OJ tossed out of Louisville steakhouse on eve of derby...

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Of course you can, but is it a battle worth taking? If OJ was a regular in the joint, then perhaps... but to start this kind of ordeal because he ate in there one night... nah.

By the way, I think the prick is guilty as well. I believe that he'll rot for what he did, but unfortunately, that's not up to me.

Cajun: it's probably best for alot of people that we don't get to vote on that

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Well we are speculating there will even be a battle. There may not be as frankly I don't think OJ wants another ordeal. He's having the time of his life, playing golf, going to the Derby, while 2 people are dead.

To me, it would be worth the ordeal. I wouldn't want him in my place, plain and simple.

Fair enough... I can respect that. I had heard that he's been seen all around south Florida with a blonde that looks just like Nicole. Just unreal... he's a piece of shiat.

[ELA]

Delicate subject. First, just because the trial was turned into a "racial" issue doesn't mean that this or any other incident is a "racial" issue as well. To me, there was no racial aspect to the trial. That manuever was merely a legal team practicing law and adding an ingredient to a recipe that didn't belong. Well, the proof is in the pudding -- either due to the weakness of the case put on by the prosecution, the evidence or lack thereof, or the racial aspects, and perhaps numerous other aspects -- OJ was found not gulity.

Second, regarding the incident, I have no problem with a business owner taking a stand on his or her principles. If in fact, that actually what it is. Unless anyone can speak to the person and his principles, beliefs, etc. -- then perhaps we will never know.

Eric

Originally Posted by moodwalker

I think it was a c u n t move no matter who it was.

No one knows if The Juice is guilty or not. Least of all Jeff Ruby.

Stupid stupid c u ntish thing to do.

Publicity stunt for the classless

He was found not guilty and then guilty. And of course no one knows for sure. But anyone who really understands what went on in the first trial knows he certainly is not innocent. Not guilty does not equal innocent.

And quite seriously, anyone who followed this thing... and the aftermath, you have got to be a complete idiot to believe the guy was INNOCENT. I dont care what flippin color the man is. I loved this guy and thought he was all class. He was one of my favorite football players. His wife was far from an angel, very messy situation. But come on... gravity does really exist.

[Samarta]

Let me preface this with I think he's guilty, I don't know how he looks in the mirror, much less his kids everyday, and he will pay at some point for what he did. Now that that's out of the way, the restaraunt owner was wrong. It's a public place. The right to refuse service angle does not work here. The guy came in with a group and tried to have dinner in a public place. There was no ruckus, nothing says they were disruptive, you can speculate all you want about the race card, it simply doesn't matter. The only way this guy could pull it off without being wrong was to close for the evening. Oh but wait, it's the busiest night of the year in Louisville, he can't do that. So what should he have done? He should have served the party and gotten over himself.

[Danzig]

the restaurant is open to the public, but by the same token, the man as owner has the right to refuse service. he did so, whether he ends up paying a price for that or not--it was his call.

but to inject race into this imo is dead wrong. the guy had a problem with oj because of what the man did, not what his color is--and to continually bring up race, regardless of whether it is at issue, is like peter crying wolf. it doesn't always apply, but when it does, is it somehow cheapened because there are so many times it is mentioned without reason??

[Samarta]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the restaurant is open to the public, but by the same token, the man as owner has the right to refuse service. he did so, whether he ends up paying a price for that or not--it was his call.

but to inject race into this imo is dead wrong. the guy had a problem with oj because of what the man did, not what his color is--and to continually bring up race, regardless of whether it is at issue, is like peter crying wolf. it doesn't always apply, but when it does, is it somehow cheapened because there are so many times it is mentioned without reason??

You know, if I were the restaurant owner, there is no way in hell I would want to take a chance in court on that one.....because this is no different than him standing in front of his place saying "you get in, you don't get in.." Guilty or not guilty isn't the question here....the guy was wrong.

[timmgirvan]

They just had the owner on the news. and he was asked if it was racial with OJ. He said no..because as soon as OJ and his people cleared out, Michael Jordan and his party of 30 were there to fill the chairs!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Samarta

You know, if I were the restaurant owner, there is no way in hell I would want to take a chance in court on that one.....because this is no different than him standing in front of his place saying "you get in, you don't get in.." Guilty or not guilty isn't the question here....the guy was wrong.

