Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I Knew it! 100% INNOCENT! Whoo hoo!

What do you think is next for MJ? A new album and tour would be great!

he possessed child porn, last time i checked that was a criminal offence

he's a plastic-retard and either he fondles kids or fondles himself over kids... either way he's scum

Originally posted by Df02
he possessed child porn, last time i checked that was a criminal offence

he's a plastic-retard and either he fondles kids or fondles himself over kids... either way he's scum

Apparantly you know more than every single person involved in the case.

Wow, why didn't they call you up I'm wondering?

Coz like, if you knew as much as us, that comment would mean you yourself are nothing but a retard, because people who continually hound the man for years just to get some dirt on him are more scum than he ever was or ever will be.

BUT of course to make that comment you'd need to actually have substantial proof and evidence. Which I'm guessing you have. Because you made that comment. So of course, you must know for sure, 100%, beyond all doubt and reason, that he did those things. Because everyone actually involved in the case couldn't prove he did. So I suggest you fly yourself out to LA's major magistrates and speak up in hopes of turning this injustice around.

By way of that condemning evidence you must have.

Who am I kidding? You've got **** all and you're just bit that a man you don't understand got acquited. Even if he did fondle himself OVER kids, what business is it of yours? Absolutely none. If I jerk off to Jennifer Aniston in my own privacy, does that give Brad Pitt the right to come and fight me? No.

15 years of court hearings and cardboard fake witnesses couldn't get Jackson convicted on any of these charges. So unless you wanna pull out the old, played out and tired excuse of "He bought his way out" (which we can clearly see he didn't) then shut up and get on with your own life.

Get a life, get over it.

-AC

Actually AC, they (the televised media) have had more than one Jurist from this last case claim that after seeing the evidence from some of the prior cases they have no doubt that MJ has molested children. It was just in this particular case that they felt they could not convict because the child's mother put reasonable doubt in their minds.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Apparantly you know more than every single person involved in the case.

Wow, why didn't they call you up I'm wondering?

Coz like, if you knew as much as us, that comment would mean you yourself are nothing but a retard, because people who continually hound the man for years just to get some dirt on him are more scum than he ever was or ever will be.

BUT of course to make that comment you'd need to actually have substantial proof and evidence. Which I'm guessing you have. Because you made that comment. So of course, you must know for sure, 100%, beyond all doubt and reason, that he did those things. Because everyone actually involved in the case couldn't prove he did. So I suggest you fly yourself out to LA's major magistrates and speak up in hopes of turning this injustice around.

By way of that condemning evidence you must have.

Who am I kidding? You've got **** all and you're just bit that a man you don't understand got acquited. Even if he did fondle himself OVER kids, what business is it of yours? Absolutely none. If I jerk off to Jennifer Aniston in my own privacy, does that give Brad Pitt the right to come and fight me? No.

15 years of court hearings and cardboard fake witnesses couldn't get Jackson convicted on any of these charges. So unless you wanna pull out the old, played out and tired excuse of "He bought his way out" (which we can clearly see he didn't) then shut up and get on with your own life.

Get a life, get over it.

-AC

wow after all that i still don't change my opinion..
he...had..child...porn - check the law buddy, think that's illegal...

and there's a subtle difference between whacking off over jennifer aniston and whacking off over a 12yr old boy.

i don't think he bought his way out, the only way he's innocent is because 'possession of child pornography' wasnt one of the allegations made against him, for some unknown reason.

and talkin off tired and old... 'get a life'? want me to bust out my colouring book and crayons for you aswell?

you're right, it's not any of my business, he didnt touch me.. and as far as im away he hasnt touched himself over me, but that still doesnt change the fact that he's a paedophile and should be atleast under house-arrest

if possession of child porn wasnt a crime, why are the police spending millions tracking down people who download it? just so when they find someone with loads of it they conveniently don't make allegations because it might make him guilty of something other than looking and acting like a freak

EDIT: and just because i 'dont understand' him - doesnt change anything... i couldn't care less if he was the most logical sane person in the world.

Originally posted by Df02
wow after all that i still don't change my opinion..
he...had..child...porn - check the law buddy, think that's illegal...

So this AUTOMATICALLY means he touched the children? No. It doesn't, regardless of any connection you would like to make, it doesn't.

