the ugly duckling Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 does it even make a difference if he's guilty or not? forget about him as a celeb, and forget about his race. there are a lot of people out there walking the streets, who are a much bigger threat than some weird pop star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gutterpunk Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 i am glad it is over. he is going to run away and hide in some mansion in south africa that is in someone elses name so they can't take it from him when they take the rest of his money...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaBar2 Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 There's a big difference between "not guilty" and "innocent." The state has the burden of proof. They did not prove their case to the satisfaction of the jury, so Mr. Jackson walks scot free. Batter UP! CIVIL SUIT ON DECK. Since the Constitution forbids "double jeopardy," Mr. Jackson cannot be tried on the same charges again. However, he could be charged with different charges on the same allegations. For instance he could be charged with "sexual assault of a minor." If he's not convicted, the D.A. could then bring charges of "endangering the welfare of a minor." If that charge doesn't stick, then he could charge him with "solicitation of a sexual act from a minor", "providing intoxicating substances to a minor," "pulling a minor's pee-pee" and so on and so forth. They could repeatedly charge him with different violations on the same evidence as long as a judge will accept the charge. If the judge decides forty-something Mr. Jackson is being harrassed for his close, beneficent, and repeated relationships with pre-pubescent 13-year-old boys, he could tell the D.A.'s office to lay off. The standards for conviction on criminal charges is "beyond reasonable doubt." Reasonable doubt is pretty easy to establish, as the outcome of "Jack-off Jacko's" trial shows. The standards for conviction in a CIVIL trial are much lower: "to a moral certainty." A moral certainty means you may not be able to prove it, but there is something so fishy about the defendant that the jury is just certain the bastard did it. So when Jacko gets to Court on the civil case, "adios, unfortunate millions of dollars." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumy Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 Originally posted by KaBar2@Jun 18 2005, 02:29 PM There's a big difference between "not guilty" and "innocent." The state has the burden of proof. They did not prove their case to the satisfaction of the jury, so Mr. Jackson walks scot free. Batter UP! CIVIL SUIT ON DECK. Since the Constitution forbids "double jeopardy," Mr. Jackson cannot be tried on the same charges again. However, he could be charged with different charges on the same allegations. For instance he could be charged with "sexual assault of a minor." If he's not convicted, the D.A. could then bring charges of "endangering the welfare of a minor." If that charge doesn't stick, then he could charge him with "solicitation of a sexual act from a minor", "providing intoxicating substances to a minor," "pulling a minor's pee-pee" and so on and so forth. They could repeatedly charge him with different violations on the same evidence as long as a judge will accept the charge. If the judge decides forty-something Mr. Jackson is being harrassed for his close, beneficent, and repeated relationships with pre-pubescent 13-year-old boys, he could tell the D.A.'s office to lay off. The standards for conviction on criminal charges is "beyond reasonable doubt." Reasonable doubt is pretty easy to establish, as the outcome of "Jack-off Jacko's" trial shows. The standards for conviction in a CIVIL trial are much lower: "to a moral certainty." A moral certainty means you may not be able to prove it, but there is something so fishy about the defendant that the jury is just certain the bastard did it. So when Jacko gets to Court on the civil case, "adios, unfortunate millions of dollars." Quoted post Isn't this what happened to OJ? Didn't he get hit with mad civil suits after his non-guilty verdict? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaBar2 Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 Yes. Mr. Simpson was sued by his late wife's family. The civil jury found for the plaintiff (her family) and Mr. Simpson lost millions in damages. He's still wealthy, but not like before. They also tried to get custody of Simpson's children, but I think that effort was unsuccessful, but I'm not sure why. If he killed the girl's mother, why would he not lose custody? I lost interest in the case and stopped reading about it. A lot of people said that the civil jury was "racist." Well, if they were racist, why would they care if a black millionaire murdered his "race traitor bitch wife?" Real racists applauded when O.J. got off. The verdict aggravated racist attitudes among the "fence sitter" element in the white community, and increased the idea that if a white woman goes with a black man "she's going to get what she deserves." Being stabbed to pieces is exactly what white racists would desire for a white woman who marries a black man, so they were happy. After the O.J. Simpson trial a whole lot of young white girls said "No black guys for me, no way," which made the Klan and the Nazis real happy, I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaBar2 Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 "Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." He DID IT, all right, but the State didn't prove it to the jury. Gosh, I sure hope some demented individual who hates child molestors doesn't try to hurt Mr. Jackson on the street. That would be a terrible tragedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumy Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Originally posted by KaBar2@Jun 18 2005, 04:51 PM "Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." He DID IT, all right, but the State didn't prove it to the jury. Gosh, I sure hope some demented individual who hates child molestors doesn't try to hurt Mr. Jackson on the street. That would be a terrible tragedy. Quoted post yeah, I hear you, we all have our OPINIONS on the trial..but I think only God, MJ, and the kid knows what really happens.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnomeToys Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 God even took pictures of what happened, but he's not posting them online because he doesn't want to get arrested for child pornography. Zing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumy Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 HAHA..ok, I know when i'm outclassed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobo knife Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Originally posted by KaBar2@Jun 18 2005, 04:32 PM A lot of people said that the civil jury was "racist." Well, if they were racist, why would they care if a black millionaire murdered his "race traitor bitch wife?" Real racists applauded when O.J. got off. The verdict aggravated racist attitudes among the "fence sitter" element in the white community, and increased the idea that if a white woman goes with a black man "she's going to get what she deserves." Being stabbed to pieces is exactly what white racists would desire for a white woman who marries a black man, so they were happy. Quoted post ^^^this is disturbingly racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaBar2 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Let me get this straight--you think that a statement that white racists applauded the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman is more disturbing than O.J. Simpson actually committing the murders and avoiding conviction? In the final analysis, who is to blame for the fallout from these murders? The white racists are not to blame for Mr. Simpson stabbing his wife and her friend to death. They did not do any of the national-television, attention-grabbing stunts that Mr. Simpson pulled--the White Bronco freeway chase, the fleeing to Chicago, any of that. Mr. Simpson bears the responsibility for his actions, and he sure appears to be guilty as sin. The thing that amazes me is that he walks about free as a bird, golfing in public, etc., etc. and the Browns and Goldmans have not hired a hit man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Quickwood Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 it's awesome how some of you apparently know that he was guilty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 ^ perhaps some people on 12oz spent their childhood at neverland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Quickwood Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 haha maybe so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.