O.J.: Made in America

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Someone posted a link about it in a thread about the FX docudrama.

I've watched the first three episodes. To this point it is one of the greatest documentaries I've seen and sets the standard for an analysis of the intersection of race, class, and celebrity in America.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

You are one stupid ****.

I don't think he did it alone either.

I think it takes a special kind of dip$3it moron to dispose of the gloves on your own property...

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Rausch

I'm not Dane but personally I think America would have been worse off if OJ would have been convicted.

I think it took the OJ trial for most of white America to realize just how inept and racist those cops were. Having to tamper with evidence just to convict a clearly guilty man was too much.

And I think a lot of black America realized that the dividing line wasn't about race - it was about money and influence...

Exposing prosecution negligence and shortcuts is well and good, but this case IMO went to far the other way to cement that reasonable doubt is something that can be manufactured with enough resources, regardless of merit.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Exposing prosecution negligence and shortcuts is well and good, but this case IMO went to far the other way to cement that reasonable doubt is something that can be manufactured with enough resources, regardless of merit.

Thus the whole power/money thing being what tips the scales the most.

[Katipan]

Originally Posted by Rausch

I'm not Dane but personally I think America would have been worse off if OJ would have been convicted.

I think it took the OJ trial for most of white America to realize just how inept and racist those cops were. Having to tamper with evidence just to convict a clearly guilty man was too much.

And I think a lot of black America realized that the dividing line wasn't about race - it was about money and influence...

I think the public was willing to believe the worse of law enforcement after Rodney King.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Katipan

I think the public was willing to believe the worse of law enforcement after Rodney King.

People will deny the truth as long as possible.

It wasn't just one event - it was a number of events in a short period of time...

[Katipan]

It wasn't just the cops in the 90s tho.

The brown vs black wars stemming from prisions spilled everywhere. The cops started going after gangs with a fervor. Lots of black men in gangs unfortunately.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Rausch

People will deny the truth as long as possible.

It wasn't just one event - it was a number of events in a short period of time...

But a murder trial is a horrible setting to send a message.

You want to communicate that you don't trust the presenters of fact? Refuse to impanel an impartial jury. Don't sit there, then pronounce after the fact 'this guy gets to go free even if he's guilty because we're not inclined to believe a word you say.'

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Don't sit there, then pronounce after the fact 'this guy gets to go free even if he's guilty because we're not inclined to believe a word you say.'

Isn't that what reasonable doubt is? The idea that there's even a chance, in my mind, that the person isn't guilty?...

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Katipan

The cops started going after gangs with a fervor. Lots of black men in gangs unfortunately.

Unfortunately America is very good at finding very poor solutions to problems we created ourselves...

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Rausch

Isn't that what reasonable doubt is? The idea that there's even a chance, in my mind, that the person isn't guilty?...

That sound more like a shadow of doubt, regardless of the source.

Reasonable doubt presupposes a reasonable juror with an open mind, amenable to convincing of guilt if the facts support it as well as denial if reasonable exculpatory information exists.

[Mile High Mania]

These types of documentaries are always fascinating. I've only seen parts of the OJ deal, but it looks really good.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

That sound more like a shadow of doubt, regardless of the source.

Reasonable doubt presupposes a reasonable juror with an open mind, amenable to convincing of guilt if the facts support it as well as denial if reasonable exculpatory information exists.

Which way of thinking do you think most jurors employ?

And I don't want to argue this point all that much because frankly I'm not qualified to.

My point being the explosion of anger and release afterwards was better for having happened then than much later...

[Chromatic]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

The first two hours is about race in LA, the Civil Rights Movement and African American athletes and OJ's life up through the end of his playing days in Buffalo and meeting Nicole Brown.

The second two hours are about OJ's life after football, his marriage to Nicole, and the increasing discord in LA from the end of the 70's up through the riots. It ends shortly before the murder.

The third episode is about the murder, the initial police investigation, the Bronco chase and the negotiation to get him to surrender at Rockingham as well as the racial elements of the trial.

What makes this series so great is its ambition and how it ties all of these various elements together to tell the story of why this story resonated the way it did and why it's about far more than just a football player.

It seems the LAPD's behavior, policies and racial tension from decades before pretty much already sealed OJ's victory before the trial even began.

I skipped part 1, watched parts 2 and 3 and am now going back to watch all of them.

What an amazing documentary. One of the best I've ever seen and is a brilliant work of art.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Rausch

Which way of thinking do you think most jurors employ?

And I don't want to argue this point all that much because frankly I'm not qualified to.

My point being the explosion of anger and release afterwards was better for having happened then than much later...

I don't think ANYONE has a handle on that question to the extent they think they do.

I've gotten out of jury duty numerous times due to my background. But one time a couple years back, I lingered in the pool to the point where vior dire was underway and we were sent to chambers for a break.

NOTHING about the case had been presented, but the pool was already rife with people, despite being admonished not to discuss the matter at hand, casually talking about how 'fine' the defense attorney was, and what a 'bitch' the prosecutor was, and how the defendant 'looked' guilty.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Rausch

Isn't that what reasonable doubt is? The idea that there's even a chance, in my mind, that the person isn't guilty?...

Jury nullification is most assuredly not the same as reasonable doubt.

Baby Lee's suggested a theory that's floated around the legal community since the verdict was read - that this jury simply didn't give a shit and was going to let him walk either way. Some argue celebrity or money, but the best argument was/is racial strife and this jury wanted a black man to beat the system that so often seemed stacked against them.

That has nothing to do with reasonable doubt (though I'd argue that your definition of it isn't accurate either; Baby Lee's followup response should be). That's simple, straightforward jury nullification and it absolutely ****s the legal process up.

The best, most recent example I can come up with was the 'loud music' shooter out of Jacksonville. The guy fires shots into the crowd after yelling at them for having their music too loud; in so doing, he hits a kid and the kid dies. In the first trial, the jury convicts him of attempted murder but not of murder, despite the fact that someone died as a direct result of the attempt they convicted him on.

Now, by law, that should've been impossible - second degree murder covers reckless indifference. If they found him guilty of attempted murder, they've hit the right mens rea and therefore it's theoretically impossible for 2nd degree murder not to have stuck if the attempt did and someone died.

That jury simply didn't want to send the guy away for life. So rather than find him guilty of attempt AND murder then turn it over to the judge for sentencing, they found him guilty of attempt and hung on murder thus putting a cap on what the judge could sentence him for.

Fortunately, the case was re-tried and the guy was actually convicted on 1st degree murder. But the first jury unquestionably went rogue and ignored Florida law and/or any verdict directors they were given.

I absolutely goddamn hate juries. They aren't attentive, they aren't open-minded and frankly, far too many of them are just stupid. I can't imagine having to deal with juries on any sort of high-profile case. Give narrow-minded and stupid the power of life and death and you just have a massive recipe for disaster.