• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NY Rep Blasts Jackson As "Pervert"

Congressman Peter King is? (multiple choice enabled)

  • Congressman Peter King is right.

    Votes: 19 32.2%

  • Congressman Peter King is partly right.

    Votes: 11 18.6%

  • Congressman Peter King is wrong.

    Votes: 3 5.1%

  • Congressman Peter King is a low-life.

    Votes: 3 5.1%

  • Congressman Peter King drinks too much Miller High Life.

    Votes: 3 5.1%

  • Congressman Peter King needs to get a life.

    Votes: 9 15.3%

  • Congressman Peter King is a pervert.

    Votes: 4 6.8%

  • On Planet X, everybody is a low-life pervert.

    Votes: 7 11.9%
  • Total voters
    59
MJ was a monster -- in the 18th-century sense of the term, not the modern sense.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
then you do have a huge problem with your court system?
Click to expand...

"not guilty" in court does not mean "innocent". The party could be guilty but the prosecution lacks evidence. The party could be guilty but determined "not guilty" due to technicality. The system is designed to err on letting guilty people free when there is uncertainty. Tragically, innocent people are also occasionally found guilty in our courts. Rape conviction rates are especially low and it is safe to assume overall, that many guilty rapists are found "not guilty".
 
portlandatheist said:
"not guilty" in court does not mean "innocent". The party could be guilty but the prosecution lacks evidence. The party could be guilty but determined "not guilty" due to technicality. The system is designed to err on letting guilty people free when there is uncertainty. Tragically, innocent people are also occasionally found guilty in our courts. Rape conviction rates are especially low and it is safe to assume overall, that many guilty rapists are found "not guilty".
Click to expand...

hours of hearing, tons of evidence etc. strange storys from the Mother of the kid etc.

i dont know. aslong i dont see any evidence of his guilt i think he is innocent.
 
1. Paid millions to settle out of court rather than face a court.
2. Used money to get a great set of lawyers which gave a jury enough doubt despite some great evidence against him the second time he was accused.
3. Admitted sleeping with young boys in his bed while also admitting he slept naked.

If he was innocent he did not do himself any favours. If anyone has not watched the Martin Bashir documentary I suggest they do. It is creepy and only adds to the suspicion.

Does this politician need to attack him? No.
 
funk de fino said:
1. Paid millions to settle out of court rather than face a court.
2. Used money to get a great set of lawyers which gave a jury enough doubt despite some great evidence against him the second time he was accused.
3. Admitted sleeping with young boys in his bed while also admitting he slept naked.

If he was innocent he did not do himself any favours. If anyone has not watched the Martin Bashir documentary I suggest they do. It is creepy and only adds to the suspicion.

Does this politician need to attack him? No.
Click to expand...

when your kid gets accused Abused, are you fine with geting some moeny instead of bringing the abuser to justice?

accepting the money didnt do the family any favor in case MJ was guilty.
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
when your kid gets accused, are you fine with geting some moeny instead of bringing the abuser to justice?

accepting the money didnt do the family any favor in case MJ was guilty.
Click to expand...


What are you wittering about DC? Your post is nonsensical and looks like you have not understood what I have written (again)
 
Dictator Cheney said:
when your kid gets accused, are you fine with geting some moeny instead of bringing the abuser to justice?

accepting the money didnt do the family any favor in case MJ was guilty.
Click to expand...
In the first case, the accuser was a pretty shady character and a credible case can be made that the accusations were just a shake down. Do not make the mistake of thinking this was an Ozzie and Harriet family getting run over by MJ.

In the second case, our DA had an unhealthy urge to nail MJ, some thought driven by political ambition. He ran a crap case and lost to some high power lawyering that he should have, but apparently did not, anticipate.

Both cases were so chock full of sleazy characters it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions.
 
funk de fino said:
What are you wittering about DC? Your post is nonsensical and looks like you have not understood what I have written (again)
Click to expand...

looks like others did understand it.

when someone would abuse my CHild, i would not accept money, i want him to go to jail atleast, and the rest i would want is illegal. But accepting money to settle the case, in a case of Child abuse, is for me a sign of guilt on the part of the parrents / accusers and not on MJ side.

ETA: ah i wrote accused instead of Abused.
 
dudalb said:
Yeah, King is grandstanding, but I agree that this rush to promote somebody who managed to totally screw up his life as some kind of model to America needs some counterbalance. ANd that is leaving the Child Molestation issue out of it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and not only did he manage to make a royal mess of his life, he had a ton of things going for him. I really can't understand the way we glorify some marginally relevant screw-ups of questionable character (Jacko, Princess Di are the first ones to come to mind).
 
Dictator Cheney said:
looks like others did understand it.

when someone would abuse my CHild, i would not accept money, i want him to go to jail atleast, and the rest i would want is illegal. But accepting money to settle the case, in a case of Child abuse, is for me a sign of guilt on the part of the parrents / accusers and not on MJ side.

ETA: ah i wrote accused instead of Abused.
Click to expand...

Who is in a better situation now? The first family or the second one?

The blame is on both sides, MJ for paying them off and them for taking it.

I know if I was accused of something I did not do, especially a crime like that. I would stand up and face it.
 
There are, it should be noted, many reasons Jackson might have wanted to settle out of court except for being guilty of the charges. I don't see the fact that he settled out of court as proof of anything -- guilt or innocence.
 
i see it a proof that the legal system is sick, when one can sattle a Child abuse case with money, there is something wrong with the system i say.
 
Skeptic said:
There are, it should be noted, many reasons Jackson might have wanted to settle out of court except for being guilty of the charges. I don't see the fact that he settled out of court as proof of anything -- guilt or innocence.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I do and so do many others.
 
Skeptic said:
There are, it should be noted, many reasons Jackson might have wanted to settle out of court except for being guilty of the charges. I don't see the fact that he settled out of court as proof of anything -- guilt or innocence.
Click to expand...

Sure, after all, $25 million is nothing for someone...$400 million in debt.
 
SezMe said:
In the first case, the accuser was a pretty shady character and a credible case can be made that the accusations were just a shake down. Do not make the mistake of thinking this was an Ozzie and Harriet family getting run over by MJ.

In the second case, our DA had an unhealthy urge to nail MJ, some thought driven by political ambition. He ran a crap case and lost to some high power lawyering that he should have, but apparently did not, anticipate.

Both cases were so chock full of sleazy characters it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions.
Click to expand...

Victimizing the victim?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom