Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Restauranteur Guilty Of Murderism
Naturally, O.J. Simpson's lawyer accused the restauranteur, who threw Simpson out of his restaurant, of "racism" instead. The AP's Beth Campell writes:

The owner of an upscale steakhouse in Louisville said he asked O.J. Simpson to leave his restaurant the night before the 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."

...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."

He said he went to Simpson's table and said, "I'm not serving you." Ruby said when Simpson didn't respond, he repeated himself and left the room.

Ruby said Simpson soon came up to him and said he understood and would gather the rest of his party to leave.

Simpson's attorney, Yale Galanter, said the incident was about race, and he intended to pursue the matter and possibly go after the restaurant's liquor license.

"He screwed with the wrong guy, he really did," Galanter said by telephone Tuesday night.

What will Simpson do, knife him and leave him bleeding to death on the sidewalk?

Posted by aalkon at May 9, 2007 9:10 AM

Comments

In the writeup I read, I think it was British, Michael Jordan arrived at the restaurant twenty minutes later and was graciously welcomed and seated.

Prager, bless his pointed little heard, said after the verdict was that what needed to happen now was that OJ be shunned. Took awhile!

(Are comment pages loading slow for others as well?)

Posted by: Crid at May 9, 2007 12:33 PM

Yes.

Posted by: PurplePen at May 9, 2007 1:09 PM

Uh-oh. Thanks for letting me know. I'll talk to my technical director/boy toy.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 9, 2007 1:57 PM

I can see Jeff Ruby's Cincinnati restaurant from my building's front door - it's a block away. I've walked past many times, and will do so in a few minutes when I go run errands. Ruby has a reputation as a douchebag in this town, but I am going to go out of my way to patronize his restaurant because of this story alone.

Posted by: Jackie Danicki at May 9, 2007 2:02 PM

Yay, Jackie!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 9, 2007 2:24 PM

I wouldn't mind OJ getting lots of attention when he goes around, if that attention were people going out of their way to make him feel unwelcome. The people who still hang out with him aren't much better in my book, either. How uncool is it to be in the entourage of a man who would kill the mother of his children? Even the Paris Hilton sycophants are better than these folks.

Posted by: justin case at May 9, 2007 5:05 PM

People hate Paris Hilton.

Posted by: Crid at May 9, 2007 6:04 PM

I'm not disagreeing with Justin, I'm just saying, Paris Hilton gets all this enmity even though she's never been seen stealing Social Security checks from little old ladies.

Posted by: Crid at May 9, 2007 6:09 PM

I think Paris Hilton gets the enmity for being famous for being famous. People really resent it (especially people who aren't famous for being famous).

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 9, 2007 6:20 PM

I think Paris Hilton is also seen as being a bratty dilettante. I mean, she basically just got sentenced to jail because she was a brat to the court. Whereas, say, Ivanka Trump doesn't inspire all this hatred.

The idea that this is about race is absurd. Much like the woman who whined on Washingtonpost.com about not getting fully paid maternity leave, this is an astonishing display of entitlement-grab behavior. OJ Simpson is not entitled to deferential treatment solely because he once ran well with an oval ball tucked under his arm.

Posted by: marion at May 9, 2007 10:24 PM

Amy, you should email your choice "What will Simpson do ..." comment to Jeff Ruby so Ruby can use it. I can imagine the restaurateur saying, "Thank God he's suing me instead of, you know, picking up a steak knife and ... " Come to think of it, there may have been a steak knife right there on the table! That Jeff Ruby, some guts, eh?

Posted by: dchamil at May 10, 2007 1:38 AM

I must have missed something. OJ was found to be "Not Guilty".

It does not matter what you think. You did not see the evidence, which by definition is that set of facts shown to the jury.

It does not matter what you think about Marcia Clark, Mark Fuhrman, or reports of OJ golfing.

It also does not matter what you think of the civil case, in which a man never shown to be responsible for the death of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson was now magically obliged to pay for their loss.

I want you to tell me that once you are acquitted in a court of law, you want to be treated as though you were guilty.

