O.J. In The News Again

[William Anthony]

Chronology often places things in their proper context. :)

[martin II]

As I said I'm not sure of Nevada laws but that would be the correct response here. IF on the other hand the items were reported stolen then of course they would be allowed to ask for verification of receipts etc. As for a possible crime having taken place with out the actual victims input it would be hard for the LE to launch an investigation and be able to justify doing so legally. There is a lot of legalities involved with any investigation, as I am sure you know. Law enforcement has to make sure the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed so to speak. I'm not trying to argue so please understand this is what the procedures are here. Not necessarily anywhere else. `Suz

Susie
Actually many criminals are caught as a result of tips of criminal activity to le
Just as Riccio attempeted to do with the FBI and LE. If a citizen identifies illegal activity, then le has a responsibility to investigate.
Normally when le takes a report that leads to a investigaiton.
Police often times set up purchase stings when they have been made aware of criminal activity by a person.

The FbI had called Riccio in for the meeting as they had heard that he was selling A Nicole stuff and wanted to know where he got it from.imo

[martin II]

Never give up! Never give up! :patriot:

Change has arrived.For sure.:patriot:

[martin II]

But weren't they also told to seek Legal advice?

If they were i believe that was a way to evade their rersponsibilities.

[Redmama]

Redmama,

Do you see the difference in the situation you supplied and the one we were discussing?

No I don't, and let me explain why I do not. If I didn't believe Riccio was a shmuck, I might believe it. But since I don't believe much, if anything, that comes out of his mouth...what it came down to was whether or not the police should have involved themselves. From what I know, even if they would have looked into it further - as maybe they should have, I don't know - it would have turned out to be a matter for the civil courts. They had nothing to show that the goods were stolen or even if they even belonged to OJ for some, if not all, of the items. Bottom-line, in my opinion, even if they showed up, I'm not sure that they would have been able to back OJ.

[Redmama]

If they were i believe that was a way to evade their rersponsibilities.

So that makes the score LE, 1 - OJ, 1 - it is a tie!

[martin II]

In this case you would be an eye witness. Riccio was not an eye witness.

Nope
Riccio was a citizen that had been offered stolen goods. He knew who claimed to have the goods and had information for le to make contact to investigate.
About the same as some le crime fighting programs directed at citizens called
"crime stoppers" asking citizens to report crimes.imo

[martin II]

No I don't, and let me explain why I do not. If I didn't believe Riccio was a shmuck, I might believe it. But since I don't believe much, if anything, that comes out of his mouth...what it came down to was whether or not the police should have involved themselves. From what I know, even if they would have looked into it further - as maybe they should have, I don't know - it would have turned out to be a matter for the civil courts. They had nothing to show that the goods were stolen or even if they even belonged to OJ for some, if not all, of the items. Bottom-line, in my opinion, even if they showed up, I'm not sure that they would have been able to back OJ.

If le had wanted to go further Riccio would have had to give up Beadsley and Fumong to LE. Le would/could have set up a small sting, using Riccio as a buyer and busted the sellers. without a valid sales receipt for the goods in hand, le would have grabbed them and sorted the situation out.

If you are stopped for a traffic violation and have two tvs in your car, le can require you to prove the sets belong to you.

[weezer]

no one will ever convince the orenthal apologists that his bad behavior belongs to and is the end result of no one but orenthal.

The beatings, murders, stealing, lying, cheating, armed robbery and life of debauchery aren't the result of anyone's behavior except orenthal james simpson. :shrug:

[martin II]

So that makes the score LE, 1 - OJ, 1 - it is a tie!

I think it leaves oj without le assistance and the problem of getting his goods on his own.

[Redmama]

If le had wanted to go further Riccio would have had to give up Beadsley and Fumong to LE. Le would/could have set up a small sting, using Riccio as a buyer and busted the sellers. without a valid sales receipt for the goods in hand, le would have grabbed them and sorted the situation out.

If you are stopped for a traffic violation and have two tvs in your car, le can require you to prove the sets belong to you.

what if i only have one TV?:D

[Redmama]

no one will ever convince the orenthal apologists that his bad behavior belongs to and is the end result of no one but orenthal.

The beatings, murders, stealing, lying, cheating, armed robbery and life of debauchery aren't the result of anyone's behavior except orenthal james simpson. :shrug:

I do ask myself, quite often, why I continue to bang my head against the wall - we have a smiley at work for that one - we need one here.

[weezer]

I think it leaves oj without le assistance and the problem of getting his goods on his own.

orenthal's bad behavior was no one's fault but his own.

[martin II]

You have never heard it called that obviously but I don't see what the problem is. There are many slang names for prisons.


My understanding of the word Bubba reffers to a big belly white guy in a pick up truck with a confederate flag in the window behind a rifle rack and a 12 pack of Bud on the seat.

Bill Clinton was labeled Bubba because he was from Arkansas.
But Simpson does not have a cell mate and will not be in the regular population from what i have read so your Bubba will have to talk to another Bubba.:cool:

[martin II]

what if i only have one TV?:D


well, you would be able to talk your way out of it.:cool::cool::cool:

[martin II]

Suz, don't you dare leave this thread. We have the right to our opinions just as much as everyone else on this thread does.


As for Simpson, while he may not have been convicted of Ron and Nicole's deaths, that does not mean he didn't do it. He wouldn't be the first person to walk away on a murder charge.

How would you be able to KNOW "oj walked away on a murder charge"
without the benefit of a trial and a verdict?

[William Anthony]

No I don't, and let me explain why I do not. If I didn't believe Riccio was a shmuck, I might believe it. But since I don't believe much, if anything, that comes out of his mouth...what it came down to was whether or not the police should have involved themselves. From what I know, even if they would have looked into it further - as maybe they should have, I don't know - it would have turned out to be a matter for the civil courts. They had nothing to show that the goods were stolen or even if they even belonged to OJ for some, if not all, of the items. Bottom-line, in my opinion, even if they showed up, I'm not sure that they would have been able to back OJ.

You seem to be mixing apples and oranges. The point that I was making was not whether they showed up with Simpson but, if the did their duty once they received Riccio's reprort, they could have either informed Riccio that the goods were not stolen and possibly prevented a crime, or they could have asked to receipts and, if none were produced, confiscated the goods after obtaining a warrant and held them until proof was provided or made an assessment as to whether or not they were stolen, all of which would have possibly prevent a crime and should their inaction be considered as a mitigating circumstance during sentencing.

[William Anthony]

what if i only have one TV?:D

Then you would probably be entitled to a tax cut under one of the candidate's plan and LE would probably give you one. :)

[Redmama]

well, you would be able to talk your way out of it.:cool::cool::cool:

Yes - because I would actually own it/them!

[Redmama]

You seem to be mixing apples and oranges. The point that I was making was not whether they showed up with Simpson but, if the did their duty once they received Riccio's reprort, they could have either informed Riccio that the goods were not stolen and possibly prevented a crime, or they could have asked to receipts and, if none were produced, confiscated the goods after obtaining a warrant and held them until proof was provided or made an assessment as to whether or not they were stolen, all of which would have possibly prevent a crime and should their inaction be considered as a mitigating circumstance during sentencing.

You can think I am - I don't think I am - and that is ok.

[Redmama]

Then you would probably be entitled to a tax cut under one of the candidate's plan and LE would probably give you one. :)

Good one!!!

[martin II]

No I don't, and let me explain why I do not. If I didn't believe Riccio was a shmuck, I might believe it. But since I don't believe much, if anything, that comes out of his mouth...what it came down to was whether or not the police should have involved themselves. From what I know, even if they would have looked into it further - as maybe they should have, I don't know - it would have turned out to be a matter for the civil courts. They had nothing to show that the goods were stolen or even if they even belonged to OJ for some, if not all, of the items. Bottom-line, in my opinion, even if they showed up, I'm not sure that they would have been able to back OJ.

The personal items entered into evidence had ojs picture or his name printed all over them.Why would they not be his? Fumong would not be able to claim they were his.

[Redmama]

yes, but they at least investigated to see if a crime had been committed in your scenario, as opposed to summarily dismissing the report in the Simpson case by telling them to seek a lawyer's advice.

The crime was the abuse taking place - they took care of the crime, by removing the individual.

Without the abuse, if I were to call the police right now and say someone refused to return to me items that belonged to me - they wouldn't help me go get them - they would tell me it is a civil matter and that I would need to file a civil suit.

[martin II]

Yes - because I would actually own it/them!

True but you could be required to prove ownership if they did not believe you.

[martin II]

The crime was the abuse taking place - they took care of the crime, by removing the individual.

Without the abuse, if I were to call the police right now and say someone refused to return to me items that belonged to me - they wouldn't help me go get them - they would tell me it is a civil matter and that I would need to file a civil suit.

True in you example but holding stolen goods is a criminal act. big differance.

[Redmama]

True but you could be required to prove ownership if they did not believe you.

Trust me I could - I'm so Type A it's crazy - I would know exactly where it is filed.

[Redmama]

True in you example but holding stolen goods is a criminal act. big differance.

I don't believe it was stolen.

[William Anthony]

The crime was the abuse taking place - they took care of the crime, by removing the individual.

Without the abuse, if I were to call the police right now and say someone refused to return to me items that belonged to me - they wouldn't help me go get them - they would tell me it is a civil matter and that I would need to file a civil suit.

The report was an accusation of abuse
The report was a theft of property
The police took action
The police took no action

The police helped someone take their property and only theirs
The police did not investigate to see who owned the property
The police heard conflicting accusations of ownership
The police did not investigate to see if there were conflicting accusations of ownership.

[William Anthony]

I don't believe it was stolen.

You have that luxury but LE doesn't. LE needs to have proof that they were not stolen.

[SlowHandSam]

My understanding of the word Bubba reffers to a big belly white guy in a pick up truck with a confederate flag in the window behind a rifle rack and a 12 pack of Bud on the seat.

Bill Clinton was labeled Bubba because he was from Arkansas.
But Simpson does not have a cell mate and will not be in the regular population from what i have read so your Bubba will have to talk to another Bubba.:cool:

I find it comical that such "offense" has been taken at a word like Bubba.

It has so many different meanings. I can think of at least 10, right now, where I've used the name interchangeably and never in a disparaging way. I can think of 2 where I do use it in way to be crass. Point is - it isn't *just* a "big belly white guy in a pick up truck with a confederate flag in the window behind a rifle rack and a 12 pack of Bud on the seat."

I wonder if you've offended anyone with that characterization.

Doesn't it get tiring searching for something to be offended about?

You cannot guarantee or say unequivocally that OJ won't be in general population. Perhaps OJ won't have a Bubba, perhaps he'll be the Bubba? Regardless, it's silly to continue to make an offense when there is none there.

Additionally, isn't Nevada where they have such overcrowded penal institutions (is that better than me classifying it as a jail versus the pen?)? Maybe he will get lucky and he'll get shipped to Arizona and live in tent-city with a pink jumpsuit. :)

[William Anthony]

I find it comical that such "offense" has been taken at a word like Bubba.

It has so many different meanings. I can think of at least 10, right now, where I've used the name interchangeably and never in a disparaging way. I can think of 2 where I do use it in way to be crass. Point is - it isn't *just* a "big belly white guy in a pick up truck with a confederate flag in the window behind a rifle rack and a 12 pack of Bud on the seat."

I wonder if you've offended anyone with that characterization.

Doesn't it get tiring searching for something to be offended about?

You cannot guarantee or say unequivocally that OJ won't be in general population. Perhaps OJ won't have a Bubba, perhaps he'll be the Bubba? Regardless, it's silly to continue to make an offense when there is none there.

Additionally, isn't Nevada where they have such overcrowded penal institutions (is that better than me classifying it as a jail versus the pen?)? Maybe he will get lucky and he'll get shipped to Arizona and live in tent-city with a pink jumpsuit. :)

I find it funny that less offense was taken at the word, whether it was intended to be a big bellied white boy or a low income and uneducated black dude, or to refer to homosexual activity. Either way it is a stereotypical remark that has a negative connotation. I think we should rise above that and do not find any humor in rape, be it a man as the victim. The problem is that there are so many uses of stereotypes that one does not need to spend time looking for them, because they are abundant. As to your last sentence, I have no comment other than the ones I made above.

[William Anthony]

I find it odd that some of those who apparently are so elated to see Simpson's behind in jail are now so concerned about his behind. :cool:

[tv]

I find it funny that less offense was taken at the word, whether it was intended to be a big bellied white boy or a low income and uneducated black dude, or to refer to homosexual activity. Either way it is a stereotypical remark that has a negative connotation. I think we should rise above that and do not find any humor in rape, be it a man as the victim. The problem is that there are so many uses of stereotypes that one does not need to spend time looking for them, because they are abundant. As to your last sentence, I have no comment other than the ones I made above.

William, I wonder why you called the white guy with the big belly 'boy' and the low income, uneducated black guy 'dude'? At your insistence, we decided not to use that term when referencing a grown man. Has the policy changed? :confused:

[tv]

I find it odd that some of those who apparently are so elated to see Simpson's behind in jail are now so concerned about his behind. :cool:I'm not sure but I think you're the only that has mentioned Simpson's behind but don't mistake contempt for concern. ;)

[William Anthony]

William, I wonder why you called the white guy with the big belly 'boy' and the low income, uneducated black guy 'dude'? At your insistence, we decided not to use that term when referencing a grown man. Has the policy changed? :confused:

The protest of the use of the word boy was in regard to the use of the word to refer to a grown man of a particular race by members of another race. The use of the word dude was in regard to the post of a member using the terms low-life black dudes. Since the term bubba has southern origins and it was pointed out to me that southerners use the term to refer to grown men, I thought I would place it in its colloquial setting. However, if anyone,not from the south or from the south found my use of the terms boy or dude offensive, I humbly apologize as it was unintentional.

[Kate Sachel]

This thread has become so silly that I can hardly log in and read without wanting to either vomit or rip the auburn hair out of my head.

Have we really been reduced to this? To posting suicide statistics from a state in which OJ Simpson no longer is, or picking apart the meaning of a "bubba"?

Unreal.

Is it really that difficult to understand that we all come from different places, with different backgrounds and ideas? We have different skin colors, accents, colorful phrases, social classes, etc ... and all that should amount to is make us spectacular variations of the human race. Instead, we use it to make fun of one another or to take issue with one another in the way that we use a particular word or phrase.

If something offends me enough, I may point it out or I may remain silent. My silence is not acceptance, nor does vocalizing my offense mean that I must argue the point with anyone who did not take the same offense that I did. If someone else is not offended, my course of action is to kindly remove myself from their business and go about my own.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure but I think you're the only that has mentioned Simpson's behind but don't mistake contempt for concern. ;)

Oh let's not be coy. According to some, Simpson should be happy if his roommate is a big bellied White guy, since they seemed to have a problem with the race of those he associated when he was not incarcerrated, claiming he somehow abandoned his race. If that is the case, then the mention of the word bubba was either meant to indicate a low-life Black dude or that his roommate and he may engage in homosexual activity. If he should choose the latter, I think that would be his choice. I truly hope that you are not suggesting that the term bubba was meant for low-life black dudes or that it was meant for homosexual activity. I truly hope that you are not saying that you have contempt for him, if he should choose to engage in the latter or if he is raped. Such statements would, imho, show an unfathomable level of callousness.

[William Anthony]

This thread has become so silly that I can hardly log in and read without wanting to either vomit or rip the auburn hair out of my head.

Have we really been reduced to this? To posting suicide statistics from a state in which OJ Simpson no longer is, or picking apart the meaning of a "bubba"?

Unreal.

Is it really that difficult to understand that we all come from different places, with different backgrounds and ideas? We have different skin colors, accents, colorful phrases, social classes, etc ... and all that should amount to is make us spectacular variations of the human race. Instead, we use it to make fun of one another or to take issue with one another in the way that we use a particular word or phrase.

