# O.J. Simpson kicked out of restaurant



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Obviously it does nothing for the victims, but it's hard to object to his being ostracized from decent society.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Apparently he had a bunch of people cheering for him.

I hope his lawyer doesn't succeed in screwing over the restaurant owner.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Obviously it does nothing for the victims, but it's hard to object to his being ostracized from decent society.


Jeff Ruby is fairly old school re his notions of right and wrong.

Plus the steaks are great...


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Apparently he had a bunch of people cheering for him.
> 
> I hope his lawyer doesn't succeed in screwing over the restaurant owner.


Trust me, he won't...


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Awww nuts! I was hoping he had been expelled for wearing an ascot and riding boots!

Seriously, bravo to Mr. Ruby!


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Finally, someone with morals.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Human decency still lives...Outstanding! I'm going to find the restraurant Mr. Ruby operates in Indiana and buy a steak dinner off the man!


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> Human decency still lives...Outstanding! I'm going to find the restraurant Mr. Ruby operates in Indiana and buy a steak dinner off the man!


If you like to gamble, there is Belterrra.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Funny thing, Mr. Simpson came off looking better than his lawyer (in this instance).


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

*My favorite Ruby restaurant*

As I mentioned steaks are great, but the seafood is even better...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

JRR said:


> If you like to gamble, there is Belterrra.


Good food, the promise of alternative entertainment...it works for me! Looks like I have a road trip in my future. Thanks for the heads up JRR!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Did they find out Nicole Brown Simpson was the main course?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Howard, usually you are okay, but that one really was offensive.


----------



## Nantucket Red (Jan 26, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Howard, usually you are okay, but that one really was offensive.


Hours of pushing carts can skew one's sense of propriety.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

Well, the owner of the restaurant has a right to serve or not serve whomever he wishes. But I'm a little uneasy about this idea of kicking people out because of who they are. I always thought that America was a place where everyone had a right to goods and services, so long as they could pay and did not act in a disruptive manner.

By this logic, all ex-cons could be refused the minute they walk in. Next, a Catholic restauranteur would refuse service to a doctor who has terminated pregnancies, or done stem cell research. Colin Powell and Tommy Franks would be turned away from an Afghani restaurant, as would Wesley Clark from a Serbian-owned business. A fashion designer who uses leather in his or her line could be kicked out of a vegetarian place. It's a Pandora's Box!


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

hmmmm...y'know...I have no problem with the concept of refusing service in and of it's self...but much like AMVanquish pointed out...it's a very slippery slope...

plus I also didnt like the owner cutting this slice of phoney bologna about how he kicked him out "out of respect for the victims"...BULL$HIT...he didnt even know the victims...he kicked him out because OJ is a scumbag and the owner didnt want his place to be known as "the restaurant that the murderer ate lunch at", now instead it's the "place that stand up guy who kicked OJ out owns"...plain and simple...it was good for business to kick him out...

I would have probably doen the same thing...only I would have been honest about why I did it...


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

I believe it is all one big publicity stunt.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> hmmmm...y'know...I have no problem with the concept of refusing service in and of it's self...but much like AMVanquish pointed out...it's a very slippery slope...
> 
> plus I also didnt like the owner cutting this slice of phoney bologna about how he kicked him out "out of respect for the victims"...BULL$HIT...he didnt even know the victims...he kicked him out because OJ is a scumbag and the owner didnt want his place to be known as "the restaurant that the murderer ate lunch at", now instead it's the "place that stand up guy who kicked OJ out owns"...plain and simple...it was good for business to kick him out...
> 
> I would have probably doen the same thing...only I would have been honest about why I did it...


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Howard, usually you are okay, but that one really was offensive.


Sorry Forsberg,I apologize for my remark.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Nantucket Red said:


> Hours of pushing carts can skew one's sense of propriety.


I apologize for that Red.It won't happen again.


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

The only problem with the restaurant owner publicly banning The Juice from his establishment is that the real killer might have been hiding in the restaurant and now OJ won't have the chance to apprehend him/her/it and enlist the aid of local law enforcement to bring said real killer to justice.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Do you think OJ might get a book deal to write an account of how he would have eaten dinner there, if he had really done it...er, eaten there?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

But why was he kicked out of the restaurant,Did he make a stink about the food?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The owner just tossed him because he disapproves of OJ's (probable) killing of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

You and I are OK, Howard. I just thought I would point out that your comment was a bit off key.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Howard said:


> But why was he kicked out of the restaurant,Did he make a stink about the food?