Most people probably would have like him to go to jail for two decades on account of having some magazines. So the guy POSSIBLY (being the appropriate word) whacked off over some kiddie porn magazines, I'd rather him do that than do it to kids. If that's all he did, then what business is it of yours? He's harming no one. Either way, let us get back to the case in point.

Originally posted by Df02
and there's a subtle difference between whacking off over jennifer aniston and whacking off over a 12yr old boy.

If I don't try to touch another man's woman and he doesn't try to touch a kid, what harm are we doing?

Originally posted by Df02
i don't think he bought his way out, the only way he's innocent is because 'possession of child pornography' wasnt one of the allegations made against him, for some unknown reason.

Yeah, that and that despite 15 years of hounding, people couldn't convict him of child molestation. His ex wife was paid to lie and she eventually admitted he was a great father, they called Culkin up in desperate hope of him saying Jackson touched him, only to see the man laugh off the claims. It's been faulty from the start and as time goes on, more and more people are realising that they're not after a child molester, they're after Michael Jackson. Which is despicable, as were your claims.

Originally posted by Df02
and talkin off tired and old... 'get a life'? want me to bust out my colouring book and crayons for you aswell?

you're right, it's not any of my business, he didnt touch me.. and as far as im away he hasnt touched himself over me, but that still doesnt change the fact that he's a paedophile and should be atleast under house-arrest

If he whacked off over child porn, he's a paedophile by DEFINITION. Then again, so are most of the world's male populace. Any time someone says "I can't wait till Hilary Duff is legal because she's hot" It's an act of definitive paedophila. He hasn't, apparantly (not do I believe he has), gone out, kidnapped kids and molested them.

Originally posted by Df02
if possession of child porn wasnt a crime, why are the police spending millions tracking down people who download it? just so when they find someone with loads of it they conveniently don't make allegations because it might make him guilty of something other than looking and acting like a freak

Well why don't we stop referring to how he looks, because it means zero. Absolute zero and I'm tired of people trying to find fault in things that don't matter. He looks like a freak to you, you dislike his lifestyle, great. Want a medal for it? It's irrelevant.

If it was 11 counts instead of 10, I'm sure he'd have been convicted for possession of child porn. But it wasn't raised. Yet I'm sure if it was, people would still be baying for his blood and asking that he be sent to jail for two decades.

-AC

i think a new cd, but he has to get better he looked like shit...well he always does but..sick like shityou know?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So the guy POSSIBLY (being the appropriate word) whacked off over some kiddie porn magazines, I'd rather him do that than do it to kids. If that's all he did, then what business is it of yours? He's harming no one. Either way, let us get back to the case in point.

If I don't try to touch another man's woman and he doesn't try to touch a kid, what harm are we doing?

Actually, possesing child porn is creating a demand for child porn, if you are not part of the solution you are part of the proble.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then again, so are most of the world's male populace. Any time someone says "I can't wait till Hilary Duff is legal because she's hot" It's an act of definitive paedophila.

That's quite a stretch there AC. Comparing a man who has molested underage boys to a man who thinks that a 17 year old celebrity is attractive. I expect much better reasoning from you than that.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He hasn't, apparantly (not do I believe he has), gone out, kidnapped kids and molested them.

-AC

Not kidnapped, no. Molested? Well, members of the jury believe that he has molested kids before based on all the evidence they witnessed, they just couldn't convict in this case.

AC, for a guy who has told people to stop talking about this subject and "get a life"... you sure talk about it alot.

Originally posted by Df02
wow after all that i still don't change my opinion..
he...had..child...porn - check the law buddy, think that's illegal...


the only way he's innocent is because 'possession of child pornography' wasnt one of the allegations made against him, for some unknown reason.



For anyone interested in the 'unknown reason':

Clue: one of the statements must be wrong.

Clue the second: it's the first one.


Can I just throw my hat in the arena as an additional idiot who would like to believe in the tabloids' paper-selling sensationalism over solid legal argument? I'm thinking there aren't enough morons at the moment.

I've always wondered why they prevent the jury reading papers about the event- clearly newspaper opinion is the most valuable tool for discerning someone's guilty status.

i never actually said whether he touched kids or not... i said 'either he fondles kids or fondles himself over kids' - and we know for a fact he owns child pornography.. and the jurors say they beleive he has fondled kids before

both are criminal offences, and no amount of big words or 'get a life' comments are going to change that...

