once a criminal always a criminal..

[<DRS>GPF]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-simpson914,0,4990054.story



its not just him im referring to.. people do not change, only their situation changes..

i truly believe that if a person who made a concious decision once based on the situation they were in, is again placed back in the same situation, theyll respond the same way. :ermm:



comments anyone?

[54warrior]

I for one could give a $hit about O.J. Simpson or any other celebrities and what they do. WHO CARES?!?!

[cbrooks118]

I see the future......................IF I DID BREAK IN by O. J. Simpson the next controversial book

[450raider]

well firstly theres a saying ive always heard, wherever a theif or druggy is- the others not too far behind so ill plant that seed to grow,..... now noone really cares about celebrities anymore all they do is whine and bit** about having it hard yeah i bet its real hard having all the money you can handle (seriously i bet it is harder than people think you get money, then your on your toes forever trying to protect it from the government which is no easy task aside from cons in general) but it still might not as hard as some retarded celebrities make it out to be. either way i couldnt care if i tried.

my thoughts

[reptikes]

<DRS>GPF, its people like you who hold back people like me. Your ignorance blinds you. If everybody thought like you i'd be in jail or still be stuck runnin the streets makin 100k a year servin crackheads and junkies. Luckily for me, my son and my girlfriend everybody don't think like you. And now i make a legal 30k a year and wouldn't trade it for 200k a year illegalily! People do change, i didn't move or quit taking to the people i used to kick it with. The opportunity is still there i just don't take it.

[REDRIDDER]

^^^^^AGREED^^^^^

[07250ex]

Originally posted by reptikes
And now i make a legal 30k a year and wouldn't trade it for 200k a year illegalily! ... is 30 k a year a normal wage in pa? and i dunno about u but id take 200 k a year over 30 k a year anyday no matter what it takes to get it

[Mxjunkie]

Originally posted by 07250ex
... is 30 k a year a normal wage in pa? and i dunno about u but id take 200 k a year over 30 k a year anyday no matter what it takes to get it

And you would be one of the many people who end up in jail for getting greedy trying to make a buck.. :ermm:

[07250ex]

Originally posted by Mxjunkie
And you would be one of the many people who end up in jail for getting greedy trying to make a buck.. :ermm: but u see thing this is im not gunna have to worry because i'll find away to make that kind of money legally its just ... at least where i live ... 30 k is useless around here it takes about 70 k a year just to live in my town ... highschool can make 30 k a year i mean if ur getting 30 k of ur own money after youve paid all ur dues at the end of the year that aint bad but if thats before billls ur done for

[reptikes]

30k is not a good amount of money for my area in Pa or for that matter anywhere in Pa. I have 5 felonies and a list of misdemeanors so job opportunitys are very, very limited to me. Most people don't look at what your doing with your life or where your going, just what you've done and where you were.
Stuck in the past instead of the present and future.

Again, people do change.

[Quadfather]

Originally posted by reptikes
30k is not a good amount of money for my area in Pa or for that matter anywhere in Pa. I have 5 felonies and a list of misdemeanors so job opportunitys are very, very limited to me.


Gee. I wonder why? Obviously, you didn't learn anything the first, second, third, and fourth time. How many does it take?

That's why some states have the three strike rule, which I strongly believe in. If you're not smart enough to learn a lesson the first or second time around, you've proven that you are a menace to society, and the only place for you is under the care of the state. Enough said.

I've hired people with a felony under their belt to work for my company. But if they were honest enough to tell me that they had multiples (which I would find out anyway with a background check, which I do), I would kindly show them the door.

[Quad18star]

They just have to drop it with Simpson.

Here's my opinion ... I think he killed Nicole and Ron but he was aquitted of the charges ... so that makes him innocent of the crime. If he was aquitted of the crime , I don't understand how he could have been tried and found guilty of wrongful death of the 2 . It doesn't make any sense to me . You're found innocent of the crime but then it turns around and other people find you guilty?!?! :confused:

The Goldman family was so pissed off when they heard that he was releasing the book ... so they get the rights to it in a lawsuit and then publish it ??? Seems like all they're out to do is make money off these deaths.

