I was watching SNL last night, and they had their "news" portion on.
The anchor said, "OJ Simpson received a verdict of guilty for armed robbery and kidnapping...but really for murder..."which caused a large uproar of laughter.
How many think the verdict was really because of the past, and how many think it was actually a fair verdict, based on evidence?
Was he charged with greater crimes, simply because people feel he dodged the murder charges 13 years ago?
I am torn.
Barging into a hotel room with a gun and ordering people to stay where they are just to get some of his own property back isn't exactly deserving of a slap on the wrist, but, had it been just Joe Blow off the street, do you think the courts would have sought a lesser charge with no mention of a kidnapping charge?
I do.
The anchor said, "OJ Simpson received a verdict of guilty for armed robbery and kidnapping...but really for murder..."which caused a large uproar of laughter.
How many think the verdict was really because of the past, and how many think it was actually a fair verdict, based on evidence?
Was he charged with greater crimes, simply because people feel he dodged the murder charges 13 years ago?
I am torn.
Barging into a hotel room with a gun and ordering people to stay where they are just to get some of his own property back isn't exactly deserving of a slap on the wrist, but, had it been just Joe Blow off the street, do you think the courts would have sought a lesser charge with no mention of a kidnapping charge?
I do.
Comment