Although I believe Simpson went unpunished for murders, I do not feel complete "justice" satisfaction at his upcoming punishment, because it was for a different and somewhat ambiguously bad crime. Think absence of proximate cause....the punishment is for the wrong crime, even if in a cosmic unknowable sense his murders are the cause in fact of his conviction yesterday.
"The Clark County Court information office reports, the O.J. Simpson jury is made up of 11 white jurors and one female “hispanic juror of Mexican decent.”
The information was derived from looking at the juror questionnaires, according to court spokesman Michael Sommermeyer.
Reports of the panel being “all white” had been called into question and CNN and other news organizations had been pressing the court to reveal details of the jurors make up from the questionnaires.
The main panel is made up of nine women and three men.
The alternate panel includes a Black male and a Black female."
Can someone tell me what the usual sentence is for armed robbery of stuff of small value, where no one was hurt, and where the defendant has no criminal record?
Also, isn't every armed robbery also a kidnapping in exactly the same sense as this one?
I'm going to think twice now about confronting someone who I believe had stolen my property, and has my property on them
I suggest that you not bring a group of convicted criminals with you that are armed with guns and threaten the people who think have your property and instead should contact the police. It is really a bad idea to bring a pimp with you if you care at all about how the police are going to react to armed gunmen coming onto someone else's property and threatening people.
the punishment is for the wrong crime, even if in a cosmic unknowable sense his murders are the cause in fact of his conviction yesterday.
Perhaps not unknowable. Under one theory, the reason OJ didn't call the police to help get back the memorabilia stolen from him was because of the outstanding civil judgment in the wrongful death suit brought against him on the basis of the murders. Calling the police would have risked that memorabilia or the proceeds from it falling into the clutches of the people seeking to collect on that judgment. Under another theory, he did not want to call the police because he doubted they would help him in view of the murders. In either event, he resorted to self-help and, consequently, was arrested, prosecuted and convicted of the current charges. Those who regard OJ as guilty of the murders might well see this conviction as payback directly related to the murders.
You know its one thing if they are in the process of running off with it. Then you don’t have time to call the police. But OJ had plenty of time to deal with it the proper legal way.
You are only allowed to take the law into your own hands to the extent that our society will fail to protect you. There is no evidence that OJ even considered trying to get his stuff back the lawful way.
And Visitor has some excellent explanations for why else he didn’t do it the right way, which is actually pretty plausible and not actually a defense.
And that’s assuming it is his. I don’t actually have an opinion on that point, because I have not followed it—because it doesn’t matter.
A. Zarkov
Don’t wack the original jury. Having seen the reality of spousal abuse through my sister, I would have voted to convinct, but not everyone has had that experience to inform them. While I do not agree, they were perfectly reasonable to say that they had reasonable doubt.
LTEC
> Also, isn't every armed robbery also a kidnapping in exactly the same sense as this one?
Probably, but you don’t hear about that, because the OJ factor puts a magnifying glass on every detail.
"While I do not agree, they were perfectly reasonable to say that they had reasonable doubt."
The evidence against O.J. was overwhelming, and it's obvious that the jurors decided the case on racial grounds. The prosecutor thought the women on the jury would be sensitive to spousal abuse aspect, but race trumped that. It's worth noting that five jurors thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member! Not only that, the jury was fairly dumb. None regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watched tabloid TV shows. Nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete.
A.W.
"1) there was a clear racist on the scene of the crime and 2) the gloves didn't fit."
Actually Simpson had a very good relationship the LAPD. He entertained officers at his mansion, and attended their events. Most of the police would not take him to jail when his wife called for help. Mark Fuhrman was the exception because he was a tough cop who didn't like criminals including wife beaters. But there is no evidence that Fuhrman would, could or did engage in a frame up.
As for the glove, here's the evidence:
Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.
Then we have a mountain of other evidence which you can review here. It seems to me that no reasonable jury could ignore this evidence.
A 1995 Gallup poll on the Simpson verdict clearly shows the racial divide. Blacks were almost twice as likely as whites to say the verdict was right. Whites were five times more likely to say the verdict was wrong.
How much more evidence do you need to be convinced that the jury was not reasonable?
LTEC wrote:
isn't every armed robbery also a kidnapping in exactly the same sense as this one?"
Many years ago I came across a decision of the NY Ct of App (highest state court) which held it is not kidnapping to hold somebody fairly briefly as incidental to commission of another crime, in that case, robbery...I think they put the victim in a car for a few minutes and drove briefly.
LTEC asked: Can someone tell me what the usual sentence is for armed robbery of stuff of small value, where no one was hurt, and where the defendant has no criminal record?
robbery is a crime of violence, actual or threatened, and the robbery statutes I have seen do no grade the crime by amount of property taken, and do not set a minimum amount of property required for the crime -- could be a penny. robberies lead to great psychological trauma, injury, and death...and the amount of money or property taken is often whatever the victim happened to have on him. The amount taken, therefore, should be irrelevant to the sentence imposed.
AW said:You are only allowed to take the law into your own hands to the extent that our society will fail to protect you. There is no evidence that OJ even considered trying to get his stuff back the lawful way.
Last time I taught crim law, about 15 years ago, the casebook was clear the jurisdictions are not in agreement as to whether you can take your property back by force (not speaking of hot pursuit situation).
I never understood it to be a split rule, but i could be wrong. Certaily i don't want us waving guns around when calling the police will work. And to the extent that an individual state disagres with me, they are wrong, imho.
zarkov
I'm not saying the jury was right, but they were reasonable. And they were. They knew he probably did it, but probably is not.
