Rich & famous. OJ got out of it because he hired a team of the best trial lawyers possible, the prosecution felt the case was so undisputable that they essentially allowed OJ's lawyers pick the jury (stupid move).
If you believe OJ got off just because he was rich then I got a bridge to sell you.
When Zimmerman was painted, so to speak, as a white Hispanic by the President, was that a micro aggression?Funny, I could have sworn there were more than a few in this forum that said the same exact thing when George Zimmerman was found not guilty.
Then they would have been wrong.Funny, I could have sworn there were more than a few in this forum that said the same exact thing when George Zimmerman was found not guilty.
So you're wrong and you call me names for it? Nice touch.-
Please.
For those who still claim white privilege doesn't exist get a load of this...
So if you have privilege, status and money that absolves you from any responsibility for manslaughter?? They even made up a word for it, "affulenza"??! As if you can take some zinc pills and it goes away.
And you wonder why minorities claim they can't equal justice in this system. Remember that the next time a black teen goes to jail for pot possession.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...4-drunken-crash-spared-jail-article-1.1544508
That's green privilege dude. OJ had some too.
Buckshot's America:
You are not guilty until proven guilty.
No one is innocent.
Pretty much.Buckshot's America:
You are not guilty until proven guilty.
Didn't say that and don't believe it.No one is innocent.
:thumbsup:Buckshot is correct in this case. "Innocence" is a factual issue - whether in reality the person actually did it. However, a jury either finds a defendant guilty or not guilty, the latter meaning that the prosecution failed to carry it's burden of proof. Jury's don't ever find someone "innocent." They aren't asked to. It doesn't mean no one is ever innocent. It means jury's just don't make that determination.
Buckshot was replying to a post which said the jury found him innocent. They did not. And furthermore, it wasn't a nitpick. The distinction is important.
I rate his statement as True.
So you're wrong and you call me names for it? Nice touch.
you new here? though at least he didn't wish your kids were dead and post pictures of dead and mutilated kids. so he is getting better..
and yes he really has done that.
no white privilege here
More woes of the downtrodden white person
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/01/when-white-girls-deal-drugs-they-walk.html
If he was a poor white boy from the trailer park you think his white privilege would have saved him?
I think that would be akin to proving absence of guilt, aka proving a negative.:thumbsup:
Can you imagine having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were innocent?
Black privilege!
If he was a poor white boy from the trailer park you think his white privilege would have saved him?
If he was a poor black kid from the ghetto do you think their sentences would be the same as the white trailer park kid?
Before you answer that check data on crime sentencing and race.
WTF the judge sentenced a black kid to 20 years for killing one person while driving drunk, even though he had a "troubled childhood" because his mother was a drug addict.
http://2paragraphs.com/2015/10/ethan-couch-affluenza-judge-jean-boyd-no-longer-a-judge/
Also, Rick Perry blew off a petition to have the judge thrown off the bench.
Money talks bullshit walks.
If he was rich like the white kid he would have walked.
He disagreed with you so he's wrong?Yes I don't disagree here. It's just that this judge should have been thrown off the bench. Rick Perry had the power to do so.