"So the guy POSSIBLY (being the appropriate word) whacked off over some kiddie porn magazines, I'd rather him do that than do it to kids. If that's all he did, then what business is it of yours? He's harming no one."

It harms someone, you buy the magazine or paid money to see this child porn, therefore funding the bastards who make the child porn therefore making more child porn for the idiots who put money into it = harming kids. Don't have to touch kids to harm them.

Not directing this at Jackson, anyone who buys/gets the stuff and the saying the person isn't harming anyone.

Originally posted by MildPossession
"So the guy POSSIBLY (being the appropriate word) whacked off over some kiddie porn magazines, I'd rather him do that than do it to kids. If that's all he did, then what business is it of yours? He's harming no one."

It harms someone, you buy the magazine or paid money to see this child porn, therefore funding the bastards who make the child porn therefore making more child porn for the idiots who put money into it = harming kids. Don't have to touch kids to harm them.

Not directing this at Jackson, anyone who buys/gets the stuff and the saying the person isn't harming anyone.

bingo.
and there's no possibly about it... he owns child porn... what else is he going to do with it other than whack off. and even if he doesn't it does't change the fact that he owns it - creating a business for the sick bastards that made it

he is guilty and that is all I am saying.

i dont really care what he does.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
That's quite a stretch there AC. Comparing a man who has molested underage boys to a man who thinks that a 17 year old celebrity is attractive. I expect much better reasoning from you than that.

I'm not stretching anything. Go to the nearest library, grab a dictionary and look up paedophilia.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Not kidnapped, no. Molested? Well, members of the jury believe that he has molested kids before based on all the evidence they witnessed, they just couldn't convict in this case.

And why, in court cases, can someone not be convicted? Wouldn't be because of a lack of evidence would it? I know many many people involved in law, studying law and previously done jury service. If you get some idiot in the jury who wants to judge on prejudice, he can and nothing can stop him because no one would know. So if we're getting ultra technical, juries are untrustworthy. However, we could skip all this and realise that YET AGAIN the man is found not guilty of the crimes people are pinning on him.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
AC, for a guy who has told people to stop talking about this subject and "get a life"... you sure talk about it alot.

Might wanna note the thread title.

I'm not the one trying to pin the man down despite him being not guilty.

Originally posted by Df02
bingo.
and there's no possibly about it... he owns child porn... what else is he going to do with it other than whack off. and even if he doesn't it does't change the fact that he owns it - creating a business for the sick bastards that made it

He owns porn. Where is this "child porn" allegation coming from? I'd genuinely like to see proof that he owns child porn before we go any further.

-AC

Yes, can we just stop this bandwagon for a second?

He owned an artistic book that is freely available.

Unless of course you have all been to his room? Were privileged to see additional evidence?

Although it's always nice to see people trying to form complex arguments and furrowing their brows on the basis of an ignorant misinterpretation.

Note for future: it's 'walk', then 'run', not the other way round.

Innocent? Perhaps. Awesome? Of course.


Culkin rules.

http://70.85.169.212/3595/139/emo/culkin.gif

Originally posted by barand1
I Knew it! 100% INNOCENT! Whoo hoo!

What do you think is next for MJ? A new album and tour would be great!

The justice system IS fallible, y'know... Not claiming he's guilty, in fact I know very little about the trial, but the fact that he was found innocent doesn't mean that he is.

Well seeing as we're being overly literal, a child is anyone not of legal age.

If you're 17, you're a child. Blad-ow.

If someone says they can't wait, it means they already have an attraction and cannot wait until it would be legal to do something. They don't automatically get a crush when she hits 18.

Wake up a little.

This is off base anyway, because you're dodging the fact that all your child porn claims have gone to slack alley.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well seeing as we're being overly literal, a child is anyone not of legal age.

You are the one who asked me to refer to a dictionary. And actually a child can be a person between birth and puberty, a son or daughter, or someone who lacks the maturity to be an adult. You see, even thou you are 19 or 20 years old, many could still consider you to be a child.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you're 17, you're a child. Blad-ow.

