That's what the State gets for putting that dys-fuckedup-tional family at the forefront of its case.
I was guessing he'd come clean on the molestation charges, but deep down inside I thought (and kinda hoped) that he;d get nail for providing alcohol to minors...
That man obviously has something very wrong in his head.
The only problem I see with him going to jail would be that he truly seems to not understand that anything he was doing was wrong. I think he should have been forced to go into a mental hospital at the very least. He needed some sort of punishment, and it's terrible that he didn't... again.
Joined: Mon 08-25-2003 8:07PM Posts: 308 Location: 1603 N. Walnut
Source: Off Campus
I can see it now, Jacko starts making parents sign a release for him to take their kids, "By signing, I hereby neglect to ever seek legal action against one Michael Jackson." Which means, please rape my kids.
_________________ Trick or Treat on Highway 44 dressed as a deer.
The way I look at it, his career has long since been dead, so his income is right around next to nothing. My best guess is this trial, and the one before it was a nice financial burden (along with his neverland ranch and shit ton of other rediculous stuff) if this trial wasnt the final nail in the coffin, the next one will be. He will be flat broke and pretty much fucked. Serously where is he going to find work when he runs out of money? I say let him touch the little kiddies at least once more so he gets to go back to court.
_________________ KOK - 011, Pullin rank on bitches since 2005
Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM Posts: 1652 Location: down the hill
Source: Fidelity
I have to agree that not guilty is the correct verdict. Remember, many people would think I am as weird as he is, just because I own guns. Some would say worse (how did owning guns get to be viewed as morally worse than sleeping with a little boy?). If there's reasonable doubt about the crime, the verdict should be not guilty regardless of how suspicious the person is, or how un-remorseful they may be. Again, many people would look down on me for not being remorseful for owning a gun, or for saying that it's appropriate to own a gun around my children.
My point is that regardless of your views, and whether or not you like the person, or what they do, IN THIS CASE there was reasonable doubt as to whether he committed the crimes HE WAS CHARGED WITH. Just because you don't like the fact that he thinks it's okay to sleep in the same bed as a little boy doesn't make him automatically guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of molesting them.
*Note: I am not a fan of Michael Jackson, nor do I condone his actions (not even his version of them).
_________________ heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!
I have to agree that not guilty is the correct verdict. Remember, many people would think I am as weird as he is, just because I own guns. Some would say worse (how did owning guns get to be viewed as morally worse than sleeping with a little boy?). If there's reasonable doubt about the crime, the verdict should be not guilty regardless of how suspicious the person is, or how un-remorseful they may be. Again, many people would look down on me for not being remorseful for owning a gun, or for saying that it's appropriate to own a gun around my children.
My point is that regardless of your views, and whether or not you like the person, or what they do, IN THIS CASE there was reasonable doubt as to whether he committed the crimes HE WAS CHARGED WITH. Just because you don't like the fact that he thinks it's okay to sleep in the same bed as a little boy doesn't make him automatically guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of molesting them.
*Note: I am not a fan of Michael Jackson, nor do I condone his actions (not even his version of them).
I don't think there was a damn bit of doubt that he was guilty on some of the lesser charges. I mean come on, who else but that moron would actually call wine "Jesus Juice". At the very least he should have gotten convicted of the lesser charges so maybe the weirdo would stop this bizzare behavior. As it ended up now, he thinks he did no wrong and will probably be having slumber parties tonight. Had this been joe schlub off the street who works 40 hours a week on the docks doing what jackson did, he'd be eating prison food right now. Please tell me the last time a celeb was convicted, and martha stewart doesn't count because that was just a vindictive deal.
_________________ "...there is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit."
--Ronald Reagan
Please tell me the last time a celeb was convicted, and martha stewart doesn't count because that was just a vindictive deal.
The last celeb I can actually remember being convicted of a crime was the Rams player Leonard Little. Several years ago, he was driving while drunk, hit and killed someone, and was found guilty, but got like 30 days probation or some other slap on the wrist bullshit punishment. Last year, he was caught DWI again (this time he didnt kill someone fortunatley) and was later acquited! So, even though he got convicted the first time, it was a bullshit punishment as you or I would be spending most of our lives behind bars for that.
The last time a celebrity was convicted and sentenced like joe schmoe would be? Hell, I can't remember
Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM Posts: 1652 Location: down the hill
Source: Fidelity
-|F.I.B.|-LowMan wrote:
the naked prophet wrote:
I have to agree that not guilty is the correct verdict. Remember, many people would think I am as weird as he is, just because I own guns. Some would say worse (how did owning guns get to be viewed as morally worse than sleeping with a little boy?). If there's reasonable doubt about the crime, the verdict should be not guilty regardless of how suspicious the person is, or how un-remorseful they may be. Again, many people would look down on me for not being remorseful for owning a gun, or for saying that it's appropriate to own a gun around my children.
My point is that regardless of your views, and whether or not you like the person, or what they do, IN THIS CASE there was reasonable doubt as to whether he committed the crimes HE WAS CHARGED WITH. Just because you don't like the fact that he thinks it's okay to sleep in the same bed as a little boy doesn't make him automatically guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of molesting them.
*Note: I am not a fan of Michael Jackson, nor do I condone his actions (not even his version of them).
I don't think there was a damn bit of doubt that he was guilty on some of the lesser charges. I mean come on, who else but that moron would actually call wine "Jesus Juice". At the very least he should have gotten convicted of the lesser charges so maybe the weirdo would stop this bizzare behavior. As it ended up now, he thinks he did no wrong and will probably be having slumber parties tonight. Had this been joe schlub off the street who works 40 hours a week on the docks doing what jackson did, he'd be eating prison food right now. Please tell me the last time a celeb was convicted, and martha stewart doesn't count because that was just a vindictive deal.
I think the reasonable doubt has more to do with the jurors percieved dishonesty of the prosecutors and their lead witnesses. The jurors "anonymous" interviews made it clear they knew jacko was a sleaze ball but they didn't trust the prosecutions witnesses.
_________________ heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
