is now on every video web site in the world, I wonder if he will get off on another technicality, as his lawers will probably say he cannot have a fair trial.
If he did not sell his stuff on, he should have called the police, not gone in with his thugs. I guess the bit about 'don't let anyone leave this room', consitutes, holding them against their will, therefore Kidnapping!!
If I had a Concealed Weapon Permit and someone tried to carjack my car and I am in fear of my life I am allowed to use a weapon to prevent such a crime, not necessarily to fire the weapon, but the threat of firing the weapon can and many times work.
However, if my car is stolen and I track down the car thief and if I show a weapon or indicate that I have a weapon to get my car (property) back I have committed a crime. Armed robbery if I get my car back, attempted armed robbery if I don't get my car back.
That is why we have laws and law enforcement personnel. If it was OJ's stuff he should have gone to the Sheriff's Department or the police and filed a report. Especially someone as famous, or infamous, as OJ Simpson.
Lot of talk now about the whole thing being a setup. I don't know, but TWO audio tape recording of the 'alleged' robbery? Makes one pause.
LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK As the saying goes in England (cue the usual suspects to lauch their verbal armoury).......Only in America.
"Only in America". Now that's the funniest thing I've read in some time, given the frequent posting in these threads of instances of killers, rapists, and child molesters in the UK getting little or no punishment for their crime.
But you go on mis-applying the saying "only in America" if it helps blind yourself to the mirror, y'hear?
Just a small correction my friend, the Judge ordered a $125,000.00 bail/bond to be paid for OJ's release. He received nothing from the court. Not that the amount mattered, OJ still has enough rich friends to pay any bond/bail.
He was released that day by posting the bail and returned to Florida.
JetBlast member 2005. JetBlast member 2006. Banned 2007
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 313
When they say $x bail, is that the amount that has to be paid immediately and if you don't appear, you owe them another $9x? or is it the amount you will owe them if you skip town and you only have to come up with $0.1x?
or to put it another way... does he
(1) have to pay the court $125,000 anf if he disappears he owes them $1,125,000 ? or
(2) have to pay the court $12,500 and is he disap;pears have to pay the court $112,500 ?
I'm not very well versed in these matters I'm afraid
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!, I started to answer you then I realised that I really don't know.
I was going to say that a bails bond service requires a cash 10% down payment before the bail bond service will post the bail. But I'm not that sure about the court now that I think of it. As like you I have never had to post bail (knock on wood).
I do know as long as you show up for trial the bail is returned to you. I'll look it up.
I'm no OJ fan, the guy should definitely be behind bars for murder. However, I'm not sure he'll be convicted in this case, although with the number of charges the prosecuter has filed I am hoping something will stick.
As con-pilot points out the fact that there are audio recordings may be in OJ's favour. I listened to one of them and there is no utterances such as "Put that away", "Don't point that at me", or any use of the word gun, weapon etc. The fact that guns were recovered after the event only serves to prove that his accomplices own them. It will be the word of the victims that guns were used in the robbery that will convict him. There's a bunch of holes in the whole thing that is worrying me that he could walk like he did 13 years ago.
As the saying goes in England (cue the usual suspects to lauch their verbal armoury).......Only in America.
Having read many of your posts, I was surprised to read that from you. (I mean that as a compliment.)
The English legal system occasionally produces some apparently odd verdicts. I couldn't possibly comment upon them but, for example, two highly publicised verdicts that were widely considered to be bizarre -
Kenneth Noye, who killed an undercover policeman. His defence was that he believed the man, whom he he saw in the grounds of his house, was an intruder and acted in self-defence. He stabbed him four times. Acquitted.
(He's now serving Life for stabbing another driver in a 'road rage' incident. That jury rejected his claim of self-defence, and convicted him of Murder.)
Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer, who shot a burglar he found in his isolated farmhouse at night. Self-defence rejected. Convicted of Murder. Sentenced to Life.
(The Court of Appeal subsequently quashed that conviction, substituted a Manslaughter conviction and sentenced him to 5 years.)
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! Normal procedure in the UK: Sureties have to show they have the means to pay the specified sum, but don't have to deposit the money. They are at risk of losing it if the bailed defendant absconds or, if they can't pay, going to prison. It's very rare; most produce the money. Contrary to popular belief, relatively few people who are long-established UK residents with family ties etc abscond, even when facing trial on serious offences and long sentences if convicted. Those who fail to appear for trial are more commonly on less serious or even minor offences.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 20th Sep 2007 at 20:36.
