You know, if there is one thing that I could care less about it's the Micheal Jackson criminal trial going on in California right now.

Actually, it's become somewhat of a major annoyance in my life. Is he innocent or is he guilty? Frankly, I don't give a damn and I don't think that all of America should give a damn, either.

What has he been accused of? Seducing young boys, giving them wine, then having sex with them? What the hell? This happens in every state across America and we should be concerned about them all but we're not. Instead, we're all concerned about some broke, has-been, plastic surgery freak that most of the world has forgotten about anyway.

None of us knows if he's innocent or if he's guilty. Sure, we all have our suspicions. For example, why is it only young boys that spend the night with him and not young girls? Because of his whole infatuation with Peter Pan? Or has society got it all wrong because he displays a behavior that fits a general stereotype of what a child molester acts like?

However, some people just seem to be unable to "unclench" when the verdict is read. If he's found guilty, millions of people will scream that he was wrongly convicted and still believe in his innocence. If he's found innocent...well, the outrage from the rest of the world's population really won't care but you hear those millions of supporters scream that justice was done there.

Micheal Jackson. Scott Peterson. O.J. Simpson.

It's enough to turn off the television.

Until next week, stay safe out there,

Rob

He's as guilty as the day is long so just castrate the retard already - now get back to the weather forecast.


Good luck with college Rob.

the media bias shows through. they only ilke pulling news that people will watch but of course they are a business and they need to make money. people don't like watching good news since its not interesting so the news stations show all the crap happening. when a case like the michael jackson or scott peterson case come up, they grab onto it since one was a (former) celebrity) and the other is someone who's white and the middle class. these kinds of crimes happen all the time especially near where I'm from in Oakland but not one bothers to air that stuff. the only thing you hear about that is "4 people were shot tonight, now the sports" . ..

you can see the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The news rarely shows the good that our troops are doing over there. While I know many of you disagree about us being over there, the fact of the matter is, we are. There's a lot of places that are much better off now than they were before. Yes there are some places that are problematic still but the news never shows how quite a bit of the population is glad the US got rid of Saddam. All they show is that more of our troops got killed.

Ok, all arguments and bias aside, they did it. But let's take a look at the deeper, more important issue. If a regular joe like me was to kill his wife or molest the 1st graders, we would be found guilty and sentenced before the ink could dry on next week's local newspaper. Now THESE *((*#&$(@*#)(*%T#( have each screwed up regular television broadcasts and worthwhile news FOREVER. I mean, OJ's trial lasted about 18 months longer than it should, and Mike has been in the news for this same thing for years.

Michael Jackson has messed up the media no less than someone would if they were to blow up any major TV network's headquarters. Let's just sentence him for that, and possibly toss in some charges of maiming himself, impersonating a funny-nosed white guy, etc etc. It's a damn shame that stupidity isn't illegal and painful.

Im not going to say I dont care, thats wrong. If he actually did what people are saying he did he should be put away.

ROFL hp07 "toss in some charges of maiming himself"... I was thinking that...rep for you

In regards to the secondary theme to this post:

News reporting is a business, it became a business when it started to sell advertising to pay for the people who collect the news. Now, the business can be funded by the government, ie: government bullhorn to the masses (see China, Cuba, Middle East, etc...), or it can be based on capitalism, ie: "If it bleeds, it leads" (see US, Europe, etc...). If the gathering and reporting of news was based on something other than sales/ratings, then we might get a lesser slant on things.


News, by its very defination, means that people are involved. Someone sees something that they feel deserves to be noticed by those around them. They "report" to someone else, others pick up on it, then those who are in the position to assign people to investigate this situation assigns an "investigative reporter" to oversee what's going on.

If it's newsworthy (based on the defination of a selected few) then it gets put out in the media to the rest of us. Which begs the question: What is newsworthy? Famous people are newsworthy, moreso when they run afoul of the "traditional" norm. Big events that would draw the attention of millions of readers/subscribers/viewers are newsworthy. Actions that would/should cause public outcry are newsworthy. MJ, for all that he is, pretty much tops the scale on all the aforementioned criteria.

