Michael Jackson

Don D · January 2004

I've watched the news. It seems to never end. Three days now of non-ending, over and over coverage of this guy and his circus. Through it all, the most important thing I came away with was the fact that in all those crowds, in all that spectacle, through all that circus.... thankfully, I did not see the first H.R. Hero T-Shirt in the crowd! Thank God, Allah and The Spirit of Madeline O'Hare. xclap

rad · January 2004

I have lots to say on the subject but I'll keep it short and polite...the law should have taken care of this predator ths first time. I do not believe that people accused of crimes against children should be allowed to settle or make deals - period. How he still has custody of his own children is beyond me. If he was a single parent living in my old neighborhood, his children would have been snatched by DSS immediately.

Whatever · January 2004

1. He has not been found guilty of anything.
2. There is an old expression that "Anyone can be a parent, it takes someone special to be a Daddy (Mommy)." I would take away the children from any parent who allows there child to go visit with Mr. Jackson.

HRsage · January 2004

I have many thoughts on this subject as well, but I will try to be brief.
Yes he hasn't been found guilty- YET. But he has openly admitted that he "shares" his bed with kids. How does any 45 year old man "share" his bed with other people's kids and get away with it? $$$$$
If it was anyone else other that MJ, this person would have been convicted a long time ago.
Just look at the guy and you can see that there is something seriously wrong with him.

rad · January 2004

Agreed...found guilty or not, in the real world, the accusation is typically enough to have children removed from their home. Granted most childrens' services are far from perfect, we've all heard the horror stories, but at the very least these kids should be with a relative- not the grandfather. Janet seems like the only normal one but maybe she's too busy rehearsing for the half time show.

Parabeagle · January 2004

I doubt that Jackson will be found guilty. I don't think the prosecution will be able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt once the defense lawyers get into the game. Unfortunately, although we have the fairest justice system in the world, it does revolve around money. Those who can afford excellent lawyers will usually prevail over those who have to rely on an overworked, underpaid public defender. I'm reminded of a line from the movie, "The Verdict." Our justice system does not guarantee justice for everyone - it guarantees a CHANCE at justice.

Ruskanen · January 2004

The coverage on Michael Jackson doesn't bother me one bit, especially since I don't watch TV. I quit in March of 2001 and don't miss it one bit. I get the news I need from NPR, newspapers, internet and friends and family. . If you try it, you'll find that a lot of things that annoy people about TV won't bother you anymore...the swearing, sexually explicit dramas, Michael Jackson. I challenge fellow forumites to try it.

Don D · January 2004

I tried this once and went for three days thinking Al Gore was president. So, I went back to watching the news.

Parabeagle · January 2004

Ow. Now that IS a nightmare!

Leslie · January 2004

"Our justice system does not guarantee justice for everyone - it guarantees a CHANCE at justice."

We have quite the sherriff in our wonderful state. Puts up our hardened medium and low security prisoners in tents. My friend deservedly received an extreme DUI at .14 - mandatory court appearance, minimum mandatory loss of license for a month, minimum mandatory stay of 10 days in the tents, breathalyser in his vehicle for a year. He had a lawyer who got him off the community service and five years probation that is normally attached.

Last year, Diana Ross blew a .20 in Tucson and received an extreme DUI. She was going the wrong way down a one way street before she pulled into a Blockbuster Video. Next week she has a hearing that she is being allowed to participate in telephonically. What do you bet she gets off with something like reckless endangerment?

rad · January 2004

You said it Leslie...money talks and no one wants to listen to Diana Ross screeching. I know we have better systems than most but in my mind, I do not think it is a justice system, I prefer to think of it as a legal system that occasionally metes justice.

marc · January 2004

The "quality" of your justice is directly proportionaly to the depth of your pocketbook.

OJ showed us and various congressmen prove it over and over. Anyone else is similar circumstances would have been dealt with long ago.

slogan · January 2004

I was annoyed at MJ"s accusations that he was being "Man-handled" when he was arrested. Did he really think those cops would have been dumb enough to have done that? But then my wife so aptly asked the question, "How can you man-handle some one who isn't a man"?

And one last note, NPR is not news. It is government sponsored political commentary at the tax payers expense. Most of the time (not all) it is liberal political commentary, so I don't know why guys like Al "What's His Name" Gore complains so much about conservative radio!

Parabeagle · January 2004

>The "quality" of your justice is directly
>proportionaly to the depth of your pocketbook.

