I was about to say exactly this. I am an attorney in juvenile court in Ohio (I know you are or used to be a juvenile court magistrate, so I REALLY hope you’re not where I am!) and I have to explain this very carefully to EVERY client who is charged with kidnapping. They all assume that kidnapping means that you have to take someone from one place to another against their will. Simply restraining their movement so they can’t go where they want to go is enough, and people just don’t get that. I wish the legislature would come up with another name for it so I didn’t have to waste five minutes explaining it to people every time it comes up.
Oh, and as for Simpson, I’m always a bit sad when someone screws up their life so royally, especially a life of such privilege and opportunity as he had. However, I can’t be too upset, knowing that at least he’s still alive.
I am glad that he’s going to serve time for the crimes he committed. I am kind of sad that his kids don’t get to see their dad for six years, and that his name and reputation have found ways to sink even lower in the eyes of the public. I am kind of shocked that he said he never meant to do anything wrong, because that implies that he thought breaking into somebody’s hotel room and taking stuff was his right.
As anti-Simpson as I am, I have to agree with you. This whole trial seemed like a kangaroo court made up of flimsy evidence.
The judge went by the letter of the law instead of the spirit of justice. In my opinion of course.
I’m now a muni court magistrate in NE Ohio. I’ve never been a juvenile court magistrate (although I did a four-month rotation in juvenile court as a prosecutor).
I will agree and say that the kidnapping charge is bullshit because it is double-dipping.
What kind of armed robbery are you aware of where the robber allows people to come and go as they please? So, it seems that by definition, any armed robbery would also include the charge of kidnapping, a scenario the NV legislature surely didn’t intend, or they simply would have increased the armed robbery penalties to reflect that.
I’m not an OJ fan, but they nailed him to the wall on this one…
I admit, I am sad that someone who had great talent as an athlete, and could have chosen to be a great role model turned into such a prick.
Murder charge aside, it does not matter if I believe he did it or not, he was apparently abusive towards his exwife. Abuse is never something that should be emulated.
Having the opinion that you can take the law into your own hands and end up committing armed robbery and unlawful detainer[kidnapping] needs punishment. If mrAru had held several people at gunpoint, comitting unlawful detainer and armed robbery he certainly would have been sentenced just like OJ.
I do not understand how anybody can think it is OK to hold someone at gunpoint and NOT do jail time.
And it would NOT have played in his original criminal trial in Santa Monica if that horses ass Gil Garcetti had not agreed to move it downtown without so much as a fight. Talk about having your head jammed ---- GG is the guy who deserves the blame for losing that case.
I still vividly remember bringing in the morning paper and finding on the bottom of some inside page the story of how garcettit agreed to moveth trial downtown – I threw it on the table and told my wife “they just lost the case”.
The legislature clearly intended exactly what you claim they did not. The law is clear, and Mr. Simpson and his co-defendant violated that law.
Can I envision armed robbery that does not involve kidnapping? Sure. Put a gun in your pocket and break into a house or steal a car. Now you’re armed and you’re committing robbery.
Basically, Simpson tried to deny that he broke into the room, that there were weapons involved, or that anyone was threatened or held against their will.
Three of the people who helped him turned state’s witness and contradicted his defense. An audio recording of the incident, made by one of the memorabilia dealers also contradicted much of the defense.
I couldn’t care less whether OJ went to jail or not, then or now.
I do find it interesting how many people think justice or law was upheld. Punishment and enforcement have always been arbitrary and uneven, why was/is it so important this one criminal gets punished?
BTW I do think he was involved in the previous murders and I think this was a make up call.
I disagree totally. While I’m pretty sure he did indeed do the two murders he’s infamous for (I mean, c’mon!), the prosecution’s botch of that trial, the contaminated evidence and compromised testimony of at least one prosecution witness (the racist cop), all called for a not guilty verdict. Because the State ended up unable to show evidence “beyond reasonable doubt” , the jury did what it was supposed to do.
The thing with the memorabilia and the holding multiple persons at gunpoint, though…there was eyewitness testimony, which is not so easily tossed aside even when said the aroma of said eyewitnesses has a bouquet of eau de sleaze. So he got what was coming to him that time.
Personally I haven’t much emotional charge wrt the whole affair, one way or another. He’s just another fucked-up famous guy; people do worse crimes a dozen times a day, and some of them get away with them unscathed, while others get penalized all out of proportion to their misdeeds, or for things they didn’t even do. Bummer, for sure, but of very little consequence in the wider view.
