The owner of an upscale steakhouse said he asked O.J. Simpson to leave his restaurant the night before the Kentucky Derby because he is sickened by the attention Simpson still attracts.
"I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families," Jeff Ruby said in a telephone interview Tuesday. - CNN
The article quotes Simpson's lawyer as saying that this was a racial incident and that the matter will be pursued in that light. He indicated that he would try to get the restaurant's license revoked.
I seriously doubt that an attempt to portray the refusal as racial will cause any problems. All of the owner's restaurants have celebrity pictures on the walls; one of Simpson with owner Ruby used to be one of them, but was taken down after the killings.
I hope that ValorD doesn't see this as denying Simpson's right to eat.
Posts: 17506 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I have no idea that anything happened to it. As long as the refusal is based on the individual rather than that individual's being a member of a group, I assume that the concept still is in place. What your question has to do with this thread is beyond me, however. Maybe someone else can explain that.
Posts: 17506 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
The owner of an upscale steakhouse said he asked O.J. Simpson to leave his restaurant the night before the Kentucky Derby because he is sickened by the attention Simpson still attracts.
"I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families," Jeff Ruby said in a telephone interview Tuesday. - CNN
The article quotes Simpson's lawyer as saying that this was a racial incident and that the matter will be pursued in that light. He indicated that he would try to get the restaurant's license revoked.
I seriously doubt that an attempt to portray the refusal as racial will cause any problems. All of the owner's restaurants have celebrity pictures on the walls; one of Simpson with owner Ruby used to be one of them, but was taken down after the killings.
I hope that ValorD doesn't see this as denying Simpson's right to eat.
Tsk, Tsk. I'de have to call that a "personal attack", DG. Breaking your own rules now, are we?
I'de expected better from you, DG. Aren't you supposed to be setting some kind of ideal example for the rest of us? How disappointing.
I won't even bother responding to the topic, given your "goating" beginning to this thread.
I really hate to get into this but I just can't help it. I don't care if OJ killed anyone. What I do care about is that he was acquitted of the criminal charges, and he shouldn't be treated as a murderer. The civil case was a joke and shouldn't have even taken place. No double jeapardy my arse.
This restauraunt owner should be sued for discrimination of some type. Not racial, but something else.
I reserve the right to despise any low-life scum regardless of race, fame or wealth. The restaurant patrons gave the owner, Mr. Ruby, an ovation. It's nice to know that in this day and age of celebrity worship, it's possible for at least some people to exercise some good taste and judgment. The customers and Mr. Ruby may well have despised him, and felt his presence would spoil their enjoyment, because he lost the civil case.
Or maybe because Simpson himself keeps it alive. Viz. his recent attempt to capitalize on the deaths by writing a book: "How I would have done it if I had done it except of course I didn't" or some such stupid trash. If he didn't do it, he would have had more respect for the dead than to try to make money from it.
Posts: 6553 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
I agree with Babs - personally, if I owned or managed a restuarant and someone came in who offended me with their presence, whether famous or not, I would exercise my right not to serve them.
Considering that Mr. Ruby once had a celebrity picture featured on his wall and took it down after the scandal & trial, obviously he lost any personal respect he once had for that celebrity. It has nothing to do with discrimation, it was a personal decision that he had every right to make.
Originally posted by Kendor: I really hate to get into this but I just can't help it. I don't care if OJ killed anyone. What I do care about is that he was acquitted of the criminal charges, and he shouldn't be treated as a murderer.
Since when did acquittal mean someone did not do something? A mob boss may be acquitted of a crime on a technicality; do we then all breath a sigh of relief and say, "Wow, now we can rest easy knowing he isn't a criminal - perhaps we should invite him to the next birthday party at our house!"
Here's the deal on a privately held restaurant. OJ is not forced to eat there. And neither is Kendor. The owner is likewise not forced to serve you or OJ for any reason he desires, so long as he is not discriminating based on race, gender, etc.
I want to patronize this man's establishment.
Posts: 8087 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
This dude is just another in a long long line of opportunists trying to get some personal benefit from the infamous OJ murders - and in doing what he did he is helping keep Simpson's name before the public.
Posts: 2006 | Location: Boise, Idaho, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Keeping his name before the public, yes. But in a negative way.
Some people will sympathize with Simpson of course just as the fictional character Hannibal the Cannibal has an adoring fan club. But more will see it as a humiliation for him. All his fame and fortune, and he gets kicked out of a steakhouse?
And I could be wrong but I think Galanter's (his lawyer's) comment -- "He screwed with the wrong guy, he really did," -- was very dumb, if Simpson is trying for a cleaner image. Sounds pretty menacing -- as if he's saying "Would you mess with a guy who got away with double murder?"