Is "blad-ow" how you emphasize your point? Shouldn't the actual point be enough?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If someone says they can't wait, it means they already have an attraction and cannot wait until it would be legal to do something. They don't automatically get a crush when she hits 18.

Yes, they may be attracted to her because she is pretty, but not because she is young, that is the preference of a paedophile. By acknowledging that they would wait, the are acknowledging that to sleep with someone underage would be wrong and that they prefer adults.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Wake up a little.

This is off base anyway, because you're dodging the fact that all your child porn claims have gone to slack alley.

-AC

Comparing the masturbation over underage porn or the molestation of a 13 year old boy to a person who finds a 17 year old girl attractive yet is willing to wait till she is of legal age is quite a stretch. But if you seem comfortable believing it to be the same thing, so be it.

I find debating with you tiresome, not because I respect your debating ability nor intelligence (as you often seem to think others do) but rather because I find you childish.

A debate is not about winning, it is about making another see your point. You trying to get a victory amuses me, but if you can't see how ridiculous and childish you are, there is no sense debating with you.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
You are the one who asked me to refer to a dictionary. And actually a child can be a person between birth and puberty, a son or daughter, or someone who lacks the maturity to be an adult. You see, even thou you are 19 or 20 years old, many could still consider you to be a child.



Is "blad-ow" how you emphasize your point? Shouldn't the actual point be enough?



Yes, they may be attracted to her because she is pretty, but not because she is young, that is the preference of a paedophile. By acknowledging that they would wait, the are acknowledging that to sleep with someone underage would be wrong and that they prefer adults.



Comparing the masturbation over underage porn or the molestation of a 13 year old boy to a person who finds a 17 year old girl attractive yet is willing to wait till she is of legal age is quite a stretch. But if you seem comfortable believing it to be the same thing, so be it.

I find debating with you tiresome, not because I respect your debating ability nor intelligence (as you often seem to think others do) but rather because I find you childish.

A debate is not about winning, it is about making another see your point. You trying to get a victory amuses me, but if you can't see how ridiculous and childish you are, there is no sense debating with you.

haha

be serious... as far as i can remember the guy owned freely available books showing underage boys naked and also had 60's era photo's of nude children.

legal or not, why the hell would a guy like MJ want that sort of material? educational reasons? seriously doubt it...

the jury have actually said themselves they couldn't convict him on this trial but have no doubt he's guilty from previous charges, he possessed photo's of nude children and in 1993 an innocent man wouldn't pay off his accuser (can groan at that all you want, but it's true..) proven or not, there's something foul goin on at the ranch lol

I hope he can avoid another situation like this...to get caught up in this twice can't be good for your career

Originally posted by KharmaDog
You are the one who asked me to refer to a dictionary. And actually a child can be a person between birth and puberty, a son or daughter, or someone who lacks the maturity to be an adult. You see, even thou you are 19 or 20 years old, many could still consider you to be a child.

Yes, so thanks for proving my point even more. If Michael Jackson is a paedophile, it's only by severely literal definition. Great, now we can move on.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Is "blad-ow" how you emphasize your point? Shouldn't the actual point be enough?

Shouldn't your posts be strong enough that you don't have to dedicate a whole line to a two syllable humourous part? Moving on again...

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Yes, they may be attracted to her because she is pretty, but not because she is young, that is the preference of a paedophile.

Yes, I know what you are referring to. I'm just saying that Jackson isn't a paedophile, because he isn't. Unless you want to get extremely literal.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
By acknowledging that they would wait, the are acknowledging that to sleep with someone underage would be wrong and that they prefer adults.

No, they're showing that they don't want to be hypocritical and also go to jail possibly, in the same breath. As soon as Lohan became legal, magazines all over the world started calling her sexy instead of cute. That doesn't happen overnight, so there must have been something there before. This is very roundabout and I don't see much point in dwelling on it longer, because you are quite wrong in a majority of people. Most people would say they'll wait purely because they've hated paedophilia before and want to be within the legal safe boundaries.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Comparing the masturbation over underage porn or the molestation of a 13 year old boy to a person who finds a 17 year old girl attractive yet is willing to wait till she is of legal age is quite a stretch. But if you seem comfortable believing it to be the same thing, so be it.

