|
Post by LW Roberts on Jun 14, 2005 7:48:38 GMT -5
Michael Jackson as been cleared of all the charges against him. How do you feel about this?
|
|
|
Post by Premier Edition on Jun 18, 2005 14:05:34 GMT -5
The real sad truth is that innocent or guilty, the public doesn’t care. Just like the Lizzy Borden, OJ, the Ramseys, they were already convicted and found guilty by the public, who only knew what was reported in the media. With its many faults I am glad we have a system that you have to prove guilt. The public, in my opinion, is to hungry for a bad guy to point their finger at. Especially one with any kind of wealth or power. And while we focused on, lets get the guy with the money, a real monster ( Schartzmiller ) was hurting hundreds of kids.
|
|
|
Post by lightfoot on Jun 21, 2005 8:06:29 GMT -5
Mr. Priemier, I'm glad that we see eye to eye on this one. Yes there are alot of people out there that only sees a way to make a quick buck, no matter who they have to step on or destroy. The only truth of the matter at this time, lies with Jackson and the alledged victom. The court has made it's rulling. Let it be written, let it be so. Without our court of laws, how many criminals would still be on the streets? Some will say that our courts are flawed, but it's better then not having any at all ! Just think how dangerous it would be on our streets, if there was no laws or courts? This brings us back to the debate of the death penalty but I will leave it on it's on thread. It's time to move on. The courts have found Mr. Jackson innocent. So let it be that. If he is not, then the judge of the most high will set the record strait between Jackson and himself.
|
|
|
Post by Premier Edition on Jun 22, 2005 19:06:14 GMT -5
“ Let it be written, let it be so”? Are you kidding me? Are you saying that if it is written down, it is the absolute truth? Or do you think, by using the same kind of language that is presented in the Bible, that you some how, exalt your self? Please keep in mind my simple friend. Laws do not keep the streets safe. Adherence to the laws do that.
|
|
|
Post by lightfoot on Jun 23, 2005 6:31:55 GMT -5
Mr. Preimier, I find that you are confused or just don't know what you really have to say. I find that you talk all over yourself. Quote- With it's many faults, I am glad that we have a system that has to prove guilt.} If the guilt can be proven, then the same goes for the innocent, * As far as the courts are concerned, If the truth or not! The words let it be so, does not have to mean it's the truth. Only that it would be written down to be a law that has been decreed. Also if you check your history on dialogue, you will find that a lot of roman leaders also used the term {Let be written. Let it be so.} It is not only found in the bible. So my point is this, If the court ruled it that way, then the matter as far as the public should go, is to let it be so and to leave Mr. Jackson alone. If he is indeed guilty, he will face it one day !
|
|
|
Post by Premier Edition on Jun 23, 2005 16:16:16 GMT -5
Talk all over my self? Ok, I will be the kettle, you be the pot. A court has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That does not equate to being innocent. I agree that he should not be harassed. But would you leave one of your kids ( if you have any ) with him? If he is indeed guilty, he will do it again!
|
|
|
Post by lightfoot on Jun 23, 2005 20:14:25 GMT -5
Mr. Edition, I would not leave my children with any stranger, no matter if famous or not. Some parents should have their heads examined. Mr. Jackson must have been found innocent beyond the reason of doubt. So I will not say other wise.
|
|
|
Post by Premier Edition on Jun 24, 2005 2:05:11 GMT -5
Wrong again! In our judicial system you are either proven guilty, or found not guilty. No need to prove innocence. You are presumed innocent until found guilty. You may not be able to convince the jury of guilt when the jury can only weigh the evidence allowed by the court. But it does not mean you are innocent. Just mean that you are not guilty. Don't really expect you to be able to get your head around that concept. ;D
|
|
|
Post by lightfoot on Jun 24, 2005 7:36:17 GMT -5
What is the opposite of guilty? Is there nothing but air between the two words {Guilty and not guilty} Like the air between your ears? I am only referring to the courts and not other"s opinons of how the law states inoccents or guilt. In our court system, the law states if you are found not guilty then you are presumed innoncent by that court of law. And don't ask me to show reference. I'm not going to do all the work for you. lol. Look it up. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Premier Edition on Jun 25, 2005 8:12:15 GMT -5
You are still not getting it young Luke. My point is the court does not find anyone innocent. Only guilty, or not guilty. The presumed innocence is there from the beginning. A presumption of innocence is the principle that a criminal defendant may not be convicted of a crime unless the government proves guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, without any burden on the accused to prove innocence. Let be try to put an anecdote to this that you might understand. Say someone stole one of your writing creations. You caught them with the goods. But you caught them while you were trespassing. The court want allow your evidence because you were in violation of the law when you obtained it. So the court can only rule on the evidence they are allowed to consider. They find the evidence insufficient. So they return a verdict of not guilty. Did that prove the person was innocent? Of course not. Try to focus, if you can. We are discussion legal findings. So unless you can show be a ruling from a US court that stated the defendant is found innocent. I rest my case.
lightfoot posted:
Actually it presumes innocence until proven guilty. Do all the work for me? Try doing a little for your self.
|
|
|
Post by lightfoot on Jun 25, 2005 17:18:11 GMT -5
What can I say you proved your point well. I take my hat off to you this time. Job well done Mr. Edition. Untill next topic on Mr. Jackson anyway. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Premier Edition on Jun 26, 2005 6:55:00 GMT -5
Thank you! You concede in a very respectable manner. If only more posters were able to do that. My hats off to you.
|
|
|
Post by lightfoot on Jun 29, 2005 8:14:42 GMT -5
Hi, I'm back on the Jackson topic because I have a question. Is Michael's music now out dated and dose any one feel that he can once again reach his status as a top of the chart entertainer in view of all of his legal challenges?
|
|
|
Post by Premier Edition on Jun 29, 2005 16:01:50 GMT -5
It will probably depend on if he comes out with anything good. Fans are usually very forgiving when it comes to music and entertainment in general. I can remember when Ozzy Osbourn bit the head off a bat on stage. The public was outraged. Now he has a top rated reality show. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by lightfoot69 on Jun 29, 2005 17:19:20 GMT -5
I also remember the bat incident. I have something else that is running through my brains right now, but I will wait to post it, so that I can make sure that I word it the way I am thinking it. Lol ;D
|
|