Saturday, August 3, 2013

O.J. Simpson - Parole Board Action - But Not Enough

The Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners order says the decision relates to two kidnapping and two robbery convictions and one conviction for burglary with a firearm. But Simpson, 66, will continue to be held for related convictions for which he is not yet eligible for parole.
The case stems from a confrontation Simpson had with two sports memorabilia collectors at a Las Vegas hotel room in 2007. Simpson, a former superstar in the National Football League, said he was attempting to retrieve his own memorabilia.
Three co-defendants pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against Simpson, who was convicted and sentenced to 33 years in prison, with the possibility of parole in nine years.
Simpson still faces time for four weapons related sentences and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. Simpson, who is serving his time at Lovelock Correctional Center 90 miles from Reno, faces at least four more years in prison on those sentences.
Simpson was accused of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole, and Ronald Goldman on June 12, 1994.  In the so-called trial of the century an all black jury, save one, acquitted him despite a mountain of evidence.  It was widely considered jury nullification.

12 comments:

  1. taking bets on how long it'll be before Zimmerman gets himself thrown in there with him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You mean because he'll hire some fellow thugs to reacquire some memorabilia? Likely not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No, because he has a history of violent, illegal, behavior, he's been rewarded for it, and he will continue it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Zimmerman commits a crime, he should be punished for it upon conviction. But a whole lot of people want to punish him for something that wasn't a crime.

      Delete
    2. What exactly has been his reward?

      Delete
    3. GZ got away with manslaughter. That was his reward. In fact, it was a reward to all you gun-rights fanatics who feel empowered by SYG laws.

      Delete
    4. That's not what the facts of the case indicated. The jury agreed with my interpretation.

      Delete
  4. You have it wrong Ted (Greg) Nuegent. Killing is a crime, the courts found that crime excusable. Legal terms you obviously know nothing about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TS, yup, some people are too ignorant to have heard of justifiable homicide.

      Delete
    2. It can only be justified by the law.

      Delete
  5. Killing is a crime, only the law can make it excusable.

    ReplyDelete