[terminator]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

OJ had a chance to defend himself, and while legally he did, I still believe he is guilty based on the evidence.

Right now there is contradictory evidence saying a cop did something that resulted in the death of a teen that may or may not have been charging at the officer after maybe a violent struggle. Maybe. That's the point we don't really know and we have not heard from the officer or had a prosecutor present the evidence against him. We've heard accounts from media, who have been known to manipulate the evidence to get ratings, on eye witnesses and other evidence that seems contradictory often at first glance.

Do you not agree with innocent until proven guilty, at all? What evidence did it require you to say this officer was a violent homicidal maniac? The early testimony of Dorian Johnson, a man who was a reluctant accomplish in a robbery, who's current recount of the story seems contradictory to other possible evidence? That's what most people, like Canuck-Hater, were basing their 'feelings' on as nothing else had really be known.

I'm just having a very hard time grasping the fact that people don't seem to understand why I want to give this officer a chance of defending himself in court, or at least let the FBI investigation come out, before I make up my mind. That's what our court system, and I would argue entire country is based on. If there was video of him hunting down Michael Brown I would be all on board, right now though there's still a lot of room to claim self-defence (and conversely murder). It's not black and white, at all.

But I guess because OJ may have killed his wife, officer Wilson is a deranged racist murder. Makes sense.

OJ convicted by a jury of his peers, still not innocent.

But this piglet is innocent? wake up and smell the coffee guy.