Jackson Not Guilty


I'm sure that none of you, when you were young kids, slept in your parents' bed if you woke up in the middle of the night becuase of a nightmare or anything like that. That's something almost every single kid does at least once in his/her life, as far as I know, and there's nothing wrong with it. Why do you have to associate a bed with sexual things? Just because that's where most sexual encounters take place, that doesn't mean that any time more than one person is in the same bedroom or even the same bed, something sexual will happen, okay?
I'm sorry but you cannot justify a 47 year old man sharing a bed with a child under any condition when he is not their parent or guardian. It is just plain wrong. It is inapropriate and had it been anybody who isn't famous, people would have gone batshit. And It is different than somebody blood related because he is not in the family. Would you HONESTLY let your child sleep go to a sleepover with one of your friends? Would you not be at all suspicious of their motives?

Too bad there was no evidence right like a childs fingerprints on a pornographic magazine found at the scene... wait.... Sure the evidence was not completely what it could have been but the defence was also a festering pile of shit. Lets face it, he has got something wrong with him and i'm amazed that he didn't even get ONE minor charge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sure that none of you, when you were young kids, slept in your parents' bed if you woke up in the middle of the night becuase of a nightmare or anything like that. That's something almost every single kid does at least once in his/her life, as far as I know, and there's nothing wrong with it. Why do you have to associate a bed with sexual things? Just because that's where most sexual encounters take place, that doesn't mean that any time more than one person is in the same bedroom or even the same bed, something sexual will happen, okay?
I'm sorry but you cannot justify a 47 year old man sharing a bed with a child under any condition when he is not their parent or guardian. It is just plain wrong. It is inapropriate and had it been anybody who isn't famous, people would have gone batshit. And It is different than somebody blood related because he is not in the family. Would you HONESTLY let your child sleep go to a sleepover with one of your friends? Would you not be at all suspicious of their motives?

Too bad there was no evidence right like a childs fingerprints on a pornographic magazine found at the scene... wait.... Sure the evidence was not completely what it could have been but the defence was also a festering pile of shit. Lets face it, he has got something wrong with him and i'm amazed that he didn't even get ONE minor charge.


No, I wouldn't be suspicious of their motives... I trust my friends, and I highly doubt that my kids would know anything or enough about sex to want to do anything... and if they did, I don't think they'd want to do anything with another male unless they're gay. I probably wouldn't send my kid to a friend's house without me being there(just because I can't ever see any reason for that to happen. I don't know what I'd do if that situation actually came along, but there's nothing wrong with a kid and an adult sharing a bed unless they really are doing something other than sleeping). unless I was out of town and for some reason couldn't take the kid with me.

Fingerprints on a porn magazine aren't proof of pedophilia either. For all we know, if they had been found, the kids could have just been snooping around and happened to find the magazines themselves. It happened to me when I was younger... I found some of my dad's old porn in a closet when I was about 11 or 12, and just like any other kid at that age, I was intrigued and curious. The fact that I saw my dad's porn doesn't make him a pedophile or mean that he was showing them to me or trying to molest me or anything like that... The same can be said about two people who aren't related as well. Just because you're related, that doesn't mean foul play is impossible(I know you're not suggesting it's that way, I'm just stating that it isn't).

Even if he had shown them porn, I really don't see that as such a horrible thing(It's more likely that he had other things on his mind than simply sleeping with the kids if he had done that, but it's still not proof of guilt). I realize it's against the law, and because of that, I would never do it myself, but is there really any harm in anybody under the age of 18 years seeing the anatomy of the opposite sex? The only way it could cause a problem is if it's "treated" incorrectly. If you sit there and yell at your kid for looking at porn, he's going to be confused. He won't understand why certain feelings he's having that he can't control are bad, and then he'll think there's something wrong with him. That will hurt him much more than seeing a breast or vagina could ever hurt him(which is not at all).

Everything that anybody who wasn't actually there can tell us about what went on in the house is pure speculation. and it doesn't matter if he's weird or not. it doesn't matter if it's unusual for an adult and kid to share a bed... that's not proof of molestation.

