| Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/ |
|
| Michael Jackson - Verdict: Not Guilty http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3750 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | ModestlyHotGirl [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Michael Jackson - Verdict: Not Guilty |
So, what do you think? Should he have been convicted? |
|
| Author: | AgentSeethroo [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have to admit that I was really surprised... Who woulda thunk it... |
|
| Author: | InterruptorJones [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't really have an opinion one way or another. But I kinda wish I was near a TV so I could see the crowd going absolutely bonkers. |
|
| Author: | ModestlyHotGirl [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have to say that I'm really surprised. While I just think he's a really weird guy and I don't know how I feel about the charges one way or the other, I'd have thought he'd be convicted through the roof. He's creepy. |
|
| Author: | AgentSeethroo [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ModestlyHotGirl wrote: I have to say that I'm really surprised. While I just think he's a really weird guy and I don't know how I feel about the charges one way or the other, I'd have thought he'd be convicted through the roof. He's creepy.
He's a Sith Lord. Untouchable. |
|
| Author: | ModestlyHotGirl [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That must be it. Only unlike Palpatine, who got uglier, he got Caucasianier. |
|
| Author: | breadtangle o' pizza [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wow. Just...wow. How the crap did I get the first notice of his unguiltyness on Wikipedia? |
|
| Author: | Acekirby [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I thought he would be guilty, but in the back of my mind, somehow, I knew he'd get off scott free. Possibly because he always has. |
|
| Author: | Stu [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I keep forgetting that a number of you were too young to remember the OJ Simpson trial. |
|
| Author: | AgentSeethroo [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Stu wrote: I keep forgetting that a number of you were too young to remember the OJ Simpson trial.
True, true. That's exactly what came to mind when I heard the verdict. The O.J. Trial, not the forum users' ages... |
|
| Author: | Beyond the Grave [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I really think he should have been convicted. One less child molester in the world. |
|
| Author: | Lunar Jesty [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
By taking this option, we'll have people talking about the trial for years to come. It will be a matter of debate, over and over again. I don't concider this a good thing. I've already had enough of seeing Jackson's face and hearing bad jokes. |
|
| Author: | Beyond the Grave [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Lunar Jesty wrote: By taking this option, we'll have people talking about the trial for years to come. It will be a matter of debate, over and over again. I don't concider this a good thing. I've already had enough of seeing Jackson's face and hearing bad jokes. Well had he been convicted and went to prison he would have been dead with in a year.
|
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I really don't know how I feel about the verdict. Still hasn't quite sunk in yet. If he really was guilty, then this is just proof that famous = not guilty. If not, then justice was served, and folks need to let him get this behind him. Either way, he is a Grade-A, full-blooded, 12 cylinder wackaloon. Thankfully, you can't be thrown in the slammer for that. Still, that guy gives me the heebilly jeebillies. Like Bart Simpson said: "It's just something they made up to scare kids, like the boogeyman or Michael Jackson". |
|
| Author: | Frotzer [ Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
darn i hope he was guilty because HE IS! Why are they releasing a boy-hungry-pedophile back into the wild? He should be guilty it isnt right to molest kids and give achohal to them.So yes does that answer your question??? DOES IT!!!!!??? |
|
| Author: | StrongCanada [ Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
With regards to this verdict, since they've found him "not guilty", I truly hope that he wasn't. Honestly though, guilty or not, with the crazed media attention the first time around with him, what parent in their right mind would send their kid to Neverland Ranch unsupervised anyway? |
|
| Author: | Frotzer [ Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
yes but ive got a better reason its the parents fault heres why:First off there kid wants to go to neverland then the PARENTS SAY YES.They let there kid go off to that wicked evil neverland and there kid gets CENSORED by michal |
|
| Author: | Ungurait#7 [ Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Unfortunately, our justice system, like any viable justice system, is based on whether someone can be "proven guilty", not whether they are or not. As for this case specifically, I think that Michael Jackson is a deeply disturbed individual. Even if he did molest kids, I doubt he would understand that he was doing something wrong. In other words, jail would not be the proper way to deal with him. Some kind of mental institution would be better. But since he's been found innocent, I can't say anything about him except that he seems really sketchy, and any parent who would let their child stay overnight with him should be checked into some kind of institution. I'm glad I wasn't on the jury. |
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Frotzer wrote: darn i hope he was guilty because HE IS! Why are they releasing a boy-hungry-pedophile back into the wild? He should be guilty it isnt right to molest kids and give achohal to them.So yes does that answer your question??? DOES IT!!!!!???
