11/05/24
May 09, 2007
Hidden: Best Derby Moment: O.J. Gets Booted: My favorite Kentucky Derby moment was not watching Calvin Borel masterfully guide Street Sense along the rail to set up their victory. Nor was it seeing Queen Elizabeth II, herself an avid horse woman, enjoying the race from the Turf Club railing. For me, the hero of the 133rd Kentucky Derby is restaurateur Jeff Ruby, owner of Jeff Ruby's Louisville.
posted by irunfromclones to culture at 01:24 PM - 45 comments
Galanter said he intends to pursue the matter and possibly go after the restaurant’s liquor license. He said Ruby’s move was done because of race. Never saw that one coming. Any man who is apparently capable of knowing so well how he would kill people (if he ever actually killed people) that he could write a book about it certainly isn't going to hesitate to exploit his race to suit his self-serving vengence. Arbitrarily selecting whom you will or will not serve, though, seems to me like a tricky legal issue. I've always wondered if the "We reserve the right to refuse service" disclaimer would ever stand up in court if there was no explicit provocation.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 02:11 PM on May 09, 2007
According to this article, it seems legal to deny service to someone for a non-group based, non-arbitrary reason. The owner refused to serve Simpson because he believed he murdered his wife. Anyone know how Simpson has the money to jetset around and party at the Derby, considering the judgment over his head?
posted by rcade at 02:38 PM on May 09, 2007
Anyone know how Simpson has the money to jetset around and party at the Derby, considering the judgment over his head? He gets a $25,000/month pension from the NFL. That money is not subject to seizure to pay his debts. He moved to Florida which protects your home no matter how much it costs. Pretty clever financial planning on his part. There is no point in him getting a job because they could seize that money.
posted by bperk at 02:46 PM on May 09, 2007
I want to know how he finds 12 people who will eat dinner with him?
posted by 86 at 03:11 PM on May 09, 2007
Hmmm, same way he found 12 people to acquit him?
posted by cybermac at 03:23 PM on May 09, 2007
I want to know how he finds 12 people who will eat dinner with him? Wherever there are predators you find scavengers, sycophants who feed on the offal. What I want to know is how he finds women to date. Oh wait, I already answered that one too.
posted by irunfromclones at 03:36 PM on May 09, 2007
This may be off-topic, but it's amazing to me the fascination people still have with OJ. He had his day in court. He was acquitted. Do I think he did it? Absolutely. But I don't know for sure and neither do any of you. Why doesn't everyone get all worked up about Robert Blake or the soon-to-be acquitted Phil Spector? In fact, if you want to get worked up about something, just go to the National Sex Offender Registry and find out how many sex offenders live in your neighborhood. As a white guy who lived in L.A. (Brentwood, no less) during the murder and the subsequent "trial of the century," I think that race continues to be a motivating factor in the fascination and revulsion that people have for him. If he was white, or Nicole was black, no one would give a shit about him. So have it. I'm guessing that this will not be a popular opinion.
posted by cjets at 04:58 PM on May 09, 2007
But you are definately right cjets.
posted by AFLvet at 05:13 PM on May 09, 2007
Why doesn't everyone get all worked up about Robert Blake or the soon-to-be acquitted Phil Spector? You know, you have a point. When Robert Blake comes out with a book detailing how he would have done it or uses the murder as a prank I'll be outraged. But you are definately right cjets. posted by AFLvet Well, you've certainly convinced me.
posted by justgary at 05:23 PM on May 09, 2007
Grow up and get a life. Its sad when someone gets a kick out of some else's problems.Regardless of what happened later, OJ will remain one of the all time greats. If he bothers you(and Mr.Ruby)so much,stay the hell away.OJ had his day in court and was acquitted. That makes him innocent.
posted by sickleguy at 05:29 PM on May 09, 2007
You know, you have a point. When Robert Blake comes out with a book detailing how he would have done it or uses the murder as a prank I'll be outraged. I didn't say you shouldn't be outraged. I just think that the outrage about OJ seems to be out of proportion compared to the outrage over similar situations. And I believe that it is race based. If we all stopped paying attention to OJ, maybe he wouldn't be able to sell a book or use the murder as a prank. Well, you've certainly convinced me. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just giving my opinion.
posted by cjets at 05:57 PM on May 09, 2007
That makes him innocent. No, it doesn't, it makes him not guilty.
