Anyone else not thrilled about Captain EO returning?

[Mary2e]

No. I am saying that not guilty and innocent are not the same thing. If you think otherwise, I am at a loss for words.

Of course they're not.

Everyone starts out as innocent and it is up to the prosecutor to prove guilt. An arrest does not imply guilt, nor does someone filing a suit.

A not guilty verdict means the prosecutor did not prove guilt, leaving the defendant still innocent.

If MJ was found not guilty, that means he is innocent. Period.

 

[BayouMickey]

Of course they're not.

Everyone starts out as innocent and it is up to the prosecutor to prove guilt. An arrest does not imply guilt, nor does someone filing a suit.

A not guilty verdict means the prosecutor did not prove guilt, leaving the defendant still innocent.

If MJ was found not guilty, that means he is innocent. Period.

in the eyes of the court but in the eyes of god that's a different story

 

[BYC]

In all honesty, I think the issues with MJ were primarily affected people in the US and around the rest of the world he is as big as ever. With Disneyland and Disney World being the two most-visited theme parks in the world, they are catering to the majority of people in the world.

Just my two cents.

Not sure what to take from your statement?? Only Americans care about child molestation?? I know that can't be true. I am sure there are plenty of people "around the rest of the world" who look with disdain on MJ. He probably molested many boys in their countries too.

 

[mrsltg]

Of course they're not.

Everyone starts out as innocent and it is up to the prosecutor to prove guilt. An arrest does not imply guilt, nor does someone filing a suit.

A not guilty verdict means the prosecutor did not prove guilt, leaving the defendant still innocent.

If MJ was found not guilty, that means he is innocent. Period.

No, it means the defendant was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you shoot someone and it cannot be proven, it doesn't mean you didn't shoot them, it just means it can't be proven in a court of law. There is a H-U-G-E difference between the two.

And, arrest implies there is probable cause to believe a crime occurred and the person arrested committed said crime. Of course, saying an arrest implies guilt is a good way to get yourself out of jury duty!

Period.

 

[kwitcherkicken99]

Why is this thread still open?? It's a trainwreck... a sad, fighting trainwreck that is becoming the norm around here.

Captain EO is coming back, sorry. Like a PP said, MJ is still crazy popular internationally and it's all about the bottom line.

If you don't like it, skip it! There are PLENTY more attractions at EP to do instead. It's a limited engagement, so it will be gone soon. Stick it out - it'll all be over soon. Besides, are you really going to miss HISTA??

I actually enjoyed the cinematic drama of the Frances Ford Coppola (sp?) directed Captain EO. Regardless of MJ's issues outside of the entertainment business... hands down he was a good performer. His untimely death shocked the world, and there was enough intrigue over the whole event for the higher-ups to decide to bring it back. It's done, and no matter how much you complain, it'll still be there. Just go do something else and forget about it.

 

[Mary2e]

No, it means the defendant was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you shoot someone and it cannot be proven, it doesn't mean you didn't shoot them, it just means it can't be proven in a court of law. There is a H-U-G-E difference between the two.

And, arrest implies there is probable cause to believe a crime occurred and the person arrested committed said crime. Of course, saying an arrest implies guilt is a good way to get yourself out of jury duty!

Period.

I've got a little example…

I'm sitting in my house minding my own business. The police come to the door and tells me the little boy across the street says I touched him improperly.

I never left my house and never touched the boy, yet I'm arrested and the prosecutor files charges because there's probable cause.

I am found not guilty.

Does that mean I'm still a child molester?

I'm baffled that people are calling MJ a pedophile when it was never proven that he is.

 

[Mary2e]

in the eyes of the court but in the eyes of god that's a different story

Then that's between MJ and his god. I certainly am not going to pass judgment on his actions, particularly since he was never convicted of anything.

 

[BayouMickey]

I've got a little example…

I'm sitting in my house minding my own business. The police come to the door and tells me the little boy across the street says I touched him improperly.

I never left my house and never touched the boy, yet I'm arrested and the prosecutor files charges because there's probable cause.

I am found not guilty.

Does that mean I'm still a child molester?

I'm baffled that people are calling MJ a pedophile when it was never proven that he is.

ok another example:

I'm a bad man with a bad gheri curl, and I molest a child,
child tells parents and call police on me.
Only proof there is is his word against mine so I go free
Am I still innocent?

 

[mjp12831]

Of course they're not.

Everyone starts out as innocent and it is up to the prosecutor to prove guilt. An arrest does not imply guilt, nor does someone filing a suit.

A not guilty verdict means the prosecutor did not prove guilt, leaving the defendant still innocent.