In my opinion, innocent until proven guilty is a good policy. Just because someone is accused of committing a horrible crime doesn't mean they don't deserve to be defended against the accusition. Accusal is not proof of guilt. If he truly did molest anybody, then he's a sick bastard and should be in jail... but they couldn't find enough evidence... and no matter how much you believe he molested someone, that doesn't change the fact that they didn't have enough to convict him with... so he'd be one bad apple that fell thru the cracks... If that's the case, even though he never got convicted, this should still serve as a deterrent to keep him away from kids in the future... which means that if he did molest anybody, he probably won't put himself in a situation where he has the chance to do it again because he almost got caught.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even if he had shown them porn, I really don't see that as such a horrible thing(It's more likely that he had other things on his mind than simply sleeping with the kids if he had done that, but it's still not proof of guilt). I realize it's against the law, and because of that, I would never do it myself, but is there really any harm in anybody under the age of 18 years seeing the anatomy of the opposite sex?
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU. WHAT. THE. FUCK. Congratulations you've just totally voided your arguement which was making some sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even if he had shown them porn, I really don't see that as such a horrible thing(It's more likely that he had other things on his mind than simply sleeping with the kids if he had done that, but it's still not proof of guilt). I realize it's against the law, and because of that, I would never do it myself, but is there really any harm in anybody under the age of 18 years seeing the anatomy of the opposite sex?
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU. WHAT. THE. FUCK. Congratulations you've just totally voided your arguement which was making some sense.


Why the hell should a child be shielded from something that isn't even harmful in the first place? Keeping eveything a mystery makes everything more weird and awkward. Why the hell should you tell a kid that something he feels but has no control over whatsoever is bad? That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard... My argument still makes sense, whether you think it does or not. If seeing the anatomy of the opposite sex is so bad, then why do we have sexual education in school? It's not the same as looking at porn, but porn can be described as anything that shows a naked person at all. last time I checked, looking at a breast doesn't kill anybody.

And if it's so bad, then I guess it's bad to breast feed babies too, because then they are not only seeing a breast, but they're also sucking on it.

Note: The above statement is not meant to be taken seriously... obviously there's nothing wrong with breastfeeding... but tell me exactly how seeing a member of the opposite sex's anatomy before the age of 18 is detrimental on its own...

I'm not saying that everybody should go around showing porn to kids, but I don't see it as a huge deal. If they're showing them fricken scat or something like that, THEN I would have a problem with it... That can be disturbing as hell no matter how old you are. but just naked pictures of the opposite sex, I see nothing wrong with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even if he had shown them porn, I really don't see that as such a horrible thing(It's more likely that he had other things on his mind than simply sleeping with the kids if he had done that, but it's still not proof of guilt). I realize it's against the law, and because of that, I would never do it myself, but is there really any harm in anybody under the age of 18 years seeing the anatomy of the opposite sex?
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU. WHAT. THE. FUCK. Congratulations you've just totally voided your arguement which was making some sense.
That doesn't void his arguement. Does it?
---
I highly doubt MJ would have done that though as he was disturbed by such things when he was really young (His brothers used to have sex with him in the room when he was like 7 or something) and I don't think he would want to force kids in to seeing that sort of thing.
INTRODUCING a fucking CHILD to porn is SICK.
Yes it is, but it doesn't make you a paedophile.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok teaching a kid about the birds and the bees is alright (I wouldn't want a friend doing it though) but showing them full on porn will just scare the shit out of them.
 
1-MJ_bo_avid.jpg
 
Yeah because showing a kid porn will RUIN THEIR LIFE!!!!!

People who watch porn are sub-human and quite possibly satan worshippers!!!!!


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Fucking hell people, is there anybody, anybody here that hadn't seen porn at that age? Fuck, what does it matter who shows you it.

You are so fucking naive if you think these kids didn't know about it already.
 
Yeah because showing a kid porn will RUIN THEIR LIFE!!!!!

People who watch porn are sub-human and quite possibly satan worshippers!!!!!


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Fucking hell people, is there anybody, anybody here that hadn't seen porn at that age? Fuck, what does it matter who shows you it.