And if it's true that these guys stole his stuff , well I'd have done the same thing he did ... Get my stuff back !!!!

[Quadfather]

Originally posted by Quad18star
... so they get the rights to it in a lawsuit and then publish it ??? Seems like all they're out to do is make money off these deaths.


At this point, the only thing they can do is hit him where it hurts and thats in his wallet.

[Toadz400]

I also believe not too many people change. The meth heads who stole my quads were released the same night they stole them and were arrested countless times afterwards for the next couple years stealing things and selling meth. They're still roaming and doing the same thing over and over again. The Wisconsin court system is a joke....

[Quad18star]

Originally posted by Quadfather
At this point, the only thing they can do is hit him where it hurts and thats in his wallet.

He's so far in debt that he'll never get out ... but I must ask ... if he was found innocent by a jury of 12 people of these deaths , why is the court system allowing these legal prosecutions to continue ??

The Goldmans say " He's guilty" so they continue to persue the case .... but 12 of OJs peers found him innocent so the matter should be dropped not continued on for years after so that the Goldmans can make a buck off of him.

I honestly think he did commit the murders , but because the jury found him innocent , that's what people have to live with . You're not a criminal when you're found not guilty of the crimes.

[Quadfather]

Oh, believe me, I'm with ya. We all know he did it, but he was declared innocent by a jury.

The catch 22 is that he was found innocent in a criminal court, but then found guilty in a civil court (not of the murders, but of wrongful death). It's odd, but that's the way our court system in America is set up.

The thing that pisses me off is that his retirement from the NFL cannot be touched by the Goldmans, which, if I remember correctly, is tens of thousands of dollars per month. He still plays eighteen holes of golf a day, and does all of the traveling that he wants. He may be deeply in debt, but he is still a very, very wealthy man.

[Quad18star]

I just read a pretty interesting article about Simspon , the Goldmans and the publishing of the book " If I did it" in our local newspaper. There was a link at the bottom of the article from an interview that the Goldman family had on the Oprah Winfrey Show this past week .

Here's the link ... have a read. http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200709/20070913/slide_20070913_284_101.jhtml

Seems I have some of the same views that Oprah and Denise Brown have about the Goldmans and the publishing of this book.

When Simpson wanted to publish it , the Goldman family said it was a sickening and a disgrace ... but now that they have the rights to the books ... everything is OK for them to publish it.

Like it's said in the article , the Goldmans are out to make money on this book .... blood money !!!!! They've turned the death of their son and of Nicole Simpson into a way to make millions of dollars. Sickening !!!!!!

[JOEX]

Originally posted by Quad18star
He's so far in debt that he'll never get out ... but I must ask ... if he was found innocent by a jury of 12 people of these deaths , why is the court system allowing these legal prosecutions to continue ??

The Goldmans say " He's guilty" so they continue to persue the case .... but 12 of OJs peers found him innocent so the matter should be dropped not continued on for years after so that the Goldmans can make a buck off of him.

I honestly think he did commit the murders , but because the jury found him innocent , that's what people have to live with . You're not a criminal when you're found not guilty of the crimes.
The way I see it.. the courts & juries don't find people innocent, it's whether or not there's enough evidence to prove guilt. In the Simson case the police and prosecuters screwed up with presenting the case and planting evedince.

There are also different conditions to prove guilt between criminal and civil cases.

[Quad18star]

Originally posted by JOEX
The way I see it.. the courts & juries don't find people innocent, it's whether or not there's enough evidence to prove guilt. In the Simson case the police and prosecuters screwed up with presenting the case and planting evedince.

There are also different conditions to prove guilt between criminal and civil cases.

Innocent until proven Guilty.

I know just as much as the other guy that Simpson committed the murders , and you're right , it's the police and investigators that screwed up big time with the evidence that the jury had no real choice but to find him Not Guilty of the crimes.

