Michael Jackson in trouble AGAIN...anyone else surprised?

[jive1]

I am not saying whether he is guilty or not guilty, but he seems to get a benefit of the doubt that many of us would not get. If I or anyone else here had been accused by someone for child molestation or sexual misconduct, would any of us get away with "I sleep with the kids, but not sexually". I don't think so, especially if the kids are of the opposite sex. Our lawyers would tell us to shut our mouths up, and the public would say "yeah right!" I am not angry with his settlement or anything like that, I am angry that he did not go to trial 1993. All the rest of us would, and have to pay a heavy bail to get out of jail. We hopefully would have our friends and family come to our aide, but wouldn't get Christian Slater who will say "Hang in there, Jive" on MTV or a bunch of fans who are cheering for me or execs pulling strings so that they can protect their cash cow. I would not be able to buy a lawyer like Johnny Cochran or whatever hot-shot lawyer in LA who can figure out a way to let his client get away with murder. More than likely, I would rot in jail like every other average tax paying citizen in a similar situation until my court date where some prosecutor brutalizes me in the courtroom and tears apart my "I only sleep with them non-sexually" defense. During this time my life is torn to pieces, I raise doubt in my friends and family, and all my money is gone because I used it towards my defense. Then if and when I get out of prison, I will return to nothing. All this can happen even though I am innocent, and all I did was "sleep with the kids non sexually".

The Bible says to avoid the appearance of evil. Regardless of your religious beliefs, this has some practical merit. If I have many friends who are known prosititutes, and I allow them to sleep on my couch or my spare bedroom when they need to and buy em clothes or food on a regular basis, isn't it reasonable that someone who is outside of the situation (i.e. vice squad) might think I am a John or a pimp? Is it fair? No. But is it reasonable? Yes. If all my friends are gang-bangers and I dress like them and hang out with them, would it be unreasonable for someone who doesn't know me (i.e. Police) to think I am in that gang? How would they they know if I had been "jumped-in" or not when they don't even know my name? There is a concept in law enforcement known as probable cause. Which means that if there is something that indicates that something illegal MIGHT be going on, a law enforcement officer can act. So if a cop smells weed, he can search your vehicle. If a cop sees a finger poking out of your leaf pile, he can bring you in for questioning. If some guy has a pedophiles profile, a history of eccentric behavior, a previous accusation and a bunch of unrelated kids sleeping in his bed, you have probable cause. A little known fact is that you can be held in police custody for 72 hours without charges being pressed in the US.

We all talk about innocent until proven guilty. But for alot of everyday citizens it just isn't the case. Just ask anyone who has been pulled over for D.W.B. (Driving While Black), or had their car searched for drugs because they have long hair and a Grateful Dead sticker. What I am saying is, why does some celebrity get the benefit of the doubt that the average American citizen wouldn't? Why shouldn't probable cause relate to them? Why do they get the innocent until proven guilty, while others don't? Justice and due process should not rely on how much fame, power, and money I have.

Let's look at the money factor. He's a celebrity so he's a target for the gold-digger. Well, the truth is that anyone can be the target of a gold-digger. Whether it is a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon who is fighting a questionable malpractice suit, or a woman who is taking a guy to court to get his unemployment check because he might be the father of her child. The thing is that these two guys will still have to go to court and prove their innocence. As far as the charity goes, it's nice, but it doesn't make you above the law. Heck, it doesn't even mean that you are a good and honest person. I'm sure all the execs at Enron gave to their church or charity. I'm sure even Hitler gave to some type of charity. I still got a speeding ticket even though I give to police charities and I have a "Fraternal Order of Policemen" sticker on my car. I still have my autistic brother on waiting lists for some services, even though I give to Easter Seals or ARC.

That's the end of my broke Thomas Paine crap. It's my 2 cents, and you may do with it as you please.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally posted by jive1
The thing is that these two guys will still have to go to court and prove their innocence.

No, they don't, and that's the point. The prosecutors have to prove their guilt. That's something else entirely.

You're absolutely right that justice is not always applied equally to everybody in this country. No argument there. But you almost--note I said almost--sound like you're arguing that everybody should be treated with equal INjustice--that is, guilty until proven innocent. It would seem more sensible to argue, not that celebrities should also be subjected to a presumption of guilty until proven innocent, but that *all of us* should be greated as innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Hategear]

I just watched the "Living with Michael Jackson" interview on VH1 today and I have to say, I do not think MJ is guilty of anything more than using bad judgement (not understanding that "normal" people are always going to question adults that spend all their free time playing with children). That guy is very obviously an 8-year-old trapped in a 44-year-old's body and I don't see that he'd ever harm a child in any way, shape or form.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by pyrohr

Originally posted by KeithPas
I find it curious that you are willing to give MJ the benifit of the doubt before you have heard any evidence.


