Michael Jackson and Farrah died today

[inkasnana]

It amazes me that NOW so many in here are going on about innocence before guilt, an idea that I STRONGLY believe in. When it is brought up about un-warrented drug testing, drug testing without cause or illegal backround check when people try to buy a gun I do not see the passion for innocense before guilt. Just observing. I cannot say I know much of ANYTHING about MH and don't really care. He was, when he was alive, entitled to the same RIGHTS as the 80 million LEGAL gun owners are denied. The same RIGHT to belief of innocence that truckers, airline pilots etc are denied. The same rights that are deined to ANYONE seeking a job that requires a drug test to hire. Those all ASSUME guilt or they would not test. Either we ALL have rights or no one will. Try to keep that in mind.

Don't take this wrong layout, but maybe it will help you see things differently if you look at the pre-employment drug testing as the "trial" in which you prove your innocence? The same could be said about the background checks that are done prior to a gun purchase. Consider those asking for the tests and checks as the prosecution, the tests and checks as the judge and the results as the jury. It all works out in the end.

 

[RLENT]

Offering his "mindset" as being childlike himself does not excuse a 45 year-old man enticing young boys into his bed.

I'm sure you would agree that people do sometimes have a "mental age" that is different than the actual physical age of their bodies, right ?

Maybe the real issue here is your inability to conceive that it could have been about anything other than sex.

It's a big-time NO-NO under all conditions.

.... but a 45 year-old man sleeping with young boys ain't against the law .... however socially distasteful you may find it.

It really is basic common sense.

Yes, and of course we all know that children, or adults who have the mental capacity of a child, are all possessed of a full ration of adult common-sense from the moment they are born ....

What you call rumor or hearsay, others may call truth.

Regardless of that, there is an actual truth ... what actually did, or didn't, happen .... and that is whatever it is ... and no speculation, condemnation, or rumor-mongering on your part (which is entirely what you have posted so far) - or defense of him as innocent by someone other than yourself - will alter that.

There are many more allegations out there against Michael Jackson. Many more than the few you cited. Now that alleged victims are free from intimidation, some may step forward to speak publicly about their experiences with Mr. Jackson.

What is your source of this data ?

Can you please cite it, so we can see the actual sources of your info, and possibly make a judgement for ourselves ?

Is this again more rampant speculation on your part, or can you actually back it up ?

You choose to believe Michael Jackson's version of events. I do not.

It's not so much believing his version of events, as being unwilling to believe someone else's (aka the presumption of innocence) - unless that version can be shown to have some veracity.

Some folks are all-too-willing to believe the worst about their fellow man .... just part of their nature I guess.

 

[cheri1122]

I've complained about the required drug testing - no hypocrisy here!
But like nearly every law, it was created because of those bad apples who spoil the bunch.
Aristotle: at least 3 posters have asked where you get your info on "more allegations" against MJ - no response?

 

[inkasnana]

To get off topic just for a minute here with the drug testing.. to me they are just an inconvenience. I have nothing to hide so if they want to pay me to pee in a cup, I'm game.

I now turn this thread back over to the subject at hand.

 

[aristotle]

I've complained about the required drug testing - no hypocrisy here!
But like nearly every law, it was created because of those bad apples who spoil the bunch.
Aristotle: at least 3 posters have asked where you get your info on "more allegations" against MJ - no response?

Pure speculation on my part. I got nothing. No facts. Just opinion and commentary. My sources are not to be believed. The payoffs never happened. Michael Jackson is innocent. The courts always reach the correct outcome. Silly me, how could I doubt MICHAEL JACKSON?

 

[inkasnana]

Pure speculation on my part. I got nothing. No facts. Just opinion and commentary. My sources are not to be believed. The payoffs never happened. Michael Jackson is innocent. The courts always reach the correct outcome. Silly me, how could I doubt MICHAEL JACKSON?

Believe what you want to believe, it's your right, but do not argue with those who are basing their views on facts and tell them they are wrong when you are basing your views purely on speculation, rumors, gossip and hearsay. That always leads to a lengthy debate and it will be up to you to prove your points.

 

[cheri1122]

Pure speculation on my part. I got nothing. No facts.

Agreed.

It's not about MJ, you know - it's about convicting folks without any proof at all. I can't go along with that, no matter how 'weird' the accused may be.

 

[RLENT]

It amazes me that NOW so many in here are going on about innocence before guilt, an idea that I STRONGLY believe in. When it is brought up about un-warrented drug testing, drug testing without cause or illegal backround check when people try to buy a gun I do not see the passion for innocense before guilt. Just observing.

