Test results: Johnson's blood alcohol level was .072

[DallasEast]

Them or the people who really "failed" at the trial Burm continuously brings up. The prosecution and investigation were for the most part completely inept. If you think OJ did it your criticism should fall on them, because THAT is the reason why he was acquitted.

:clap2:

Through the years, it has been nauseating to read or hear how people have made Simpson into the worst murderer in U.S. (if just that) history. Heck, the 'attention' placed upon Timothy McVeigh doesn't even scratch the surface of the hatred levied at Simpson. It is refreshing to find SOMEONE who can acknowledge Simpson as the criminal, but who also understands where the real fault lies--and where the true outrage should be directed--in his or in any trial (murder or otherwise) which was handled just as badly.

/rant off

 

[ndanger]

:clap2:

Through the years, it has been nauseating to read or hear how people have made Simpson into the worst murderer in U.S. (if just that) history. Heck, the 'attention' placed upon Timothy McVeigh doesn't even scratch the surface of the hatred levied at Simpson. It is refreshing to find SOMEONE who can acknowledge Simpson as the criminal, but who also understands where the real fault lies--and where the true outrage should be directed--in his or in any trial (murder or otherwise) which was handled just as badly.

/rant off

I don't find anything refreshing about ANY and ALL associated with the judicial fiasco of the Simpson case.And yes I agree people should be at least as passionate about McVeigh.I'm from Oklahoma so perhaps I am biased on that one in particular.But what do I know,I am still scratching my head about our Government rejoicing over Sadam's hanging, while Bin Laden continues to hang out in coziness SOMEWHERE and figures out ways to rape the American way of life and the Muslem religion and no-one seems to care.
No dissrespect to you DallasE and I do understand what you meant.

 

[Verdict]

I have never met a criminal attorney. I always wanted to ask him this: "You defend a guy, and during the process you find out that without a doubt he is guilty. But due to a couple of tricks, mistakes on the part of the DA or the Cops, whatever, he is found innocent." How do you handle that? Verdict- I am curious. To me it seems that that is what is wrong with the system. Finding out WHO did it and punishing that person, which at the SAME time protects other innocents from being victimized by that person again, has been lost. Now its just a stage for performances by lawyers.

I am of the opinion that in order to effectively represent someone that it crucial to know whether the person actually commited the alleged offense and all of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the alleged offense. In layman's terms I want to know if they did it and how they did it. If a lawyer does not obtain that information, up front, the lawyer might use a theory of defense which would conflict with the facts of the case which would lead the defendant straight into a buzzsaw.

The second issue of how do I handle it is really very straight forward. I am doing my job. The way our system of justice is set up, both sides (the prosecution and the defendant) are both entitled to zealous representation. If a defendant does not have good, competent, effective representation, our system of justice would be merely a sham.

I realize that the fact that I am very good and very zealous gives my client an advantage in most cases, but isn't that what they are paying for? I make no appologies for doing my job.

Many people assume that just because a charge is filed that the defendant is guilty. You would be surprised how often that is not the case. In fact, it is often the case that the prosecution's star witness is the person that actually commited the alleged crime and that is why they were an eye witness, because they did it. LOL.

It is ironic that how someone who is very "pro prosecution" can quickly view things so very differently when they are the person that is in law enforcement's crosshairs. I would submit that if you or one of your loved one's were charged, rightly or wrongly, that you would look for a lawyer exactly like me.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I have never met a criminal attorney. I always wanted to ask him this: "You defend a guy, and during the process you find out that without a doubt he is guilty. But due to a couple of tricks, mistakes on the part of the DA or the Cops, whatever, he is found innocent." How do you handle that? Verdict- I am curious. To me it seems that that is what is wrong with the system. Finding out WHO did it and punishing that person, which at the SAME time protects other innocents from being victimized by that person again, has been lost. Now its just a stage for performances by lawyers.

Every defendant has a legal right to representation. Someone has to do it, and that defendant's lawyer cannot go up in front of the jury and say, "my client is guilty, convict him.". The defendants lawyer is supposed to do everything he can to protect his client. If the defendant cannot hire a lawyer or no lawyer will accept his case, one will be asigned by the courts. Again, whomever it is, must defend the client to the best of his ability.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

While not legally drunk is there any question that he was impaired and therefore a danger to everyone on the road?

Absolutely.

Driving impaired, in my book, is like attempted murder.
too many idiots already out there with lethal weapons (vehicles).
To dismiss this as "under the limit" is to dismiss reality: impaired drivers put other motorists at risk.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

:clap2:

Through the years, it has been nauseating to read or hear how people have made Simpson into the worst murderer in U.S. (if just that) history. Heck, the 'attention' placed upon Timothy McVeigh doesn't even scratch the surface of the hatred levied at Simpson. It is refreshing to find SOMEONE who can acknowledge Simpson as the criminal, but who also understands where the real fault lies--and where the true outrage should be directed--in his or in any trial (murder or otherwise) which was handled just as badly.

