The W
Views: 98899383
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
14.9.14 2320
The W - Current Events & Politics - Canned Juice
This thread has 11 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.43
Pages: 1
(273 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (14 total)
jfkfc
Liverwurst








Since: 9.2.02

Since last post: 60 days
Last activity: 6 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.75
O.J. Simpson was just sentenced (nydailynews.com), and will be in jail, it appears, for anywhere from 6 - 21 years.

Karma - 13 years to the day of his acquittal.
Promote this thread!
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 36 days
Last activity: 2 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.55
    Originally posted by jfkfc
    O.J. Simpson was just sentenced (nydailynews.com), and will be in jail, it appears, for anywhere from 6 - 21 years.

    Karma - 13 years to the day of his acquittal.

Karma (n, ˈkär-mə) - [1] the law of cause and effect or the law of retribution; [2] the principle that every action, good or evil, will eventually return to impact a person's life

OJ was convicted for what happened in Vegas, not for what happened in LA.

- StingArmy
CEOIII
Boudin rouge








Since: 25.7.02
From: Franklin, PA

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 15 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.56
    Originally posted by StingArmy
      Originally posted by jfkfc
      O.J. Simpson was just sentenced (nydailynews.com), and will be in jail, it appears, for anywhere from 6 - 21 years.

      Karma - 13 years to the day of his acquittal.

    Karma (n, ˈkär-mə) - [1] the law of cause and effect or the law of retribution; [2] the principle that every action, good or evil, will eventually return to impact a person's life

    OJ was convicted for what happened in Vegas, not for what happened in LA.

    - StingArmy


Uh huh.

You honestly believe that, if this was ANYONE ELSE, pulling the EXACT SAME CRIME, they would've gotten between 9 and 33 years? (I don't know where StingArmy is getting 6-21.) No one got shot, no one died.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing they threw the bookshelf at OJ, I'm saying, as Kornheiser and Wilbon said on PTI, he was on a "lifetime parole" of sorts, and he violated it. That's why they lowered the boom, believing otherwise is horribly naive.



I'm Charlie Owens, good night, and good luck.
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 36 days
Last activity: 2 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.61
    Originally posted by CEOIII
    Uh huh.

    You honestly believe that, if this was ANYONE ELSE, pulling the EXACT SAME CRIME, they would've gotten between 9 and 33 years? (I don't know where StingArmy is getting 6-21.) No one got shot, no one died.

First, it was jfkfc that said 6-21 years, not me.

Second, you should maybe read up on sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimums, the hierarchy of crimes and violent offenses, etc. Simpson was convicted of kidnapping and armed robbery. About the only things worse than that he could have been convicted of are murder and rape. Not only that, but there were something like 10 counts he was convicted of.

Third, in some states a kidnapping conviction alone would guarantee him life in prison. Getting 9 years with that many convictions for crimes of that serious a nature is nothing and was to be expected AT THE LEAST, no matter who the defendant was. But if it makes you feel better to think that OJ is getting his just desserts or something silly like that, you go right ahead and think that.

Incidentally, are you suggesting that if someone got shot or died then a sentence as short as 9 years would be appropriate??

    I'm not saying it's a bad thing they threw the bookshelf at OJ, I'm saying, as Kornheiser and Wilbon said on PTI, he was on a "lifetime parole" of sorts, and he violated it. That's why they lowered the boom, believing otherwise is horribly naive.

I don't disagree with the idea that Simpson was on a sort of lifetime parole, but all that really means is that if he did anything wrong, he was most likely going to be found guilty. Finding of guilt/not guilt is a separate process from sentencing. OJ's sentence wouldn't have been any lighter even if Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were still alive today.

- StingArmy
CEOIII
Boudin rouge








Since: 25.7.02
From: Franklin, PA

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 15 hours
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.56
    Originally posted by StingArmy
    First, it was jfkfc that said 6-21 years, not me.


That's on me. Quoted the wrong person.

