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

[Turock]

Does sleepin with kids make him guilty? I guess not. Bloody Gloves and DNA made OJ not guilty. He is, at the very least, guilty of engaging in inappropriate behavior.

He is a strange character indeed...he shouldnt be allowed around children because of his mental state, regardless of whether he sexually abused them or not. Would any of you leave YOUR son with Michael Jackson for a weekend?

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by Turock
Does sleepin with kids make him guilty? I guess not. Bloody Gloves and DNA made OJ not guilty. He is, at the very least, guilty of engaging in inappropriate behavior.

To the contrary, bloody gloves and DNA did not make OJ not guilty. Inept prosecutors and over-zealous law enforcement saw to that quite nicely

He is a strange character indeed...he shouldnt be allowed around children because of his mental state, regardless of whether he sexually abused them or not. Would any of you leave YOUR son with Michael Jackson for a weekend?

As he's not been convicted of any crime it's still up to parents to decide what they'd do regarding MJ and their kid(s). Unless of course someone would like to make that decision for them.

 

[Turock]

Originally posted by Brad Johnson
To the contrary, bloody gloves and DNA did not make OJ not guilty. Inept prosecutors and over-zealous law enforcement saw to that quite nicely

The evidence I saw was quite convincing, with the inept prosecutors and over-zealous law enforcement included. That jury would not have convicted OJ if they had seen him do it with their own eyes.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by Turock
The evidence I saw was quite convincing, with the inept prosecutors and over-zealous law enforcement included. That jury would not have convicted OJ if they had seen him do it with their own eyes.

That's a commonly held belief. Since the prosecution DID screw up and LE WAS overzealous I guess at least some of us will never know.

That case was amazing in the way it polarized people... so many seem to take it as if it had happened to a member of their family... much like this situation. When you consider the lack of moral outrage for other no less heinous recent crimes it seems a bit curious to say the least.

Are those of you who are angry at MJ and OJ equally as vocal and angry about the Lacy Petersen or JonBenet Ramsey cases? I certainly haven't seen that. Why? Is it merely because the accused are celebrities? Do celebrity criminals piss people off more than the average Joe who alledgedly kills his pregnant wife? Then again I guess that can't be it or people would be just as vocal and angry about Robert Blake and Phil Spector. Murder is murder... isn't it?

Somebody help me with this one.

 

[Boplicity]

Originally posted by Brad Johnson


Are those of you who are angry at MJ and OJ equally as vocal and angry about the Lacy Petersen or JonBenet Ramsey cases? I certainly haven't seen that. Why? Is it merely because the accused are celebrities? Do celebrity criminals piss people off more than the average Joe who alledgedly kills his pregnant wife? Then again I guess that can't be it or people would be just as vocal and angry about Robert Blake and Phil Spector. Murder is murder... isn't it?

Somebody help me with this one.

Why do many people become angry over notoroius celebrity cases and less angry over other lesser celebrity cases or non-celebrity cases? I'm not sure that is always true. We had a serial rapist in Miami recently who was attacking pre-tten girls and elderly women without regard to age. There was plenty of outrage in the community and when the man comes to trial, I'm sure the community will be very interested in the trial. Also recall the sniper case of John Mohammed and Malvo. That grabbed headlines for weeks. The trials of these two are heavily covered also. Neither sniper was known to the public before their rampage.

But that said, I've been wondering why so many people seem so mean spirited in regard to Martha Stewart who sold $25,000 worth of stock, possibly because of insider trading. The jokes and harsh judgment of her far excede the executives at Enron, Tyco and WorldCom, men who bilked their companies' coffers of millions and millions of dollars.

I guess some cases just catch the public interest. But I do disagree that the Peterson case has much less interest than the MJ case. Peterson has been on the cover of The Inquirer week after week. That tabloid doesn't put anyone on the cover who doesn't stimulate broad public interest. It's just that MJ has eclipsed the Peterson case for now, because not all that much is happening in it right at the moment.

My personal feeling about Jackson is that putting all the celebrity aside, it just isn't "normal" for a forty-five year old man to take boys to his bed year after year. I have read that in only one instance has the guest been a girl as far as is known. He has children of his own. Why is he "borrowing" other parents' sons? If he loves children so much, there are countless other more positive ways he can demonstrate his love, such as endowing underprivileged children's libraries or endowing children's hospitals, etc.

Though he argues that sleeping with boys is "sweet" and one of the best ways to show love, I can tell you that if any other forty-five year old man were doing that, his local community would be up in arms. In my heart of hearts, I feel there is much Jackson can do with boys that is just as sweet and should be done in public with other adults present. When he goes to bed at night, he should never be there with other people's sons.