If something offends me enough, I may point it out or I may remain silent. My silence is not acceptance, nor does vocalizing my offense mean that I must argue the point with anyone who did not take the same offense that I did. If someone else is not offended, my course of action is to kindly remove myself from their business and go about my own.

Kate

I understand and agree to the most part. The only place where you and I would differ is that it is possible, due to the difference in cultures and environments, as you correctly point out, for one person to not understand why another finds it offensive. Speaking only for myself, if it was explained, I would explain how I used it and apologize for my unintended offensiveness. I would also disagree slightly, although I realize that you were speaking from your personal choice, because I think that stereotypes have aided in the discrimination and inequality in America. As equality is one of my passions, I feel compelled to speak on it or the causes of it when I see it. However, I must admit that I do not fight every fight and tend to pick my battles. Sometimes some things strike my passions more than others.

[tv]

Oh let's not be coy. According to some, Simpson should be happy if his roommate is a big bellied White guy, since they seemed to have a problem with the race of those he associated when he was not incarcerrated, claiming he somehow abandoned his race. If that is the case, then the mention of the word bubba was either meant to indicate a low-life Black dude or that his roommate and he may engage in homosexual activity. If he should choose the latter, I think that would be his choice. I truly hope that you are not suggesting that the term bubba was meant for low-life black dudes or that it was meant for homosexual activity. I truly hope that you are not saying that you have contempt for him, if he should choose to engage in the latter or if he is raped. Such statements would, imho, show an unfathomable level of callousness.
William, I was actually being lighthearted with you but I should have known better. You always manage to insult me when I do that. I only meant I have contempt for OJ Simpson for killing Nicole and Ron. I don't believe I've even thought of what his sexual life will be behind bars because I DON'T CARE. Find someone else to badger today. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

William, I was actually being lighthearted with you but I should have known better. You always manage to insult me when I do that. I only meant I have contempt for OJ Simpson for killing Nicole and Ron. I don't believe I've even thought of what his sexual life will be behind bars because I DON'T CARE. Find someone else to badger today. :seeya:

I was simply asking for a clarification, which you have provided. I don't know why you call it badgering when you chose to comment on a discussion and then choose to opt out. I am going to respect your wishes. I truly hope that we both have an enjoyable day and I agree that his sexual life is his own if it is between two consenting adults.

[martin II]

I don't believe it was stolen.

Beadsley and Fumong said 'MIKE TOOK IT' in the hotel room when they were caught.

[martin II]

Trust me I could - I'm so Type A it's crazy - I would know exactly where it is filed.

beadsley and fumong would not be able to perform as you would. They would not be aqble to prove dip.

[Redmama]

Beadsley and Fumong said 'MIKE TOOK IT' in the hotel room when they were caught.

So - what was "it?" that could many mean things of the same or just one thing...

[William Anthony]

So - what was "it?" that could many mean things of the same or just one thing...

It was what it was, at the time it was but it is what it is, now.

[martin II]

So - what was "it?" that could many mean things of the same or just one thing...

It could not have been anything but the subject at hand. OJS PERSONAL ITEMS ON THE BED.

[Redmama]

It could not have been anything but the subject at hand. OJS PERSONAL ITEMS ON THE BED.

Ok take this is this with the scarsim which it was attended. Whever was on his bac was more things that were one. Resminds me a glove and hat when they were refered to me as them...is it now ok to usethe word "it" when there were many items on the bed. To me, it means ONE thing.

[martin II]

Ok take this is this with the scarsim which it was attended. Whever was on his bac was more things that were one. Resminds me a glove and hat when they were refered to me as them...is it now ok to usethe word "it" when there were many items on the bed. To me, it means ONE thing.

If oj is saying you took my stuff and fumong says'NO OJ, MIKE TOOK IT"
I have to assume Fumong was talking about ojs stuff that Mike took. Since there was no other conversation about anything but ojs stuff at that time.
It meaning the stuff on the bed fumong was trying to sell that he says MIKE TOOK.

[William Anthony]

Ok take this is this with the scarsim which it was attended. Whever was on his bac was more things that were one. Resminds me a glove and hat when they were refered to me as them...is it now ok to usethe word "it" when there were many items on the bed. To me, it means ONE thing.

Let me see if I can help. When MF used the word them he was asked specifically about one glove and had not been asked about a hat in several pages of the transcript. There may be two ways to look at his use of the word them. When Simpson asked who took his stuff the immediate answer was Mike took it. I think it is clear that the it referred to stuff. I think there is only one way to look at the word it. I don't believe that the dealers/thieves were English majors. MF had been trained to testify and, according to him, testified numerous times before that.

[William Anthony]

Alrighty then, we have had discussions on the words, it, is, boy, and bubba. I think we should now have a dissertations on perhaps the most overused word in the English language, the. For instance, let's examine these two sentences,
The boy went to the store. The others stayed home. When placed in front of the word boy, does it mean one specific boy or just one boy and when placed in front of store does it mean a specific store or just a store in general? When placed in front of the word others does it mean other boys or is it all inclusive? :)

[SlowHandSam]

Let me see if I can help. When MF used the word them he was asked specifically about one glove and had not been asked about a hat in several pages of the transcript. There may be two ways to look at his use of the word them. When Simpson asked who took his stuff the immediate answer was Mike took it. I think it is clear that the it referred to stuff. I think there is only one way to look at the word it. I don't believe that the dealers/thieves were English majors. MF had been trained to testify and, according to him, testified numerous times before that.

I still maintain that MF didn't make a slip up on his use of the word. I believe he responded thinking of the evidence and put the items together.

While OJ isn't exactly known for his grammatical expertise (HAH!) I have to reluctantly agree that "it" referred to his "stuff". It wouldn't make sense to say, paraphrasing, "He took my stuff. He took them." versus "He took my stuff. He took it." Now, we don't know if the context of the conversation was specifically addressing a particular item because we all weren't party to all the conversations. I suspect it was indeed referring to one item ... but that's just MHO.

As for English majors and those trained to testify. Just because one is trained to testify doesn't make one an English major or an expert with the English language. It's simply a blue-collar worker who perhaps didn't have the best primary education.

Like many on this board who are unable to spell, use improper grammar etc ... he's a regular guy.

[William Anthony]

I still maintain that MF didn't make a slip up on his use of the word. I believe he responded thinking of the evidence and put the items together.

While OJ isn't exactly known for his grammatical expertise (HAH!) I have to reluctantly agree that "it" referred to his "stuff". It wouldn't make sense to say, paraphrasing, "He took my stuff. He took them." versus "He took my stuff. He took it." Now, we don't know if the context of the conversation was specifically addressing a particular item because we all weren't party to all the conversations. I suspect it was indeed referring to one item ... but that's just MHO.

As for English majors and those trained to testify. Just because one is trained to testify doesn't make one an English major or an expert with the English language. It's simply a blue-collar worker who perhaps didn't have the best primary education.

Like many on this board who are unable to spell, use improper grammar etc ... he's a regular guy.

Let me be totally honest. It does not matter to me whether it meant one item or a group of items. The point is that the English language lends itself to interpretation. A court of law has ruled that Simpson broke the law and I doubt whether the use of it will be a subject of any appeal, and as such is not the subject or, likely to be, the subject of Simpson in the news again-just as the use of the word them by MF is not the subject of Simpson in the news again. I understood the poster's use of sarcasm and only wanted to make a lighthearted comment on it, highlighting the difference and did not mean to start a debate on blue-collar v white-collar or educational levels, as the use of proper English and gramar is not the measuring stick for either educational level or occupation, as all we need do is listen to some of the media talking heads. There are those, who have been trained in certain areas. I readily admit that they make mistakes. Countless hours are spent by judges examining the wording of laws to examine the intent of the legislators. That also lends itself to interpretation. I think that it is normal to examine the record to try to determine the intent of the speaker when we are considering how they used words and to consider whether they had any special training that would help in our assessment. That is all that I meant. What them meant and what it meant are waters that long ago passed under the bridge. Let's see if we can paddle our way back to Simpson in the News Again.

[SlowHandSam]

Let me be totally honest. It does not matter to me whether it meant one item or a group of items. The point is that the English language lends itself to interpretation. A court of law has ruled that Simpson broke the law and I doubt whether the use of it will be a subject of any appeal, and as such is not the subject or, likely to be, the subject of Simpson in the news again-just as the use of the word them by MF is not the subject of Simpson in the news again. I understood the poster's use of sarcasm and only wanted to make a lighthearted comment on it, highlighting the difference and did not mean to start a debate on blue-collar v white-collar or educational levels, as the use of proper English and gramar is not the measuring stick for either educational level or occupation, as all we need do is listen to some of the media talking heads. There are those, who have been trained in certain areas. I readily admit that they make mistakes. Countless hours are spent by judges examining the wording of laws to examine the intent of the legislators. That also lends itself to interpretation. I think that it is normal to examine the record to try to determine the intent of the speaker when we are considering how they used words and to consider whether they had any special training that would help in our assessment. That is all that I meant. What them meant and what it meant are waters that long ago passed under the bridge. Let's see if we can paddle our way back to Simpson in the News Again.

It clearly mattered, IMO, because you had more than one post on the topic. I didn't view it as a light-hearted response and I don't believe that I was any more off topic than you with your posts.

The topic was discussing "it" in regard to his stuff.

The topic of NV and his shenanigans are still relevant and "in the news" since it's still an on-going process. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

It clearly mattered, IMO, because you had more than one post on the topic. I didn't view it as a light-hearted response and I don't believe that I was any more off topic than you with your posts.

The topic was discussing "it" in regard to his stuff.

The topic of NV and his shenanigans are still relevant and "in the news" since it's still an on-going process. :shrug:

You say potatoe and I say potato. I do not wish to engage in a discussion of how many off topic posts there are. I have voiced my opinion that the use of the word "it" is likely not to be the subject of any appeal in regard to the NV verdict. You may not have viewed it as a lighthearted comment, but rest assured it was. I think that the only thing relevant to Simpson in the News Again is the basis for an appeal, which, according to my understanding is limited to errors of law or an abuse of discretion. The factual issues are not likely to be considered on appeal. However, they may become relevant, if a motion for a new trial is sustained. It would be at that point that the issue of the use of the word it might, imho, become relevant to Simpson in the News again. It is because of my understanding of the law that my post was lightheartedly made. You are entitled to your opinion, which I will respect and disagree with. With that said, if there is an interest in the continued discussion of the use of the word it, then do not let my lighthearted attempts to direct the conversation back to what I believe is the subject of the thread, deter those who are interested in discussing it.:) It :) is :) a battle I choose not to fight. Least I forget, he will probably be in the news again at the time of sentencing. I was not accusing you of being off topic but merely suggesting that we all get back on topic. I was not pointing a finger.

[William Anthony]

Recently, my heart has been filled with glee
not just because of history
that to engage in arguing
for the sake of arguing
has no appeal to me.

[weezer]

It clearly mattered, IMO, because you had more than one post on the topic. I didn't view it as a light-hearted response and I don't believe that I was any more off topic than you with your posts.

The topic was discussing "it" in regard to his stuff.

The topic of NV and his shenanigans are still relevant and "in the news" since it's still an on-going process. :shrug:

I think a part of the 'it' discussion will also surface in regards to what of 'it' belonged to whom and the final disposition of 'it'. . .:)

[William Anthony]

Would anyone like me to start a thread on the disposal of the Property or It? I think ownership of the property/it was not relevant, according to Nevada law, to the trial or more appropriately Simpson being in the news again. I think a thread was started in regard to the ownership of the ring. Perhaps, that would be a fitting thread to discuss it (oops, pun unavoidable).

[William Anthony]

I do not recall, if anyone answered my question as to whether or not it would be proper to consider LE's failure to investigate, assuming there was one, should be considered at the time of sentencing. So, I respectfully pose it again as I would like to elicit the opinion of others on that subject, since I feel that it is a relevant consideration to the subject that started this particular thread.

[weezer]

I would think the issue of ownership will surface in the news long before the orenthal apologists' personal issue with LE and whether or not they were suppose to investigate something that had happened and that the person telling them about didn't know when/if it was going to happen.

[tv]

I would think the issue of ownership will surface in the news long before the orenthal apologists' personal issue with LE and whether or not they were suppose to investigate something that had happened and that the person telling them about didn't know when/if it was going to happen.I think whether or LE investigated is a separate issue from the fact OJ Simpson and his twits took the law into their own hands. I don't see how they could investigate such a vague report but even if they could have or should have it doesn't give Simpson the right to commit armed robbery.

[William Anthony]

IIRC, the date of sentencing is December 5th and the issue of property ownership cannot, to my understanding, be lawfully taken into consideration. Ergo, I have started a separate thread where that issue can be discussed in regard to "its" meaning and that would seem to be a civil matter unrelated to Simpson being in the news again, as it concerns what started this thread, since Nevada law has negated the concept of making ownership of it an issue.

[William Anthony]

I think whether or LE investigated is a separate issue from the fact OJ Simpson and his twits took the law into their own hands. I don't see how they could investigate such a vague report but even if they could have or should have it doesn't give Simpson the right to commit armed robbery.

That was not what I was saying. The point I was trying to make is on mitigating circumstances. Let's say a person, who recently became disabled and had no visible means of income in the near future, stole food from a grocery store to feed his family. Should the law take into consideration factors that would mitigate against the level of his sentencing? The point I was trying to get at was should the law consider those facts in imposing sentencing, given the fact that laws were broken.

[tv]

That was not what I was saying. The point I was trying to make is on mitigating circumstances. Let's say a person, who recently became disabled and had no visible means of income in the near future, stole food from a grocery store to feed his family. Should the law take into consideration factors that would mitigate against the level of his sentencing? The point I was trying to get at was should the law consider those facts in imposing sentencing, given the fact that laws were broken.Sorry, I was responding to weezer's post so I didn't consider your question when I commented.

[William Anthony]

Sorry, I was responding to weezer's post so I didn't consider your question when I commented.

Understandable.

[weezer]

I think whether or LE investigated is a separate issue from the fact OJ Simpson and his twits took the law into their own hands. I don't see how they could investigate such a vague report but even if they could have or should have it doesn't give Simpson the right to commit armed robbery.

IF whether or not the orenthal apologists feel LE should have investigated the rumor seems much less a mitigating circumstance than does ownership of 'it'. I mean, afterall, isn't that what poor ole orenthal was doing there? just getting his 'sh*t'?

IMO

[tv]

IF whether or not the orenthal apologists feel LE should have investigated the rumor seems much less a mitigating circumstance than does ownership of 'it'. I mean, afterall, isn't that what poor ole orenthal was doing there? just getting his 'sh*t'?

IMOThat's what he said so it must be true. :rolleyes: If it does go to civil court and OJ Simpson is found to be the owner and wins the suit I wonder if Fromong and Beardsley will pay the judgment? The determination of ownership is interesting. Something tells me it belongs to Fred Goldman by way of the civil judgment.

[William Anthony]

I would be hesitant to call an FBI report of stolen goods a rumor. But that's just me.

[tv]

I would be hesitant to call an FBI report of stolen goods a rumor. But that's just me.Each to his own. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Each to his own. :shrug:

yes, but I prefer to have my posts as factual as possible, based on the information and the evidence. I realize that there are many ways of interpreting the evidence and information but the FBI agent said a written report was filed.

[tv]

yes, but I prefer to have my posts as factual as possible, based on the information and the evidence. I realize that there are many ways of interpreting the evidence and information but the FBI agent said a written report was filed.Okay. :)

[William Anthony]

Okay. :)

Alrighty then. :)

[weezer]

That's what he said so it must be true. :rolleyes: If it does go to civil court and OJ Simpson is found to be the owner and wins the suit I wonder if Fromong and Beardsley will pay the judgment? The determination of ownership is interesting. Something tells me it belongs to Fred Goldman by way of the civil judgment.

So before we get to the sentencing of orenthal and stewart, we get to see beardsley in court - Nov 19 - to answer regarding his knowledge of the whereabouts of the ring and his co-defendants (alexander, ehrlich, mcclinton, cashmore) on Dec 9th.