posted by tommybiden at 05:58 PM on May 09, 2007
Hey Tommy,you can't have it 3 ways;either you're guilty or innocent. Thats how it works in America.
posted by sickleguy at 06:01 PM on May 09, 2007
Grow up and get a life. Out of curiosity, who are you giving orders to?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:01 PM on May 09, 2007
OJ had his day in court and was acquitted. That makes him innocent. The decision was "not guilty." People can debate if he was innocent or not, the jury just said the prosecution didn't have a case to prove without a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. This does not make him innocent though. It also doesn't mean he's not innocent, just no one has been able to prove one way or the other. Just a clarification. Sickleguy... that's how it works in America. "Not guilty" does not mean "innocent."
posted by bnlfanmatt at 06:02 PM on May 09, 2007
If we all stopped paying attention to OJ, maybe he wouldn't be able to sell a book or use the murder as a prank. Well, I agree with you there. However, that's really not what happened here. We're not talking about people buying his book or video. He came into the guy's restaurant. If I owned a business and he came in I might feel the same as Ruby. For all we know OJ never crosses his mind, and then... I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just giving my opinion. That was towards AFLvet with his "me too" response without backing it up. If he bothers you(and Mr.Ruby)so much,stay the hell away.OJ had his day in court and was acquitted. That makes him innocent. Stay away? What does that even mean? And your understanding of the U.S. judicial system is lacking. You might want to study up instead of telling others to 'get a life'. This isn't mtv.
posted by justgary at 06:04 PM on May 09, 2007
He came into the guy's restaurant. If I owned a business and he came in I might feel the same as Ruby. For all we know OJ never crosses his mind, and then... I actually don't have an issue with what Ruby did which is why I started out my original post by saying that this may be off-topic. Why Ruby kicking OJ out of his restaurant is newsworthy, well that brings me back to my original point.
posted by cjets at 06:13 PM on May 09, 2007
Sickleguy... that's how it works in America. "Not guilty" does not mean "innocent." Actually, because of our double jeapordy laws "Not Guilty" does mean "Innocent". He can never be tried again, even if we find a smoking gun. Also, in AMERICA, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. O.J. was convicted by the public court of opinion before the trial even began. This is where we, as a nation went wrong. Do I think O.J. did it? It doesn't matter what I or you think because like you, I am not a judge or a juror and O.J. is no longer on trial. If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at our justice system not O.J. It's our justice system that allows someone to be innocent of a crime but responsible for the damages. Which is a contradiction in and of itself.
posted by yay-yo at 06:29 PM on May 09, 2007
We reserve the right to refuse service to any dirtbag.
posted by thatch at 06:34 PM on May 09, 2007
Hey Tommy,you can't have it 3 ways;either you're guilty or innocent. Thats how it works in America. Actually, there are 3 ways to plead: guilty, not guilty and nolo contendre And as a point of order, it should be noted that an American jury has never found a person "innocent". They are instructed to return "not guilty".
posted by grum@work at 06:49 PM on May 09, 2007
Actually, because of our double jeapordy laws "Not Guilty" does mean "Innocent". He can never be tried again, even if we find a smoking gun. Also, in AMERICA, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. I take it as "innocent" meaning "he didn't do it." "Innocent" is not a legal term, "innocent" is a informal English word. While he may be found "Not Guilty," that doesn't mean he didn't do it. And, you are correct, in America's court system, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't necessarily apply to each American's thoughts, and why should it? People will believe what they want to about a person's innocence or guilt, and that's great, and it does matter. If people accepted what the court decided, no one would have reason to discover wrongful convictions. It also works the other way, although yes, as you pointed to, they can't be convicted of a crime once they're acquitted due to double jeopardy laws. And I'm not mad at O.J., and not mad at our justice system. I never even thought I was mad in that comment. Just clarifying what sickleguy said.
posted by bnlfanmatt at 06:51 PM on May 09, 2007
If according to the US criminal system, one is: Innocent until proven guilty. Then, not found guilty. Therefore, innocent. Logical (I wish I could use the logic symbols). Of course, he is also responsible for those deaths, according to the civil court. Everybody is right!
posted by bperk at 07:15 PM on May 09, 2007
He can never be tried again, even if we find a smoking gun. The only thing inaccurate about that statement is all of it. New evidence can be reason for a new trial.
posted by yerfatma at 07:25 PM on May 09, 2007
New evidence can be a reason for a new trial if one was found guilty the first time around. The 5th Amendment prohibits a person from being tried for the same crime twice.