Well, apparently you weren't observing when I've posted several times in regards to gun ownership then ... I'm all in favor of unrestricted gun ownership ... including fully-automatic weapons.

In fact, like someone said to me recently: "If the government has it and can use it against me, I ought to be able to have it too" ...... that works for me ...

On the drug testing aspect, while I'm against it on a philosophical basis, I really don't have as much of a problem with it - mainly because of two things:

1. It is beyond dispute that alcohol and (some) drugs impair one's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle or aircraft, thereby endangering others - that is a fact. Testing is minor imposition with a huge potential upside.

2. I don't see a "slippery-slope" with drug testing (which is not at all the case with gun ownership) - in otherwords, there isn't much of a potential of a further decrease in freedom, as consequence of testing workers in the transportation industry for the use of legal and illegal substances. Again, as stated before, the upside outweighs the downside.

While I would have preferred that the industry as a whole had taken responsibility to police it's own, they didn't (probably largely due to greed) ..... and so you have a Federal mandate, as a consequence of an almost immutable natural law:

In free society, wherever individual responsibility fails, you tend to get legislation and laws ....

And a law is never, ever really a workable substitute for individual responsibility - because unless an individual is willing to be responsible (for not only themselves, but others) and conduct themselves in an ethical manner, then to some extent the law makes no difference - it is just the effort of a society to apply some force or threat of punishment, to get the individual to police themselves. Some never do, and never will ..... the majority do police and conduct themselves ethically for the most part - and would likely do so even if there were no law in place. It is just inherent in man's nature.

While you may chafe when being asked to submit to a drug-test - likely because you have never used illegal drugs, and never used legal ones when you are driving - looking at the issue from a broader perspective than just yourself as an individual, would you prefer that our ranks be opened up to individuals who have, and will, operate a vehicle or aircraft under the influence ?

You point out the problem, but what is your solution ?

 

[aristotle]

Believe what you want to believe, it's your right, but do not argue with those who are basing their views on facts and tell them they are wrong when you are basing your views purely on speculation, rumors, gossip and hearsay. That always leads to a lengthy debate and it will be up to you to prove your points.

I never said you were wrong. I said you believe Michael Jackson and I do not.

You say your "views" are based on facts. A view is nothing more than an opinion. I contend we do not know the real facts as alleged against Michael Jackson. That is my view or opinion. Have you considered your facts may be false, and therefore, not facts at all? You don't have exclusive ownership of the "facts" and neither do I. Why would you trust a judicial system that has a very spotty record in ascertaining truth? The truth about Michael Jackson is elusive and the debate over his misconduct with children will go on for years. It is my OPINION that Michael Jackson died indirectly from guilt.

 

[RLENT]

Thank you for those kind words, Randy.

LOL .... anytime 'stotle ... I'm equal-opportunity abuser .... friend and foe alike ....

Your affinity for Michael Jackson is duly noted.

It's not so much an affinity for Michael Jackson, as it is a willingness to consider that there might be some other reasonable explanation for his conduct - however bizarre the average man on the street might find it - rather than just seeing how odd or different he was than me, and then ascribing some sick and perverted motivation to it.

Of course, I did have some admiration for the man's talent - you would have to be a rock not to .....

FWIW, in the interests of full disclosure, both my sons slept with my wife and I, just about every night, until they were at least 5 years old .... and on and off for some years after that - because they wanted to - not because we desired that they do so (believe me there were times that we both would have really preferred they did not want to sleep with us - especially with the older one, who was prone to jamming his elbow into ya while he slept)

And, by the way, both were also on the teet until that time as well .... (God bless the old lady - she was a saint for putting up with them .... just imagine being in the mall .... and your 6 year-old decides he's hungry .... )

At some point, as time went on, they just naturally grew disinterested in both .... we didn't kick them or force them out of our bed, and tried to avoid doing anything that would make them feel unloved or unwanted, although we often failed. They turned out to be perfectly normal young men (whatever that is ..)

Nothing remotely deviant, perverted, or sexual about it - although I'm sure that some folks would see it that way, and perhaps would be unable come to any other conclusion.

I don't know if it was the case that or not, but it certainly doesn't seem entirely out of the realm to me that for Michael Jackson, with all his riches and fame, that any kind of relationship could be ..... complicated ..... to put it mildly.

That he might want someone that he could be friends with, and would accept and love him for whoever he was, and that he could love in return - in a platonic sense - that didn't want alot back in return, didn't want to complicate things and just wanted to be friends, doesn't seem too far a stretch for me.

For some folks, even inspite of society's current fixation on it, sex just isn't that big a deal (as in not much interest in) ..... given the current state of things, they might, in a sense, be lucky. He might have been one of them folks .... dunno.

