It's all about Trump, as usual

Post Reply New Topic

(1) The LAPD reformed.

(2) The case was overwhelmed by the fear that OJ being found guilty would lead to even more dangerous riots. This pressure impacted everyone who worked on the case.

(3) You’re 18, not from memory. In 1995, you were five years away from being born.

(4) By 2008 everyone knew he was guilty and that he got off, by this time people were looking for something to nail him on to fix letting an innocent man go with an abominable crime.

In what way?



Please cite where the jurors acquitted OJ out of fear of riots.



Knowledge of history is based on what one has learned, not what someone has experienced within their lifetime i.e. I remember that John Wilkes Booth Shot Abraham Lincoln in Ford's theater April 15th 1865 and further details.

Trying to rebuff me using ageism is unseemly, not to mention ad hominem.

Kid just google “LA Riots impact.” Also the CNN article above goes into reform.

On how charged racial relations shaped the court room precedings, see point 1:

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/25/11105096/ ... oj-simpson

Also that at the time those working on the case (lawyers, LAPD) were impacted by the fears of race riots (this is partly what made it a media circus) :

https://books.google.com/books?id=P9Q3D ... ot&f=false

It was all over the cultural lexicon and it hindered their ability to do their job.

Also kid, yes, seeing how a culture changes first hand always beats reading it in a book.

No Rodney King, no LA riots, no widespread coverage of police corruption, no fear forcing reform, no pressure on OJ case. You’re used to Black Lives Matter, in the past even the notion of getting coverage and getting any results would be a miracle.

John Wilkes Boothe is a fact, you don’t know how it shaped the culture of the time period since you weren’t there.

Last edited by Spooky_Mulder on 28 Sep 2018, 2:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

I asked you specific questions and you're resorting to obfuscation and ad hominem condescension. Too bad you were unwilling to discuss/debate in a seemly fashion. We're done here.

Said after I produced links to evidence.

If you’re uninterested in facts and evidence should have told me earlier, kid.

Also advice going forward - acting as though one knows what a time period was like without living through it makes one come off as naive. For instance, I wouldn’t claim to know what came from the 60s and 70s culturally since it goes beyond facts in a book. Just something to store away.

If you ever get beyond being evasive, condescending and ad hominem, maybe we will have another discussion.

Last edited by EzraS on 28 Sep 2018, 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dude I don’t have conversations without people that ignore evidence. With that one move you told me all I need to know.

Last edited by Spooky_Mulder on 28 Sep 2018, 2:30 am, edited 2 times in total.

I don't let myself get distracted by someone answering A with B. I will respond to B after A has been addressed.

Words for you to look up:

Evasive.

Ad hominem.

Condescending.

(1) A kid who wants to believe LA Riots didn’t impact OJ, or first hand accounts of what the cultural landscape was like and the vast majority who lived through it seeing and documenting the connection - kinda easy to determine between the two.

(2) You’re not as bright as you think you are kid, you’re like every other college student who thinks they know it better than the generations that came before them.

(3) The only thing you showed me was - “holy crap, I’m becoming my parents!” I guess we all get that moment at some point. And on that note, I have better things to do than trying to educate a kid about the cultural landscape of the 90s. I’m out.

Last edited by Spooky_Mulder on 28 Sep 2018, 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

I see you still don't seem to understand what ad ad hominem means, not to mention all the other logical fallacies you presented.

Here’s the thing though - your argument is non-existent and part of that reason is you lack knowledge about the overall culture. I’m telling you the same thing that anyone who lived through the 90s would which means that yes who you are matters. If the vast majority of us who were there see the OJ trial as directly impacted by the LA riots due to the way the case was handled and a kid who wasn’t born yet doesn’t- that kinda points to an obvious outlier (being you).

I’m calling you slow in these regards just like a boomer has every right in calling me slow regarding the 70s and 80s.

As said, the only end result is you making me feel empathy towards what baby boomers go through. You are my “I’m becoming my parents” moment.

