What now Jacko?

khazadman · 11-19-2003, 01:31 PM

An arrest warrant has been issued for the pervert Michael Jackson. All I have to say is it's about time. Now let's hope he can't buy his way out of this one.

Mouse · 11-19-2003, 01:42 PM

Errrr - what about the whole "innocent until proven guilty" presumption? If the whole of a judicial system was based on unsubstantiated allegations and personal/popular prejudice, everyone could suffer.

Nacht und Nebel anyone?

khazadman · 11-19-2003, 01:47 PM

An innocent man will not pay more than ten million dollars to silence someone for something he didn't do.

Maelakin · 11-19-2003, 02:06 PM

That isn't entirely true.

For example, I work in a company that would rather pay out a financial sum vs. going to court over many cases. They don’t pay because they are guilty, but in the long run they will save money by settling.

In the case of a celebrity, many allegations are made every year in the hopes of financial gain of the part of the accuser. Until proof is provided that shows otherwise, this is nothing but another one of those cases. It’s shameful the way some people are willing to point a finger at others so quickly.

Also, could you provide a link to your information? I had heard a search warrant was issued for one of his residences, but I have not heard anything about an actual arrest warrant being issued for him.

Ar-Cunin · 11-19-2003, 02:21 PM

I can't help with the link, but the arrest-warrent made the local national news over here about an hour ago. So I expect it to be true.

EDIT: Live on CNN - MJ is to be charged with child molestation.

[ 11-19-2003, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Ar-Cunin ]

Ramon de Ramon y Ramon · 11-19-2003, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mouse:
Errrr - what about the whole "innocent until proven guilty" presumption? If the whole of a judicial system was based on unsubstantiated allegations and personal/popular prejudice, everyone could suffer.

Nacht und Nebel anyone?

"Nacht und Nebel"? Are you referring to figures of speech like "bei Nacht und Nebel" oder "eine Nacht- und Nebelaktion"? And if so, what do you want express in this context? ???

Timber Loftis · 11-19-2003, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by khazadman:
An innocent man will not pay more than ten million dollars to silence someone for something he didn't do.

Bullshit. Trust me.

Here's the thing. Like you and so many others on this site, people make up their minds within 10 seconds of hearing the news he's got a warrant out on him. Guilt/Innocence is automatically decided -- the whole "innocent until proven guilty" is OPPOSITE from our natural tendancies to compartmentalize things immediately, taxing our brains less with complicated analyses.

Let's say I'm Jacko's attorney, and I have a 13-yr-old suing him, and up-to-the-minute news coverage about it. My client is facing a ton of legal fees, a ton of press release fees, and a devaluing of the stock of several companies he owns -- including all of the Beatles' music. Because the public has at least a 15-minute attention span, each new development in the case will generate 3 days worth of news and 4 Access Hollywood interviews of friends of my client.

Or... I can shell out $15 mil. and make the little litigant sign a "shut the hell up or lose all the moolah" agreement. Criminal charges aren't on the table, cause the gummint has no case, so that won't be an issue. $15 mil., case closed. And, the $15 mil. hit won't be so bad, because we'll arrange to pay it out in installments over 3 or 5 years. Case closed. No news to report.

Yes, some people will say "settlement = guilt." However, for the vast majority, it won't change their minds. If they thought he was innocent, they'll look at the settlement as a payoff to avoid a big headache and shrug their shoulders. It's only the ones who predetermined he was guilty anyway who will be found saying, "AHA! He MUST have done it!" Well, they're going to think that anyway, now aren't they? Even if I push it to "not guilty" (or in a civil case "not liable")verdict, they'll still think what they want. Ask O.J.

And, Mouse, Amen.

Paladin2000 · 11-19-2003, 03:03 PM

I agree with Timber Loftis there. Scandals are bad for artists and big companies. Sometimes they would rather shell out the money just to avoid any negative publicity, that is why many people are so eager to sue giant corporations, expecially cigarette companies.

On the other hand, I can't help feeling that Mr. Wacko Jackson's behavior is a bit odd (not to mention silly) and he should know better than to do this kind of thing since he was sued for child molesting a couple years back. Some people will never learnt.

In my life, I always stick to this motto:

Fooled me once, shame on you.
Fooled me twice, shame on me.

Shame to Wacko Jackson indeed. Shame, shame, shame.

