...And one more thing that I think is interesting:

In many cases, even if it is 100% proven that somebody did some very bad things, I don't personally think that should (necessarily) negate our respect for the good things they did.

Michael Jackson may have been a serial pedo, which is pretty damning in general. BUT, *that* doesn't make his music bad, or make people who like his music bad.

Cosby almost certainly did drug and have sex with a whole bunch of women, without their consent. That is a very shitty thing to do. But it doesn't make his impact on comedy any less real. It doesn't make The Cosby Show a shitty TV program, that I/we should feel ashamed of having enjoyed.

OJ Simpson almost certainly got away with murder. I think that makes him a scumbag, but I can accept that many people think/thought of him as "OJ Simpson, running back, actor, announcer, etc." rather than "OJ Simpson, murderer". And even though I personally dislike the notion that he got away with killing people, I can watch video of him playing football and appreciate his undeniable talent, or watch him in The Naked Gun and still chuckle.


Sports figures like Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong are a different story, at least for me personally. Even though doping or using steroids isn't even remotely comparable to the objective badness of pedophilia, rape, or murder ... those two guys were respected specifically for their sports accomplishments, which they "cheated" to obtain. For me personally at least, that completely invalidates those accomplishments, which were pretty much the only reasons to look up to them. In the meantime, I might think that OJ is a terrible human being, but at least I can still respect what he did on the football field.

Maybe that is a weird distinction to make, but it makes sense to me, anyway.

Cosby was (still is, even) a personal hero or idol to a whole lot of people. I think we're all tempted to put the blinders on and be *very* reluctant to accept any accusations of wrongdoing against people that we look up to like that.

Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds ... all got a hefty dose of benefit of the doubt from their fans way past the time that more clearheaded people started thinking "there might be something going on there".

I don't think that makes Whoopi a stupid or shitty person. Just a fallible person that *wants* to believe the best about people that she has respect for.

No that was CNN and OJ Simpson coverage.

Witness 40? How many witnesses were there? Also, I don't consider TYT as credible.

At any rate, if the GJ were hornswoggled why doesn't someone come forward and dispute all of this? If there has been a travesty of justice, surely at least ONE person can come forward to get it straightened out. But I suppose, as in the OJ Simpson case, the judicial system is left to make it's own decisions.

Crazy to think that I was alive (and, in many cases watching) most of these events...


I was surprised to see OJ Simpson's slow-speed car chase in the Ford Bronco missing from the list.

Describing MMA as a gay-positive sport is like describing OJ Simpson as a straight-positive role model.

This is a guy who has become completely comfortable with blatantly lying to the American public - confidant that no one will call him out as the bullshitter he truly is.

It really seems he has become completely unshackled from the reins of reality and if anyone brings this to his attention, he simply denies it.

The OJ Simpson of politics...

Justice means one thing to you, justice means something different to us. Or something to that effect.

Powerful. OJ Simpson. Trayvon Martin. Black parents having to talk to their teenagers about how to talk to a cop if they get pulled over while driving (no white parent has that conversation).

Wow.

No surprise 9/11 topped the list. Really questionable choices. I thought #2 would be the moon landing for sure. 9/11 could have been paired with bin Laden's death as one mention (two sides of one larger story). I think the announcement of JFK's assassination and his subsequent funeral were close enough together to warrant one event. Same is true with the ongoing drama that was OJ Simpson's original trial. JFK should have ranked higher than Simpson.

Casey Anthony has no right to this list at all, and I'd replace her with the 1989 World Series, where the SF Giants and Oakland A's (a fact notable to bay residents) were interrupted by an extremely lethal earthquake. Condensing references would allow the moon landing to occupy the #2 spot and a few more events to be selected.

That's what they get for letting a poll of 1077 randoms populate a list like this.

Sorry this is so long in response--I forgot I wanted to respond and it is an ocd compulsion of mine... Seriously... I have OCD... (Now I have free time to write Yay.)

To the suspect topic, OJ Simpson was a forgone conclusion...Ramsey's parents were too. Casey Anthony's mother... Etc. These suspects were all the intense, single-minded already-formed conclusions that investigators focused on---to their tunnel vision.

A suspect is far more than just a person with a few

So what we are talking about really is what the police said? Well, reversing the situation, as you suggest, lets say the kid shot a police dog in the backyard and claimed self defense. What would the police say? I don't know and neither do you. What would his parents say? It was self defense? You bet your ass. A clean shoot? Sure. But lets say the kid brags about it and the parents find out later--they may do the right thing and snitch the child out.