Then you have the media "spin". The people on one side of the spectrum who wring their hands and make reports about how this person is being persecuted again when he is obviously innocent and just being the moneypit for the alleged victim. (And even if he did do it, then there are others to blame for his behaviour, but that's already been addressed in another thread.) Then there is the other side of the spectrum where the reports decry that this person, once he became a legal adult, started acting in his personal life in a way that is not standard for 98% of the population, and this is just proof positive that the golden child was tarnished and should not be kept as an icon by those who were too blinded to see.

In the end, the only frenzy is that which the media actually creates. Money drives the frenzy, the slant of the reporting, and truth be hanged. Do I want to see it on my television daily? No. Did I want to see the Anna Nicole court battle over her late hubbies estate? No. Did I want to see the farce that was the OJ trial? No. Did I want to hear the stories about the men/women of 9/11? Yes. Because that was reporting at it's closest level of honesty (which I still say cannot be completely honest.) But still, the former Boy Scout that still helps ladies across the street, even tho he needs a cane himself; the single mother who does without to ensure that her children graduate from college; the child who faces his fears and stops other kids from abusing a pet. Those are the stories that we only see as special interest stories, but those are the stories that invest something more powerful than money into their readers -- the currency of hope. Why do people do terrible things to each other? Because all they hear is the glorification of dispair, horror, ill will toward others. Were it a mandate, across the board, that every media outlet must at least balance out the depressing stories, the maligning stories, and the "gritty reality" stories that they print/show with stories that edify, ennoble, and show the other side of reality -- I think the emotional outlook of the peoples of the world would vastly improve.

But it wouldn't be as profitable.

He was found innocent! wtf is this world coming to? This little toucher of children's genitals is out running the streets (of the Neverland Ranch) free to do it all over again.

I mean, look at the guy. Granted he can sing like a mofo, and cut a rug like nobody's business, he does not have immunity from touching a child's anus.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/13/ja...ial/index.html

Quote: SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- A California jury found pop superstar Michael Jackson not guilty Monday of all charges in his child-molestation trial.

...and why does the lead defense attorney, Thomas Mesereau Jr., have a striking resemblance to Joe Pesci?

I personally could care less about **** like this...so the **** what he touches little boys, our Lord will deal with him appropriately.

Quote: Originally Posted by j-dogg I personally could care less about **** like this...so the **** what he touches little boys, our Lord will deal with him appropriately.

That's very true, but the news is news. Entertainment at its finest! The ultimate reality show!

I really could care less about that freak show....in my opinion he should be found GUILTY AS HELL!! Its not just this incedent its all the past...this child stuff has been in his past now for years! I think he is a molestor big time! Let alone if that was YOU or ME that hung our child over that balcony like he did....yeah ME and YOU would be in JAIL! But did he get in trouble for that? NO. He has some huge issues and he is one sick individual I believe! But with all this said...its my opinion.

im gonna be the weird one here and say i think he was innocent... and im quite happy that he was found not guilty. sure he was weird as hell... but that doesnt make him guilty of a crime that could land him in jail

he slept with boys in his bed. that is a well documented fact. bad judgement? absolutley. weird? yep. stupid? hell yes. illegal? nope.

michael jackson clearly is weird, but guess what folks thats not illegal. the people accusing him were not in the least bit credible, it was clear that they were out for money. michael may have done something wrong (i dont think he did but thats my opinion, i dont pretend to have proof of it) but the simple fact is there was CLEARLY reasonable doubt in this case, and because of it the legal system freed a man that may not have actually been guilty. hopefully he will change his ways of even sleeping with children at all, but cmon guys, if hes not having sex with them (and there was no good evidence to say he was, in this case anyways) then its perfectly legal. long live michael

now i hope he gets back in the studio and makes some more awesome music. id hardly call jackson a has been, his music is bad a$$ and i still listen to it. he made THRILLER man, THRILLER!!!!