[William Anthony]

I am truly confused, because there was a thread started to discuss the ring and it was never alleged to have been part of the stuff in this case, as it relates to Simpson in the news again. I do not see the need to discuss the ring on this thread as it is irrelevant to the topic of this thread and there was a separate thread where some, well two, members were interested in discussing the ring. I think that any discussion related to the ring should be placed on that thread. All just my opinion, of course.

[William Anthony]

"Three Women

Three women look upon a photograph
Of one who died not very long ago.
The silk-slim woman gives a little laugh
And holds it nearer the electric glow;
The plump one whines, "He always roughed me so!"
But at the comment and the laugh, the third
Stares silent at the wall, with eyes grown strangely blurred.

__Thomas E. Moore."

[tv]

So before we get to the sentencing of orenthal and stewart, we get to see beardsley in court - Nov 19 - to answer regarding his knowledge of the whereabouts of the ring and his co-defendants (alexander, ehrlich, mcclinton, cashmore) on Dec 9th.I can't wait to see how he'll explain the ring. I'm wondering if he won't deny any knowledge of it. If he admits that he was given the ring as a bribe I think we'll see more charges.

[William Anthony]

Alas, I searched very quickly
it did not take me long to see

'I found this interesting and have been trying to read up on it.
I think it makes sense for Beardsley to have the ring. I could
never understand why he changed his story so quickly. He calls
911 to report a robbery and then a few days later he just wants
it to "go away." Something made him change his tune and I think
a ring worth $50,000 would be reason enough for a sleazy guy like
him. Novemeber 19 should be an interesting day in court.

What do you think about Yale Gallanter possibly being involved?"

This post was not hidden by underwear
I see no need to discuss it everywhere
I think the strangest thing
it was on the thread called the ring.

[William Anthony]

To all who possess some discernment
remember the term thread derailment.
Until such times as new charges are brought
I think it we should allow it to trouble us naught.
At least on this thread
let's put the matter of the ring to bed.

[weezer]

I can't wait to see how he'll explain the ring. I'm wondering if he won't deny any knowledge of it. If he admits that he was given the ring as a bribe I think we'll see more charges.

did you see what the possible sentences are for the gang who couldn't shoot straight?

[William Anthony]

I did not hear of shooting in the armed robbery case. I heard of inconsistencies/lies. Maybe, they are the gang that could not lie straight, but that might include some other members of a large gang.

[weezer]

I can't wait to see how he'll explain the ring. I'm wondering if he won't deny any knowledge of it. If he admits that he was given the ring as a bribe I think we'll see more charges.

I can't imagine he would ever admit he got the ring as a bribe. . . .

[William Anthony]

Get thee behind me devil and do not push. God direct my feet away from the feet of trouble. I pray that all our members are guided away from the proximity of trouble, while I run off to school. I have kindly asked that all posts on the ring be taken to the proper thread, so as to prevent thread derailment. I hope that my kind and respectful request will be honored. Thanks in anticipation of your cooperation.

[Redmama]

I think whether or LE investigated is a separate issue from the fact OJ Simpson and his twits took the law into their own hands. I don't see how they could investigate such a vague report but even if they could have or should have it doesn't give Simpson the right to commit armed robbery.

You couldn't have verbalized that better - I agree totally.

[Redmama]

Is it ever possible to discuss what OJ did wrong without pointing at everyone else? I've not seen it once, that I remember in all these threads...the subject is always changed to discuss everyone else - what they did wrong - even when he is somewhat blamed , it is often followed by a but... In my world a but negates everthing that was said before the but. Is he ever responsible for anything? He is the ringleader - none of this would have happened without him. No one would be facing time in jail with him. I'm finding these posts to be very frustrating for that very reason - unfortunately I think I'm addicted - but I think I'm in recovery - - unfortunately because of my personality, I keep trying - but I am begining to think I may be better off somewhere else where the person convicted is at least blamed for his/her part in the whole thing...

[One2Snoop]

Is it ever possible to discuss what OJ did wrong without pointing at everyone else? I've not seen it once, that I remember in all these threads...the subject is always changed to discuss everyone else - what they did wrong - even when he is somewhat blamed , it is often followed by a but... In my world a but negates everthing that was said before the but. Is he ever responsible for anything? He is the ringleader - none of this would have happened without him. No one would be facing time in jail with him. I'm finding these posts to be very frustrating for that very reason - unfortunately I think I'm addicted - but I think I'm in recovery - - unfortunately because of my personality, I keep trying - but I am begining to think I may be better off somewhere else where the person convicted is at least blamed for his/her part in the whole thing...

All I can say Redmama is amen to all of the above and I hope you choose to stick around. Lots of other cases being discussed here at CL besides OJ and would love to see your input - this invitation is also extended to all of you die hard OJ discussion fans (yet again). :beer:

Let us not forget ~ change is good my friends. :patriot:

[martin II]

I can't wait to see how he'll explain the ring. I'm wondering if he won't deny any knowledge of it. If he admits that he was given the ring as a bribe I think we'll see more charges.

Someone opened a new thread about the ring, why are you discussing the ring here?

[martin II]

Is it ever possible to discuss what OJ did wrong without pointing at everyone else? I've not seen it once, that I remember in all these threads...the subject is always changed to discuss everyone else - what they did wrong - even when he is somewhat blamed , it is often followed by a but... In my world a but negates everthing that was said before the but. Is he ever responsible for anything? He is the ringleader - none of this would have happened without him. No one would be facing time in jail with him. I'm finding these posts to be very frustrating for that very reason - unfortunately I think I'm addicted - but I think I'm in recovery - - unfortunately because of my personality, I keep trying - but I am begining to think I may be better off somewhere else where the person convicted is at least blamed for his/her part in the whole thing...

In order to understand the case it is necessary to discuss the involvement of everyone.imo

[William Anthony]

Is it ever possible to discuss what OJ did wrong without pointing at everyone else? I've not seen it once, that I remember in all these threads...the subject is always changed to discuss everyone else - what they did wrong - even when he is somewhat blamed , it is often followed by a but... In my world a but negates everthing that was said before the but. Is he ever responsible for anything? He is the ringleader - none of this would have happened without him. No one would be facing time in jail with him. I'm finding these posts to be very frustrating for that very reason - unfortunately I think I'm addicted - but I think I'm in recovery - - unfortunately because of my personality, I keep trying - but I am begining to think I may be better off somewhere else where the person convicted is at least blamed for his/her part in the whole thing...

I do not understand. You seemed to have taken an and for a but. I have tried to explain that I am not excusing Simpson's conduct and have called it both stupid and criminal. However, the law allows for consideration of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, in most cases, at the time of sentencing. This is why they have sentencing hearings, where family members and others testify for and against the defendant and the family members and friends and others testify for the victim. There may have been some type of misunderstanding but (and I use that word not wanting to offend anyone) that is generally the American way. I remember that Jeffery Dalhmere was alloted a sentencing hearing.

I simply asked a question as to whether LE's inaction should be considered at the time of sentencing as a mitigating factor, some factor for the court to take into consideration to reduce the sentence. I was not saying that Simpson should not have been convicted or that it was fault of anyone else. There is a similar concept allowed in a civil case. The concept is called contributory or comparative negligence. I think the contributory negligence was done away with by most states. However, the comparative negligence allows a reduction in the award of damages based on the percentage that a jury finds that the plaintiff was somehow negligent in the incident.

The idea that one could ask a court to consider the mitigating circumstances in imposing a sentence is by no means a novel idea in American jurisprudence. Perhaps, some think it should not be a part of a trial. However, it is there and I did not make the law and only want to practice the law. If there is any frustration, please, do not think me the cause of it. The frustration should be at the law and the concept of mitigating circumstances, which I took no part in creating. There may be other threads and you will likely find that the concept pertains to those crimes, although it may not be discussed on those threads. As I have stated my passion for equality and believe the law should be applied equally regardless of the defendant, it was with this in mind that I asked the question. The question could have been answered with a simple yes or no. However, it somehow got twisted into a defense of LE and, despite my efforts to direct the question back to whether or not it should be considered as a mitigating circumstance it was distorted into a discussion about LE's action or inaction. I think that posters should not be decieved into thinking I was defending Simpson, when I was simply asking should a legal concept be considered in regard to Simpson's crime. Like it or not the law allows for the applicability of the concept but (and I used the word intentionally) the sad part is that I do not thik it will much matter because Simpson is Simpson. What the judge is not allowed to say is that he got away with murder, even though that may be in her mind, as it seems to be here, when she imposes sentencing.

I am truly growing tired of the pettiness on this board. We have a chance to discuss trials and the application of the law in cases and how that application effects us all. However, the conversations usually devolve into efforts to get people banned, insults that drive others from the community and finger pointing. I was recently warned of some of the efforts against me. I remember a time when laws were being discussed in regard to trials and there was much protestation against me and another poster, although mainly directed at me. I fail to see how any discussion could be held about a trial and with the sentencing phase fast approaching how discussions of what may take place in that sentencing phase is frustrating. American jurisprudence has within it the concept that the punishment should fit the crime and within that lies the concepts of mitigating and aggravating factors.
Again, as frustrating as it may be, that is the American way. If there are threads that allow for throwing out opinions without any consideration of the legal aspects of a trial, which one was held in this case, then maybe that is what some like. I want to have civil, respectful, cordial discussions in which I am able to learn or correct so that I can offer an informed opinion and be able to consider how the law effects all stages of a trial.

[William Anthony]

In order to understand the case it is necessary to discuss the involvement of everyone.imo

Everything alright with you? We can take it to a pm.

[William Anthony]

All I can say Redmama is amen to all of the above and I hope you choose to stick around. Lots of other cases being discussed here at CL besides OJ and would love to see your input - this invitation is also extended to all of you die hard OJ discussion fans (yet again). :beer:

Let us not forget ~ change is good my friends. :patriot:

I see you changed into Redmama's original avatar. :)

[William Anthony]

Someone opened a new thread about the ring, why are you discussing the ring here?

I firmly believe that some want to inflame, bait and try to get certain members banned or have the threads closed down. I really do not think that some are interested in an exchange of opinions or ideas so much as they are in the things mentioned above. I guess they inflame bait and then run to the moderator to report when they get back what they put out. I remember something like that used to happen when I was in grade school.

[weezer]

Someone opened a new thread about the ring, why are you discussing the ring here?

it's simple really. whether or not orenthal tried to bribe a witness will be in the news and could quite possibly be a mitigating factor in orenthal's sentencing. The accusations that LE did or didn't do something won't.

[Kate Sachel]

.

I am truly growing tired of the pettiness on this board. We have a chance to discuss trials and the application of the law in cases and how that application effects us all. However, the conversations usually devolve into efforts to get people banned, insults that drive others from the community and finger pointing. I was recently warned of some of the efforts against me. I remember a time when laws were being discussed in regard to trials and there was much protestation against me and another poster, although mainly directed at me. I fail to see how any discussion could be held about a trial and with the sentencing phase fast approaching how discussions of what may take place in that sentencing phase is frustrating. American jurisprudence has within it the concept that the punishment should fit the crime and within that lies the concepts of mitigating and aggravating factors.
Again, as frustrating as it may be, that is the American way. If there are threads that allow for throwing out opinions without any consideration of the legal aspects of a trial, which one was held in this case, then maybe that is what some like. I want to have civil, respectful, cordial discussions in which I am able to learn or correct so that I can offer an informed opinion and be able to consider how the law effects all stages of a trial.

Here is where the step back needs to be taken. I think people view your words as holding more than a bit of hypocrisy. The reason being that you often go off topic yourself, and when you post regarding the same to other individuals it seems hypocritical.

I've said it before, I don't mind when people go off topic; I have done it myself and I think that it is a natural part of the communication process. I recognize that you have asked than once that discussion regarding the ring be moved to what would seem to be the appropriate thread, and I don't necessarily disagree with you but in some ways that ring really is part of "OJ in the News". I do see where you are coming from however; why start a thread for that very topic and then discuss it somewhere else.

It is frustrating (the pettiness), I posted my own in regard to it some pages back.

Kate

[William Anthony]

The discussion about the ring as a bribe was placed on a separate thread, which I believe was started by an above poster. I think any speculation about what may happen is more appropriate to that thread, since it does not involve Simpson being in the news again, as it relates to this thread, which is why I respectfully and kindly requested that discussion to be held on the thread designated for it and just did not want this thread to be derailed. I feel compelled to correct a statement. If it is proven that Simpson tried to bribe a witness, then there may be a new trial or, in the unlikely event, imho, that it is considered it would be considered an aggravating factor. The reason I feel that it is unlikely to be considered as part of this trial, which placed Simpson in the news again, is that it occurred after the robbery and was not an issue in the trial. Since there was testimony that LE did not investigate the report, I feel that it is likely that will be argued as a mitigating factor at the time of sentencing. After November 19th, we might want to start a new thread, Simpson in the News Again, Again. :)

[William Anthony]

You are an interesting person to post to. I'll give you that.

Still waiting for your apology.

Objection-Asked and answered. Your posts grab my attention. I'll give you that. However, that may be a flaw in my character. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Still waiting for your apology.

We have a failure to communicate. Great. Ain't understanding mellow-as mellow as can be. You are about to drive me to drink. :)

[tv]

I firmly believe that some want to inflame, bait and try to get certain members banned or have the threads closed down. I really do not think that some are interested in an exchange of opinions or ideas so much as they are in the things mentioned above. I guess they inflame bait and then run to the moderator to report when they get back what they put out. I remember something like that used to happen when I was in grade school.

William, I have never reported you or martin to the moderator on this board or any board. I have reported two other people, one recently, and one almost two years ago. I've been trying to ignore your snide remarks about weezer and I posting about the ring. The truth of the matter is that I got caught up in talking about it and just didn't go to the other thread. So what? You often go on Detective Fuhrman rants in various threads when there is a Fuhrman thread that you could post in. Why don't you just give taking exception at every imagined transgression a rest today? I have not bothered you in any way and you have insulted me for two days. :mad:

[tv]

Hey tv Did you know that Simpson has been found guilty and is going to jail?
You know, JB, I think I did hear that somewhere. ;)

[William Anthony]

William, I have never reported you or martin to the moderator on this board or any board. I have reported two other people, one recently, and one almost two years ago. I've been trying to ignore your snide remarks about weezer and I posting about the ring. The truth of the matter is that I got caught up in talking about it and just didn't go to the other thread. So what? You often go on Detective Fuhrman rants in various threads when there is a Fuhrman thread that you could post in. Why don't you just give taking exception at every imagined transgression a rest today? I have not bothered you in any way and you have insulted me for two days. :mad:

I have not insulted you but I have questioned the intentions. There is a thread, which you admit being aware of and have posted on about the speculation of a bribe and the ring. I am aware that you got caught up in the discussion, since you have posted on that thread. I decided to give a suggestion via a poem, which went ignored. I then kindly requested to take the ring discussion to the proper thread, which also went ignored. I have not seen a MF thread and would appreciate it, if you could point it out. I responded to a question Martin asked and mentioned no names. I don't know why you call it insulting, when I was simply offering an opinion that was reinforced by information I received. If you are not a part of that particular group, then you have no need to feel insulted, imho.

[SlowHandSam]

Here is where the step back needs to be taken. I think people view your words as holding more than a bit of hypocrisy. The reason being that you often go off topic yourself, and when you post regarding the same to other individuals it seems hypocritical.

I've said it before, I don't mind when people go off topic; I have done it myself and I think that it is a natural part of the communication process. I recognize that you have asked than once that discussion regarding the ring be moved to what would seem to be the appropriate thread, and I don't necessarily disagree with you but in some ways that ring really is part of "OJ in the News". I do see where you are coming from however; why start a thread for that very topic and then discuss it somewhere else.

It is frustrating (the pettiness), I posted my own in regard to it some pages back.