This sounds like guilty till proven innocent to me!

I thought this was a rather strange statement myself. By law we're supposed to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. What's so "curious" about that?

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by Hategear
I just watched the "Living with Michael Jackson" interview on VH1 today and I have to say, I do not think MJ is guilty of anything more than using bad judgement (not understanding that "normal" people are always going to question adults that spend all their free time playing with children). That guy is very obviously an 8-year-old trapped in a 44-year-old's body and I don't see that he'd ever harm a child in any way, shape or form.

That's the same vibe I get.

 

[Peter McFerrin]

I'm not gonna read through the whole thread, but here's my question: what the hell is wrong with these parents who are allowing their kids to spend time one-on-one with Michael Jackson? He's clearly a somewhat disturbed individual, and even if he's not doing anything illegal he's still pretty damned creepy.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by Richard Lindsey
No, they don't, and that's the point. The prosecutors have to prove their guilt. That's something else entirely.

You're absolutely right that justice is not always applied equally to everybody in this country. No argument there. But you almost--note I said almost--sound like you're arguing that everybody should be treated with equal INjustice--that is, guilty until proven innocent. It would seem more sensible to argue, not that celebrities should also be subjected to a presumption of guilty until proven innocent, but that *all of us* should be greated as innocent until proven guilty.

Agreed. This is another eye-opening TB thread.

It does sound like jive1 is saying that the well-off should be subject to the same injustices as everyone else. OTOH IMO no one should.

jive1, I'm curious as to why you're angry that he didn't go to trial the first time (unless of course you have some personal connection to all of this)? Do you know why there was no trial?

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by Peter McFerrin
I'm not gonna read through the whole thread, but here's my question: what the hell is wrong with these parents who are allowing their kids to spend time one-on-one with Michael Jackson? He's clearly a somewhat disturbed individual, and even if he's not doing anything illegal he's still pretty damned creepy.

I've asked the same question too many times.

Maybe he's not as creepy to people who actually know him. Maybe they're playing the lottery with their kid's well-being. Maybe they don't believe the hype and think it's a great opportunity. There's a whole slew of reasons. Would I do it? Nope, certainly not without my supervision.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by DEFELDUS
definitely.

anyways, i dunno if he's guilty or not, if so obviously he should be punished greatly, if not, hes taken the idea of "any publicity is good, even if its bad publicity" waaaaay too far.

"IF not" it's a publicity stunt?

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by Hategear
In November of 2002, Paul Reubens (Pee-wee Herman) was charged with misdemeanor possession of kiddie porn.

Jeffrey Jones (Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Beetlejuice) was also busted in November of 2002, for hiring a 14-year-old boy to pose for sexually explicit photos. He was also charged with misdemeanor possession of child porn. Apparently, Reubens and Jones are acquaintences and both arrests came out of the same investigation.

The only real tie here is that all three were "accused".

 

[Jonki]

it isnt the first time these accusations are pointed to michael jackson, i think he is guilty.
he needs help asap!

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by Jonki
it isnt the first time these accusations are pointed to michael jackson, i think he is guilty.
he needs help asap!

Multiple accusations = guilt?


Great. Let's sentence him now in both criminal and civil court, determine his jail time AND decide what monetary amount to award the "victim's" family. The money saved by not going through the legal process can be sent directly to the family.

 

[KeithPas]

Originally posted by pyrohr

Originally posted by KeithPas
I find it curious that you are willing to give MJ the benifit of the doubt before you have heard any evidence.


This sounds like guilty till proven innocent to me!

Try using my entire quote before trying to make a point.

 

[jive1]

Originally posted by Brad Johnson
Agreed. This is another eye-opening TB thread.

It does sound like jive1 is saying that the well-off should be subject to the same injustices as everyone else. OTOH IMO no one should.

jive1, I'm curious as to why you're angry that he didn't go to trial the first time (unless of course you have some personal connection to all of this)? Do you know why there was no trial?

I guess it might have come off that way. My sentiment is that justice should be granted to everyone not just those who are rich and powerful. I was also trying to say that the rich and powerful still have to have the law and law enforcement (regardless of whether or not it's fair) applied to them as the average joe. I was trying to point out that MJ is getting all the ideals of the system, while many others don't. The fact that the guys flaunts his preceptably lewd behavior publicly just reinforces this fact.

