Dumb ass Cali fools. Jacko is found Not Guilty... WTF

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Jep

If you're gonna blame someone, blame the dumbass parents for letting their lil tyke sleep over

Jeperel ... I agree with you! ::hell freezes::

Well, I mostly agree. I say to blame the molester and blame the mother.

Now, I'm the first to say that Michael Jackson is the most guilty man in America... and I have only a few doubts that he did what he was accused of. However, the jurors were right in this case... and I think that this is a case that should be lauded for its dedication to blindness rather than being criticized because Michael Jackson IS a freak (which he totally is). THere was not enough evidence to convict him, the prosecution had NO solid, reliable whitnessess. The "victims" weren't victims, they, and their parents, were as much criminals as Jackson is (assuming he did do what we all know he did). THe defense used every means that it could, and they had the stronger, more solid case.

Hex, you said that he'd be in prison in the midwest ... Well, that does no credit to the judicial system that you think you have in your state. If he was found guilty, it would be a greater judicial travesty than that he was found not-guilty. When we think of Michael Jackson, we think of the crazed idiot who went on Dateline, or whatever it was, climbing trees, talking about how he sleeps with his little boy friends ... We think of this lost lunatic who must be molesting children. The jury had to put that all aside ... it's nearly impossible. THe one guy who nearly every American (with the exception of the lunies outside the courtroom), over the last 12 years, has been convinced is crazy is Michael Jackson ... and these jurors had to put years of mostly true stereotypes and assumptions behind them and judge this case with what was presented to them.

What was presented to them was questionable testimony, unreliable whitnesses, and not a single shred of legitimate evidence indicting Michael Jackson. I think he did it, we all think he did many bad things, but the prosecution has to prove that in court. They did not prove it. Hence, Not-Guilty.

Now where's the rolling rally for the parents to throw them in the clinker?

[Mike]

Oh, and one last thing.

Jackson has always said that he sleeps with little boys, but does nothing sexual to them. He loves little boys, but is never sexually involved, and that's never even a possibility. If any man says this, that he sleeps with boys, you know he's molesting them. However, if there's one person who is not molesting them ... because of his shear insanity ... it's Michael Jackson.

[raublekick]

Mike, I agree with your first post and disagree with the second.

In many cultures it is accaptable and encouraged to sleep with children, family members specifically. In his case these children probably were his family and he wanted to be close to them. I think it is very possible that he never molested them, in bed at least. However, when it comes to something this heinous it is best to err on the side of caution. If someone our age (back then) claimed to be molested it wouldn't be a huge deal, but children need protected. If there is even a sliver of solid evidence it should be a guilty charge. But like you said, the evidence in this case is not solid whatsoever.

[Stormy]

the jury was from ca that is the problem. ca chose a meat head actoin star to be there governor based on fame and you are full of shit if you say it was based on his politics, hes a fucking republican why would they want him?

California has a growing conservative following.

[Mr Biglesworth]

That's because liberals are everything conservatives say about them.
And conservatives are everything liberals say about them.

[Plain Old Jane]

el oh el bigs, too true.

However, if there's one person who is not molesting them ... because of his shear insanity ... it's Michael Jackson.

ladies and gentlemen I point to exhibit A.

::points to Prince on a table humping a crucifix::

[Jesse]

"Ladies and gentleman of the jury. This, is Chewbacca."

[Mike]

Originally Posted by raublekick

Mike, I agree with your first post and disagree with the second.

In many cultures it is accaptable and encouraged to sleep with children, family members specifically. In his case these children probably were his family and he wanted to be close to them. I think it is very possible that he never molested them, in bed at least. However, when it comes to something this heinous it is best to err on the side of caution. If someone our age (back then) claimed to be molested it wouldn't be a huge deal, but children need protected. If there is even a sliver of solid evidence it should be a guilty charge. But like you said, the evidence in this case is not solid whatsoever.

Well, in our culture, the culture that Michael Jackson lives in, it is not encouraged or acceptable to sleep with children ... especially if it is not necessary (many of those cultures have those stigmas because of their living conditions). It is generally unnacceptable to sleep with children, even if you are not doing anything malicious to them ... it is not only a bad habit (many parental counselors instruct parents that the moment your young child gets into bed with you [say if they're afraid, or whatever], you have to pick them up and bring them back to their own bed), but it's also just plain weird. I had trouble wording my point from my second post ... I meant to point that ... everybody knows it's weird, and when MJ says "This is love," we all say that he's just saying that to avoid getting convicted ... but ... if there's one person who actually thinks sleeping with a child is love, it'd be Michael Jackson. That's what I meant to say, really.

And ... I disagree with the point that if there's one sliver of solid evidence a person should be convicted. There is rarely any perfect evidence, so you'd be judging "solid evidence" by something that isn't solid, and too many people would be convicted on circumstantial evidence and false eye whitness testimony. There has to be more than just evidence of guilty, there has to be proof of guilt.

[raublekick]

It definitely is weird of MJ to be sleeping with children, but I just wanted to show that just because WE think something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it is. Some psychologists say sleeping with children is wrong, but when has a psychologist been absolutely right? Never. Even Freud, Erikson, and Piaget's theories are "sometimes" cases.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by raublekick

It definitely is weird of MJ to be sleeping with children, but I just wanted to show that just because WE think something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it is. Some psychologists say sleeping with children is wrong, but when has a psychologist been absolutely right? Never. Even Freud, Erikson, and Piaget's theories are "sometimes" cases.

If we're going to relatavise everything and say that "what we think is right and wrong may not be right or wrong" then we cannot have this discussion ... because we're talking about the courts. If there is no right and wrong, no truth, and no justice, then we cannot have a court system that judges people. That court system is dictated by ideology and public opinion.

[thecreeper]

i really didnt doubt he would get out of this. he's famous, and no matter how much money he's allegedly lost, he can still afford the best lawyers. and it doesn't help that the prosecutors presented a story full of holes with testimony from people who changed their stories on more than one occasion.

[raublekick]

Originally Posted by Mike

If we're going to relatavise everything and say that "what we think is right and wrong may not be right or wrong" then we cannot have this discussion ... because we're talking about the courts. If there is no right and wrong, no truth, and no justice, then we cannot have a court system that judges people. That court system is dictated by ideology and public opinion.

Well, obvioulsy the court system isn't as black and white as it can be. How many people really think that MJ is innocent? Not many. But how many people think the people who are testifying are really truthful? Not many. So in this case there was no truth, no justice, only right and wrong. But the court had its hands tied just like in many other cases. Based on the evidence the courts made the right decision, but it certainly wasn't right or wrong.

My gripe is that the major public opinion is "Michael Jackson is a weirdo, so he just has to be guilty." This is what I dislike about much of this countries systems. A public opinion != the right opinion.

[Plain Old Jane]

ohhhh, lookie here, god loves communism

Originally Posted by god

No one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common...There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold...and it was distributed to each as any had need. Acts 4:32