Do you think Jackson is guilty?

Kipi · Post by **Kipi** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:47 am

The jury has said their opinion, now is yours.
Please give some reasons also

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:20 pm

He was found not guilty in a court of law, which clears him of the crimes he was charged with committing. Until he is found guilty of other crimes or successfully sued in civil court, he should be considered innocent under our legal system.

On the other hand, if you asked, "Do you believe that Michael Jackson molested kids," I think it's pretty obvious that he shared his bed with kids and fondled them and gave them alcohol and showed them pornography. I wouldn't be surprised if his intention really was to teach them how to masturbate.

He wouldn't be the first person to be so misguided. There's a lawsuit in my hometown against an elderly man who taught a lot of young men how to masturbate over the years (he was a diving instructor), and now they're suing him for damages. Did he rape them? I wouldn't call it that. He did commit statutory rape in a few cases because the kids were way too young for him, and he abused his position of authority. And he certainly messed with their minds and crossed the boundaries of decent behavior. And it will always have lasting harmful effects. Someone should have spoken up a long time ago (all of the plaintiffs are over the age of 28, which means they can't file criminal charges against the defendant in the state of Texas) and put a stop to the madness, but apparently all of them were confused about whether the man they admired had actually committed a crime. Perhaps Macaulay Culkin is similarly confused about the way that Michael Jackson treated him, and he might regret it later.

Craig · Post by **Craig** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:03 pm

I don't know what to think, I don't believe that he's purposly done the thing for pleasure. Yes it was wrong, but I just think he is seriously misguided. Seriously.

Ideal Maxima · Post by **Ideal Maxima** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:20 pm

I second with Craig.

I'm not sure, but I don't think he did it.

Craig · Post by **Craig** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:31 pm

Uh... To clarify. I think he did do the stuff he did, but no he is not a pedophile/perverted. He did that stuff cause he never grew up.....

Tower_Master · Post by **Tower_Master** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:42 pm

I honestly don't know, but I have a serious problem with how engrossed our culture has become with this sort of affair because it involves a "celebrity". Do we have nothing we could be doing that is more productive???

Maybe it's just me.

Ripe · Post by **Ripe** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:45 pm

Though one. Like VonDondu said, if you asked "Do you believe that Michael Jackson molested kids", or "Do you believe that Michael Jackson did what he was acused of" I'd say yes.
But since you asked if we believe he is guilty or not, I'd have to say no, because he is insane and not responsible for his actions. He should be given a caretaker (legal guardian) or put into some mental institution but not in jail.
Just like Craig said - "he never grew up..."

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:47 pm

I ignored it because it is just the media wanting a story. Regardless of whether he is guilty or not, he's a person with problems. Even if you're rich, famous, or whatever, you can have problems. Whoop-ty doo.

Tower_Master · Post by **Tower_Master** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:49 pm

[QUOTE=Magrus]I ignored it because it is just the media wanting a story. Regardless of whether he is guilty or not, he's a person with problems. Even if you're rich, famous, or whatever, you can have problems. Whoop-ty doo.

[/QUOTE]

Well said!!! When you turn on the news, is it out of line to expect NEWS, like what's going on in international politics, what's being done to take care of *insert your country's name here* problems, etc? Don't mix entertainment and media balogna with important information!

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:54 pm

Yep, not to mention the fact that high-profile cases bring into the court room a whole different set of rules and objectives than that of say, me being in a court room. Me being arrested pisses off a small number of people. MJ being arrested very well may set off riots. Not to mention that whole money thing...I disregard any legal decisions made based on anyone with over $1,000,000 net worth as a possibility of bribery.

Craig · Post by **Craig** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:58 pm

Slightly off topic did some of the 'fanatics' scare you? Some said they taught their children by MJ's examples (always be nice) and some said meeting him was like a religious experience.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:01 pm

I haven't paid enough attention to know about any fanatics to be honest. I said "ooh, high profile case!" and avoided everything about it.

However, I did notice it's Kipi's birthday. Happy birthday there.

Tower_Master · Post by **Tower_Master** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:02 pm

It's SCARY, man! How do you become SO obsessive that meeting a "celebrity" is like a religious experience? Why, if he were convicted guilty, like Mag said, there might be riots! This is ridiculous!

*And a very happy birthday to you, Kip!*

Craig · Post by **Craig** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:11 pm

Happy birthday.

werebeargoddess · Post by **werebeargoddess** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:28 pm

Aye, Happy Birthday Kip.

But on topic, it's really hard for me to say. Yes, what he did was wrong. But frankly, I'm not sure tha't he's entirely stable. You can't, I think, accuse a guy who is not entirely stable for doing something that he might not be aware is wrong. He needs help. Serious help. Otherwise, he might do the same thing again.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:25 pm

I haven't been following it all that closely but I am a bit confused about why anyone feels they are in a position to have an opinion on whether Michael Jackson is guilty. We only have one system to determine that and it says he is not guilty. I understood that in the US a person is innocent until PROVED guilty. It seems that Michael Jackson was an innocent man falsely accused.
If the finding of the jury does not settle the question, what can ? They heard the evidence. I did not. Did you?
It seems to me that if we can continue to doubt the outcome then no-one has any security. I am not impressed by any argument which amounts to "no smoke without fire".
Maybe I am naive but I am not sure I like a society which denies even the possibility of an innocent relationship between a man and a boy. Here there is a tendency to paranoia, which has led to a suggestion that people should be prevented from taking pictures in the park in case they are a paedophile and take pictures of children. What's that all about?
This seems to me to be a witch hunt and I worry about some of the posts which assert he molested boys but he is insane. He seems to be an unusual person but he has had an unusual life. Where is the evidence that he is a danger to anyone?

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:04 pm

[QUOTE=Fiona]Where is the evidence that he is a danger to anyone?[/QUOTE]
Lots of evidence against Jackson has been made public. Just because he was found not guilty of molesting one particular child in one particular case does not mean that every bit of evidence ever used against him is a lie. The most credible evidence before the latest trial was a civil lawsuit that was brought against him back in 1993. The testimony in that case is a matter of public record. Jackson's chances of winning the lawsuit looked pretty bad, so he settled out of court. To any reasonable person, it appears that there must have been some truth to the allegations or he wouldn't have settled. Who says you can't buy justice in this country?

Jurors in the latest trial who have gone public with their comments say that while the prosecutors failed to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jackson was guilty of the specific charges that were brought against him, the preponderance of evidence leaves them with little doubt that Jackson has indeed molested boys many times in the past. They heard the evidence, and that's what some of them say.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:30 pm

Jackson Pollock? Stonewall Jackson? Jackson, Mississippi?

Tower_Master · Post by **Tower_Master** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:31 pm

Nope, those are all Jacksons that actually might have a sort of significance, ergo modern "pop" culture has 0 interest in them.

Of course we all care about Michael Jackson, though! Why wouldn't we?

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:23 pm

Ooooo, irony and sarcasm. I love that.

GameBanshee Forums

Do you think Jackson is guilty?

Do you think Jakcson is guilty

Do you think Jackson is guilty?