    Originally posted by StingArmy
    Second, you should maybe read up on sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimums, the hierarchy of crimes and violent offenses, etc. Simpson was convicted of kidnapping and armed robbery. About the only things worse than that he could have been convicted of are murder and rape. Not only that, but there were something like 10 counts he was convicted of.

    Third, in some states a kidnapping conviction alone would guarantee him life in prison. Getting 9 years with that many convictions for crimes of that serious a nature is nothing and was to be expected AT THE LEAST, no matter who the defendant was. But if it makes you feel better to think that OJ is getting his just desserts or something silly like that, you go right ahead and think that.


And if you wish to believe something just as silly as "OJ's acquittal on a double murder the entire free world and 80% of communist Cuba knows he committed had nothing to do with the sentence he got in this case" I will do nothing to discourage you.

    Originally posted by StingArmy
    Incidentally, are you suggesting that if someone got shot or died then a sentence as short as 9 years would be appropriate??


Hell no. I'm saying the sentence in this specific case-a robbery and dubious kidnapping(dubious, IMO, because "we're forcing you to come with us, against your will, to a location in which you're not likely to be found by the authoritites, and remain there until we decide to release or kill you" is kidnapping, "we're forcing you to stay in this room that you were already in while we proceed to rob you" is not, although I concede that I haven't been following this case that closely and may have the facts wrong) in which no shots were fired and no lives were taken seems harsh to me.

    Originally posted by StingArmy
    I don't disagree with the idea that Simpson was on a sort of lifetime parole, but all that really means is that if he did anything wrong, he was most likely going to be found guilty. Finding of guilt/not guilt is a separate process from sentencing. OJ's sentence wouldn't have been any lighter even if Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were still alive today.


So we are agreeing OJ is where he belongs, in a cell, for a good long while, we're just disagreeing on whether his sentence is as harsh as it is because of who he is and what he got away with. Long as we're clear.



I'm Charlie Owens, good night, and good luck.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 3 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
I thought it was funny that the defense attorney said that the judge should be lenient because OJ was a "first time offender." Does the Goldman civil suit not count?



-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

"...Oh, the band is out on the field!! He's gonna go into the end zone! He's gone into the end zone!!
-- Joe Starkey -- November 20, 1982 -- The Play --
Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 6 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.96
    Originally posted by Zeruel
    I thought it was funny that the defense attorney said that the judge should be lenient because OJ was a "first time offender." Does the Goldman civil suit not count?


Civil suits do not count toward criminal offenses, even if it was a civil suit looking for compensation for a murder.



"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 32 days
Last activity: 1 day
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.45
And wouldn't this typically have been pleaded out before going to trial?



Perception is reality
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.92
    Originally posted by StingArmy
    Third, in some states a kidnapping conviction alone would guarantee him life in prison.


Here's where I am a bit confused (and this is more of a legal questions) - how does simply saying "Don't let nobody out of this room" constitute kidnapping? How you can convict someone of both armed robbery and kidnapping in this particular instance?

I understand that it is explicitly stating an intent on detaining someone against their will and all - but isn't that kind of a critical part to committing armed robbery?






NonDescript
Tue @ 9a PDT

NonDescript Podcast

Homepage
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.53
You wanted the best, you got... Out of Context Quote of the Week.

"Two men enter. One man leaves...with groceries." (SchippeWreck)


    Originally posted by Leroy
      Originally posted by StingArmy
      Third, in some states a kidnapping conviction alone would guarantee him life in prison.


    Here's where I am a bit confused (and this is more of a legal questions) - how does simply saying "Don't let nobody out of this room" constitute kidnapping? How you can convict someone of both armed robbery and kidnapping in this particular instance?

    I understand that it is explicitly stating an intent on detaining someone against their will and all - but isn't that kind of a critical part to committing armed robbery?


...which is probably what Team Angle Orenthal James will say in appeal, that it's kind of hard to kidnap someone if no one leaves the room. Being unlawfully detained, yes, but not kidnapping.



Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 96 days
Last activity: 12 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.57
Courtesy of Find Law (criminal.findlaw.com):
    Originally posted by Find Law
    Under federal and state law, kidnapping is commonly defined as the taking of a person from one place to another against his or her will, OR THE CONFINING OF A PERSON TO A CONTROLLED SPACE [emphasis added].
You may also refer to NRS 200.310 to 200.359 (leg.state.nv.us) for greater detail, along with sentencing guidelines.

Since Mr. Simpson's guilt was determined by jury as a matter of fact, not law, there is nothing to appeal. Any appeal by Mr. Simpson would need to focus on a claim of judicial error, such as, say, jury selection. But as regards the crime of kidnapping the law is quite clear, and quite easily understood.




http://www.americasupportsyou.mil


"Share your food with the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless. Give clothes to those who need them, and do not hide from relatives who need your help." - Isaiah 58:7 (New Living Translation)
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.92
    Originally posted by Downtown Bookie
    Under federal and state law, kidnapping is commonly defined as the taking of a person from one place to another against his or her will, OR THE CONFINING OF A PERSON TO A CONTROLLED SPACE [emphasis added].


I understand that this was the nature of the kidnapping charge. My point is that it's very difficult to commit armed robbery without "CONFINING A PERSON TO A CONTROLLED SPACE" - which seems like an important, dare I say essential, aspect of armed robbery. But I am no expert in that matter, so...

All I am saying is that it seems redundant.

(edited by Leroy on 6.12.08 1839)



NonDescript
Tue @ 9a PDT

NonDescript Podcast

Homepage
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 3 hours
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
    Originally posted by Leroy
      Originally posted by Downtown Bookie
      Under federal and state law, kidnapping is commonly defined as the taking of a person from one place to another against his or her will, OR THE CONFINING OF A PERSON TO A CONTROLLED SPACE [emphasis added].


    I understand that this was the nature of the kidnapping charge. My point is that it's very difficult to commit armed robbery without "CONFINING A PERSON TO A CONTROLLED SPACE" - which seems like an important, dare I say essential, aspect of armed robbery. But I am no expert in that matter, so...

    All I am saying is that it seems redundant.

    (edited by Leroy on 6.12.08 1839)


Yeah, it seems to me that under that description for kidnapping, wouldn't every bank robbery where people were ordered to stay still be considered kidnapping as well?



-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

"...Oh, the band is out on the field!! He's gonna go into the end zone! He's gone into the end zone!!
-- Joe Starkey -- November 20, 1982 -- The Play --
dMp
Banger








Since: 4.1.02
From: The Hague, Netherlands (Europe)

Since last post: 22 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.84
    Originally posted by Zeruel
      Originally posted by Leroy
        Originally posted by Downtown Bookie
        Under federal and state law, kidnapping is commonly defined as the taking of a person from one place to another against his or her will, OR THE CONFINING OF A PERSON TO A CONTROLLED SPACE [emphasis added].


      I understand that this was the nature of the kidnapping charge. My point is that it's very difficult to commit armed robbery without "CONFINING A PERSON TO A CONTROLLED SPACE" - which seems like an important, dare I say essential, aspect of armed robbery. But I am no expert in that matter, so...

      All I am saying is that it seems redundant.

      (edited by Leroy on 6.12.08 1839)


    Yeah, it seems to me that under that description for kidnapping, wouldn't every bank robbery where people were ordered to stay still be considered kidnapping as well?


Well I guess you could try and pull off a robbery and send out those present. But I doubt that happens often.
Perhaps it has to do with the location where the 'kidnap' takes place?
Or it matters wether the q & a "can I leave?" "no!" have been said.





Avatar Mud
Thread rated: 5.43
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Hey Canadians!
Next thread: Prop 8 The Musical
Previous thread: O'Reilly Leaving Radio Show
(273 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
When I opened this thread I assumed it was about the inability of turkeys to fly or how Chi Chi Rodriguez announced we've all been mispronouncing his name for years.
- Barbwire Mike, Les Nesman Was Right (2005)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Canned JuiceRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.454 seconds.