Begin.

Posted by: Radwaste at May 10, 2007 4:13 AM

Rad, Ruby didn't say (I don't think, at least not in what's posted here) that he kicked OJ out because he thinks he murdered someone. In Amy's post, it reads:

"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."

Point is, he doesn't have a case. The law doesn't cover discrimination for being a jerk. The guy owns a business, and he has a right to serve whomever he wants, provided he doesn't base that view on race, gender,...

The irony is that he gave OJ MORE attention in the media. I saw on MSNBC that some golf courses don't let him in, but they never make the news.

Posted by: Brenda at May 10, 2007 5:47 AM

I have more respect for Jeff Ruby than O.J. Simpson, because that man speaks the truth, whether he's a jerk or not. Simpson may have been found not guilty in the crmiinal case, but that was because he had a better lawyer in criminal court than he did in the civil court. His supposed book about how he "would" have done it, "if" he had, is just one example of that man's tastelessness, tackiness and blatant disregard for human life. His is one of the biggest egos on this planet, and a prime example of Borderline Personality Disorder manifested to the extreme.

Posted by: Flynne at May 10, 2007 6:32 AM

""It was the first time since 1994 he has ever shown any class," Ruby said. "He showed it that night in the restaurant" by leaving quietly.


Ruby said after Simpson left, people in the restaurant started applauding him. He said he has received about 100 positive e-mails since the incident.


The walls of Ruby's restaurants are decorated with celebrity photos. A photo of Simpson and Ruby used to be on display, but Ruby said he took it down after the killings."


This is a further excerpt from the article, and if this is presented in court, no way will Ruby be found guilty of racism.

Posted by: Flynne at May 10, 2007 6:39 AM

But, he WAS convicted in the civil case -- which he could have appealed if he felt the conviction was wrongful.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 10, 2007 8:42 AM

> It does not matter
> what you think.

Don't quite get your point here. Courts answer legal questions. People are free to think what they want.

Posted by: Crid at May 10, 2007 9:01 AM

Being black (or white, or yellow, or brown, or purple) does not exonerate one from being an asshole.

Simpson is scum. I applaud that restaurant owner, as did most of the patrons of his restaurant.

Simpson's whore-lawyers can sue all they want, a restaurant has the right to deny service to anyone they want to.

And, after I read this story I realized that Simpson has an "posse". Wow. an O.J. Simpson "Hanger-on" is about as bottom-of-the-barrel as one can get.

Posted by: RedPretzel in LA at May 10, 2007 10:59 AM

Feel free to take my comments out of context as you wish; the error will be yours.

No one outside the courtroom saw the evidence. What you saw was a media circus. I am confident that no reasonable person would want such a thing surrounding any court appearance of theirs.

OJ might have fans, but I am not one of them. Try to focus on my points: you would not wish for the nation to treat you as guilty after a court of law found you were not; you would not consider it just to be found financially responsible for the death of people you were not shown to have been responsible for killing.

And if you think punishment outside the law is some form of justice, you're a hypocrite if you desire the benefits of that law for yourself.

The OJ case is one of the best ways to show that revenge, not "justice" - the satisfaction of personal ego, not the rule of law - is what many people want.

If you're certain that OJ is guilty, why don't you go kill him yourself, rather than count on the courts and the State to do it? That would be just, wouldn't it, since the courts botched their job?

Posted by: Radwaste at May 10, 2007 1:54 PM

"OJ might have fans, but I am not one of them. Try to focus on my points: you would not wish for the nation to treat you as guilty after a court of law found you were not; you would not consider it just to be found financially responsible for the death of people you were not shown to have been responsible for killing."


However, if you were found not guilty in the criminal case, but were found guilty in the civil case, you are still beholden to pay the damages, which OJ has not yet done. Why not? Well, one might think that he's convinced himself he's not guilty, even while found so in the civil case. Just because his lawyer in the criminal case was slick enought to convince the jury that OJ wasn't guilty, that doesn't mean he wasn't. He was found guilty in the civil case, and because he hasn't paid yet speaks volumes about his state of mind (false sense of entitlement and being above the law, he got over and he's proud of it).


