Patrick Graham
Moderator
He settled out of court twice before... And he still molested after that..
When does it stop?
For crying out loud.. these are kids he's doing that to.
Mike is innocent......the jury has spoken
- Thread starter Rojoe67
- Start date
- Status
He settled out of court twice before... And he still molested after that..
When does it stop?
For crying out loud.. these are kids he's doing that to.
just one question
New member
Well
I am not talking about this case but if there is video tape evidence etc. I see no problem with a lynch mob. But it has to dead sure that the defendant did it. So no lynch mob for wacko jacko because there was no video tape or recorded evidence..
But I say go ahead with muderers and the like when there is rock solid proof.
I am not talking about this case but if there is video tape evidence etc. I see no problem with a lynch mob. But it has to dead sure that the defendant did it. So no lynch mob for wacko jacko because there was no video tape or recorded evidence..
But I say go ahead with muderers and the like when there is rock solid proof.
Edward429451
Moderator
Hey, I don't like MJ. I think he's a freak. I'm just trying to think above the emotional level. I'm not sticking up for him in the least. I think I'm sticking up for the jurors.
You can't save all the worlds children singlehandedly or it becomes a monarchy with us losing our rights. Keep your children away from MJ is about all you can do. Just to be on the safe side.
Having plea bargained or settled does not (or should not) be construed as evidence of guilt, technically speaking.
You can't save all the worlds children singlehandedly or it becomes a monarchy with us losing our rights. Keep your children away from MJ is about all you can do. Just to be on the safe side.
Having plea bargained or settled does not (or should not) be construed as evidence of guilt, technically speaking.
Patrick Graham
Moderator
I'm calling the admission "Settling Out Of Court twice before"..
If he didn't do it back then he shouldn't have settled.. he would have won.. like he did this time..
And since then (the early 90's) he has re-offended...
You don't have to say he's guilty of being a serial homosexual pedophile just because he settled out of court twice back in the 90's.... You can say what you want..
But don't be trying to bully me into saying he isn't a serial homosexual pedophile...
I don't think anyone here is saying that they don't personally believe he's a pedophile. Just that believing something sincerely doesn't make it solid proof or enough reason to get a court conviction. If the belief alone is enough without any supporting evidence, then I'd say we did a pretty could job of getting rid of all the witches during the early days of U.S. history.
I would love to see that pedophile go to jail, but you don't throw out the entire justice system to go after one man. If you want to take the law into your own hand be my guess. But that sets a bad precedent. Eventually, someone will punish someone who is truly innocent just because they personally believe that person is really guilty. That's why our present legal system exists. Fault or not, I'll stick with it until we find something better. That doesn't mean we can't try to improve it and just deal out punishment as we see fit.
You might be willing to live with a system where the innocent gets punished along with the guilty just so we make sure we don't miss any of the evil-doers. I'm not.
I would love to see that pedophile go to jail, but you don't throw out the entire justice system to go after one man. If you want to take the law into your own hand be my guess. But that sets a bad precedent. Eventually, someone will punish someone who is truly innocent just because they personally believe that person is really guilty. That's why our present legal system exists. Fault or not, I'll stick with it until we find something better. That doesn't mean we can't try to improve it and just deal out punishment as we see fit.
You might be willing to live with a system where the innocent gets punished along with the guilty just so we make sure we don't miss any of the evil-doers. I'm not.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
It seems like you really like saying "serial homosexual pedophile".
He may be one, but that's not the matter at hand. I am not defending pedohiles or MJ, I'm defending the concept of jury trial and due process. If you can't understand the distinction between abiding by a jury decision and a legal process, and making apologies for pedophiles, then maybe this discussion is pointless.
He may be one, but that's not the matter at hand. I am not defending pedohiles or MJ, I'm defending the concept of jury trial and due process. If you can't understand the distinction between abiding by a jury decision and a legal process, and making apologies for pedophiles, then maybe this discussion is pointless.
Patrick Graham
Moderator
The point is this - "The Jury didn't tell me to shut up"...
What the Jury did do was let a serial homosexual pedophile go.. free to do it again..
Don't be trying to bully me into talking like you do.. It won't work...
Marko Kloos
Inactive
A jury, with all the evidence collected by police at hand, and directly present during all the testimony in the case, found the evidence insufficient to conclude that MJ committed pedophilia.
You, three thousand miles away, with nothing but the information given to you by public opinion and the news media, find that this filtered second-hand evidence is enough to judge him guilty.
I wish everyone had your kind of clairvoyance. We could do away with rules of evidence and jury trial, and save the state a bunch of money in the future.
You, three thousand miles away, with nothing but the information given to you by public opinion and the news media, find that this filtered second-hand evidence is enough to judge him guilty.
I wish everyone had your kind of clairvoyance. We could do away with rules of evidence and jury trial, and save the state a bunch of money in the future.
Patrick Graham
Moderator
That's a "Dance"..
If you don't like what I say.. then say you don't like it...
For crying out loud.. what ever happend to straight talk..
Marko Kloos
Inactive
If you find the debate too complicated to follow, just say so.
It's simply amazing to me that a bunch of gun nuts can get together and scream and holler about what the VPC and Brady Bunch do, especially when they (the VPC and the Bunch) have no facts to back up their case, and then turn around and wail and moan about what a jury found, because they had no credible facts to find a man guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Did no one else but myself watch the interview with the Jury, immediately after the verdict? Did no one else see the obvious frustration they had with their verdict? Did no one but me see the difficulty they had with the prosecutions presentation of fact?
