[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I don't think anyone here is saying he's guilty in this case for some sort of revenge in the last case. That's ridiculous. However, his being guilty of committing those murders should be part of this discussion. It's a little more serious than tax evasion. I realize you were trying to be comparitive, but the murder of 2 people and they horrific way it was done does stick out and will for the rest of that piece of sh*t's life.

The guy was found guilty in the civil trial and paid virtually no restitution to the families that lost their loved ones. He did however co write a book entitled "If I did It". When he found out that if he made money from the book, he would have to give some to the Goldman's or Brown's, he tried to stop it from being published. Nice.

Sometimes I'm amazed at the lengths you will go to to defend scumbags. Dog killers, murderers they have a voice with you. Makes me sick.

Just as in the Vick case, I'm being accused of defending someone when I'm not defending him at all. Did I say at any point that he's not guilty? No. I am only speaking to the fact that everyone deserves the same rights and protections, whether it's you, me, or OJ. You also might notice that I didn't chime in on my feelings about the murder and whether I think he's guilty or innocent there. Why should I? Look at what you said, "his being guilty of committing those murders should be part of this discussion." That's fine except for one important thing.........he was tried in a court of law and found not guilty. Whether or not you believe that was the wrong decision is irrelevant now. According to the records, by him being found not guilty, it would be absolutely wrong to use that past crime to establish any kind of pattern of behavior for him. In my opinion, that makes the murders a non-issue here. This case should only be about whether or not he committed THIS crime and this crime only.