Now with that being said ..... I don't understand how a group of 12 people can find someone Not Guilty in a criminal court of law , but then a judge overlooking the Civil Case finds him Guilty of Wrongful deaths . From my understandings the Civil case doesn't have a jury of 12 to judge .... so could it be that this Civil judge had it out for OJ ?? I mean you are supposed to be tried and judged by someone that has never heard of you before ... who in America has NOT heard of the OJ Simpson muder case?? I'm thinking that the Civil judge was going on evidence provided in the Civil case and taking into account evidence that he heard back in 1994 in the OJ muder trial. But that's just my opinion.

I never really understood how you can be found Not Guilty of murders of 2 people by a jury , yet another judge can find you Guilty of wrongful deaths. The Simpson defence proved that OJ was not at the crimescence , nor had he anything to do with the murders , but one judge says that he's liable for 2 peoples deaths?? :huh

That's like you being proven Not Guilty of a murder that happened here in my town , but I take you to court again and some judge decides that you're responsible for it , even though you were not here. Found Not Guilty by 12 , but Guilty by 1 .

OJ has said it before ... the Goldmans will not get a cent out of him. They receive any money that he makes ... so he said that he'll never work again another day in his life so he will technically never make another dime. He's actually pretty smart ... or has a pretty smart bunch of lawyers pulling his strings , because he's found a flaw in the system , and he's playing it ...LEGALLY !!!! I'd do the same thing if I was in his situation .

[JOEX]

This may help explain the difference between civil and criminal laws. They actually use the Simson case as an example :p

http://resources.lawinfo.com/index.cfm?action=results1&cat=103&act=faq&keywords=&state=&subcatid=21&i=a

Criminal law vs. Civil law


What is the difference between criminal law and civil law?
Civil law suits are private suits between two or more citizens. Civil law is the area of law by which private individuals resolve their differences with the help of the civil courts. Criminal law involves a citizen or a business and the state. The rules of the federal government and all individual state governments are codified into statutes. When an individual violates the rules, as listed in the statutes, then the federal government or the state will prosecute the individual. The remedies available in civil courts are generally limited to money damages. The remedies in criminal court may involve a money fine and/or a prison sentence.

Can some activities be both a criminal offense and a civil offense?
Yes. For example, if Dave decides to walk up and slug Matt, Dave may be guilty of battery in a criminal court and liable to Matt for battery in a civil court.

Is being guilty the same as being liable?
No. Guilt or innocence are terms used only within a criminal proceeding. Liability or non-liability are terms used only within a civil proceeding.

How could O.J. be found not guilty in his criminal case, yet, liable in his civil case?
The different court systems have different burdens of proof. To be found guilty in a criminal proceeding, the state must show beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of the crime charged. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a difficult burden to meet. In a civil case the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is responsible for any damages. Numerically, a preponderance of the evidence is a showing of a 51% certainty that the defendant is responsible. Beyond a reasonable doubt requires a showing of guilt closer to 100%.

[Quad18star]

Originally posted by JOEX
This may help explain the difference between civil and criminal laws. They actually use the Simson case as an example :p

http://resources.lawinfo.com/index.cfm?action=results1&cat=103&act=faq&keywords=&state=&subcatid=21&i=a

Criminal law vs. Civil law


What is the difference between criminal law and civil law?
Civil law suits are private suits between two or more citizens. Civil law is the area of law by which private individuals resolve their differences with the help of the civil courts. Criminal law involves a citizen or a business and the state. The rules of the federal government and all individual state governments are codified into statutes. When an individual violates the rules, as listed in the statutes, then the federal government or the state will prosecute the individual. The remedies available in civil courts are generally limited to money damages. The remedies in criminal court may involve a money fine and/or a prison sentence.

Can some activities be both a criminal offense and a civil offense?
Yes. For example, if Dave decides to walk up and slug Matt, Dave may be guilty of battery in a criminal court and liable to Matt for battery in a civil court.

Is being guilty the same as being liable?
No. Guilt or innocence are terms used only within a criminal proceeding. Liability or non-liability are terms used only within a civil proceeding.

