duglynukem
Nuclear Advocate
Talented musician. It will be sometime before the official results are in. I am sure it will be as controversial as the rest of his private (public) life...
My daughter was just looking through the photo album and pointed out a picture of myself when I was about 3 or 4 with a red Thriller leather jacket. I was giving the camera a tough guy look in front of a Michael Jackson poster. He will be missed dearly in my household.
<br /><br /><br /><br />My daughter was just looking through the photo album and pointed out a picture of myself when I was about 3 or 4 with a red Thriller leather jacket. I was giving the camera a tough guy look in front of a Michael Jackson poster. He will be missed dearly in my household.<br />
It's not like Clint Eastwood died or something![]()
It's not like Clint Eastwood died or something![]()
Watch your mouth! That's not even funny to joke about. :angry:
:laugh:
For those of you waiting for me to post that picture....HELL TO THE NO!
Right on, Jon. I don't disagree that your gut-level, emotion-based reaction is invalid or without basis, just wanted to point out the other side of the coin and how important it is to try to keep the big picture rules of the game in mind, even when it's unsettling, unpopular, and difficult to do so. Child victims and witnesses are an extremely difficult beast to tame no matter what the circumstances--let alone the circus that was Michael Jackson's weird and complicated little slice of the world.
It's easy to view Michael Jackson and OJ both as celebrities who got off on a technicality through the morally gray expertise of trial consultants (which, in interest of full disclosure, is what I'm studying to become), but there is a vast gulf of difference between the facts, circumstances, and seemingly boneheaded juries in each case.
Just as a general observation regarding the rumors, accusations, civil suits, and arrests . . . if an unmarried fifty year old man in YOUR neighborhood built an amusement park in his back yard and invited neighborhood boys over for "sleepovers" . . . what would YOU think was up with that?![]()
That's a bit of an oversimplification of the situation, don't you think?
It's frighteningly easy to get young kids to levy charges against people even without their parents deliberately putting them in the crosshairs or when there are millions of dollars to be had.
Just one example for you to consider. There are plenty more...
So, how difficult was it to coax his sister into calling him a pedophile?
It's simply amazing that folks will defend pretty much any action. Michael Jackson was morally debase . . . end of story. He is on trial, now (as he has been for the last 15 years), in the eyes of the public and he is overwhelmingly "guilty."
For those of you waiting for me to post that picture....HELL TO THE NO!
There goes that 5'er I was getting you! :sign:
Right on, Jon. I don't disagree that your gut-level, emotion-based reaction is invalid or without basis, just wanted to point out the other side of the coin and how important it is to try to keep the big picture rules of the game in mind, even when it's unsettling, unpopular, and difficult to do so. Child victims and witnesses are an extremely difficult beast to tame no matter what the circumstances--let alone the circus that was Michael Jackson's weird and complicated little slice of the world.
It's easy to view Michael Jackson and OJ both as celebrities who got off on a technicality through the morally gray expertise of trial consultants (which, in interest of full disclosure, is what I'm studying to become), but there is a vast gulf of difference between the facts, circumstances, and seemingly boneheaded juries in each case.
Just as a general observation regarding the rumors, accusations, civil suits, and arrests . . . if an unmarried fifty year old man in YOUR neighborhood built an amusement park in his back yard and invited neighborhood boys over for "sleepovers" . . . what would YOU think was up with that?![]()
That's a bit of an oversimplification of the situation, don't you think?
It's frighteningly easy to get young kids to levy charges against people even without their parents deliberately putting them in the crosshairs or when there are millions of dollars to be had.
Just one example for you to consider. There are plenty more...
So, how difficult was it to coax his sister into calling him a pedophile?
It's simply amazing that folks will defend pretty much any action. Michael Jackson was morally debase . . . end of story. He is on trial, now (as he has been for the last 15 years), in the eyes of the public and he is overwhelmingly "guilty."
I think you completely missed my point, but to answer your question, based on all the other twisted, unkind, petty, spiteful, Machiavellian sorts of nonsense his entire family has been subjecting one another to for the past half century, I'd say that it probably wasn't very hard at all, though I must admit I don't even know what you're referring to...
