A well-known national department store's security team uses  diminuitive white female security officers to (apparently alone) confront shoplifters between the sets of exit doors standing between them and "freedom."  thus almost  ensuring statute-perfect roibbery charges (taking of property under another's possession/control by force or fear). If you think that jurors, white jurors,  black jurors, old jurors, poor jurors (young jurors can be constitutionally excluded by prosecutors) care that a criminal is set up to commit a greater crime while he's actually trying to perp a lesser one, then there's this bridge...........

A crack head was riding my bike without permission.  When I saw the crack head on my bike, riding up and down the street just as happy and free of worries, like crack head had just bought a Mustang or something, I didn't go to crack head and knock it off my bike.  (although that was certainly doable).

I called the police and the police gave me back my bike.  Furthermore, crack head had to explain how it got the bike.  

When I got my bike back, I cursed crack head  and her suppliers wickedly.  Eventually it committed suicide, or its suppliers provided it with poison crack.

moral of the story:  when folks pilfer your stuff, go through the proper channels to get it back.

then kick tail.

:-)

DrewReason:  In mentioning the crackhead, four times you use the pronoun "it", while you only use the pronoun "her" once.  Did you intend to dehumanize the crackhead?  If so, isn't that a ubiquitous trait of oppressors?  

I could think of plenty of other folks we need to lock away besides the Juice!  Sounds like a scripted set-up, but what do I know...it was the anniversary of his acquital.  Give me a break!!!

I still believe that O.J. killed Nicole and Ron Goldman.  I believe a person can become that enraged.  And while I wasn't exactly jumping for joy that O.J. was acquitted, this is the first thought that came to mind when I saw all those angry, hurt white folks, crying and consoling each other:

"Payback is a ***."

Rational or not, that was my first thought...payback for every black man who was falsely accused of raping a white woman, or saying something to a white woman, or looking a white woman in the eye, was "tried and convicted" and sentenced to the Southern version of justice.  Or the ones who never got a trial, were just dragged from their homes and lynched.

As for O.J., well, his main problem was two-fold:

1) He forgot he was Black

2) He thought whte folks loved him

Truth was, white folks hated him when he was running like a fool through the airport in those rental car commercials...but loved "negro" entertainment.

I knew that O.J. was fool when a reporter asked him how he felt about the state of race relations between black people and white people, and he replied, "Duuuuuuuh, weeeeeell, I'm no politician, I'm just a football player.

First, O.J. was set up but it was his "business associates"  who set him up - not law enforcement. He fell into the trap because he was arrogant and went off half cocked. He was not stealing his own "stuff." He was taking back stuff that, like it or not, was awarded by the court to the Goldmans and Browns. He had lost his stuff while trying to keep it hidden from the courts.

Most white people neither loved nor hated O.J. Simpson before he was arrested for the murders.

He was just a celebrity that we gave no thought to at all except when seeing him on film - the way we feel about just about every celebrity.

hey keith,

              i'm deviating here a bit so forgive me....

a law student put oj simpson's 1994-1995 case in the best terms i can think of:

                                                                     "the L.A. police dept. tried to frame a guilty man."

 i read johnny cohcran's book and found tid bits of facts that weren't admissable in oj's trial. mainly was mark fuhrman's: pro nazi convictions, his documented discrimination toward both citizens and co-workers, his racist fervor, and primarily, his relationship with nicole simpson. according to cochran, fuhrman saw nicole simpson as someone he wanted to become intimate with and oj was a threat in more than one way."

 and some how, some way none of this was admissable? if i was a juror, i'd think  all of the above is pertinent to the murder case. at the very least fuhrman was too close to this thing to be assigned as detective for the case. as to the admissable evidence...it was enough to create a doubt, and that's all you need to do. it's the L.A. PD's  historical tradition of corruption and deception that acquitted oj of murder. the revelation of the L.A. pd, planting evidence at the scene of a crime is no surprise to any black resident of L.A.. how could an L.A. juror convict oj when the agency that charged him of murder, carries with itself a  tradition of corruption consistant with the type of corruption that occured at the crime scene?

good for you for seeing through all the hype in 95. but at the time, i can't blame the sore eyes of those juror's. all it takes is a doubt.

Hi Craig,

sure I've defined and labeled a crack head, and have in the eyes of some, dehumanized the addict.  

However, I am not too worried that drug addicted personalities, especially those who steal and upset the security of others, are in a position to defend their humanity while they are on drugs and abusing others.

O.J. forgot he was Black a long time ago. He still didn't think he was Black back in 1995. He knows it now!

I too believe that O. J. was guilty and I did not celebrate when he was found Innocent.

I also Belive he was set up so they could make him Pay for past behaviors .

Karma is ***

If you think, anyone, black or white or brown, who says I can ignore what I already know of the defendant, then you don't know human nature.

OJ used very poor judgement in Vegas. I like the crack head bicycle comment - if the stuff was stolen get the police involved. It sure aint worth the risk of jail for armed robbery to skip this step on the assumption that the police won't help.

Does anyone know what would be a typical outcome for a non-famous defendant? Is race a strong determinant?