Kate

Kate, I completely agree that there is a normal progression of thought when having these types of discussions. I really don't see an issue with it either until it becomes the same thing over and over again without progressing in thought and becoming the petty back/forth that seems to happen a lot lately. We don't need to instruct others to go to another thread when the topic is being discussed here and where some believe it's appropriate.

I haven't understood why we can't have open conversations on the board. I get the Civil Trial and Criminal Trial delineations ... but as I see it the ring is relevant to the discussion regarding the NV trial ... which was a large topic in this thread.

Maybe I'm just missing it. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

You know, JB, I think I did hear that somewhere. ;)

Some say lies are spread faster than the truth. ;):cool:

[Kate Sachel]

Kate, I completely agree that there is a normal progression of thought when having these types of discussions. I really don't see an issue with it either until it becomes the same thing over and over again without progressing in thought and becoming the petty back/forth that seems to happen a lot lately. We don't need to instruct others to go to another thread when the topic is being discussed here and where some believe it's appropriate.

I haven't understood why we can't have open conversations on the board. I get the Civil Trial and Criminal Trial delineations ... but as I see it the ring is relevant to the discussion regarding the NV trial ... which was a large topic in this thread.

Maybe I'm just missing it. :shrug:

No we don't need to instruct others , but almost everyone here has done so at some point or another and it would be lovely if the hypocrisy on the part of several individuals would cease. There is not alot of fairness that goes on here and I notice that frequently.

As I stated quite clearly in my previous post, the ring can be considered part of "OJ in the News", yet at the same time I question the defiancy in refusing to have that discussion on the very thread that someone created for that purpose.

I couldn't begin to tell you if you're missing it or not, I suppose it's a matter of perception.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Here is where the step back needs to be taken. I think people view your words as holding more than a bit of hypocrisy. The reason being that you often go off topic yourself, and when you post regarding the same to other individuals it seems hypocritical.

I've said it before, I don't mind when people go off topic; I have done it myself and I think that it is a natural part of the communication process. I recognize that you have asked than once that discussion regarding the ring be moved to what would seem to be the appropriate thread, and I don't necessarily disagree with you but in some ways that ring really is part of "OJ in the News". I do see where you are coming from however; why start a thread for that very topic and then discuss it somewhere else.

It is frustrating (the pettiness), I posted my own in regard to it some pages back.

Kate

I am truly sorry not to have seen this post previously and only observed it in a recent post by SHS. I will readily admit to some hypocrisy. However, when it is pointed to me that some consider it off topic and I have explained why I feel it is relevant but some one continues to suggest it is off topic, I have asked for the conversation to be moved to the proper thread or continued to the proper thread and it has been done. As I have said, one of my favorite lines from Tombstone is, "My hypocrisy goes but so far."

We all go off-topic and I do believe that is normal. I think we all try to quickly get back on topic when we are alerted to it. I remember not too long ago we all went off topic for an entire day and the posts were done civilly, respectfully and cordially. JB complained and, IIRC, it was tvdinner that asked that he allows us. I do not feel that the ring discussion is relevant to this thread, as the thread was started in regard to the armed robbery case. There has not even been a determination made that the "it" was in fact the ring. I have not objected to others speculating about the "it" being the ring or the start of a thread to engage in that speculation. I think this thread was started to discuss the events in the upcoming trial and the stages relevant thereto. I guess I am more of a strict constructionist than I realized and, yes, that is hypocrisy. :)

[William Anthony]

No we don't need to instruct others , but almost everyone here has done so at some point or another and it would be lovely if the hypocrisy on the part of several individuals would cease. There is not alot of fairness that goes on here and I notice that frequently.

As I stated quite clearly in my previous post, the ring can be considered part of "OJ in the News", yet at the same time I question the defiancy in refusing to have that discussion on the very thread that someone created for that purpose.

I couldn't begin to tell you if you're missing it or not, I suppose it's a matter of perception.

Kate

I guess the standard is more probative than prejudicial.:)

[tv]

I have not insulted you but I have questioned the intentions. There is a thread, which you admit being aware of and have posted on about the speculation of a bribe and the ring. I am aware that you got caught up in the discussion, since you have posted on that thread. I decided to give a suggestion via a poem, which went ignored. I then kindly requested to take the ring discussion to the proper thread, which also went ignored. I have not seen a MF thread and would appreciate it, if you could point it out. I responded to a question Martin asked and mentioned no names. I don't know why you call it insulting, when I was simply offering an opinion that was reinforced by information I received. If you are not a part of that particular group, then you have no need to feel insulted, imho.

You've spent more time badgering us for discussing the ring than we have actually spent discussing the ring. I don't care what information you have received -- I have not reported you or martin or tried to get you banned. Now it's become obvious that you've attempted to ingratiate yourself with someone by giving them information that you previously demanded be deleted so they wouldn't see it. Why am I not surprised?

[SlowHandSam]

No we don't need to instruct others , but almost everyone here has done so at some point or another and it would be lovely if the hypocrisy on the part of several individuals would cease. There is not alot of fairness that goes on here and I notice that frequently.

As I stated quite clearly in my previous post, the ring can be considered part of "OJ in the News", yet at the same time I question the defiancy in refusing to have that discussion on the very thread that someone created for that purpose.

I couldn't begin to tell you if you're missing it or not, I suppose it's a matter of perception.

Kate

Yes, I do agree that everyone has done that at some point. I also will note that after the last "blow up" regarding the topic of telling people where to post, there have been significantly fewer instructions to do so.

As for posting only in that thread ... I see it this way. Look at the other threads and see that they don't really have much activity. If we created a thread for every single item - we would have far fewer people participating.

I don't view it as defiance but more of posting where the conversation is taking place. It's not like CL created the thread ... it was another poster. :shrug:

[weezer]

motion for a new trial @ 9 am Cashmore and Stewart asking for new trials, and Lucherini wants out as attorney

[tv]

motion for a new trial @ 9 am Cashmore and Stewart asking for new trials, and Lucherini wants out as attorney

Why does Lucherini want out?

[weezer]

Why does Lucherini want out?

His name was on the tapes so maybe he has something to worry about?

[William Anthony]

Yes, I do agree that everyone has done that at some point. I also will note that after the last "blow up" regarding the topic of telling people where to post, there have been significantly fewer instructions to do so.

As for posting only in that thread ... I see it this way. Look at the other threads and see that they don't really have much activity. If we created a thread for every single item - we would have far fewer people participating.

I don't view it as defiance but more of posting where the conversation is taking place. It's not like CL created the thread ... it was another poster. :shrug:

I think you have hit on a significant point. There was much discussion about the word it between a couple of posters. As I saw that as off topic but of interest to some, I started a particular thread for it to test a hypothesis I had. I was amazed and a little disheartened to see that my hypothesis has thus far proven true. There were no posts made to discuss the word. The word had very little significance to the issue in the trial and I think it was clear that it referred to all the stuff. However, the subject of it was leading to discussions that were further off topic and, after I started a thread for some to express their continued interest no one posted on it. It just seems that some want to discuss tangentially relevant minor issues to curtail the larger discussion, imho.

[William Anthony]

You've spent more time badgering us for discussing the ring than we have actually spent discussing the ring. I don't care what information you have received -- I have not reported you or martin or tried to get you banned. Now it's become obvious that you've attempted to ingratiate yourself with someone by giving them information that you previously demanded be deleted so they wouldn't see it. Why am I not surprised?

What you call badgering I call a respectful request. You say potatoe and I say potato. I have explained that I have accused you of nothing. Who I am ingratiated with is none of your business. However, since you make a certain insinuation, I will answer. There are people, who are able to respect each other, whether they agree of disagree with them. There are people who recognize that ability in another. There are people who understand the passions of others. Those are people I take as friends and hope they consider me likewise. I thought that I saw that quality in you but even the best are deceived. I have found that to be honest prevents the need to partake in deception. I like people who have an ability to read between the lines, form an opinion for themselves and the honesty and courage to voice that opinion whether or not they will be met with hostility or not. If someone, who has demonstrated those attributes, considers me as a friend, then I am happy to be one.

[Kate Sachel]

Yes, I do agree that everyone has done that at some point. I also will note that after the last "blow up" regarding the topic of telling people where to post, there have been significantly fewer instructions to do so.

As for posting only in that thread ... I see it this way. Look at the other threads and see that they don't really have much activity. If we created a thread for every single item - we would have far fewer people participating.

I don't view it as defiance but more of posting where the conversation is taking place. It's not like CL created the thread ... it was another poster. :shrug:

I guess I am viewing it differently, and I'm not opposed to fewer threads with more participation. I had started a thread called "Random Discussions" in the hopes that it might encourage people to go ahead and get on the thread to discuss wahtever they felt like discussing reagrding OJ Simpson, be it past or present and not many particpated in that thread either.

Quite frankly though, I think that the lower particpation level lately comes from what this forum has turned in to. Yes, I have had family issues that have commanded my attention and kept me from posting often but even prior to that I chose not to participate very often based soley on what a turn off it was to log on and see all of the ridiculous things that have become a part of this daily routine.

Kate

[tv]

His name was on the tapes so maybe he has something to worry about?Maybe he's figured out that CJ Stewart doesn't have any money?

BTW, I didn't know Arnelle was the wedding planner for Tom Scotto...how did I miss that?

[Kate Sachel]

You've spent more time badgering us for discussing the ring than we have actually spent discussing the ring. I don't care what information you have received -- I have not reported you or martin or tried to get you banned. Now it's become obvious that you've attempted to ingratiate yourself with someone by giving them information that you previously demanded be deleted so they wouldn't see it. Why am I not surprised?

Would I be the "someone" you refer to?

Kate

[weezer]

Maybe he's figured out that CJ Stewart doesn't have any money?

BTW, I didn't know Arnelle was the wedding planner for Tom Scotto...how did I miss that?

I would think more to the point would be his name popping up on the tapes -- maybe he knew about the robbery beforehand?

LOL -- must be hard to plan a wedding in vegas when you have to time the activities around an armed robbery.

[tv]

I would think more to the point would be his name popping up on the tapes -- maybe he knew about the robbery beforehand?

LOL -- must be hard to plan a wedding in vegas when you have to time the activities around an armed robbery.Good point. I hadn't thought about that. Maybe he needs a lawyer himself.

According to the article I read CJ Stewart was escorting Arnelle around town while she finished up preparing for the wedding and Simpson kept calling him asking for his help.

[weezer]

Good point. I hadn't thoght about that. Maybe he needs a lawyer himself.

According to the article I read CJ Stewart was escorting Arnelle around town while she finished up preparing for the wedding and Simpson kept calling him asking for his help.

I remember orenthal on the tapes saying CJ was rounding up the boys for him but he wasn't with them on the mcclinton tape.

[tv]

I remember orenthal on the tapes saying CJ was rounding up the boys for him but he wasn't with them on the mcclinton tape.

Wonder why people are so eager to do Simpson's bidding and even commit a crime for him?

[weezer]

Wonder why people are so eager to do Simpson's bidding and even commit a crime for him?

I've never understood it either. Maybe they are seduced by the infamous celebrity status?

[tv]

I've never understood it either. Maybe they are seduced by the infamous celebrity status?Possibly. Also, I'll admit that OJ Simpson is charismatic and I believe that's how he's managed to get away with so much for so many years and why he was able to hang on to Nicole as long as he did.

[weezer]

Possibly. Also, I'll admit that OJ Simpson is charismatic and I believe that's how he's managed to get away with so much for so many years and why he was able to hang on to Nicole as long as he did.

I think he was probably more so back before the real orenthal was exposed. I don't think anyone but folks on the fringe of society think of him that way anymore and I certainly don't think he's going to get the benefit of a doubt at sentencing. The tapes pretty much spoke for themselves.

[tv]

I think he was probably more so back before the real orenthal was exposed. I don't think anyone but folks on the fringe of society think of him that way anymore and I certainly don't think he's going to get the benefit of a doubt at sentencing. The tapes pretty much spoke for themselves.

Speaking of the tapes, didn't Riccio place his tape recorder on top of a wardrobe in the room? I'm surprised Beardsley and Fromong didn't see him do that or that someone didn't see him remove it.

[weezer]

Speaking of the tapes, didn't Riccio place his tape recorder on top of a wardrobe in the room? I'm surprised Beardsley and Fromong didn't see him do that or that someone didn't see him remove it.

listening to the tapes, it sounds like he must have put the recorder up there before anyone came to his room and removed it after LE left.

[William Anthony]

I think he was probably more so back before the real orenthal was exposed. I don't think anyone but folks on the fringe of society think of him that way anymore and I certainly don't think he's going to get the benefit of a doubt at sentencing. The tapes pretty much spoke for themselves.

I would only hope that the sentence is just as it relates to the crimes and the sentiments of those on the fringe of society or those in the mainstream do not play a part in his sentencing.

[weezer]

Motion denied. No hearing. No retrial. Iissues preserved for appeal.

Yale requests bail again. Bail bondsman all lined up. Judge Glass says no AGAIN.

[martin II]

I think he was probably more so back before the real orenthal was exposed. I don't think anyone but folks on the fringe of society think of him that way anymore and I certainly don't think he's going to get the benefit of a doubt at sentencing. The tapes pretty much spoke for themselves.

Exactly who are 'people on the fringe of society" that you speak of?

[weezer]

Exactly who are 'people on the fringe of society" that you speak of?

the people he surrounds himself with. :shrug:

[martin II]

I've never understood it either. Maybe they are seduced by the infamous celebrity status?

Maby you or tv need to open up a new CHIT CHAT or GOSSIP thread for your ideas. This way the baiting post can be placed there.imo:cool:

[martin II]

Speaking of the tapes, didn't Riccio place his tape recorder on top of a wardrobe in the room? I'm surprised Beardsley and Fromong didn't see him do that or that someone didn't see him remove it.

Riccio said he removed it whe le was in the room bur not looking.maby while they were sharring donuts and talking to themselves.imo

[weezer]

Maby you or tv need to open up a new CHIT CHAT or GOSSIP thread for your ideas. This way the baiting post can be placed there.imo:cool:

oh for goodness sakes martin -- there was nothing baiting in our posts.

[martin II]

Motion denied. No hearing. No retrial. Iissues preserved for appeal.

Yale requests bail again. Bail bondsman all lined up. Judge Glass says no AGAIN.

By law bail is to be given to ensure appearances in court not to penalize.

[martin II]

the people he surrounds himself with. :shrug:

How do you classify all the people that were asking for ojs authgraphs at the Palms beach hotel that thought he was a celebrity? Fringe people?

[weezer]

By law bail is to be given to ensure appearances in court not to penalize.

doesn't that mean more before the verdict? I mean, sounds a little silly that someone would be out on bail after they were found guilty of kidnapping and armed robbery.

[martin II]

oh for goodness sakes martin -- there was nothing baiting in our posts.

A lot of adult petiness imo

[weezer]

How do you classify all the people that were asking for ojs authgraphs at the Palms beach hotel that thought he was a celebrity? Fringe people?

martin, we weren't speaking of autograph seekers. we were talking about people who continue to let orenthal use and abuse them.

[martin II]

I do not understand. You seemed to have taken an and for a but. I have tried to explain that I am not excusing Simpson's conduct and have called it both stupid and criminal. However, the law allows for consideration of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, in most cases, at the time of sentencing. This is why they have sentencing hearings, where family members and others testify for and against the defendant and the family members and friends and others testify for the victim. There may have been some type of misunderstanding but (and I use that word not wanting to offend anyone) that is generally the American way. I remember that Jeffery Dalhmere was alloted a sentencing hearing.

I simply asked a question as to whether LE's inaction should be considered at the time of sentencing as a mitigating factor, some factor for the court to take into consideration to reduce the sentence. I was not saying that Simpson should not have been convicted or that it was fault of anyone else. There is a similar concept allowed in a civil case. The concept is called contributory or comparative negligence. I think the contributory negligence was done away with by most states. However, the comparative negligence allows a reduction in the award of damages based on the percentage that a jury finds that the plaintiff was somehow negligent in the incident.

