O.J. Kicked Out of Restaurant
I just read an article regarding this event. Former NFL star O.J. Simpson was kicked out of a steakhouse in Louisville, Kentucky over the weekend by owner Mr. Ruby, because Ruby is disgusted with Simpson's past and is sick of all the attention he attracts.
There was a one question poll that coincided with the article on if the reader agreed, disagreed, or was uncertain about Ruby's decision to kick Simpson out of the restaurant. At the time of filling out the poll for myself, 84% of the people gave Ruby a thumbs up on his decision, while only 10% gave him a thumbs down.
Some who gave the thumbs down played the race card and others claimed that O.J. had a right to be there. Of those who gave the thumbs up to Ruby, many didn't buy into the race card nor did they buy into the civil rights' aspect of it.
If O.J. Simpson had created a scene by punching someone in the face while at the restaurant or if he had gotten drunk and started screaming at the top of his lungs, then I could completely understand his being kicked out. But, this wasn't the case. He was there to eat, plain and simple. A person, who is not being sought by the police at the time and is behaving appropriately, should be allowed the right to sit down, chat amongst friends and family, and enjoy a meal. I don't care if the person is O.J. Simpson, a janitor, a professor at Yale, or a garbageman.
It befuddles me how O.J. Simpson can walk around after being ruled innocent by the court of his alledged killings, and get treated as if he was convicted on all counts. I know the LAPD slipped some in their investigations and I know there have been guilty parties let go by the courts, but I also know that one is supposedly presumed innocent until proven guilty. I guess, in O.J.'s case, he was guilty regardless of what the jury decided.
O.J. was dismissed of all charges, is not being sought by the police, was trying to enjoy a quiet meal at a restaurant, and yet the owner kicked him out, because he's disgusted with the former football star's past. Can restaurant owners just not allow people in they don't like on a personal level? If I owned a restaurant, could I just prohibit the Bush Administration and Bush supporters from entering just because I disagreed with their past decisions? Would that be ethical of me to do such a thing?
A situation like this calls for the informal fallacy known as the slippery slope. If an owner can kick an unwanted and allegedly innocent man out of a restaurant due to his dismissed charges of a murder crime, what else can/will owners do? O.J. and his attorney are thinking about filing charges against the restaurant. I can't say that I blame them. I can only wonder about the 84% of people who gave Ruby the thumbs up.
posted by Craig @ 1:17 PM
2 Comments:
You choose to focus on his being "ruled innocent" but forget that he was also "ruled guilty" in the wrongful death suit. That shows your bias in favor of him.
Restaurant patrons have a civil right not to have to eat their dinner seated next to a known killer. He gets away with murder, then rubs our faces in it by writing a book "If I Killed Them, This is How I Did It."
The "Race Card"? Give me a break! A killer who takes away ALL civil rights of two other innocent human beings has no right to whine about his own civil rights be infringed upon in a restaurant. He deserves to be kicked out of society all together, not just a restaurant. Two thumbs way up for Mr. Ruby.
Such a comment deserves a response. First off, I am in no way biased toward O.J. Simpson. I don't know the man. If he had been found "guilty" in a criminal court, the man should have been punished and jailed for life. But, I do not believe it's right to treat a man as a killer based on one's own prejudices.
Secondly, for your information, the intent of the criminal and civil courts are completely different. The necessity of evidence alters, as well. In a criminal court, the ruling must be "beyond a reasonable doubt". That is altered to a "preponderance of evidence" in a civil trial. As Patricia King, a Georgetown Law Student states, "The fact that he was tried criminally and found that he was innocent has nothing to do with the fact that he may have to pay compensatory damages."
If you had READ the blog, you'd also realize that I myself never pulled out the race card. I merely mentioned what I had read others post in regard to the story and some who gave it the thumbs down pulled that card out of their back pocket.
If you have proof that he is 100% guilty, then go public with it. You'll be a rich individual. But, until then, I wish you the best of luck in not getting tossed out a restaurant or any public venue due to solely your presence in being there. While authoritarian regimes may go by the standard of one's guilt regardless of "ruled innocence", I try to stand by one's innocence until proven guilty. Take that as bias. Take that as what you'd like.
Post a Comment
<< Home