I hope you're not driving in your current state.

Naw .... it's too hard to type and drive at the same time .... but other than that though, I have very little trouble driving while rational ...

Be safe.

Always - you too.

 

[RLENT]

It is my OPINION that Michael Jackson died indirectly from guilt.

Yup - undoubtedly that is it.

Of course, it is just beyond the realm of possibility that he was falsely and unjustly accused of crimes he did not commit.

One can certainly hope, that if you are an ex-LEO (I seem to remember something about that - how about it - ya wanna answer up ?) you can appreciate the magnitude of the injustice done to an individual by having such accusations falsely leveled at them - and then having the mechanisms of the state (think nearly unlimited resources - money and manpower) directed at you, and being in the position of having to prove a negative, in the eyes of the public, if not in the eyes of the law.

Or I dunno .... maybe having that background would prevent one from seeing it .....

BTW, I do agree with you that the truth about him is elusive ..... we will never really know ... the only ones that will, are those that were there ....

 

[aristotle]

LOL .... anytime 'stotle ... I'm equal-opportunity abuser .... friend and foe alike ....


It's not so much an affinity for Michael Jackson, as it is a willingness to consider that there might be some other reasonable explanation for his conduct - however bizarre the average man on the street might find it - rather than just seeing how odd or different he was than me, and then ascribing some sick and perverted motivation to it.

Of course, I did have some admiration for the man's talent - you would have to be a rock not to .....

FWIW, in the interests of full disclosure, both my sons slept with my wife and I, just about every night, until they were at least 5 years old .... and on and off for some years after that - because they wanted to - not because we desired that they do so (believe me there were times that we both would have really preferred they did not want to sleep with us - especially with the older one, who was prone to jamming his elbow into ya while he slept)

And, by the way, both were also on the teet until that time as well .... (God bless the old lady - she was a saint for putting up with them .... just imagine being in the mall .... and your 6 year-old decides he's hungry .... )

At some point, as time went on, they just naturally grew disinterested in both .... we didn't kick them or force them out of our bed, and tried to avoid doing anything that would make them feel unloved or unwanted, although we often failed. They turned out to be perfectly normal young men (whatever that is ..)

Nothing remotely deviant, perverted, or sexual about it - although I'm sure that some folks would see it that way, and perhaps would be unable come to any other conclusion.

I don't know if it was the case that or not, but it certainly doesn't seem entirely out of the realm to me that for Michael Jackson, with all his riches and fame, that any kind of relationship could be ..... complicated ..... to put it mildly.

That he might want someone that he could be friends with, and would accept and love him for whoever he was, and that he could love in return - in a platonic sense - that didn't want alot back in return, didn't want to complicate things and just wanted to be friends, doesn't seem too far a stretch for me.

For some folks, even inspite of society's current fixation on it, sex just isn't that big a deal (as in not much interest in) ..... given the current state of things, they might, in a sense, be lucky. He might have been one of them folks .... dunno.


Naw .... it's too hard to type and drive at the same time .... but other than that though, I have very little trouble driving while rational ...


Always - you too.

You give a plausible defense for Mr. Jackson, but it is a bridge too far. I understand parents sleeping with their young children, but Mr. Jackson's conduct was not of a parental nature. Mr. Jackson's accusers say the relationships were not platonic, and that is the key point. I cannot prove Mr. Jackson molested young children. In light of what I have read, seen and heard... I believe his accusers.

I wish Jackson could have been proven decisively innocent. But, the "truth" surrounding him is too inflammatory, too emotionally driven and too murky. It is my opinion Mr. Jackson harmed many young boys.

 

[layoutshooter]

Don't take this wrong layout, but maybe it will help you see things differently if you look at the pre-employment drug testing as the "trial" in which you prove your innocence? The same could be said about the background checks that are done prior to a gun purchase. Consider those asking for the tests and checks as the prosecution, the tests and checks as the judge and the results as the jury. It all works out in the end.

I know you are thinking and I don't take it wrong, Just remember, in EVERY trial it is the job of the prosecution to PROVE my guilt, I am ALREADY innocent under the law, it is NOT my job to PROVE my innocence. Every ones rights should be the same. The scope of the crime is NOT relevent. Presumed innocence. Anytime testing or checks are done without probable cause they are ASSUMING YOUR guilt. Everytime we submit our rights ARE diminished.

 

[aristotle]

Yup - undoubtedly that is it.

Of course, it is just beyond the realm of possibility that he was falsely and unjustly accused of crimes he did not commit.

