RIP Michael Jackson

[Damn True]

Anna Nicole Smith got her second 15min after her death I think this is going to make that spectacle look like nuthin.



Besides, playing this up diverts the press from covering stuff that actually matters.

I've always been of the mind that says that an innocent man doesn't write HUGE checks in the face of a false accusation.

[megaladon6]

poorman: the only reason i quoted that part was it was the part i was commenting on. no offense or "convenient forgetfulness" intended.

I've always been of the mind that says that an innocent man doesn't write HUGE checks in the face of a false accusation.

damn true!! damn true lol

[shmoov69]

Besides, playing this up diverts the press from covering stuff that actually matters.

Totally. Meanwhile, the USA is focusing their attention on the MJ "SAGA",

words and stuff

All while "nobodys lookin"!

[Iamtheonlyreal1]

I would think the settlement was probably a wise decision, the damage here would have been worse if it kept going.. It isnt like it was a breach of contract, so damage control was necessary.. You would be surprised how often it goes on..

With the money he had, I wouldnt want to wake up with that headache every day. Settlements are part of the game whether you are innocent or not.. Sad to say, damage control is the American way.. Personally, I would have had to fight it every step of the way..

I will say this, and it will come out wrong.. But, If you are found innocent by the Court system, you should no longer be liable for any damages.. Like OJ, he was found innocent, but the family still sued him for everything. How is that possible? Criminal court should be decide the liability if any..The fact that he was found innocent, should have squashed any chance of a civil suit. So much B.S there.. I am not defending OJ, but if you squeek by, I am not sure you should continue to pay.. The fact that it is possible to sue someone civily after you are found innocent in court, has affect alot of people with lessor situations.

[Mr.VENGEANCE]

what about your boy singing "man in the mirror" at a candlelight vigil in Tokyo Japan.. guess which one is me.
lol!


all the huge TV networks were there.. Reuters, fujiTV, NHK..etc. i guess the main guy singing is one of the biggest lawyers in Japan.

[shmoov69]

Sorry True, forgot where I was!

[Damn True]

Sorry True, forgot where I was!

No worries. I'm liable to slip up myself. Feel free to let me know.

[mikedc]

I've never understood how there is so much uncertainty about his molestation guilt.

The guy had just the right past to cause the issue, he showed all the classic signs of it as an adult, and he persisted in doing (and defending) all kinds of questionable behavior with kids for years after he'd already been on trial for it.


Was he just too stupid/unaware of the media and image issues to know he should back off spending time around kids? No way. The guy was perceptive enough to buy the Beatles Catalog when it was a deal and his life was an example of supremely skilled media manipulation for a long time. He knew exactly what he was doing and he just chose not to stop. The only difference between him and a zillion other guys we would've convicted by now was his money & fame.

[parsonsj]

Like OJ, he was found innocent

Neither of them was found "innocent". They were found "not guilty". Big difference. Not guilty means the prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.

One shouldn't take a not guilty verdict as a value judgement and suspend your own ethical senses. Simpson is not innocent.

[Jackson] persisted in doing (and defending) all kinds of questionable behavior with kids for years

Exactly. Would any of us allow our children around such a man?

jp

[TT302Z28]

I hear they are going to melt him down since he was mostly plastic in the end and make legos......that way little boys can play with him instead!

[Damn True]

That makes 3

[Iamtheonlyreal1]

Sorry, That is the problem with the public... You are Innocent until proven Guilty.. The public has things totally backwards... It is so sad..

So what you are trying to say, by your statement is, Everyone that is going throgh the Court system is guilty.. The only reason they didnt go to jail is because the Prosecutors didnt have enough evidence or intelligence to win the Case.. Is that really what you trying to say? I surely hope not, that is Un Constitutional and not fair.

Even if you are guilty but found Not Guilty(INNOCENT) by the court system, it is your constitutional right to live and operate like an innocent man. The Burden of Proof is on the State or Government, that is just the way it is.. I am not saying that I approve of OJ's verdict, but it shouldnt allow further persecution in other ways.. The Ideal of Innocent until proven Guilty is there to protect us all, with out it we would be no better than a 3rd world country that needs on reason to imprison or execute their public.

I do understand that some of the guilty get lucky or are very intelligent and beat the system, but no system is perfect. So, in Oj's case, there should have been no civil suit allowed. It was just a re-trial of the same evidence that had been already been determined not good enough to convict on a higher charge. The public and court system today is way out of hand in alot of ways. They need to be reigned in a bit, back to the true definition of Innocent or Guilty. Not the grey area of trying to please and being politically correct, so they can keep their jobs and public opinion.

[TT302Z28]

This is the same argument that causes little old ladies to be searched at an airport while people who "fit a profile" are not searched so we don't hurt anyones feelings.

If it is yellow, has a bill and orange webbed feet it is likely a duck.

If you sleep with little boys, you might be a child molester..


If you have have many witnesses to you behaving in an inappropriate manor....you might be a child molester

If you build a multi million dollar home with an amusement park to attract children, provide alcohol to minors........you might be a child molester.

Common sense has been lost. If was one of my children (not that I would have left my kids there to sleep with Mr Jackson) I'd of killed the ******* slowly!

[parsonsj]

So what you are trying to say, by your statement is, Everyone that is going throgh the Court system is guilty.. The only reason they didnt go to jail is because the Prosecutors didnt have enough evidence or intelligence to win the Case.. Is that really what you trying to say? I surely hope not, that is Un Constitutional and not fair.