posted by bperk at 07:31 PM on May 09, 2007
The only thing inaccurate about that statement is all of it. New evidence can be reason for a new trial. You must live in Canada. In America, once you've been found "not guilty" (as you all seem to prefer) you cannot be tried again for the same crime.
posted by yay-yo at 09:02 PM on May 09, 2007
Wasn't this thread about a restaurant owner refusing to serve OJ? I must be confused.
posted by brainofdtrain at 10:33 PM on May 09, 2007
Wasn't this thread about a restaurant owner refusing to serve OJ? I must be confused. Someone wanted Orange Juice and couldn't get it? Now that's a crime!
posted by tommybiden at 10:36 PM on May 09, 2007
In America, once you've been found "not guilty" (as you all seem to prefer) you cannot be tried again for the same crime. I'm no constitutional expert, but I believe this is correct. Once a judgment has been rendered, the double jeopardy provision applies.
posted by Venicemenace at 11:00 PM on May 09, 2007
The only thing inaccurate about that statement is all of it. New evidence can be reason for a new trial. You must live in Canada. In America, once you've been found "not guilty" (as you all seem to prefer) you cannot be tried again for the same crime. Canada has the same provision, and I'd really recommend that Americans don't try and badmouth other nations' legal proceedings. *cough*habeas corpus*cough*
posted by grum@work at 12:57 AM on May 10, 2007
Why Ruby kicking OJ out of his restaurant is newsworthy, well that brings me back to my original point. There's no doubt that race was a huge issue in that trial. That's just one reason it received so much attention, more than Blake or Spector. If Blake or Spector came into my business, I doubt I'd recognize them. OJ, because of the popularity of the trial and his own fame, would be recognized by almost anyone. So if you're saying Ruby kicked OJ out because he's black, I don't think you have much to back that up. Chances are he kicked him out for the very reason he gave. It's not like not wanting to serve someone you believe murdered two people is such a stretch. Legal or not, that's another question. once you've been found "not guilty" (as you all seem to prefer) We don't prefer it. That's our judicial system. So if you want to be correct, it's "not guilty". Wasn't this thread about a restaurant owner refusing to serve OJ? I must be confused. posted by brainofdtrain Yes, it is. Let's drop the debate on guilty vs. not guilty vs. innocent and leave that topic to lawfilter.
posted by justgary at 02:05 AM on May 10, 2007
Jeff Ruby you made a great play! I concur with Tom Archdeacon - Simpson is an affront to the human race. Simpson's trial was covered by TV and the evidence was so overwhelming against him that any unbiased person could easily conclude that Simpson murdered two people. Simpson benefited from a racist jury that included a former Black Panther then had the audacity to say he would find the real killer - as if the entire human race was a bunch of morons. Some things never change, as Archdeacon pointed out, Simpson remains as arrogant as ever. Still there are people that are so enamored by athletes that they want to admire and associate with them regardless of character and conduct. However, it is gratifying to see that some people like Mr. Ruby, who previously admired Simpson, do not dismiss his egregious conduct. They are so repulsed by what Simpson did to others and disgusted by a legal system that failed to hold him accountable. Simpson should not be in the general population. Jeff Ruby did the right thing - for himself and his customers.
posted by longgreenline at 03:34 AM on May 10, 2007
Simpson's trial was covered by TV and the evidence was so overwhelming against him that any unbiased person could easily conclude that Simpson murdered two people. If the evidence was "so overwhelming", why is he still walking free? According to the court of law, he was found not guilty of murder. People may not agree with it but in the eyes of the law, the man is innocent (not guilty = innocent). Jeff Ruby did the right thing - for himself and his customers. Why is that? Was OJ going to attack Jeff Ruby and his customers? OJ has no bearings in any of our lives but people still feel the need to hate him because he was found not guilty by the court of law. I am no OJ apologist but keep in mind, does anyone really think that OJ cares what the public thinks of him? I could've sworn that if someone was on trial and found either guilty or not guilty, that was pretty much it. Like I said on my earlier post, this is Jeff Ruby's restaurant and he can do whatever he wants.
posted by BornIcon at 07:20 AM on May 10, 2007
I guess we will never know, who really committed those murders. The man was found, not guilty, innocent, whatever one it was. If he did it, you can thank the LA cops for screwing things up. Nicoles family should have sued them for being MF'ing idiots. But because they didn't find him guilty, the guy has a right to live his life and go where the hell he wants and shouldn't have been kicked out of anywhere. People are convicted of crimes everyday of shit they didn't do, just think it could happen to anyone of us. Just be in the wrong place at the wrong time, I know I wouldn't want to be condemned of a crime I didn't commit.