Well:

A) Don't assume I am comfortable believing it is the same thing just to help yourself. Because that simply isn't the case, nor did it seem so from my post.

B) I'm not comparing them. I'm simply stating that while one is a blatant act of paedophila, the other is still an act by technicality and definition. Which is never really used because it's pointless. But seeing as someone took it upon theirselves to label the man a paedophile, I was simply stating that from what we've all seen, he would ONLY be a paedophile by definition if that were the case. If he hasn't acted on it. And acting on it was the charge, he got acquitted. Picking up the breadcrumbs, Hanzel?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I find debating with you tiresome, not because I respect your debating ability nor intelligence (as you often seem to think others do) but rather because I find you childish.

As childish as twisting a point and trying to gain an edge? Like you did? As childish as referring to the poster, not the post? You've done both, I've done none. Hmm. Funny this.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
A debate is not about winning. it is about making another see your point. You trying to get a victory amuses me, but if you can't see how ridiculous and childish you are there is no sense debating with you.

Like I said above, as childish as doing what you're doing? I'm not trying to gain anything. So that must be you gaining that impression out of nowhere.

If you can't hack it, don't attack it. Simple. You can, and obviously do, interpret my posts in whichever way you believe will suit you and your mind, best. So far be it from me to request a change of ways. However, do yourself a favour and stop making assumptions then telling others to stop being childish. You make yourself look unbelievably hypocritical.

Peace out.

Originally posted by Df02
be serious... as far as i can remember the guy owned freely available books showing underage boys naked and also had 60's era photo's of nude children.

legal or not, why the hell would a guy like MJ want that sort of material? educational reasons? seriously doubt it...

As far as you're aware? I'm still waiting for sources. Where did you hear he owned child porn? Where did you see it? Where is your proof? The above line means diddly squat without it.

Originally posted by Df02
the jury have actually said themselves they couldn't convict him on this trial but have no doubt he's guilty from previous charges, he possessed photo's of nude children and in 1993 an innocent man wouldn't pay off his accuser (can groan at that all you want, but it's true..) proven or not, there's something foul goin on at the ranch lol

Drop the pay off thing, it's faulty, lame and doesn't strengthen your arguement one bit. Why? Because then I can say that the father of a sexually molested child doesn't allow the accused to get away with a pay off.

The man has been cleared and not nailed for 15 years and you're acting like you wish he was guilty. Surely you'd be happy that there's no evidence to suggest the man is molesting children, unless that's what you did want.

Makes you wonder...

-AC

it's funny how much effort you put into arguing your case, then use 'get a life'... then ask for evidence about what we say when you've been watching the same trial as us.

in 1993 he was found to have various pictures of naked children.
recently i'm not sure about - although i'm sure i've heard it mentioned...

if you care, you can look it up

The difference is, this is a thread created to debate a topic and I'm not constantly mulling over the verdict. We're discussing issues involved.

I'm not strolling around textually abusing the man, labelling him horrific things for things he hasn't done to anyone's knowledge.

You are.

Ok so that's the evidence?

One you're not sure about, the other is years and years and years ago, about naked children.

If you look through my family photo album there's pics of me as a toddler in the bath. Are my parents guilty of owning child porn?

You took a leap before you looked and you fell on your face.

-AC

But his music sucks... .....I don't want him to make another album...

So don't buy it or listen to it.

If you hate the sight of blood and I cut my arm, do you continue to look at it and *****? No. You look away.

Don't understand the big problem.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So don't buy it or listen to it.

If you hate the sight of blood and I cut my arm, do you continue to look at it and *****? No. You look away.

Don't understand the big problem.

-AC

Well yes you are right...but what if my brother suddenly decides that he doesn't like Bullshit Rap anymore and instead buys a new MJ Album...and then he plays it really loud right next to me....that wouldn't be good now would it...

No.

That would be unfortunate.

Again, don't see the big problem. We all hear music we don't like, it's life.

-AC

Yes well....its not a big problem..I just stated what I would prefer...

The thing I find most depressing is that people are pissed off that he is innocent. No reprehensible immoral act on which to vent the frsutration of their meagre lives.

Reminds me of the Bill Hicks line about wars to raise the country's mood.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The thing I find most depressing is that people are pissed off that he is innocent. No reprehensible immoral act on which to vent the frsutration of their meagre lives.