Quote: Originally Posted by 4rm4g3dd0n im gonna be the weird one here and say i think he was innocent... and im quite happy that he was found not guilty. sure he was weird as hell... but that doesnt make him guilty of a crime that could land him in jail he slept with boys in his bed. that is a well documented fact. bad judgement? absolutley. weird? yep. stupid? hell yes. illegal? nope. michael jackson clearly is weird, but guess what folks thats not illegal. the people accusing him were not in the least bit credible, it was clear that they were out for money. michael may have done something wrong (i dont think he did but thats my opinion, i dont pretend to have proof of it) but the simple fact is there was CLEARLY reasonable doubt in this case, and because of it the legal system freed a man that may not have actually been guilty. hopefully he will change his ways of even sleeping with children at all, but cmon guys, if hes not having sex with them (and there was no good evidence to say he was, in this case anyways) then its perfectly legal. long live michael now i hope he gets back in the studio and makes some more awesome music. id hardly call jackson a has been, his music is bad a$$ and i still listen to it. he made THRILLER man, THRILLER!!!!

I have to agree with you totally on that post.........Basically, Jackson was being charged by the statements of a few.........which is basically their word against Jackson's word........There was no real concrete evidence against him...........Imagine our Criminal Justice system based on "witchhunts", all because of the remarks or accusations of a few............

Quote: Originally Posted by Highperf15 I have to agree with you totally on that post.........Basically, Jackson was being charged by the statements of a few.........which is basically their word against Jackson's word........There was no real concrete evidence against him...........Imagine our Criminal Justice system based on "witchhunts", all because of the remarks or accusations of a few............

Highperf, I know that you didn't intend on it coming out this way, but I have to step up and say something about the way you worded that.

I read your reply and just about freaked out . . . Once again, I KNOW (I hope) that it's not your intent, but the way it is written, it sounds like anyone making an accusation of rape against thier attacker is also involved in a 'witchhunt'.

Quote: Imagine our Criminal Justice system based on "witchhunts", all because of the remarks or accusations of a few............

Acutally, I kinda LIKE how the criminal justice system works on that point. Think about how many women and children who have been assaulted and abused through the years who didn't have a leg to stand on because the perps were careful about leaving evidence who got justice based on 'Their word against his'.

Edit - Needed to add, the reason that this got to me so badly is I've had to help a couple of my friends in college find the strength to press charges against rapists . . . Not an easy thing to do, and because of the typical fear that is associated by the attack (Both were terrified that the attackers would come back to kill them if they pressed charges) there was almost no evidence to back up the charges. Luckily, tho, the police DID do complete investigations on both accts and nailed the bastards . . . But my point is, both cases started off as nothing more than "Their word against his".

Not trying to stir something up, and definately not an attack. Just asking that you REALLY think about how you word something before posting.

my $.02

D

I think they did right. MJ's a wierdo alright, but I don't think that he did it and I would think there would be more concrete evidence given the incredible amount of time this has been considered. Even if he did, he would be a gigantic idiot to do it again. That Tom Sneddon guy just strikes me as a bully. He sees that Michael Jackson's a wierdo and hates him for it. Of course, I share a birthday, skin disease, and a love of dancing with the moonwalker, so I'm biased.

As for media worthy events... why is this any worse than...um....everything else shown on TV? The Michael Jackson case is more relevant than the majority of crap you find on there

Quote: Originally Posted by _Sexy_Pants_ I think they did right. MJ's a wierdo alright, but I don't think that he did it and I would think there would be more concrete evidence given the incredible amount of time this has been considered. Even if he did, he would be a gigantic idiot to do it again. That Tom Sneddon guy just strikes me as a bully. He sees that Michael Jackson's a wierdo and hates him for it. Of course, I share a birthday, skin disease, and a love of dancing with the moonwalker, so I'm biased. As for media worthy events... why is this any worse than...um....everything else shown on TV? The Michael Jackson case is more relevant than the majority of crap you find on there

its not that its irrelevant; its that its gotten a lot more air time than other similar cases just because its Jackson. same thing with the Peterson case. its just sending the message to the low class that it doesn't matter if they're getting raped, murdered, or exploited because they don't have money.

