Sir Charles Speaks Out
"That [OJ] and the Duke Lacrosse scandal show you that we have a racial divide in this country, because it’s just really about being right or wrong. I, personally, think OJ’s guilty. When the Duke Lacrosse thing happened you saw people taking sides. I’m like, well I don’t have an opinion, I don’t know any evidence and now that I’ve seen evidence I don’t believe anything happened. To me, OJ Simpson is very simple he has just made a bad situation worse. I feel bad that people judge black people by him cause he’s not like us, we’re good people." - Charles Barkley on HBO's Costas Now
21 comments:
Wrong Charles...people don't judge black people by what OJ did...they judge OJ by what he (allegedly) did.
And you can call me crazy, but the court of law found OJ not-guilty, so as far as I'm concerned, he's not guilty.
Barkley has never been afraid to say what he thinks. I can think of a few people that could learn from him.
As for OJ, I accept the verdict in the criminal case but I don't agree with it. I do agree with the verdict in the civil case which found Simpson responsible for the murders. Personally, I'm convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Simpson killed his former wife and Ron Goldman.
Call ME crazy, but to use your logic if a Durham Court of Law found the Duke 3 guilty, as far as your concerned they would be guilty?
Jurys are a crap shoot. Guilty people are found innocent and innocent people are found guilty.
And given a glimpse at how our legal system has operated concerning the Duke case, I am skeptical about the entire process.
Charles, I don't judge black people by what OJ did. That would be unfairly painting with a broad brush. I do judge black people by all the poll results I saw following the verdict in that case. They indicated that black people OVERWHELMINGLY supported the verdict which put a man who is a danger to blacks and whites alike on the street. I will never forget the TV coverage of law students at Howard jumping up and down in jubilation over the verdict. It was quite sobering.
Charles - Your have always been a bright funny enlightened light in my world. I am white. The trial in the OJ case was tried badly. Marcia could not convict a ham sandwich. Barry Scheck is my hero and testified for the defense. Not Guilty is NOT QUILTY. Thanks for weighing in on the duke case.
I've always like Sir Charles.
Like 5:00, I was much more disturbed by the Howard Law School students than I was by the verdict itself.
I was a little surprised by the verdict but I could accept it with the background of police abuse in the community, the bungled prosecution (the glove in court demonstration using the defendant and not using the slow-speed chase) and the n-word goods the defense got on Furman. It was pretty clear OJ had done it but nullification at least made some sense in that context. But it should not have been an ocassion for hysterical celebration by students of the law.
Charles, whose wife is white, was once challeged by an ESPN reporter about some racial teasing he engaged in. He said something like, "I was just joking around with my friends and some ESPN guy wanted to make something out of it. If he doesn't like it f*** him and his family too."
How can Sir Charles say OJ is guilty, you are innocent until proven guilty, so if the jury says "not guilty" it means innocent. Therefore OJ is innocent. About the Duke players, they are innocent until proven guilty (which they are), so lets let a Durham jury decide that.
O.J. Simpson's Civil Trial, (1997)found that Simpson "willfully and wrongfully" caused the death of Ronald Goldman and that he committed battery with malice and oppression against Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.
Not guilty doesn't equate to innocent. Not guilty means the jury concludes that the prosecution didn't prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. They may or may not feel the defendant is actually innocent.
I can conclude OJ is guilty based on the evidence. It's just my own personal view and since I wasn't on the jury it carries no weight. But the First Amendment allows me to express that view on this blog site.
To get to a jury trial in this country I would hope that more would be required than the rambling, inconsistent stories of one person. Especially when the stories are not credible and are not corroborated by any witness or physical evidence.
Love ya, Sir Charles...he speaks his mind, and I've always enjoyed him...now, I like him even more!!
6:04, When you go to trial you are innocent, until proven guilty. 12 jurors said that OJ was not guilty, so he is innocent. You as a suspect are innocent walking into court, when you walk out you are either proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt or innocent. So if you walk out not being proven guilty, then you walk out as innocent, the same way as when you walked in. How can you possibly say that "not guilty" means you are not innocent?
I have always admired Charles Barkley on and off the court. When I've seen him interviewed, he's always been intelligent, honest, and very smart. This is just another example of what I've always seen in his public appearances and statements. Great guy!
A jury could find someone not guilty because the prosecution could not put forward enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but they could still feel the person was probably guilty. It's just that "probably" isn't good enough to convict someone in criminal court. A jury could also feel the person was innocent. Or they could be unsure as to whether the person was guilty or innocent. As for me, although I accept a jury's verdict, I can think whatever I want and so can anyone else. There's no law that says you have to agree with a jury's verdict.
Having sat on a couple of juries, one for murder, I've always respected jury decisions. Only the jurors heard the case as the court allowed. However, the DNA and other scientific evidence in the OJ case convinced me that he is guilty. The fact that the jury deliberated for such a short time tells me they had very little discussion of the massive amount of evidence presented and likely made up their minds before all of the evidence was presented. I question that verdict just as I question the Rodney King verdict.
The difference between both of those cases and this case is the case deserved to be tried, there was unquestionably a victim(s). I have a very hard time accepting, as some seem to in the LAX case, that a mere accusation is reason to take a case to court particularly when the accuser's credibility is questionable (at best) and the exculpatory evidence is so great.
I fear for all men who may be falsely accused and am concerned for the harm this case brings to real victims of rape.
8:17 PM said:
"Anonymous said...
6:04, When you go to trial you are innocent, until proven guilty. 12 jurors said that OJ was not guilty, so he is innocent. You as a suspect are innocent walking into court, when you walk out you are either proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt or innocent. So if you walk out not being proven guilty, then you walk out as innocent, the same way as when you walked in. How can you possibly say that "not guilty" means you are not innocent?"
==================
Because he actually murdered two people and got away with it, that's how.
The weight of the evidence strongly suggested that OJ was guilty. But the truth is that the police badly botched the investigation and gave OJ's very good lawyers all the rope they could ever need to hang a jury or create reasonable doubt. As we all well know, flawed procedures beget flawed results. And in the OJ case, sloppy police work killed the prosecution.
5:46 - why a "Durham jury" why not one of the other surrounding counties? What reasons do you have for thinking they did it?
5:46.... so when a jury finds the LAX players INNOCENT, then you will believe they are innocent?
of course barkely would say something like that. he is a white wife having sell out uncle tom.
In a US civil court of law, a jury found by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant OJ Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman. Is there something ambiguous about this? Barkley is right.
a criminal trial outweighs a civil trial. usually if someone wins in the criminal case, the civil suit is unlikely to be won but an exception was made for OJ as white people wanted to punish OJ. Oj is still living his life as they cannot touch his nfl pension and he is till golfing and chasing white women. the civil trial did not really change his lifestyle. btw, it is obvius that oj was involved in the crime but he is a good example that justice can be bought, just like the duke 3 are trying to do.
Post a Comment