O. J. Simpson

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is anybody else out there bothered by what is happening to O. J. Simpson?

I don't want to stand up for someone like him, but is it the proper function of a government to set someone up, or at least take arbitrary advantage of a set-up? For example, he went to retrieve what he thought was—and was represented to him as—his own property. Now he faces a theft charge. One cannot steal one's own property.

I am not fully against what was done to Al Capone, using tax evasion (as much as I dislike that law) to take an active killer and mob boss off the streets, but in the case of O. J. Simpson, he is currently nothing but a playboy. He is not a threat like a mob boss. And the court system exonerated him of criminal wrong-doing. If the government does not like that, it should not have exonerated him. Now, in order to make up for that, the government is engaging in wrong-doing and blatant persecution.

If the government can persecute someone like O. J. Simpson because it is unhappy that it was unable to wield power over him in another area, it can persecute you or me tomorrow for the same reason.

Nifong comes to mind for a perfect recent example.

The concretes are unsavory when O. J. Simpson is involved, but the philosophical and legal principle is crucial. This is a direct threat to our freedom.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Is anybody else out there bothered by what is happening to O. J. Simpson?

I don't want to stand up for someone like him, but is it the proper function of a government to set someone up, or at least take arbitrary advantage of a set-up? For example, he went to retrieve what he thought was—and was represented to him as—his own property. Now he faces a theft charge. One cannot steal one's own property.

I am not fully against what was done to Al Capone, using tax evasion (as much as I dislike that law) to take an active killer and mob boss off the streets, but in the case of O. J. Simpson, he is nothing but a playboy. He is not a threat like a mob boss. And the court system exonerated him of criminal wrong-doing. If the government does not like that, it should not have exonerated him. Now, in order to make up for that, the government is engaging in wrong-doing and blatant persecution.

If the government can persecute someone like O. J. Simpson because it is unhappy that it was unable to wield power over him in another area, it can persecute you or me tomorrow for the same reason.

Nifong comes to mind for a perfect recent example.

The concretes are unsavory when O. J. Simpson is involved, but the philosophical and legal principle is crucial. This is a direct threat to our freedom.

Michael

Oh, they'll set a bail shortly, I'm sure, and everything will eventually come out in the wash. Public figures tend to get targeted this way. You'll see it especially in tax prosecutions. I don't know what might be done about it and I don't give a damn about O.J.

--Brant

Edited September 18, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Chris Grieb]

Michael;

Isn't one of the questions that this may not be OJ's property. As I understand the story OJ went over demanding property which no longer belonged to him. He went over with guns and other people with guns. I think one is supposed to call the police when someone has property that belonging to you that someone else has.

OJ's explanation is that the police have not been helpful to him at other times since his troubles.

I must finally add that I hate talking about this creep.

This is going to be my only comment on this issue.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

The account you presented is not accurate. According to Simpson's attorney, he announced that the property was his and he would call the police if it was not returned (see here). An audio tape was made of the confrontation (further leading to the conclusion of a set-up) and his phrase "Think you can steal my shit and sell it?" is all over the Internet.

Rand once talked about the rights of the least attractive individuals as the place where nasty government-encroaching precedents are set (or reinforced). I think this is one of those cases and it bothers me.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; Everything his attorney can be taken as gospel. Stop talking about this creep.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

My problem is not him. It is the government using him to get to us.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Is anybody else out there bothered by what is happening to O. J. Simpson?

I don't want to stand up for someone like him, but is it the proper function of a government to set someone up, or at least take arbitrary advantage of a set-up? For example, he went to retrieve what he thought was—and was represented to him as—his own property. Now he faces a theft charge. One cannot steal one's own property.

I am not fully against what was done to Al Capone, using tax evasion (as much as I dislike that law) to take an active killer and mob boss off the streets, but in the case of O. J. Simpson, he is currently nothing but a playboy. He is not a threat like a mob boss. And the court system exonerated him of criminal wrong-doing. If the government does not like that, it should not have exonerated him. Now, in order to make up for that, the government is engaging in wrong-doing and blatant persecution.

Michael

Michael, I am delighted by what is happening to Simpson. I hope they throw the book at him and send him to prison for the rest of his life. That's where he belongs.

Yes, you can steal your own property. If you take a group of thugs with you, armed with guns, and break into the room of someone whom you think has your property, then by law that is armed robbery. And if you force all the people in that room, including those who have no connection to the supposed property, to remain there against their will, then by law that is kidnapping. Further, it is alleged that he and his goons also took things that clearly were not Simpson memorabilia. And still further, "his" property rightfully belongs to the Goldmans and the Smiths.

