#255473 by unknown[23148] at 2005-06-19 22:46:29 (8 years ago) - [Report]
Like they say,when it looks,walks and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck.....
I say he is guilty,and should have been sentenced as such.......I wouldn't want to be one of the jurors when the next sexual abuse of a boy happens....
#255914 by unknown[29964] at 2005-06-20 04:51:27 (8 years ago) - [Report]
what a disgusting play on words, being a "pedophile" isnt a crime so he's not guilty?
if you're the law robot 5000 that may be true and all, but being sexual attracted to underaged mails is not healthy, and it's a fantasy that if ever enacted is quite illegal.
we're arguing semantics here, if Jackson truly is a pedophile, whether he's guilty in this case or not says alot about what's going on here, and makes it a lot harder to use the greedy parent excuse every time this will pop up.
sure alot of people want his money, but that is not a very good reason to dismiss such a serious thing.
Whether he is truly guilty or not, Michael should at least be more careful now, try and act a little less like a loon, and although still be charitible for children, maybe cool it with the slumber partys, if he knows what's good for him.
#255972 by unknown[15440] at 2005-06-20 07:08:01 (8 years ago) - [Report]
spincut wrote:
what a disgusting play on words, being a "pedophile" isnt a crime so he's not guilty?
Play on words? I never said nor implied those words. What I've said or implied is that most pedophiles never molest children. People here seem to want to arrest him "just to make sure". That's as much profiling as saying "this murder suspect is black, so he probably did it". Now, if he molested children, he should be put away, for good reason, but his sexual orientation has zero relevance for that, and nobody is arrested for being pedophile (check your law books; the word "pedophile" doesn't occur once).
#256068 by unknown[29964] at 2005-06-20 10:18:04 (8 years ago) - [Report]
and yet it is not something to be dismissed, being a pedophile is not a healthy practice and when you're on trial for possibly molesting a child for the second time, being a pedo is a signifigant thing, arguing about the legalities of it may make you sound smart but it's a waste of time otherwise.
#256093 by unknown[78350] at 2005-06-20 10:40:13 (8 years ago) - [Report]
MJJ is innocent !!!!!!!! screw u guys that says that hes gulity
#256188 by unknown[15440] at 2005-06-20 12:08:17 (8 years ago) - [Report]
spincut wrote:
being a pedophile is not a healthy practice
"Being a pedophile" is not a practice. Molesting children is. The first is legal and not a criminal offense, the second is illegal (and very wrong).
spincut wrote:
and when you're on trial for possibly molesting a child for the second time, being a pedo is a signifigant thing
This was his first trial. And even if he had gone to trial before, a verdict is a verdict and has no relevance to future trials.
spincut wrote:
arguing about the legalities of it may make you sound smart but it's a waste of time otherwise.
Arguing about legality is a waste of time? Oh well. I guess jailing people for what they are or for vague assumptions about probability of crime is better, then.
#256240 by unknown[29964] at 2005-06-20 12:48:16 (8 years ago) - [Report]
from the sound of your incessant continuation of every contention someone has with you it sounds like you're just someone who likes to argue/hear themselves talk.
you seem to be refusing to try to understand what someone else tells you so you can have your counterpoint, i've said what i've said.
if you're going to be a contentious annoyance about it, being a pedophile is not "healthy", and arguing about legalities here is a waste of time here, we dont make any decisions here in case in your bickering you forgot. oh well nothing, you cant seem to see beyond a law and that's your issue, to ignore unhealthy behavior is just silly, regardless of what the verdict was, maybe when/if this thing does go into round three you may begin to notice a pattern.
again i never said he WAS guilty, but i never said he IS innocent, as past trials have proven the legal system aint perfect, especially with celebrity trials, but bickering about nonsense and trying to just start some shit because of how you define pedophilia and laws agains just using your eyeballs and some common sense to reason some conclusions is just devils advocate, which is very annoying.
