Anyone surprised? Expected?

Hmmm... wow... hmmm... Well, that case did seem a little shakey to me. The mom seemed incredibly uncredible.

Do I think he's a molester... well, my feeling is he probably is. Did they have enough evidence to convict him, I don't know that they did.

I expected him to be NG on most of the major ones. I figured the jury might compromise with a G verdict on some of the lesser offenses.

*shrugs*

Think they'll pull a OJ Simpson and try a civil case?

Think they'll pull a OJ Simpson and try a civil case?They're in witness protection. Hopefully they're too scared to try a second time, but it would give MJ a great shot at counter suits.

I'm with Panamah on this one. The case for him molesting that specific child was extremely weak. The case for him molesting children at some time in the past was much stronger but still unproven.

At one time demanding money with threats of reveaing a story, true or false, was the criminal offence of blackmail. Does that still exist in the US or have lawyers legalised blackmail under the guise of compensation suits?

I figured he would get off on the molestation charges due to lack of evidence but I thought he would be found guilty on supplying alcohol and ****ography to minors.

Is it surpring that a celebrity in Califormia received a "Not Guilty" verdict from a Jury?

Not at all, as that is what happens almost everytime.

That's what happens when you can afford to hire competant attorneys.

I wonder how many convicted murderers in california wish the state had spent even half as much on their public defender as they spent trying to push MJ in jail?

I dunno, I watched the jury press conference.

They did not seem to be the brights bulbs in the box.

The jury foreman looked more like a warehouse foreman. And one out on Disability at that.

I hardly expected a celebrity to get anything more then a slap on the wrist from the get go. To bad the plaintiff doesn't have to fort the cost of their claim though.

It always seemed to me that the "victim" and his family were just out to make a quick buck. They drag him through the criminal system and have the police do the investigation (totally at the taxpayers' expense, of course), then they have a ready-made civil lawsuit.

I don't think the "victim" was ever molested. Even if something did happen, it was consensual.

While I agree that if anything happened, the parents consented to it. But that's still a crime, just for both groups instead of just MJ.

I'm just sad they stopped showing Captain Nemo at Disneyland :flipbg:

I don't think the "victim" was ever molested. Even if something did happen, it was consensual.
Children can't consent to have sex in a legal sense.

Children can't consent to have sex in a legal sense.Just in every other sense (physical, mental, psychological). And if he had been found guilty, the wonderful legal system would have showered <i>his parents</I> with millions of dollars (because their child was a whore). Great, isn't it?

Hmmm...

I'd hesitate before calling a very young kid a whore. Kids seek out the approval of adults. I can imagine a young kid like that would be pretty overwhelmed by being the friend of someone famous like MJ. I think being that young, he's really not had an opportunity to figure out what his sexuality is all about... until he gets lead into that direction by someone using his power, money and influence to take him there.

Hmmm Tudamorf - you sure sound like you could be the Director of Situational Ethics policy for NAMBLA.

You could split that duty with a similiar position on the Catholic Church committee adressing Sexual abuse of minors by Priests.

Icy ground...but I'm gonna side with Tuda on this one, despite any NAMBLA accusations I might get pelted with.

While I wouldn't have sex with a 13 year old, I remember being perfectly willing (and wanting) to have sex with someone over 18 when I was 13. Sure, this might be poor judgment, but how many adults complain about how poor their judgment was after they slept with somebody? Millions.

I would agree that a 5 year old does not have the ability to consent to sex, but I think an adolescent should be allowed to make and learn from mistakes the way an adult does. Most countries in the world have an age of consent of 16, and many as low as 12 to 14.

However...I wouldn't call the kid a whore :P He was probably horny and willing to have sex with anything that moved, but that's not being a whore, it's being an adolescent male.

You can certainly accuse Michael Jackson of taking advantage of the kid, but again, how many adults take advantage of other adults sexually? Millions, and legally.

-Noir

I think there's nothing wrong with having a hard and fast rule that says, "Adults may not have sex with children under the age of X". Then we don't get any grey areas with an adult deciding that the "child" was ready. Or the child deciding he/she is ready. Or one pressuring the other.

It's just off-limits and that is that. Very simple.

