A defendant's state of mind is always relevant. I question whether he actually fit to stand trial.
I also find it amusing alic88 that you demand that everyone should wait until the verdict to declare whether Jackson is innocent or guilty, yet above your Avatar you state your belief that he is innocent. Shouldn't you also wait?
anything can happen. but i am just saying the fair way of finding out is by court, and if u wanna look at things that way, truth can never be told, but the court is the fairest way to find out of some one's guilt or innocence, so we have to live with it you know. its as simple as that. the courtroom is the best way to determine some one's innocence or guilt, its as close as u can get.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
That's all fine and dandy but why are you getting so flustered over my opinion?Has it affected you? No.
Has it interfered with your life in any way? No.
Has it harmed you? No.
Has it been a danger to you or any of the general public? No.
Get over yourself. Just because you don't like someone else's opinion, that doesn't mean you have to pontificate
You pontificate on many subjects and hold your opinions as righteous and above the reproach of others. You also defend to your dying breath a man with obvious problems and whose guilt has yet to be determined.
If you don't like what people have to say, leave the forum.
It is you attitude, outlook and response which is indeed pathetic.
Oh I see what you did there, quite funny. Coz I did that multiple question thing too and YOU have done it back to me....to try and prove a point. Ahhh you sly thing, you.
On Earth though, don't flatter yourself and assume that you got me flustered by reading a post.
I wouldn't go so DRASTICALLY and unrealistically far as to say I defend the man to my dying breath. He has problems? To who? To me? Not to me. It isn't my problem, or a problem to anyone I know. So why should I view it as one? He seemed just fine in his "surreal" fantasy world. It's the idiots outside of it who don't like the way he lives that continue to pick and pull until they have something substantial to say.
You think the man has problems? Fine with me. I asked the genuine questions and you failed to answer. I answered for you and they were the correct answer. Let's go over them one more time:
That's all fine and dandy but what in the world has it got to do with you? Nothing.
Has he affected you? No.
Has he interfered with your life in any way? No.
Has he harmed you? No.
Has he been a danger to you or any of the general public? No.
Hmm....yep. They all SEEM like perfectly civilised questions. Accurate also. Not to mention correctly answered. He doesn't have to seek help just because you don't like the way he lives. If I'm a mental patient who lives in my home, never venturing outside and you watch me through my window, not liking what you see. I don't "need" to get help just because you think I do. He's doing fine, he's not a danger.
I don't believe the man is guilty because I haven't been given any reason to believe he is. "But what about the..." No, shh. I don't take SMALL, rumoured pieces of information and run with them. I question them and see what's going on. You are quite clearly someone who takes exception to his appearance and demeanour and as a result, made the connection that the claims weren't far off.
Nothin' but friendly debate my friend. Just try to know what you're talking about first.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nothin' but friendly debate my friend. Just try to know what you're talking about first.-AC
You are truly a joke sometimes. I counter your argument with the exact approach that you take and you still poke holes in it. Your arrogance is laughable.
If you take offense to those who comment on issues and people, then perhaps you should refrain from commenting yourself.
Your assumption that I don not know what I am talking about leads me to believe that you see yourself thoroughly versed on every aspect that you choose to pontificate upon.
Before you go about the world looking down upon all those who disagree with you, perhaps you should take the time to realize that you are in fact still very young and don't have a monopoly on knowledge or erudite communication skills.
And the condescending tone as you call me friend was not missed, do not flatter yourself so, I am not your friend, just someone who frequents the same forum who often has a different opinion than you.
Originally posted by BackFire
Micheal Jackson is getting off, the witnesses are way too inconsistant. He's getting off, and he'll continue to get off with kids.
c'mon backfire, i really respect you, but if you're trying to say that he will keep molesting kids, you have no real proof that michael jackson ever molested a child. and you are right, the witnesses are inconsistant, why? because judging from what has happened in the trial so far, it just does not seem like he committed the crime.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
You are truly a joke sometimes. I counter your argument with the exact approach that you take and you still poke holes in it. Your arrogance is laughable.If you take offense to those who comment on issues and people, then perhaps you should refrain from commenting yourself.
Your assumption that I don not know what I am talking about leads me to believe that you see yourself thoroughly versed on every aspect that you choose to pontificate upon.
Before you go about the world looking down upon all those who disagree with you, perhaps you should take the time to realize that you are in fact still very young and don't have a monopoly on knowledge or erudite communication skills.
And the condescending tone as you call me friend was not missed, do not flatter yourself so, I am not your friend, just someone who frequents the same forum who often has a different opinion than you.
Tone? I was unaware that tone was detectable from text. Wow, you should join the military psy-corps. I'm sure they'll have much use for you in the intelligence department.
Take my advice. If you can't run with the big dog, stay on the porch.
Don't try to turn a good thread into a petty and futile strike at me just because you can't reply to my posts in which I openly show your faulty, false, point of view smothered with delusional entitlement. Funny how the only people who use the "You don't like opinions" argument are those who cannot say anything back to me.
I respect your right to the opinion. I too have that right and if I choose to use my opinion to have an opinion on YOUR opinion, then that's the way the cookie crumbles. You can't have an opinion and then put boundaries on what I can and can't comment on.
Take your immature self away and think about what you've said or come back and act maturely instead of replying with insults.
