Not Guilty?

Appears to be the case. The woman involved said he never did what he was accused of. Early rush to judgement for some, sucks for people in the public eye to be falsely accused. 

Then who accused him and what was it about?

@"greediron" said: Then who accused him and what was it about?

@"1VikesFan" said:

@"greediron" said: Then who accused him and what was it about?

And why were the cops involved if nothing happened?

Someone called them in for some reason, that's all I am saying. Might have been a misunderstanding or  even about someone other than Oli. I have worked in bars and hung out in bars, cops don't just arbitrarily come in and arrest people. At least not where I have worked and hung out. 

OJ was found not guilty. 

@"AGRforever" said: OJ was found not guilty. 

I'm happy for him. May he continue holding on every play!  :)

@"AGRforever" said: OJ was found not guilty. 

Or Roethlisberger, seems more appropriate.  Why you choose OJ?

lol, this was a misdemeanor offense regardless so yeah...lets throw OJ in there. Apples for apples. (eye roll).

No guilty until proven innocent then? 

@"1VikesFan" said: Someone called them in for some reason, that's all I am saying. Might have been a misunderstanding or  even about someone other than Oli. I have worked in bars and hung out in bars, cops don't just arbitrarily come in and arrest people. At least not where I have worked and hung out. 

But he could've chopped her head off too and escaped down the 91 in a Bronco with a gun to his head. It's just too early to say. 

For me, the first issue here is that Oli seems to have been arrested for resisting without violence.  The woman's statement that he was not aggressive with her does not really speak to that. However, if the police had no valid reason to arrest him, does it matter that he resisted?  I'll let a criminal defense lawyer address that.

@"BigAl99" said:

@"AGRforever" said: OJ was found not guilty. 

Or Roethlisberger, seems more appropriate.  Why you choose OJ?

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"BigAl99" said:

@"AGRforever" said: OJ was found not guilty. 

Or Roethlisberger, seems more appropriate.  Why you choose OJ?

little was know about roethlisberger case and his guilt/innocence.   i think most people alive in the 80s would agree that the OJ trial was about the biggest "holy shit they found him innocent"  testaments to how the legal facts dont necessarily provide the best picture of justice.  We dont know shit about this case and simply because somebody said he did or didnt ( especially if its his lawyer) or the fact that its a pro athlete ( pay offs and NDAs tend to happen ) should be any indication of guilty or not.

unless there is body cam evidence to support his resisting arrest charge... this likely is probation and community service at the most,  but like others have said... he a reserve that hasnt really shown much upside so its really not much of a story,  especially since his charges are so minor.

The OJ trial and his acquittal was one the biggest, if not the biggest, legal circuses this country has ever seen. I worked just down the road from where that trial took place, total insanity. My opinion, the world saw what having the best defense team money can buy plus a few major blunders by the prosecution can lead to. 

Comparing the OJ situation to any other legal issue is folly in my opinion. Doubt we will ever something that compares again.

@"BigAl99" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"BigAl99" said:

@"AGRforever" said: OJ was found not guilty. 

Or Roethlisberger, seems more appropriate.  Why you choose OJ?

little was know about roethlisberger case and his guilt/innocence.   i think most people alive in the 80s would agree that the OJ trial was about the biggest "holy shit they found him innocent"  testaments to how the legal facts dont necessarily provide the best picture of justice.  We dont know shit about this case and simply because somebody said he did or didnt ( especially if its his lawyer) or the fact that its a pro athlete ( pay offs and NDAs tend to happen ) should be any indication of guilty or not.

unless there is body cam evidence to support his resisting arrest charge... this likely is probation and community service at the most,  but like others have said... he a reserve that hasnt really shown much upside so its really not much of a story,  especially since his charges are so minor.

Exactly, so why the OJ remark?

@"1VikesFan" said: The OJ trial and his acquittal was one the biggest, if not the biggest, legal circuses this country has ever seen. I worked just down the road from where that trial took place, total insanity. My opinion, the world saw what having the best defense team money can buy plus a few major blunders by the prosecution can lead to. 

Comparing the OJ situation to any other legal issue is folly in my opinion. Doubt we will ever something that compares again.

@"StickyBun" said: lol, this was a misdemeanor offense regardless so yeah...lets throw OJ in there. Apples for apples. (eye roll).

No guilty until proven innocent then? 

@"BigAl99" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"BigAl99" said:

@"AGRforever" said:
OJ was found not guilty. 

Or Roethlisberger, seems more appropriate.  Why you choose OJ?

little was know about roethlisberger case and his guilt/innocence.   i think most people alive in the 80s would agree that the OJ trial was about the biggest "holy shit they found him innocent"  testaments to how the legal facts dont necessarily provide the best picture of justice.  We dont know shit about this case and simply because somebody said he did or didnt ( especially if its his lawyer) or the fact that its a pro athlete ( pay offs and NDAs tend to happen ) should be any indication of guilty or not.

unless there is body cam evidence to support his resisting arrest charge... this likely is probation and community service at the most,  but like others have said... he a reserve that hasnt really shown much upside so its really not much of a story,  especially since his charges are so minor.

Exactly, so why the OJ remark?

FREE OLI…!!!  B) 

@"AGRforever" said:

@"StickyBun" said: lol, this was a misdemeanor offense regardless so yeah...lets throw OJ in there. Apples for apples. (eye roll).

No guilty until proven innocent then? 

@"BigAl99" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"BigAl99" said:

@"AGRforever" said:
OJ was found not guilty. 

Or Roethlisberger, seems more appropriate.  Why you choose OJ?

little was know about roethlisberger case and his guilt/innocence.   i think most people alive in the 80s would agree that the OJ trial was about the biggest "holy shit they found him innocent"  testaments to how the legal facts dont necessarily provide the best picture of justice.  We dont know shit about this case and simply because somebody said he did or didnt ( especially if its his lawyer) or the fact that its a pro athlete ( pay offs and NDAs tend to happen ) should be any indication of guilty or not.

unless there is body cam evidence to support his resisting arrest charge... this likely is probation and community service at the most,  but like others have said... he a reserve that hasnt really shown much upside so its really not much of a story,  especially since his charges are so minor.

Exactly, so why the OJ remark?