You're right, it isn't right to molest kids or give them alcohol. Keep in mind, though, that it has to be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did. It's pretty much his word against theirs, and, well, from what I understand the accusor's family isn't exactly the most honorable... Previous lawsuits they have filed seem to suggest that. |
|
| Author: | IantheGecko [ Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I wasn't convinced that Jacko was guilty. Popular suspicion alone wasn't going to convict him; it was the evidence. The boy of the plaintiffs kept inflating his story over time; he has lied in court before. When Macaulay Culkin was on the stand, he denied that anything inappropriate had happened; the allegations were "absolutely ridiculous". In addition, the sleepovers weren't planned, and the boys just fell asleep when they were tired. The bottom line is, the family was just after Jackson's money; they used suspicion, lies, and his celebrity to at least try to get im in jail for money. |
|
| Author: | Anarchy_Balsac [ Tue Jun 14, 2005 3:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I sincerely wsh to hunt down and kill every single member of that jury. |
|
| Author: | Beyond the Grave [ Tue Jun 14, 2005 3:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Anarchy_Balsac wrote: I sincerely wsh to hunt down and kill every single member of that jury. No threatening of violence against anybody. Saying stuff like that can get you thrown in jail.
|
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Tue Jun 14, 2005 3:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Anarchy_Balsac wrote: I sincerely wsh to hunt down and kill every single member of that jury.
Why? Because the carefully considered all of the evidence and made a decision? I don't like their decision, either, but I mean, if there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction, then no conviction should have been rendered. |
|
| Author: | Anarchy_Balsac [ Tue Jun 14, 2005 3:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
StrongRad wrote: Why? Because the carefully considered all of the evidence and made a decision? I don't like their decision, either, but I mean, if there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction, then no conviction should have been rendered.
They had an incompetant prosecution from the get go, but come on it's micheal jackson. The same man who admitted sharing his bed with young boys, how is he not guilty? They released an obvious child molester. |
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Tue Jun 14, 2005 3:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Anarchy_Balsac wrote: They had an incompetant prosecution from the get go, but come on it's micheal jackson. The same man who admitted sharing his bed with young boys, how is he not guilty? They released an obvious child molester.
Why do you say the prosecution is incompetant? I mean, from what little I saw, they seemed to have their acts together. He DID admit sharing his bed with young boys, but that hardly makes him a child molester. Have you ever shared a bed with your parents? They didn't molest you did they? Sharing your bed with young children with which you are related doesn't make you a child molester, but it certainly does look strange.. Strange isn't illegal. |
|
| Author: | Anarchy_Balsac [ Tue Jun 14, 2005 3:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well for one when their own witnesses were made to look incompetant by the defense, they failed to cross examine this and attribute it rape victims not always immediatly coming forward(which is very true), they also failed to prepare their witneses for such cross examination. Those 2 things alone say that they don'tknow what their doing. And while sharing your bed isn't an admission of guilt, come on, would you do it with kids other than your own? Why not? |
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Tue Jun 14, 2005 3:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Anarchy_Balsac wrote: Well for one when their own witnesses were made to look incompetant by the defense, they failed to cross examine this and attribute it rape victims not always immediatly coming forward(which is very true), they also failed to prepare their witneses for such cross examination. Those 2 things alone say that they don'tknow what their doing. And while sharing your bed isn't an admission of guilt, come on, would you do it with kids other than your own? Why not?
The case was flawed from the beginning, you got that right. But when you base an entire case on an accusation by people who have lied under oath and have made false accusations before, well you're just starting off on the wrong foot. I'm not saying the accusation was false, but the accusors have made accusations like this before, and those turned out to be completely baseless. I wouldn't share my bed with another person's kids, but it's because I just see it as weird. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's wrong, but it's definately weird.. Like I said, weird isn't illegal (yet). |
|
| Author: | Anarchy_Balsac [ Tue Jun 14, 2005 4:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
A good prosecuter would question the defenses testimony that the accusations were false, micheal being aquited doesn't mean they were false. I wish I knew the exact details so I could describe it better, but basically the defense testmony was fallacious, and the prosecution failed to call this out. I just don't see someone sharing his bed with kids not doing it to rape them, especially when you take into account how he lied on publc TV about how the police treated him. |
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Tue Jun 14, 2005 4:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Anarchy_Balsac wrote: micheal being aquited doesn't mean they were false.
Yes, you're completely right there. Acquittal doesn't equal innocence, but I still don't know. Michael is just so strange. It's possible he didn't do anything with the kids in his bed.. He is like a child, so it's possible that he saw it as a slumber party and nothing more. He's just plain weird... He named his kid Blanket.. That's all you need to know... |
|
| Author: | DJ Soul Camel [ Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
post DELETED! |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|