Murder is a crime. I've never heard a civil court say it. Have you?
Yes, it is a crime. You're finally catching on. It doesn't need a civil court to use the term to say that is what he did when it found him liable for their deaths. It is the same as a civil court telling a jury that when Trump was found to have committed a sexual assault they could understand that to mean he "raped" E Jean Carroll, in the usual sense that term is used. Rape is of course a crime. So he committed a crime according to its common definition; it doesn't require a conviction to conclude that, only that it meets the factual criteria. Thus someone who is found by a civil court to be liable for the deaths of those he intentionally killed therefore murdered them, to anyone who understands what that word means. That doesn't include you. I could say you have a significant intellectual impairment without actually saying you are stupid but it would mean the same thing.
Recall you said "a court said OJ committed the crimes". Now you say the crimes were in fact "murder". That is what needs the civil court to use the term.
The only question here is not what you say, but what did the court really say? Maybe you can quote a transcript rather than improvising your own personal song and dance.
Ahhh, we have a winner! See how useful this test is?
I hope that you get falsely accused of murder based on the mere presence of your DNA at a crime scene.
OJ’s blood was there, having dripped from his cut finger onto the pavement next to his foot prints. He was seen sneaking into his house after the murders - by a limo driver that arrived early to bring him to the airport. Read Vincent Bugliosi’s book on the case to see why OJ got off. The case was absolutely air tight from an evidential point of view. The prosecutors really screwed up, though, allowing the jurors to even think their decision was complicated - when it was not.
Murder is a crime. I've never heard a civil court say it. Have you?
Murder is intentionally killing another or other human beings. The civil court found that he did that, that he intentionally killed his ex wife and lover by stabbing them to death - which made him liable for their deaths, and hence subject to a civil penalty. On that basis, he murdered them. It doesn't require a criminal conviction to establish that as fact. So what word would you use for what he did?
Two responses to the same post? Did you forget that you already responded?
Is this a legal definition of murder, or just one you are inventing here for your convenience?
Note that the civil court only found OJ liable for "battery" against his ex-wife Nicole Goldman, and not her death.
Care to revise any of your statements to reflect what the courts really said?
Murder is intentionally killing another or other human beings. The civil court found that he did that, that he intentionally killed his ex wife and lover by stabbing them to death - which made him liable for their deaths, and hence subject to a civil penalty. On that basis, he murdered them. It doesn't require a criminal conviction to establish that as fact. So what word would you use for what he did?
Two responses to the same post? Did you forget that you already responded?
Is this a legal definition of murder, or just one you are inventing here for your convenience?
Note that the civil court only found OJ liable for "battery" against his ex-wife Nicole Goldman, and not her death.
Care to revise any of your statements to reflect what the courts really said?
The court said he caused their deaths and so was liable. To anyone who isn't a complete simpleton that means he murdered them. The court doesn't have to use that term for that to be a necessary conclusion from its finding. I am sorry that you are unable to understand what a court decision actually means. But it does reflect your understanding of most of what you post.
Yes, it is a crime. You're finally catching on. It doesn't need a civil court to use the term to say that is what he did when it found him liable for their deaths. It is the same as a civil court telling a jury that when Trump was found to have committed a sexual assault they could understand that to mean he "raped" E Jean Carroll, in the usual sense that term is used. Rape is of course a crime. So he committed a crime according to its common definition; it doesn't require a conviction to conclude that, only that it meets the factual criteria. Thus someone who is found by a civil court to be liable for the deaths of those he intentionally killed therefore murdered them, to anyone who understands what that word means. That doesn't include you. I could say you have a significant intellectual impairment without actually saying you are stupid but it would mean the same thing.
Recall you said "a court said OJ committed the crimes". Now you say the crimes were in fact "murder". That is what needs the civil court to use the term.
The only question here is not what you say, but what did the court really say? Maybe you can quote a transcript rather than improvising your own personal song and dance.
It doesn't need the court to say it was "murder" for its finding to establish that, when he was found liable for the intentional killings of his ex wife and her lover. That is the definition of murder. By the same token, a court doesn't have to use the term "doper" when it convicts an athlete of an intentional breach of antidoping rules through taking a banned substance. But that is what doping is. But a bot cannot reason so that rules you out.
The court said he caused their deaths and so was liable. To anyone who isn't a complete simpleton that means he murdered them. The court doesn't have to use that term for that to be a necessary conclusion from its finding. I am sorry that you are unable to understand what a court decision actually means. But it does reflect your understanding of most of what you post.
I understand that a civil court is for deciding civil matters, and a criminal court is for deciding criminal matters.
To those who are familiar with the applicable laws, murder is just one possibility, requiring all the necessary elements are established.
The court said he caused their deaths and so was liable. To anyone who isn't a complete simpleton that means he murdered them. The court doesn't have to use that term for that to be a necessary conclusion from its finding. I am sorry that you are unable to understand what a court decision actually means. But it does reflect your understanding of most of what you post.
I understand that a civil court is for deciding civil matters, and a criminal court is for deciding criminal matters.
To those who are familiar with the applicable laws, murder is just one possibility, requiring all the necessary elements are established.
Intentional killing through stabbing two people to death is murder. Except to a bot.
I hope that you get falsely accused of murder based on the mere presence of your DNA at a crime scene.
OJ’s blood was there, having dripped from his cut finger onto the pavement next to his foot prints. He was seen sneaking into his house after the murders - by a limo driver that arrived early to bring him to the airport. Read Vincent Bugliosi’s book on the case to see why OJ got off. The case was absolutely air tight from an evidential point of view. The prosecutors really screwed up, though, allowing the jurors to even think their decision was complicated - when it was not.
I also read the Bugliosi’s book and although it’s very logicalI, I don’t think he appreciated just how biased the jury was. If he was the prosecutor, there would have been no glove fitting, but there still would have been Furhman’s N-bombs and Fung getting slaughtered by Barry Scheck. He talked about making a powerhouse closing statement, but most of the jurors would have tuned him out or dozed off. That jury just wasn’t going to Simpson.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.