You are so fucking naive if you think these kids didn't know about it already.
Yes because a grown man showing pornographic material to a young child is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. What the fuck is wrong with you? No really. There is a world of difference between a child finding pornography and an adult actively showing it to them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah because showing a kid porn will RUIN THEIR LIFE!!!!!

People who watch porn are sub-human and quite possibly satan worshippers!!!!!


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Fucking hell people, is there anybody, anybody here that hadn't seen porn at that age? Fuck, what does it matter who shows you it.

You are so fucking naive if you think these kids didn't know about it already.
Yes because a grown man showing pornographic material to a young child is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. What the fuck is wrong with you? No really. There is a world of difference between a child finding pornography and an adult actively showing it to them.
We really have all strayed from the topic completely now. The point is nobody has proved that the boys fingerprints being on MJ's porn is anything to do with MJ - and the law allows people to be innocent until proven guilty.
Somebody lock this dammit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
It doesn't matter if it's "acceptable" or not. What we're getting at here is that it should be acceptible, because it doesn't hurt anybody on its own. If he used it as a tactic to get the kids aroused and then tried to molest them when they were aroused, then there's something wrong with that whole thing... but not the simple fact that he's like "hey, check this out." How old were the kids, anyway, like 13? Because by the time I was 13, I'd seen more than enough porn already. More likely than not they already knew what it was anyway. And if I were at MJ's house, I probably would have been looking at it too if I found it.

I realize it's against the law, but that doesn't change the fact that it won't actually harm anybody. There are a LOT of stupid laws. In some town in california, I think it was... there's a law that nobody can wear any kind of mask or costume or anything that would disguise his/her identity without a fricken license... That's a stupid law. It's still enforced today... but if anybody breaks that law, nobody gets hurt. If an adult shows a kid a picture of a naked woman, nobody gets hurt either, as long as that's all he did... but the naked picture on its own did absolutely no damage. So basically my point here is that just because something is a law, that doesn't mean it's a good idea or that it's protecting anybody from anything. That's the main purpose of laws, but not everybody agrees on what's "good" and "bad." I can tell you with absolute certainty that looking at porn before I turned 18 had absolutely no adverse effect on me. However, what COULD HAVE had an adverse effect on me is if I ever got caught, my mom flipped out, and told me I was doing something evil or bad.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with Magus.

Oh and Gavin Arviso was 15 at the time of the trial, but I don't know how old this makes him at the age of the event. 13 or so I guess.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with Magus.

Oh and Gavin Arviso was 15 at the time of the trial, but I don't know how old this makes him at the age of the event. 13 or so I guess.


Alright... Then either he was locked in a closet for his entire life, or he definitely saw porn before he ever got to Michael Jackson's house anyway.

And you know Klown, I like how you were starting to agree with what I had to say, but then all of a sudden, I threw a curve ball and gave an opinion on another area of relavence to this debate, and all of a sudden, that voids the rest of my argument? uh... how? If anybody says anything you don't like, everything else they've said is suddenly wrong? What if Einstein were to agree with the stuff I said that you don't like? Does that make his theory of relativity void? What about Galileo? Would that suddenly change the fact that the earth isn't the center of the universe?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree wholeheartedly with Magus.

Oh and Gavin Arviso was 15 at the time of the trial, but I don't know how old this makes him at the age of the event. 13 or so I guess.


Alright... Then either he was locked in a closet for his entire life, or he definitely saw porn before he ever got to Michael Jackson's house anyway.

And you know Klown, I like how you were starting to agree with what I had to say, but then all of a sudden, I threw a curve ball and gave an opinion on another area of relavence to this debate, and all of a sudden, that voids the rest of my argument? uh... how? If anybody says anything you don't like, everything else they've said is suddenly wrong? What if Einstein were to agree with the stuff I said that you don't like? Does that make his theory of relativity void? What about Galileo? Would that suddenly change the fact that the earth isn't the center of the universe?

Einstein wouldn't agree with you, and even if he did, he wouldn't have been able to read it anyway
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top