Jump to content

Talk:O. J. Simpson robbery case: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 104: Line 104:


: I don't think this is necessarily the best place to discuss this, but... as an American law student, all I can offer is what I've learned, and how I understand it. So, in response to your questions,
: I don't think this is necessarily the best place to discuss this, but... as an American law student, all I can offer is what I've learned, and how I understand it. So, in response to your questions,
<br />1. Whether or not the items in question belonged to O.J. Simpson hasn't been decided. From what I understand, SOME the items were AT SOME POINT his belongings, which at some point were stolen from him and sold at auction. Other items never belonged to him, such as a football that a fan had collected from a game, but Simpson ''felt'' they were his because of the special meaning they held for him. In any event, even if an item has been stolen from you, American law outlines vigilante action as generally being illegal. If you find that someone has stolen something from you, you cannot just steal it back; you have to go through the appropriate venues (which usually requires a trip to the local police station, the filing of a report, and then an official investigation) in order to receive your property back. What O.J. did, regardless if the items were actually his, was illegal.
<br />::1. Whether or not the items in question belonged to O.J. Simpson hasn't been decided. From what I understand, SOME the items were AT SOME POINT his belongings, which at some point were stolen from him and sold at auction. Other items never belonged to him, such as a football that a fan had collected from a game, but Simpson ''felt'' they were his because of the special meaning they held for him. In any event, even if an item has been stolen from you, American law outlines vigilante action as generally being illegal. If you find that someone has stolen something from you, you cannot just steal it back; you have to go through the appropriate venues (which usually requires a trip to the local police station, the filing of a report, and then an official investigation) in order to receive your property back. What O.J. did, regardless if the items were actually his, was illegal.
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
2. I don't know Nevada's laws specifically, but again, in the United States, you must apply for and receive a permit to own a firearm, and separately, a permit to carry a firearm. Without a permit, no, you may not carry a firearm. I don't know if Simpson had a permit. Regardless, whether or not he had the appropriate permission to be carrying a firearm does not give him permission to use his firearm to threaten others, or rob them. A firearm that is carried by a citizen may only be used in self-defensed; Simpson was obviously not acting in self-defense in this case.
::2. I don't know Nevada's laws specifically, but again, in the United States, you must apply for and receive a permit to own a firearm, and separately, a permit to carry a firearm. Without a permit, no, you may not carry a firearm. I don't know if Simpson had a permit. Regardless, whether or not he had the appropriate permission to be carrying a firearm does not give him permission to use his firearm to threaten others, or rob them. A firearm that is carried by a citizen may only be used in self-defensed; Simpson was obviously not acting in self-defense in this case.
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
3. It has nothing to do with Simpson being with someone who carried a gun. Simpson was found guilty of being the "ringleader" of the group of people who robbed the individual in possession of the items in question. Because he directed others to hold the people in the room hostage, and because he directed that they do so with the use of a firearm, he was charged with armed robbery.
::3. It has nothing to do with Simpson being with someone who carried a gun. Simpson was found guilty of being the "ringleader" of the group of people who robbed the individual in possession of the items in question. Because he directed others to hold the people in the room hostage, and because he directed that they do so with the use of a firearm, he was charged with armed robbery.
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Self defense doesn't apply here because Simpson charged the room with force. He was in no immediate danger. Self defense is reserved for individuals who are in immenent danger and have NO OTHER WAY OUT of the situation, or who are trying to protect a family member from immenent danger. Storming a hotel room because someone has items that you *believe* belong to you it not self-defense.
:Self defense doesn't apply here because Simpson charged the room with force. He was in no immediate danger. Self defense is reserved for individuals who are in immenent danger and have NO OTHER WAY OUT of the situation, or who are trying to protect a family member from immenent danger. Storming a hotel room because someone has items that you *believe* belong to you it not self-defense.
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
I'm not going to argue that it should be a "minor crime," but I will say that I believe the charges accurately fit the crimes that were alleged to have been committed.
:I'm not going to argue that it should be a "minor crime," but I will say that I believe the charges accurately fit the crimes that were alleged to have been committed.
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Perhaps German law is very, very different from American law? [[User:WordBounce|WordBounce]] ([[User talk:WordBounce|talk]]) 02:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Perhaps German law is very, very different from American law? [[User:WordBounce|WordBounce]] ([[User talk:WordBounce|talk]]) 02:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:32, 6 October 2008


