Originally posted by Df02
he possessed child porn, last time i checked that was a criminal offencehe'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
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
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.
Re: Michael Jackson
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.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not stretching anything. Go to the nearest library, grab a dictionary and look up paedophilia.-AC
paedophilia - Variant: or chiefly British pae·do·phil·ia /"pEd-/
Function: noun
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
: sexual activity of an adult with a child
So in your example of a person saying,"I can't wait till Hilary Duff is legal because she's hot" as being definitive paedophila we see that it has not met the defined criteria.
Having said,"I can't wait till Hilary Duff is legal" shows that although Hillary is currently under age, by waiting for her to be legal, the person does not "prefer"children.
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