O.J. Simpson refused service

[loyalkydem]

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/05/198632.php

O.J. Simpson refused service
by Richard Mellor Wednesday, May. 09, 2007 at 10:30 PM
[e-mail]

Who cannot question the motives of the restaurant owner who refused Simpson service. I am not convinced he would be so unforgiving to other unsavory characters.

I was flipping through the channels an hour or so ago and as I came upon CNN there was a discussion about OJ Simpson being refused service in a restaurant.
I think the woman whose show it is, is named Nancy Grace, a former Court TV character.

So apparently this guy who owned the restaurant went over and told Simpson he wouldn't get service. It was said on the show that the owner didn't like what he did to Goldman and Nicole.

This is the second time that I have listened to people talk about Simpson. Some news commentator was talking about him like he was a dog not so long ago, as if he was proven guilty.

When Nancy Grace thanked the restaurant owner for coming on, he asked if he could ask one question. She listened. "Why?" he asks, "When a celebrity goes in to a courtroom does lady justice go out the back door?"

Now I have no love for OJ Simpson. And if you were to ask me, my hunch is he did what he was accused of. But a jury in the United States, in other words, the great American justice system found him to be innocent. Yet some news persons still talk of him like he's guilty. And then this man makes this comment about "lady justice".

The first thing I thought of is whether or not this restaurant owner would have refused service to John Gotti or some mob boss. Would he have denied service to Ted Kennedy of Chappaquiddick fame? What about Michael Milken whose policies caused misery and probably death to many working people. What about Oliver North, a man with blood on his hands. What about the terrorist in Florida who just had immigration charges dropped by a US judge? Oh, I forget, he only brought down Cuban passenger planes?

And as for lady justice going out the back door. How many innocent people, mostly black or Latino men did Mark Fuhrman send to jail? How many were taken to a parking lot here and there and had the crap kicked out of them or drugs planted on them. And Fuhrman is a radio host is he not? How many men have been shot by the Fuhrman's of this world who are like occupying forces in America's urban ghettos? I'll bet Fuhrman would not have received the same treatment.

I certainly wouldn't waste my time championing OJ Simpson, and that is not my intention here. But the racist bias is so blatant and is one of the reason many black workers won't condemn the man, something that frustrates the hell out of some whites. The legal system as any worker knows serves the rich but for blacks, American justice has been dished out to them with a vengeance. Hey, he was found innocent. And even here racism abounds. There were too may blacks on the jury and they can't make an objective decision based on the facts.

For workers, for poor people, for so many people of color, black men in particular, lady justice went out the back door a long time ago. To be more accurate, lady justice never came in the courtroom.

OJ Simpson got off because he has money and friends in high places. Any working class black man would have been taken out on the freeway. But much of the concern about this verdict still has its roots in racist soil.

I think this is a sad, sad state of affairs in this country. I noticed on several forums most notably on craigs list, people are insulting folks and calling each other racist names. One guy in particular called another person a jack @#@ because he got the business name wrong.

You know what, i can understand why a lot of countries don't like the United States. We go around on our high morals and inflect what we think of democracy on a country when we still got issues we can't even work out ourselves. I think this incident has pushed back race relations for a long time. I'm really curious to find out how other people feel about this?

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Oh, to be convicted by the public

The rightness or wrongness of the "verdict" aside, the "sentence" is always a spectacle of pettiness.

--p!

[Taverner]

2. Thing is Simpson was proven guilty

by a civil court

[jobycom]

7. He was ruled "responsible for," not guilty. AFTER being ruled not guilty in a criminal court

with tougher evidentiary requirements.

[JackintheGreen]

9. How's that for legal hair-splitting!

[Taverner]

11. He was still responsible, in the sense that HE KILLED THEM

Now don't get me wrong - the cops salted the scene. The criminal case held no water because of that - as it should have been.

But he was still found "responsible" aka guilty in a court of law

[jobycom]

14. That's still not the same as being proven "guilty." nt

[Justitia]

3. "Ted Kennedy of Chappaquiddick fame" - You equate him to OJ? Whoa Boy!