posted by jsteelers36 at 07:31 AM on May 10, 2007
I know I wouldn't want to be condemned of a crime I didn't commit. Or a crime you were found not guilty of.
posted by BornIcon at 07:38 AM on May 10, 2007
I like OJ the athlete, not OJ the person. But I still think a person refusing to serve another individual, when that person isn't causing any particular problem, is a poor practice. There are a lot of low-lifes walking freely through the streets of the city I live in, and they are still allowed to go into stores, purchase food, etc. Just because OJ had a ridiculous amount of media coverage on his case, he's treated differently? People waste their emotions on OJ, when they should be more outraged at the legal system if they feel so strongly about his (OJs) guilt. Would Ruby also refuse to serve any members of Simpson's jury? His legal team (the ones still living)? The incompetent police force? Where does it end? It is good, though, that Simpson and his group left the establishment in a dignified manner.
posted by dyams at 07:40 AM on May 10, 2007
It stated on CNN that Ruby recieved a standing ovation by all of the paytrons in his establishment that afternoon.
posted by tru_spartan at 08:24 AM on May 10, 2007
It stated on CNN that Ruby recieved a standing ovation by all of the paytrons in his establishment that afternoon. Question. Did you read the link? The reason I ask is because that was in the story as well. Ruby said some 50 people in the private room where Simpson had been seated “stood up and applauded me” when Simpson left.
posted by BornIcon at 08:36 AM on May 10, 2007
Innocent in the eyes of the law is different from innocent. He is definitely the former, probably not the latter. And not to stray too far, but how cool is the name "Archdeacon"?
posted by Ricardo at 08:46 AM on May 10, 2007
Innocent in the eyes of the law is different from innocent I'm sorry but...what?!!? Not to go off topic but Ray Lewis was also charged with murder and was found not guilty by the court of law. So are you implying that because in the eyes of the law he was found not guilty, he's not innocent? Either way, both men are walking free and can go anywhere they want to. That is unless Jeff Ruby owns the establishment.
posted by BornIcon at 08:59 AM on May 10, 2007
Someone please close this thread? It's not even sports related anymore and quite honestly, it's troll bait.
posted by jerseygirl at 09:01 AM on May 10, 2007
Someone please close this thread? It's not even sports related anymore and quite honestly, it's troll bait. It wasn't really sports-related in the first place. Just because it has to do with a former running back and a guy who owns a restaurant in the city the Kentucky Derby is held, it never had anything to do with sports. Every OJ thread in history morphs into some "Innocent vs. Guilty" argument. I guess this one was supposed to be a combination of that, plus slaps on the back for some high-morality restaurant owner. Get over the OJ verdict, people. There are (unfortunately) many, MANY murders in the U.S. and a great deal of them go unsolved (meaning, consequently, killers are walking free). There's plenty of outrage to go around, not just towards OJ. His just took place in our living rooms and all over our ridiculous media.
posted by dyams at 09:37 AM on May 10, 2007
His just took place in our living rooms and all over our ridiculous media. And no matter what, people will always have an opinion about this subject regardless whether they think it's right or wrong.
posted by BornIcon at 09:41 AM on May 10, 2007
OJ is bad, mmm-'kay? Yeah. Don't invite him over to your house for dinner. It's the right thing to do. Also - maybe not give him too much publicity. He seems to, you know, profit from it. Other than that, not much to discuss, except that for many people, this is the only exposure they've ever had to trial law (cuz it was on TV) and they are ill-positioned to make too many judgements. Often, from what I'm told, if you do not have: a) A witness b) A murder weapon you don't get: c) A conviction So everyone take one of them there chill pills about fucking OJ. At this point, if you give a shit, you're the only one to blame.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:08 AM on May 10, 2007
Little pronoun trouble there, I think.
posted by yerfatma at 10:08 AM on May 10, 2007
I heard about this yesterday morning on the Mike & Mike morning show on ESPN2 and I just have to say, this guy has marbles the size of Texas! I don't like confrontations but I don't shy away from it either but I don't know if I could've done what he did. I probably would've just let him eat his meal and called it a day. Kudos to Mr. Ruby for taking a stand, it is his business after all.