How could O.J. be found not guilty in his criminal case, yet, liable in his civil case?
The different court systems have different burdens of proof. To be found guilty in a criminal proceeding, the state must show beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of the crime charged. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a difficult burden to meet. In a civil case the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is responsible for any damages. Numerically, a preponderance of the evidence is a showing of a 51% certainty that the defendant is responsible. Beyond a reasonable doubt requires a showing of guilt closer to 100%.

Thanks for the info .... very helpful in understanding the difference between the two.

You'd think that in any type of ruling , someone would have to be found 100% guilty in order to be charged with the crime ... not 51% certain that the person is involved in the crime .

Basically anyone can take you to court and they'd have damn near 50/50 chance of finding you guilty of a crime because they 'think" you commited it.

To me it would only make sense that if the Criminal Courts found you Not Guilty of the crimes , then the Civil Court shouldn't be allowed to charge you with it. You're going from 100% certainty of a non-offence to a 51% certainty ... a lower court is finding you guilty of something a higher court found you innocent of. ODD !!!!:huh

[JOEX]

Originally posted by Quad18star
... something a higher court found you innocent of. ODD !!!!:huh
That's where the misunderstanding comes into play. The courts don't find you innocent since you're already 'innocent until proven guilty', the court needs to PROVE the guilt.

The criminal courts have stricter gudlines than civil courts and it appears the penalties are different. I don't know the details but it seems criminal convictions have the potetial of incarceration and civil is just monetary.

[Quad18star]

Originally posted by JOEX
That's where the misunderstanding comes into play. The courts don't find you innocent since you're already 'innocent until proven guilty', the court needs to PROVE the guilt.

The criminal courts have stricter gudlines than civil courts and it appears the penalties are different. I don't know the details but it seems criminal convictions have the potetial of incarceration and civil is just monetary.

Ya that's what I meant by innocent ... Not proven Guilty.

You'd think that since the Criminal court has stricter guidelines that someone tried and found not guilty of a crime should not be able to be tried and found guilty in a court with less strict guidelines ... to me it just doesn't make sense ... but then again , I'm no lawyer or judge . LOL

I never really understood the whole " Wrongful Death" thing either . These two victims were butchered to say the least ... which is Murder .. someone intentionally took a knife and slashed and stabbed them ... and OJ was tried on these charges. If you're found to not be associated with the murders how can you be found guilty of Wrongful Death?? Maybe because he knew Nicole and Ron ?? Guilty by Association ?? :confused:

I'm sure there's a lot more to the charges than I know of ... but when you look at it from an outsiders perspective you think Found Not Guilty of Murder because of lack of evidence ... but Guilty of wrongful deaths because ......he knew them ?, because he was in the neighbourhood? , because he had a slow speed chase in his Bronco? because they had no other suspects?


On the other hand ... the Goldman family now sickens me . They did a complete 360 . They went from a family that was so against the publishing of the book , to a family that is now promoting it because they'll reap the rewards . If they were against the books so badly , they would have burnt it and never allowed it to be published when they received the rights to it.

It just goes to show , that even after the brutal murder of their son ,the old mighty dollar still has a place in their "grieving" hearts.

[Quad18star]

Conditions for filing wrongful death claim

The death must have been caused, in whole or in part, by the defendant's conduct, even though there was no direct intention to kill the victim. The defendant must have been deemed negligent or strictly liable for the victim's death. Also the deceased has dependent party such as family members who have suffered from emotional and monetary damages as a result of the death.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_death_claim"


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm now curious to know how OJ was the cause in whole , or in part for these deaths.

If some wacko with a knife walked onto the property that night and murdered these two , OJ is responsible?

There's gotta be evidence somewhere that I missed for him to be partly responsible for these deaths. I guess I'll do some research in the morning . :p

I love this kind of stuff !!!!:devil:

[07250ex]

the guys like 60 years old ... year old guys dont break into places and steal stuff most people can't even climb stairs well or run at all when there 60 how are they going to rob stuff?

[Toadz400]

Originally posted by 07250ex
the guys like 60 years old ... year old guys dont break into places and steal stuff most people can't even climb stairs well or run at all when there 60 how are they going to rob stuff?

What?