^ Stupid for using thugs and strong arm tactics to do it. Extra stupid for bringing along a gun. If the stuff was his, that's what lawyers and the courts are for. Arrogant for thinking he would get away with it. He supposedly had a victory party planned for the evening the verdict was read and he was hauled off to jail. Even at that late date, he thought he wouldn't be held accountable. I should watch a Police Squad movie tonight. No, OJ, we're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you.
I don't deny the stupidity of the act I do deny that it merits 5+ years in jail When there are people that do less time for taking a life... this seems VERY heavy handed That said, I do prefer a heavy handed sentence to none at all
Well the gun alone probably carries a minimum sentence, attach that with the actual crime and then the years go up. I don't know though; armed robbery doesn't seem like a minimal crime to me.
That's true about the gun--where I live, there's definitely a minimum sentence if you use a gun in your crime.
Okay, I'm confused. You think he did it. but you think he's innocent? How exactly does that work? Is it some special kind of justice system that only the rich and famous (which is EXACTLY why he got off in 1994) know about?
While OJ probably killed his wife and her lover, he was found not guilty of the crime in a court of law, however flawed and Three Stooge-like the prosecution was.
How will OJ continue to conduct a relentless search for his wife's murderer now that he's behind bars??? And won't his golf game suffer? Does no one care?
He's innocent because a jury of his peers deemed him to be. What we think about the situation, whether he did it or not, doesn't matter.
He was not found Innocent, he was found Not Guilty. There is a difference. 5 years for armed robbery with a firearm? Sound lenient to me.
Even in the US, there are often still minimum sentences if you use a firearm in your crime. The Second Amendment confers upon us the right to bear arms, but the law requires that we bear them responsibly. Personally, I wish we had the system the Scots used to have, where the verdicts, instead of guilty/not guilty were proven/not proven. That's more accurate as to what courts really find: just because "a jury of your peers" rules in your favor doesn't mean you didn't in fact do it.
+1 Anyway, regards the more recent case, it seems a fairly stiff sentence but since his co-defendant got the same, I'm happy to take the judge at her word that the previous case (rightly) hasn't affected this one.
Isn't that basically the same thing? Our system of justice says that one is innocent until *proven* guilty.
Innocent and guilty carry a moral weighting as well, where proven/ not proven removes that moral fiber and deals only with being able to prove or not that the person committed the crime.
But they offered a bunch of the other people in the room plea bargains, and OJ never got one of those.