No steak for O.J.

Yes, and what does being a liberal or conservative have to do with it?

 

My point is the AP style guide probably has the answer as to the use of "innocent" vs. "not guilty". You found the answer. Some people prefer "innocent" as not to mix up "guilty" and "not guilty".

Some papers may choose to use "innocent". So while OJ was actually found "not guilty", some papers may prefer "innocent".

 

He's innocent. Innocent I tell ya!

 

Fine, troll, you started this topic to create your own agenda.
Well done.

Doofus.

 

There are two ways of looking at it. You can be found "not guilty" of a crime, but it doesn't mean you're "innocent" -- examples would be someone found not guilty by reason of insanity or because they pleaded guilty to a lesser offence or because a technicality like illegally obtained evidence helped them beat the rap. It means a person can't be convicted of the offence they were charged with, but it doesn't necessarily mean they didn't commit a crime.

On the other hand, common law provides for a presumption of innocence until you are proven guilty. If you are not proven guilty for whatever reason, that should confirm your innocence in the eyes of the law.

 

Since he was found "liable" in the civil suit, there is no stylistic injunction to justify referring to him as "innocent."

He was never found "innocent," thus saying he was is incorrect.

This one has always pissed me off.

 

Again, in fairness, "liability" does not necessarily indicate "guilt." You can be liable for all kinds of reasons that have little or nothing to do with culpability.

For example, somebody breaks into your house and your dog, in defence, takes a big chunk out of his leg. You did nothing wrong but, in a society where everyone is encouraged to be a victim, you can still be held liable for the burglar's injury.

 

Correct. 'Liability' and 'guilt' are different legal concepts. Liability almost always corresponds to having to pay monetary damages, whereas guilt often leads to jail time. Liability is a much lower standard to prove than guilt, which is why you hear "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal trials and "preponderance of evidence (> 50% of likelihood)" in civil cases. OJ was found liable, but not guilty. That doesn't mean he's innocent, he's not guilty. And he's liable.

Either way, the restaurant owner has placed himself in legal jeopardy by his actions. The owner apparently said he kicked Simpson out because of Goldman and Brown. Uh-uh, that's not going to fly legally. Again, people are not entitled to discriminate against a person based on their feelings of how a jury trial went. That's called 'arbitrary discrimination.' I expect this owner to backtrack on his boasting of the incident and try to come up with some rationale for why he kicked OJ out. I doubt he'll be successful. We will see. This was a foolish move by a grandstanding owner, IMO. A guy who wanted to 'strike back' at the 'unpunished' OJ. Doesn't matter how good it feels, you just can't do that type of thing in a law-based society. Much as you can't convict a hulked-up slugger without hard evidence. And you can't violate judges' orders not to leak grand jury testimony. Equal protection under the law.

When people try to take the law into their own hands, bad things happen. Ask the Germans who suffered under the Brownshirts. Ask the people in this country who were lynched.

One of the consistently argued concepts in the country is whether or not felons should be allowed to vote. Should an entire class of people be excluded? Should felons be excluded from eating at certain restaurants? What about people we wish were convicted of a felony but who weren't? This is a very slippery slope.

I think some private golf clubs have kept OJ out after the trials. But a restaurant which serves the general public is a different story, IMO.

 

Lesson learned:

Next time let him stay ... and do unspeakable things to his food before you serve it to him.

 

Rok, you got this issue nailed.

 

But why can you throw someone out for no shoes or a shirt?