#256288 by unknown[15440] at 2005-06-20 13:22:12 (8 years ago) - [Report]
spincut wrote:
you seem to be refusing to try to understand what someone else tells you so you can have your counterpoint, i've said what i've said.
I may be slow to catch on sometimes, for which I apologise. But some of what I've read here is pretty scary stuff which shows a willingness to accept horrible rights abuses as long as they happen against people it's OK to not like.
spincut wrote:
being a pedophile is not "healthy"
Well no, it probably won't make you live longer or anything, as such. So won't being a homophile or a heterophile, for that matter. It's just a thing you are; to be healthy you still have to eat carrots and work out routinely, and be a good member of society.
spincut wrote:
and arguing about legalities here is a waste of time here, we dont make any decisions here in case in your bickering you forgot.
I still like to see interesting discussions with bases in facts, and not yelling of moralistic galle. So I have tried to inject some objectivity and reason into all of this, but at the end of it all, people are more fueled by hate, fear and schadenfreude than by a desire for justice.
spincut wrote:
oh well nothing, you cant seem to see beyond a law and that's your issue
Why should we "see beyond a law" when reaching a legal verdict? That is just insane.
spincut wrote:
to ignore unhealthy behavior is just silly
So if you were in the jury, would you have found him guilty because of what you perceive as "unhealthy behavior"? (I'm not saying you would, I'm just trying to understand where you're going with it) All I'm saying is that laws define what's a crime and what's not. You can't "see beyond them" when forming a verdict. If "unhealthy behavior" is made a criminal offense, being a lawful citizen will become very hard, since you never know what all possible jurors think is unhealthy.
spincut wrote:
regardless of what the verdict was, maybe when/if this thing does go into round three you may begin to notice a pattern.
A pattern perhaps, but that pattern might just as well be people systematically trying to extort money out of a rich weirdo.
My only hope for this world is that people can be judged by what they do, not what they are. And this most of all in the courts.
you seem to be refusing to try to understand what someone else tells you so you can have your counterpoint, i've said what i've said.
I may be slow to catch on sometimes, for which I apologise. But some of what I've read here is pretty scary stuff which shows a willingness to accept horrible rights abuses as long as they happen against people it's OK to not like.
spincut wrote:
being a pedophile is not "healthy"
Well no, it probably won't make you live longer or anything, as such. So won't being a homophile or a heterophile, for that matter. It's just a thing you are; to be healthy you still have to eat carrots and work out routinely, and be a good member of society.
spincut wrote:
and arguing about legalities here is a waste of time here, we dont make any decisions here in case in your bickering you forgot.
I still like to see interesting discussions with bases in facts, and not yelling of moralistic galle. So I have tried to inject some objectivity and reason into all of this, but at the end of it all, people are more fueled by hate, fear and schadenfreude than by a desire for justice.
spincut wrote:
oh well nothing, you cant seem to see beyond a law and that's your issue
Why should we "see beyond a law" when reaching a legal verdict? That is just insane.
spincut wrote:
to ignore unhealthy behavior is just silly
So if you were in the jury, would you have found him guilty because of what you perceive as "unhealthy behavior"? (I'm not saying you would, I'm just trying to understand where you're going with it) All I'm saying is that laws define what's a crime and what's not. You can't "see beyond them" when forming a verdict. If "unhealthy behavior" is made a criminal offense, being a lawful citizen will become very hard, since you never know what all possible jurors think is unhealthy.
spincut wrote:
regardless of what the verdict was, maybe when/if this thing does go into round three you may begin to notice a pattern.
A pattern perhaps, but that pattern might just as well be people systematically trying to extort money out of a rich weirdo.
My only hope for this world is that people can be judged by what they do, not what they are. And this most of all in the courts.
As I se it we should be thankful that there are people thinking like haakon (civilised people) but there will always be people thinking like spincut.
Spincut you should travel back in time to 13th houndred when you could been burned or hangd for just being unlucky or just in the wrong place because evidence was not used back then, they all used the moral thinking of spincut " He could have done it, so lets hang him just to be sure"
I can not think that it is morally right to punish innocent just to be sure we got all the guilty.
