OJ Found guilty on all charges... Karma's a Bitch

[nthfinity]

Jury finds O.J. Simpson guilty on all charges

By LINDA DEUTSCH – 42 minutes ago
LAS VEGAS (AP) — O.J. Simpson, who went from American sports idol to celebrity-in-exile after he was acquitted of murder in 1995, was found guilty Friday of robbing two sports-memorabilia dealers at gunpoint in a Las Vegas hotel room.
Simpson, 61, could go to prison for life.
A weary and somber Simpson released a heavy sigh as the charges were read by the clerk in Clark County District Court. He was immediately taken into custody.
The Hall of Fame football star was convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery and 12 other charges for gathering up five men a year ago and storming into a room at a hotel-casino, where the group seized several game balls, plaques and photos. Prosecutors said two of the men with him were armed; one of them said Simpson asked him to bring a gun.
Simpson's co-defendant, Clarence "C.J." Stewart, 54, was also convicted on all charges.
The verdict came 13 years to the day after Simpson was cleared of murdering his ex-wife and a friend of hers in Los Angeles in one of the most sensational trials of the 20th century.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
LAS VEGAS (AP) — O.J. Simpson has been found guilty on all charges in the gunpoint robbery of two sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas casino hotel room more than a year ago.
The 61-year-old former football faces up to life in prison.
A somber Simpson released a heavy sigh as the charges were read Friday in Clark County District Court. He was immediately taken into custody.
The verdict comes 13 years to the day after Simpson was acquitted of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, in Los Angeles.
Co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart also was found guilty on all charges and taken into custody.
The men were tried on 12 criminal charges.

[nthfinity]

TBH

I think this case was entrapment to begin with; and a farce of the justice system. He should be free for THIS "crime" .... stealing back your stolen goods; that are then put on Ebay and pull a higher value because OJ was trying to steal back his stolen goods... All the while, his accomplice recorded the whole event... why?

.... yet, he should be in prison for the last 14? years for the double murder.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by nthfinity TBH I think this case was entrapment to begin with; and a farce of the justice system. He should be free for THIS "crime" .... stealing back your stolen goods; that are then put on Ebay and pull a higher value because OJ was trying to steal back his stolen goods... All the while, his accomplice recorded the whole event... why? .... yet, he should be in prison for the last 14? years for the double murder.

This case was a very scary reality that once again highlighted the fact that the system is easily manipulated by prosecutors with agendas.

[Mattk]

I thought it was pretty clear cut. If it's stolen off you, it's not actually your's anymore. But that's not really the point. If you're running into someone's hotel room brandishing guns, that's armed robbery and a whole new ball game.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by Mattk I thought it was pretty clear cut. If it's stolen off you, it's not actually your's anymore. But that's not really the point. If you're running into someone's hotel room brandishing guns, that's armed robbery and a whole new ball game.

The prosecutor had an agenda here, this is the type of case that makes careers.

I bolded the text that makes no sense. Are you trying to say that if your property is stolen you lose ownership thereof? Jesoos - when did Australia become a socialist commune?

[HeilSvenska]

Yeah... What's up with that?

[Mattk]

Are you trying to say that if your property is stolen you lose ownership thereof?

Not precisely. Possession gives title. If you take someone else's things, you have a weak title over that stuff until they ask for it back, upon which you must give way to original/superior title. They cannot simply snatch it back. If they take it away if you're not looking, maybe call it evens.

A logical reaction upon stuff being stolen would be perhaps to call the police, but Simpson and his mates obviously did not have the requisite intellect to deduce that solution. Or, do the American thing and sue them, although it's probably easier to get a writ of declaration. Most people give way to reason and the truth, especially when faced with court costs. In any case, it is illegal to steal back your stolen goods, even if you have superior title. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I still think this is pretty simple. There may be oddities about why it was all filmed but that doesn't matter. It obviously happened. There were five distinct heads corresponding to five acts.
1. Conspiracy, which is redundant because it happened. I'm surprised the prosecutors didn't drop this.
2. Burglary - they entered the hotel room with guns - pretty obvious
3. Robbery - they stole stuff - bloody obvious
4. Assault - they were brandishing weapons - a reasonable person would have been under an apprehension of imminent harm.
5. Kidnapping - which I was surprised they were charged with. I wouldn't have that it was very provable.

The only appealable thing I can see is the presence of a jury (although I'm not sure Nevada allows for trial by judge alone). I see it as a recipe for disaster for a jury to be present in high profile cases against unpopular accused. But I'm not sure this would have any effect on the end result, therefore not a miscarriage of justice.

I would tentatively agree that the prosecutor had an agenda, and definitely a view to great publicity. There were far too many charges. He didn't need to charge the gang with conspiracy if they'd already done it! They were also charged and convicted of 'coercion' which I know little about. It doesn't seem like a particularly serious offence in light of the whole situation. Even burglary seems to be redundant in light of the armed robbery charge, as would assault. This really only boiled down to one crime of armed robbery. But of course, 'convicted of all twelve charges' sounds better than 'convicted of two charges'.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by Mattk Not precisely. Possession gives title. If you take someone else's things, you have a weak title over that stuff until they ask for it back, upon which you must give way to original/superior title. They cannot simply snatch it back. If they take it away if you're not looking, maybe call it evens. A logical reaction upon stuff being stolen would be perhaps to call the police, but Simpson and his mates obviously did not have the requisite intellect to deduce that solution. Or, do the American thing and sue them, although it's probably easier to get a writ of declaration. Most people give way to reason and the truth, especially when faced with court costs. In any case, it is illegal to steal back your stolen goods, even if you have superior title. Two wrongs don't make a right. I still think this is pretty simple. There may be oddities about why it was all filmed but that doesn't matter. It obviously happened. There were five distinct heads corresponding to five acts. 1. Conspiracy, which is redundant because it happened. I'm surprised the prosecutors didn't drop this. 2. Burglary - they entered the hotel room with guns - pretty obvious 3. Robbery - they stole stuff - bloody obvious 4. Assault - they were brandishing weapons - a reasonable person would have been under an apprehension of imminent harm. 5. Kidnapping - which I was surprised they were charged with. I wouldn't have that it was very provable. The only appealable thing I can see is the presence of a jury (although I'm not sure Nevada allows for trial by judge alone). I see it as a recipe for disaster for a jury to be present in high profile cases against unpopular accused. But I'm not sure this would have any effect on the end result, therefore not a miscarriage of justice. I would tentatively agree that the prosecutor had an agenda, and definitely a view to great publicity. There were far too many charges. He didn't need to charge the gang with conspiracy if they'd already done it! They were also charged and convicted of 'coercion' which I know little about. It doesn't seem like a particularly serious offence in light of the whole situation. Even burglary seems to be redundant in light of the armed robbery charge, as would assault. This really only boiled down to one crime of armed robbery. But of course, 'convicted of all twelve charges' sounds better than 'convicted of two charges'.

I will make some calls on Monday to clarity - but I do believe you are incorrect.

You may retake your stolen property - you may not commit a crime to do so though.

[Mattk]

^Well, it seems Simpson did commit other crimes, regardless of who's right about this stealing back stolen property business. Not being from the US, I reckon you might be right, but he's really fucked up this time, and storming someone's hotel room with guns is just not on.