If MJ was found not guilty, that means he is innocent. Period.

Not quite this clear cut - not guilty doesnt imply innocence - it only means that the case was not proven to the jury such that the jury can agree the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

A jury can feel like someone may have committed the crime, but still not vote to convict because of reasonable doubt. This in no way means that the accused is innocent.

 

[Mary2e]

Not quite this clear cut - not guilty doesnt imply innocence - it only means that the case was not proven to the jury such that the jury can agree the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

A jury can feel like someone may have committed the crime, but still not vote to convict because of reasonable doubt. This in no way means that the accused is innocent.

And that leaves the defendant back in the same state he was in before the trial - innocent.

This is the cornerstone of our legal system.

 

[Mary2e]

ok another example:

I'm a bad man with a bad gheri curl, and I molest a child,
child tells parents and call police on me.
Only proof there is is his word against mine so I go free
Am I still innocent?

In the eyes of the law, yes.

 

[BayouMickey]

In the eyes of the law, yes.

ok... thanks for clearing that up?

 

[Mary2e]

ok... thanks for clearing that up?

You never answered my question. In my example, am I innocent or not?

 

[mrsltg]

And that leaves the defendant back in the same state he was in before the trial - innocent.

This is the cornerstone of our legal system.

No. It does not. The judge does not declare you innocent. You are found not guilty. There is a WORLD of difference. Being legally blameless is not the same as having not committed the crime.

 

[Huff]

People who believe he is guilty of child molestation most likely are totally unaware of the specifics and parties involved in the two cases. Same lawyer in both for instance. Read up on them and you'll see why I and many others feel it was all about money and nothing more.

He was a strange character but an incredible musician and I believe he did nothing to hurt any child.

 

[BayouMickey]

You never answered my question. In my example, am I innocent or not?

no you're not. Just because their are loopholes and special considerations for famous people doesn't mean the correct verdict was handed down. The US judicial system is flawed, if you can't see that, no one will convince you otherwise. as in my example I'm obviously guilty but was let off to go out and do it again, maybe even getting more braver because I wasn't punished for my crime.

 

[Huff]

No. It does not. The judge does not declare you innocent. You are found not guilty. There is a WORLD of difference. Being legally blameless is not the same as having not committed the crime.

Wrong, in the USA a suspect is presumed INNOCENT unless PROVEN GUILTY. If he is not proven guilty then the presumption of innocence remains. This is the USA, other countries differ where the presumption is guilty and one must prove their innocence. Big difference.

 

[Mary2e]

No. It does not. The judge does not declare you innocent. You are found not guilty. There is a WORLD of difference. Being legally blameless is not the same as having not committed the crime.

The judge cannot declare you innocent. He never declares anyone guilty or innocent. You start out innocent and have to be proven guilty. There isn't a verdict called "innocent" simply because that is the state everyone is in when they are on trial.

If they are not found to be guilty, the verdict is not-guilty because you are on trial to determine your guilt, not your innocence.

Also, I'm confused as to how you can consider a person guilty when it is not proven? How can we function as a society if, after their day in court, people do not believe in someone's lack of guilt, and still say they committed a crime. The logical extension to that is that everyone is guilty and they have to prove their innocence. An accusation should not be the arbiter of a person's guilt or lack thereof.

 

[Mary2e]

no you're not. Just because their are loopholes and special considerations for famous people doesn't mean the correct verdict was handed down. The US judicial system is flawed, if you can't see that, no one will convince you otherwise. as in my example I'm obviously guilty but was let off to go out and do it again, maybe even getting more braver because I wasn't punished for my crime.

Now I'm really confused.

I'm not innocent because I was arrested for something I didn't do and was able to prove it? A jury found me not guilty and I really didn't do it.

A not-guilt verdict still makes me guilty?

 

[mrsltg]

Wrong, in the USA a suspect is presumed INNOCENT unless PROVEN GUILTY. If he is not proven guilty then the presumption of innocence remains. This is the USA, other countries differ where the presumption is guilty and one must prove their innocence. Big difference.

If I am wrong, please tell me when the court says, "you're innocent." Innocence is not a legal definition, not guilty is. The court does not declare innocence. They find, based on evidence, whether you are guilty or not. Yes, you are presumed innocent and the prosecution must prove guilt. This is all legality. The court is not involved in whether or not you actually committed the crime. You either did, or you didn't. The court decides if the burden of proof has been met. There are innocent people who are found guilty, and guilty people who are found innocent. The court system is not perfect. But, no, they never declare you innocent - ever. You are simply found "not guilty."

Now, off to work - peace!