Steakhouse Owner Refuses to Serve O.J. Simpson

[Lubbock]

Steakhouse Owner Refuses to Serve O.J. Simpson
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — The owner of an upscale steakhouse in Louisville (javascript:siteSearch('Louisville');) said he asked O.J. Simpson (javascript:siteSearch('O.J. Simpson');) to leave his restaurant the night before the Kentucky Derby (javascript:siteSearch('Kentucky Derby');) because he is sickened by the attention Simpson still attracts.

"I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families," Jeff Ruby said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "The way he continues to torture the lives of those families ... with his behavior, attitude and conduct."

Simpson, an NFL Hall of Famer and Heisman Trophy winner, was found innocent in 1995 of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman but was found liable in a civil trial that followed.

Ruby — who owns restaurants in Cincinnati, Louisville and Belterra, Ind. — said Simpson, who was in town for the Derby on Saturday, came in with a group of about 12 Friday night and was seated at a table in the back. A customer came up to Ruby and was "giddy" about seeing Simpson, Ruby said.

"I didn't want that experience in my restaurant," Ruby said, later adding that seeing Simpson get so much attention "makes me sick to my stomach."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270879,00.html

[Wolfcounsel]

How can one be found "innocent" in a criminal trial and guilty in a civil trial for the same deed? I've never been able to figure that out. I think it makes better sense to the lawsuit-happy bunch. I say if he's guilty in either, he's guilty in both then.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Different criteria for determining "guilt" or (cough, choke, gasp) "innocence." Civil trials are different than criminal trials, I believe the burden of proof is lower, or perhaps they allow more leeway or types of evidence, not sure the exact extent, but surely one of our resident law aficionados can enlighten a bit more, :smirky:

[The_Elucidator]

I thought he was found not guilty which is completely different from being found innocent, as stupid as that may sound!

[Riverboat]

Sounds like a smart move to me. You don't want to give O.J. a steak knife.

[Lubbock]

I found the article this morning, and was very interested in the comments made by posters.

It seemed that many know of the restaurant and the owner; I got out of it that he owns more than one restaurant in the general area.

The consensus is, OJ's sleezeball attorney will have a devil of a time proving "racism."

Why is the Race Card always the first one dealt from the deck?

Dumb question. Huh?

It's always the first one because it's the one that works --PC nation that we've become.

[altekruge]

I was told and it is unconfirmed, that Jeff Ruby is the grandson of Jack Ruby.

[DeclinetoState]

Sounds like a smart move to me. You don't want to give O.J. a steak knife.Riverboat took the words right out of my mouth.

[hellinon]

Different criteria for determining "guilt" or (cough, choke, gasp) "innocence." Civil trials are different than criminal trials, I believe the burden of proof is lower, or perhaps they allow more leeway or types of evidence, not sure the exact extent, but surely one of our resident law aficionados can enlighten a bit more, :smirky:

That's about right. I am a law student, and this is one of the first things we learn. The burden of proof must be beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, while the winner in a civil trial is the one who even wins 51%. However, due to juries with no understanding of law, this premise is entirely theoretical. The true difference in the cases was the mostly-black jury in the criminal trial.
In fact, the verdict in the civil trial has almost no effect on simpson. He lost many possesions, but because of a liberal law that says you cannot rob a man (even a murderer) of his home, he still lives in his mansion and recieves a 25,000 check from the NFL every month, which cannot be touched.
The simpson case should have let America wake up to our entirely corrupt justice system. True justice has been thrown out the window in favor of complete control of "the system" which, through juries, is basically anarchial mob rule.

[Gonzo67]

I thought he was found not guilty which is completely different from being found innocent, as stupid as that may sound!


Absolutely CORRECT! And I've said it MANY times about MANY unpunished criminals. They are found NOT GUILTY, for one reason or another. A person can be found NOT GUILTY because the police misspelled his name on the search warrant. That doesn't mean he's INNOCENT. That just means he managed to beat the system.

O.J. and his lawyers ALWAYS use the word "Innocent" in place of the factual "Not Guilty" ruling. This is the way they snowball as many people as possible. O.J. will ALWAYS use the word "innocent" when referring to his verdict, even though he knows in his heart that he's guilty as sin of the crime, and he's a bold faced liar.

O.J. was found NOT GUILTY. That does not equate to INNOCENT. It's a shame that more people can not comprehend the difference.

[hellinon]

This is true. Not guilty can often meen he weasled out due to a technicality. Liberals push these loopholes to get their protected species, black criminals, off the hook. After all, they will learn from their mistakes. Won't they?:rolleyes:

[Suzie]

I was told and it is unconfirmed, that Jeff Ruby is the grandson of Jack Ruby.