One can certainly hope, that if you are an ex-LEO (I seem to remember something about that - how about it - ya wanna answer up ?) you can appreciate the magnitude of the injustice done to an individual by having such accusations falsely leveled at them - and then having the mechanisms of the state (think nearly unlimited resources - money and manpower) directed at you, and being in the position of having to prove a negative, in the eyes of the public, if not in the eyes of the law.

Or I dunno .... maybe having that background would prevent one from seeing it .....

BTW, I do agree with you that the truth about him is elusive ..... we will never really know ... the only ones that will, are those that were there ....

Feds Creek High School...valedictorian
Morehead State University... magna cum laude
Salmon P. Chase College of Law

Never been a Law Enforcement Officer. Having watched our courts and LEO's up close, I have ambivalence for both.

 

[inkasnana]

I never said you were wrong. I said you believe Michael Jackson and I do not.

You are correct and I apologize. My bad. It was an assumption on my part based on a subconscious suggestion that that was what you were inferring.

You say your "views" are based on facts. A view is nothing more than an opinion. I contend we do not know the real facts as alleged against Michael Jackson. That is my view or opinion. Have you considered your facts may be false, and therefore, not facts at all? You don't have exclusive ownership of the "facts" and neither do I.

I know the facts as they stand and as they have been decided by a court of law. The facts in the case disprove and far outweigh any circumstantial "evidence" that there might have been. It was a fact, yes, that he slept in the same bed as the boys but it was not a fact that he molested any of them. That is purely hearsay, rumor and gossip. It was a fact that he was eccentric and "different" that what mainstream society considers to be "normal", but it was not a fact that he was ever a pedophile. That is purely hearsay, rumor and gossip. There are many other facts that are reported in the article that I linked to. Too many to go into here. Read the article and judge for yourself, or don't and continue to believe what you want.

Why would you trust a judicial system that has a very spotty record in ascertaining truth?

Why would I not believe in our judicial system? A jury of regular American citizens found him not guilty. Should I go around believing that every verdict that is made is wrong unless the verdict matches the way that I feel and believe about the accused? Am I to have no faith in truth and justice in this country at all simply because a jury reached a different conclusion than what some feel they should have? To me your question makes no sense at all and is just based on the fact that you disagree with the jury's findings.

The truth about Michael Jackson is elusive and the debate over his misconduct with children will go on for years. It is my OPINION that Michael Jackson died indirectly from guilt.

Thank you for informing me of your opinion, and now you know mine. We can agree to disagree and call it a night.

 

[Pilgrim]

Having had a long day in the saddle and being too tired to make another lengthy argument, I'll just refer the participants in this forum to a couple of articles that make some good points about Michael Jackson's aberrant behavior.

Quoting from the article:
"I understand 'innocent until proven guilty.' But I sure the hell wouldn’t have had him anywhere near my children. And the children that he did bring around him were oftentimes hugely vulnerable (cancer patients; boys of poor single mothers). An adult single male obsessed with Peter Pan and decorating his bedroom with children’s toys was bringing kids into his bedroom for 'sleep-overs.' That should set off five alarm predator worries in any sane parent who is not stupid or tempted by greed. And Jackson showed zero evidence of having any serious impulse control."

Michael Jackson Pedophile Reality Check: Is It Mean to Suspect that Michael Jackson Might Have Been a Pedophile? Prometheus Unbound

Then there's this article from a former chief of police:

Is Michael Jackson a Pedophile? - Jim Kouri - MensNewsDaily.com™

I think a lot of the points being made so far are not really comparing apples to apples. Spending the night with your grandchildren is just not the same thing as a 45 year-old man recruiting 10-12 year-old boys from outside his family for "sleepovers." Also, don't give me the circular logic that anyone that accuses or suspects this type of activity in Jackson's case is guilty of the same activity or inclinations themselves - that's just a lame attempt at rebuttal that doesn't hold water. Jackson was a unique case - no other contemporary eccentric celebrity has been even suspected of this type of activity to the extent Jackson has. The point is that if an average guy had been involved in as many incidents as Jackson he'd be in prison or a mental institution. Jackson or his lawyers paid his problems to go away.

 

[aristotle]

Pilgrim... you give hope in a desolate place that common sense will prevail.

 

[Turtle]

You would think that someone who went to Chase Law School would know that, except for hearsay, circumstantial evidence is the weakest of all evidence. It is a type of evidence that demands correlations be drawn based on incomplete or missing facts. Hearsay is the absolutely worst because anyone can make up anything, literally, for their own unknown motives, and it means absolutely nothing. When you combine circumstantial evidence and hearsay to reach a conclusion, you have a conclusion that is deeply, deeply, disturbingly deeply flawed.

