Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Michael Jackson - Dead at 50 (Cardiac Arrest)
- Thread starter rwilliams
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It makes perfect sense. The definition of a man is not his face but rather what makes him "him".
You seem to think that these would only be hardcore fans who would stick up for him. MJ is not my favorite musician. He might not even in my top 5. I will, however, stick up for a man who has been found not guilty in a court of law and people are trashing his name without proof.
Proof is when Pete Townshend visited a kiddie porno sites. Proof is when that guy that made the song that's always played at sporting events (forgot his name) got convicted of child molestation.
Why would that be pulled? I thought it was touching. Hopefully it will remain for a little while.
He's on a roll!
I suppose you could call it a roll. I see it more as a condescending attitude. How he's a moderator is beyond me, I fully understand and am open to reading or participating in discussion, after all it is a public forum. I just don't see the purpose of repeatedly injecting these snide comments towards other users, just because they don't share the same view as yourself.
I don't know what country you live in but people in the US don't have to prove their innocence. It is a right that is afforded all. Any decent person would concede to that.
Where does it say my being a moderator means I can't hold and advance an opinion or argument?
edit: Loves me some xkcd Olly.
Right I'm off to avoid the coverage, see you later guys.
Unfortunately that is not true. If you have enough money, you can buy your innocence. Which I believe is what happened in Michael's case.
Like I said, there's a difference between holding and advancing an opinion, and your little snide remarks towards other people that hold the opposite opinion.
Now that I think about it a bit more, I was wrong about my questioning your moderator status. I take that back and apologize, but I still hold the opinion that I don't really care for the comments you have made towards other users that have not made the same comments towards you. Just because they like someone that you see no reason why any person should like doesn't mean you should be condescending towards. No, not all of your comments are, and you have plenty of arguments, but it's those little jabs at the end of your statements that just come off as rude. I'm just saying...
You may not but other people would have. You don't even know the specifics. You are assuming guilt based on that. I admit he made a mistake to pay it off and I believe he knew that. That is the reason why he fought the other charge and was found not guilty.
I don't know why you're comparing Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" to this. It is a different situation. They chatted with the guy online and it was obvious he wanted sex. The guy comes over the "child's" house only to find the police there. That is a lot of proof.
Good luck with that, I don't fancy your chances. It's getting almost Dianaesque...
Unfortunately you are the one who is wrong. You cannot buy your innocence. Money can buy you the best lawyers. Celebrities/Weathy people have higher regard/standing in the community. In the court of law it is guilty or not guilty. They don't hand judgement out that way.
If what you're saying is true, why was Phil Spector convicted? Why was Michael Vick convicted? Why was Jayson Williams convicted? The list is long of well known people being convicted. The problem is you only remember who wasn't convicted.
Michael didn't have to go on the internet to find children, he had fame to just get them to come to him.
Why wasn't OJ convicted? He had the biggest lawyers of all. And it took Spector 2 trials.
The jury is impartial when it is a big celebrity. Just because he was found not guilty doesn't mean he didn't commit the crime.
I would disagree here.
Settling out of court can mean a variety of things. One of which is the person doesn't want to be exposed to the court process and public humiliation (from their perspective) and it's worth it to them to settle.
Additionally, high profile court cases cost a lot even when proved innocent.
No it's not. Especially as a mod.
In this case, I would agree with you.
Mods are human and at times may get caught up in the discussion a bit too much like we all do.
Apparently, there are differing opinions about MJ.
Red, I would disagree with you on this. I am sure that it happens occasionally, but it is not the norm. Otherwise, many who are in jail today would be out free. I can think of many organized crime figures and others who are/were in jail that could have bought their way out if what you said was true.
In MJ's case, along with any other celebrity, it is hard to know the real facts to the story due to our sensationalist media that we have today. So I am suspect of any story about MJ. Now if we were back in the days of Walter Cronkite, then it would be a whole different matter. But we have what we have.
Bottom line, is that MJ is no longer with us. His music was an inspiration to many fans and artists alike. He was a troubled soul who has hopefully found peace at last.
It'll be ironic if he did die of morphine, considering he wrote a song about it years ago.
Lyrics and fan-made music video:
http://www.mahalo.com/michael-jackson-morphine
Lyrics and fan-made music video:
http://www.mahalo.com/michael-jackson-morphine
I don't know the specifics of the case but it did not hapen exactly the way you are descibing it. If it did take two times, it means that he wasn't found not guilty. You can't be charged with the same crime twice.
Yes it does not mean he committed the crime. But I think a jury of 12 sitting in a room for 8 hours a day has better insight into the case than you do.
The first time it was a mistrial
12 different jurors could have a different result.
I do agree with you. Every case is different, and I don't follow any of them. I didn't follow Michael's life in any way, so I haven't a clue whether he was guilty or not. I agree with MacDawg's post about who he was though. Anyone could look at him and tell he was off - I say tormented.
I think money was paid to cover things up. Now, whether it was just to keep the rumors down or to buy his freedom, I have no idea. I do, however, think that a "normal" member of society would've done some time for the same actions.