/rant off

True, there does seem to be a double standard at work.
But here are some reasons why this is the case:

1. Simpson is just a trashy, unrepentent guy. He's very easy to hate.
2. He was famous before he (allegedly) slit the throat of the mother of his kids and another innocent bystander
3. Simpson spent lots of money to surround himself with big-name lawyers who seemed equally contemptible.
4. Simpson (allegedly) did it in a fit of passion. And he knew one of the victims
5. That sad sack McVeigh supposedly had political reasons and did not know his victims. That does not excuse the terrible event, but McVeigh was a noboby before the crime and was executed. Simpson, on the other hand is still looking for the perps on the golf course and in strip clubs.
6. Because the media turned Simpson's trial into the trial of the century and because the trial was near Hollywood, that trial was high profile while McVeigh's paled in comparison.
McVeigh is dead, and good on us.
Simpson continues to rub it in. So that is why Simpson generates more hate.

 

[Jarv]

Absolutely.

Driving impaired, in my book, is like attempted murder.
too many idiots already out there with lethal weapons (vehicles).
To dismiss this as "under the limit" is to dismiss reality: impaired drivers put other motorists at risk.

What do you mean by impaired ? I've seen 90 year old drivers go right through stop lights/signs and not even know they did it. 16 year old kids driving 80-90 MPH laughing and singing to the music, not paying attention. These folks are impaired IMHO...

None of us saw Tank driving, but at 3 am doing 40 in a 25 on a lonely back road is not as big of an issue (His other history asside).

Heck, if ole Hos took a shot of his Nyguil at 11 PM and had to pick up one of his kids because they were broke down at 1 am somewhere, he would be impaired also...probably not dangerous, unless his kids did something stupid and he was pissed.

Drinking and driving is wrong no doubt about it. There is a alcohol limit for a reason. Tank was under the limit not over it.

 

[03EBZ06]

None of us saw Tank driving, but at 3 am doing 40 in a 25 on a lonely back road is not as big of an issue (His other history asside).

Eh, I don't think he was stopped at lonely back road, I believe it was in residential area that is why speed limit was only 25 mph.

 

[DallasEast]

True, there does seem to be a double standard at work.

There is no double standard. That is just an excuse.

But here are some reasons why this is the case:

1. Simpson is just a trashy, unrepentent guy. He's very easy to hate.
2. He was famous before he (allegedly) slit the throat of the mother of his kids and another innocent bystander
3. Simpson spent lots of money to surround himself with big-name lawyers who seemed equally contemptible.
4. Simpson (allegedly) did it in a fit of passion. And he knew one of the victims

Excuses. Simpson was a double homocide killer.

That's it.

Everyone's life is precious, but his killing of two people IS NO LESS DIFFERENT than any other double homicide killer.

"He's disgusting".

"He killed a loved one and an acquaintance".

"He's wealthy".

"His temper got out of control".

All excuses.

Simpson was and is a double homicide killer. There is no special Hell set aside for Simpson. He's going to the same Hell as every other double homicide killer. If people are going to hate Simpson, they should hate him no more or less than any other cold blooded killer, but that's not really the case, is it?

The answer is no, but a better question is why? Fame? Excuse. His attitude? Excuse. Money? Excuse.

It's been a decade and people are still hiding behind excuses.

5. That sad sack McVeigh supposedly had political reasons and did not know his victims. That does not excuse the terrible event, but McVeigh was a noboby before the crime and was executed. Simpson, on the other hand is still looking for the perps on the golf course and in strip clubs.

Excuses.

Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people, 19 of whom were children. He was executed and became an afterthought.

Simpson murdered 2 people. He was acquitted, but even before he was freed and up to this very day, he is considered the worst murderer in U.S. history.

Rubbish and utter nonsense. Excuses are a *****.

6. Because the media turned Simpson's trial into the trial of the century and because the trial was near Hollywood, that trial was high profile while McVeigh's paled in comparison.
McVeigh is dead, and good on us.

In a lot of people's minds, you're 100% correct. Television can blind even the most 'socially-conscious' individual to the point that 168 burials never took place, but two will live in infamy. Right?

Simpson continues to rub it in. So that is why Simpson generates more hate.

That's an excuse. Simpson rules no one's life, but this is a common excuse many use to explain their hatred of this murderer. Bin Laden killed far more people, is vastly more famous, and has rubbed our noses in the blood of thousands. He's practically an afterthought in the eyes of those who hate Simpson so vehemently.

The question is, "Why"?

 

[Kilyin]

And you've drawn these distinctions about Simpson, Mcveigh and Bin Laden based on what, exactly? How can you presume to know how the entire country (or world) feels about these issues? You can't.