The idea that one could ask a court to consider the mitigating circumstances in imposing a sentence is by no means a novel idea in American jurisprudence. Perhaps, some think it should not be a part of a trial. However, it is there and I did not make the law and only want to practice the law. If there is any frustration, please, do not think me the cause of it. The frustration should be at the law and the concept of mitigating circumstances, which I took no part in creating. There may be other threads and you will likely find that the concept pertains to those crimes, although it may not be discussed on those threads. As I have stated my passion for equality and believe the law should be applied equally regardless of the defendant, it was with this in mind that I asked the question. The question could have been answered with a simple yes or no. However, it somehow got twisted into a defense of LE and, despite my efforts to direct the question back to whether or not it should be considered as a mitigating circumstance it was distorted into a discussion about LE's action or inaction. I think that posters should not be decieved into thinking I was defending Simpson, when I was simply asking should a legal concept be considered in regard to Simpson's crime. Like it or not the law allows for the applicability of the concept but (and I used the word intentionally) the sad part is that I do not thik it will much matter because Simpson is Simpson. What the judge is not allowed to say is that he got away with murder, even though that may be in her mind, as it seems to be here, when she imposes sentencing.

I am truly growing tired of the pettiness on this board. We have a chance to discuss trials and the application of the law in cases and how that application effects us all. However, the conversations usually devolve into efforts to get people banned, insults that drive others from the community and finger pointing. I was recently warned of some of the efforts against me. I remember a time when laws were being discussed in regard to trials and there was much protestation against me and another poster, although mainly directed at me. I fail to see how any discussion could be held about a trial and with the sentencing phase fast approaching how discussions of what may take place in that sentencing phase is frustrating. American jurisprudence has within it the concept that the punishment should fit the crime and within that lies the concepts of mitigating and aggravating factors.
Again, as frustrating as it may be, that is the American way. If there are threads that allow for throwing out opinions without any consideration of the legal aspects of a trial, which one was held in this case, then maybe that is what some like. I want to have civil, respectful, cordial discussions in which I am able to learn or correct so that I can offer an informed opinion and be able to consider how the law effects all stages of a trial.


For some here, oj was charged with a crime, Oj is guilty, no need for discussion of any other aspect of the case . END OF STORY.

[William Anthony]

For some here, oj was charged with a crime, Oj is guilty, no need for discussion of any other aspect of the case . END OF STORY.

I think you might be right but there are many stages in a post trial conviction and the motion for a new trial was one.

[martin II]

martin, we weren't speaking of autograph seekers. we were talking about people who continue to let orenthal use and abuse them.

From your previous classifications of people i thought you may have been talking about people not like you.

[tv]

Maby you or tv need to open up a new CHIT CHAT or GOSSIP thread for your ideas. This way the baiting post can be placed there.imo:cool:martin, what the heck are you talking about? :confused:

[tv]

doesn't that mean more before the verdict? I mean, sounds a little silly that someone would be out on bail after they were found guilty of kidnapping and armed robbery.
I've always thought that meant before the verdict but I've been wrong before. :shrug:

[weezer]

I've always thought that meant before the verdict but I've been wrong before. :shrug:

I'm sure people have been released on bail after a conviction and awaiting appeal but I don't know if certain circumstances apply?

[William Anthony]

Bail before sentencing. See how discussions about trials enables us to learn. Speaking of use and abuse,

http://www.imeem.com/rnbmusic2/music/aLISMRMK/rick_james_fire_and_desire/

[tv]

I'm sure people have been released on bail after a conviction and awaiting appeal but I don't know if certain circumstances apply?I don't know if it applies to violent crimes. I guess I'm out of my league on this one.

[tv]

Bail before sentencing. See how discussions about trials enables us to learn. Speaking of use and abuse,

http://www.imeem.com/rnbmusic2/music/aLISMRMK/rick_james_fire_and_desire/

Sorry, I can't read it because a big pop-up comes up and covers the screen. You'll have to explain.

[William Anthony]

Some violent offenders commit another violent crime while out on bail. It is within the court's discretion to admit or deny bail, according to my understanding and it applies, unless revoked until sentencing and, in some cases, convicts are given time to take care of their affairs before reporting to penal institutions.

[William Anthony]

Sorry, I can't read it because a big pop-up comes up and covers the screen. You'll have to explain.

Rick James and Tina Marie singing Pain Before pleasure-use and abuse them that's what I used to do. It was pain before pleasure-that was my claim to fame till I laid eyes on you.

[tv]

Some violent offenders commit another violent crime while out on bail. It is within the court's discretion to admit or deny bail, according to my understanding and it applies, unless revoked until sentencing and, in some cases, convicts are given time to take care of their affairs before reporting to penal institutions.

Thanks for the clarification.

[William Anthony]

Thanks for the clarification.

That's one of the purposes of civil, cordial, respectful discussion.

[tv]

Motion denied. No hearing. No retrial. Iissues preserved for appeal.

Yale requests bail again. Bail bondsman all lined up. Judge Glass says no AGAIN.Thanks, weezer. I didn't catch anything about it today.

[martin II]

mitigating circumstances is considered by most fair judges. We will see what Glass does.

[martin II]

I'm sure people have been released on bail after a conviction and awaiting appeal but I don't know if certain circumstances apply?

If the judge conviences herself that oj simpson will run away if granted bail, then she will have her reasons not to grant bail.If not them he should be given bail.imo

[martin II]

Is it ever possible to discuss what OJ did wrong without pointing at everyone else? I've not seen it once, that I remember in all these threads...the subject is always changed to discuss everyone else - what they did wrong - even when he is somewhat blamed , it is often followed by a but... In my world a but negates everthing that was said before the but. Is he ever responsible for anything? He is the ringleader - none of this would have happened without him. No one would be facing time in jail with him. I'm finding these posts to be very frustrating for that very reason - unfortunately I think I'm addicted - but I think I'm in recovery - - unfortunately because of my personality, I keep trying - but I am begining to think I may be better off somewhere else where the person convicted is at least blamed for his/her part in the whole thing...

Yes it is.Someone can open a thread "What oj did wrong and nothing else"
imo

[tv]

Yes it is.Someone can open a thread "What oj did wrong and nothing else"
imoPlease feel free to start the thread yourself. Or maybe one titled "The gospel according to Saint OJ".

[William Anthony]

Thanks, weezer. I didn't catch anything about it today.

I think I now understand. Were you just speaking about bail without knowing the motion had been denied and bail again refused or did you just forget to thank her before? I mean it's a small point but I see where you made some posts about bail after conviction and I am just seeking a clarification as to what you were speaking of. If I have cleared the matter up for you, then you need not respond to this post.

[tv]

I think I now understand. Were you just speaking about bail without knowing the motion had been denied and bail again refused or did you just forget to thank her before? I mean it's a small point but I see where you made some posts about bail after conviction and I am just seeking a clarification as to what you were speaking of. If I have cleared the matter up for you, then you need not respond to this post.I'm not sure what you mean but I must run. Have a good evening everyone. :)

[William Anthony]

I don't know if Glass was required to write an opinion as to why she denied the motion for a new trial. I suspect she did. I will try to do some research to see if there is a link to the LV criminal courts.

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure what you mean but I must run. Have a good evening everyone. :)

A good run always beats a bad stand. :)

[tv]

A good run always beats a bad stand. :)
William, please stop. I have to be at work in 30 minutes. Please cut me a break for once.

[William Anthony]

William, please stop. I have to be at work in 30 minutes. Please cut me a break for once.

What are you talking about? I don't make up your work schedule. If I did you would never get a break. :) Have a good time at work or the best one possible.

[Redmama]

I do not understand. You seemed to have taken an and for a but. I have tried to explain that I am not excusing Simpson's conduct and have called it both stupid and criminal. However, the law allows for consideration of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, in most cases, at the time of sentencing. This is why they have sentencing hearings, where family members and others testify for and against the defendant and the family members and friends and others testify for the victim. There may have been some type of misunderstanding but (and I use that word not wanting to offend anyone) that is generally the American way. I remember that Jeffery Dalhmere was alloted a sentencing hearing.

I simply asked a question as to whether LE's inaction should be considered at the time of sentencing as a mitigating factor, some factor for the court to take into consideration to reduce the sentence. I was not saying that Simpson should not have been convicted or that it was fault of anyone else. There is a similar concept allowed in a civil case. The concept is called contributory or comparative negligence. I think the contributory negligence was done away with by most states. However, the comparative negligence allows a reduction in the award of damages based on the percentage that a jury finds that the plaintiff was somehow negligent in the incident.

The idea that one could ask a court to consider the mitigating circumstances in imposing a sentence is by no means a novel idea in American jurisprudence. Perhaps, some think it should not be a part of a trial. However, it is there and I did not make the law and only want to practice the law. If there is any frustration, please, do not think me the cause of it. The frustration should be at the law and the concept of mitigating circumstances, which I took no part in creating. There may be other threads and you will likely find that the concept pertains to those crimes, although it may not be discussed on those threads. As I have stated my passion for equality and believe the law should be applied equally regardless of the defendant, it was with this in mind that I asked the question. The question could have been answered with a simple yes or no. However, it somehow got twisted into a defense of LE and, despite my efforts to direct the question back to whether or not it should be considered as a mitigating circumstance it was distorted into a discussion about LE's action or inaction. I think that posters should not be decieved into thinking I was defending Simpson, when I was simply asking should a legal concept be considered in regard to Simpson's crime. Like it or not the law allows for the applicability of the concept but (and I used the word intentionally) the sad part is that I do not thik it will much matter because Simpson is Simpson. What the judge is not allowed to say is that he got away with murder, even though that may be in her mind, as it seems to be here, when she imposes sentencing.

I am truly growing tired of the pettiness on this board. We have a chance to discuss trials and the application of the law in cases and how that application effects us all. However, the conversations usually devolve into efforts to get people banned, insults that drive others from the community and finger pointing. I was recently warned of some of the efforts against me. I remember a time when laws were being discussed in regard to trials and there was much protestation against me and another poster, although mainly directed at me. I fail to see how any discussion could be held about a trial and with the sentencing phase fast approaching how discussions of what may take place in that sentencing phase is frustrating. American jurisprudence has within it the concept that the punishment should fit the crime and within that lies the concepts of mitigating and aggravating factors.
Again, as frustrating as it may be, that is the American way. If there are threads that allow for throwing out opinions without any consideration of the legal aspects of a trial, which one was held in this case, then maybe that is what some like. I want to have civil, respectful, cordial discussions in which I am able to learn or correct so that I can offer an informed opinion and be able to consider how the law effects all stages of a trial.

I believe you took my post just a bit personal. I was just asking if we could ever discuss OJ's bad deads without comparing him to someone else. I could be wrong, but are those types of conversations okay to have on this board or does someone elses bad deads, or even the law have to be brought up in every single conversation to compare him to? It is just a question. It never seems that we can stay on the subject of OJ and the decisions that he made. My question is just as simple as that. I understand seeing both sides of the issue - I really do - but I do not understand why OJ can't just stand on his own and own his own issues.

[William Anthony]

I believe you took my post just a bit personal. I was just asking if we could ever discuss OJ's bad deads without comparing him to someone else. I could be wrong, but are those types of conversations okay to have on this board or does someone elses bad deads, or even the law have to be brought up in every single conversation to compare him to? It is just a question. It never seems that we can stay on the subject of OJ and the decisions that he made. My question is just as simple as that. I understand seeing both sides of the issue - I really do - but I do not understand why OJ can't just stand on his own and own his own issues.

I can't say that I took it personally but I was explaining my stance on Simpson and the law. We begin with the idea that all citizens have rights under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, one being that a Citizen cannot be deprived of liberty without due process of law. We then have to consider what due process means. We begin with the premises that the deprivation of liberty occurs after a trail, a conviction, and the application of the law. That is why the law is important to any discussion about a trial, because one is required to deprive one of his liberty, absent a guilty plea or a plea bargin. We further analysis the trial as an adversarial process, meaning that there are at least to parties involved in a dispute that provide evidence to support their side, which means that there are differenet ways to view a certain set of circmstances.

In the assessment of due process and what is called precedent, we examine whether or not there have been cases involving similar acts and how they were tried and ruled upon. That is called precedent. The notion of precedent involves how the court is likely to decide an issue and provides some conformity to the application of the law. That involves considering how others, who have been charged with similar crimes, have been treated under the law.

The topic of this discussion involves the decisions that Simpson made and a court has ruled that his decision led to the commission of a crime and a trial was held. Simpson is in jail awaiting sentencing. Sentencing is a phase of our system of jurisprudence. We then must examine what is likely to happen during that phase and the precedents involved in that phase. We look at the precedent that, during that phase, the court is allowed to consider aggravating and mitigating factors. It is quite a limited conversation, imho, to throw out opinions about how someone should be treated without a willingness to consider what the law-the only thing that can legally take away or give back personal liberty-must or should take into consideration.

I did not take your comment personally but I did take the fact that you were invited away from this thread and you experienced some frustration. I was trying to explain why you should not be frustrated and why the law and the treatment of others similarly situated is germane to the discussion, which is why I asked whether LE's purported inaction should be considered as a mitigating factor at the time of sentencing.

[weezer]

". . .Among other issues, it is interesting to speculate whether Simpson should and will have his sentence on these new convictions based on his prior double killing, despite his acquittal on murder charges. After all, a civil jury found Simpson guilty of these killings by a preponderance of the evidence, which is enough to satisfy any due process requirement for enhancing a sentence based on acquitted conduct.

Thus, under existing federal constitutional law, the state judge sentencing Simpson on these new robbery convictions could enhance his sentence based on Simpson's prior killings. Whether he will (either formally or informally) is a different question. . ."

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/10/now-that-oj-sim.html

[weezer]

"Nevada attorney here - I would expect the prosecutors to leave the murder case out of the sentencing hearing as there is no need to create additional issues on appeal. On the other hand, creating a clean appellate record is seldom the focus of the Clark County District Attorney's Office.

Our standard for sentencing considerations is fairly low: the judge may not consider "highly suspect and impalpable" evidence. The Nevada Supreme Court gives great deference to district court sentencing decisions and very seldom reverses a sentence so long as it is within the statutory limits. In my 16 years of practice before the Court, I've seen less than 10 reversals on sentencing issues in non-capital cases.

At a minimum, I think Judge Glass will order consecutive sentences for the two kidnapping convictions as the standard practice here is to give consecutive sentences for each distinct victim named in the charges. The weapons enhancements must be imposed as consecutive terms."

[martin II]

I believe you took my post just a bit personal. I was just asking if we could ever discuss OJ's bad deads without comparing him to someone else. I could be wrong, but are those types of conversations okay to have on this board or does someone elses bad deads, or even the law have to be brought up in every single conversation to compare him to? It is just a question. It never seems that we can stay on the subject of OJ and the decisions that he made. My question is just as simple as that. I understand seeing both sides of the issue - I really do - but I do not understand why OJ can't just stand on his own and own his own issues.

The actions of all participants, including oj has to be considered in order to understand the whole case.If this were not true then witnesses would not have been asked questions about what they did.

What would the purpose be to have a case involving 7-8 people and discussion be limited only to one persons actions?

[martin II]

". . .Among other issues, it is interesting to speculate whether Simpson should and will have his sentence on these new convictions based on his prior double killing, despite his acquittal on murder charges. After all, a civil jury found Simpson guilty of these killings by a preponderance of the evidence, which is enough to satisfy any due process requirement for enhancing a sentence based on acquitted conduct.

Thus, under existing federal constitutional law, the state judge sentencing Simpson on these new robbery convictions could enhance his sentence based on Simpson's prior killings. Whether he will (either formally or informally) is a different question. . ."

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/10/now-that-oj-sim.html


So the judge can consider the fact that oj was found not guilty in the criminal trial to enhance his sentance in the vegas trial.?

