I don't know or care if he did it, but can someone explain

the civil court attorney was worth half a fuck
that's actually all there is to it: the criminal case was prosecuted by very bad attorneys, right when race became an issue and whites realized how much blacks hate us here, and the jury was super super over-represented with blacks

Standard of proof is different. Balance of probabilities for civil trial vs. beyond reasonable doubt for criminal.

>>134389710
I understand that people think the criminal trial was a joke but dont you find it weird to have a system where you can not be charged with a crime by the main court but found guilty of it by another and have extreme penalties applied to you?

Are you thick? The standard of proof is different because in the criminal context you are on trial for your life or liberty.

You don't know shit about the Common Law, which figures because you're British and you cunts have spent the last few decades wiping your ass with it.

>>134390260
he was charged. he was acquitted by a niggerized jury when the prosecution failed at every step.

you're talking about the civil suit where he was held liable for the murder of his wife and her boyfriend

>>134390502
>>134390671
I know. I'm not arguing standard of proofs or anything. It just seems weird to me that there are two courts trying you for the same crime.

Forget OJ. Imagine if you were wrongly accused of rape. You get charged but the jury acquits due to the prosecution fucking up or something. You take a sigh of relief then bam, a civil court fines you 10 million for wrongful fucking or something because they bought her tearful story. There goes all you savings, and if you don't send her all the money you make except the amount you keep for a bare minimum lifestyle you go to jail.

Can't you see how this is unfair, how you can't escape the accusation without having to prove your innocence twice. You can't have an alibi 24/7, so this could happen to anyone.

>>134389448

It sounds like you forgot the part where he fucking held two people at gunpoint in a motel room. I hope he never gets out for that alone.

Besides there was a blood stained knife found on his property after the acquittal. Everyone knows he did it but legally, and due to double jeopardy, he can't be tried again for it.

Also the most important piece of information at hand: he's a nigger so he should stay in prison in principle alone.

Common law is retarded, that's how.

>>134390063

Beyond a reasonable doubt

vs

a preponderance of the evidence

>>134391921
he just made parole

>>134389710
>>134390671
Right, the Black jury was the reason OJ wasn't acquitted. Not the contamination and planting of evidence by racist White cops.

You dense faggots need to get your heads out of your asses.

>>134392352

You Americans are weird.

>>134390260
In America civil trials have a lower burden of proof. Since there is so much on the line with a criminal trail (one's freedom) it is held to a higher legal standard ("beyond a reasonable doubt"). In a civil trial, the standard is "a preponderance of evidence" and the only thing at risk is money (usually).

>>134392352
he WAS acquitted. i might be dense but at least my ancestors took time off from swinging from trees to learn language

>>134392352
Black juries don't convict black suspects.

>>134392864

-----> >>134391442

>>134393038
your counter argument was to point out grammar?

>>134393389
Civil court address civil damages, not crimes. Criminal courts address crimes. A crime can be both a crime AND a civil damage. Though some crimes do not have civil damages. And some civil damages, are not necessarily crimes.

Inept prosecution and a largely black jury

Besides the fact that he was the only conceivable person with any motive
>The bloody shoe prints at the crime scene were identified by FBI shoe expert William Bodziak as having been made by a pair of extremely rare and expensive Bruno Magli shoes; only 29 pairs of this style were sold in the United States.[10] The large size 12 (305 mm) prints matched Simpson's shoe size

>>134390260
You stupid bong faggots stand around in your powdered wigs, waiting for your translated sharia law books to be delivered by camel while your daughters are whored out and ground into sandnigger food.
OJ will hurt someone this year.

>>134395513
You sound hysterical. The law is the law, your misguided apprehensions don't enter into it.

>>134394699
thats interesting.I'm still having trouble seeing how an intentional murder can be seen as civil damages. I get it for say, negligence that leads to a death, where compensation is paid and then someone gets charged with manslaughter or whatever. But it seems odd with murder.

I still think its a form of double jeopardy

File: 1497098853671.png (291KB, 704x604px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 704x604px

>>134395107
This was the reason for the acquittal. Even at full application, Marcia Clark was 100 percent incompetent; as it was, she spent most of the time daydreaming about and actually sucking Darden dick.

Garcetti was so fucking arrogant that he didn't bother to challenge a jury panel that was 85% horrible racist ghetto black women.

