quote:
Faelynn LeAndris wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Oh shutup.Lets protect the oppressed! It was an overexhageration.
The man needs mental help, that is fairly obvious and has been for a while, he is mentally unstable which many practicing psychs have commented on. The fact that he wanted to play peter pan and sleep with these children is enough to warrant some lawful intervention whether he actually molested them or not. Hell the dangling the baby incident should have been enough to get him slapped with something, but he was able to dodge that purely because he was Michael Jackson.
Of course I dont think someone should be convicted of crimes they didn't commit, it was an overexhagerated statement pointing out both he, and the public, would be better off if he had been.
I'm not protecting anyone, I can't stand the guy.
Simply couldn't ignore that last line though. And this is the internet, it's tough to read sarcasm if you bunch it in with what could be called a "serious" paragraph.
Next time plop a little smiley face in there and Im sure it won't happen.
quote:
This one time, at Faelynn LeAndris camp:
posts
I disagree with you here, no matter how fucked up society may think he is, as long as he does nothing illegal the state has no right to go after him. If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt he actually molested kids, sure, arrest him or put him in a mental hospital (On a side note, mental hospitals, even though often used in 'hurr insanity plea'-jokes, are often worse than many prisons) but as long as that isn't the case there is no basis on which to deprive him of his liberty. Aren't you a nudist Fae? I bet there's a million people out there who would severely object to the way you live. (Sorry if I'm confusing you with someone)
quote:
Mod wrote this stupid crap:
Aren't you a nudist Fae? I bet there's a million people out there who would severely object to the way you live. (Sorry if I'm confusing you with someone)
No, that's him. And someone did object to that lifestyle, which is why someone wanted his kids taken away.
Personally, I'm glad to see he was found not guilty.
quote:
Mod got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
I disagree with you here, no matter how fucked up society may think he is, as long as he does nothing illegal the state has no right to go after him. If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt he actually molested kids, sure, arrest him or put him in a mental hospital (On a side note, mental hospitals, even though often used in 'hurr insanity plea'-jokes, are often worse than many prisons) but as long as that isn't the case there is no basis on which to deprive him of his liberty. Aren't you a nudist Fae? I bet there's a million people out there who would severely object to the way you live. (Sorry if I'm confusing you with someone)
Nothing illegal?.... Please. You know what would happen if your average joe dangled his baby out of a 4 story hotel window over the street below? He's have CPS so far up his ass quicker than you could bling it wouldn't even be funny. Michael Jackson had to do what? Nothing, yep. Nothing. He did a Barbara Walters like interview or something a few months later and tried futily to defend his actions. And I'm sorry, there is something wrong with a gown man sleeping in a bed with teenage boys with a peterpan syndrome. That is at the very least child endangerment, or questionable acts with a minor, but unfortunately the law doesn't see it that way. And you did pretty much the same thing he did which is just like those pedophiles who defend thier actions by sayings its true love of children that they are the way they are, which is bullshit. He's dont plenty, just being him, that is a danger to society.
And nudist, what? 
I assume you are referring to our little CPS incident that happened when my oldest was like five, and I mentioned the fact that I don't feel the need to get dressed in the middle of the night to walk around my house. It's not like I parade around with my windows open or anything. In fact the whole mess about that was the fact that my DAUGHTERS were running around the house naked, not us. There is no way in hell you are getting me to a nudist beach or otherwise, Im too entirely self concious. Now my daughters, they were 5 years old, with no sense of morality just like alll of us were back then, you know naked, right out of the bathtub or running around with toiletpaper stuck to our butts. In fact what made it creepy was the fact that for anyone to even REFERENCE that they would have to be snooping around our windows to catch something, which led us to believe the creepy landlords son being the culprit.
Edit: But yes, it was because of that, that we had a whole shitfest with CPS and an attempt to remove our children. And thats no where near on the scale what MJ has done, and will do again now that he is off scott free. Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 06-13-2005 at 09:35 PM.
The defense did a good job of getting "reasonable doubt" into the minds of the jury. That the story of the accusing family had pretty much changed a few times. Also the antics of the mother on the stand and in the courtroom pretty much made them out to look like gold diggers. Maybe it did happen, but because the mother was as much of a nutjob as MJ it didn't work in thier favor.
