If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The four co-defendents in the Simpson trial walked out of Judge Glass' courtroom free men yesterday. The two that had the guns (the one that was brandishing it, the other had it in his waistband) both walked. The dealer that had the gun waved in his face was totally shocked. There's cowboy justice for you.
Not exactly. They got probation, which is still a conviction and not 'walking'. One (not admitting guilt, along with OJ) got 7 1/2 years to Simpson's 9. Simpson 'masterminded' and supervised the whole criminal episode, so he SHOULD get the longer sentence. Those receiving probation cooperated and admitted guilt, while Simpson didn't, not even in his sentencing hearing. I just don't see any reason for shock (or any reason to believe OJ didn't know forcibly taking back those items was unlawful).
Last edited by salmoned; December 12, 2008, 01:04 PM.
Yes, they all got probation because they plea bargained. I know that. They're free, as far as I'm concerned. Our mainstream rag said the same thing, in effect. Regardless, OJ masterminded, his buds went along with the plan, brought the weapons, menaced the dealers, plea bargained, blah-blah-blah...it's okay, to be threatened by a weapon and nothing happens to you? Stewart didn't (plea) and should've. Detractors of OJ even say there's more to this. I live here now, been coming here for the last 40 years since I lived on the West Coast/MidWest and SouthWest (DH even longer than I), have family that lives here also. We are familiar with Nevada politics and how it works here. Well, 'nuff said. I do not support him for what he's (OJ) done past and present, but be realistic as far as the punishment fitting the crime. But everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course. So I'm just going to zip it up now.
To further understand the roots of this controversy, a study of
Mark Furhman's credentials and bona fides is well worth investigating.
With the passage of time these cold cases get harder to figure out.
The OJ case was muddied when that detective was heard uttering racial slurs.
That slight leverage resulted in a disputable verdict.
Yeah, I know that stuff. What I am asking you is what does "Mark Fuhrman's bona fides...[are] well worth investigating" mean? I don't mean what do you mean about Mark Fuhrman; I mean what literally does it mean to investigate a person's bona fides?
But I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I GOT IT ALL! (George Costanza) GrouchyTeacher.com
Bona fides is generally a noun, in the sense that it can be defined as "evidence of one's good faith or genuineness; evidence of one's qualifications or achievements" (from the Latin, meaning good faith).
It's also commonly mispronounced; the last word should sound like "fie-deez," not "fydz" (a two syllable word, not one).
Thus to investigate someone's bona fides is to look deeply into that individual's qualifications for the position they purport to represent or the person they claim to be.
Comment