Criminal law is very clear... It has absolutely nothing to do with civil judgements.
You will lose hands down challenging me on anything regarding law because i have infinitely more experience than you do as is shown in this pathetic argument.
Even in the civil suit, he was not found guilty of any murder!!! There is no civil court that can ever find any person guilty of murder because there are no murder trials in civil court and there will never be a day where we have a murder trial in a civil court. If that simple concept sank in your feeble mind you would know this.
Son do yourself a favor and read up something, anything about civil law and criminal law before you come on here embarrassing yourself talking about shit you dont know.
sorry, thats a personal opinion. And the law does not deal in that.
NOt guilty is one 110% innocent in any court.
Learn to separate your personal opinion from actual law.
(I could care less about this topic, its tired and its old. What amuses me is the number of mental midgets who know nothing about law that choose to speak up about issues that get them so emotional so that every one and any one who states simple factual truths becomes hated and riled by those who believe we should all join their mob mentality, ignore law and go down to the Las vegas jail house they are holding OJ in and hang him on a street light)
Not really. And trust me, I know the law, been involved with it for over 15 years.
Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot do so because they can only find them not guilty.
A verdict of not guilty can mean a verdict of not proven. Even if you personally believe the defendant is guilty, but the state does not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is required of you to find the defendant not guilty.
Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot do so because they can only find them not guilty.
A verdict of not guilty can mean a verdict of not proven. Even if you personally believe the defendant is guilty, but the state does not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is required of you to find the defendant not guilty.
hey asshole. I know exactly what I'm talking about, and everything I
said was true. Notice I didn't say guilty, I said liable.
You said he was "innocent by law." I challenged that, and I am right.
He was found innocent under a circus criminal trial. But he
was definitely found liable under the civil code.
Also I challenged you on your fking bullshit mock trial lie, and
of course you can't back it up because it's total bullshit.
Balls in your court bitch.
Fine with me...change it to "not guilty".... (thats until your run into the general idea respected by every single court in the country that every single suspect in any crime is innocent until proven guilty by law.)
By default if you are not found guilty the oustanding presumption of innocence stands. (very simple law my 15 year long student of the law.)
Little man, do yourself a favor and skip this thread. Go to the rubber room and find something more on your level.
NO one is here to try OJ for murder...
I have simply stated the facts as they are..
OJ IS NOT GUILTY BY LAW
ITs a very simple concept that i know you simply cant comprehend because you are an emotional mental midget that doesnt even understand the laws of the very constitution that protects him.
No you little bitch ass. stop lying like the little cock sucker you are.
this is your exact post...
These are the words that came out of your cock smoker and you little dick monkey, i dont see any of the shit you claim you said.
I dont see the word liable or shit like that...
But being the dumbass you are, i didnt expect anything less. You probably figured i would be too stupid to copy and repaste your own words to prove what an idiot you are.
this is your exact post...
These are the words that came out of your cock smoker and you little dick monkey, i dont see any of the shit you claim you said.
I dont see the word liable or shit like that...
But being the dumbass you are, i didnt expect anything less. You probably figured i would be too stupid to copy and repaste your own words to prove what an idiot you are.
good you have shown us with this very strong argument..
Off to the rubber room to find nakkid pictures of women...go on little boy,
let the grown ups talk.hola hola hola
Here you go commie, I think maybe you do need help after all.
A legal analogy: Guilty or not guilty?
The statistical concept of 'significant' vs. 'not significant' can be understood by comparing to the legal concept of 'guilty' vs. 'not guilty'.
In the American legal system (and much of the world) a criminal defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If the evidence proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict is 'guilty'. Otherwise the verdict is 'not guilty'. In some countries, this verdict is 'not proven', which is a better description. A 'not guilty' verdict does not mean the judge or jury concluded that the defendant is innocent -- it just means that the evidence was not strong enough to persuade the judge or jury that the defendant was guilty.
In statistical hypothesis testing, you start with the null hypothesis (usually that there is no difference between groups). If the evidence produces a small enough P value, you reject that null hypothesis, and conclude that the difference is real. If the P value is higher than your threshold (usually 0.05), you don't reject the null hypothesis. This doesn't mean the evidence convinced you that the treatment had no effect, only that the evidence was not persuasive enough to convince you that there is an effect.
A legal analogy: Guilty or not guilty?
The statistical concept of 'significant' vs. 'not significant' can be understood by comparing to the legal concept of 'guilty' vs. 'not guilty'.
In the American legal system (and much of the world) a criminal defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If the evidence proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict is 'guilty'. Otherwise the verdict is 'not guilty'. In some countries, this verdict is 'not proven', which is a better description. A 'not guilty' verdict does not mean the judge or jury concluded that the defendant is innocent -- it just means that the evidence was not strong enough to persuade the judge or jury that the defendant was guilty.
In statistical hypothesis testing, you start with the null hypothesis (usually that there is no difference between groups). If the evidence produces a small enough P value, you reject that null hypothesis, and conclude that the difference is real. If the P value is higher than your threshold (usually 0.05), you don't reject the null hypothesis. This doesn't mean the evidence convinced you that the treatment had no effect, only that the evidence was not persuasive enough to convince you that there is an effect.
thats why its referred to as a "presumption"...
But lets not get caught up in a meaningless war of words..(or may be meaningful to you but not to me because i really dont give a rats ass about OJ...
Lets simply agree that he is "NOT GUILTY BY LAW" since thats what the jurors actually declared.
There you are, you are right i am wrong. Oj is not innocent but he is also NOt guilty by law.
thanks