Yes, Michael Jackson was weird, very weird. His life was weird, everything he did was weird. But you can't draw any sound conclusions from that. But there are people who want to use all that weirdness to conclude a very unweirdness of the classic pedestrian pedophile. That doesn't even make sense. What makes more sense is that his pedophilia was equally weird, so weird that it might not have even been pedophilia at all, especially in the light of him having the mentality of an 8-year old in the first place.

Yes, he could have paid off the apparently thousands of accusers, witnesses, prosecutors, judges and reporters, because, as we all know, famous people with deep pockets are never falsely accused of anything. <snort>

 

[aristotle]

Et tu, Turtle? Sometimes you leave me baffled by snide remarks. Grumpy old man.

 

[RLENT]

Having had a long day in the saddle and being too tired to make another lengthy argument,

Hallejuah, for the small things in life ....

I'll just refer the participants in this forum to a couple of articles that make some good points about Michael Jackson's aberrant behavior.

But instead of pointing them to opinion pieces that just happen dovetail nicely with what you want to believe, why not just send them here:

People_v._Jackson

Granted, it's a rather dry dissertation of the MJ case, but at least it does contain actual cites .... rather than just some so-called "authority" (one with rather questionable credentials ..... to be polite) spouting off their opinions.

It also sheds some light onto the some of the characters involved, and their possibly less-than-savory motivations ...

Quoting from the article: "I understand 'innocent until proven guilty.'

Really Santi .... do ya now ? .... Really ?

Interesting you would quote Santi Tafarella .... of all people ....

Just so folks understand, Santi is a professor of writing and literature at a California college ..... which of course undoubtedly makes him eminently qualified to render judgements on Michael Jackson, pedophilia, and many other matters.

I'll skip responding to the rest of it, since it is largely all opinion and hearsay - nothing factual there.

Then there's this article from a former chief of police:

Yeah ... that's sounds really, really good .... until you start checking out who this guy really is:

The Daily Irratant: Jim Kouri

Hmmm ...... and then there's:

MichNews Peddles Satanic Panic

For anyone who is unfamiliar with what the "Satanic Panic" was, just go here:

Satanic Ritual Abuse

You find it an interesting read about how when people get all frothy on something (unreal and imagined), strange things start to happen ....

Sadly there are those folks who like to try and make a living selling the fact that there is a dangerous environment out there - the more dangerous the better - they will go out of their way to make things seem alot of worse than they actually are - even if they have to make stuff up that isn't true .... simply because that's how they survive - on your fear.

It appears ole Jimbo is one of them ..... seen him - and a hundred other like him - all before ..... (anyone remember Waco and the Branch Davidians ? .... look into who was really responsible for advising and getting the ATF/FBI/DOJ all whipped up and frothy on that one ....)

And just as sadly there are the gulible .... who without actually knowing who these jokers really are, unwittingly parrot their tripe .... just cause it seems "right" ....

Pilgrim, my advice would be next time try Google before you hit that "Submit Reply" button ....

Spending the night with your grandchildren is just not the same thing as a 45 year-old man recruiting 10-12 year-old boys from outside his family for "sleepovers."

Ahhh .... but is that really what happened - that he "recruited" them ?

Or did opportunistic and greedy adults, with their own agendas (mainly financial) push their children on someone who was too timid to say "Get lost ....."

Also, don't give me the circular logic that anyone that accuses or suspects this type of activity in Jackson's case is guilty of the same activity or inclinations themselves - that's just a lame attempt at rebuttal that doesn't hold water.

Nah, I won't give ya that logic - what I will give is this however:

Anyone who is incapable of allowing that it could have been something other than what Jackson was accused of (however bizarre you or I might find it), is someone who has no business sitting on any jury IMHO.

I can allow that it is certainly possible that he was guilty (however a jury apparently didn't think so, when presented with the evidence), but can you allow the possibility that he might have been innocent ?

Jackson was a unique case - no other contemporary eccentric celebrity has been even suspected of this type of activity to the extent Jackson has.

They are all "unique cases" .... besides .... what's your point ?

The point is that if an average guy had been involved in as many incidents as Jackson he'd be in prison or a mental institution. Jackson or his lawyers paid his problems to go away.

Ahhh yeah .... I get it now .... if someone is different or weird ..... or just merely accused of something .... then lock 'em up - in prison ...... or worse yet: in a mental institution - regardless of whether they have actually been convicted of anything.

To you sir, I would suggest that you might find the former Soviet Union as a more ideal place to reside, as I understand that their practices are apparently more in-line with your way of thinking.