Reminds me of the Bill Hicks line about wars to raise the country's mood.

Hmm he was found not guilty....but anyways.....

I don't know whether Michael Jackson is innocent or guilty of anything, but I'd like to point out that although a 17-year-old may be a minor, having sex with one would be statuary rape, not child molestation. And the APA defines pedophilia specificially as desiring prebubescent children.

Exactly.

Because that's the only paedophilia worth chasing up.

My point proven.

-AC

No, in legal terms he was found innocent. That's what not guilty means, in legal terms.

I don't actually understand why everyone is so confused.

Innocent = Not guilty.

That's really all there is on the matter.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, in legal terms he was found innocent. That's what not guilty means, in legal terms.

I don't actually understand why everyone is so confused.

Innocent = Not guilty.

That's really all there is on the matter.

-AC

Well yes...but you do realise that being found innocent by the law doesn't mean you didn't do the crime....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well yes...but you do realise that being found innocent by the law doesn't mean you didn't do the crime....

and vice versa...

Originally posted by pr1983
and vice versa...

Well yes but this can't be the case here..since Jackson wasn't found guilty now was he

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well yes but this can't be the case here..since Jackson wasn't found guilty now was he

thankfully not...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well yes...but you do realise that being found innocent by the law doesn't mean you didn't do the crime....

That's an extremely lame and flawed rationale.

The man was found innocent.

Let's move on.

PR: That's exactly right. The way people act, you'd think they're pissed off that the guy didn't molest kids. As Victor stated.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well yes...but you do realise that being found innocent by the law doesn't mean you didn't do the crime....

I realise this: but, do you realise that it's not what I'm talking about when I point out the legal meaning of innocent, which you seem to be disputing.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I realise this: but, do you realise that it's not what I'm talking about when I point out the legal meaning of innocent, which you seem to be disputing.

This is not true....I am just saying that being found "not guilty" doesn't mean that you are innocent...in legal terms yes....but people you have to understand: WE LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's an extremely lame and flawed rationale.

The man was found innocent.

Let's move on.

PR: That's exactly right. The way people act, you'd think they're pissed off that the guy didn't molest kids. As Victor stated.

-AC

What the ****, it is in no way flawed....it is what it is...I agree with you....lets move on....but no one of us does know if he is or is not innocent.....

Originally posted by pr1983
thankfully not...

I don't know the truth, so i am not able to give such a statement...if you can I am happy for you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
This is not true....I am just saying that being found "not guilty" doesn't mean that you are innocent...in legal terms yes....but people you have to understand: WE LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD.


Do we?

Maybe you could undertsand this: I was talking about 'innocent' in the legal sense- which you have just admitted is correct. I'm not disputing anything else- that's the end of it.

I know that this does not guarantee not having done the crime. I think everyone does, it's not critical aesthetics.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Do we?

Maybe you could undertsand this: I was talking about 'innocent' in the legal sense- which you have just admitted is correct. I'm not disputing anything else- that's the end of it.

I know that this does not guarantee not having done the crime. I think everyone does, it's not critical aesthetics.

Good then....although there is no such legal term as innocent.....

Originally posted by Bardock42
What the ****, it is in no way flawed....it is what it is...I agree with you....lets move on....but no one of us does know if he is or is not innocent.....

Yeah it is actually flawed. Sorry if you disagree, but it is.

He got found not guilty, which in legal terms means he is innocent.

If you are prepared to claim after EVERY crime, that the verdict doesn't mean anything, you don't lack rationale, you lack brain neurons.

That's not an insult, or intended as one. It's just perception.

-AC

He's innocent. Fair do's.

Can't wait for the South Park parody..........

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah it is actually flawed. Sorry if you disagree, but it is.

He got found not guilty, which in legal terms means he is innocent.

If you are prepared to claim after EVERY crime, that the verdict doesn't mean anything, you don't lack rationale, you lack brain neurons.

That's not an insult, or intended as one. It's just perception.

-AC

If you think that everytime someone was found "not guilty" he is absolutely and perfectly innocent....well you are just wrong.

You know that just because 12 people said he is innocent that doesn't mean that he didn't molest the kid...he either did or didn't , I don't know...but neither do you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If you think that everytime someone was found "not guilty" he is absolutely and perfectly innocent....well you are just wrong.