I was trialed once for a thing I didn't do, but my Alibi lied so I was found guilty, I promise you it scares you for life. I didn't believe in justice anymore. I was scared to go out incase i would bee in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was not a big crime I was found guilty to, but me being innocent and despite that being found guilty made it big to me, I coldn't sleep I couldn't eat, I lost a lot of wieght. The only thing i was thinking of was the crime I didn't doŽ, and I coldn't let go thinking. After 10 years I kind of forgot about it but still now writing about it I feel bad about it.
So I know it's easy to punish the innocent if your not the innocent, think once you beeing trailed and your innocent.
maybee you have heard this: Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Whats if you didn't do the crime and your still there trailed and found guilty, what else could you have done? When your gulity you could feel remorse, but when your innocent you have no answer to would else you could have done. Maybe you can feel remorse that you have been born, because if you haven't been born the couldn't find you guilty.
we live in the 20th houndred and nobody should feel remorse for their existence, for their crime yes but not their existence. The thing is that when your innocent you get punished twice once for the crime you didn't commit and second for being born. And I promise you if your guilty you feel much better being punished, because when your innocent it feels like the whole world is against you, and the whole world is holding your face in the mudd, and you can do absolutly nothing about it. Feeling so powerless...
I promise you, when you have been there you want justice for every one.....
#257661 by unknown[29964] at 2005-06-21 04:27:52 (8 years ago) - [Report]
skevast your blithering interjection is very much not needed, the only point i can see in what you're saying is you've filtered what i said into some blight of facist descrimination.
i'm glad you like what haakon has to say and think "there will always be people like me" but based on the way you read into things it doesnt sound like you have any idea what that even means to begin with.
as for haakon i give up, you're yet again trying to steer the conversation into a devils advocate merry-go-round, i say blue you say green, i say up you say left. You keep reffering to the jury and legalities in response to every appeal to common sense i make to you. I dont know for sure michael did do the things he was accused of or not (and am glad there are more people like ME who think that skevas, the fact that you're not is telling), i dont pretend to and i dont pretend that i was on the jury, i dont have to.... i wasnt. but i'm not foolhardy enough to beleive just because he was tried as innocent by law that he is, i dont care how many ways you defineto me about how the jury would operate, i'm not on the jury and i'm not trying him for anything.
nothing i say should be put in the context of a court or a judge, i dont pretend to be either, i'm just using some common sense and realizing based on all i've seen that being tried innocent doesnt MEAN he's innocent, and there's definetly more to all this than some greedy parents, and it disgusts me that such a statement is received with such rudeness from these jacko-fanatics who cant seem to handle the idea there could be something wrong with him.
#257771 by unknown[15440] at 2005-06-21 07:23:33 (8 years ago) - [Report]
The question was "if you were in the jury of the Michael Jackson case, how would you have voted?" And that's what we're discussing. If you are not discussing how you would have voted as a juror, but simply spewing galle, you are on the wrong page, sorry. (And you accuse me of "trying to steer the conversation"?)
I Just wanted to say I dont even listen to Michael Jackson and I haven't bougt a singel record. In the begining reading the info in the media and on the internet I would say he was guilty as charged. I wanted to follow the trial to se if he was guilty and I haven't missed one because I found it very intresting. So I think that I heard the most things that the Jury heard. And my conclusion is that the whole family lied his brother his sister and mother, It was proven several times during the trial that they were lying.
So the family is not this innocent as everybody thinks, their explonation was that they were lying back then but the things they are telling now are true..
The mother was even given imunity because she lied in another trial, the sister acused her father for the same thing they were acusing Michael.
I dont like Celebritys or Michael Jackson, I dislike the family bacause they were caught lying several times. And they were lying for sure, not that the maybee were lying but they even agred to the fact that the were lying..
Because of that I know that they are liers and that they can lie to a judge because it has happened before. And this time the have a reason to lie or they have 8 million reasons to lie at least.
And the reason they lied to a judge the last time was money and that says it all.