That behavior just makes him appear suspect. Why subject himself to that scrutiny and criticism? I think it is because he cannot stop himself. That pattern of conduct is not 'normal" for a man his age. Plus it sets him up for extortion and claims of misconduct that may or may not be true, but set back his career and ruin his reputation anyway, even if the claims are eventually unsubstantiated.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by Boplicity
Why do many people become angry over notoroius celebrity cases and less angry over other lesser celebrity cases or non-celebrity cases? I'm not sure that is always true. We had a serial rapist in Miami recently who was attacking pre-tten girls and elderly women without regard to age. There was plenty of outrage in the community and when the man comes to trial, I'm sure the community will be very interested in the trial. Also recall the sniper case of John Mohammed and Malvo. That grabbed headlines for weeks. The trials of these two are heavily covered also. Neither sniper was known to the public before their rampage.

I'm talking on a national scale. People all over this country are severely pissed at Jackson and even moreso at OJ. Why aren't they just as angry at Spector and Blake?

But that said, I've been wondering why so many people seem so mean spirited in regard to Martha Stewart who sold $25,000 worth of stock, possibly because of insider trading. The jokes and harsh judgment of her far excede the executives at Enron, Tyco and WorldCom, men who bilked their companies' coffers of millions and millions of dollars.

People really don't like her for some reason.

I guess some cases just catch the public interest. But I do disagree that the Peterson case has much less interest than the MJ case. Peterson has been on the cover of The Inquirer week after week. That tabloid doesn't put anyone on the cover who doesn't stimulate broad public interest. It's just that MJ has eclipsed the Peterson case for now, because not all that much is happening in it right at the moment.

I think you've missed the point.

I'm not saying there's no national interest... it's obviously there. OTOH where is the national OUTRAGE? There isn't any. Why not? Why is an ex-athlete alledgedly killing his ex-wife such a flashpoint while a guy alledgedly killing his pregnant wife isn't?

My personal feeling about Jackson is that putting all the celebrity aside, it just isn't "normal" for a forty-five year old man to take boys to his bed year after year. I have read that in only one instance has the guest been a girl as far as is known. He has children of his own. Why is he "borrowing" other parents' sons? If he loves children so much, there are countless other more positive ways he can demonstrate his love, such as endowing underprivileged children's libraries or endowing children's hospitals, etc.

"Borrowing"? AFAIK parents willingly bring their kids.

Though he argues that sleeping with boys is "sweet" and one of the best ways to show love, I can tell you that if any other forty-five year old man were doing that, his local community would be up in arms. In my heart of hearts, I feel there is much Jackson can do with boys that is just as sweet and should be done in public with other adults present. When he goes to bed at night, he should never be there with other people's sons.

Parents know this and leave their kids anyway.

That behavior just makes him appear suspect. Why subject himself to that scrutiny and criticism? I think it is because he cannot stop himself. That pattern of conduct is not 'normal" for a man his age. Plus it sets him up for extortion and claims of misconduct that may or may not be true, but set back his career and ruin his reputation anyway, even if the claims are eventually unsubstantiated.

The appearance of impropriety is all alot of people seem to need.

 

[QTraXQ]

Why do people want to say michael is a sick individual(as far as sleeping with a child is concerned)?? If nothing happens sexually, then how is he sick?

I believe michael has something wrong with himself to change his face in such a drastic way. But why does everyone not quote him word for word. Instead many people in this forum want to pick and choose the words that they like.

I believe it came out of the boys mouth about michael sleeping on the floor and the boy slept in the bed.Whether the boy lied or not, who know??

If Michael was a Very Very good friend of my families and a child of mine was spending a night at His house I would have no problem with michael sleeping in the same room. But, remeber in my scenario I would know Michael as a good family Friend, possibly like a Brother. People look at michael and his comments of him saying he loves children and twist his comments.

Think of yourself as an uncle, and your nephew sleeping on your shoulder or maybe as a good family friend who is like a part of the family.
Stop thinking straight out sexual, as if michael is hiding under the covers and staring at the kid as he sleeps. Also, It also seems as though people want to make michael out to be a "Child rancher"; herding these children in like cattle and sleeps with everyone or most children that go to neverland ranch..

No one knows if michael has done anything, but people seem to jump to conclusions. Statements like, "hes crazy, parents lock up your kids", is ridiculous. I would not leave my kid with any stranger whether hes famous or not unless I got to know them and that goes for anyone... When I say get to know them, I mean for a good 5 years personal friendship.. To me, america has gotten so bad with "Relationships" with children to where we forget the times that we may have spent at a good family friends house. I remember plainly going over to a Family friends house and spending a night, because it was exciting to get to be away from mom and dads "controlling" hands. One of the only times you get to stay up late, eat a bunch of junk food and it be ok by an adult...

I hope Mike didn't do it. I can not Pre-judge him as being guilty...

 

[lowerclef]

We may never know the whole truth about Michael. But one thing I know for sure is that when I look at how his whole life has gone down, I wouldn't trade places with him for any amount of money.