O.J. Simpson and Black Entitlement

O.J. Simpson and Black Entitlement

 

If not a puff piece, the Sports Illustrated story of June 16, 2014, “20 Years Later: Highway to Hell,” regarding O.J. Simpson clearly wasn’t completely honest either. 

 

For one thing, the incarcerated O.J. is not on a highway to anywhere except maybe to his comfy cell and to a prison cafeteria.  For another, the extensively detailed article by Greg Bishop and Thayer Evans never once mentions jury nullification or the fact Simpson’s explosive trial and exoneration marked the beginning of what may be called “The Age of Black Entitlement” which, under the reign of President Barack Hussein Obama, has metastasized into “The Age of Black Supremacy.”

 

And, all because of a double murder twenty years ago.

 

Orenthal James “O. J.” “The Juice” Simpson will soon be 67 years of age and will be locked up at the Lovelock Correctional Center in Lovelock, Nevada at least until he’s 71 when he will face another parole board hearing to determine whether he should be released or serve out the remainder of his 33 year term for a 2007 armed robbery.

 

If he reaches 96, inmate Number 1027820 will still be a lucky man and not just because he wasn’t given a life sentence, for which he was originally eligible, but because he had escaped execution by lethal injection for the June 12th, 1994 murders of his estranged wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her waiter-friend-possible lover, Ronald Lyle Goldman.

 

Most people are familiar with the farcical, low-speed chase of Simpson’s white Bronco as well as with the internationally-televised People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, the nine-month so-called “trial of the century” a year later which ended in an acquittal of the former college and NFL football star turned actor, a verdict rendered by a jury consisting of nine African-Americans, one Hispanic, two white women, and widely considered a tragic instance of jury nullification.

 

Usually a travesty of justice, jury nullification involves a jury returning a not guilty verdict despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary and believing the defendant is deserving of  exoneration on the basis of extraneous circumstances.  Essentially, the jury nullifies a law it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant. 

 

In O.J.’s case, his jury rendered its verdict not on the basis that the law prohibiting murder was immoral but rather based on the jurors’ certainty that he was discriminated against because he was black.  Pre-trial, his battery of wealthy, mostly white attorneys had actually tried to stack the jury with more blacks by objecting to the exclusion of two potential jurors who were black just in case their planned “If the glove don’t (sic) fit” defense didn’t work. 

 

Thanks to his blatantly racially-biased jurors, . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=37685.)