Big Mistake. :popcorn:

[soothsayer]

4. all criminals should be shunned; cheney, *, rummy, and OJ too

[Orrex]

5. A worthy question, though I have a minor quibble

It definitely has to be asked whether a notorious caucasian celebrity would likewise have been refused service. Of course, it also needs to be asked if another random non-caucasian celebrity would have been served or not, too. It may be just about OJ in this case; it's perfectly possible to form an opinion of him without necessarily involving the larger issues of grotesque racial bias in this country.

Here's the quibble:

a jury in the United States, in other words, the great American justice system found him to be innocent.

Actually, he wasn't found innocent; he was found not guilty based on the evidence and case presented, and that's a very different prospect.

Additionally, he was found civilly liable for the deaths, too.

My $0.02.

[jobycom]

10. A quibble with your quibble

:)

He was already innocent, by law. He has to be proven guilty to lose his status as "innocent." That's not a trifle. The civil court ruled that he was responsible for the deaths, but it could not rule that he was guilty.

[Orrex]

15. Well...

He was presumed innocent, I grant. But he wasn't found innocent, at least not in court, partially because there was no effort made to find his innocence; the prosecution was attempting to prove his guilt, and the defense was attempting to demonstrate that proof not to be beyond a reasonable doubt. To this end, The Dream Team was successful, but the court didn't find him innocent.

I agree that it's not a trifle, and I agree that the civil court ruled him liable even if it couldn't rule him guilty.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. He's legally innocent. He still murdered them.

The fact that he was found not guilty means that he should be treated by the state exactly as though he hadn't murdered them.

The fact that he murdered them means that he should be refused service in restaurants by private citizens.

There is nothing whatsoever racist about that.

[JackintheGreen]

6. In an interview last night

the owner claimed that the table refused OJ was given to Michael Jordan within minutes. That may or may not be true, but I think it is unfair to immediately assume that this guy had any racist intentions in denying the man service. Even if he *is* prejudice, he is a well-known restaurateur with a famous and twee establishment. If it was motivated by race I have to believe that such an accusation would have come long before now.

Aside from that, it is a privately owned establishment, even if it is open to the public. He can refuse to serve anyone he wants, can't he?

[Deep13]

8. Technical point.

Criminal juries do not find defendants innocent. They merely decline to convict if they are not convinced beyond reasonable doubt. Whatever reason the jury had for acquital, the evidence against Simpson was conclusive.

There is no law prohibiting someone from discriminating against murderers, even if somehow the restaurant owner is wrong in his assumption. Further, you may be reading to much into the "back door" remark. I feeling is he mean that Justice left in a sneaky manner. Whites are not as conscious of the racial implications of words as Blacks are. The reference to segregation-era requirements about using the back door would probably not have occurred to him. Just a guess, of course, but then so is your assumption.

It may be he would have treated white murderers differently, but that may because the media orgy during the Simpson case made made the public a lot more aware of that case than they usually would have been.

Ted Kennedy is not a murderer. At worst he was negligent.

[Rydz777]

12. He has also been refused admission to

various golf courses where he wants to go in his fruitless search for his wife's murderer. I personally wouldn't want to eat in a restaurant while he was in it. It would spoil my appetite - but that's just me; I'm a bit finicky.

[jobycom]

13. I agree in essence. OJ was a rare combination of green and black.

He was a very rich black man, which means he was someone the courts usually clear combined with someone they usually convict--both irregardless of guilt or innocence. Money won out over race, which to my mind hints that WEB DuBois was right when he said that race was just a tool of the rich to keep the poor from uniting (my paraphrase).

OJ is also a combination that makes him more likely to be condemned by the public, who despise rich people who get away with crimes, and who are more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to the accuser when the defendant is black. He's doubly cursed in that regard, because people are doubly likely to conclude he's guilty even if he's been found not guilty.