[martin II]

Please feel free to start the thread yourself. Or maybe one titled "The gospel according to Saint OJ".

I have no interest in starting a thread that does not include discussion on all the issues in the case.

[martin II]

4. What will happen at Simpson's sentencing on December 5?

Even if she opts to impose the most lenient possible sentence under discretion, Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass will sentence Simpson to at least 15 years in prison. His conviction alone of first-degree kidnapping with a deadly weapon carries a minimum sentence of 15 years, with the possibility of parole after five years, and a maximum sentence of life of prison with the chance of parole. Judge Glass could run the sentences for each of the 12 charges concurrently or consecutively, the latter of which would be disastrous for Simpson, as he would then serve time for each sentence, one-after-the-other.

Working in Simpson's favor is that judges normally refrain from imposing the maximum possible sentence for first-time offenders and, despite the many controversies surrounding him over the last two decades, Simpson has not previously been convicted of a crime (though he did plead no contest in 1989 to a spousal abuse charge, meaning he neither contested the charge nor admitted guilt). Then again, at age 61, there is a strong probability that, absent a successful appeal and regardless of Judge Glass' leniency, Simpson will spend the remainder of his life in prison.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/michael_mccann/10/04/simpson.verdict/index.html

[tv]

I have no interest in starting a thread that does not include discussion on all the issues in the case.Then I'm surprised you suggested someone start a thread called "What oj did wrong and nothing else".

[William Anthony]

So the judge can consider the fact that oj was found not guilty in the criminal trial to enhance his sentance in the vegas trial.?

It seems some can conjure up anything, without any regard to law, misconstrue everything, and promote silly, if not insane, concepts.

". . .Among other issues, it is interesting to speculate... by a preponderance of the evidence, which is enough to satisfy any due process requirement for enhancing a sentence based on acquitted conduct.

This is why discussing the law is important to cases.

[martin II]

District Judge Jackie Glass is reputed to be one of the toughest judges at the Regional Justice Center when it comes to sentencing.

She has been known to impose harsher sentences than the ones recommended by prosecutors and the Division of Parole and Probation, a lawyer said.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/9892992.html

[martin II]

Then I'm surprised you suggested someone start a thread called "What oj did wrong and nothing else".

Redmama had questioned why we could not just discuss what oj did without discussing what others did. I think that is correct.

My position is there cannot be any nonbiased discussion without discussing what everyone did.
Do you agree?

[tv]

Redmama had questioned why we could not just discuss what oj did without discussing what others did. I think that is correct.

My position is there cannot be any nonbiased discussion without discussing what everyone did.
Do you agree?
Yes, I do except I don't think other's actions should be used as an excuse for anything he's done. That's one reason I didn't think the ring was out of place in this thead even though it seems I was wrong.

[martin II]

"Nevada attorney here - I would expect the prosecutors to leave the murder case out of the sentencing hearing as there is no need to create additional issues on appeal. On the other hand, creating a clean appellate record is seldom the focus of the Clark County District Attorney's Office.

Our standard for sentencing considerations is fairly low: the judge may not consider "highly suspect and impalpable" evidence. The Nevada Supreme Court gives great deference to district court sentencing decisions and very seldom reverses a sentence so long as it is within the statutory limits. In my 16 years of practice before the Court, I've seen less than 10 reversals on sentencing issues in non-capital cases.

At a minimum, I think Judge Glass will order consecutive sentences for the two kidnapping convictions as the standard practice here is to give consecutive sentences for each distinct victim named in the charges. The weapons enhancements must be imposed as consecutive terms."


Most u.s. judges don't give consecutive sentances to first time convicted criminals. Oj is a first time convicted criminal.imo

[William Anthony]

District Judge Jackie Glass is reputed to be one of the toughest judges at the Regional Justice Center when it comes to sentencing.

She has been known to impose harsher sentences than the ones recommended by prosecutors and the Division of Parole and Probation, a lawyer said.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/9892992.html

Perhaps, if the appeals are denied, then her sentence will put and end to the Simpson saga and we will have no opinions to offer. Although, I suspect the finality will be a never-ending discussion about whether the sentence was fair in light of the fact that he possibly got away with murder.

[martin II]

Yes, I do except I don't think other's actions should be used as an excuse for anything he's done. That's one reason I didn't think the ring was out of place in this thead even though it seems I was wrong.

The ring

Weezer created a ring thread. I made one post on that thread. otherwise the thread was only used by you and weezer without participation of any other posters. With this lack of participation, i think it was weezer that brought the ring discussion to the oj in the news thread.
The question is why bring it here when you had a specific thread that weezer started.imo

[William Anthony]

Yes, I do except I don't think other's actions should be used as an excuse for anything he's done. That's one reason I didn't think the ring was out of place in this thead even though it seems I was wrong.

The only reason I think the ring is out of place on this thread is because there is no evidence that he gave the ring to anyone for any reason. There was a thread started that allowed for speculation about the ring and I felt that was the appropriate thread for that type of speculation. I think the purpose of this thread was to consider his conduct as it amounted to the charges and the evidence produced related to the charges, his pretrial motions, the trial, and the post trial stages and motions/appeals. I think that those who want to speculate about the ring will find ample opportunity to so do on the thread called the ring.

[martin II]

Not quite true. As I recall you posted on the thread once, using the word nonsense in your post. :)

I made one post on the ring thread.I thought the speculation on the thread was nonsense.

[William Anthony]

I made one post on the ring thread.I thought the speculation on the thread was nonsense.

I apologize, Martin. I did not read your post in its entirety and I subsequently deleted my post because it contained incorrect information. You are right.

[weezer]

So the judge can consider the fact that oj was found not guilty in the criminal trial to enhance his sentance in the vegas trial.?

This is my understanding from what research I've been able to do:

Yes at least as a matter of federal constitutional law. In sentencing, a judge may take into account any past crimes on Simpson's part, using a preponderance of the evidence standard, even if an earlier jury had found that Simpson's guilt of those crimes hadn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[weezer]

I made one post on the ring thread.I thought the speculation on the thread was nonsense.

I'm surprised you would feel that way. orenthal's bail was raised when he was found to have been in contact with witnesses before the trial. Do you not think the Judge is going to be influenced -- not in a good way -- if it's found that not only did orenthal continue contacting the witnesses, he possibly bribed one to changed his testimony?

[William Anthony]

Sometimes, the research is only as thorough as the researcher. That is why we should not lend ourselves to believing everything we read. I am happy to have had some courses in the law as it is easy for me to see that some things are nonsensical.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/NewsDetails.aspx?NewsID=329

It would be contrary to common sense for a judge to enter a ruling in regard to sentencing of a criminal trial to use a civil trial standard finding. The basic concept that the punishment should fit the crime obviates against such a lowering of the standard to enforce punishment. I was happy to see that the Supreme Court ruled against this practice or some of our procedural due process rights might be arbitrarily eradicated.

[William Anthony]

IIRC, Beardsley was called to testify and the ring issue was not an issue in the trial. If the judge thought that way, I am sure she would have halted the trial, allowed for an investigation and, if proven the DA would have added witness tampering to the charges. The idea that he engaged in witness tampering was the subject of a hearing and no charges were filed. Additionally, no charges were filed about the ring. Can you please honor my respectful request and take the posts, concerning ring speculation to the thread titled, the ring? Thanks in anticipation of your cooperation and professional courtesy.

[martin II]

Stewart's lawyer, Brent Bryson, on Friday raised a new allegation of misconduct by the jury foreman, Paul Connelly. Bryson said an investigator for Simpson's lawyers found that Connelly was dismissed from a job with a soft drink company after making racially disparaging statements. "That's problematic for our clients, who are black," Bryson said.



http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1857683,00.html

[martin II]

If the judge gives the minimum sentances to Oj and stewart not concurant they each could face 7 years. In some cases defendants are allowed to serve about 80% of their time. imo

[William Anthony]

Stewart's lawyer, Brent Bryson, on Friday raised a new allegation of misconduct by the jury foreman, Paul Connelly. Bryson said an investigator for Simpson's lawyers found that Connelly was dismissed from a job with a soft drink company after making racially disparaging statements. "That's problematic for our clients, who are black," Bryson said.



http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1857683,00.html

Alas, what's done in the dark, soon comes to light.

[martin II]

Simpson, 61, and Stewart, 54, were convicted Oct. 3 of charges including kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon in the hotel room confrontation on Sept. 13, 2007. Simpson has argued he was trying to recover stolen mementos. Each faces five years to life in prison on each of their two kidnapping convictions, and a mandatory sentence of at least two years or up to 30 years on each of the two armed robbery convictions.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1857683,00.html

[William Anthony]

"Thus, the statutory maximum in this case is 12 years, and any conduct considered to raise the sentence to the 16-year sentence would need to be brought before a jury. "

[martin II]

Alas, what's done in the dark, soon comes to light.

if a jury member lies on the jury questionair and in court questioning what does this mean?

[William Anthony]

"The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea;
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.

-- William Shakespeare"

Let the punishment fit the crime and that crime alone.

[William Anthony]

if a jury member lies on the jury questionair and in court questioning what does this mean?

In the instant case, I think an argument can be made that he was motivated by racial prejudice and attempted to improperly influence the jury as a result of said prejudice in a motion for a new trial. However, absent some overt act, I think it might be hard to show. I would think that the fact he remained standing when they went to the jury room and that he allegedly had concern for their safety, thus causing them to remain to render a verdict and that the verdict was rendered on the exact date of the murders, and that he expressed no concern for the jurors' safety after the verdict, which was rendered some hours later than the normal ending time and his statement that he wanted this jury to render the verdict, showed his intent to improperly influence the jury due to his racial animus.

[martin II]

I'm surprised you would feel that way. orenthal's bail was raised when he was found to have been in contact with witnesses before the trial. Do you not think the Judge is going to be influenced -- not in a good way -- if it's found that not only did orenthal continue contacting the witnesses, he possibly bribed one to changed his testimony?

The ring.

I think your ideas about what oj did are not fact so that is why they have no meaning.

[martin II]

What i think is that if the judge decides to give Oj the max then no one should get probation and all should get the max. Especially since the jury said they did not believe any of the prosecutions witnesses.imo

[William Anthony]

correction for clarity-that the verdict was rendered on the exact date of the acquittal.

[William Anthony]

The ring.

I think your ideas about what oj did are not fact so that is why they have no meaning.

Martin,

It must have taken them many days
to think up many ways
to this thread they could bring
convoluted speculations about a ring.

Please, do not feed into it? Let it perish from starvation,
or let it return silently to its previous location.:)

[martin II]

I believe you took my post just a bit personal. I was just asking if we could ever discuss OJ's bad deads without comparing him to someone else. I could be wrong, but are those types of conversations okay to have on this board or does someone elses bad deads, or even the law have to be brought up in every single conversation to compare him to? It is just a question. It never seems that we can stay on the subject of OJ and the decisions that he made. My question is just as simple as that. I understand seeing both sides of the issue - I really do - but I do not understand why OJ can't just stand on his own and own his own issues.

Redmama

I think every action taken by oj has to be weighed by the Nevada law. Otherwise there would be no way to understand whether he broke the law or not.
If the actions of all involved in that hotel room are not evaluated, how will we
know what actually happened?

[martin II]

Martin,

It must have taken them many days
to think up many ways
to this thread they could bring
convoluted speculations about a ring.

Please, do not feed into it? Let it perish from starvation,
or let it return silently to its previous location.:)

Good idea.

[William Anthony]

Good idea.

Thanks.

[weezer]

Good idea.

how was the kool-aid?

[Redmama]

I can't say that I took it personally but I was explaining my stance on Simpson and the law. We begin with the idea that all citizens have rights under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, one being that a Citizen cannot be deprived of liberty without due process of law. We then have to consider what due process means. We begin with the premises that the deprivation of liberty occurs after a trail, a conviction, and the application of the law. That is why the law is important to any discussion about a trial, because one is required to deprive one of his liberty, absent a guilty plea or a plea bargin. We further analysis the trial as an adversarial process, meaning that there are at least to parties involved in a dispute that provide evidence to support their side, which means that there are differenet ways to view a certain set of circmstances.

In the assessment of due process and what is called precedent, we examine whether or not there have been cases involving similar acts and how they were tried and ruled upon. That is called precedent. The notion of precedent involves how the court is likely to decide an issue and provides some conformity to the application of the law. That involves considering how others, who have been charged with similar crimes, have been treated under the law.

The topic of this discussion involves the decisions that Simpson made and a court has ruled that his decision led to the commission of a crime and a trial was held. Simpson is in jail awaiting sentencing. Sentencing is a phase of our system of jurisprudence. We then must examine what is likely to happen during that phase and the precedents involved in that phase. We look at the precedent that, during that phase, the court is allowed to consider aggravating and mitigating factors. It is quite a limited conversation, imho, to throw out opinions about how someone should be treated without a willingness to consider what the law-the only thing that can legally take away or give back personal liberty-must or should take into consideration.

I did not take your comment personally but I did take the fact that you were invited away from this thread and you experienced some frustration. I was trying to explain why you should not be frustrated and why the law and the treatment of others similarly situated is germane to the discussion, which is why I asked whether LE's purported inaction should be considered as a mitigating factor at the time of sentencing.

I was not saying that the law was not germane. I was just asking if some more conversations could be held regarding Simson's bad acts without the comparison to other people.

[Redmama]

The actions of all participants, including oj has to be considered in order to understand the whole case.If this were not true then witnesses would not have been asked questions about what they did.

What would the purpose be to have a case involving 7-8 people and discussion be limited only to one persons actions?

I understand that - I truly do - but I'm not sitting behind a bench nor am i in the jury...I'm not even in the courtroom. I was just wanting to dig into the issue of whay OJ did first...I will never have anything to do with his sentence. The purpose for me is just pure human interest - nothing more. You may not see a purpose - but that's what happens to interest me.

[Redmama]

Yes, I do except I don't think other's actions should be used as an excuse for anything he's done. That's one reason I didn't think the ring was out of place in this thead even though it seems I was wrong.

Thanks tvdinner - that is in a nutshell what I was attempting to ask - you stated exactly what I was trying to ask.

[tv]

Thanks tvdinner - that is in a nutshell what I was attempting to ask - you stated exactly what I was trying to ask.

Thanks Redmama, I'm glad someone got it. :)

[William Anthony]

I was not saying that the law was not germane. I was just asking if some more conversations could be held regarding Simson's bad acts without the comparison to other people.

I think that the only way that would be possible is that we abolish all concepts of fairness and jurisprudence and just engage in a discussion of how atrocious we feel Simpson's behavior was, without any logical connection as to how the law views his conduct. With that said, I think the discussion of his behavior has been analyzed and ruled upon during the trial and the next thing to discuss is how his behavior should be treated in regard to sentencing, allowing for consideration of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

[William Anthony]

I understand that - I truly do - but I'm not sitting behind a bench nor am i in the jury...I'm not even in the courtroom. I was just wanting to dig into the issue of whay OJ did first...I will never have anything to do with his sentence. The purpose for me is just pure human interest - nothing more. You may not see a purpose - but that's what happens to interest me.

I really do not understand. I think you meant to say what OJ did first. I think then we must consider whether Simpson first had gained knowledge that LE refused to investigate the alleged theft of property he believed was his, or what caused him to distrust LE.

[William Anthony]

Thanks tvdinner - that is in a nutshell what I was attempting to ask - you stated exactly what I was trying to ask.

How many times do I have to reiterate that no one is excusing Simpson's conduct? There must be some measuring apparatus to asses his conduct in determining the next phase whether the punishment fits the crime, imho.

[William Anthony]

I have submitted a request to have the thread, what it is, deleted since there seems to be no interest in continuing the discussion of what it meant. Thanks.

[weezer]

"Simpson was found guilty of a violent crime - the fact that he previously was found civilly liable for another violent crime should be no less relevant."

[William Anthony]

To those that hav hears, let them hear.