While I generally agree, Marc, I think that throughout history we can point to successful examples of the little guy winning against the odds. My favorite example is Gideon v. Wainwright in which a penniless man was required to defend himself at trial for petty theft, because the court would only appoint a lawyer if he was charged with a capital crime. Gideon was convicted and sentenced to prison. While in prison, he wrote a handwritten petition to the US Supreme Court saying that he had been denied due process of the law because he was not appointed counsel. That petition paved the way for the right we enjoy today to be provided with legal counsel from the moment we are arrested.

marc · January 2004

I freely admit to a certain amount of cynicism, and it shows up here. Theoretically, we do have the rights to representation, but it certainly is not equal to the representation you can buy with a deep pocketbook. The pro-bono lawyers are good lawyers with a real commitment to the cause, but if you have ever seen their case loads you will understand that the quality of justice they offer is compromised by the amount of time they can spend on a case. It is not too dis-similar to the coverage you get from an HMO - just a few minutes with each patient and try the least expensive course of treatment first and some things are not covered at all.

The free attorneys have budgets to live with, they cannot call in a cadre of other attorney's and investigators and jury consultants to attack every aspect of a case. They often strike plea bargains that may be an OK deal, but are not anything like the deals that those that have money get.

Don't get me wrong, I believe our system may be the best in the world, but those that can afford it can work the system way better than those that cannot.

Just a point of view.

Parabeagle · January 2004

I agree. Our system is far from perfect. But I think a chance at justice is better than no justice at all. And to be fair to the big hired guns, there are many prominent lawyers who will take cases on a pro bono basis and can afford to spend a little on their clients (Gerry Spence and F. Lee Bailey are two that come to mind). Granted, they do it because there is something in it for them (high-profile exposure), but at least they do it. Many firms also require their members to perform a certain number of pro bono hours per year, as well. They commit their lawyers and their firm's resources to the public good and there are a lot of underserved people in need of a lawyer who, through the luck of the draw, do manage to get some decent representation now and then.

PAhr · January 2004

I am of the mind that no child should EVER sleep in an adult's bed. I have three children and none have ever slept in my bed for any reason. It may sound harsh but if there is some reason why a child needs an adult's company at that hour then you sit in their room until they are asleep. I only do this when they are sick. Boogie men only require a check in the closet, under the bed and a hall light for twenty minutes. Makes me wonder though, wouldn't a kid waking up to MJ's face scare the crap out of them?

On another note, I saw a t.v. program about MJ's plastic surgery and some psychologist felt he was trying to not look like his father. I saw a picture of him and was astonished at how closely he resembled his best friend Liz Taylor. I wonder if she'll walk up behind him at the defendants chair and hand him her earrings....."Here, these have always brought me luck."

rad · January 2004

Put a picture of MJ next to a picture of Peter Pan then switch them around. Betcha can't tell them apart. I believe he is trying to be the boy who would not grow up.

Tish · January 2004

I think everyone would agree to some extent that Jackson is a touch off center in many areas of his life. If he is guilty will he be found to be so? Doubtful!!

BUT REALLY RIPS ME !!!! I would like to take the parents, group home leaders or whoever is in charge of those children that visit his estate and string them up by the most painful body part they have. The accusations of inappropriate behavior isn't new. How could they expose these children to the possiblity?!!!!!

cebudragonlady · January 2004

I do not particularly like Michael Jackson, but he should never had gotten that lawyer that is so busy with the Laci Peterson case (dumb move #1). Then Michael goes on TV and gives interviews complaining about rough treatment by the cops ( dumb move #2). Then Michael shows up 20 minutes late for his arraignment, angering the judge. ( dumb move #3)And he shows up in court accompanied with Nation of Islam guards ( dumb move #4 ). And the dumbest move of all was what started it all in the first place - having boys in his bedroom!

Chari

mwild31 · January 2004

I take the position on any celebrity case that: it's not entertainment, the public is generally only privy to the salacious tidbits & the world would be a better place if all celebrity 'justice' coverage would end tomorrow. Each and every day hundreds, maybe thousands nation wide, enter the justice system accused of some crime & hope that justice will be served, guilty or not, they hope their side will be represented by an impartial judge & jury & a decision will be made.

When celebrities are accused - the rush to public judgment is phenomenal and a mere arrest = guilt, with immediate sides being drawn. Anyone who thinks Michael Jackson is innocent is usually ridiculed as being a "fan" or worse, "uninformed". Anyone who thinks he's guilty is "standing up for the protection of the young children involved". I'm sure there are more stands or positions people can take on either side, but that's the point really, everyone in a rush to take a side.

What message do we send to others accused of a crime, average Americans, when it's so allowed in a celebrity case to take a side? I fear we tell them, just to be accused = guilt.

