No steak for O.J.

Yes, this is the owner's best line of defense, IMO. And I think this is what he will try to do if OJ's lawyer pursues the case. The problem for the owner is he reportedly communicated to others that he did what he did 'for Ron and Nicole,' or something along those lines. He also has received 'hundreds' of supportive emails since the incident, and from his seeming braggadocio about the event, one of the first things I would do in legal discovery is seek to obtain his email records, as I would be willing to bet that he answered at least one of those emails with something like "Yeah, f*ck that murderer" or some such thing. Any such response - anything which puts him out of the realm of 'I kicked OJ out because I was afraid he would disrupt business,' etc would seriously undermine his claim that he removed OJ from the premises based on legally legitimate concerns (e.g., OJ being noticeably drunk or belligerent to other patrons). The original write-up I saw of this subject basically made it seem - with quotes from the owner - that the owner didn't want OJ getting positive attention (which the owner obviously thought was unjust in light of the criminal verdict). That is, the owner felt it 'wasn't right' that OJ should get that attention. Not that it was affecting the restaurant's business, but just that it wasn't something the owner personally wanted to witness. That is not solid legal ground from which to kick someone out of an open-to-the-public restaurant, as I'm sure the owner has been subsequently legally advised. As ifilus said, the owner's version of events and his supposed motive is likely to change before this would ever be heard in court or proceed to a settlement.

Again, the thing that really upsets me about this situation is that it is just the type of thing a jerk like OJ would exploit to make himself seem more sympathetic. We have seen OJ go to this emotional manipulation playbook before when he, IMO, self-interestedly 'cozied up' to the black community during his criminal trial. For someone who seemingly didn't have much use for many African-Americans after his NFL playing career and before the two murders took place, it was, by all accounts, quite the turnaround. And as a cynical PR ploy, it made sense and seemed to get him the results he and his team were looking for.

This incident (the owner kicking OJ out of the restaurant) demonstrates why it's important to think things through before taking this restaurant owner's bold brand of action. It's best to try and avoid becoming subject to the Law of Unintended Consequences - The owner almost certainly thought he was doing something noble or 'standing tall,' and yet what he's actually accomplished is the potential elevation of OJ's stature as a 'victim.' Dumb, and apparently quite counterproductive to his original intent.

 

I hope the juice sues the racist bastard for GP.

 

Ok, I had to touch up that last post. Hopefully it is a bit clearer now.

 

Owner should just have taken a dump on his steak

 

I believe Peterson was convicted and is in prison. I dont have to be mad that he got off.

 

I think white America was pissed. But just because we don't burn down our neighborhoods and loot liquore stores doesn't mean we aren't upset.

 

Then again, what about another aspect of the First Amendment: The freedom of association? If you argue from that perspective, Ruby is as free to dissociate himself from O.J. Simpson as I am to dissociate myself from my own mother.

Having said that, the fact he owns a restaurant may trump that in the eyes of the law...

 

Here's the deal. White amerikkka didn't like the findings in the OJ case. Black amerikkka liked the findings because a black guy got away with a crime.
Case closed.

 

fixed

 

Provably close? Demonstrably close?

 

That's why private golf clubs can exclude OJ, as some (I believe) have done. The problem for the owner here is that it's a public restaurant, which changes its legal status.

 

So you're saying that blacks are so amoral that something isn't a crime if a black does it? Martin Luther King wept.