Bad Parenting

When I was young, my mother had a wooden spoon that she named 'Jemima' - which she also painted a smily face upon. While it was never used, the threat of 'Don't make me go get Jemima' was enough to keep me relatively in check. That's good parenting.

I think it's why I turned out so normal.

I like pants!
 
Quarto said:
Yeah, that's nice - but no matter who had been in that jury, you would have still called it a farce if they found him not guilty. So, what exactly do you consider justice to be? Is it justice when a court makes a decision based on what can and can't be proven, or is it only justice when a court makes the same decision that you made?

Now, I personally couldn't care less whether he's guilty or not - I just think that the concept of innocent-until-proven-guilty is more important than getting this one guy in jail. And I think people are usually far too eager to assume that someone famous is guilty.
Click to expand...

Listen carefully and I will let you in on a secret...I'm not a judge. I'm not part of a jury, I'm not a politician, I'm not a president...I am an ordinary individual who happens to think that Michael Jackson is guilty of inappropriate behaviour with a young boy. Apparently I have committed a grevious sin in your eyes in that I have voiced my opinion that I think Jacko is guilty. If the jury had declared him guilty then I would just be an ordinary person whose opinion turned out to be the same as the legal proceedings thereof. However, they didn't declare him guilty in their eyes so I am still an ordinary person but my opinion is not the same as the legal proceeding...I am still entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to yours. I don't mock your opinion and I'd be grateful if you would afford me the same courtesy.
 
Happy Camper said:
Me too! I just can't imagine life without any suitable clothing to cover my lower body :p .
Click to expand...

I also am glad you have clothing to cover your lower body. ;)
 
Maj.Striker said:
Listen carefully and I will let you in on a secret...I'm not a judge. I'm not part of a jury, I'm not a politician, I'm not a president...I am an ordinary individual who happens to think that Michael Jackson is guilty of inappropriate behaviour with a young boy. [...] I am still entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to yours. I don't mock your opinion and I'd be grateful if you would afford me the same courtesy.
Click to expand...
Well, here's the thing - although this did start when I commented on your opinion (that he should be in jail), I certainly do realise that you're free to believe he's guilty, and you're free to say he's guilty. Heck, I didn't say that I think he wasn't (though truth be told, I really just don't care). But when you go on to say that the jury was a farce, it sure does make me curious about what this jury could have done - apart from voting 'guilty' in spite of the total lack of proof - to prove its validity to you.

Oh, and I'll let you in on a secret too. You've just posted your opinion at a public forum. You're not even inviting others to comment about your opinion - you're demanding it. You wouldn't be posting here otherwise. So don't go all "you-got-your-opinion-I-got-mine" on me, because that ain't what it's all about.
 
No one is mocking your opinion, we're just disagreeing with you. You know -- stating our own opinions. If anything, you're the one attacking *our* legal system - to expect people not to defend it is silly.
 
What would you have, then? The justice system against people without evidence on the basis that they look guilty?
 
I'm a really good judge of character after having to argue with thousands of different people over the last five years. I could be the judge and just have someone say their name in front of me and I'd know whether they were guilty or not.
 
The only thing I can say is, I armchair quarterbacked the MJ trial when 73 police officers went to Neverland. I also predicted that the accuser was the kid we saw in the documentary. I also said, "There had better be 3 or more accusers." The thinking behind this is that more than one is harder to discredit. The prosecution seemed all too eager to prosecute this case and "Didn't consider the credibility" of the accuser. The fact is, the jury did the right thing. There was more than enough reasonable doubt, personal opinions have no place in a jury. Having served on a jury before, I can tell you, that is something they stress very hard. You cannot convict someone based on opinion, you have to weigh the evidence.

The accuser was by himself in my opinion, because for me, the previous accusers shouldn't have testified, they should have been prosecuted for having taken money and aided in a crime, so I never counted their testimony.

Bad parenting is leaving your children with a person like that and then being shocked that something happens and then filing a lawsuit instead of trying to protect other children through going to criminal court.

-Rance-
 
Bandit LOAF said:
No one is mocking your opinion, we're just disagreeing with you. You know -- stating our own opinions.
Click to expand...

Good enough for me... My comment on the jury being a farce was a bit of an exaggeration (something for which I was apologizing for in that initial post) I really meant to say that it was more of a circus. Regardless of whether MJ actually did commit the crimes they alleged he did he should have been afforded the privacy that every other typical accused citizen is given. With the media hyping every detail it was all rather poor performance in my opinion. Prosecutors were tossing forth shock phrases and words painting a very bleak ominious situation at Neverland Ranch while defense attorneys were ripping apart defendants' characters and such while the media gobbled it up hyping every word. So, while I do think MJ is guilty at least on some level, I do think the entire proceedings was rather shoddy (not to say it wasn't deserved or even right in due course but to say it put the entire situation in extremely poor light...hence my comment on the jury which really should have been more general about the proceedings).
 
I don't know about the media coverage in the USA, but from the perspective I have here I really could not judge if he was guilty or not. Was the process itself aired in the USA (everything of it, word for word?). I know that cameras were disallowed, but there is a replay with actors. Just how accurate was this supposed to be? Assuming it was accurate (which I would at least doubt) did you see all of it, Maj.Striker? If not you aren't in any position to claim that the jury was wrong.
Actually - have you ever been in a jury yourself? Lets just say its a bit different then in your average TV soap. I would have bet that he would be found non guilty from the way the process ran.

As far as MJ being guilty or not. I most certainly do not have enough facts to judge objectively here. My feelings would say that not everything he does with children is right. However I don't think that he did sexual stuff to them. Doesn't seem to fit with his personality to me. I definitely wouldn't let my kids anywhere close to him however unless I am there to watch, and I kinda don't understand parents who do.
 
If, in the future, more credible acusation witnesses appear and MJ is convicted, I believe that the parents of the kid should be sent to prision too. You must be fucking crazy to let your children sleep with that... thing.

BTW, I do think that the jury was kinda right, even tough "everyone" knows MJ is a crazy motherfucker (or childfucker), that's not enough to convict anyone. If the prosecution dropped the ball...
 
Edfilho said:
I believe that the parents of the kid should be sent to prision too. You must be fucking crazy to let your children sleep with that... thing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i wonder how he got his hands on those kids. (no pun intended)
If I had kids i would'nt let them get within 10 miles of that guy. :eek:

BTW: Really bad parent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top