I have no idea what motivated the restaurant owner, so I can't really condemn or defend him. But there is a strong element of race and racial assumption over the whole OJ affair. He was a black man who succeeded in an era when that was rare, and in a field where mostly whites succeeded (broadcasting), and as such, whites grew to love him as an "acceptable" African American. White liberals saw him as proof that the racist segregationists were wrong to suggest a black man wasn't equal, and white conservatives saw him as proof that black men could succeed in our culture if they worked hard enough and did the right things. The murders angered both groups, casting OJ from his lofty perch as a representative African American success story to the depths of negative stereotype fantasies of murderous, sex-crazed black men who prey on white women. White liberals lost a token black hero, and worse, had to defend their beliefs against racists who used OJ as proof that liberals were wrong. Thus, white liberals had to forcefully condemn OJ to maintain their ideals. White conservatives lost their token proof about hard work, too, but also gained an example to further their inherent racist outlook.

Neither side could afford to give OJ the benefit of the doubt, of course. Both had to be unmerciful in their condemnation.

I'm not trying to imply that everyone who thinks OJ was guilty is basing that assumption on race. There is plenty of evidence to support a guilty belief. But the strong societal reaction to OJ is based at least in some part on his race. It's also based on his wealth and fame. And on the murders. But even though we all tend to believe Robert Blake was guilty, as an example, he does not generate nearly the passionate outrage that OJ does for most people.

The worst part of it all, for OJ and for all African Americans and for our entire legal system, is that OJ can't be viewed as just a person. He is a symbol for almost everyone. A symbol of race, of money, of our legal system... But never just a person. That's the part that bothers me. Dehumanization of anyone weakens the entire American experiment, IMHO.

[Orrex]

16. That's a great post, and a fine articulation of the problem! (nt)

[loyalkydem]

17. But the problem is

From looking around on the various forums and craig's list most notably, there are some closeted racist people out there. I saw a posting made by someone who mistake Jeff Ruby's for Ruby Tuesday and someone called the guy a jack @ss for his trouble.

Why can't we all be nice to each other? I really don't understand this.

[Solo_in_MD]

18. Its clear that the owner has an anti OJ bias, not an anti black bias

GOOD FOR HIM, and its also quite legal

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. "It's clear" is probably going slightly too far.

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that that *isn't* the case, and as such we should assume that it very probably is, and give him all the benefit of the doubt, but there isn't enough information in the post to be certain that it is, I think.

[Solo_in_MD]

21. In other sources, the owner had previously removed OJ pictures and other memorabilia

OJ's lawyer intially threw the race card and declared the owner would pay dearly. He is now saying the owner did it just for publicity.

[bliss_eternal]

22. When I saw this report on the news....

...I wondered why anyone would protest on behalf of OJ's racial rights. :crazy:

I did not get the impression that he was denied service, based on his ethnicity. I am under the impression that he was denied service because the owner believes him to be a murderer, and didn't want his presence in his restaurant--potentially upsetting his other guests

OJ will always be a brown person, person of color, african american, black--whichever preferred term. But it is insulting to those that are legitimately discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity to throw OJ into such a group. Whatever his life is about now, it is my belief that it has less to do with his ethnicity and more to do with his history as a domestic abuser and his prior murder trial.

The responses and reactions OJ receives are a direct reflection of his being found guilty of the wrongful death of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

His team of lawyers used the race card to defend him. While I find that despicable, in all fairness I suppose that was part of their job, knowing the law and how to exploit it for their client. Defense lawyers use such tactics every day. While there may have been some that were bigoted involved in the investigation of OJ, that doesn't mean he wasn't guilty. It just means he got all that his money could pay for and more than he deserved. :(

I will probably always spend some of my time, energy and money supporting equality rights for those seen as unequal in this country. But I have to be honest, I wouldn't waste my time, energy or breath doing so for OJ Simpson. :eyes:

[guardian]

23. Not a race issue.

According to news reports the next person to occupy that same table was Michael Jordan. You know, not EVERYTHING is about race.

[OldschoolDem]

24. I wouldn't serve OJ Simpson either

He killed people and got away with it. This is not a race issue.