What you have to understand is that while we all know that a court verdict doesn't absolutely guarantee innocence or guilty (unless it's severe evidence either way), but if you actually take that view of every court case, it's unbelievably stupid.

Unless we have ways of actually reading minds, we have to actually rely on out justice system. So to continually say "It doesn't mean he's innocent/guilty" is really silly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You know that just because 12 people said he is innocent that doesn't mean that he didn't molest the kid...he either did or didn't , I don't know...but neither do you.

Yeah, excellent deduction, Watson.

Missing the point again. It's extremely ridiculous to have aforementioned point of view after a case.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What you have to understand is that while we all know that a court verdict doesn't absolutely guarantee innocence or guilty (unless it's severe evidence either way), but if you actually take that view of every court case, it's unbelievably stupid.

Unless we have ways of actually reading minds, we have to actually rely on out justice system. So to continually say "It doesn't mean he's innocent/guilty" is really silly.



Yeah, excellent deduction, Watson.

Missing the point again. It's extremely ridiculous to have aforementioned point of view after a case.

-AC

No its not its realistic....everyone has to form their own opinion (or don't) ....but it hass ton be clear to everyone that a court can't change what has happened...if someone is found guilty and you don't belive it and for xample still send your children to that person (in case he wyas found guilty as child molester) thats ok...maybe kind of risky....I understand that he was not found guilty and that he'S free and I am perfectly fine with it...cause I don't know the truth ... but you have to accept that other people might still think he is guilty and they are entitled to their opinion and it is not worse just because a court disagreed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No its not its realistic....everyone has to form their own opinion (or don't) ....but it hass ton be clear to everyone that a court can't change what has happened...if someone is found guilty and you don't belive it and for xample still send your children to that person (in case he wyas found guilty as child molester) thats ok...maybe kind of risky....I understand that he was not found guilty and that he'S free and I am perfectly fine with it...cause I don't know the truth ... but you have to accept that other people might still think he is guilty and they are entitled to their opinion and it is not worse just because a court disagreed.

Such an unbelieveably silly rationale.

Just completely ignoring a court verdict just because of that stupid "He could still have/have not done it."

Whether you like it or not, that's an incredibly naive standpoint.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Such an unbelieveably silly rationale.

Just completely ignoring a court verdict just because of that stupid "He could still have/have not done it."

Whether you like it or not, that's an incredibly naive standpoint.

-AC
Wether you like it or not, I never said that....we accept the court as a n authority and if it says he's not guilty I will accept that....but that doesn't mean that I have to live next to someone I think might be a murderer.
I won't disregard the court ruling and judge him myself...but you have to see that there will still be doubts...maybe even reasonable doubts.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Good then....although there is no such legal term as innocent.....

It must be another legal system that is fundamentally based on the statement 'innocent until proven guilty' then.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It must be another legal system that is fundamentally based on the statement 'innocent until proven guilty' then.


Well ok that's right what I said there was wrong...but I still ca't belive that you just say because someone was found "not guilty" they are innocent yand you don't think for yourself if they are ....

MJ actually had kiddie porn? Is this true or just speculation?

Originally posted by BackFire
MJ actually had kiddie porn? Is this true or just speculation?

I don't know

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well ok that's right what I said there was wrong...but I still ca't belive that you just say because someone was found "not guilty" they are innocent yand you don't think for yourself if they are ....

Jesus.

Wake up man. 'Innocent' in the legal sense is the same as 'not guilty' in the legal sense. Got it? They are cleared- therefore they are 'not guilty' AKA 'innocent'. I'm not saying the man definitely did not do it.

The distinction you make is faulty anyway- you don't need to cite the word 'innocent' at all to make that point. If someone is found 'not guilty', it doesn't mean they are definitively 'not guilty'. There's no need to try to create a false separation between the words not guilty, and innocent.

Michael Jackson had a freely available artistic book which contained pictures that the tabloids felt obliged to call illegal material in order to sell papers.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Jesus.

Wake up man. 'Innocent' in the legal sense is the same as 'not guilty' in the legal sense. Got it? They are cleared- therefore they are 'not guilty' AKA 'innocent'. I'm not saying the man definitely did not do it.

