UPDATE: O.J. Simpson was released at 12:08 a.m. Pacific Time, Sunday. That was just minutes after his parole could have begun.
Simpson was released at 12:08 a.m. PDT from Lovelock Correctional Center in northern Nevada, state prisons spokeswoman Brooke Keast told The Associated Press. She said she did not know the driver who met Simpson upon his release and didn’t know where Simpson was immediately headed in his first hours of freedom.
“I don’t have any information on where he’s going,” said Keast, who watched as Simpson signed documents and was let go.
Her department released video on social media of Simpson being told to “come on out” by a prison staffer, exiting through an open door. He could be seen responding “OK” as he left, wearing a ball cap, denim jacket, jeans and white tennis shoes.
Tom Scotto, a close Simpson friend who lives in Naples, Florida, said by text message that he was with Simpson following his release. Scotto didn’t respond to questions about where they were going or whether Simpson’s sister, Shirley Baker of Sacramento, California, or his daughter, Arnelle Simpson of Fresno, California, were with him.
Florida Attorney General Pam Biondi wasted no time telling the world that O.J. Simpson is not welcome back in the Sunshine State. Simpson, whose release is imminent after serving nine years in a Nevada prison, expressed through his lawyer that he wanted to move back to Florida. Though Biondi had not received any documents from Nevada officials, she wrote in a letter to Florida Department of Corrections secretary Julie Jones, “The specter of his residing in comfort in Florida should not be an option.”
Simpson could be released as early as Monday, but TMZ reported Nevada officials may change the schedule due to a potential “swarm” of media at the release point. After his release, O.J. will live, for now, in a gated community outside Las Vegas.
Florida is his preferred residence since the state’s “homestead act” protects his primary residence from creditors. His youngest children also live there. Simpson still owes well over $30 million to the families of his former wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman–the result of a civil wrongful death suit Simpson lost in 1997. The Daily Mail reported that Simpson is asking up to $5 million for his first post-prison interview.
Simpson still receives his monthly NFL pension, which is also protected from creditors. Upon his release, he will have to comply with the terms of his parole, which will certainly include drug testing, regular contact with his parole officers, and other requirements. In order to move to Florida, he will need permission from both Nevada and Florida corrections officials. It’s unlikely he’ll get that, based on Biondi’s letter.
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said Friday that her state “objects” to Simpson returning to Florida to serve parole after he is released from a Nevada prison.
“Floridians are well aware of Mr. Simpson’s background, his wanton disregard for the lives of others, and of his scofflaw attitude with respect to the heinous acts for which he has been found civilly liable,” Bondi said. “The specter of his residing in comfort in Florida should not be an option … Our state should not become a country club for this convicted criminal.”
Simpson has been incarcerated at Lovelock Correctional Center in Nevada since 2008 after he was sentenced to 33 years in prison — nine years minimum — for multiple charges, which included burglary, robbery, kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon. Simpson was granted parole on July 20 by four members of the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners, and that made him eligible for release on Sunday, Oct. 1.
“He’s really looking forward to the simple pleasures. Seeing his family on the outside, spending time with them, eating food that’s not packaged,” Simpson’s attorney Malcolm LaVergne told “Good Morning America,” adding that the former football star wants to eat steak and get a new iPhone once he’s released.
Las Vegas (CNN)The last leg of O.J. Simpson’s odyssey to freedom will cut through one of the grayest, most desolate stretches of America. Signposts suggest it will end at one of the country’s most affluent green enclaves.
Officials for the Nevada Dept. of Corrections tell TMZ, if the release point — 30 miles outside of Vegas — is swarmed by media, O.J. will not be set free. As one prison official put it, “We don’t want another Princess Diana situation” … the fear being a chase that could result in injury or death.
The concern is not just Simpson. Prison officials say they’re worried innocent bystanders might be mowed down in a chase.
Prison officials say they’ve been notified media from all over the world will be at the release point and they believe European media is even more aggressive than American paparazzi and think the line will almost certainly be crossed.
Simpson’s team has reportedly reached out to several outlets to gauge interest. It’s unknown if the interest is mutual, but the former football star is said to ask for anywhere between $3million and $5million.
Some possible names expected to snag the first interview are NBC’s Matt Lauer, Megyn Kelly or Lester Holt; ABC’s Robin Roberts and Michael Strahan; or CBS’s newest ’60 Minutes’ correspondent Oprah Winfrey.
When OJ Simpson gets out, 2 questions for you:
1) Would you watch his 1st sit down interview?
2) Who do you want to see him interviewed by?
— Lisa Guerrero 💃🏽 (@4lisaguerrero) September 30, 2017
— National Post (@nationalpost) September 30, 2017
With so much negativity in the world right now, I'd like to congratulate OJ Simpson on going 8,508 consecutive days without killing anyone.
— NotKennyRogers (@NotKennyRogers) September 27, 2017
This was inevitable. O.J. Simpson was a model prisoner. Eventually, he was going to be paroled, and here it is. Everyone in the celebrity-obsessed media will want to talk to him, and some will be willing to pay. He has his NFL pension, so he can live fairly well. Does he deserve to spend the rest of his days playing golf and eating steak in Florida? Not really. But he’ll spend them nonetheless doing those things in Nevada.