Sam: you know that's wrong! that's the same way you were allowed to go to all those hot clubs with the heavy security

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Samarta

You know, if I were the restaurant owner, there is no way in hell I would want to take a chance in court on that one.....because this is no different than him standing in front of his place saying "you get in, you don't get in.." Guilty or not guilty isn't the question here....the guy was wrong.

no, he wasn't wrong. now, if he made a habit of this--well, he sure wouldn't be in business long. but again, it's his establishment, and if he wants to refuse to serve a person, or a party, he has that right. just like anyone who is offended by his actions has the right not to frequent his restaurant.

[brianwspencer]

I love this man. If I had a restaurant, OJ wouldn't be allowed in my place either -- by himself or with a party of 30 people. He's disgusting.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I love this man. If I had a restaurant, OJ wouldn't be allowed in my place either -- by himself or with a party of 30 people. He's disgusting.

That's you,Bri.....fair and balanced

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

That's you,Bri.....fair and balanced

What can I say? I was still really a kid when that trial was going on, and even then I was smart enough to know that it was wildly obvious that he killed those two and incredulous even then that a group of people managed to agree that he didn't do it.

He hasn't done much to change my opinion since then, acting generally like a pig in public every chance he gets.

So really, what other option would there be? Good good good for the guy who owns that place.

[2 Dollar Bill]

Reading the thread... OJ tossed out of Louisville...

What are they only serving Carrot Juice now ?

[Samarta]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Sam: you know that's wrong! that's the same way you were allowed to go to all those hot clubs with the heavy security

amazing what $20 did 20 years ago...

[Samarta]

[quote=Danzig]no, he wasn't wrong. now, if he made a habit of this--well, he sure wouldn't be in business long. but again, it's his establishment, and if he wants to refuse to serve a person, or a party, he has that right. just like anyone who is offended by his actions has the right not to frequent his restaurant.[/QUOTE

He is entitled to beliefs, but he was absolutely wrong by refusing to serve him based on those beliefs and I would be amazed if any court in the land didn't see it that way as well. Hell I could argue that case and win. Again, I think O.J. is a p.o.s. and the guiltiest man alive, but he was found not guilty and has a right to eat wherever he wants...

[Danzig]

if a woman hasn't got the right to golf at augusta, why the big deal about oj getting tossed out of a restaurant???

where i work is open to the public, yet it is still private property. just like that guys restaurant. he can refuse service, and he did. but of course with our society being so eager to sue, maybe a mountain will be made out of a molehill. who gives a damn if oj was put out, and had to dine elsewhere? i don't.

[Samarta]

Originally Posted by Danzig

if a woman hasn't got the right to golf at augusta, why the big deal about oj getting tossed out of a restaurant???

where i work is open to the public, yet it is still private property. just like that guys restaurant. he can refuse service, and he did. but of course with our society being so eager to sue, maybe a mountain will be made out of a molehill. who gives a damn if oj was put out, and had to dine elsewhere? i don't.

Augusta National is a private club...that is not open to the public....I don't give a damn that he was put out or care where he eats....imo this isn't about O.J., it's about one's right to frequent a public place....

[Danzig]

well, there's oj's rights, and then there's the owners rights, the other patrons rights....
was anyone else disturbed by the hoopla of oj being there? did anyone complain? there's a lot more to it than just oj being put out. the man who asked oj to leave owns the property, it's HIS right to refuse service. he knows as a public property owner, that it's a fine line-he chose to ask oj to leave.
so what?

[Samarta]

[quote=DaHoss9698]

Originally Posted by Samarta

No, he doesn't. As the owner of the restaraunt he has the right to refuse service to anyone. It was obviously not a racial thing and I would be surprised if OJ made a stink about it at all. He doesn't need anymore trouble, and is too busy golfing and trying to find ways to not pay the Goldman's the money they are owed after the civil trial.

He absolutely has the right to eat there. Would I like to be in there with him? Hell no! But the guy was charged with a crime, he was found not to be guilty. Whether or not a person believes in his guilt or innocence is irrelevant. Bring his old court room team back on this one and they win him the amount of money he owes in his civil judgements. I bet Johnnie Cochran is turning over wanting to do this closing argument....