The Supreme Court has ruled on the issue. However, it has long been a standard of American jurisprudence that only prior criminal convictions and not civil findings can or may be used to enhance a sentence. The key words, "should be no less relevant." , is just an opinion not supported by law, which leads to a lot of misinformation, imho. We must be able to read between lines and not take things at face value.

[weezer]

". . .All facts that can increase a sentence beyond the statutory maximum (e.g., top of the guidelines) must be found by a jury. Consequently, if the sentencing judge uses the Juice's priors to enhance his sentence but doesn't exceed the stat max, there's no 6A issue. . ."

[William Anthony]

I see that a member has done further research, which is commendable. I think that now we see that the poster intepreted what they read incorrectly and listen to an opinion that was just plain silly and insane. To enhance a sentence means, imho, to enhance it past the statutory maximum. However, in consideration that it can be argued to mean something else. Let's view this case that points to several Supreme Court rulings on the issue of sentence enhancement. Sometimes arguing for the sake of arguing is not necessary.

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S51600.htm

In reversing the trial court's judgment, the Supreme Court expressly confirmed what it only had suggested previously in Jones:

"Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. With that exception, we endorse the statement of the rule set forth in the concurring opinions in [Jones]: '[I]t is unconstitutional for a legislature to remove from the jury the assessment of facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed. It is equally clear that such facts must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.'"

Id. at 490 (emphasis added). Ultimately, the Court concluded that the challenged sentencing scheme at issue before it represented "an unacceptable departure from the jury tradition that is an indispensable part of our criminal justice system." Id. at 497.

Since issuing Apprendi, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its commitment to the principles set forth in that case in several subsequent decisions, including Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). In Blakely, the defendant had pleaded guilty to second-degree kidnapping involving domestic violence and use of a firearm. 124 S Ct at 2534-35. In the State of Washington, crimes of that nature were classified generally as Class B felonies, punishable by no more than 10 years in prison. Id. For the specific crimes at issue in Blakely, other provisions of state law further limited the maximum available sentence to 53 months. The trial court nevertheless sentenced the defendant to a 90-month prison term after finding that the defendant had acted with deliberate cruelty, an expressed ground for upward sentencing departures under Washington's domestic violence statutes. Id. at 2535.

In defending that enhanced sentence before the Supreme Court, the State of Washington argued that its 10-year sentencing ceiling for Class B felonies was the relevant "statutory maximum" for the defendant's crimes. Because the defendant's 90-month sentence was well within that range, the state asserted that the requirements of Apprendi had been satisfied.

The Supreme Court, however, rejected the state's argument, explaining:

"The State nevertheless contends that there was no Apprendi violation because the relevant 'statutory maximum' is not 53 months, but the 10-year maximum for class B felonies [under Washington state law]. It observes that no exceptional sentence may exceed that limit. Our precedents make clear, however, that the 'statutory maximum' for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. In other words, the relevant 'statutory maximum' is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum he may impose without any additional findings."

Id. at 2537 (emphasis in original; internal citations omitted). The Court went on to reverse the judgment below and remand the case for further proceedings consonant with Apprendi. Id. at 2543. (5) In doing so, the Court noted that its adherence to Apprendi was motivated, in part, by its desire to give concrete meaning to the jury trial right provided by the Sixth Amendment:

"Our commitment to Apprendi in this context reflects not just respect for longstanding precedent, but the need to give intelligible content to the right of jury trial. That right is no mere procedural formality, but a fundamental reservation of power in our constitutional structure. Just as suffrage ensures the people's ultimate control in the legislative and executive branches, jury trial is meant to ensure their control in the judiciary. Apprendi carries out this design by ensuring that the judge's authority to sentence derives wholly from the jury's verdict. Without that restriction, the jury would not exercise the control that the Framers intended."

Id. at 2538-39 (internal citations omitted; emphasis added).

From the preceding examination of cases spanning Nichols to Blakely, (6) several propositions emerge regarding the current relationship between sentencing models and the Sixth Amendment. First, in a post-Apprendi/Blakely world, the broad, largely unlimited inquiry that sentencing courts could undertake at the time of Nichols is diminished when that inquiry is aimed at lengthening sentences beyond their "statutory maximums" as the Supreme Court defined that phrase in Apprendi and Blakely. In such cases, although a sentencing court still may consider all the facts available to it under Nichols, that ability is now circumscribed by the requirement that, aside from a defendant's prior convictions or admissions, any fact that increases a sentence first must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt

[William Anthony]

I think we all understand that priors means prior convictions and that a civil verdict is not a conviction.

[martin II]

"Simpson was found guilty of a violent crime - the fact that he previously was found civilly liable for another violent crime should be no less relevant."

I think the cjs seperates criminal from civil.

[martin II]

". . .All facts that can increase a sentence beyond the statutory maximum (e.g., top of the guidelines) must be found by a jury. Consequently, if the sentencing judge uses the Juice's priors to enhance his sentence but doesn't exceed the stat max, there's no 6A issue. . ."

What prior criminal conviction does oj have?
What facts do you know of that would cause the judge to increase the sentance beyond the max required by law??

[weezer]

". . .So when the judge is deciding on Simpson's sentence, may he take into account Simpson's killing Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, and give Simpson a longer sentence than he'd give a first offender charged with the same crimes?

Yes (as I mentioned last year), at least as a matter of federal constitutional law. In sentencing, a judge may take into account any past crimes on Simpson's part, using a preponderance of the evidence standard, even if an earlier jury had found that Simpson's guilt of those crimes hadn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The theory behind modern American sentencing, after all, is that while guilt is about what the defendant did in this case, sentencing may (and should) in part turn on the defendant's general character. That's why first offenders are often treated leniently, but people with long criminal history records are punished more harshly.

Moreover, proof beyond a reasonable doubt has never been required at sentencing. Historically, judges could make decisions based on facts that hadn't been proven in any formal way; certainly facts shown by a preponderance of the evidence suffice. For this very reason, judges could consider alleged past criminal conduct of which the defendant had been acquitted: The acquittal simply shows that the conduct couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and doesn't preclude proof by a preponderance of the evidence. . ."

[martin II]

I see that a member has done further research, which is commendable. I think that now we see that the poster intepreted what they read incorrectly and listen to an opinion that was just plain silly and insane. To enhance a sentence means, imho, to enhance it past the statutory maximum. However, in consideration that it can be argued to mean something else. Let's view this case that points to several Supreme Court rulings on the issue of sentence enhancement. Sometimes arguing for the sake of arguing is not necessary.

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S51600.htm

In reversing the trial court's judgment, the Supreme Court expressly confirmed what it only had suggested previously in Jones:

"Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. With that exception, we endorse the statement of the rule set forth in the concurring opinions in [Jones]: '[I]t is unconstitutional for a legislature to remove from the jury the assessment of facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed. It is equally clear that such facts must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.'"

Id. at 490 (emphasis added). Ultimately, the Court concluded that the challenged sentencing scheme at issue before it represented "an unacceptable departure from the jury tradition that is an indispensable part of our criminal justice system." Id. at 497.

Since issuing Apprendi, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its commitment to the principles set forth in that case in several subsequent decisions, including Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). In Blakely, the defendant had pleaded guilty to second-degree kidnapping involving domestic violence and use of a firearm. 124 S Ct at 2534-35. In the State of Washington, crimes of that nature were classified generally as Class B felonies, punishable by no more than 10 years in prison. Id. For the specific crimes at issue in Blakely, other provisions of state law further limited the maximum available sentence to 53 months. The trial court nevertheless sentenced the defendant to a 90-month prison term after finding that the defendant had acted with deliberate cruelty, an expressed ground for upward sentencing departures under Washington's domestic violence statutes. Id. at 2535.

In defending that enhanced sentence before the Supreme Court, the State of Washington argued that its 10-year sentencing ceiling for Class B felonies was the relevant "statutory maximum" for the defendant's crimes. Because the defendant's 90-month sentence was well within that range, the state asserted that the requirements of Apprendi had been satisfied.

The Supreme Court, however, rejected the state's argument, explaining:

"The State nevertheless contends that there was no Apprendi violation because the relevant 'statutory maximum' is not 53 months, but the 10-year maximum for class B felonies [under Washington state law]. It observes that no exceptional sentence may exceed that limit. Our precedents make clear, however, that the 'statutory maximum' for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. In other words, the relevant 'statutory maximum' is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum he may impose without any additional findings."

Id. at 2537 (emphasis in original; internal citations omitted). The Court went on to reverse the judgment below and remand the case for further proceedings consonant with Apprendi. Id. at 2543. (5) In doing so, the Court noted that its adherence to Apprendi was motivated, in part, by its desire to give concrete meaning to the jury trial right provided by the Sixth Amendment:

"Our commitment to Apprendi in this context reflects not just respect for longstanding precedent, but the need to give intelligible content to the right of jury trial. That right is no mere procedural formality, but a fundamental reservation of power in our constitutional structure. Just as suffrage ensures the people's ultimate control in the legislative and executive branches, jury trial is meant to ensure their control in the judiciary. Apprendi carries out this design by ensuring that the judge's authority to sentence derives wholly from the jury's verdict. Without that restriction, the jury would not exercise the control that the Framers intended."

Id. at 2538-39 (internal citations omitted; emphasis added).

From the preceding examination of cases spanning Nichols to Blakely, (6) several propositions emerge regarding the current relationship between sentencing models and the Sixth Amendment. First, in a post-Apprendi/Blakely world, the broad, largely unlimited inquiry that sentencing courts could undertake at the time of Nichols is diminished when that inquiry is aimed at lengthening sentences beyond their "statutory maximums" as the Supreme Court defined that phrase in Apprendi and Blakely. In such cases, although a sentencing court still may consider all the facts available to it under Nichols, that ability is now circumscribed by the requirement that, aside from a defendant's prior convictions or admissions, any fact that increases a sentence first must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt

Thanks for this william

[weezer]

What prior criminal conviction does oj have?
What facts do you know of that would cause the judge to increase the sentance beyond the max required by law??

martin, it's never been my contention that orenthal would/should be sentenced beyond the maximum allowed by law.

[martin II]

". . .So when the judge is deciding on Simpson's sentence, may he take into account Simpson's killing Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, and give Simpson a longer sentence than he'd give a first offender charged with the same crimes?

Yes (as I mentioned last year), at least as a matter of federal constitutional law. In sentencing, a judge may take into account any past crimes on Simpson's part, using a preponderance of the evidence standard, even if an earlier jury had found that Simpson's guilt of those crimes hadn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The theory behind modern American sentencing, after all, is that while guilt is about what the defendant did in this case, sentencing may (and should) in part turn on the defendant's general character. That's why first offenders are often treated leniently, but people with long criminal history records are punished more harshly.

Moreover, proof beyond a reasonable doubt has never been required at sentencing. Historically, judges could make decisions based on facts that hadn't been proven in any formal way; certainly facts shown by a preponderance of the evidence suffice. For this very reason, judges could consider alleged past criminal conduct of which the defendant had been acquitted: The acquittal simply shows that the conduct couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and doesn't preclude proof by a preponderance of the evidence. . ."


I believe the above opinion is legally incorrect.imo

[martin II]

"Simpson was found guilty of a violent crime - the fact that he previously was found civilly liable for another violent crime should be no less relevant."

I thought he was found liable. Where does guilty come into play in a civil trial.

[martin II]

I understand that - I truly do - but I'm not sitting behind a bench nor am i in the jury...I'm not even in the courtroom. I was just wanting to dig into the issue of whay OJ did first...I will never have anything to do with his sentence. The purpose for me is just pure human interest - nothing more. You may not see a purpose - but that's what happens to interest me.

Everything that oj was accused of doing is listed in the charges.What he actually did is in question depending some testimony and the tapes and what part you actually believe.

Reviewing what others did is not shifting the blame due oj, but just a effort to understand the case by reviewing all the activity.

[weezer]

I believe the above opinion is legally incorrect.imo

you need to broaden your horizons beyond a 'student' posting opinion/interpretation on a message board. I can only suggest you do some research.

[William Anthony]

I thought he was found liable. Where does guilty come into play in a civil trial.

Martin,

Perhaps, the poster failed to read this.

"aside from a defendant's prior convictions or admissions, any fact that increases a sentence first must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt."

I guess the poster thought that his sentence should be increased to the minimum.:)

[William Anthony]

Perhaps, some to failed to realize that a student is taught to do research, especially if that student is a paralegal. However, the more gemane point is the student posted from a court case that where judges reviewed Supreme Court case law decisions.

[weezer]

I thought he was found liable. Where does guilty come into play in a civil trial.

martin, I was posting as to whether or not orenthal's prior bad acts (criminal and civil) could be used in sentencing. It's never been my position that he should/would receive beyond the maximum allowed for this conviction.

[martin II]

"Simpson was found guilty of a violent crime - the fact that he previously was found civilly liable for another violent crime should be no less relevant."

Did the prosecution in their charges against oj list any charge as violent??

[William Anthony]

Martin,

I think it is now clear that the student has shown the less than thorough researcher some relied on that civil findings can not be used to enhance/increase sentencing.

[weezer]

Did the prosecution in their charges against oj list any charge as violent??

you don't believe robbing and kidnapping at gunpoint to be violent? hmmmm

[martin II]

you need to broaden your horizons beyond a 'student' posting opinion/interpretation on a message board. I can only suggest you do some research.

With that said. i believe that opinion is leagally incorrect and the source suspect.:cool:

[weezer]

With that said. i believe that opinion is leagally incorrect and the source suspect.:cool:

Really? Don't tell him :eek:

[Eugene Volokh, October 4, 2008 at 3:59pm]
Could O.J.'s Sentence for Robbery Take Into Account His Killings?

Eugene Volokh (born Yevgeniy Volokh,[1] Russian: Евгений Волох, February 29, 1968) is an American legal commentator and law professor at the UCLA School of Law (located on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles). He publishes the widely-read weblog "The Volokh Conspiracy" and is frequently cited in the American media.

Volokh was born in the city of Kiev in Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union. He emigrated with his family to the United States at age seven. At age 12, he began working as a computer programmer; three years later, he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Math and Computer Science from UCLA. During this period, his achievements were featured in an episode of OMNI: The New Frontier, a television series hosted by Peter Ustinov.[citation needed] In 1992, Volokh received a Juris Doctor degree from the UCLA School of Law. He was a law clerk for Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and later for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court. Since finishing his clerkship, he has been on the faculty for the UCLA School of Law. He is married and has two children.

Volokh is a libertarian-leaning conservative.[2] He is noted for his scholarship on the First and Second Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as on copyright law. He advocates campus speech rights and religious freedom, and opposes racial preferences, having worked as a legal advisor to California's Proposition 209 campaign. He is a critic of what he sees as the overly broad operation of American workplace harassment laws, including those relating to sexual harassment.

On his weblog, Volokh addresses a wide variety of issues, with a focus on politics and law. He has criticized judicial citations of Wikipedia, arguing that information found on Wikipedia may be unreliable.[3]

Volokh's non-academic work has been published in The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Slate, and other publications. His mother, Anne Volokh, founded Movieline magazine (now called Hollywood Life) in 1985. His father, Vladimir Volokh, is a software engineer. His brother, Alexander "Sasha" Volokh, is a co-blogger at the Volokh Conspiracy and a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.

[martin II]

Martin,

Perhaps, the poster failed to read this.

"aside from a defendant's prior convictions or admissions, any fact that increases a sentence first must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt."

I guess the poster thought that his sentence should be increased to the minimum.:)

Maby the poster just did not read accurately or did not understand.:read:

[martin II]

Really? Don't tell him :eek:

[Eugene Volokh, October 4, 2008 at 3:59pm]
Could O.J.'s Sentence for Robbery Take Into Account His Killings?

Eugene Volokh (born Yevgeniy Volokh,[1] Russian: Евгений Волох, February 29, 1968) is an American legal commentator and law professor at the UCLA School of Law (located on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles). He publishes the widely-read weblog "The Volokh Conspiracy" and is frequently cited in the American media.