(Before anybody gets upset, that was the color (colour) of the Ford Bronco that OJ used in his infamous very low speed run from the police last time. You know, the one that was so slow that OJ could jump out a get a beer from time to time. Kind of like the speed that you go at when driving into London from Farnborough on a Friday night around 6 o'clock.)
FL - I note you 'couldn't possibly comment' on the Martin case.
Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer, who shot a burglar he found in his isolated farmhouse at night
He shot a burglar who he found in his isolated farmhouse at night. That's correct, but it misses out a good deal of important detail about the case.
1. He shot Brendan Fearon (then 29) when he confronted him in the house, with an illegally held shotgun (he'd been refused permission to own firearms due to his past and diagnosed personality disorder). Fearon was wounded.
2. He shot Fred Barras in the back as he ran from the property. Barras was only 16 at the time and was acting as Fearon's accomplice. He was shot dead by Martin as he tried to flee the property. Martin was convicted for the murder of Barras. I must say I find it difficult to see how on any reasonable interpretation of the evidence, he was not prima facie guilty of murder in English law. The conviction was indeed subsequently quashed, not because Martin's actions were held to be lawful or justified, but because The Court of Appeal held that diminished responsibility applied because of Martin's mental illness and that he was therefore guilty of voluntary manslaughter. The quashing of the murder conviction had no bearing on the fact that it had been established that Martin intended to kill Barras (or at least cause GBH) when he shot him.
3. Possibly not unrelated to his diagnosed mental illness, Martin had been known to express some rather controversial views on certain ethnic groups (Gypsies and Jews). Barras was of gypsy ethnicity, although ironically Fearon was not.
I remember some years ago, you said to me you thought it 'extraordinary' that I would still consider an acquitted defendant to be guilty, in my personal opinion. That was during the trial of the 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire' fraud case; (he was subsequently convicted in any event, if memory serves). As for your absence of comment on the Noye case, I couldn't possibly comment.
Although I agree with you it was a somewhat perverse verdict.
Wedge He shot a burglar who he found in his isolated farmhouse at night. That's correct, but it misses out a good deal of important detail about the case. 1. He shot Brendan Fearon (then 29) when he confronted him in the house, with an illegally held shotgun (he'd been refused permission to own firearms due to his past and diagnosed personality disorder). Fearon was wounded.
Boy, that Fearon sure picked the wrong guy's house to sneak around in. Good thing the Martin guy decided to keep a shotgun handy...because a 12 guage (or even a 20) is far, far more effective than a pistol for a room-range confrontation with an intruder who's crazy enough to break into your house at night when you're home. #1 buckshot loads are preferred for these situations, by the way.
Quote:
2. He shot Fred Barras in the back as he ran from the property. Barras was only 16 at the time and was acting as Fearon's accomplice. He was shot dead by Martin as he tried to flee the property.
16 year olds are pretty speedy, and since it was a nightime break-in it means Martin hit a fast-moving, poorly-lit target while in a very emotional state. More evidence that a shotgun is the right choice of weapon against people crazy enough to break into your home at night. With a pistol, there's a 90% chance he'd have missed, and with less knockdown power, poorer results even if he'd winged him.
Quote:
The quashing of the murder conviction had no bearing on the fact that it had been established that Martin intended to kill Barras (or at least cause GBH) when he shot him.
Well yeah, that's the whole point of using a shotgun against people crazy enough to break into your home at night instead of a pistol. They're lucky if GBH is the only result.
Quote:
3. Possibly not unrelated to his diagnosed mental illness, Martin had been known to express some rather controversial views on certain ethnic groups (Gypsies and Jews). Barras was of gypsy ethnicity, although ironically Fearon was not.
I've been trying to figure out why there's any irony in shooting a guy crazy enough to break into your home at night, or his accomplice. Just like I can't figure out why their ethnicity would matter.
Sensibly, I bet the Martin guy was checking to make sure he had a round chambered and the safety was off, rather than foolishly trying to check ethnic IDs, and winding up dead himself.
The moral of this story is; for home defense against someone crazy enough to break into it while you're home, there is no better choice than a good, old-fashioned shotgun. Against multiple targets this is especially true.
