arrest warrant issued for Michael Jackson

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by RUDisney
Truer words were never spoken.

I heard something on talk radio this morning... and the kids were talking at the same time, so I only heard snippets...

Is it true that CA changed the law that said that a child had to be willing to testify and now the DA has the right to call a child to testify whether or not they want to. They said something about this is why the investigation stopped the first time and even if they were to settle out of court, with enough evidence, the child could still be called by the DA and a trial could still commence?

That's what I thought that I heard.

-------------------------------

Yes - that's correct.. In the first case the 12 yr. old boy refused to testify against MJ and that's why the charges were dropped..

Last night they (news media) were saying that MJ knew these most recent charges were going to surface and had already tried to make some sort of "arrangements" with the boy and his parents. He allegedly had them at this ranch for a period of time and had obtained passports so he could get them out of the country before charges were pressed..

Of course the above came from the "media" so who knows if it's true or not..

The only thing I know for sure is that he is a VERY abnormal person with a thought process that is sorely lacking..

I'll wait to hear more evidence before I judge his guilt or innocence on this new charge..

 

[gemmie214]

Originally posted by cleo
Be very careful of such quick assumption of guilt. It devestates lives.

Unless you know the facts, it's a dangerous thing to assume guilt based solely on perception. We have a justice system for a reason and, thank GOD, we are given our say in court. If you have never been wrongfully accused, you may not know what it's like to defend yourself, but when I hear people calling him a child molester JUST because he looks and acts like a 'freak', it scares the heck out of me to think they might be on a jury some day.

I'm no fan of Michael Jackson, but the man DOES deserve the same right to justice as you and I. Pretend it's you, your husband, or your son that's been accused........then decide if it's right to assume guilt without the facts.

You are absolutly right but in this case things are a bit different. I (and millions of others) saw him talk about and try to justify sleeping in the same bed with children. He is a 44 year old man, they are young children. That is just not right. He sees what he is doing as "loving". Now, even if he is "just" snuggling with these kids, I still think he has crossed a line. JMHO of course.

I also was thinking about the fact that he only hangs out with young boys, you never hear about girls being his "special" friends. Again, very creepy. Why creepy? To me it seems that he is cultivating relationships with the gender and age he finds most attractive.

I honestly hope that he is not a pedaphile for all the children he has relationships with sakes but sadly I think these accusations have a solid foundation.

 

[kimber79]

Originally posted by cleo
Be very careful of such quick assumption of guilt. It devestates lives.

Unless you know the facts, it's a dangerous thing to assume guilt based solely on perception. We have a justice system for a reason and, thank GOD, we are given our say in court. If you have never been wrongfully accused, you may not know what it's like to defend yourself, but when I hear people calling him a child molester JUST because he looks and acts like a 'freak', it scares the heck out of me to think they might be on a jury some day.

I'm no fan of Michael Jackson, but the man DOES deserve the same right to justice as you and I. Pretend it's you, your husband, or your son that's been accused........then decide if it's right to assume guilt without the facts.

VERY WELL SPOKEN...............AMEN...........

 

[RUDisney]

Very often if it swims like a fish, looks like a fish, and smells like a fish... it is just that... a fish.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

Well, it is not for us to decide if it's a fish. If a jury decides it's a fish, then it is a fish! And cook it! But as of right now, we have to assume it's not a fish!

 

[cleo]

There are millions of people across the world who sleep with their children. Granted, it's different when it's not your own child, but even so, it does not mean you are molesting them.

Again, I am no fan of Michael Jackson. If he's found guilty, I'll celebrate with everyone else while he rots in prison. However, I am only addressing the rush to accuse without facts. That is exactly what causes horrible devestation in people's lives, in ways that may not even occur to you.

If you've ever been wrongfully accused, even in the most meaningless way, you know how it feels to have people talking about you as if you are absolutely guilty without a doubt, even though they don't know the facts or your side of the story. At least hear the evidence (or lack thereof) before you assume he is guilty. Then, if he's guilty, you can cheer as he hangs.

As for the fish analogy....there is physical evidence of it's being a fish, there is visual evidence of it's swimming like a fish, and there is olfactory evidence of it's smelling like a fish. If I had something in a bag and TOLD you it was a fish, would you simply take my word for it and assume it was? Would you still assume it was if you knew someone's life was on the line if you guessed wrong, or would you ask to see what's in the bag before you were positive it was a fish?

 

[RUDisney]

A jury decided OJ wasn't guilty. That doesn't mean he isn't... it just means that the jury wanted to get home already and the easiest way to do that was to proclaim him innocent so they didn't have to go through the secondary debate of life vs. death.

As for Michael... if convicted, his best option would be suicide. The inmates would eat him up and spit him out.

 

[Carl]

Originally posted by legs22
I think the other inmates in prison would have a reeaaalllyy good time with MJ

And you approve of this? If I was on a jury and found the person guilty, I would approve of sending the person to prison for punishment, but I would not approve of sending a person to be repeatedly raped.

 

[Bon Bon]

What have I based my opinion on? If a fish is willing to hang his own baby off a 4-story ledge and laugh while doing it, what will this fish do to someone elses child for fun?

 

[cleo]

If we were all convicted for doing stupid things with our children, I wonder how many of us would still be here to have this debate in the first place.

If it isn't ok with you for a child to be raped, why is it ok with you for an adult to be raped?

 

[Bon Bon]

Very true Cleo.

 

[legs22]

Oh my gosh. Lighten up people. It was said in jest

Yes, if he is found guilty by a jury he should be punished and sent to prison if that's the decided punishment. After that, he'll be with the other inmates and God only knows what will happen to him then. I wouldn't sent someone to prison for the heck of it just to be raped nor do I think it's ok for adults to be raped.