As for Lance Ito, I think that even in Japan people were denying being Japanese for a while.

>>134395513
and in your opinion your courts let a murderer walk the streets but made him pay money. Thats like Sharia law with their blood debt thing

>>134396298
Not quite. Thee parents of Goldman took him to trial for wrongful death rather than murder. In this trial, the previous ineptitudes were absent and it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he had committed the murder.
How they managed to get him into court for "wrongful death" is beyond me, but supposedly the observing lawyers found both sides of the case compelling.

>>134396680
>>134396298
Looked it up. Wrongful death is a civil accusation, which means that only "liability" for the death of the victim is required to be established. Simpson was acquitted of murder in his criminal trial, but not necessarily of the lesser charge of liability. The subsequent civil case was undertaken to prove his responsibility for the death of Goldman, but not his having murdered him. The fact they did prove he murdered Goldman is beside the point, they needed much less than that- only "liability." What they had was much more.

>>134389448
The only reason he was acquitted was that Marsha Clark was an incompetent cunt and Gil Garcetti was a fucking PC pussy

File: Nicole_brown_simpson.jpg (39KB, 237x379px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 237x379px

I'm just amazed that no one's put a bullet through the turbo groid's skull.
There's no way a human could do that to such a pretty and soft woman. He belongs in a fucking zoo with the other apes. The good news is that there's been no direction for the monkey but down ever since this happened.

>>134389448
Civil court=preponderance of evidence
Criminal=beyond a reasonable doubt

Different burdens of proof

>>134397604
don't you find that a fucked up system? Walks free from a murder charge, then they prove he is responsible for the death because he murdered him

I know it's different standards of proof required but the implications for liberty and justice are astounding. You can effectively be charged twice for the same crime. Even though its not technically double jeopardy and the punishment is less severe I find it a distinction without a difference.

Imagine this was someone who wasnt famous and was wrongly accused. They can have their life destroyed by this very easily

>>134398883
soft? the divorce she put him through was vicious, and that jaw could crack coconuts

>>134392864
>>134389448

Not to mention it's the state charging you with the crime so burden of proof should be higher.

To OPs point, I get it philosophically but ultimately we elect motherfuckers who represent us and pass laws accordingly. If the people want a different system then it starts with the vote. But this is pretty much set in stone. However, most agree tort law needs reformed, although I heard that's a scam too.

why do we have juries? they seem so inherently flawed since they can get picked by the lawyers. surely there must be a more efficient way to handle trials?

the juice is loose

>>134399146
I agree, the court system is an incoherent joke.

>>134389448
Even if you exclude the different burdens, the elements of a wrongful death claim and a murder charge are different, and the defences could be different (I know nothing of Californian law).

Imagine you are assaulted in some way, the person is charged. They run a successful defence. This defence isn't available in a civil claim, so you win.

Also applies with civil claims being unable to be pursued by the same thing could be covered by equity.

It maybe contrived but it makes a lot of sense if you accept they are to completely different, for all intents and purposes, separate cases.

>>134391942
yes better to be ruled by something imposed by a Corsican manlet

>>134399567

So the state has a more difficult time being tyrannical, of course. Unfortunately, if you have a population of peers that doesn't believe in equal justice, but rather social justice, then things start going to hell.

>>134389448
He stil hasn't paid what he was supposed to

>>134399567

>They can get picked by the lawyers.

Either sides' layers can freely send a juror home for whatever reason they want. The system exists to find people neither the prosecution or defense think will be easily swayed by the opposition.

>>134389710
Anon, I do not know if you saw this today, but a Jury consultant told Marcia Clark she could not win the trial unless she changed venue. Marcia Clark would not do it because she thought it was not the right thing to do.

>>134399146
I can why it should bother some people, but the fact is that this all took place under highly unusual circumstances. It seems to have been a trial of technicalities more than anything. Recall that they did not charge him with the same thing twice. The act of taking him to court was separate from that of conviction. They got him into the court for liability alone and were not charging him with murder. Liability is such a large and vague category that it comprises many things, including murder. You may say this makes it de facto double jeopardy because he was acquitted of murder, but he was only acquitted on the basis of criminal court rules. In other words, it was merely affirmed by the jury that his guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, not that that there wasn't a preponderance of evidence of it.

