posted
Although I think he has molested children before, I fail to see how a jury-based on the testimony of his latest accusers-could possibly be beyond a reasonable doubt with him. From what I have watched and read on the news, they have a dubious at best history when it comes to celebrities and money.
But I haven't followed the damn thing much at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe he said it best a number of year ago:
Just beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it No one wants to be defeated Showin' how funky and strong is your fight It doesn't matter who's wrong or right Just beat it, beat it
Jacko in jail would be interesting though!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
whether or not I personally believe he could be, or is, guilty -- I really think this is a much weaker case -- as cases go -- than the one they had against O.J. And we all know he walked.
posted
True, it doesn’t matter one way or another. Other then there might be riots if he’s found guilty!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that the last time there were riots in LA over a court case was because of flagrant police brutality being found not-guilty...I think not.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While that's true, race definitely played a role. There was a feeling that the judicial system, in this supposedly enlightened and fair age, was still perpetuating racism in so obviously a flagrant manner. A charge difficult to deny.
Since then, however, things have changed somewhat. Rodney King and OJ seem to be linked. OJ was acquited, in my opinion, because the jurors believed the LAPD WAS CAPABLE of framing him, rather than that the LAPD reasonably was thought to have done so IN THIS CASE.
Now, when any celebrity, especially a member of a minority (though does MJ really count as a minority member? ) is on trial, there are defenders who automatically trot out the old charge of systemic racism and links to Rodney Kind and OJ- whether it is appropriate or not. When one factors in the love people have for this man's music, that is only excacerbated. I remember a Chappelle skit where Dave was a character witness. To every question, he answered, "the man made Thriller." In real life, DL Hugely (I think that's his name) kept answering, "I don't care what you say. Your mother. It's Michael Jackson, man!"
Not saying he's guilty or innocent. I haven't cared to follow the trial.
But this could be ugly.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I remember a Chappelle skit where Dave was a character witness. To every question, he answered, "the man made Thriller."
Except for the question, "Would you let your son sleep over at Michael Jackson's house?" To which he answered, "Helllll no."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is looking even worse. If he is found guilty (which I doubt) then I think *some* rioting will occur.
There are no black people on the jury (except for one alternate).
The perception that will be noted is that no matter how famous, powerful, influential a black man becomes, the "man" can and will tear him down when it feels like it...
no matter how much of a crock that reasoning is.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
To a certain degree, isn't the composition of the jury the fault of Jackson? His lawyer was involved in the jury selection process.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like that matters to Joe Commonman in the street who is already predisposed to view the police and judicial system with skepticism (rightly or wrongly.)
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate highly televised cases like this. This is why I totally ignored the Laci Peterson thing, and all other cases like it. People form their own uninformed opinions "oh he did it, we know he did it." "He knows he did it, he's lying."
I hate that, people don't know, I don't know, no one really knows except the person who actually did it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think something is very wrong with that decision. When that many people speak out against a guy that creepy, something isn't right. I don't think he's innocent.
Posts: 55 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the same time though, where is the hard proof that it isn't anything more than people trying to make some money off a creepy celebrity? He looks weak, thus making him a soft target to wring some money out of.
I don't think that makes him seem any guiltier than he already seems be being such a creepy guy.
Edit to add: Anothing thing I dislike is the automatic assumption that he is guilty because he is rich, and he only won because he has money.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thing is, we don't know. We really don't. He's creepy, he loves hanging around children, and he acts very, very strange. That's not a basis for conviction without evidence, and should never become so.
Apparently there was enough doubt to acquit. Doesn't mean he didn't do what he was accused of, doesn't mean he did. But if you're going to speak against the man, please find a more substantial reason than "he's creepy."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand how he could have been found guilty. The case against him was ridiculously sketchy.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I don't understand... I thought it was pretty clear that he had given alcohol to minors... why wasn't he found guilty on the lesser offense parts?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was direct testimony from the victim. That's not sketchy. It might not be credible, but the events of the crime were clearly laid out.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant sketchy as in not having been, from what little I had heard, proved very well, not as in the facts weren't layed out. Pardon.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess the lesson is if you want to molest children, pick children with dishonest parents.
Edit: I just realized that could be taken as a slam at you, Storm. It's not meant as one - I'm not sure i wouldn't have voted to acquit. But if the kid was molested, then it's his parents' fault that Michael got away with it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: *baits breath*
I think you mean *bates breath*.
Zing!
Is it just me, or do other people have a hard time even thinking of Michael Jackson as black? He doesn't have dark skin, he doesn't have the facial features or hair, he doesn't talk like he's black. . . . When people mention how race might be an issue, I have to remind myself that Jackson is actually black underneath.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Is it just me, or do other people have a hard time even thinking of Michael Jackson as black? He doesn't have dark skin, he doesn't have the facial features or hair, he doesn't talk like he's black. . . . When people mention how race might be an issue, I have to remind myself that Jackson is actually black underneath.
He is plastic underneath, not black. And underneath that he is a cyborg from the year 2019 that has come back in time to moles-- er, KILL John Connor.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) is on trial, there are defenders who automatically trot out the old charge of systemic racism and links to Rodney Kind and OJ- whether it is appropriate or not. When one factors in the love people have for this man's music, that is only excacerbated. I remember a Chappelle skit where Dave was a character witness. To every question, he answered, "the man made Thriller." In real life, DL Hugely (I think that's his name) kept answering, "I don't care what you say. Your mother. It's Michael Jackson, man!"![[Frown]](frown.gif)