Everyone of them, thought that MJ was guilty. That was readily apparent. But... The prosecution of the case left Reasonable Doubt. Yes, they could have rendered a verdict of guilty. And we would then be going to trial again. On appeal. The Jury did what they had to do, and I would like to think that all of us would also do our duty, in the same manner. Put any blame where it should go, the failure of the Prosecution to present a case that would leave no doubt as to guilt.
Personally, I believe Jacko's guilty. But I didn't hear the testimony. I wasn't on the Jury. My "feelings" or gut intuition simply don't count. And neither does yours... Unless you were on the panel. I don't like the verdict, but I will accept it, because 12 good men and women said there was reasonable doubt.
Some of you have wailed about protecting the children.... Isn't that the very same argument used to promote gun control? The word hypocrite comes immediately to mind...
Did no one else but myself watch the interview with the Jury, immediately after the verdict? Did no one else see the obvious frustration they had with their verdict? Did no one but me see the difficulty they had with the prosecutions presentation of fact?
Everyone of them, thought that MJ was guilty. That was readily apparent. But... The prosecution of the case left Reasonable Doubt. Yes, they could have rendered a verdict of guilty. And we would then be going to trial again. On appeal. The Jury did what they had to do, and I would like to think that all of us would also do our duty, in the same manner. Put any blame where it should go, the failure of the Prosecution to present a case that would leave no doubt as to guilt.
Personally, I believe Jacko's guilty. But I didn't hear the testimony. I wasn't on the Jury. My "feelings" or gut intuition simply don't count. And neither does yours... Unless you were on the panel. I don't like the verdict, but I will accept it, because 12 good men and women said there was reasonable doubt.
Some of you have wailed about protecting the children.... Isn't that the very same argument used to promote gun control? The word hypocrite comes immediately to mind...
Agreed, this was a WalMart Jury more angered by the mother and wanting to hurt her rather then help a child. So many people now are like sheep they follow the pack and the media, afraid to decide anything for themselves.
We seem in my opinion to be more forgiving in crimes against children
then we do with adults, I have seen cases in my state with an adult killing
a child and being released from prison after 7 years, I believe we should
have the great "zero tolerance" against any crime committed on a child,
If we cannot protect out kids then our society doesnt have much going
for it. Can we not at the very least consider cimes against children equal
to "hate crimes".
Marko Kloos said:
Because of this very good point, doesn't that mean this discussion should have never gone in this direction?
Unfortunately, we all have strong feelings about a subject such as this (especially when it involves "the children"). So we're going to ignore rationality and want a lynching.
I don't like the verdict (because of my own biased opinion on Mr. Jackson), but I have to trust that 12 peers did their duty correctly. They had actual relevant evidence to consider, I had FOX News and TFL rants.
Get over it.
Patrick Graham
Moderator
I agree.. Unfortunatly, some people feel that we are the real criminals for not believeing Jackson is innocent.... and for not keeping our mouths shut.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Oh, please.
*I* don't believe Jackson is innocent.
However, I realize that my opinion, my feelings on the issue, and the limited evidence I have seen, hardly put me in a position to pronounce a verdict.
Where did I state that you're a criminal for your beliefs?
Where did I demand or bully you into "keeping your mouth shut"?
Everyone's a persecuted victim these days.
*I* don't believe Jackson is innocent.
However, I realize that my opinion, my feelings on the issue, and the limited evidence I have seen, hardly put me in a position to pronounce a verdict.
Where did I state that you're a criminal for your beliefs?
Where did I demand or bully you into "keeping your mouth shut"?
Everyone's a persecuted victim these days.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
What parts of the Bill of Rights don't people understand?
Why is it that the RKBA gets the 'dont understand' treatment but other equally important parts are to be thrown away? Not to be to Freudian here but when one proposes violating the moral standards set by the Founders when one does understand their logical and philosophical bases leads me to suspect nonrational and emotional motivations.
Why is it that the RKBA gets the 'dont understand' treatment but other equally important parts are to be thrown away? Not to be to Freudian here but when one proposes violating the moral standards set by the Founders when one does understand their logical and philosophical bases leads me to suspect nonrational and emotional motivations.
"This is a sad situation here guys.. We are waltzing with a "confessed" homosexual pedophile.. Yes.. he settled out of court twice..."
would it not be as bad if he were a heterosexual pedophile?
go online and check the sexual predators listings in your area, you will find that the overwhelming majority of those creeps were man/woman or man/girl, not man/boy crimes.
if wacko jacko did it, then he is sick and he will do it again(unfortunately), and sooner or later, they will get him.
would it not be as bad if he were a heterosexual pedophile?
go online and check the sexual predators listings in your area, you will find that the overwhelming majority of those creeps were man/woman or man/girl, not man/boy crimes.
if wacko jacko did it, then he is sick and he will do it again(unfortunately), and sooner or later, they will get him.
Patrick Graham
Moderator
An important thing to remember here is that we can believe and say what we want..
You guys should know this...
If believeing and saying that Jacko is a homosexual pedophile and is a danger to kids is a wrong.. then you guys have to find a better way to express that.. argumentum ad hominem doesn't make you look good..
You guys should know this...
If believeing and saying that Jacko is a homosexual pedophile and is a danger to kids is a wrong.. then you guys have to find a better way to express that.. argumentum ad hominem doesn't make you look good..
- Status