Jackson Not Guilty

Chat about stuff other than Transformers.
User avatar
Brave Maximus
Posts: 5877
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 11:50 pm
Location: Gehenna

Post by Brave Maximus » Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:01 am

Originally posted by Sociopathic Autobot
That entire case is more than enough proof that the Canadian justice system is so soft it doesn't matter. I am not afraid to kill someone because I know they will dumb it down to man-slaughter and I'll be out of jail in 12 years.

Don't take this the wrong way man, but, how old were you when that whole thing was going on? I think you're 18, which would put you at 6. And that means you probably weren't paying all that much attention. (Though I do hope they are teaching the case in law class now). I was in grade 10 law when this was going on and we kept a pretty close eye on the case.

Yes, it seems that she got off easy (Damn right she did. The part that gets me is - because it was man-slaughter, she couldn't be made a dangerous offender). But the prosocution at the time had no choice.

Her lawyer hid the tapes they had made, and very much down-played her involvement in the killings. The Crown, at the time, made the deal with her so they could nail Bernardo (Who, amongst other things, was the Scarborough Rapist And is linked to more than 200 rapes in the United States). They gave her the 12 year deal to get that bastard. Unfortunatly - when the tapes came to light, the deal was already signed. And, they couldn't go back on the deal - not and keep their credibility. Unfortunatly, it was a horrible deal, esp when it was shown how much she participated in the crimes.

Do I think she should be locked up, for the rest of her life? Hell yes, but the Crown did what they had to do, at the time. Her Lawyer (who hid that evidence and KNEW what was going on) should be in jail as an accessory. It sucks - but.... Bah...

User avatar
Sir Auros
Posts: 12980
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA
Contact:

Post by Sir Auros » Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:06 am

Off-topic bitching removed. Play nice or so help me God, I will beat the ever-loving sh*t out of you kids and drive this car off a cliff!

User avatar
Hound
Posts: 9660
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Henshin!

Post by Hound » Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:33 am

Originally posted by Sir Auros
Off-topic bitching removed. Play nice or so help me God, I will beat the ever-loving sh*t out of you kids and drive this car off a cliff!

Hahahahahaha!

User avatar
Redstreak
Protoform
Posts: 5062
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2001 4:00 am
Location: Motown

Post by Redstreak » Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:55 pm

Originally posted by Sir Auros
Off-topic bitching removed. Play nice or so help me God, I will beat the ever-loving sh*t out of you kids and drive this car off a cliff!


Be my guest. Might stop this crap from continuing and get ppl to actually act nice to one another, God forbid...

Also there was some on-topic posting in at least one of my posts, why not just edit the rest out? Cuz now I don't remember what I said.

User avatar
Denyer
Posts: 32326
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2000 4:00 am
Custom Title: Shooty Dog Thing
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:32 pm

Originally posted by Brave Max
Do people agree that celebrities are held to a different standard than "normal" people?
Originally posted by Redstreak
I don't know ifyou watch the Daily Show, but Stephen Colbert said it well:

"Apparently the only way you can get convicted in California is if you commit the crime in front of the jury."
Which brings us back to your assertion
Originally posted by Redstreak
Celebrities are above the law, it has been proven at least thrice now(simpson, blake, jackson).
assigning as fact events in the mode of
Originally posted by Redstreak
everyone knows [Jackson] did it, they proved he did it,
You can make a case and put evidence forth. 'Proven' you're far from, either in legal or other senses.

Is there a cult of celebrity, and particularly in America? Yes, I'd agree there is. There are those who want celebrities to succeed in visible affirmation of the Dream, that anyone can rise or be picked. There are those with an interest in celebrities existing to fill tabloids and serve as cautionary tales. Some people occupy both positions.

User avatar
Redstreak
Protoform
Posts: 5062
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2001 4:00 am
Location: Motown

Post by Redstreak » Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:00 pm

Well, I think proven in this topic is a matter of opinion, perhaps as brought from either where a person comes from with their personal philosophical beliefs, or where they come out on the cult of celebrity, among other things. You could likely find numerous ppl who will believe what I believe, or take your stance, tho ppl who come down on my side are evidently in the minority on this particular board. I have heard numerous ppl who agree with my assertation, be it over the airwaves or on the net; it's just that not many of them are members here. I do much more appreciate the accurate representation of what I said. So thank you for that, Denyer.

I do want to put something out there for consideration; I think we've dealt in numerous absolutes in this thread. Instead of relying on "well he wasn't found guilty so he isn't," I would be interested to see where ppl come out on the opinion of "just because someone isn't found guilty doesn't mean they didn't do it." It means that those twelve ppl don't believe he did it. We know the failings of legal systems, and sometimes the wrong man is punished, or the right one set free. Those of you that say he didn't do it, I would like to hear more expansive reasoning other than 'because he was acquitted'.

User avatar
Sir Auros
Posts: 12980
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA
Contact:

Post by Sir Auros » Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:35 pm

Originally posted by Redstreak
Also there was some on-topic posting in at least one of my posts, why not just edit the rest out? Cuz now I don't remember what I said.


Why not just post on-topic and leave the flaming where it belongs? Last warning I'm giving for this thread.

User avatar
Redstreak
Protoform
Posts: 5062
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2001 4:00 am
Location: Motown

Post by Redstreak » Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:46 pm

Originally posted by Sir Auros
Why not just post on-topic and leave the flaming where it belongs? Last warning I'm giving for this thread.


Just be sure you tell Hound that...

User avatar
Sir Auros
Posts: 12980
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA
Contact:

Post by Sir Auros » Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:13 pm

Originally posted by Redstreak
Just be sure you tell Hound that...


You just always have to get the last word in, don't you? That's what got you banned last time (already had a warning for people to keep it on-topic and you defied it), and you're doing it again. How you can scream bloody murder over what Hound said, I don't understand considering all he did was turn what you said about Denyer around on you.

Get the last word in on this thread now ass.

User avatar
Denyer
Posts: 32326
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2000 4:00 am
Custom Title: Shooty Dog Thing
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:02 pm

Originally posted by Redstreak
Instead of relying on "well he wasn't found guilty so he isn't,"
I don't think anyone is. They're sticking to the legal and moral principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

For the benefit of those following along, what evidence is being presented beyond "he said this" and "he said that"? We can establish opportunity. Motive? If young boys are his fetish, runaways or sex tourism might be expected.

Tangible evidence? Underwear washed and returned to the room of another child in the house—which if a serious issue would have been destroyed. Clandestine drinking in public and providing alcohol to juveniles—sustained. Owning a number of mainstream top-shelf adult publications such as Club and Hustler—sustained.

Testimony of the accusers? Ranges between unusually specific detail and apparent fact nobody wore a watch—the representation that clocks didn't feature on the estate is somewhat belied by the giant one outside.

I don't think any adult involved is particularly innocent, and the tendency of the family to jump between statements, joke on the stand and note and remark on otherwise inconsequential detail that provides foundation for other statements doesn't invite much confidence.

No sympathy for Jackson here—he comes across as immature, a control freak and unable to learn from previous circumstance.

edit: Ah. It appears I should type faster, and not cook whilst posting...

Locked