That's a much better "Howard" comment, one that even made me chuckle.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> The owner just tossed him because he disapproves of OJ's (probable) killing of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
> 
> You and I are OK, Howard. I just thought I would point out that your comment was a bit off key.


How did the owner find out about it?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Howard said:


> How did the owner find out about it?


Gents,

One has to wonder if "Howard" has some incriminating photos of the Moderators.

Karl


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> One has to wonder if "Howard" has some incriminating photos of the Moderators.
> 
> Karl


What in the hell are you talking about,What photos?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Howard, until now I was in your corner.

However, you mention Nicole Brown Simpson on the previous page and now you claim to have no knowledge of why the restaurant owner and the rest of the world suspects O.J. of murdering her?

I hope you are enjoying your fun.

You're harmless and I don't think you should be banned, but I'll leave that to the moderators.

I'm not going to attack you like some are, but I probably won't respond to any of your posts any more.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I suppose a fair litmus test would be to fly two tired old white guys; Robert Blake and ( pending) Phil Spector in for dinner. Simpson was not refused service for who he is, or was. Simpson was refused service for what he has done, and failed to do. I endure his continued co occupancy on this planet succored by the possibility Paris Hilton will run him over in her Bentley.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

The state failed to convict Mr. Simpson. In light of that, how can he be said to have "probably" committed murder?

The restaurant owner seems to me a witless dupe of tabloid journalism. As noted by others, Mr Simpson behaved well, his attorney didn't.

FWIW, I was glad that the jury found him not guilty. I am also a fan of trial attorneys.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Howard, until now I was in your corner.
> 
> However, you mention Nicole Brown Simpson on the previous page and now you claim to have no knowledge of why the restaurant owner and the rest of the world suspects O.J. of murdering her?
> 
> ...


Please Forsberg,If I said anything to you or anyone else on here since my arrival at The Interchange,I apologize.Let's just let bygones be bygones.

I was joking and sort of went overboard.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> The state failed to convict Mr. Simpson. In light of that, how can he be said to have "probably" committed murder?
> 
> The restaurant owner seems to me a witless dupe of tabloid journalism. As noted by others, Mr Simpson behaved well, his attorney didn't.
> 
> ...


I don't understand this post. Are you saying that the fact that he was acquitted proves definitively that he didn't do it? It's pretty tough to square that with the fact that a verdict of "not guilty" simply indicates that the jury found that the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and says nothing about whether the defendant actually did what he was charged with.

Or are you making some metaphysical point that the acquittal changes the state of the universe, so that even if he did it, everything changed at the time he was acquitted?

Or are you just saying that the acquittal is a definitive determination that, whether he did the killings or not, nothing he did could be considered murder, or even probable murder?

And why are you glad he was acquitted? I'm a fan of trial lawyers too, having been one for decades. I hope that one day I have a case in which the evidence is as strong as the evidence of Simpson's guilt was, but I don't expect that I ever will.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> hmmmm...y'know...I have no problem with the concept of refusing service in and of it's self...but much like AMVanquish pointed out...it's a very slippery slope...


I don't believe it is a slippery slope. I feel he can ask anyone to leave from his restaurant he wants to. Irregardless of his real reason, he didn't not want O.J. in his restaurant. That is his "castle" and he can decide who stays and who must go. I hope no court would actually accept any type of civil case brought against the owner.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Trenditional said:


> I don't believe it is a slippery slope. I feel he can ask anyone to leave from his restaurant he wants to. Irregardless of his real reason, he didn't not want O.J. in his restaurant. That is his "castle" and he can decide who stays and who must go. I hope no court would actually accept any type of civil case brought against the owner.


I never ever take anyone seriously who uses the word "irregardless", but in this case it fits right in with the following "didn't not".


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I don't understand this post. Are you saying that the fact that he was acquitted proves definitively that he didn't do it?
> 
> It's pretty tough to square that with the fact that a verdict of "not guilty" simply indicates that the jury found that the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and says nothing about whether the defendant actually did what he was charged with?
> 
> ...


I'm of course not saying that it is certain Simpson did not commit the murders, only that it is a stretch, in light of the verdict, to assert that he "probably" did.