Sounds like the kind of arrogant braggadocio that really ticks people off.
Posts: 6553 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
The key words are 'as far as the criminal law is concerned'.The criminal law requires an exceptionally high standard of proof.It's a myth that an acquitted person has either proved his innocence or that the verdict proves that he did not commit the wrongful act complained of. All the verdict shows is that, in the USA, a body of twelve people were not sure beyond reasonable doubt [or however your law expresses this common law standard] that the case against him or her was proved. Likewise a verdict of guilty shows that the twelve were sure.In England and Wales a verdict of not guilty may mean that two of the twelve jurors were sure but ten were not. In Scotland it may mean only that eight of the fifteen on the jury were not sure, though seven were.In Scotland someone may be convicted if only eight of the fifteen agree on a guilty verdict and seven would find the accused not guilty.
Judges here sometimes told an acquitted person 'You leave this court without a stain on your character. You are free to go'. The purpose of this address was to make it plain that the judge thought the person was innocent.The judge would be mindful of the myth just mentioned. Otherwise the nearest to a person being found innocent is when the case is so weak that the judge stops the trial at the end of the prosecution case, or earlier, and directs the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, or where the prosecution offers no evidence against the accused at the start of the trial.
The standard of proof in a civil action is only that of the balance of probabilities. If the court decides that is is more likely than not that the defendant committed the act then it finds against the defendant. That's what happened in Mr Simpson's civil case.
In Britain the acquittal in a criminal trial is not necessarily the end of the matter. If further evidence against the accused comes to light the accused may be retried.
P.S. In the criminal trial, Mr Simpson chose not to give evidence on his own behalf (very wisely!)In the civil case he was really obliged to do so and that jury heard him being cross-examined and could assess just how innocent or guilty he then appeared. They could judge his demeanour and honesty. (That alone may explain a lot )
Kendor, your quote seems to answer the questions you apparently have. Note the phrase "as far as the criminal law is concerned." Simpson cannot be tried for those murders again in a criminal court, unless perjury on the part of defense witnesses can be proved (I think). The jury found him "Not Guilty". The jury did not find him innocent. The term "not Guilty" mens that the prosecution did not make its case. Fuse's pointing out the examples of mobsters getting off is exactly right.
Further, you seems not to grasp the difference between a criminal and a civil trial. The two have very diferent criteria to be met, and, in fact, have different verdicts. WHile a criminal trial ends with (generally) either a guilty or not guilty verdict, a civil trial ends with a finding "in favor of" either the plaintiff or the defendant. In both kinds of trials, the burden of proof is on the one who initiates the court action, but the degree of proof is very different. In a civil action such as Goldman v. Simpson, all that is necessary for the plaintiff (Goldman) to prove is that the defendant (Simpson) is more likely than not to be the cause of of the offending action, in this case, the death of Goldman's son.
I actually agree with the verdicts of both trials. With the evidence presented, the prosecution did not prove its case in the criminal trial, unless, of course, you know of a way that identical bloodstains can appear on both sides of a sock while the sock is being worn.* (This point, to my mind, proved that the very obviously inept police planted at least some of the evidence. Having an incompetent judge and prosecution team certainly didn't help the cause of justice in this trial, either.) With the evidence presented, Simpson is more likely than not to have caused the death of Goldman.
*Please don't try to explain that the second stain appeared after the sock was removed; the way blood dries simply wouldn't allow an identical stain to appear. And, yes, the stains were described, in testimony, as identical. Do try this at home, with a liquid of your choosing. You can use your hand and a T shirt rather than a foot and a sock. There is only one way to get "identical" stains to appear on both sides of a cloth. ------------ By the way, I saw nothing in the article that indicated that the steakhouse owner was the source of the information that caused media attention. I think it is more likely that one of people in the restaurant who applauded him called a TV station or newspaper. The owner may just have been answering questions in an interview. In any case, he did the right thing in refusing to serve Simpson, and he was certainly well within his rights to do so.
Posts: 17506 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
"In the common law tradition, an acquittal formally certifies the innocence of the accused, as far as the criminal law is concerned."
I'm not talking about Simpson in particular, but an acquittal does not magically make a guilty person innocent, it merely means that the criminal justice system can no longer pursue them for that charge.
As for Simpson in particular, notice that the restaurant owner's objection to him was not about the murders, but about the "way he continues to torture the lives of those families ... with his behavior, attitude and conduct". Simpson's bad taste (e.g., his attempted TV special and book on how her "would have" committed the murders) is not for the courts to judge. Agree or disagree with him, the restaurant owner has the right to his own opinion on Simpson's conduct. As far as I understand it, he also has the right to refuse service on the basis of that opinion.
Customers get upset so easily these days!
)