Volokh was born in the city of Kiev in Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union. He emigrated with his family to the United States at age seven. At age 12, he began working as a computer programmer; three years later, he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Math and Computer Science from UCLA. During this period, his achievements were featured in an episode of OMNI: The New Frontier, a television series hosted by Peter Ustinov.[citation needed] In 1992, Volokh received a Juris Doctor degree from the UCLA School of Law. He was a law clerk for Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and later for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court. Since finishing his clerkship, he has been on the faculty for the UCLA School of Law. He is married and has two children.

Volokh is a libertarian-leaning conservative.[2] He is noted for his scholarship on the First and Second Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as on copyright law. He advocates campus speech rights and religious freedom, and opposes racial preferences, having worked as a legal advisor to California's Proposition 209 campaign. He is a critic of what he sees as the overly broad operation of American workplace harassment laws, including those relating to sexual harassment.

On his weblog, Volokh addresses a wide variety of issues, with a focus on politics and law. He has criticized judicial citations of Wikipedia, arguing that information found on Wikipedia may be unreliable.[3]

Volokh's non-academic work has been published in The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Slate, and other publications. His mother, Anne Volokh, founded Movieline magazine (now called Hollywood Life) in 1985. His father, Vladimir Volokh, is a software engineer. His brother, Alexander "Sasha" Volokh, is a co-blogger at the Volokh Conspiracy and a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.


Cite u.s. Supreme decisions on the issue instead of opinions of a law professor.

[weezer]

Maby the poster just did not read accurately or did not understand.:read:

hmmm -- now that wasn't nice. Here I am trying to help you. You can either continue to rely on our 'student' or the expert. Your choice.

Eugene Volokh
Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law
UCLA School of Law
405 Hilgard Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90095
(310) 206-3926
volokh@law.ucla.edu

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, criminal law, religious freedom law, and church-state relations law at UCLA Law School, where he has also often taught copyright law and a seminar on firearms regulation policy. Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (3d ed. 2008), The Religion Clauses and Related Statutes (2005), and Academic Legal Writing (3d ed. 2007), as well as over 50 law review articles and over 80 op-eds, listed below. He is a member of the The American Law Institute, an Academic Affiliate for the Mayer Brown LLP law firm, and a member of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel.

Volokh also worked for 12 years as a computer programmer, and is still partner in a small software company which sells HP 3000 software that he wrote. He graduated from UCLA with a B.S. in math-computer science at age 15, and has written many articles on computer software. Volokh was born in the USSR; his family emigrated to the U.S. when he was seven years old.

Volokh is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a Weblog that gets over 20,000 unique visitors per weekday.

[martin II]

you don't believe robbing and kidnapping at gunpoint to be violent? hmmmm

What you and i think is not important,What the statue states about the crime commited is.

[martin II]

hmmm -- now that wasn't nice. Here I am trying to help you. You can either continue to rely on our 'student' or the expert. Your choice.

Eugene Volokh
Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law
UCLA School of Law
405 Hilgard Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90095
(310) 206-3926
volokh@law.ucla.edu

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, criminal law, religious freedom law, and church-state relations law at UCLA Law School, where he has also often taught copyright law and a seminar on firearms regulation policy. Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (3d ed. 2008), The Religion Clauses and Related Statutes (2005), and Academic Legal Writing (3d ed. 2007), as well as over 50 law review articles and over 80 op-eds, listed below. He is a member of the The American Law Institute, an Academic Affiliate for the Mayer Brown LLP law firm, and a member of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel.

Volokh also worked for 12 years as a computer programmer, and is still partner in a small software company which sells HP 3000 software that he wrote. He graduated from UCLA with a B.S. in math-computer science at age 15, and has written many articles on computer software. Volokh was born in the USSR; his family emigrated to the U.S. when he was seven years old.

Volokh is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a Weblog that gets over 20,000 unique visitors per weekday.

The issue is whether his opinions are in fact cast in law.if his opinions are not supported by nevada law or supreme court decisions then his opinions are not supported by law and are his opinions.

[weezer]

What you and i think is not important,What the statue states about the crime commited is.

exactly!

[weezer]

12 charges against Simpson.

2 counts First Degree Kidnapping: either a 5 to 15 year sentence on each count or 5 to life.

2 counts Robbery: 2 to 15 years on each count.

2 counts Assault with a Deadly Weapon: 1 to 6 year sentence (but no addditional consecutive sentence for the weapon).

Burglary While Possessing a Firearm: 2 to 15 years (but no additional consecutive sentence for the weapon).

2 counts Coersion: 1 to 6 year sentence on each

Two of the three Conspiracy counts carries a sentence of 1 to 6 years. The third one carries a possible one year sentence.

Judge Glass could effectively sentence orenthal to 70 years to life if she wanted -- She has the discretion to run sentences consecutively

The mimimum sentence under Nevada law, if all sentences ran concurrently would be consecutive sentences of 5 to 15 years, meaning an effective sentence of 10 to 30 years in prison.

[martin II]

hmmm -- now that wasn't nice. Here I am trying to help you. You can either continue to rely on our 'student' or the expert. Your choice.

Eugene Volokh
Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law
UCLA School of Law
405 Hilgard Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90095
(310) 206-3926
volokh@law.ucla.edu

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, criminal law, religious freedom law, and church-state relations law at UCLA Law School, where he has also often taught copyright law and a seminar on firearms regulation policy. Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (3d ed. 2008), The Religion Clauses and Related Statutes (2005), and Academic Legal Writing (3d ed. 2007), as well as over 50 law review articles and over 80 op-eds, listed below. He is a member of the The American Law Institute, an Academic Affiliate for the Mayer Brown LLP law firm, and a member of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel.

Volokh also worked for 12 years as a computer programmer, and is still partner in a small software company which sells HP 3000 software that he wrote. He graduated from UCLA with a B.S. in math-computer science at age 15, and has written many articles on computer software. Volokh was born in the USSR; his family emigrated to the U.S. when he was seven years old.

Volokh is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a Weblog that gets over 20,000 unique visitors per weekday.

Weezer
I will take the Students post of a u.s. supreme court decision on the issue before your educated lawyer/softwear persons opinions anyday. Believe me.

:cool:

[martin II]

12 charges against Simpson.

2 counts First Degree Kidnapping: either a 5 to 15 year sentence on each count or 5 to life.

2 counts Robbery: 2 to 15 years on each count.

2 counts Assault with a Deadly Weapon: 1 to 6 year sentence (but no addditional consecutive sentence for the weapon).

Burglary While Possessing a Firearm: 2 to 15 years (but no additional consecutive sentence for the weapon).

2 counts Coersion: 1 to 6 year sentence on each

Two of the three Conspiracy counts carries a sentence of 1 to 6 years. The third one carries a possible one year sentence.

Judge Glass could effectively sentence orenthal to 70 years to life if she wanted -- She has the discretion to run sentences consecutively

The mimimum sentence under Nevada law, if all sentences ran concurrently would be consecutive sentences of 5 to 15 years, meaning an effective sentence of 10 to 30 years in prison.

Please point out where the word 'VIOLENT" is included in either charge in the state statue.

[martin II]

exactly!

So what did you research tell you about how the nevada statue describe the crimes.That is the question.

[weezer]

Please point out where the word 'VIOLENT" is included in either charge in the state statue.

LOL -- when all else fails, throw out BS. . . .you crack me up. Did I ever post that it was included in either charge?

[weezer]

this is more accurate than my original post:

— Two counts of first-degree kidnapping, felony: life in state prison or a definite term of 15 years, depending on the sentencing judge’s discretion. Parole eligibility begins after five years. Use of a deadly weapon during a kidnapping can add an additional 1-20 years, depending on the circumstances.

— Two counts of robbery with use of a deadly weapon, felony: mandatory 2-15 years in prison, plus a possible additional 1-15 years for use of a weapon.

— Burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon: felony, 2-15 years.

— Two counts of coercion with use of a deadly weapon, felony: 2-12 years in prison.

— Two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, felony: 1-6 years.

— Conspiracy to commit kidnapping, felony: 1-6 years.

— Conspiracy to commit robbery, felony: 1-6 years.

— Conspiracy to commit a crime, gross misdemeanor: 1 year in county jail.

———

Source: Nevada Revised Statutes, Clark County district attorney’s office

[martin II]

LOL -- when all else fails, throw out BS. . . .you crack me up. Did I ever post that it was included in either charge?


You claimed that oj was convicted of a violent crime.

You claimed that the crimes oj was convicted of were VIOLENT crimes.I asked you to show that in the Nevada Law.You have not done so. Without that proof your claim was only a opinion and has nothing to do with the sentencing under the law.
I realize you may want to present the worst possible sentance for oj but it is my opinion that sentencing will be based in nevada law not what you think should be the case.
Got that?:cool:
imo

[martin II]

this is more accurate than my original post:

— Two counts of first-degree kidnapping, felony: life in state prison or a definite term of 15 years, depending on the sentencing judge’s discretion. Parole eligibility begins after five years. Use of a deadly weapon during a kidnapping can add an additional 1-20 years, depending on the circumstances.

— Two counts of robbery with use of a deadly weapon, felony: mandatory 2-15 years in prison, plus a possible additional 1-15 years for use of a weapon.

— Burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon: felony, 2-15 years.

— Two counts of coercion with use of a deadly weapon, felony: 2-12 years in prison.

— Two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, felony: 1-6 years.

— Conspiracy to commit kidnapping, felony: 1-6 years.

— Conspiracy to commit robbery, felony: 1-6 years.

— Conspiracy to commit a crime, gross misdemeanor: 1 year in county jail.

———

Source: Nevada Revised Statutes, Clark County district attorney’s office

I think most posters have seen these charges multiple times since the trial first started. imo

[weezer]

You claimed that oj was convicted of a violent crime.

You claimed that the crimes oj was convicted of were VIOLENT crimes.I asked you to show that in the Nevada Law.You have not done so. Without that proof your claim was only a opinion and has nothing to do with the sentencing under the law.
I realize you may want to present the worst possible sentance for oj but it is my opinion that sentencing will be based in nevada law not what you think should be the case.
Got that?:cool:
imo

it was never more than an opinion. geez. I agree that the sentencing will be based on Nevada law. The discussion was originally centered around whether or not orenthal's prior bad behavior (civil and criminal) could be considered as a basis for what his sentence would be for his latest conviction. Got that? :punch:

[weezer]

I think most posters have seen these charges multiple times since the trial first started. imo

never hurts to post facts. :shrug:

[weezer]

— Two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, felony: 1-6 years.

ASSAULT - Whenever one person makes a willful attempt or threat to injure someone else, and also has an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat such as by flourishing or pointing a dangerous weapon or device at the other. An "assault" may be committed without actually striking or injuring another person. (same as forcible assault)

An assault is any unlawful attempt or offer with force or violence to do a corporal hurt to another, whether from malice or wantonness; for example, by striking at him or even holding up the fist at him in a threatening or insulting manner, or with other circumstances as denote at the time. an intention, coupled with a present ability, of actual violence against his person, as by pointing a weapon at him when he is within reach of it. When the injury is actually inflicted, it amounts to a battery.

Assaults are either simple or aggravated.

1. A simple assault is limited to the use of physical force and result in little or no injury to the victim. Where there is no intention to do any other injury. This is punished at common law by fine and imprisonment.

2. An aggravated assault is one that has in addition to the bare intention to commit it, another object which is also criminal; for example, if a man should fire a pistol at another and miss him, the former would be guilty of an assault with intent to murder; so an assault with intent to rob a man, or with intent to spoil his clothes, and the like, are aggravated assaults, and they are more severely punished than simple assaults.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a074.htm

[martin II]

— Two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, felony: 1-6 years.

ASSAULT - Whenever one person makes a willful attempt or threat to injure someone else, and also has an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat such as by flourishing or pointing a dangerous weapon or device at the other. An "assault" may be committed without actually striking or injuring another person. (same as forcible assault)

An assault is any unlawful attempt or offer with force or violence to do a corporal hurt to another, whether from malice or wantonness; for example, by striking at him or even holding up the fist at him in a threatening or insulting manner, or with other circumstances as denote at the time. an intention, coupled with a present ability, of actual violence against his person, as by pointing a weapon at him when he is within reach of it. When the injury is actually inflicted, it amounts to a battery.

Assaults are either simple or aggravated.

1. A simple assault is limited to the use of physical force and result in little or no injury to the victim. Where there is no intention to do any other injury. This is punished at common law by fine and imprisonment.

2. An aggravated assault is one that has in addition to the bare intention to commit it, another object which is also criminal; for example, if a man should fire a pistol at another and miss him, the former would be guilty of an assault with intent to murder; so an assault with intent to rob a man, or with intent to spoil his clothes, and the like, are aggravated assaults, and they are more severely punished than simple assaults.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a074.htm


OJ did none of the above but If this is not from Nevada law it has little instructive value as far as the sentencing is concerned.
I think oj should get the minimum on the serious charges and time served on the others.:cool::cool::patriot:
seeya

[martin II]

it was never more than an opinion. geez. I agree that the sentencing will be based on Nevada law. The discussion was originally centered around whether or not orenthal's prior bad behavior (civil and criminal) could be considered as a basis for what his sentence would be for his latest conviction. Got that? :punch:

Prior bad behavior is when one is charged and found not guilty right?

i am out of here.

[weezer]

Prior bad behavior is when one is charged and found not guilty right?

i am out of here.

only in yours and orenthal's worlds.....;):seeya:

[martin II]

only in yours and orenthal's worlds.....;):seeya:

I see you have tried very hard to prove your claim/point but sorry to say you missed the truth boat.hahaha

[William Anthony]

I see you have tried very hard to prove your claim/point but sorry to say you missed the truth boat.hahaha

Martin,

As I recall the discussion, it was about whether or not a sentence could be increased by a civil finding and/or a criminal decision. The student has never argued that it could not be enhanced/increased by prior convictions on a criminal conviction. However, some seem to think that an incorrect interpretation of Constitutional law, provided by someone who does not have a rudimentary understanding of Constitutional law should in some convoluted manner support their position. To me it is much like saying that the post they made was not offensive, even though it was clearly meant to be offensive. However, let me not digress. The salient point is that aggravating factors, if tried by the jury and prior convictions can be used to enhance/increase the sentence/ Given that a sentence has a range in between the minimum and the statutory maximum, any sentence given beyond the minimum could not enhance/'increase the sentence, since any sentence in between does not enhance the allotted maximum sentence. The argument falls upon it face, imho. It is much the same as saying, I gave him $15 dollars change for a $10 bill and I decided to so do. The reason that I decided to give him the larger amount is because more likely than not he probably dd give me $10 dollars, even though the amount in the cash drawer indicates by a preponderance of the evidence he is entitled to the lesser amount. I think that any one endowed with a modicum of common sense realizes that it would take a proof beyond a reasonable doubt to afford the greater amount of change. I guess some are willing to invest in nothing to do about nothing, and will not believe their eyes.

[William Anthony]

I am pleased to see that some here want to discuss the application of the law as to how it applies to Simpson.

[Redmama]

How many times do I have to reiterate that no one is excusing Simpson's conduct? There must be some measuring apparatus to asses his conduct in determining the next phase whether the punishment fits the crime, imho.

Not sure how many times you feel you need to reiterate - You are only one person's viewpoint. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I want to be. I understand that your interest is the legal field - I think it is a great endeavor. I want to hear other's opinions as well. I want to understand what makes people do things - what makes them do things I would never think of - I don't learn anything when there are so many people involved (in the crime - not on the board).

It seems anytime someone answers a question about OJ and his specifc decisions, the thread turns into a legal argument or an argument about what thread is should/shouldn't be on, etc., etc., etc.

The answer just might be it is impossible and that is okay too - I was just asking.

Truthfully, the law bores me to death (hee hee) - please take that in the way it was intended - funny - with a little truth folded in - but nothing personal.