The government did not exonerate Simpson. One incredibly biased jury did so. Did you know that one of the jurors, interviewed after the verdict, stated, "Everyone knows that all sorts of people have the same DNA." And in a civil trial, if you wish to call it a government verdict, the government found Simpson guilty of double murder.

Nor is Simpson "nothing but a playuboy." He is a man who almost severed his wife's neck as he murdered her, and brutally murdered an innocent young man who was present only because he was a good Samariitan. In Florida, he has been widely suspected of drug-dealing among other illegal activities. His own young daughter phoned the police in a panic one night because her father was threatening her life. And he fled to Florida originally in order to evade the law -- the law which required that his assets (including his memorabilia) be turned over to the families of his victims.

There is no reason whatever to think that "the government" is engaging in persecution. It is the police and the District Attorney of Las Vegas who arrested him. And Simpson stupidly gave them cause by spouting off to the newspapers and specifying his criminal actions -- calling what he did "a sting operation." Such operations are, by law, permitted only to law-enforcement officers.

The only thing that bothers me about Simpson's arrest is the possibility that he will once more get away with law-breaking.

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

I have no problem with Simpson being charged like any citizen for wrongdoing. I do have a problem with trumped up charges.

Are we now to say that a jury trial is not longer the government because we do not like the outcome of one trial? There are alternative forms of government with rulers who wield more power. And this is exactly my concern.

My mention of playboy was merely to compare him to an organized crime boss. Simpson is nowhere in that league.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Great post, Barbara!

Prosecutorial abuse is a big and important subject. It's not a good idea to use O.J.S. to illustrate this. The Duke/Nifong case does this very well.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is the sense in which I have been writing:

The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 23 , August 13, 1973, "Censorship: Local And Express"

It is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of the purveyors of pornography or their customers. But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given right's least attractive practitioners. In this case, the disgusting nature of the offenders makes it a good test of one's loyalty to a principle.

I can't say it any better than that.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Here is the sense in which I have been writing:

The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 23 , August 13, 1973, "Censorship: Local And Express"

It is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of the purveyors of pornography or their customers. But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given right's least attractive practitioners. In this case, the disgusting nature of the offenders makes it a good test of one's loyalty to a principle.

I can't say it any better than that.

Michael

Michael, I fully agree with the quote. But it has nothing to do with O.J. Simpson.

Barbara

[Bidinotto]

I'm entirely with Barbara on this.

What "trumped-up charges"?

A pack of goons waving guns invades a hotel room, and goon-in-chief is caught on audiotape as he orders everyone up against a wall. He arbitrarily CLAIMS that commercially valuable sports memorabilia there -- property that had been awarded to the family of his murder victims in a civil trial -- actually belongs to HIM. And he simply takes it all. One guy tries to call 911 for help, and the goon-in-chief snatches the cell phone from him.

Now, the goon's HIRED LAWYER declares that he simply "asked" for allegedly stolen property, or else he'd "call the police"?

"Trumped-up charges"? Gimme a break. That is not a scenario anyone but anarchists would blame on the government. Who the hell has the right to barge into private property with guns on mere suspicion that stolen property is there? The Evil Government Forces need a search warrant and probable cause to do such things. In this case, they arrived after the crimes were committed, and they took DAYS to finally arrest the goon-in-chief -- only after getting corroborating testimony from other participants and witnesses, including video and audio recordings, and reclaiming the memorabilia and the guns as evidence.

This is about as "trumped up" as OJ's blood all over that Brentwood slaughter scene.

They say the charges could merit a life sentence. The odds are vanishingly small of that happening, but this is one guy who hopes it does.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You guys don't think he was set up?

All my antennas are wiggling.

And puhleeze... I am not defending O. J. Simpson's character or his past, and I am not an anarchist. I am worried about the government instituting procedures that grow. As the saying goes, all big trees start out as small seeds and they are fertilized with what?

If I were in the government and wanted to expand my powers, this kind of thing would be precisely where I would start. It's even high-profile media-wise, so there is personal glory available for greater advancement.

Let's see how it unfolds. I just checked and he has been charged with 10 felonies, including kidnapping.

EDIT: I have another thought to add to this. If this was a setup (and I am not saying it is, merely that it has all the elements of one) and Simpson gets off because of the ineptitude of the people involved, who wins? I think the truth always is the best. If these charges are true, then he should be punished severely. If they are not true, but forced a bit, nobody wins but Simpson because he will beat them.