I try to avoid even the appearance of metaphysics

I don't know what he did or did not do.

According to The New Century Dictionary (1942) The first meaning for definitive is "Having the function of deciding or settling;..." From this I conclude that the verdict was definitive.

I think it should be very difficult for the state to put someone away. That they were unable to convict Simpson, in spite of the evidence you mention, is reassuring to me.

If the evidence was as strong as you say, why was Simpson not convicted?

I don't want to go on a rant about the currently fashionable law and order mentality in our society, but my view of trial lawyers is that they help individuals stand up to the state in what is a pretty one-sided contest.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> I don't want to go on a rant about the currently fashionable law and order mentality in our society, but my view of trial lawyers is that they help individuals stand up to the state in what is a pretty one-sided contest.


You are quite correct, that was certainly a one-sided contest in regards to the OJ trial. Darden and Clark did not stand a chance.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> You are quite correct, that was certainly a one-sided contest in regards to the OJ trial. Darden and Clark did not stand a chance.


I actually wouldn't have voted to convict. I do despise O.J though and would have liked to.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

But they think that OJ killed Nicole but he said he didn't so who's the accuser here?


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I am surprised that O.J. would have champions in this forum.

I note that nobody has mentioned that O.J. did lose the wrongful death civil suit against him, which might just suggest that he probably did do it!

...Or, just maybe, it was the work of the same "Satanic cult" that got Laci Peterson!


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

Gurdon said:


> In light of that, how can he be said to have "probably" committed murder?


I assume that you are just stirring the pot, but i'll bite. Such a conclusion can be drawn from 12-15 functioning brain cells and a 15 min debriefing of his trial.

MrR


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*OJ*

Gents

OJ desereves what he gets. I met him on a flight, and excused hun from sitting with me, his academic credentials, and his athletic ambiion, id noy comparable to the soldier.
The man is weak gentlemen, he wants to be put to sleep.

Airbotne De [email protected]


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> The state failed to convict Mr. Simpson. In light of that, how can he be said to have "probably" committed murder?
> 
> The restaurant owner seems to me a witless dupe of tabloid journalism. As noted by others, Mr Simpson behaved well, his attorney didn't.
> 
> ...


Wasn't he found guilty in civil court?


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

rkipperman said:


> Wasn't he found guilty in civil court?


I'm not an attorney (and I'm sure those who are will weigh in on this), but I don't believe the terms "guilt" or "Innocence" are applicable in a civil hearing.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> I'm not an attorney (and I'm sure those who are will weigh in on this), but I don't believe the terms "guilt" or "Innocence" are applicable in a civil hearing.


You're right. Here's a cut and paste from CNN:

"O.J. Simpson is liable for the death of Ronald Goldman and committed battery against his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson, a civil trial jury ruled Tuesday.

The Superior Court jury awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages to the Goldman family and to Ron Goldman's biological mother.

The jury ruled against Simpson on each of the eight technical questions of liability it was asked to consider. It effectively found Simpson liable for his ex-wife's death, though the Brown family did not seek such a verdict."


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

AMVanquish said:


> Well, the owner of the restaurant has a right to serve or not serve whomever he wishes. But I'm a little uneasy about this idea of kicking people out because of who they are. I always thought that America was a place where everyone had a right to goods and services, so long as they could pay and did not act in a disruptive manner.
> 
> By this logic, all ex-cons could be refused the minute they walk in. Next, a Catholic restauranteur would refuse service to a doctor who has terminated pregnancies, or done stem cell research. Colin Powell and Tommy Franks would be turned away from an Afghani restaurant, as would Wesley Clark from a Serbian-owned business. A fashion designer who uses leather in his or her line could be kicked out of a vegetarian place. It's a Pandora's Box!


No, it's not a Pandora's box. That's the way it should be. You have a natural god-given right to certain protections from an overbearing government, but you shouldn't be able to "force" a private business to serve you if they don't want to.

They're in business to make a profit and most businesses generally serve most patrons, but they may choose to only use organic produce, not buy anything from China, or not serve child-molesters. A resturant can force a patron to leave who orders the bottomless chips, gets water, and sits there for hours.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

crazyquik said:


> No, it's not a Pandora's box. That's the way it should be. You have a natural god-given right to certain protections from an overbearing government, but you shouldn't be able to "force" a private business to serve you if they don't want to.