Am I the only guy that thinks that a 45 year old guy who has slumber parties with little kids is more than just eccentric? Magnifying the oddity is that the kids sleep in his bed. I had slumber parties as a kid, and we all had our own bed or sleeping bag. And there was no way one of the parents, older sibling, uncle, aunt or adult friend of the family was going to be sleeping with us. And if it did happen, parents and/or cops would get involved. Is there any way that anyone else in the world could do this and still be seen as "decent"? Imagine if your teacher or pastor did this. Heck, what about your next door neighbor? Why is it that we trust MJ to be moral in his actions, but not the lonely ******** looking Vietnam vet with a crewcut and coke bottle glasses who lives in the dilapidated house on the block with porno mags in the mailbox who lures kids over with his pet ferret and tootsie rolls? Maybe all he needs is a top notch PR staff and an interview on VH-1 and parents in the neighborhood will let their kids spend the night at his house. Why is it when a Catholic priest is accused of molesting kids we have a witch-hunt, and when a Pop star is accused we have a rally for support and cry out for "justice"? Maybe the Catholic church should have worn "Victory" jackets, single white gloves and foderas, while perfecting the moonwalk instead of treating lepers in Calcutta.

Actually, I find it strange that he still has custody of his kids. My wife used to work in adoption and dealt with foster care, and I used to be a social worker. We can tell you that people have lost custody for less. Standard procedure for a sexual abuse accusation is to remove kids from the home until the outcome of the trial. This hasn't been done for MJ. Am I surprised? Nope. Do I think it is fair? No. Once again law and standard procedure do not apply to guys who sell over 13,000,000 copies of Thriller.
Another thing is that a child can be taken away from a parent who displays mental incompetency. Which means if you hear voices and wash your hands too much, you can lose your kids. What do you say about a "8 year old in the body of a 45 year old"?

I don't have any personal connection to the case, nor have I been involved in a similar situation. My anger is that of an average, everyday American citizen who has deals with law enforcement and justice like everyone else in this country (except for those who have pet giraffes in their domicile). I'm angry he did not go to trial for two reasons. It was an accusation that should have been criminal in nature and not civil. You can plea bargain (which is another topic I could go on about, but won't), but you can't settle out of court in a criminal case. This wasn't a speeding ticket you can pay with mailing a fine. Nope, it is a felony charge. Two, he used his wealth and power to bypass the justice system. If you don't think so, do you think if he offered $10,000 or $100,000 or $1,000,000 he'd be able to settle out of court? Nope. If average joe faced a similar situation, there would be no way he could get the funds to settle out of court. He's on trial, even if he is innocent.

I dunno, maybe I am a Prude, but this situation irks me where justice is concerned.

 

[Jonki]

Originally posted by Brad Johnson
Multiple accusations = guilt?


Great. Let's sentence him now in both criminal and civil court, determine his jail time AND decide what monetary amount to award the "victim's" family. The money saved by not going through the legal process can be sent directly to the family.

its my meaning, simple as that

 

[jgsbass]

jive1, I'm curious as to why you're angry that he didn't go to trial the first time (unless of course you have some personal connection to all of this)? Do you know why there was no trial

There was no trial 10 years ago( or so) because the victim refused to testify.

 

[Hategear]

As far as parents letting their kids spend time with MJ, unsupervised, I have one thing to say: Today's parents do all sorts of weird **** with their kids.

A few weeks ago, someone had written to one of those Ann Landers-type advice columns and asked if they thought it was weird that a friend's dad would invite a bunch of 13-year-old boys to go skinny-dipping with him and his son, during his son's birthday party. According to the author of the letter, they were the only parents that objected to their kid swimming nude with a grown man and a dozen other boys. Apparently, everyone else that was involved in the incident thought it was nothing more than innocent fun.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by Jonki
its my meaning, simple as that

It's definitely simple.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by jgsbass
jive1, I'm curious as to why you're angry that he didn't go to trial the first time (unless of course you have some personal connection to all of this)? Do you know why there was no trial

There was no trial 10 years ago( or so) because the victim refused to testify.

True. Now why would that make someone angry?

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by jive1
I guess it might have come off that way. My sentiment is that justice should be granted to everyone not just those who are rich and powerful. I was also trying to say that the rich and powerful still have to have the law and law enforcement (regardless of whether or not it's fair) applied to them as the average joe. I was trying to point out that MJ is getting all the ideals of the system, while many others don't. The fact that the guys flaunts his preceptably lewd behavior publicly just reinforces this fact.

But you used injustices to try and make that point.

Which lewd behavior did you publicly see... besides the dancing?

