Still, OJ was acquitted in an American court of law, and that's supposed to stand for something. Officially he's innocent--although I guess convicted in a civil case?--and if proprietors can start throwing people out because of an unsavory press, that seems worrisome.

Those are my second thoughts. My first, of course, was that OJ, in lieu of hard time in the hoosegow, deserves all the humiliation he gets.
 

Convicted in a civil trial, yes...
 

You can't be convicted in a civil trial, only held liable. And the standard of evidence there is "preponderance of evidence" (if I remember right), not "beyond a reasonable doubt." So the two outcomes don't contradict each other before the law -- one requires 98% certainty, the other like 51%.

Nonetheless, proprietors should be allowed to kick out whomever they want as long as they're not discriminating against a protected group (I forget the lingo for 'protected group' that the Supreme Court created -- 'suspect classification'? something like that).

"We don't want your business." A perfectly legitimate American thing to say. And a reminder that Society is not the same as Government. Thank God!

Standing Eagle

PS. I have no opinion about OJ's guilt. If I ran a restaurant I would be woefully unprepared....
 

Yup, held liable. My mistake.
 

You may not have a restaurant, SE, but I assume your home is one of our National Parks. Which belongs to the US taxpayer, including OJ, meaning it would be hard to kick him out if he pays the (ever-increasing) admission fee.
 

You're right, as a national symbol I can't discriminate among my clientele.

And I wouldn't want to! Hey, some of my best friends are Juice!

SE



--purveyor of QUALITY wordplay to all demographics, without fear or favor
 

Just to clarify a little further, not only can you not be "convicted" in a civil trial, you are not "officially innocent" when found "not guilty" in a criminal trial. It is a ruling that the evidence did not meet the standard of guilt, not an affirmative finding by an official body that the accused is innocent.
 

I'm no lawyer but that sounds strange to me. What else is "innocent until proven guilty"? If you're not proven guilty, you're assumed innocent, right?
 

You are presumed innocent, for purposes of assessing whether or not the prosecution meets its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But when the jury finds someone not guilty, it means only that the prosecutor did not meet that burden; thus it is not an official finding of innocence. So "officially innocent" for purposes of the trial process, yes; but now that the trial is over, I think it more accurate to say that he is officially "not guilty". The fact that we presume strangers we pass on the street won't pull out a gun and shoot us dead doesn't mean they might not have that very intention. The presumption of innocence is a due process protection afforded us under the Constitution, but it is not a judgment of actual fact. When the jury finds someone not guilty, it doesn't mean they didn't think there was plentiful evidence of guilt; they may even believe the defendant is guilty. What it means is that the evidence of guilt is not sufficiently strong as to eliminate all reasonable doubt. In short, OJ ain't guilty, but he ain't innocent either.
 

It's now official that some people have read my brilliant pun and not commented on it. Where's the love?

Good intervention on the 'not guilty' thing -- love to see precision on here. I think I wrote a few weeks ago that in some sense "innocent until proven guilty" is a canard. But this poster, 5:57, expresses more precisely what's meant by it (it looks like a canard, and quacks like one, but isn't exactly a canard).

Anyone who liked EITHER of my puns is welcome to say so now.

Fishing Eagle
 

Please baby baby please......stop the dorkiness.