Quote: Originally Posted by drougnor Highperf, I know that you didn't intend on it coming out this way, but I have to step up and say something about the way you worded that. I read your reply and just about freaked out . . . Once again, I KNOW (I hope) that it's not your intent, but the way it is written, it sounds like anyone making an accusation of rape against thier attacker is also involved in a 'witchhunt'. Acutally, I kinda LIKE how the criminal justice system works on that point. Think about how many women and children who have been assaulted and abused through the years who didn't have a leg to stand on because the perps were careful about leaving evidence who got justice based on 'Their word against his'. Edit - Needed to add, the reason that this got to me so badly is I've had to help a couple of my friends in college find the strength to press charges against rapists . . . Not an easy thing to do, and because of the typical fear that is associated by the attack (Both were terrified that the attackers would come back to kill them if they pressed charges) there was almost no evidence to back up the charges. Luckily, tho, the police DID do complete investigations on both accts and nailed the bastards . . . But my point is, both cases started off as nothing more than "Their word against his". Not trying to stir something up, and definately not an attack. Just asking that you REALLY think about how you word something before posting. my $.02 D

I DO THINK ABOUT WHAT I POST...........

I agree that our system is not perfect.............but, in most cases involving assault, rape and such, if reported quickly enough, there is some sort of "Trace Evidence"...........Things like bruises, semen and even drugs to incapacitate a victim was used.............Cases like that start off with accusations or charges........then investigations begin to gather evidence..........To say that EVERYONE is truthful when filling charges against someone is crazy..........that's why somesort of hard evidence is needed, whether it be trace evidence or witnesses and such..........alot of FALSE claims or charges get filed each and everyday, for a vareity of reasons.......People do lie or "put a slant" on the facts..........and in the case where a celebrity is involved, that happens alot and it usually boils down to money.........

Well now, this thread has taken a new direction. It's a shame that all of the intellect that is spread here doesn't appear to have a real-world impact, but I'll share my thoughts nonetheless.

I'd have to agree that we need STRONG evidence to convict our alleged criminals. But I'd like to see more severe, immediate punishments handed out to those who are proven guilty.

You definitely can't take accusers at face value. And it's preposterous to create a "punishment fits the crime" system. What do you do with shoplifters, steal something from them? Maybe the old ways of other societies were the best. If you're caught stealing, you lose a hand. Sounds harsh, but it serves more than one purpose. Sure, the one-handed criminal will have a constant remnider that what he/she did was wrong, but think of the example it sets. I would think that kids who see one of their friends running around with nothing but a stump would seriously re-evaluate how badly they need that pack of smokes.

I say we need immediate punishment, because at some point it's all about the money. Let's do away with death row and life sentences. If you're proven guilty of murder or some other crime worthy of a life sentence, too bad. You get taken out back and put down like a lame horse and the rest of us go on. We'll not be taxed to pay for your food and shelter. We'll not be taxed so that you can take up more of our time with your appeals. And we might even take your old room and let some unfortunate homeless folks shack up in it. Of course, not some 20 year old who's homeless because he refuses to take out 12 lip rings and cut his green hair to get a job...but that's another rant altogether.

In the words of Kryten, an automated toilet attendant aboard the mining ship Red Dwarf....

"Who gives a smeg"

Oh yeah, definitely nervous about starting school
Congratulations on getting back into school, and good luck with the start of the quest for a new career.

Quote: Originally Posted by hp07 I say we need immediate punishment, because at some point it's all about the money. Let's do away with death row and life sentences. If you're proven guilty of murder or some other crime worthy of a life sentence, too bad. You get taken out back and put down like a lame horse and the rest of us go on.

Are you my twin? I was talking about that two weeks ago.