Dr. Henry Louis Gates Arrested

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by bridge kid

OJ was framed by a racist cop.

He was framed... Mark Furman obviously planted the evidence.

His son did it.

This seems pretty inconsistent to me. If (and that's a big if) OJ's son did it, and OJ was trying to cover for his son, wouldn't OJ be the one planting the evidence (against himself) instead of the cop?

I can't believe I'm actually contributing to this thread anymore. and at myself. I should know better.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

Yes there are.

It boggles my mind that there are well-educated and intelligent people out there who still think OJ is innocent.

Really? I don't see why that would boggle your mind. Those well-educated and intelligent people who don't believe he did it perhaps looked at the facts and the evidence actually presented at trial instead of allowing emotions and media tidbits to form their opinion on the matter. I don't believe that the prosecution effectively proved their case. There were just some things that didn't add up, and it didn't help that Furhman was involved. I noticed that someone else said his son did it. I have heard that theory numerous times. Why he would have done it, I don't know. But I don't think that idea is really that farfetched.

I know many people think he flew into a rage because he saw her with another man and decided to kill her. I don't buy that because at that point it was a regular thing. The word on the street was that she was screwing several different men, including his best friend. If he didn't kill her when she slept with his best friend, then I don't see why he would suddenly kill her because he sees her talking to some random dude.

As for the book, keep in mind that he went through a whole trial where the prosecution was trying to convince the jury how he killed them. His book was written subsequent to all of that so if he seems to have a great number of details, that could simply be because he is including info from the trial.

[knight_shadow]

From Gates to Bud Light to OJ Simpson.

Gotta love it.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

From Gates to Bud Light to OJ Simpson.

Gotta love it.

Isn't it great? Heck, maybe next we'll start talking about JonBenet Ramsey. lmao

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Really? I don't see why that would boggle your mind. Those well-educated and intelligent people who don't believe he did it perhaps looked at the facts and the evidence actually presented at trial instead of allowing emotions and media tidbits to form their opinion on the matter. I don't believe that the prosecution effectively proved their case. There were just some things that didn't add up, and it didn't help that Furhman was involved. I noticed that someone else said his son did it. I have heard that theory numerous times. Why he would have done it, I don't know. But I don't think that idea is really that farfetched.

I mean . . . there's literally no evidence to connect his son to the scene, which makes it far-fetched in the sense that it doesn't reach the "reasonable doubt" standard.

Just out of curiosity, which facts/evidence are problematic for you? What doesn't add up?

As for the book, keep in mind that he went through a whole trial where the prosecution was trying to convince the jury how he killed them. His book was written subsequent to all of that so if he seems to have a great number of details, that could simply be because he is including info from the trial.

Wait, what?

The very fact that he's writing the book is the main problem - I'm sure he's familiar with the facts of his own trial, nobody is disputing that. However, what incentive does he have to write a book outlining how he would have murdered the two in a fashion that is consistent with the evidence presented at trial? He literally connected the dots that you're uncomfortable connecting above.

[DrPhil]

OJ is a loser. That is all.

[Psi U MC Vito]

I'm starting to think that to deepimpact any famous black person is automatically a saint that can do no wrong. Am I the only person who feels that way?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

any famous black is automatically a saint that can do no wrong.

Any famous Black what?

Black paint?
Black shoe?
Blacklist?

[Psi U MC Vito]

Dammit I meant Black person. (off to change)

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

I'm starting to think that to deepimpact any famous black person is automatically a saint that can do no wrong. Am I the only person who feels that way?

Whether or not you are the only person who feels this way is of no significance because you are dead wrong.

Saying someone didn't commit a crime and saying they are a saint are two different things. If you can point to a post where I said these famous black people are saints who can do no wrong, then be my guest. Otherwise, stop exaggerating.

[bridge kid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I mean . . . there's literally no evidence to connect his son to the scene, which makes it far-fetched in the sense that it doesn't reach the "reasonable doubt" standard..