Furhman is a pretty massive exception to the rule that OJ had a good relationship with the cops.
And gloves didn't actually fit. again, i have heard two good explanations--lack of arthritis medication and shrinkage--but you can see how the jurors might have seen that and said "end if case." incorrect but not crazy, either.
Oh wait, I'm not O.J though :P
Las Vegas hotels are probably not the best venue to engage in criminal activity. They tend to have thousands of video cameras in those places.
Hence he was left with the ol' "sure I did it, but these dirtbags had it comin" defense. Not good.
This time what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
All White Jury?
Just wanted to make sure this fact was introduced into the discussion.
--Cobra
Also, isn't every armed robbery also a kidnapping in exactly the same sense as this one?
I suggest that you not bring a group of convicted criminals with you that are armed with guns and threaten the people who think have your property and instead should contact the police. It is really a bad idea to bring a pimp with you if you care at all about how the police are going to react to armed gunmen coming onto someone else's property and threatening people.
I still can't believe the dimwit DA did that demonstration.
Perhaps not unknowable. Under one theory, the reason OJ didn't call the police to help get back the memorabilia stolen from him was because of the outstanding civil judgment in the wrongful death suit brought against him on the basis of the murders. Calling the police would have risked that memorabilia or the proceeds from it falling into the clutches of the people seeking to collect on that judgment. Under another theory, he did not want to call the police because he doubted they would help him in view of the murders. In either event, he resorted to self-help and, consequently, was arrested, prosecuted and convicted of the current charges. Those who regard OJ as guilty of the murders might well see this conviction as payback directly related to the murders.
I hope that someone remembers to tell the California Franchise Tax Board his new address (see http://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/txdlnqnt.shtml, scroll down to $1,527,925.92).
You know its one thing if they are in the process of running off with it. Then you don’t have time to call the police. But OJ had plenty of time to deal with it the proper legal way.
You are only allowed to take the law into your own hands to the extent that our society will fail to protect you. There is no evidence that OJ even considered trying to get his stuff back the lawful way.
And Visitor has some excellent explanations for why else he didn’t do it the right way, which is actually pretty plausible and not actually a defense.
And that’s assuming it is his. I don’t actually have an opinion on that point, because I have not followed it—because it doesn’t matter.
A. Zarkov
Don’t wack the original jury. Having seen the reality of spousal abuse through my sister, I would have voted to convinct, but not everyone has had that experience to inform them. While I do not agree, they were perfectly reasonable to say that they had reasonable doubt.
LTEC
> Also, isn't every armed robbery also a kidnapping in exactly the same sense as this one?
Probably, but you don’t hear about that, because the OJ factor puts a magnifying glass on every detail.
That is delicious shardenfreude. Karma has finally caught up to him.
The evidence against O.J. was overwhelming, and it's obvious that the jurors decided the case on racial grounds. The prosecutor thought the women on the jury would be sensitive to spousal abuse aspect, but race trumped that. It's worth noting that five jurors thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member! Not only that, the jury was fairly dumb. None regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watched tabloid TV shows. Nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete.
You can read some of the details here.
look, i disagree with them, but 1) there was a clear racist on the scene of the crime and 2) the gloves didn't fit.
I wasn't convinced by that, but i could see how reasonable people could be.
"1) there was a clear racist on the scene of the crime and 2) the gloves didn't fit."
Actually Simpson had a very good relationship the LAPD. He entertained officers at his mansion, and attended their events. Most of the police would not take him to jail when his wife called for help. Mark Fuhrman was the exception because he was a tough cop who didn't like criminals including wife beaters. But there is no evidence that Fuhrman would, could or did engage in a frame up.
As for the glove, here's the evidence:
Then we have a mountain of other evidence which you can review here. It seems to me that no reasonable jury could ignore this evidence.
A 1995 Gallup poll on the Simpson verdict clearly shows the racial divide. Blacks were almost twice as likely as whites to say the verdict was right. Whites were five times more likely to say the verdict was wrong.
How much more evidence do you need to be convinced that the jury was not reasonable?
isn't every armed robbery also a kidnapping in exactly the same sense as this one?"
Many years ago I came across a decision of the NY Ct of App (highest state court) which held it is not kidnapping to hold somebody fairly briefly as incidental to commission of another crime, in that case, robbery...I think they put the victim in a car for a few minutes and drove briefly.
robbery is a crime of violence, actual or threatened, and the robbery statutes I have seen do no grade the crime by amount of property taken, and do not set a minimum amount of property required for the crime -- could be a penny. robberies lead to great psychological trauma, injury, and death...and the amount of money or property taken is often whatever the victim happened to have on him. The amount taken, therefore, should be irrelevant to the sentence imposed.
Last time I taught crim law, about 15 years ago, the casebook was clear the jurisdictions are not in agreement as to whether you can take your property back by force (not speaking of hot pursuit situation).
I never understood it to be a split rule, but i could be wrong. Certaily i don't want us waving guns around when calling the police will work. And to the extent that an individual state disagres with me, they are wrong, imho.
zarkov
I'm not saying the jury was right, but they were reasonable. And they were. They knew he probably did it, but probably is not.
Furhman is a pretty massive exception to the rule that OJ had a good relationship with the cops.
And gloves didn't actually fit. again, i have heard two good explanations--lack of arthritis medication and shrinkage--but you can see how the jurors might have seen that and said "end if case." incorrect but not crazy, either.
He's in deep s***