Excuse me, but there is an entire body of laws since 1964 establishing that owners of public businesses do not have an absolute right to refuse service to anyone. I presume you are advocating either returning to a time prior to those laws or nullifying them.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

rip said:


> Excuse me, but there is an entire body of laws since 1964 establishing that owners of public businesses do not have an absolute right to refuse service to anyone. I presume you are advocating either returning to a time prior to those laws or nullifying them.


+1

...I'm pretty sure that we had something called the civil rights movement in this country because of laws like that...


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

The trial ended well over 10 years ago so I think he's innocent.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Howard said:


> The trial ended well over 10 years ago so I think he's innocent.


What form of evidence would convince you of his guilt (other than eye witness/video tape)?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> +1
> 
> ...I'm pretty sure that we had something called the civil rights movement in this country because of laws like that...


-1

Pretty sure the movement came before the laws.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

The Gabba Goul said:


> +1
> 
> ...I'm pretty sure that we had something called the civil rights movement in this country because of laws like that...


Actually, GG, it's the other way around. We have laws like that because of civil rights issues. Establishments, such as lunch counters, aren't allowed to discriminate on the basis of, among other things, race. (I think dress codes are lawful.)

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

If OJ Simpson wanted to post about clothes on this forum, would Andy have to allow it or could he (should he be allowed to) choose not to have OJ as a member?

Should banned members be able to sue Andy (or any forum they've been banned from)?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Gurdon said:


> Actually, GG, it's the other way around. We have laws like that because of civil rights issues. Establishments, such as lunch counters, aren't allowed to discriminate on the basis of, among other things, race. (I think dress codes are lawful.)
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


Let's all use our powers of deduction for a second...why would we need the civil right's movement if these laws were already in place???Yes...that's what I'm saying...perhaps my wording was a little bad...but of course...we had the civil rights movement before these laws went into effect...either way...no, a restaurant owner cant just kick out whoever he wants to just because...

but yeah, OJ is a sleaze...but I still have to maintain my original stance...this guy didnt do it as any kind of "moral stand" it was simply good for business...nothing wrong with that...but let's call it what it is...


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Only the restaurant owner knows really why he threw O.J. out.

I believe you can exclude people from your restaurant, as long as it is not on the basis of race, religion or other protected types of bases.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Only the restaurant owner knows really why he threw O.J. out.
> 
> *I believe you can exclude people from your restaurant, as long as it is not on the basis of race, religion or other protected types of bases.*


Or, you can just lock the door and rough 'em up a bit.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

rkipperman said:


> What form of evidence would convince you of his guilt (other than eye witness/video tape)?


Maybe the bloody glove?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Howard said:


> Maybe the bloody glove?


Don't you think someone has washed it by now?


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

Kav said:


> I suppose a fair litmus test would be to fly two tired old white guys; Robert Blake and ( pending) Phil Spector in for dinner.
> 
> I don't think it's a fair comparison at all, and in Blake's case would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. If you remember, the last time Baretta ate at an upscale restaurant he forgot something inside and when he went back to get it, he returned to his car only to find the love of his life (such as she was) brutally murdered. I think making him go back to a fancy restaurant might well bring about post traumatic stress disorder, don't you?


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

crazyquik said:


> If OJ Simpson wanted to post about clothes on this forum, would Andy have to allow it or could he (should he be allowed to) choose not to have OJ as a member?
> 
> Should banned members be able to sue Andy (or any forum they've been banned from)?


I wonder if The Juice ever shopped at O'Connell's? I think he's a natural to join us over on the Trad Forum. And speaking of Buffalo (and the Bills) Johnny Cochrane and company missed the most obvious defense--

"Your honor, these victims were slashed to death. My client, Orenthal James Simpson spent his professional career with the Buffalo Bills. I'd like to call Marv Levy as our first witness, and ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he will convince you that OJ, being a Buffalo Bill through and through, could only have killed his victims one way-by choking. The defense rests." (Especially when they're on the field.)


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Don't you think someone has washed it by now?


I'm sure it hasn't shrunk any.

At this point it really doesn't matter whether O.J. is guilty or innocent. They couldn't try him again anyway. I hope if I'm ever in that situation I'll be able to come up with enough money to buy a defense team that keeps me out of jail.


----------