As far as I know Jack Ruby never had any children. He had a strange almost unnatural relationship with his dogs, which he called his "children" with the exception of one dachshund named "Sheba" that he called his "wife".

If I am mistaken Jeff Ruby makes no mention of it in the "about Jeff Ruby" section of his site. http://jeffruby.com

This guy must be a marketing GENIUS though. He couldn't pay for the kind of advertising this is getting him.:lol:

[Gonzo67]

I say Bravo to the Steakhouse Owner, and further more, I think ALL business should follow suit. Perhaps if this murderer is made to feel "unwelcome" every where he tries to conduct business, we can see his ass go live with the muslims like that Pedophile Zombie Michael Jackson.

The courts wont let us kill them, at least we can pawn them off on a "more deserving society" where, with any luck, they'll get the justice they so rightly deserve.

[noncom]

I thought he was found not guilty which is completely different from being found innocent, as stupid as that may sound!
Actually, in OJ's case, he wasn't found not guilty - that would have been impossible. As George Will said, the Defense could have removed 90% of the prosecution's evidence (not 90% of all the evidence gathered, or even 90% of all the admissible evidence after the objections, but their pick of 90% of what was actually presented in court) - and the 10% that remained would still have been OVERWHELMING evidence of guilt.

What the jury found was that the LA police and prosecutor's office were guilty of conspiring to frame an innocent person -- a crime with a punishment equivalent to that for murder. And they based this finding on the fact that Mark Fuhrman had once used the word "nigger" in pitching a Hollywood screenplay.

The evidence and the standard of proof were completely irrelevant to the criminal case. The deciding factor was that the defense attorneys got to handpick the jury. There was a 78-page long questionnaire they had to fill out. Among those questions were a great many single eliminators. One such question was: "Do you trust policemen?" An answer to that question of "Yes" was, by itself, sufficient to exclude a potential juror.

In other words, the expression "a jury of your peers" was interpreted (at least according to judge Ito) to mean "twelve fellow sociopaths."

[GOP Woman]

I e-mailed him thanking him for standing up for what's right. :claps: to Mr. Ruby!

[M.C.]

Heard about this on ESPN and again about 400 times on a few different news channels. Yeah, I'd say he is getting some great free publicity, but that would be a massive understatement. I wouldn't want a murderer in my resturaunt either, so hell, he did the right thing.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

The_Elucidator:
I thought he was found not guilty which is completely different from being found innocent, as stupid as that may sound!

:unsmile: Absolutely WRONG! If the jury had had the three choices of "guilty", "not guilty", & "innocent", then "not guilty" would be different than "innocent". But since the jury only had the two choices of "guilty" & "not guilty", then O. J. is legally innocent. Our laws state that we're INNOCENT until proven guilty, not "not guilty" until proven guilty.

:unsmile: As for the difference between the criminal & civil trials, this is a travesty of justice. I don't give a rat's ass if some nunu tries to point out to me that one trial was criminal, & the other was civil, & that makes all the difference in the world. It works this way. Suppose somebody accused you of a crime. You go to all the trouble & legal expense to prove your innocence, & as soon as the judge bangs his gavel to declare that you're "not guilty", some angry yahoo jumps up & says, "Ah still think he's guilty! Ah'm gonna SUE!!!!"

:unsmile: It's a loophole to circumvent our former Constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Whether or not O. J. was truly guilty, that civil trial should have never been allowed to proceed. But we can thank Blowjob Billy for this, since he set the precedent in allowing the retrial of those police officers in the Rodney King case. Of course, the knee grows were all for that, but dismayed when the precedent was turned against O. J.

[Suzie]

This Jeff Ruby guy is going to be on Fox News in a few minutes for the "On the Record" show. If you were going to throw anyone out OJ would be the guy. If it was a political figure ... a movie star or anyone that will have people who either love them or hate them you stand the chance of pissing off a substantial group of potential customers. But not with OJ!!! He is a GOLD MINE of good press for your place if you turn him out on his ear because who REALLY loves this guy anymore? Most people probably want his signature because they want to show their buddies they met the murderer.

Go Jeff! :biggrin:

[DesertFox]

Thank you, LP, you saved me poking up all that.

You're innocent until proven guilty, but a jury can only find you guilty or not guilty. It's a word thing. Simpson and his suck-ass lawyers aren't wrong to say he's innocent. They ARE wrong if they're saying he was found innocent.

Reality: That he IS guilty isn't the same thing as being found guilty.

For his next trick, OJ will now sue the restaurant for infringing his civil right to eat in that restaurant. You win $0.05 if you can guess the charge.

[Pennville_Bill]

Riverboat took the words right out of my mouth.
Mine too...............