For those of you waiting for me to post that picture....HELL TO THE NO!
Right on, Jon. I don't disagree that your gut-level, emotion-based reaction is invalid or without basis, just wanted to point out the other side of the coin and how important it is to try to keep the big picture rules of the game in mind, even when it's unsettling, unpopular, and difficult to do so. Child victims and witnesses are an extremely difficult beast to tame no matter what the circumstances--let alone the circus that was Michael Jackson's weird and complicated little slice of the world.
It's easy to view Michael Jackson and OJ both as celebrities who got off on a technicality through the morally gray expertise of trial consultants (which, in interest of full disclosure, is what I'm studying to become), but there is a vast gulf of difference between the facts, circumstances, and seemingly boneheaded juries in each case.
Just as a general observation regarding the rumors, accusations, civil suits, and arrests . . . if an unmarried fifty year old man in YOUR neighborhood built an amusement park in his back yard and invited neighborhood boys over for "sleepovers" . . . what would YOU think was up with that?![]()
That's a bit of an oversimplification of the situation, don't you think?
It's frighteningly easy to get young kids to levy charges against people even without their parents deliberately putting them in the crosshairs or when there are millions of dollars to be had.
Just one example for you to consider. There are plenty more...
So, how difficult was it to coax his sister into calling him a pedophile?
It's simply amazing that folks will defend pretty much any action. Michael Jackson was morally debase . . . end of story. He is on trial, now (as he has been for the last 15 years), in the eyes of the public and he is overwhelmingly "guilty."
I think you completely missed my point, but to answer your question, based on all the other twisted, unkind, petty, spiteful, Machiavellian sorts of nonsense his entire family has been subjecting one another to for the past half century, I'd say that it probably wasn't very hard at all, though I must admit I don't even know what you're referring to...
Who in their sane mind will allow their child to sleepover a grown man's home, celebrity or not? Not I.
Who in their sane mind will allow their child to sleepover a grown man's home, celebrity or not? Not I.
Right on, Jon. I don't disagree that your gut-level, emotion-based reaction is invalid or without basis, just wanted to point out the other side of the coin and how important it is to try to keep the big picture rules of the game in mind, even when it's unsettling, unpopular, and difficult to do so. Child victims and witnesses are an extremely difficult beast to tame no matter what the circumstances--let alone the circus that was Michael Jackson's weird and complicated little slice of the world.
It's easy to view Michael Jackson and OJ both as celebrities who got off on a technicality through the morally gray expertise of trial consultants (which, in interest of full disclosure, is what I'm studying to become), but there is a vast gulf of difference between the facts, circumstances, and seemingly boneheaded juries in each case.
Just as a general observation regarding the rumors, accusations, civil suits, and arrests . . . if an unmarried fifty year old man in YOUR neighborhood built an amusement park in his back yard and invited neighborhood boys over for "sleepovers" . . . what would YOU think was up with that?![]()
That's a bit of an oversimplification of the situation, don't you think?
It's frighteningly easy to get young kids to levy charges against people even without their parents deliberately putting them in the crosshairs or when there are millions of dollars to be had.
Just one example for you to consider. There are plenty more...
So, how difficult was it to coax his sister into calling him a pedophile?
It's simply amazing that folks will defend pretty much any action. Michael Jackson was morally debase . . . end of story. He is on trial, now (as he has been for the last 15 years), in the eyes of the public and he is overwhelmingly "guilty."
I think you completely missed my point, but to answer your question, based on all the other twisted, unkind, petty, spiteful, Machiavellian sorts of nonsense his entire family has been subjecting one another to for the past half century, I'd say that it probably wasn't very hard at all, though I must admit I don't even know what you're referring to...
No, I didn't miss your point. My point is that there is no gray area for me in these regards and, with respect to full disclosure, I'm a practicing attorney, in these type areas, for over a decade now. The big picture is and will remain that you just don't place children in this type of situation. There is a bigger picture than a legal standpoint, or whatever "game" you are referencing.
Who in their sane mind will allow their child to sleepover a grown man's home, celebrity or not? Not I.
For tens of millions I might send my boy over..............nah! :whistling: