[TWIFOSP]

I try not to post unless I have something constructive to say, and I don't mean this as a personal attack to anyone participating in this thread... but:

1. Who gives a flying crap about Michael Jackson?
2. Why participate in this media driven frenzy that is making our society look stupid?
3. For those who are angry/disapointed or supportive of the verdict; you weren't there when it allegedly happend, you weren't in court, you probably don't know 90% of the things that actually happened in court, and anyone who states he's guilty OR innocent is saying so based on their own gut feeling instead of the evidence that was presented in court. Next time you guys feel like trying the guy without a fair trial, please do it in another country.
4. Concerning #3, Yes the courts and political system are corrupt. But assuming they are in every case is just a waste of time. Come up with specific examples.

This whole trial and people's reactions to it make me really sad. It's a sad state of affairs when the Michael Jackson trial and the Peterson trial are the two biggest recent media focused events.

And for those calling out about 1984 conspiracies and cooperate America taking over... that's been happening for years. It's nothing new. We're slowly turning into the Orwellian society he wrote about decades ago. So, when was the last time you wrote your congressman? Never? Ok, stop complaining about it on head-fi, in a child molestor trial thread of all places, and go do something.

This post wasn't directed at anyone specific. I'm not even sure why I posted it. Maybe this whole trial and the attention it has received just has me sick to my stomach. Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[perplex]

wow that's crazy, the jury thought he was guilty of molestation but not the specific case. that's kind of mind boggling but "right" i guess

 

[BlindTiger]

I must admit I have not been following this trial at all.
Only now I've noticed how hot the defense attny's assistant was. funny how these celeb attny's have hotties behind the desk.
The only thing I can recall was when the DA first brought upon the charges in a press conference and I thought what an arrogant bastid he was.
karma's a bitch.
Celebrity or not, why would any parent let their child be with a person other than their immediate family nowadays? (paranoid me again)
now I'm having that tune in my head all day Recstar, I never knew those were the lyrics. Great tune.

 

[recstar24]

boy, your corduroys, i might go slip myself into,
you've got a nice behind,
you've got to feel the heat, and you can have a cookie,
share the beat of love!

i wanna rock with you, all night! (remix version)

 

[viator122]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWIFOSP 1. Who gives a flying crap about Michael Jackson?

Face it, you're reading this thread, you're one of us.

Quote:

2. Why participate in this media driven frenzy that is making our society look stupid?

I don't see how this trial makes our society look stupid. It's not like it's the Scopes Monkey trial or anything. You should see what gets on TV in some other countries. Quote:

3. For those who are angry/disapointed or supportive of the verdict; you weren't there when it allegedly happend, you weren't in court, you probably don't know 90% of the things that actually happened in court, and anyone who states he's guilty OR innocent is saying so based on their own gut feeling instead of the evidence that was presented in court. Next time you guys feel like trying the guy without a fair trial, please do it in another country.

Public proceedings are one of the bedrocks of our legal system. Everything is out there in the open for public scrutiny. This helps keep everything on the up-and-up.

 

[EyeAmEye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWIFOSP I try not to post unless I have something constructive to say, and I don't mean this as a personal attack to anyone participating in this thread... but: 1. Who gives a flying crap about Michael Jackson? 2. Why participate in this media driven frenzy that is making our society look stupid? 3. For those who are angry/disapointed or supportive of the verdict; you weren't there when it allegedly happend, you weren't in court, you probably don't know 90% of the things that actually happened in court, and anyone who states he's guilty OR innocent is saying so based on their own gut feeling instead of the evidence that was presented in court. Next time you guys feel like trying the guy without a fair trial, please do it in another country. 4. Concerning #3, Yes the courts and political system are corrupt. But assuming they are in every case is just a waste of time. Come up with specific examples.

1. Way too many people, which is exactly why a trial couldn't possibly be fair.
2. This is only a very small reason why our society looks stupid. Even trying as hard as possible to avoid the media blitz (as I do), it's impossible to avoid. Too many people want this type of sensationalism, and the media will always cater to the lowest common denominator. Good for ratings.
3. Given the media attention, do you think it's possible for Jackson to have a fair trial, or any celebrity? Let me ask it in another way, if some average joe was in the defendant's chair, away from any media attention, do you think the verdict would be the same? Do you think every iota of the that case would be analyzed with a fine tooth comb, every witness scrutinized in the same fashion? Absolutely not, an average joe would probably be sent up the river, so why should it be any different for MJ?
4. If you believe the court system is corrupt, how in the world could you possibly believe a case of this magnitude would be treated fairly?

 

[TWIFOSP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by viator122 Public proceedings are one of the bedrocks of our legal system. Everything is out there in the open for public scrutiny. This helps keep everything on the up-and-up.

Oh I agree, scrutiny is great. I just don't think that is what is going on. To scrutinize something would typically mean going over the facts and details. Which is something hardly anyone really has access to.

 

[TWIFOSP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye 4. If you believe the court system is corrupt, how in the world could you possibly believe a case of this magnitude would be treated fairly?

I suppose that answers itself. And it's not so much that I think our court system is corrupt, but flawed. The ideals and process I think are great. I just don't think we execute them as they were originally intended anymore.

Media sensationalism doesn't belong in our courts while the trial is going on. Let it be publicly scrutinized after the verdict is read. The jurors identity should be kept secret during the trial, and for a period of at least 6 months to a year after the trial's closing date. And it should be illegal to write books or otherwise profit from a court case you served on.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing the public should have access to while the trial is being conducted is that "So and So is ON trial for Such and Such Crime." Outside of that, there should be a complete gag order on everything that occurs within the court system until the trial is concluded. And then, everything would be released and a matter of public domain.

Or perhaps the media could take the high moral road and stop covering this crap. And for those who might say look at all the attention it gets, it's not the media's fault they are supplying what the public wants, I disagree. When you have 3-4 major media cooperations that own 90% of the media this country see's, and all have agreements between them, you pretty much get the same crap. So therefore the media dictates what the public is sensational about. It's all about the memeatic effects of media distribution, and it's depressing that we're more concerned with what celebrity is dating who and who's on trial than the history changing events of the world.

I read cnn.com on a daily basis just to be reminded of the apathy we face on a regular basis. It's funny to compare it to other media sources and see how spoon fed our major media outlets are. We may not be China when it comes to media censorship, but the major media outlets still choose not to publish a certain range of topics, and instead focus on this kind of drivel. It's not nearly as bad as government wide forced censorship like China, but it's still a form of censorship none the less.

 

[viator122]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWIFOSP As far as I'm concerned, the only thing the public should have access to while the trial is being conducted is that "So and So is ON trial for Such and Such Crime." Outside of that, there should be a complete gag order on everything that occurs within the court system until the trial is concluded. And then, everything would be released and a matter of public domain.

I think if trials are not public at the time they take place, then you lose the value of public scrutiny. If everything takes place behind closed doors, how do we know that what happens is fair and legitimate? If the public isn't there to watch out for justice then, for example, in this case, the judge and prosecutor could get together and skew the case in favor of the prosecution, and they could do it with impunity. No, I feel strongly that trials should be public and the media should cover them - although I agree that the media frequently sensationalizes and occaisionally reports without quality sources. Quote:

Or perhaps the media could take the high moral road and stop covering this crap.

Like I said, I agree with you that the coverage goes a bit over the top, but an international pop superstar on trial for child molestation is certainly a newsworthy story. Should this trial be on the cover of lots of papers 3-4 times per week? No. Should it be the top story on CNN.com every day? No. But that doesn't make it an invalid story, IMO.

 

[PSmith08]

There was a direct accusation by a kid in this case. Jackson admits that he slept with little kids. Wow.
This case didn't deserve any coverage. Win or lose, Jackson comes off like a martyr and the kid's life is ruined. If I could find his name out by accident(the BBC did not observe the taboo), then others who were looking could too. This is a disasterous event. The media needs to back off and Jackson needs to go away.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acs236 I'd be more concerned if people had applauded a guilty verdict.

Why? I would think it made sense. Another sicko in jail, hooray!
Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye They could have had him on videotape, it wouldn't have mattered. Then, he could have turned around and sold some copies to the perverts who let him off and use the cash to pay the lawyers. His wonderful fans would rejoice, because the videotape was obviously altered to make him appear guilty, the King of Pop is a saint, you know. Then they all sing "You Are Not Alone" and light some candles.

lol!

Quote:

Originally Posted by zotjen Even though he wasn't being tried for past crimes but you do believe those crimes did occur, could you honestly let someone go free to possibly molest kids again? I know I wouldn't.

Thank you. My point exactly. I don't really care if it "goes against our criminal justice rule system" (

), IMHO if you know someone's a sexual predator, they should be in bars. period. Don't give me that garbage about "upholding our constitutional and legal rights" crap. People throw up that red flag whenever you try to actually put away the badguys. Think bad to the Rampart scandals in Los Angeles. Made sense to me. They were putting away druglords that they were having trouble getting any dirt on otherwise. They were making the street safer. But because they did it "the wrong way", it's not okay. What?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric343 While I may be a bit biased, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you. As someone who's given Jude a great deal of my hard-earned money over the years for the privilege of advertising on and sponsoring this forum, I've never seen anything to suggest that purchasing ad-space equates to buying in to a Mafia-esque consipracy. Now, if you want to argue about moderators getting a bit cozier with manufacturers than decorum allows -- be my guest.

I wasn't trying to target you personally, just those 3 names were the first to come to my mind

Anyhoo, moving along: You have given money to HeadFi over the years, but have had it returned to you in the way of cable sales, ne? I mean afterall this is probably where most of your sales come from (which is true with many HeadFi sponsors). It's a cycle; you pay for sponsorship to gain more awareness and sales, and gain more sales by continuing your sponsorship. That's what I was trying to say; everything is tied into each other money-wise. And when you have tied money, you have tied interests. And tied interests means agendas. It's not directly sinister, just indirectly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric343 But this is a community where friendships are to be expected, and it's not as if the audio industry in general is exactly free of cronyism.

My point exactly

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distroyed Not so much chidlish, rick, but unintelligent. Ie, they lack the ability to recognize the alterity of others, and as a result think that that whatever appropriation they enact is apposite.

"Alterity of others" is a meaningless redundancy, and you're questioning others' intelligence?

Anyhoo, I will admit that i'm selfish

But I would not equate selfishness to a lack of intelligence. Sometimes I swear in public precisely because it bothers others. Why? Because no one i've ever met has a logical reason for disliking swear words. At least not the way I use them (which is, of course, not every 3 syllables). If you don't have good reasoning for your beliefs, I choose to devalue them. It's called logical analysis. If that makes me unintelligent in your eyes, more power to ya.

 

[acs236]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acs236 I'd be more concerned if people had applauded a guilty verdict.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek Why? I would think it made sense. Another sicko in jail, hooray!

Because a guilty verdict would have meant that there had been extremely compelling evidence that the child was abused -- it remains at least a reasonable possibility that he was not. Because, while admittedly Jackson is a weirdo, it's a better world where he is not abusing children -- and at least that remains a possibility.

Did any of the jurors KNOW Jackson is a sexual preditor? I doubt that. They may have suspected it, but the criminal justice system requires more than this -- thankfully.

