Come on guys I listen to you all and have to shake my head. You all keep talking about what happened a long time ago but I wish you all would wake up and see that he acquitted for it. Leave it there because that is where it needs to stay. Now if this lady hammered him for that reason then what do you say for her. I agree that usually when someone gets in trouble for armed robbery they usually have the weapon in their hand. That one really confused me there.

But to think that someone can rob you of your stuff and you don't do anything about that is crazy. All of you all know that you would have wanted your stuff also. Now the stupid thing here was the gun but outside of that he had a legal right to go in there and get his stuff because he knew that it was there.

First of all, the stuff was not his. Secondly, if the stuff had belonged to OJ, then the legal way to recover it was to go to the police. He had no right to enter somebody else's hotel room and demand what he may or may not believed to be his property. There is no way that he believed that he was acting in a lawful manner.

 

As for not having a gun in his hand during an armed robbery, the law is clear. If you take armed thugs into a bank to rob it, you are guilty of armed robbery just the same as your armed accomplices are. If one of your accomplices gets trigger happy and kills a guard, then you are as guilty of murder as the trigger man.

 

OJ got what he deserved. He is lucky nobody got hurt.

I was listening to the judge and can't remember if she said stupidity or ignorance, but thought it was pretty good. She said she couldn't tell at first if it was out of ignorance or arrogance or both, and after having set through the trial it was both.

We have a very flawed legal system.

^ Yes we do. While I think OJ got what he deserved it's sad when your justice is directly related to how good of an attorney you can afford.

^ Yes we do. While I think OJ got what he deserved it's sad when your justice is directly related to how good of an attorney you can afford.

 

The problem I have with it is that he is going to jail now for murder. I have no problem with him going to jail and I think he's a scumbag, but he should've been in prison already. A normal person probably wouldn't be going to prison for stealing his/her own stuff (can you steal your own stuff?).

The problem I have with it is that he is going to jail now for murder. I have no problem with him going to jail and I think he's a scumbag, but he should've been in prison already. A normal person probably wouldn't be going to prison for stealing his/her own stuff (can you steal your own stuff?).

If a "normal" person did what OJ did here they would be going to jail.

If a "normal" person did what OJ did here they would be going to jail.

 

They wouldn't be going for a minimum of 9 years.

They wouldn't be going for a minimum of 9 years.

Then maybe I am misunderstanding his conviction. For the charges he was convicted of the minimun number of years he can serve is 9, correct? If you a normal person were convicted of the same crimes why would they not have to serve the minimum number of years? Is there some sort of normal guy discount I'm not aware of? Is the 9 years not what the law requires considering what he was convicted of?

Then maybe I am misunderstanding his conviction. For the charges he was convicted of the minimun number of years he can serve is 9, correct? If you a normal person were convicted of the same crimes why would they not have to serve the minimum number of years? Is there some sort of normal guy discount I'm not aware of? Is the 9 years not what the law requires considering what he was convicted of?

 

Based on the sentence he received. I am assuming the person's point is that someone other than OJ would have received a lesser sentence, something that I agree with.

 

I thought the judge in her sentencing statement rambled on to the point of overkill about how she was not considering OJ's past case in determining this sentence. No need for her to go on for that length - or make any statement at all for that matter, since it's abundantly obviously the law doesn't allow it. Almost gave one the impression that she was desperate to explain away the appearance that the sentence did indeed take the murder acquittal into account.

Then maybe I am misunderstanding his conviction. For the charges he was convicted of the minimun number of years he can serve is 9, correct? If you a normal person were convicted of the same crimes why would they not have to serve the minimum number of years? Is there some sort of normal guy discount I'm not aware of? Is the 9 years not what the law requires considering what he was convicted of?

 

You can argue all you want but O.J. received his sentence based on the murder case. Everyone saw this as an opportunity to finally bring him to justice. There are many people who would probably received a very minimum sentence for these crimes, if not probation.

You can argue all you want but O.J. received his sentence based on the murder case. Everyone saw this as an opportunity to finally bring him to justice. There are many people who would probably received a very minimum sentence for these crimes, if not probation.

 

Highly doubtful anyone would have received a probation sentence in light of the involvement of guns. But a "non-OJ" person very likely would have received a lesser sentence than what he got. Frankly, I don't feel the least bit sorry for the jerk, but it doesn't speak well for our criminal justice system if you beleive - as I do - that part of his sentence was based on his questionable acquittal in the prior case.

Was this a jury trial?

Was this a jury trial?

 

Yes.

Highly doubtful anyone would have received a probation sentence in light of the involvement of guns. But a "non-OJ" person very likely would have received a lesser sentence than what he got. Frankly, I don't feel the least bit sorry for the jerk, but it doesn't speak well for our criminal justice system if you beleive - as I do - that part of his sentence was based on his questionable acquittal in the prior case.

 

I don't feel sorry for him either, but it still was a strange way to convict him for previous crimes.

What goes around comes around OJ!