Deletion

I created this page because I see this becoming a huge story pretty soon. The police dont place 6 felony charges just to have them dropped by Wednesday. However, if the charges are dropped on September 19th 2007 in front of judge Zimmerman, then I would agree and delete this page.--Anais1983 21:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

Since it's come up.. we don't need to invoke some "We can never do quotes" rule. The quotes section bothered me too, because it's not encyclopedic writing. I agree it should be removed. If people can work the quotes into the article coherently, that's fine (but I doubt we need to- there's no shortage of proper news sources on this. We should be careful to avoid anything resembling "investigative reporting"- it's ourside our scope here. Friday (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and put the quotes into the article very soon.--Anais1983 02:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a strong feeling this case is going to be big. Not as big as the murder case but close to it so I don't think you need to delete this page yet. Also the one of the victims had suffered a heart attack but he is still alive for now plus he reviled that he created offshore accounts for O.J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.206.89.65 (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inmate Number?

I noticed that the inmate number listed on this page is misreferenced by another individual on the main OJ Simpson page. Do we have the mug shots posted somewhere to verify who has which inmate number? 14:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC) User:OptimumCoder

I agree inmate numbers are same for 2 people? I will look into it.--Anais1983 21:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TMZ a valid source?

Are they? I see them cited here. While the layout is physically "blog style", they do have their own news television show now. Does being laid out blog-style for their formatting invalidate them as a source? • Lawrence Cohen 19:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. TMZ.com was the source of two of the biggest stories of 2006, the Mel Gibson DUI incident and Michael Richards. Plus, they have been the source of other minor stories about celebrities. And yes, they have a TV show now. MrBlondNYC 20:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Does being laid out blog-style for their formatting invalidate them as a source?" Man your an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.128.75 (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humh, Larry Cohen has called some of my comments "nonsense" @ least once,....

I think that "nonsense" should be applied rarely, &, in a way that does not destroy self-esteem; I contend that "idiot" should be even more rare,...

... for a variety of reasons.

If I am ever similarly nasty, I am sorry.

Let's try to avoid so completely obliterating each other.

I say that w/o claiming true perfection.

Further, he had merely posed a question, here.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 01:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cnn zone Time-Warner zone msnbc zone General Electric zone

This morning the networks had been struggling w/ what to bleep; maybe this article should be tied-in w/ various censorship articles.

Could that be?

Does Orenthal's story sometimes resemble the Simpsons? Had there been some years when Nicole's condominium had been very near to one of Fox' office-buildings?

< http://google.as/search?q=%22fox%22+%22%22+%221990+s+bundy+dr%22+%22%22 >?

Bundy Dr.? Married with Children?

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 01:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid subject to have on Wikipedia. I am writing a paper on the legal proceedings of this case for my Judicial Process class. The information in the media is confusing and does not paint a clear picture as to what has already occur and what will happen.

As for the preliminary hearing section, Judge Bonaventure decided the case will go to trial. Three of Simpson's co-defendants have testified against him and plead guilty to lesser charges as part of a plea bargain. Cashmore in particular plead guilty to being an accessory to robbery. He testified that as they were leaving the hotel room, Simpson said to his co-conspirators, " 'Gentlemen, we didn't have any guns.'" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.177.98 (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

400 jurors

I added this latest on his June 20 hearing: *Court officers and attorneys announced on May 22, 2008, that long questionnaires with at least 115 queries will be given to a jury pool of 400 or more. Prosecutors and defense counsels disagreed on at least 3 questions, and Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass scheduled arguments on the June 20 hearing on pretrial motions.Afp.google.com, 400 jurors could be screened for OJ Simpson trial --Florentino floro (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plea agreements

There should be some section in this article detailing the plea agreements made with several of the co-defeendants. Does anyone have an idea how this could be done? JakeH07 (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)JakeH07[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "CNN_091707" :
    • CNN.com.
    • CNN.com, [http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/17/oj.simpson/index.html "Simpson could be charged 'in next few days'"], September 17, 2007.

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"All-white jury"

Is it really necessary to say that none of the jury were african american right after saying the jury was all-white? This is also obviously very POV to integrate this into the timeline when it could be mentioned in a more relevant section, but i'm sure no one will agree to taking it out. Kellenwright (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we state, as we do, that the jury on the O.J. Simpson murder case was 'mostly African-American', then it seems equally acceptable to note the racial makeup of the jury in this case. Terraxos (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-defendant and video?

Who was the co-defendant who spoke to the media on the way to the courthouse, I think it was in January; spoke to the media wearing flashy gold eyeglasses and waving a bible as he walked...His lawyer told him about 5 times to keep his mouth shut (something like "What did I say? Don't talk to the press, he has no comment") but he kept talking anyway about how he was a good Christian... Who was that? Any one know where to find that video? 68.0.119.139 (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions from Germany

Hello guys, I am a German law student and want to know more of the Simpson case. Please be so kind to excuse my bad English, I do my best. If I got it right, Simpson was sentenced although: 1. The stuff he took (let took, however) was HIS, right? 2. Carrying a gun is legal in Las Vegas, right? 3. Furthermore it wasn't forbidden to Simpson to be with someone who carries a gun, right?

It is difficult to understand why he was sentenced because of robbery. If he really was the owner of the stuff he should have been allowed to (at least) arrest the perpetraitors, right? I mean, if someone comes into your house and runs away with stolen goods, you are allowed to arrest the thief, aren't you that in Las Vegas?

I know there might be a law which forbiddes the use of force to someone else, even if he took your goods, but should be a minor law with a little punishment, because it is probably an every day crime. (Like a husband forcing his wife by holding her arm to listen to him for a second or other way around). I think this crime is called coercion in English. And it might be a part of robbery (as it is in Germany), but robbery as a plus of coercion should need something illegal in acquisiton to the taken goods.

It would be interesting to read more why Simpson was sentenced because of robbery and other crimes and not accuitted because of self defense. It think this could be interesting even for American readers. Please be so kind to correct my bad spelling, because I keep a copy of the text and can learn this way a bit more English. Thank you very much in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.182.201.238 (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is necessarily the best place to discuss this, but... as an American law student, all I can offer is what I've learned, and how I understand it. So, in response to your questions,


::1. Whether or not the items in question belonged to O.J. Simpson hasn't been decided. From what I understand, SOME the items were AT SOME POINT his belongings, which at some point were stolen from him and sold at auction. Other items never belonged to him, such as a football that a fan had collected from a game, but Simpson felt they were his because of the special meaning they held for him. In any event, even if an item has been stolen from you, American law outlines vigilante action as generally being illegal. If you find that someone has stolen something from you, you cannot just steal it back; you have to go through the appropriate venues (which usually requires a trip to the local police station, the filing of a report, and then an official investigation) in order to receive your property back. What O.J. did, regardless if the items were actually his, was illegal.

2. I don't know Nevada's laws specifically, but again, in the United States, you must apply for and receive a permit to own a firearm, and separately, a permit to carry a firearm. Without a permit, no, you may not carry a firearm. I don't know if Simpson had a permit. Regardless, whether or not he had the appropriate permission to be carrying a firearm does not give him permission to use his firearm to threaten others, or rob them. A firearm that is carried by a citizen may only be used in self-defensed; Simpson was obviously not acting in self-defense in this case.



3. It has nothing to do with Simpson being with someone who carried a gun. Simpson was found guilty of being the "ringleader" of the group of people who robbed the individual in possession of the items in question. Because he directed others to hold the people in the room hostage, and because he directed that they do so with the use of a firearm, he was charged with armed robbery.



Self defense doesn't apply here because Simpson charged the room with force. He was in no immediate danger. Self defense is reserved for individuals who are in immenent danger and have NO OTHER WAY OUT of the situation, or who are trying to protect a family member from immenent danger. Storming a hotel room because someone has items that you *believe* belong to you it not self-defense.



I'm not going to argue that it should be a "minor crime," but I will say that I believe the charges accurately fit the crimes that were alleged to have been committed.



Perhaps German law is very, very different from American law? WordBounce (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:O._J._Simpson_robbery_case&oldid=243337100"