His psychopathy has nothing to do with his race, and he didn't get acquitted because of race but because of Marcia Clark conceding defeat when she trashed the LAPD Lab and Mark Fuhrman in front of a jury. It is beyond EXHAUSTING to see how no one is able to understand this. The O.J. Simpson story has become a Rorschach test for idiocy. Everyone sees what they want to see and one opinion is more retarded than the other.
shareSo they jurors connecting it to race are liars?
shareEveryone sees what they want to see and one opinion is more retarded than the other.
I am not sure what you mean by the movie "missing the point." Isn't the "point" of the movie up to the person who makes it? If the director is making a point then that IS the point of the movie, whether we agree with it or not.
Additionally, I do not think you are entirely correct in saying "he didn't get acquitted because of race." Is that the entire reason? No, absolutely not. Did it play a role in how this entire thing played out? Yes. And most certainly his fame did, too. It is almost impossible to reasonably argue that race had NOTHING at all to do with it considering all of the events that were going on at that point in time in history.
"Your petty vengeance fetish will have to do withOUT Mr. Groin!"
No he got acquitted because of horrible mistakes made by Clark and Darden. Race really didn't have anything to do with it.
shareOkay.
"Your petty vengeance fetish will have to do withOUT Mr. Groin!"
They did make horrid mistakes, I agree with you on that.
"Your petty vengeance fetish will have to do withOUT Mr. Groin!"
So you don't believe race played any role in the jury and any bias that would have be held given the issues of race prior and present in L.A at the time?
shareIt did but only because Marcia Clark called Mark Fuhrman a racist in front of the jury. Do you know what I mean? If Marcia Clark had been a smart woman, race hadn't been an issue.
shareDid you watch a juror say "Back them, we took care of our own?"
shareJust got done watching this and that line stood out to me as well. She also admitted that it was payback for Rodney King.
Our justice system will always be flawed as long as the decision of innocence or guilt is left up to other human beings who bring their own agendas and biases into the courtroom. Granted, I can't really come up with a better system at this time, but too damn often the innocent go to prison while the guilty go free.
Of course it was about race, the jurors all said it was revenge for Rodney King and the fact that the majority of black people thought he was innocent whilst the majority of white people thought he was guilty says it all. That isn't to say the police didn't make a lot of mistakes, that the prosecutors didn't do a bad job and that there wasn't 'reasonable doubt' but it certainly was about race.
shareThe jurors were racists, so ofcourse it was about race. It shouldn't have been, though, it should've been about a psychopathic wife beater who killed two innocent people in a jealous rage. Something this biased documentary should also have been about.
shareAre you saying the documentary WASN'T about that? Because I did not think it was an unbiased film. It seems the filmmaker clearly leaned toward OJ's guilt.
shareIt's been two years and it must've been a forgettable documentary, because I hardly remember it anymore. But if I said it was biased, then apparently it was. You can say it leaned towards his guilt, but my point was that this documentary was not about a "psychopathic wife beater who killed two innocent people in a jealous rage", but about whatever political message it wanted to send.
shareIt was seven hours long. It covered a lot of ground and came at the story from a lot of different angles.
Are you sure you actually finished it? I would not call it forgettable. It was actually one of the most impressive documentaries I've ever seen. I'd say it's the definitive documentary treatment of the topic of OJ Simpson.
I'm pretty sure I saw most of it. But that's the problem, there are not that man different angles. The story is and should be about a psychopathic wife beater who killed two innocent people in a jealous rage. People have been abusing it for their own agenda. I remember reading this criticism: "[T]he film, which so persuasively treats law enforcement racism as a systemic problem, can't figure out how to treat violence against women with the same kind of rigor or nuance". I felt the same way.
Maybe you enjoyed it because it fit your politics. Who knows. Like I said, I can't really say anything else about it, because it was, in fact, forgettable to me. It added nothing new.
Regarding the various angles, I'll just say that if you are going to make a film about OJ, it can't just be about the events of that night in 1994. You also have to have a discussion of the cultural impact of the trial. Otherwise, your film is an incomplete film that fails to capture the effect the that the murders ended up having on an entire nation.
shareUhm, you know how many times the OJ case has been discussed in various media throughout the years??? Unless it was willing to ignore all politics and just focus on the facts, it's just telling the same old tired story. I don't need to be reminded of all the nonsense back then. How about focusing on the victims for once? And if it's going talk about racism, let's focus on the jurors and defense team instead of making an unrelated connection to today's discussion about racism within law enforcement.
shareYes, very good documentary. It won an academy award!
shareThe jury acquitted him as an act of pro-black activism. It had everything to do with race. It is beyond EXHAUSTING to see how anyone is unable to understand this.
share