 

[pne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek Thank you. My point exactly. I don't really care if it "goes against our criminal justice rule system" ( ), IMHO if you know someone's a sexual predator, they should be in bars. period. Don't give me that garbage about "upholding our constitutional and legal rights" crap. People throw up that red flag whenever you try to actually put away the badguys. Think bad to the Rampart scandals in Los Angeles. Made sense to me. They were putting away druglords that they were having trouble getting any dirt on otherwise. They were making the street safer. But because they did it "the wrong way", it's not okay. What?

because it's not fair in this case, to find him guilty based on what you "thought" happened in the past. The jury didn't KNOW, they THOUGHT. Each crime needs it's own case. What if they put him in jail because of rumors of the past for say 5 years jailtime, when in fact those rumors were true and he could have been tried for 20 years in another hearing? Not fair is it? If anyone knew he was a sexual predator (proof) then he would be in jail. If the justice system worked the way you described, I'm sure they would focus on drug lords, mob bosses, organized crime, etc, before this "show" case of a celeb and a little boy. But I do agree with what you're saying, if a criminal is so blatantly guilty and wrecking society, the govt should send in assasins or something, under the table. I know if I was the president at the time, I would have called in the army, rolled in tanks to take out Al Capone, regardless of what the public thought.

 

[viator122]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek Thank you. My point exactly. I don't really care if it "goes against our criminal justice rule system" ( ), IMHO if you know someone's a sexual predator, they should be in bars. period. Don't give me that garbage about "upholding our constitutional and legal rights" crap. People throw up that red flag whenever you try to actually put away the badguys.

But without a fair trial how do you know who the bad guys are? You need to think carefully about the above quote because I can guarantee you that if you ever find yourself on the wrong side of a courtroom or the backseat of a cop car you'll be thanking sweet Jesus for the Founding Fathers and their Foresight. Quote:

Sometimes I swear in public precisely because it bothers others. Why? Because no one i've ever met has a logical reason for disliking swear words. At least not the way I use them (which is, of course, not every 3 syllables). If you don't have good reasoning for your beliefs, I choose to devalue them. It's called logical analysis. If that makes me unintelligent in your eyes, more power to ya.

Good reasoning by whose measure? Yours? If I say (for argument's sake) that people who swear come across as crude and ignorant because they lack the appropriate verbal skills to appropriately express themselves, you're going to tell me that your mental computer "logically analyzes" my reasoning, finds it at fault and "devalues" my beliefs? Then, for that reason, you'll curse repetetively in my presence? Wow aren't you humble and respectful of others.

 

[TenaciousO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek Thank you. My point exactly. I don't really care if it "goes against our criminal justice rule system" ( ), IMHO if you know someone's a sexual predator, they should be in bars. period. Don't give me that garbage about "upholding our constitutional and legal rights" crap. People throw up that red flag whenever you try to actually put away the badguys. Think bad to the Rampart scandals in Los Angeles. Made sense to me. They were putting away druglords that they were having trouble getting any dirt on otherwise. They were making the street safer. But because they did it "the wrong way", it's not okay. What? I wasn't trying to target you personally, just those 3 names were the first to come to my mind

I'm sorry, but this is an absolutely ridiculous statement. The reason why our judicial system is structured the way it is to minimize erroneous and arbitrary decisions. Instead of spewing out mindless drivel, actually think about how your system of justice would affect all those who ever were, are, or will be part of the judicial process. Do you really think that our society would have been able to progress as it has if we let our personal feelings be the sole master of the judicial system? How would we have progressed from the mindset engrained in the Dred Scott and the majority opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson to the more enlightened ideal espoused in Brown v. Board of Education? Yes, some defendants who are truly guilty are bound to slip through the cracks, but would you rather have a innocent man be incarcerated for a crime that he has not committed? That scenario is much more likely under the sensationalist standard (or lack thereof) that you are espousing. If you were on trial for a crime, wouldn't you be more comfortable placing your life in the hands of 12 men/women who are instructed to set aside purely personal feelings and instead reach a verdict based upon a legal standard? Or would you rather have your future be decided by a passionate group with no set standard who may convict you not because of what you might have done but rather based on what-should-be irrelevant perceptions of you? Are you comfortable with someone convicting you because they do not like the way you look, the color of your skin, your status, your sex? Are you comfortable with someone convicting you despite the lack of hard evidence because they want to make sure that no one guilty goes unpunished? Are you comfortable with that? I'm not, and even though our system is not perfect, I think it's much better than the system that you're defending.