I personally think everyone should just ignore Simpson and let him quietly go away. But not in Florida.
Will school shootings be the next step toward a nationalized police force?
The recent shooting at Santa Fe High School outside Houston, TX, that resulted in ten dead and thirteen wounded is fueling another round of demands by liberals in Congress to pass more anti-gun laws “to protect our kids” with some blaming the NRA for preventing such laws from being passed.
While conservatives and those who claim to be conservative willingly point fingers at the Democrat side of the aisle, the sad fact is that many Republicans agree with Democrats on the issue of gun control.
For example, after blaming local police for the Parkland, FL. high school shooting in February, Trump held a bipartisan meeting with members of congress where he openly supported the idea of seizing guns from Americans who committed no crime, even if it violated their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
Weeks later, Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos wrote an opinion piece praising Trump for signing the disastrous Omnibus bill because it contained over $700 million to fund the STOP School Violence Act to pay for so-called mental health services designed to prevent school shootings. DeVos’ rhetoric aside, Rep. Thomas Massey (R-KY) stated in an interview with Conservative Review at the time that the STOP SVA essentially nationalized public-school safety.
I think that nationalizing public-school safety is the ultimate goal of big-government progressives. It’s been building for quite some time now, and I think the hype over recent school shootings will be the thing that puts it over the top.
The desire to create a nationalized police force began gaining traction under the Obama administration. Consider the actions of the Congressional Black Caucus following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. In a letter to then-president Obama, the CBC demanded the appointment of a Police Czar to give the feds control over the local police. Not long afterward, Al Sharpton called for a march on Washington to demand the DOJ to take control of the police nationwide.
Though neither of these efforts came to fruition, Obama succeeded in laying the groundwork for a nationalized police force by leveraging a series of tragedies into policies giving the DOJ control over local police forces in several communities across America.
Trump has bought into the idea of federal control of local police since becoming president, threatening to “send in the feds” in January, 2017 to clean up Chicago after a FOX News report about gun violence in the Windy City.
If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible "carnage" going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2017
Shortly after the Santa Fe tragedy, Trump demanded action “at every level of government” which is exactly what he said following the FL shooting. This led to the creation of a host of anti-Second Amendment proposals by Republicans and Democrats designed to disarm Americans and place armed security in every public school.
Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with working to make schools safer, but with Washington working 24/7 to limit our Constitutional rights, should we give the federal government and the Department of Homeland Security that power?
Before you answer, do you remember how George Bush and a fully compliant Congress federalized airport security and created The Transportation Security Administration in the name of “safety” following 9/11? Besides creating tens of thousands of lifetime unionized government jobs, and the likely violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, these “transportation security officers” have been an abysmal failure.
Federal control of school security essentially creates a type of nationalized police force. Doing it “for the children” doesn’t change that.
Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.
David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.
A Tale of Two Shootings
It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. Charles Dickens probably never thought of a shooting as the best of times, nor would anyone else. However, if you HAVE to have a shooting, then the obvious “best of times” is one where only the gunman dies. Unfortunately that isn’t always the case.
Today we had yet another, preventable shooting at a soft-target school, where the best defense the government can come up with is making the school a gun-free zone, and occasionally a couple of cops.
The facts will continue to play out, but while two police officers acted heroically today (take note, Broward County Sheriff’s Office) what we do know is that there were still far too many innocents killed. The first officer was shot before he knew what was happening, and the second seems to have moved as fast as he could, though no one can be everywhere at once.
This will obviously be a story that is played out in the press for days, while the talking heads on Fox News and CNN spout various “solutions” to the problems of mass shootings. Most of these talking heads won’t have the first clue what they are talking about.
I am a former military and civilian firearms instructor. I still teach friends and family who want to learn, but I don’t charge anymore. I was a Texas Concealed Handgun Instructor. I know the law in Texas. A 17 year-old having access to his father’s weapons like what happened today is a felony for the father. Yes, there is a DEFENSE to this charge if the gun was used in self-defense, but this was not the case here, and so the father can not use this defense in court, though I’m sure his lawyers will try if they’re paid enough. The father of today’s shooter (I won’t use his name and give him the fame so many of these killers desire) WILL see time in prison, if Attorney General Ken Paxton has anything to say about it. The father may have obtained his guns legally, but in no way was a 17 year-old legally using them.
Obviously, today’s shooting was the worst of times.
The best of times happened just yesterday in Dixon, Illinois, when a school resource officer shot a would-be school shooter. There were snippets about this in the NY Times and other major news outlets, but that story has already gone away, while this one will not. It SHOULD be talked about just as much as today’s shooting. We need to talk about successes in stopping school shootings just as much as we talk about failures. We need to have an honest conversation about what DOES and what DOES NOT work.
I’m not going to use this piece to go into a great detail on the gun-control debate, though I’m sure that’s where the Left will continue to take us, even though they admit there are no additional laws they want that would stop these horrific tragedies. I DO want us all to come to some common ground on this issue of school shootings though.