Michael

[John Dailey]

~ Since I don't know 'all the facts' re who actually did what regarding whom', regardless of whomever's perceptions ('colored', maybe?) regarding such, I have no...hmmm...judgement about what supposedly occurred, regardless what Simpson says, what his (armed, I understand?) invading 'bodyguards' say, what the arresting police say, nor what TV (or blog) pundits speculate concerns about regarding all...until there's reason given to be concerned over more than what the primaries of A and B say/argue/complain.

~ Given my view of OJ and Goldman, I start off with LESS than no sympathy/empathy/compassion (pick your emotive ID'ing) for poor beleagured OJ. However, from my pov, IF he's being railroaded, it's not HIM that we should be worried about; it's US.

~ I see yet, no 'reason' (aka: 'evidence') to believe so. 'Suspect'? Maybe. But, so far, that's hypothetical.

LLAP

J:D

[Brant Gaede]

O.J. bad. O.J. in jail good. Good, good, good! I hope he posts a million bail and when he gets it back--he doesn't get it back: it goes for the civil judgment made against him. I am so happy they got this bastard. I wonder where his goons came from. The best part is if these charges stick his children will be free of him. They know he killed their mother. Everybody knows it, including the "Not Guilty" jurors.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... it's not HIM that we should be worried about; it's US.

John,

That is my ONLY concern. And I will be happy to be wrong should it unfold that way. In fact, I will NOT be happy to be right.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Robert & Barbara; You said it so much better than I did. Thanks!

[Bidinotto]

Oh, there was a "set-up," all right.

Read the detailed police report (click on the "next" tab for subsequent pages): It proves that OJ and ex-con Riccio "set up" Fromong and Beardsley, the memorabilia sellers -- not the other way around.

And besides, what kind of "set up" would permit someone to invade a hotel room with a pack of goons waving guns, rough up people, then grab a whole lot of stuff at gunpoint -- including many items of memorabilia that demonstrably were NOT the chief goon's property?

You're reaching, Michael.

OJ is a sociopathic thug, and -- after years of beating his wife, then murdering her and a friend -- this was just his latest crime. The bastard deserves a noose; even in this case, he won't get a fraction of the time he deserves, if any.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

Once again, puhleeze, I am not defending Simpson's lifestyle or anything else about his past. I am confining myself to what transpired in this case. As I said, I will be happy to be wrong.

If you want somebody who really defends his lifestyle, see Abby Goodnough's article in today's NYT, Until Latest Arrest, Simpson Enjoyed a Mostly Placid Life of Leisure in Miami’s Suburbs.

I read the police transcript you linked to on The Smoking Gun. That sure is a swell bunch of fellows all the way round. To my ear, it sounds like thieves stealing from thieves stealing from thieves... etc. I speculate that some of the material was sifted off by one "Mike" when Bruce Fromong worked for Simpson as a salesman (Lord knows who all was involved back then), and some of the material was legit. Thomas Riccio sounds like a real lowlife, and what's worse, dumber than a dodo bird. If there is any kind of "set up" by a cop (in my meaning of the term), it would be with Riccio's involvement. He even sounds dumb enough to try to outsmart the cops by making the tape without telling them and not turning it over but selling it instead (that is, if a set-up happened, and if it did not, he was still dumb enough to try to outsmart them). Frankly, this looks like one of those cases where everybody was wrong and each one was trying to screw the others.

As the saying goes, in any fight between bandits, only the cops win.

Here is the audio tape of the aggression if anyone wants to hear it.

After reading all that and hearing the tape, I just took a look at the list of charges on the Criminal Complaint filed by the State of Nevada against Simpson and three others (see The Smoking Gun entry here) and got that wistful feeling of something else dumb being played out.

Gross Misdemeanor:

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME

Felony:

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT KIDNAPPING

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ROBBERY

BURGLARY WHILE IN THE POSSESSION OF A DEADLY WEAPON

FIRST DEGREE KIDNAPPING WITH USE OF A DEADLY WEAPON (2 counts)

ROBBERY WITH USE OF A DEADLY WEAPON (2 counts)

ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON (2 counts)

COERCION WITH USE OF A DEADLY WEAPON

Now imagine this being someone other than Simpson recovering say, stolen jewelry (or what he believed to be). Would he get this shopping list of charges? Including two counts of first degree kidnapping added to conspiracy to kidnap? Come on. Sorry, but I do not see a correct correspondence. This is overkill bordering on harassment and I would bet that it will be one of the reasons Simpson beats this.

If people want to get Simpson, this is NOT the way to do it. One can use words like "thugs" and "goons" and be correct, but they mean little under the law and filing charges like those presented above will not nail him. Nothing will change the fact that these are two-bit thugs and this is a penny-ante occurrence. Organized crime it ain't.