So the only question that bothers me is this one: how did they get him into court knowing that murder was the only possible way he could be "liable" for his death? Once they were in court, it was only logical to charge him. But taking him to trial in the first place seems suspect imo

File: Screenshot_20170721-022258.png (437KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1440x2560px

>>134389448

The state couldn't get him on murder but civilans got him in wrongful death/negligence. The real answer is here:


"Answer

You are not alone in being confused about how a person acquitted of murder in a criminal trial can be held liable for a victim's wrongful death in a civil trial.

The first step to understanding this seeming contradiction is to know that a criminal prosecution involves different laws, a different court system, and different burdens of proof. Specifically, the definition of first degree murder in the context of the O.J. case requires that the act be done with malice aforethought and premeditation. And to convict in the criminal court, the case against the defendant must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a civil case for wrongful death, on the other hand, the plaintiffs had to prove only that the defendant ’s intentional and unlawful conduct resulted in the victims ’ deaths.. The burden of proof in the civil case was preponderance of the evidence -- a much lesser burden than is required in a criminal case.

So, while a criminal jury might reasonably fail to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquit an accused, a civil jury might also reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant ’s unlawful conduct results in civil liability.

Is the former football hero Orenthal James Simpson a murderer? A civil jury found it more likely than not that he caused the death of his ex-wife and her friend. A criminal jury was unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that O.J. committed first degree murder. Legally, the outcomes do not contradict each other."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-civil-judgment-versus-criminal-conviction-28300.html

>>134399146
The way I see it. If a child dies on your property, e.g. drowns in your pool, it may not be a crime on your part, but you may be liable. Therefore a criminal case would fail, but a civil suit would.

File: Black_Power_OJ_Jury.jpg (31KB, 451x254px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 451x254px

>>134392352

Obviously the former black panther in the jury throwing around black power hand gestures was completely just in his judgment.

>>134392352
Holy fuck, are you a real life OJ supporter? If you seriously think he did not murder that bitch and waiter boy, you need to never breed, in fact, we as a species, need you to just go ahead and kill yourself now, thanks. Your parents need to be beat unmercifully for raising such a goddamn complete retard, at the minimum...

required viewing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3dmTystPKk

>>134400738
Whoa that's real

"It was garbage in, garbage out," said Cryer, a former Black Panther Party member who raised his left arm in a clenched-fist salute to Simpson as the panelists walked out of the courtroom on Tuesday."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1995/10/05/simpson-jurors-cite-weak-case-not-race-card/3096d489-3ca5-4d94-b326-f253d365bf63/?utm_term=.0d62b310ddfa

>>134401197
Don't give them traffic
https://archive.is/GeNDX

>>134401222
B A S E D NORBRO

Kardashian is etalone for cucks

>>134401222
Based

>>134400486
all that proves is that a logically twisted system followed its own twisted logic. I have no doubt legally the charges stand.

I'm saying that it is wrong for a person to be accused of causing an event to happen and to not be found guilty and then be brought before another court because of the same event to be accused of something similar.and found guilty.

>>134402383
>and to not be found guilty
to be found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt*

>>134402383
Yes, and you're perfectly okay with questioning our system. Unfortunately I don't have a counter argument or alternative since it's all I know. If they had the same burden of proof then you guaranteed to be convicted of both. So that would be shitty too. Contributing to a death=|= murder.

I am curious in how he contributed to their death (other than nearly decapitating them with a knife). What was the deciding factor? Not calling 911 fast enough? Idk

File: the-oj-simpson-saga-began-20-years-ago-today--heres-why-his-son-should-be-a-suspect.jpg (45KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 400x300px

HIS SON DID IT.

File: 1500254870425.jpg (22KB, 612x528px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 612x528px

>>134389448
You are an extreme moron if you think he didn't do it.

>>134389448
he was guilty beyond all doubt but the jury in the criminal trial was full of blackies who wanted to stick it to whitey and thought letting off a nog who killed 2 white people was the best way to do it

the civil trial had a more representative realistic jury

I dunno but that jury that acquitted him had 9 niggers on it.

9 niggers. Those fucking apes get over-represented. That's the last time that happens in a major trial, because most judges won't allow it.

They deal with the fucking animals all of the time. Why would they want one of them in their courtroom that isn't chained the fuck up?