Am I the only guy that thinks that a 45 year old guy who has slumber parties with little kids is more than just eccentric? Magnifying the oddity is that the kids sleep in his bed. I had slumber parties as a kid, and we all had our own bed or sleeping bag. And there was no way one of the parents, older sibling, uncle, aunt or adult friend of the family was going to be sleeping with us. And if it did happen, parents and/or cops would get involved. Is there any way that anyone else in the world could do this and still be seen as "decent"? Imagine if your teacher or pastor did this. Heck, what about your next door neighbor? Why is it that we trust MJ to be moral in his actions, but not the lonely ******** looking Vietnam vet with a crewcut and coke bottle glasses who lives in the dilapidated house on the block with porno mags in the mailbox who lures kids over with his pet ferret and tootsie rolls? Maybe all he needs is a top notch PR staff and an interview on VH-1 and parents in the neighborhood will let their kids spend the night at his house. Why is it when a Catholic priest is accused of molesting kids we have a witch-hunt, and when a Pop star is accused we have a rally for support and cry out for "justice"? Maybe the Catholic church should have worn "Victory" jackets, single white gloves and foderas, while perfecting the moonwalk instead of treating lepers in Calcutta.

Foderas are basses. Fedoras are hats

As far as Deathmatch 2000: Priest vs. Jackson, you've got some serious apples and oranges working there. One person who has denied everything vs. a small group of people, some of whom have admitted their crimes. AND the church tried to keep it hush hush. AND you apparently don't have the same anger towards them as Jackson, who as a US citizen, as much as some seem to dislike it, is still INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Look, prove he did it and then this might make sense. Otherwise this whole MJ moonwalking vs. pedophile priest help lepers is overdramatic, not to mention just plain wrong. Then again maybe all of the priest did do missionary work prior to their extra curricular activities.

As far as the question of why do we trust Jackson, the fact of the matter is...

"we" don't. "We" haven't left our kids at Neverland with a grown man.

The parents that drop their kids off (is that a stipulation, that the child must be unchaperoned?) are the ones with possible issues. If the guy is as publicly twisted as you say, don't you have a major problem with them for putting their kids in harm's way?

Here's something I'd love to know... what's so frickin' special about a bed? A pedophile can do his/her thing anywhere they want. ANYWHERE. Instead of facing that little fact we get the Pavelovian response time in and time out "Oooh, he was in the bed... that must be bad!!"

Do people even take a moment to consider this? You and alot of others have decided to come to the conclusion that this must have sexual connotations, there's obviously no way this could be benign.

Actually, I find it strange that he still has custody of his kids. My wife used to work in adoption and dealt with foster care, and I used to be a social worker. We can tell you that people have lost custody for less. Standard procedure for a sexual abuse accusation is to remove kids from the home until the outcome of the trial. This hasn't been done for MJ. Am I surprised? Nope. Do I think it is fair? No. Once again law and standard procedure do not apply to guys who sell over 13,000,000 copies of Thriller.
Another thing is that a child can be taken away from a parent who displays mental incompetency. Which means if you hear voices and wash your hands too much, you can lose your kids. What do you say about a "8 year old in the body of a 45 year old"?

The typical person who'd be subject to a social worker typically doesn't the resource, legal representation or connections of the wealthy and/or famous. Welcome to America.

I don't have any personal connection to the case, nor have I been involved in a similar situation. My anger is that of an average, everyday American citizen who has deals with law enforcement and justice like everyone else in this country (except for those who have pet giraffes in their domicile). I'm angry he did not go to trial for two reasons. It was an accusation that should have been criminal in nature and not civil. You can plea bargain (which is another topic I could go on about, but won't), but you can't settle out of court in a criminal case. This wasn't a speeding ticket you can pay with mailing a fine. Nope, it is a felony charge. Two, he used his wealth and power to bypass the justice system. If you don't think so, do you think if he offered $10,000 or $100,000 or $1,000,000 he'd be able to settle out of court? Nope. If average joe faced a similar situation, there would be no way he could get the funds to settle out of court. He's on trial, even if he is innocent.

I still don't get your anger. Obviously you have a right to be angry about whatever you want. You're angry at MJ because the SYSTEM is f'ed up? That's a tad misplaced, isn't it?

BTW average Joes settle out of court all the time.

How did "he" bypass the system? AFAIK he used it. How did "he" make any charge not a felony? And most of all, how did "he" make the family accept any settlement? Sorry but if he did what he ALLEDGEDLY did to my son no amount of money would've kept me from nailing him to the wall. Sorry but there's no way I'd be alright driving a Ferrari to a mansion and still have to look in my son's eyes and know that his innocence paid for those spoils. That would make me no better than any other predator.

AND, as we all should've learned from OJ, I'd still be able to come at him in civil court afterwards where the burden of proof might be greatly diminished and I could still get money, if that's what I wanted.

I dunno, maybe I am a Prude, but this situation irks me where justice is concerned.

Hey, you feel what you feel. So do I.