"The OJ case is one of the best ways to show that revenge, not "justice" - the satisfaction of personal ego, not the rule of law - is what many people want."


And so that's what he got, isn't it? He's still roaming around free with his "posse", playing golf, blatantly blowing off his victims' families, doing whatever he wants, while the Browns and the Goldmans will never have their child(ren)with them again. You speak of justice, where's theirs?


Posted by: Flynne at May 11, 2007 5:56 AM

"And so that's what he got, isn't it? He's still roaming around free with his "posse", playing golf, blatantly blowing off his victims' families, doing whatever he wants, while the Browns and the Goldmans will never have their child(ren)with them again. You speak of justice, where's theirs?

No. What you posted is inverted. It is those who have vicariously invested in the peripherals of the trial who are outraged at something they would never deny themselves: an acquittal, due to insufficient evidence, contradictory evidence and investigative ineptitude.

Think on this a minute: if what OJ is doing today is a crime, feel free to cite the statute. He's a famous and infamous figure, whose face is known worldwide and whose location is easy to determine. Yet you're speculating - again, about what you want - rather than thinking about the law. Look, there he goes. Police all know where he is at all times, and they don't arrest him. They can't without a warrant. Now, can you say out loud why one is not outstanding?

Hey, public: the media you believe totally about OJ's guilt can't determine that. That's insulting to you, isn't it? Why?

Posted by: Radwaste at May 11, 2007 1:51 PM

Hey, public: the media you believe totally about OJ's guilt can't determine that. That's insulting to you, isn't it? Why?


Perhaps because of the ineptness of the LA police department, or because he paid great sums of money to his lawyer, or because of myriad other reasons, he got away with murder. And is throwing it in our faces. Maybe that's why.

Posted by: Flynne at May 12, 2007 8:31 AM

And my point is that you and others who have not seen the evidence think he "got away with murder".

But you treasure the opinion you formed by watching mass media so much that you value that over the due process of law.

I happen to think that the local drug dealer told the famous, impossible-to-hide Simpson that if he pushed the issue, he'd be killed. Lots of people don't realize that criminals can have them killed with relative impunity. Of course, this is speculation on my part, which also neatly explains OJ's chase scene as he tries to figure out what to do and a lack of action on his part afterwards. But speculation is self-rewarding enough for me not to trust it; it's an (unprovable) hypothesis.

In matters of law, seek for others what you would seek for yourself. There is no way you want to be found guilty when doubt exists. Don't be two-faced about this.

Posted by: Radwaste at May 12, 2007 9:15 AM

I happen to think that the local drug dealer told the famous, impossible-to-hide Simpson that if he pushed the issue, he'd be killed. Lots of people don't realize that criminals can have them killed with relative impunity. Of course, this is speculation on my part, which also neatly explains OJ's chase scene as he tries to figure out what to do and a lack of action on his part afterwards. But speculation is self-rewarding enough for me not to trust it; it's an (unprovable) hypothesis.


Criminals can have famous, infamous and relatively obscure people killed, with relative impunity, and get away with it, huh? I hadn't thougt of it that way, but if that is indeed the case, why would OJ want to write about how he'd do it, if he did it? To exonerate himself? Then wouldn't the drug dealer or whoever come after him anyway? And why would he care? He doesn't have enough money to pay off a low-life scum sucking drug dealer? Is this why he's not paying the Goldmans and Browns? Why doesn't he tell the drug dealer to pay up or be exposed? Why hasn't he gone to the police with this, even if it's just a theory? Why would he let himself be intimidated in such a way? Doesn't make sense, he's more famous than the drug dealer, he could go to the police, who, if they were worth their salt,should have the drug dealer under surveillance anyway, no? The whole bloody thing just stinks any way you look at it. Makes me sick to my stomach.

Posted by: Flynne at May 13, 2007 7:42 AM

Again, he was judged guilty in the civil case.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 13, 2007 7:49 AM

Leave a comment