The distinction you make is faulty anyway- you don't need to cite the word 'innocent' at all to make that point. If someone is found 'not guilty', it doesn't mean they are definitively 'not guilty'. There's no need to try to create a false separation between the words not guilty, and innocent.


Yes I know I accepted that...I just tried to use the word innocent because it sounds somehow stronger you know. I don''t argue that Not guitly is not innocent...I argue that you shouldn't take everything a court says for granted....but don't we basically agree on each others side...and for some reason just argue?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes I know I accepted that...I just tried to use the word innocent because it sounds somehow stronger you know. I don''t argue that Not guitly is not innocent...I argue that you shouldn't take everything a court says for granted....but don't we basically agree on each others side...and for some reason just argue?

Well, I'm saying to you that we are agreeing on the legal meanings, and the practical likelihood. Here-

'I was talking about 'innocent' in the legal sense- which you have just admitted is correct. I'm not disputing anything else- that's the end of it.

I know that this does not guarantee not having done the crime. I think everyone does, it's not critical aesthetics.'

Then you are saying:

'I still ca't belive that you just say because someone was found "not guilty" they are innocent yand you don't think for yourself if they are'

Which is not something I have said, as shown above.

Otherwise this would be done and done.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Michael Jackson had a freely available artistic book which contained pictures that the tabloids felt obliged to call illegal material in order to sell papers.


Did this book have pictures of naked children?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Well, I'm saying to you that we are agreeing on the legal meanings, and the practical likelihood. Here-

'I was talking about 'innocent' in the legal sense- which you have just admitted is correct. I'm not disputing anything else- that's the end of it.

I know that this does not guarantee not having done the crime. I think everyone does, it's not critical aesthetics.'

Then you are saying:

'I still ca't belive that you just say because someone was found "not guilty" they are innocent yand you don't think for yourself if they are'

Which is not something I have said, as shown above.

Otherwise this would be done and done.

I am talking to AC because he said that my point of view was naive and that you should accept a decision of a court.
I am sorry I might have mixed up you two.

Originally posted by BackFire
Did this book have pictures of naked children?

I can't say I've read the book, so I don't know. However whatever it did have was obviously not pornographic or there would have been charges, and a wider media focus.

All I'm saying is when a woman takes her kid to see two lawyers and a shrink before she calls the cops when he tells her he's been molested it doesn't look too good on her......

michael jackson+his fashion=fashion disaster

jacko shold b killed

Originally posted by THEJEDIMASTER
jacko shold b killed
What? ...Why?

Originally posted by THEJEDIMASTER
jacko shold b killed

How do you function in the world if you cannot get through a four word post without making 4 errors?

Well I must say I do not know what I have started here! As much as I have enjoyed all of your debates I kind of wonder what is the point.

OK lets start with the facts. Michael Jackson is Innocent and not guilty. OK you don't believe me, well lets look closer! If Michael was sleeping with boys and there was sexual things going on between them do you think Michael would admit to sharing his bed? I don't think so! And lets go back to 1993, if we must, because if your son said that Michael had sexually abused him, what you want, to see Michael stand trial and go to jail or have millions of dollors instead? I would do the right thing and and see justice made. That being seeing Michael take trial. Unless of course your son was lying, and so I would take the money, and that is what happened. Although the right thing to do is to admit that your son is making it all up, which is what happened in this lasted case. So give me a break and most importantly give Michael a break.

Lets face it you can't accept the truth because you wanted him to be found guilty and go to jail. But I'm afriad your wishes did not come true, because you were not searching for the truth.

OK unless you want to still be reminded of the truth lets leave the debate here and answer my first question! Please.

Thank You

No one...and with NO ONE I mean me, claimed that Jacko was guilty...and yes, your post makes sense and it seems logical but it is also possible that he is so twisted that he admitted it and didn't think aboot the consequences, and well the people can also be greed y if something has happened to their son...you can't just say because you would want justice tat other people won't want the money...so it remains yes he is legally innocent...and yes he seems really innocent too...but no one knows except for Jacko and the boy.

Originally posted by Bardock42

I don't know the truth, so i am not able to give such a statement...if you can I am happy for you.



How did you get that from my statement? i'm a fan who believed he was innocent of the charges... i was relieved when he was found innocent... thats all...