Mouse · 11-19-2003, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramon de Ramon y Ramon:

quote:
Originally posted by Mouse:
Errrr - what about the whole "innocent until proven guilty" presumption? If the whole of a judicial system was based on unsubstantiated allegations and personal/popular prejudice, everyone could suffer.

Nacht und Nebel anyone?

"Nacht und Nebel"? Are you referring to figures of speech like "bei Nacht und Nebel" oder "eine Nacht- und Nebelaktion"? And if so, what do you want express in this context? ??? [/QUOTE]Nacht und Nebel as in this. Basically as an example of extreme extra-judicial action.

Link · 11-19-2003, 05:10 PM

I liked the prosecutor's speech:

"This case is VERY different from the cases in '93 and '94. First, this case is different because the law in California has changed. Second, this case is different because now we have a warrant."

Must be American reasoning

11-19-2003, 01:42 PM	#2
Mouse Ironworks Moderator Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Scotland Posts: 2,788	Errrr - what about the whole "innocent until proven guilty" presumption? If the whole of a judicial system was based on unsubstantiated allegations and personal/popular prejudice, everyone could suffer. Nacht und Nebel anyone? __________________ Regards Mouse (Occasional crooner and all round friendly Scottish rodent)

11-19-2003, 02:21 PM	#5
Ar-Cunin Ra Join Date: August 14, 2001 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Age: 53 Posts: 2,326	I can't help with the link, but the arrest-warrent made the local national news over here about an hour ago. So I expect it to be true. EDIT: Live on CNN - MJ is to be charged with child molestation. [ 11-19-2003, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Ar-Cunin ] __________________ Life is a laugh <img border=\"0\" alt=\"[biglaugh]\" title=\"\" src=\"graemlins/biglaugh.gif\" /> - and DEATH is the final joke <img border=\"0\" alt=\"[hehe]\" title=\"\" src=\"graemlins/hehe.gif\" />

11-19-2003, 03:03 PM	#8
Paladin2000 Fzoul Chembryl Join Date: February 19, 2002 Location: Your guess is as good as mine. Age: 53 Posts: 1,728	I agree with Timber Loftis there. Scandals are bad for artists and big companies. Sometimes they would rather shell out the money just to avoid any negative publicity, that is why many people are so eager to sue giant corporations, expecially cigarette companies. On the other hand, I can't help feeling that Mr. Wacko Jackson's behavior is a bit odd (not to mention silly) and he should know better than to do this kind of thing since he was sued for child molesting a couple years back. Some people will never learnt. In my life, I always stick to this motto: Fooled me once, shame on you. Fooled me twice, shame on me. Shame to Wacko Jackson indeed. Shame, shame, shame. __________________ (This is an invisible sig.)

11-19-2003, 01:31 PM	#1
khazadman User suspended until [Feb13] Join Date: December 6, 2001 Location: the south side of ol virginny Age: 63 Posts: 1,172	An arrest warrant has been issued for the pervert Michael Jackson. All I have to say is it's about time. Now let's hope he can't buy his way out of this one.

11-19-2003, 01:47 PM	#3
khazadman User suspended until [Feb13] Join Date: December 6, 2001 Location: the south side of ol virginny Age: 63 Posts: 1,172	An innocent man will not pay more than ten million dollars to silence someone for something he didn't do.

11-19-2003, 02:06 PM	#4
Maelakin Drow Warrior Join Date: September 16, 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Age: 48 Posts: 257	That isn't entirely true. For example, I work in a company that would rather pay out a financial sum vs. going to court over many cases. They don’t pay because they are guilty, but in the long run they will save money by settling. In the case of a celebrity, many allegations are made every year in the hopes of financial gain of the part of the accuser. Until proof is provided that shows otherwise, this is nothing but another one of those cases. It’s shameful the way some people are willing to point a finger at others so quickly. Also, could you provide a link to your information? I had heard a search warrant was issued for one of his residences, but I have not heard anything about an actual arrest warrant being issued for him.

11-19-2003, 05:10 PM	#10
Link Jack Burton Join Date: May 15, 2001 Location: The Netherlands Age: 40 Posts: 5,888	I liked the prosecutor's speech: "This case is VERY different from the cases in '93 and '94. First, this case is different because the law in California has changed. Second, this case is different because now we have a warrant." Must be American reasoning

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)