Monday, September 15, 2008

O. J. Simpson Trial Begins in Las Vegas

CNN reports on the O. J. Simpson trial, which started today in Las Vegas. To me it seems like some of the charges are trumped up a bit, but what caught my attention was the guns.

Prosecutors say the tapes will show that the armed confrontation was planned in detail -- including the use of guns.

Simpson has told police he had no idea the people with him were armed. But former co-defendant Alexander has testified that Simpson asked him if he could get "heat" in case things went wrong.

Another former co-defendant, Michael McClinton, also said Simpson asked him to bring guns and told him his role would be to act as "security."


Of course, I'm always interested in the easy availability of the guns. I think something's wrong with that and whatever steps we need to take to remedy it, I think we need to take. But, this particular case is loaded with other fascinating elements, not the least of which is that I can't believe there's any all-white jury in the world that can be free of prejudice in the case of O.J.

What do you think? I'd love to know.

10 comments:

  1. Being a general lawless unbridled asshole is a black/white thing?

    I'd say more like how there shouldn't be a jury in the world, black/white/purple that won't know that not only did he murder his ex wife and her boyfriend, and be acquitted of charges, but he later BRAGGED about it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It

    I won't lie, if they give him life in prison for this, I know it won't be justice, it will be double Jeopardy for Ron and Nicole.

    I further won't lie that that breakdown in the justice system won't upset me one bit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. i hate to say it, but i'm with weerd --- mr. Simpson has, largely if not entirely through his own actions, placed himself in a situation where no jury in this country will ever look at him without bias again. so long as we have a jury trial system, if you want an unbiased trial, don't act like O.J. Simpson.

    and don't get a shyster lawyer like the one he used, either. that's tarring yourself by association alone. but we should only speak good of the dead. said lawyer is dead now; good.

    (i could argue for a while about the whole trial by jury system... i don't get the point of it, really. it's not the only way to conduct a trial, nor the only fair way to do it, nor is it at all clear that it's in any real sense the best available one. but that's another story.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mike,

    I find it interesting that you don't comment much on the crime itself.

    Just the firearms....so if it had been an unarmed robbery, would it have been okay?

    Let's also bust that easy availability myth, again.
    I grew up when it was possible to purchase firearms at any number of stores. My father purchased several rifles, one from Sears, another from a local mom and pop hardware store. The total paperwork, background check, waiting period, mandatory training class, firearm owner permit, etc consisted of NOTHING. Not one requirement. He purchased the firearms with cash and walked out the door.

    I remember seeing firearms in catalogs and being able to have them delivered to your door.


    Care to compare the firearm crime rates from the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, with those from the 80s, 90s and today?


    So, tell me again; how easy is it to get firearms?

    ReplyDelete
  4. You'll prevent the easy availability of guns when you prevent the easy availability of marijuana. That would be some night when you are in REM sleep. Then you'll wake up and realize it's still a pointless unrealistic daydream of yours with no real world possibilities or potential. No offense...but you also need to go back and read THIS again...

    ReplyDelete
  5. I guess OJ killed his wife and got away with it and in this crime didn't do all that much wrong that I can see and is facing life. Yeah, I focused on the guns because that's what we're talking about. I have some things to say but I think I'll put them on the other thread, maybe not till tomorrow. And thanks, Thomas again for the 2-million word guy. He's pretty strong, but so are you guys.

    ReplyDelete
  6. He well may be our next Libertarian Presidential Candidate if Libertarians manage to take back the party from Pseudo-Libertarians...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mike,

    I'm confused (it's my natural state actually) but you state

    and in this crime didn't do all that much wrong that I can see

    Blowing off "conspiracy to commit a crime, robbery, assault and kidnapping with a deadly weapon" just to focus on the firearm. If he hadn't planned to commit those crimes, would the firearms came into play?

    Your other posts have done this also, dismissing fraud (1st suicide), prostitution --sorry but I find it hard to believe a random stranger gambit...probably was hiding other crimes, mob related activities, etc. You focus on the firearms but fail to note, if the crimes hadn't been committed, there would have been no involvement of the firearms, right?

    It's like saying "let's overlook the devastating impact illegal drugs has on the community so we can focus on the out of control gun crime". Of course, without the illegal drugs, there would be less gun crime to start.

    Which will make the most difference, addressing the "gun crime" or addressing the "drug crime". If you reduce the drug crime the gun crimes decrease as a result, but not the converse.

    By the way, welcome back. Glad to have the debate open again. Please remember that if I anything I (or the others, if I may speak for them) say anything harsh it's about the ideas not the person.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Please remember that if I anything I (or the others, if I may speak for them) say anything harsh it's about the ideas not the person."

    +1 I may not agree with you on many issues, Mike, but you're a top-shelf guy, and run a nice show here!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think in this case OJ was certainly guilty of acting like a thug, but to be facing life as a result seems excessive to me. The kidnapping was nonsense. He didn't abduct some kid and ask the parents for ransom. That's kidnapping. I wouldn't be surprised if the stuff was his, like he says, or maybe some of it. But even if it wasn't, it's still just some sort of robbery.

    ReplyDelete