Now let's delve into your comparisons of these individuals. Simpson was an American icon and football hero, and he got away with a double murder. You can't compare him to terrorists, that's just assinine. In addition, Mcveigh and Bin Laden didn't commit these crimes and get off scott free. Mcveigh got executed, and Bin Laden is still at large. How any reasonable person could think Bin Laden is an 'afterthought' is beyond comprehension.

All that being said, this thread has gone waaaay offtopic.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

And you've drawn these distinctions about Simpson, Mcveigh and Bin Laden based on what, exactly? How can you presume to know how the entire country (or world) feels about these issues? You can't.

Now let's delve into your comparisons of these individuals. Simpson was an American icon and football hero and he got away with a double murder. You can't compare him to terrorists, that's just assinine. In addition, Mcveigh and Bin Laden didn't committ these crimes and get off scott free. Mcveigh got executed, and Bin Laden is still at large. How any reasonable person could think Bin Laden is an 'afterthought' is beyond comprehension.

All that being said, this thread has gone waaaay offtopic.

Wow, I just checked back in on this thread and based on this last response, this thing has driven about as far into the weeds as is possible.

:laugh2:

 

[Verdict]

I am thinking about poking someone in the eye just to keep this thread going.:laugh2:

 

[DallasEast]

And you've drawn these distinctions about Simpson, Mcveigh and Bin Laden based on what, exactly? How can you presume to know how the entire country (or world) feels about these issues? You can't.

Now let's delve into your comparisons of these individuals. Simpson was an American icon and football hero, and he got away with a double murder. You can't compare him to terrorists, that's just assinine. In addition, Mcveigh and Bin Laden didn't commit these crimes and get off scott free. Mcveigh got executed, and Bin Laden is still at large. How any reasonable person could think Bin Laden is an 'afterthought' is beyond comprehension.

All that being said, this thread has gone waaaay offtopic.

Now THAT'S the truth.

 

[5Stars]

Now THAT'S the truth.

What if the Cowboys hired Bin Hiding and Simpson as coaches?

Man, talk about a cut-throat team? Man, that Cowboy team would be blowing other team out of the water!

 

[Verdict]

What if the Cowboys hired Bin Hiding and Simpson as coaches?

Man, talk about a cut-throat team? Man, that Cowboy team would be blowing other team out of the water!

I hear Dr. Kervorkian is free. I think he needed a better attorney.

 

[Verdict]

Wow, I just checked back in on this thread and based on this last response, this thing has driven about as far into the weeds as is possible.

:laugh2:

I think the term of art is "In the ditch".:laugh2:

 

[cowboyed]

Absolutely.

Driving impaired, in my book, is like attempted murder.
too many idiots already out there with lethal weapons (vehicles).
To dismiss this as "under the limit" is to dismiss reality: impaired drivers put other motorists at risk.

If that is the case I wouldn't waste my time reading your extremist book. Driving while impaired is reckless and negligent and deserves criminal punishment particularly if injury or loss of life is involved. Attempted murder would be consciously drinking with the intent of killing someone. I believe that is why they have a negligent homicide legal precedent.

It's all relative to how society's values or perceptions change. It wasn't too long ago that driving while intoxicated was viewed as an aw schucks activity and if police stopped you it was to escort you home or chuckle along over your condition.

So why don't we go after the hundreds of thousands of so called attempting murderers and all the friends, families, police officers, etc.. who aided and abetted these killers.

While we are at it why not even especially now arrest the owners of all establishments who are serving even one drink to a customer because it is like giving them a gun with at least one bullet in it. Don't even get me started on the supermarkets with their beer sections. While we are at it why don't we dismantle the federal and all the state and local governments who generate tax revenue from establishments that become the breeding ground for these intoxicated attempting murderers.

There now I see things from your perspective.

 

[burmafrd]

congrats, Cowboyed
You are starting to get it.
Impaired is impaired= no matter what legal technicalities say.
Either you are totally sober or you are not.
Same as for those that attempt to drive while dead tired.
They are impaired as well.
All put innocent people at risk and should be held accountable if something happens.

 

[peplaw06]

congrats, Cowboyed
You are starting to get it.
Impaired is impaired= no matter what legal technicalities say.
Either you are totally sober or you are not.
Same as for those that attempt to drive while dead tired.
They are impaired as well.
All put innocent people at risk and should be held accountable if something happens.

is that really what you got out of his post? Man you're more delusional than I thought.

 

[cowboyed]

peplaw06, as you stated burmafrd was way off the mark, I was laying it on thick because I viewed the attempted murder comment as too extreme. I imagine intent, circumstances and results have a lot to do with breaking whatever criminal or civil law associated with drinking under the influence.