After reading what I just did and getting back to my real concern, I find it still stands. I certainly do not want to be charged with kidnapping if I try to get some stolen property back one day. And if I piss off a DA or someone in power (even over an unrelated matter), or if he has some other interest, I see clearly that this is exactly what can happen.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

If people want to get Simpson, this is NOT the way to do it. One can use words like "thugs" and "goons" and be correct, but they mean little under the law and filing charges like those presented above will not nail him. Nothing will change the fact that these are two-bit thugs and this is a penny-ante occurrence. Organized crime it ain't.

I agree very much with your 'principled' stance on this. If the crime was manufactured and he was indeed set up, I'm all for freeing him and then some regardless of how much of a scumbag he is. If the crime was truly manufactured by law enforcement, I'm also supportive of punitive action against them in addition.

However, I am also, in principle, in agreement with entrapment laws where basically if it's only the 'opportunity' to commit the crime is manufactured, the perp is still guilty. Where it gets really murky is when the whole scenario is manufactured and the perp is coaxed into commiting the crime.

A good example is when a police plant car is locked and parked in a secluded area. When a car theif breaks in or attempts to, he's busted. BUT, if the car is unlocked, windows rolled down, and a diamond bracelet is left on the seat, this is entrapment. The set up has gone too far. If I remember correctly the reasoning is that the thief may have had no intention of commiting the crime until he was 'convinced' by the too-good-to-be-true situation. I happen to think that many sting operations cross the entrapment line, but that's another discussion...

However, it looks like OJ went over the edge with deadly weapons and forcible confinement and so on. I think even if he was set up, it looks like OJ took it to a whole other level and is guilty of a big list of charges. He just didn't take his stuff back.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think even if he was set up, it looks like OJ took it to a whole other level...

Bob,

My personal opinion of Simpson, his cohorts, the brokers, the law enforcement and the DA is that it is even worse than that. In addition to the actual crimes, I see incompetence, vanity and publicity whoring running rampant on all sides.

It's going to be one hell of a circus with lion taming, high wire acts, trapeze artists, a bearded lady, a two-headed dog (all spiritually speaking, of course) and everything else a spectator could possibly want.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I think even if he was set up, it looks like OJ took it to a whole other level...

Bob,

My personal opinion of Simpson, his cohorts, the brokers, the law enforcement and the DA is that it is even worse than that. In addition to the actual crimes, I see incompetence, vanity and publicity whoring running rampant on all sides.

It's going to be one hell of a circus with lion taming, high wire acts, trapeze artists, a bearded lady, a two-headed dog (all spiritually speaking, of course) and everything else a spectator could possibly want.

Michael

I resent finding moral equivalence between Las Vegas law enforcement and Simpson.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I resent finding moral equivalence between Las Vegas law enforcement and Simpson.

Brant,

Then you did not understand what I was saying. Morality is about as far from this issue as can be. The issues are revenge, publicity, incompetence and, on the part of Simpson, cohorts and victims, two-bit thuggery.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's what I am talking about:

O.J. Simpson released from Vegas jail

By KEN RITTER

Associated Press

Yahoo! News

September 19, 2007

The bail amount of $125,000 is within the bounds of reason. Now for the other part (featuring Riccio). (Note: I had posted this under the title of "O.J. Simpson's bail set at $125,000" but forgot to include the link. When I went to retrieve the link, I could not find the article, but I did find the present one, which is essentially the same article with an update and includes the quotes below). From the article:

[On NBC's "Today" show]

Beardsley also cast doubt on the authenticity of a recording of the confrontation made by Tom Riccio, the man who arranged the meeting between Simpson and the two collectors. Riccio reportedly sold that tape to celebrity gossip Web site TMZ.com.

"I do not believe that these tapes are accurate," Beardsley said. He said information was missing and the recordings should be professionally analyzed.

. . .

Riccio said he was not concerned with how his past might affect his credibility "because everything's on tape. That's why it's on tape."

He also said he had been promised some form of immunity by prosecutors.

Let's see how true these things are. Until then, the show must go on.

Michael

[John Dailey]

Bob Mac:

~ We have a disagreement re your view (definition?) of 'entrapment.' I have no prob with a cop plant car left with windows open, keys in ignition etc. The perp steps in, pulls the car out :> jail time. No diff from leaving one's house's/apartment's front door ajar, accidentally, or purposefully. --- B-u-t, if a disguised cop 'coaxes' (as you say) to invade-and-take, ok; there, there be 'entrapment.' (PS: it wasn't a 'good example'...for most to accept.)

LLAP

J:D