That said, enjoy your youth and - yes - even your arrogance; these next four years will stand out to you the most, so make the best of them. Also, while your arrogance is pesky, keep it - it’s what will allow you to take risks and get ahead. This last paragraph isn’t sarcastic but meant with all earnesty.

Vegetableman, I’m sorry dude. God, I’m old.

Your conclusions are anecdotal and subjective. Your assertion is that one must have a contemporaneous common frame of reference in order to understand or discuss history, politics and sociology et al which is erroneous.



You've displayed more arrogance than I have.

(1) Still, “I’m right everyone else is wrong.” Gotha. You have yet to show anything that the LA Riots didn’t impact OJ case only you have a penchant for ignoring evidence once provided which seems to be the only thing you do have. Well my full assertion is you struggle with rudimentaries considering I had to reassure you I wasn’t coming after you, days ago had to tell you what the definition for “supporter” is as well as explain how basic questions are broken up in the polls, and now you’re unable to connect the dots over a very simple historical matter (that most can see and have documented, meanwhile you stay clueless - that tells me, you’re the outlier).

(2) Still unable to check yourself, not surprising kid.

(3) Since I’ve already provided ample evidence and you’ve provided nothing but closing your ears and showing you can read the dictionary - I’ll only respond IF you can show evidence that the LA Riots didn’t impact the OJ Simpson case. You say jury, okay - prove that all in the jury would’ve been aware about rampant police brutality and court corruption if the LA Riots didn’t make it a national issue (or that in general people knew that it was rampant, like they do today (not all statements from jurors in case I needed to specify an obvious)). You give me that kid, then we’ll talk. Until then, the only thing you’ve proven is that you can read.

(4) To reiterate, to avoid it being circular - this is my last reply until you fulfill #3 since this whole thing has been like dealing with the kid who asked “why” a billion times in ‘Big Daddy;’ thus, prove you can offer anything substantive rather than just asking “why” - I’m guessing you’ll prove me right by only showing you can use a dictionary again rather than offering any evidence. Until #3 is fulfilled - have a good life, kid.

Last edited by Spooky_Mulder on 28 Sep 2018, 5:51 am, edited 6 times in total.

The LA Riots were one of the first moments I can remember when I became transfixed by a news story and couldn't stop watching it and thinking about it. It just felt a world away from the English countryside I was growing up in and I think was the beginning of my life where I started to realise there was a much bigger world out there, with people living different lives to me and dealing with problems I could not even begin to imagine.

The 90's were on the whole awesome

I didn't say that the LA riots didn't impact the OJ case, I said that law enforcement wasn't afraid to arrest OJ and the legal system wasn't afraid to prosecute him because of it, as evidenced in the fact that he was arrested and prosecuted. There was civil unrest and concern over it, but that didn't make them too afraid to proceed.



Non sequitur.



Once again, I didn't say the LA riots didn't impact the case, that would of course be erroneous. You stated that fear of the LA Riots is what lead to OJ Simpson being released. Now you're backpedaling and switching it to retribution rather than fear, which lead to the jury acquitting him. And as far as retribution being a factor goes, I think that's a possible. Not the factor, but a possible factor. But that's just conjecture, unless you can show documentation making it a fact.

The main factor cited is because the prosecution did a bad job.

Last edited by EzraS on 28 Sep 2018, 6:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ah, so it was with phrasing:


(1) It scared police and law departments into reform and (2) even acquitting OJ for one.

(1) Police reform

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/us/lapd- ... index.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-17878180

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-1992-r ... 1493467200

Not to mention the LAPD were afraid of race riots and it was talked about as a possible result of what might happen if OJ was found guilty.

https://books.google.com/books?id=P9Q3D ... ot&f=false

(2) Court system

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-14/ ... ice-system

Did this impact literally everyone? Obviously not given that there was a white supremacist cop who botched the case by tampering with evidence, that OJ was arrested, and that there were lawyers who tried to do their jobs.

Last edited by Spooky_Mulder on 28 Sep 2018, 6:13 am, edited 3 times in total.