really classy place.

But he was found guilty in a civil court, which greatly muddys yer waters there...


The burden of proof is MUCH lower in a civil case, compared to a criminal case.

Just so we're clear, I'm not defending O.J.'s innocence, just pointing out the fact that he was found not guilty in the criminal trial.

By that logic, I can sue someone for slander or defamation of character (whichever) whenever they insult me in public. I should have taken my fourth grade class to the cleaners... along with half the highschool. :P


Saying someone is a murderer, even though he was found not guilty in a criminal trial is very different from someone calling you a butthead in the 4th grade*.







*I am not calling you a butthead, or inferring that someone called you a butthead in the 4th grade, just using that as an example.

By that logic, I can sue someone for slander or defamation of character (whichever) whenever they insult me in public. I should have taken my fourth grade class to the cleaners... along with half the highschool. :Pthe US/Canada Laws do not protect Children... from the other Children.
It is pretty-much the law of the Jungle.

Karma suggests there'll be rat shit in the kitchen when inspectors come through.

I don't know, if karma is so incompetent that it lets OJ get away with murder, I'm not too optimistic about it working in a case like this.

I don't know, if karma is so incompetent that it lets OJ get away with murder, ...I dont know.. I am pleased with Karma.. It gets me a lot of "quality time" :fluffle:

Gee, if you take all the possible evidence and implications against Simpson at face value, leave out the defense entirely, and speculate wildly you can make it seem like OJ was obviously guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I wonder why we bother with trials.

To be fair, it would appear that a great deal of the evidence was kept out of the trial due to screw-ups on the part of the police force and/or the prosecution. While I would generally trust the justice system (for the most part), they screwed up a lot in this case, whether he was guilty or not - and that makes the final verdict pretty shaky.

I don't know THAT much about the O.J Simpson case, but I would just like to know why every is so sure that he is guilty?

While the courts must presume innocence until guilt is proven, most people do it the other way around. And since there were so many screw-ups in the investigation and trial (ie. contaminated evidence thrown out and the prosecution choosing one of the most racist bastards in the world as the officer to put on the stand), most people were never convinced that he was not guilty.

Add to that the fact that he lost in the civil case and that even some of the jurors on his trial have come out saying that, had they seen all of the evidence, they would have found him guilty....

To be fair, it would appear that a great deal of the evidence was kept out of the trial due to screw-ups on the part of the police force and/or the prosecution. While I would generally trust the justice system (for the most part), they screwed up a lot in this case, whether he was guilty or not - and that makes the final verdict pretty shaky.

Ahh, but there is a very good reason that evidence gathered incorrectly is inadmissable.

If proper chain of custody is not adhered to...how can we give full trust to the evidence?

That's the whole point of it all, if you admit evidence that COULD have been tampered with, you will end up letting in evidence in that HAS been tampered with.

And since something was wrong with this evidence, to the point that it COULD have been corrupted...how can we be sure it was not?

Ahh, but there is a very good reason that evidence gathered incorrectly is inadmissable.

If proper chain of custody is not adhered to...how can we give full trust to the evidence?

That's the whole point of it all, if you admit evidence that COULD have been tampered with, you will end up letting in evidence in that HAS been tampered with.

And since something was wrong with this evidence, to the point that it COULD have been corrupted...how can we be sure it was not?

Oh, I'm not saying that we should start allowing such evidence. What I'm saying is that the cops screwed up - didn't follow proper protocol, and thus couldn't admit all the evidence they had gathered.

And, as a general rule, the more things like that happen, the less I will trust any verdict. It could be that the cops really were tampering with it, and thus a guilty verdict is wrong. It could be that they just screwed up and thus kept a guilty person out on the streets by their screw-up. Or maybe it won't affect the verdict at all - but it will make it seem less solid.

Add to that the fact that he lost in the civil case and that even some of the jurors on his trial have come out saying that, had they seen all of the evidence, they would have found him guilty....
Another thing that convinces some people is that the trial came at a time when DNA evidence in criminal cases was a very new thing. The idea is that some jurors did not understand what the DNA evidence meant.

While the courts must presume innocence until guilt is proven, most people do it the other way around. And since there were so many screw-ups in the investigation and trial (ie. contaminated evidence thrown out and the prosecution choosing one of the most racist bastards in the world as the officer to put on the stand), most people were never convinced that he was not guilty.

1. Actually the contaminated evidence wasn't thrown out by the judge. Rather, the defense was able to show that most of the "mountain" of forensic evidence was, in fact, mishandled, contaminated, etc., and therefore not indicative of OJ's guilt.

2. The racist bastard was the primary officer at the scene and the one that allegedly found the bloody glove at OJ's residence. Much of the case rested on his credibility -- which was an obviously shaky foundation.

3. Most people have no clue what evidence was and was not presented at OJ's criminal trial. Few people know anything beyond soundbytes they caught from the media.

Add to that the fact that he lost in the civil case and that even some of the jurors on his trial have come out saying that, had they seen all of the evidence, they would have found him guilty....

I believe what some former criminal case jurors have said is that, if they had decided the civil case, they would have found OJ liable. That is different than saying they would change their criminal verdict.

Another thing that convinces some people is that the trial came at a time when DNA evidence in criminal cases was a very new thing. The idea is that some jurors did not understand what the DNA evidence meant.

The OJ trial was in 1995. DNA testing had been used in criminal cases dating back to 1984.

The jury in the OJ case heard a great deal of testimony about what the DNA evidence did and did not mean from some of the leading experts in the world.

One of the things they heard about was how the DNA evidence was largely useless due to mishandling and contamination.

I'm sorry but it frustrates mean when people jump to the conclusion that the jury didn't understand or missed something important. They were the only ones to hear all the evidence, all the testimony. They rendered a unanimous verdict.

The jury's verdict shouldn't be second-guessed on the basis of the various soundbytes from the time and the "evidence" floating around the internet.

Surley you can't think this site is full of bastards with self-inflated egos...I'll have you know I'm merely an egotistical jackass...

I'm a bastard. :)

Someone wanted a nice front-page ad in the paper, methinks. Booting someone, when you could have just cut the steak up for them..

If OJ isn't allowed to use a steak knife in a public place, Paris Hilton shouldn't be allowed to buy keychains, and Sizemore shouldn't be allowed to use spoons.

The OJ trial was in 1995. DNA testing had been used in criminal cases dating back to 1984.
But alas and alack, apparently not with enough publicity for the general public of now to expect the jury to have understand DNA testing then.

That, and all the TV interviews.

Jeff Ruby, the owner of a steak house, booted OJ Simpson out of his restaurant yesterday possibly preventing the psycho celebrity from going on a rampage with a serrated steak knife or maybe just enjoying a nice steak. Ruby also tried to help OJ's date out by giving her the following advice.



Simpson's lawyer said the incident was racial discrimination despite the fact that Michael Jordan and his friends took OJ's table after he was ejected.

It's about time OJ faced some penalty for murdering two people. I hope more folks start refusing him service and making sure he's never allowed to forget that he's a repulsive murderer.

This is bullshit, he was proven innocent regardless, and should be treated as such.

Another thing that convinces some people is that the trial came at a time when DNA evidence in criminal cases was a very new thing. The idea is that some jurors did not understand what the DNA evidence meant.

Only two of the jurors had received a college education. Prosecutors claimed to have heard a few of them saying things like "Well, lots of people have the same blood type," not understanding that DNA is very different from blood type.

Yeah...

um...no. No he can't.

Uhhh yes he can. Of course that may depend on the state. In the State of Washington I can boot anyone from my restaurant too. In fact I would do the same to OJ.