Whether or not children want to have sex is irrelevant. That doesn't mean ****. They're not capable of dealing with the consequences and they don't have the life experience to handle the consequences of STD's, birth control, and all the other crap that goes along with it. Adults have a difficult enough time with that crap, you can bet it doesn't even cross the mind of a 13 year old with a boner.

I think being that young, he's really not had an opportunity to figure out what his sexuality is all about... until he gets lead into that direction by someone using his power, money and influence to take him there.I realize that Americans are uniquely sexophobic (if there is such a term), but Nature has already foreclosed this argument. By age 13, a boy is not only already physically equipped to reproduce, but he also has a massive surge of hormones pushing him to do so. I can't understand why the American public refuses to understand that children after puberty are able and willing to have sex, and that there's nothing unnatural about those feelings.

If he did have sex with MJ, he probably liked it, and even if he didn't, he probably didn't mind it considering all the attention, money, and toys he was getting. To me, that's a whore, stated in the simplest terms.Whether or not children want to have sex is irrelevant. That doesn't mean ****. They're not capable of dealing with the consequences and they don't have the life experience to handle the consequences of STD's, birth control, and all the other crap that goes along with it.Neither do the overwhelming majority of adults who are "permitted" to have sex. (If everyone were responsible, the AIDS epidemic wouldn't exist and we would only need abortions in cases of rape.) Should we criminalize their acts too?You could split that duty with a similiar position on the Catholic Church committee adressing Sexual abuse of minors by Priests.I consider the priest cases very different. The children there are typically younger, and they were actually being exploited because they were led to believe that priests are trustworthy and because they were not getting anything in return. The priests cases are more like actual rape, than prostitution.

I think there's nothing wrong with having a hard and fast rule that says, "Adults may not have sex with children under the age of X". Then we don't get any grey areas with an adult deciding that the "child" was ready. Or the child deciding he/she is ready. Or one pressuring the other.

It's just off-limits and that is that. Very simple.

Pan, I almost always agree with u on this forum because you are an open-minded person who uses logic to justify your positions. In other words, you are more than willing to handle that grey area and not make everything black and white. But that's just what you're doing here. Everything has a grey area and it doesn't ever help to sweep it under the rug and make rules that define and categorize things as black and white. It is NOT that simple.

Whether or not children want to have sex is irrelevant. That doesn't mean ****. They're not capable of dealing with the consequences and they don't have the life experience to handle the consequences of STD's, birth control, and all the other crap that goes along with it. Adults have a difficult enough time with that crap, you can bet it doesn't even cross the mind of a 13 year old with a boner

Tuda already said this, and I did as well in my previous post, but a large majority of adults have proven themselves as incapable of handling these things (or having them even cross their mind) as much as children do. It seems clear to me that the problem isn't how old the people are, but how mature and intelligent they are, and I can say for certain that maturity and intelligence are not linearly correlated with age.

It doesn't matter if you're 13 or 31, if you have a boner you won't think clearly. Again, it doesn't matter if you are 13 or 31, getting an STD is going to be an awful experience with lots of consequences, and you'll probably need some kind of counseling either way. A smart kid will use a condom as much as a smart adult will, and vice versa for the idiots.

I would also say it's not irrelevant whether or not the kid wants to have sex. Even the law notices the difference between statutory rape and actual rape.

I can completely understand why you feel the way you do, because as Tuda said this country has raised us to be sexophobe's in comparison to Europe and the rest of the world. This is a topic which is so taboo in America that most people don't really think logically about it. If we got rid of the sexual predators who force themselves on children the world would be a better place. However, that does not mean that there can't be a mutual relationship between a teenager and an adult. Sure, maybe three years later the kid will realize it was a big mistake. But once again, how many relationships have you had that you later realized were a big mistake?

-Noir

P.S. I do agree with your statement that adults should not be able to have sex with children under X. However, I think that X should not be 18. What it should be could be determined by an open full blown discussion that will never happen in this country. It probably has something to do with certain brain functions which develop at a certain age, which i do not know, but would guess would be about 14. Is that not the age of consent in Canada?

As much as child molesters disgust me, I don't think MJ is innocent. I think he's just too good of a target for money to pass up. He's wacko, he looks horrible and he has a kid ranch slash theme park... kinda too obvious to be a child molester dont you think?

IMO MJ is like a supermarket floor covered with oil... a lawsuit waiting to happen.