But you bet your ass they would come out to little Johnny's defense early...

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
A "suspect" is an already forming conclusion which, by your logic, is an outrage perhaps?
They call it a "good shot" but then, let's pretend, a neighbor comes out and says the officers laughed about it later and noted how they weren't afraid, that changes things. It is mandatory procedure that every time a gun is pulled an investigation stays open for a certain period of time. Just like when child services come to your house, even when somebody reported you falsely--they still open the file and keep it open for their own protection...

A suspect has nothing to with a conclusion or "my logic." A suspect is just that, a suspect, there is no conclusion formed. If the situation was reversed, say a father shoots a police dog claiming it attacked his kid playing in his yard. There certainly would be an investigation as to whether the father was really was defending his family. The father would be the suspect of the investigation, but the police wouldn't comment to the press that it's still under investigation AND say it was a good shoot. In that situation, they would say they can't comment on an open investigation.
But in this situation the cop shot a family pet. There should be an impartial investigation as to whether it was justified. This BS line they give saying it was a good shoot, but it's still under investigation is basically them saying that there is no investigation, we've already concluded that no matter what, the cop did nothing wrong.

Try OJ Simpson's verdict.

Jury nullification is a mixed bag at best. Back in the "good old days" when black people were being lynched, if any of the killers were actually brought to trial they were often found not guilty by all white juries. Those are probably the most obvious examples. The criminal trial of the cops who beat Rodney King and the OJ Simpson trial are often cited as cases of jury nullification as well. I'm sure others could cite more examples, but it's not necessary because we all know it happens.

This is not to say that I think jury nullification is always bad. In the above examples the crimes were assault and murder, which most would agree are crimes that should be punished. It is just to punish those who deliberately harm or kill. But in the cases of "crimes" that aren't crimes at all, like marijuana possession, or soliciting prostitution, or playing the numbers, etc, I would wholeheartedly embrace jury nullification. I believe laws against pot usage, prostitution, and gambling are unjust, so jury nullification is perfect in those instances.

I know many lawyers and legal scholars think that jury nullification in any form is a perversion of justice. They'll say that if citizens don't like the laws then they need to tell their legislators to rewrite them, and we should NOT be changing the laws in the jury room. But I don't care. I still have my free will. With a SNAP of a couple neurons I nullify all their arguments. >> ^Trancecoach:

Jury Nullification is the great gift to our legal system. It's too bad more jurors don't know about it or exercise their right to implement it.

Sometimes cameras are allowed. Sometimes they're not. It's at the judge's discretion, I believe. If you'll recall, the entire OJ Simpson case was televised.>> ^BoneRemake:

So hey, I thought cameras where not allowed in courtrooms ? or is that while the case is going on ? that is what was explained to me as for all the drawings you see people doing in court.

The problem I have with this stuff is that very little gets accomplished. The caller will continue being ignorant and the hosts, despite being correct, do nothing to make atheism more acceptable in the public's eyes. It's lose/lose.

There is no debate or discourse in this show, its just two sides yammering at each other. Sure one side has facts and evidence on their side, but this is real life and sometimes facts and evidence don't matter, just ask the OJ Simpson. We do not live in a society where facts and evidence reign supreme, and just shouting over the caller and cutting him off doesn't change that.

In my opinion, the existence of god or the lack thereof is irrelevant. The problem is the role of religion in today's society. The problem is not the deity. The problem are the PEOPLE who claim to know what that deity is all about. Even if Atheists could provide evidence that god does not exist, it just would not matter because it's corrupt religions that cause the problems in society, not god.

I don't care if someone believes in god or not, what matters is whether or not a person is a productive member of society and is helpful to his fellow man, not hurtful. It is PEOPLE, using religion, who have a long history of being hurtful to humanity, they are the threat, not god. For all we know, the caller is a good person who works hard to support his family. I don't care that he believes differently than me or if he isn't good with issues of logic or reason. He's not the problem, god is not the problem, it's the PEOPLE of the preisthood that constantly pressures and manipulates people like that to be intolerant and ignorant.

Atheists are fighting the wrong fight. Why do these people continue to tilt against windmills with people who already have their minds made up and aren't going to swayed no matter how convincing the argument is. All this does is pump up the people who already feel the same way you do. It doesn't improve things one bit. Well except make for good comedy I suppose.

Ta Nic!

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
*doublepromote this incredibly moving account of what was happening while so many were transfixed by the spectacle of the OJ Simpson trial.