I don't know if he's guilty or not - as imperfect as it is - I trust our system. As in ANY OTHER case involving average Americans entering the system, just tell me how it turns out in the end - you know, when the jury comes back with their verdict. Just my thoughts.

Parabeagle · January 2004

I'm with you, Mwild. I don't know whether he's guilty or not, but I have my opinions and suspicions as does everyone. Personally I would like to see cameras and press barred from attendance in court in celebrity cases such as this in which the defendants attempt to try their case in the media prior to trial. It would be nice to see an automatic gag order, but that's probably asking too much. Unfortunately, these things become circuses because we Americans have the audacity to insist on public trials rather than secret tribunals to mete out justice! How shocking! x;-)

mwild31 · January 2004

"Unfortunately, these things become circuses because we Americans have the audacity to insist on public trials rather than secret tribunals to mete out justice! How shocking!"

The shocking part to me is that this same level of public awareness & scrutiny doesn't come into play with EACH and EVERY case - only those that can sell magazines & ad time on TV. x;-)

Whatever · January 2004

First of all, I get the NY Times delivered every morning and even they have put Michael Jackson stories on the front page. Michael Jackson stories increase circulation. The news discussion panels, news magazines on TV spend a lot of time on Michael Jackson because viewership increases. And there hasn't even been a trial yet.(I know, that's not a sentence). The problem is that the public insists on an analysis of the trial before there's been a trial.

FHR · January 2004

Respectfully mwild, personally I have not been in a "rush" to judge Michael Jackson. He has proved over the years that there is something very disturbing about him. Do you remember him dangling his baby over a balcony? His bizarre marriages and methods of concieving children? What about his own public admission that he enjoys sleeping with children and that it is just "love"?
If he wasn't a celebrity his children would definitely have been taken away and he would be facing charges, only one of which is happening right now.

rad · January 2004

I usually agree with the celebrity frenzy stuff and I'm not one of those people who really cares about celebrities, who they marry, divorce, etc. But I can't hide from this story and he readily admits that he has children sleep in his bed. Not normal. That would be like if, after a bank was robbed, I said that I broke into the safe but didn't steal the money. Something is going on here.

As for your average American, what about Scott Peterson? He was on the front page of the Enquirer! Sometimes its just the horror of the crime that commands attention.

Parabeagle · January 2004

I agree with the above posters. But the faction I blame -- I mean REALLY blame -- is the media (and by extension the American people). Unfortunately the sober dignity and cautious process of the judicial system in this country has been compromised in any case (public figure or not) that is likely to generate increased readership, viewing, etc. The old journalism adage "if it bleeds, it leads" has become the rule and not the exception.

mwild31 · January 2004

x:-)

I love debate, so please don't take this the wrong way. To say that something has been 'proven' by a conversation or act that's been caught on video tape - or even the amalgamation of these conversations/acts that have been repeated ad nauseam over the media - doesn't paint the person in my eyes. They're brief moments in time, brief moments into someone's thinking (no matter how distasteful), not, necessarily, the person.

As to Scott Peterson - his criminal trial hasn't even begun & he's already labeled a monster - proving my point, arrest = guilt - not arrest, trial by jury & the jury decides the verdict.

I know I won't change any minds here - I just wanted to add my two cents. x:-)

Parabeagle · January 2004

Mwild, how DARE you come out here and be the voice of deliberative reason?! You're going to get tarred and feathered if you're not careful! x;-)

rad · January 2004

I hear you, I love a debate as well. Thats why I love these juicy posts...I think Don picked a doozy just to get us all going. As I stated on my first response to Don, I have lots to say on the MJ subject and believe it or not, I'm holding back!

My position comes from working with children for years, many of whom had been abused. You don't truly see into the evil side of humanity until you take a 5 year old's statement recounting sexual abuse to report to DSS. Its like you've suddenly walked into the worst place imaginable but you have to sit there with a straight face, even with a smile, so the child feels ok as she gives you details you can't even begin to wrap your brain around. There's no hell quite like it except, of course, for the child. So when I hear these allegations, my first reaction is "hang the SOB" or something else I can't write here...

FHR · January 2004

I love debate too!!!
Actually, mwild, you are a voice of reason and rad, I see your point of view too. That is what makes this such a debatable issue.
The public behavior of MJ doesn't help his case and what is percieved by the public is, in many ways, under his control. Media in this country is a necessary evil, but they are not causing MJ to behave the way he does, he has to take some responsibility for the way he is percieved.
It IS hard to get over the gag factor when I see his mug shot. That doesn't mean he is guilty. I believe it makes him extremely disturbed to have altered his face to such an extent. The media didn't do that to him, he did.

Michael Jackson

Comments