1. ALL of us (we, the common people) want these to stop. I say we the common people because there are a great number of politicians on both sides of the debate, but particularly on the Left, who make a great deal of hay when these incidents happen.
2. We have to have an honest conversation about what does and does not work. An HONEST conversation, by the way, Lefties, does not mean what levels of gun control we’re willing to accept. And for those on the Right, yes, we need to talk about gun control. It’s our job to demonstrate to those who are ill-informed why gun control has not and never will work.
3. We need to approach this with logic and facts, not emotion.
This honest conversation has to begin with certain undeniable facts:
1. The shootings with the lowest body counts are those stopped by a good guy with a gun. It’s not ALWAYS a cop. Arming responsible teachers who both desire to carry and have demonstrated that they can handle a gun is something we need to talk about. I’ve heard good arguments for this, and one or two reasonable concerns against.
2. In nearly every incidence, mental health has played a factor, and could be seen BEFORE the shooting.
3. In MOST (not all) incidences, there were already mechanisms in place within current law that COULD have and SHOULD have stopped the gunman from obtaining firearms. Take today for example. Daddy is going to go to jail, and he should, for not having his firearms secured where his son could get them. I’m speculating here, but I’m willing to bet a lot of money as the investigation goes on, that the father of the gunman knew his son was disturbed, and should not only have kept his firearms secure from his son, as is the law in Texas, but also should have been seeking mental health for his son.
4. The Left is going to hate this one, but it’s an undeniable fact. Almost every one of these mass shootings, and ALL of them in schools, are in gun free zones. Those who know little to nothing about guns may think this irrelevant, but it is one of the most important points. They are soft targets that are chosen because most if not everyone there is completely defenseless.
There is more we could talk about on today’s shooting. We could talk about the explosives, the fact that neither of the guns used are ones the Left (currently) claims it wants to ban, or the instant calls for gun control. I did see something just yesterday that I found interesting from the Left. They were complaining that Parkland was disappearing from the news and it wasn’t getting any attention anymore, a month later. They wanted to push for gun control and nothing else.
Well, I have a solution for this. Adhere to the above rules for a conversation, and accept the undeniable facts above, and then engage us with logic and reason, instead of pure emotion. The kids from the Parkland shooting got famous not for their calm reason, but for their rage.
And before you think I’m not emotional ENOUGH about all this, just keep in mind I have two little boys in public school here in Texas. Yes, I’d love for the teachers and administrators in their schools (those who want to be) armed and willing to protect my kids. I’ll donate the time on the range to help them become proficient. I’ll even pay for the ammo and range time.
Hazel picks up key endorsement
With just a couple of weeks to go before the Georgia primaries, insurgent candidate Shane Hazel has picked up a key endorsement in his bid to unseat liberal Republican Rob Woodall in the Georgia 7th Congressional District.
Hazel, the former Marine Force Reconnaissance member and proven businessman, has picked up the endorsement of the Republican Liberty Caucus. The RLC, also known as “the conscience of the party” endorsed Hazel should come as little surprise. The RLC has a long history of focusing on endorsing liberty-minded candidates, rather than establishment members who have proven themselves to be unreliable when it comes to conservative issues.
The RLC earlier this year likewise endorsed MO Senate Candidate Austin Petersen.
The outpouring of support for insurgent candidates is clear as supporters take to social media to voice their displeasure at the lack of follow through from lawmakers like Woodall during their time in control of both houses of Congress and with Donald Trump in the Oval Office. The failure to repeal Obamacare as well as passage of a massive $1.3 Trillion omnibus bill have angered most voters on the right, resulting in the realization that giving the GOP control of Washington is not enough, they must, in fact, cull the GOP Congressional roster of those who make conservative promises, but vote like leftists.
As my readers have noted I’ve followed several insurgent races across the country. Hazel’s may be the best example of a truly grassroots movement of ordinary citizens fed up with “business as usual” in Washington, and instead want to see real change with a return to Constitutional principles.
In a past article I noted that Hazel and others were not garnering any support from many of the major lobbying groups. In the latest of their disappointing moves, the National Rifle Association chose to endorse Woodall, telling Hazel they preferred to stick with “the devil we know.” Well, the problem with dealing with a devil is sooner or later he’ll betray you. Woodall had bragged previously that he has the lowest score from the NRA of all Republicans in Georgia, and that he was proud of it.
Always a class act, instead of complaining about the NRA’s rather typical move in endorsing establishment candidates, he told me “I will never vote for any legislation that puts people, especially veterans, on a no-buy list without due process. Woodall has voted repeatedly for Feinstein gun control, Fix NICS, against national reciprocity, and for Obama’a 4660 that has put 200,000 veteran on a list denying them their right to bear arms, without due process. Shall not be infringed means exactly that.”
The NRA’s hierarchy can say what they like, but we rank-and-file gun 2nd Amendment advocates don’t vote the NRA line, and I think we’re smart enough to vote for a man who truly cares about liberty, not a man who has proven he doesn’t.
You can learn more about Shane at www.shanehazel.com