Exactly right. Innocent until proven guilty is a nice little couplet defense attorneys like to use, but it really doesn't exist in the American court system. What does exist and is actually in the Constitution is the right to confront your accusers in a court of law, be tried by a jury, and be provided a lawyer to argue your case.

Innocent is an ethical (or moral) term, not a legal term.

Think about this: if it were truly "innocent until proven guilty", why does the court system require a hearing to see if the defendant can be released? For nearly all felonies, you will be required to post bail at minimum, and if the crime is serious enough, you will be held without bail. In actual fact, the American court system assumes guilt once you're arrested until a jury finds you not guilty, a judge dismisses the case, or the prosecution drops the case due to lack of evidence. And... the state can re-arrest you later for the same crime with the only exception being if you were found "not guilty" by a jury. All the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" really means is that the onus is on the prosecution to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution brings the claim, and also has to bring the evidence.

Have a look at this:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#innocent

An excerpt:

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.

The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury.


And, yes, I think the vast majority (98%? 99%) of accused criminals in American courts are guilty.

[Iamtheonlyreal1]

Exactly.. You have more common sense than the victims it would seem.. And common sense should come into play, perhaps the parents that accused should have been prosecuted themselves? There is alot of grey, that is the reason to keep it simples. The court system shouldnt have to bend over backwards to serve the dumbass's that should have used better judgment.

As far as this argument casing little old ladies getting searched and letting people that fit a profile go through.. I am not talking about preventative measures, those people are not being prosecuted of anything unless something is found on them..The searches should be adjusted to profile with out a doubt.

There is a major difference between a search for protection and prosecuting someone to their rights.. If you dont find something in the search, they are on their merry way... If you prosecute someone incorrectly or against the constitution, they are in jail and lose out on their freedoms.. Profile and search away, as far as I am concerned it make total and reasonable sense..

[poormans69]

It wasn't alcohol. It was "Jesus juice". mmmmm..... Jesus juice.

[Iamtheonlyreal1]

Like everything, it is a matter of interpretation and assumption.. Freedom and Innocence is the key here.. The Hearing to find out if their will be a trial and is suppose to cut the work load of the Jury and Court system. The hearing is not a Trial, it is an initial argument to determine if there is enough merit to continue. I really dont think that during a hearing the evidence has total value yet, it is just to see if there is just cause to continue.. Just because there is a trial date set, is not a presumption of guilt. I will say it doesnt look good, but not quit there yet. If you were found guilty at that point, why not skip the trial? That is because you were not found guilty yet.

The bond is set or refused by severity of the crime and likleyhood of flight risk. So they make it harder for you to disappear by adding consequence that most of the time falls on family members. Meaning in the majority of the cases, family member put up property or assets to cover the bond. So, the fact that there is a hearing at all, does not determine guilt at all.. They may only way the value of the case against them, but no decision is made.

I will agree that 99 percent of people in the court system are guilty of the crime or some part of it. But, I dont believe the 99 percent of the people that are arrested are guilty of a crime or full extent of the crime that is being filed. That is the reason for the Hearing, to weed out all the B.S. that involved people being wrongly accused to to the one track mind of the Investigators, prosecutors, ect. People get an idea in their head and run with it. So if an investigator or an officer gets it in their head that someone one is guilty, they tend to work mainly in that direction until they have enough circumstantial evidence to make an argument.. I am sure that you can be accused of alot of things, that just doesnt make it so.

[mikedc]

The justice system works on money, that's all. Here's the real deal:


1. You commit a crime worthy of about 2 years in the slam. Due to sentencing guidelines put in place generations ago, there is a similar limit on how many years they can give you for that crime. It used to be 2 years, but lately it has been revised up to 5 years minimum because some jerkoff was trying to "get tough on crime" to get himself elected.


2. But there's no limit on how many crimes they tack on. Public urination becomes not only "public urination" but also "unlawful possession of a penis" and "unlawful use of a penis" and "using a penis during the commission of a crime" "unlawfully discharging a penis during the commission of a crime," etc. Now they can give you a total of 15 years underneath the guise of obeying the mandatory sentencing laws.


3. If you're rich and get a good lawyer, then you only get 5 years. If you're poor, you get convicted on all counts and get the full 15 years.


4. You get out after 2 years for good behavior and prison space, which was all your sentence originally ever should have been. (Some Federal study will eventually categorize your release as a "violent offender back on the street because of prison overcrowding.")


5. They give you a bunch of parole fees. It's for ankle bracelets & court costs & mandatory classes to take. It adds up to several hundred dollars per month. (If you actually had the capacity to earn that much extra money, then you would probably never have committed the crime in the first place.) So if you can pay the fees for several years once you get out, then you get to stay out. If not, then you go back in the slam for several years for a "parole violation" just the same as if you committed another real crime.





The system mainly exists to lock up a portion of the population. It's illegal to be poor. Anything else the current system gets done is just a side effect.


---------------------

[Damn True]

You need no better example than the following:

In Feb of this year during The Tour of California bicycle race someone broke into the Team Astana trailer and stole 2-3 bicycles. One of which being the completely custom one of a kind time trial bike belonging to Lance Armstrong. Easily a $20k bicycle.

The guy was just sentenced to 3yrs in prison.

In March of this year Donte Stallworth, while drunk, struck and killed a 59 year old man with his car.

He was just sentenced to 30 days in prison, 2yrs on house arrest and 8yrs probation.

[blown9746]

One does not pay 23 million dollar settlement if they did nothing wrong. No matter how much money they have.

Was he great at one time? Yes. Was that time long ago? Definitely.

For those defending him, I doubt you would let your children anywhere near the freak.