Now, on topic:
Originally posted by BackFire
Micheal Jackson is getting off, the witnesses are way too inconsistant. He's getting off, and he'll continue to get off with kids.
If of course he is doing it anyway. He has to be doing it anyway for anything to continue.
-AC
To answer your question, there is none. I don't insult you. I haven't insulted you. You get out of my posts whatever you feel is in there, in this case a "condescending tone" and all that other stuff you dreamt up. I don't put that out there so it's all in how YOU view ME.
I'm not gonna take the heat for you overdramatising.
In your last couple of replies nothing you've said directly relates to the thread. Point proven.
Anyway, topic.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You can't have an opinion and then put boundaries on what I can and can't comment on.
yeah, but any word on how MJ's behavior warrants suspicion and you throw out 'innocent until proven guilty' as if the court system is an infallible...as if lots of fame and lots of money could NEEEEEEEEVER be used to manipulate the system and get away with murder. sorry, but in the real world, rich and powerful people can do such crimes and not get pinned, and at the same time people with no money and power get screwed by the system, and pay for a crime they didnt commit.
what im saying is that you cant present written law as objective truth. we are not a jury, we dont have to follow the rules of the court. if you want to fine, but dont expect everyone to play along.
'beyond a reasonable doubt' means that a person cant be CONVICTED unless proven guilty. you act as if nobody has a right to be suspicious, because the court will find him not guilty. well thats fine that you trust our legal system so, but you cant throw that into a debate as a way to put up your OWN boundaries on what can and cant be discussed.
YOUR opinion is that jackson's behavior is not worthy of suspicion...and thats fine. believe what you will. but you cant mix law and fact.
'innocent' in 'innocent until proven guilty' does not proclaim "its a fact he/she didnt do it" but rather "we thought he/she did but couldnt convince the jury". that in no way implies purity.
Originally posted by alic88
c'mon backfire, i really respect you, but if you're trying to say that he will keep molesting kids, you have no real proof that michael jackson ever molested a child. and you are right, the witnesses are inconsistant, why? because judging from what has happened in the trial so far, it just does not seem like he committed the crime.
Don't need proof, it's my opinion that he has fondled kids at some point or another.
I believe he has an unhealthy obsession with kids, and at some point has molested them. Just the way I feel.
Originally posted by PVS
yeah, but any word on how MJ's behavior warrants suspicion and you throw out 'innocent until proven guilty' as if the court system is an infallible...as if lots of fame and lots of money could NEEEEEEEEVER be used to manipulate the system and get away with murder. sorry, but in the real world, rich and powerful people can do such crimes and not get pinned, and at the same time people with no money and power get screwed by the system, and pay for a crime they didnt commit.
I never doubted that money and fame could be used to manipulate the system at all. I don't think this is the case, but I never doubted it could happen. It would be stupid to. Just because it CAN happen, doesn't mean that it will or that it is. Seems like because Jackson is rich, you are using that as an excuse for his possible innocence.
His behaviour warrants suspicion, to who? Not to me. I don't give a shit how he acts if he isn't doing anything wrong. If all he did was merely SLEEP in the same bed as those kids then it's odd...at worst. You can be suspicious all you like but I don't believe there is any reason to assume he's a child molester at all.
Originally posted by PVS
what im saying is that you cant present written law as objective truth. we are not a jury, we dont have to follow the rules of the court. if you want to fine, but dont expect everyone to play along.
I'm not, I expect everyone to show some common sense.
Originally posted by PVS
'beyond a reasonable doubt' means that a person cant be CONVICTED unless proven guilty. you act as if nobody has a right to be suspicious, because the court will find him not guilty. well thats fine that you trust our legal system so, but you cant throw that into a debate as a way to put up your OWN boundaries on what can and cant be discussed.
Assumption City. I don't act in that way, misinterpretation is ripe in here it seems.
If you're suspicious, fine. However, to most people here it seems as though the next logical step from liking to spend time with kids is sleeping with them. I'm sorry but that's not the case.
Originally posted by PVS
YOUR opinion is that jackson's behavior is not worthy of suspicion...and thats fine. believe what you will. but you cant mix law and fact.
'innocent' in 'innocent until proven guilty' does not proclaim "its a fact he/she didnt do it" but rather "we thought he/she did but couldnt convince the jury". that in no way implies purity.
No, it implies that until they are convicted, they cannot be labelled guilty officially. That's what it means.
About this whole suspicion thing: If you don't like his lifestyle, fine. However that is of scarse relevance to this case. If you don't like how he decorates his ranch or who he spends time with OR what he does to himself, that doesn't give you the right to say "Yeah I think he molests kids".
-AC
Originally posted by BackFire
Don't need proof, it's my opinion that he has fondled kids at some point or another.I believe he has an unhealthy obsession with kids, and at some point has molested them. Just the way I feel.
You don't need proof to claim that someone is a paedophile? Quite disgraceful.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You don't need proof to claim that someone is a paedophile? Quite disgraceful.-AC
As long as he doesn't state it as fact an opinion is acceptable. I personally don't know what to think. He's been acting strange for a number of years. Like the OJ Simpson case I'm finding myself not caring. He's going to get off anyway... All the evidence is circumstantial and the witnesses are beginning to step over their own feet with changing their stories.