No evidence other than the Bronco, the bloody glove, his history of violence and the fact that his alibi has since recanted.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by bridge kid

No evidence other than the Bronco, the bloody glove, his history of violence and the fact that his alibi has since recanted.

How is the Bronco "evidence" in favor of the son?

Does the glove have his fingerprints/DNA on it?

OJ has a pretty solid history of violence, SPECIFICALLY TOWARD NICOLE BROWN.

When did the alibi recant? Why?

You're not doing a very good job of introducing doubt at all, not to mention reasonable ones.

[als463]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

Here's the thing:

If a neighbor didn't recognize me as the owner of my home, and said neighbor saw me force my way into my home, I wouldn't give the cops grief when they responded to the call. I think I might even be grateful that they came to check out the situation.

I totally agree with this statement! I don't understand what the fuss is about. If people thought I was breaking into my apartment and the police officer wanted me to come out and talk to him, I would come out or invite him into my apartment/ home. I'm sure if he would have come out of his home, properly, and showed his ID (especially a Harvard ID), the cop would have probably not made an issue of it. It had nothing to do with his race, in my mind. It had to do with the fact he was acting like a lunatic when the police showed up. Sometimes I think the race card gets pulled more than it should. Before anyone thinks I'm some kind of racist...I'm actually a minority, too.

[Coquiporvida]

i do agree that there are times that the race card is "thrown around" a little too much, but in the gates case, racial understones were present in my own opinion. (to what extent is obviously debateable to varying degrees judging by the comments here).

i also think that as minorities (like als463 i am a minority too) we need to recognize which situations warrant action form our communities, and which do not. instead of crying discrimination. especially when the "offending party (ies) are white.

and oj totally did it.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by als463

I totally agree with this statement! I don't understand what the fuss is about. If people thought I was breaking into my apartment and the police officer wanted me to come out and talk to him, I would come out or invite him into my apartment/ home. I'm sure if he would have come out of his home, properly, and showed his ID (especially a Harvard ID), the cop would have probably not made an issue of it. It had nothing to do with his race, in my mind. It had to do with the fact he was acting like a lunatic when the police showed up. Sometimes I think the race card gets pulled more than it should. Before anyone thinks I'm some kind of racist...I'm actually a minority, too.

If you don't understand what the fuss was about, perhaps you should go back and read up on the situation again. The biggest problem is that the cop arrested Gates on a charge that could not be supported. Gates did not break the law. The cop demonstrated a willingness to abuse his power. If you can't see the problem with that, then there is something wrong. I personally don't want cops to be able to arrest people whenever they desire without there being some basis in law. Otherwise cops could just do anything they want.

Second, the cop refused to give his own identifying information to Gates upon request. That is not an option. A cop is REQUIRED to provide that information when a citizen asks for it.

Furthermore, the point that you and many others seem to be ignoring or overlooking is that Gates showed the cop TWO forms of identification. He showed his driver's license. He also showed his Harvard identification card because the cops questioned his assertion that he was a Harvard professor. From what I understand after doing more research, the cop did not have legal grounds to enter the home in the manner in which he did. That too presents a problem. Contrary to popular belief, cops don't have the right to just barge into your home whenever they so desire. (Thank goodness for that because they would probably abuse that too)

While I don't believe that every situation involving blacks and law enforcement involves racism, I believe that there were issues in this case. I hate when people just automatically try to bend over backwards to say that the race card is being played too much instead of just looking at each situation. And I also hate it when minorities allow non-minorities to make them feel as though they are being too sensitive if they feel that racism is involved in a situation. Racism is alive and well, but they certainly aren't going to admit to participating in and perpetuating it.

One has to wonder WHY this cop continued to think the worse after arriving on the scene, meeting Gates, and seeing his id. One has to wonder WHY the cop didn't believe Gates was a Harvard professor.