I'd have to agree that MJ should have his own libel/defamation suit of his own ready to slap on the family, weather they file a civil suit or not.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris's fortune cookie read:
And nudist, what?I assume you are referring to our little CPS incident that happened when my oldest was like five, and I mentioned the fact that I don't feel the need to get dressed in the middle of the night to walk around my house. It's not like I parade around with my windows open or anything. In fact the whole mess about that was the fact that my DAUGHTERS were running around the house naked, not us. There is no way in hell you are getting me to a nudist beach or otherwise, Im too entirely self concious. Now my daughters, they were 5 years old, with no sense of morality just like alll of us were back then, you know naked, right out of the bathtub or running around with toiletpaper stuck to our butts. In fact what made it creepy was the fact that for anyone to even REFERENCE that they would have to be snooping around our windows to catch something, which led us to believe the creepy landlords son being the culprit.
Edit: But yes, it was because of that, that we had a whole shitfest with CPS and an attempt to remove our children. And thats no where near on the scale what MJ has done, and will do again now that he is off scott free.
Yikes man! Didn't know all of what was going on there! 
Hell, both my girls at 6 and 4 streak about like crazy at bathtime. The shades are closed because some folks get wierd about *gasp* letting your kids being naked. Kids are kids, they do what feels good and they love being naked. People making a big deal out of it makes for self conscious kids, not good when the girls hit thier teens...
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Nothing illegal?.... Please. You know what would happen if your average joe dangled his baby out of a 4 story hotel window over the street below? He's have CPS so far up his ass quicker than you could bling it wouldn't even be funny. Michael Jackson had to do what? Nothing, yep. Nothing. He did a Barbara Walters like interview or something a few months later and tried futily to defend his actions. And I'm sorry, there is something wrong with a gown man sleeping in a bed with teenage boys with a peterpan syndrome. That is at the very least child endangerment, or questionable acts with a minor, but unfortunately the law doesn't see it that way. And you did pretty much the same thing he did which is just like those pedophiles who defend thier actions by sayings its true love of children that they are the way they are, which is bullshit. He's dont plenty, just being him, that is a danger to society.
There is something wrong with him, sure, but that's not enough of a reason to lock him up in prison, for that he actually has to commit a crime, as long as he commits no crime, there is no legal basis to do anything to him and that's the way it should be. I'd also like to see a codification of 'questionable acts with a minor' that would not be completely draconian and invasive.
quote:
Mod Model 2000 was programmed to say:
There is something wrong with him, sure, but that's not enough of a reason to lock him up in prison, for that he actually has to commit a crime, as long as he commits no crime, there is no legal basis to do anything to him and that's the way it should be. I'd also like to see a codification of 'questionable acts with a minor' that would not be completely draconian and invasive.
Something dangerously wrong with him is more than enough reason to have him commited or forced to go through some form of therapy, it most certainly is especially since you know he wont do it himself. And of course if you are crazy you don't know you're crazy line that people always say. He's not going to get help on his own.
And do you purposely keep skipping over the dangling baby incident? I dunno where you are from, but around here thats a crime, and one with a portentially fatal outcome, yet he never even got called or reprimanded for it.
And are you going to sit there and tell me there isn't something morally/ethically/disturbinging/mentally wrong with a 40something year old man climbing into bed with a bunch of 13 year old boys that aren't even his own kids? Come on, you can't seriously be trying to defend behaviour like that. It is enough grounds to have him commited. It WILL happen again, he isn't going to stop. This isn't the first time allegations have been brought up over this very issue and he didn't stop then either. It's very patterned behaviour.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Kaglaaz How'ler said:
Yikes man! Didn't know all of what was going on there!Hell, both my girls at 6 and 4 streak about like crazy at bathtime. The shades are closed because some folks get wierd about *gasp* letting your kids being naked. Kids are kids, they do what feels good and they love being naked. People making a big deal out of it makes for self conscious kids, not good when the girls hit thier teens...
Ancient history, and hopefully never going to come up again. Although I haven't been able to get a job since then. 
But that could just be coincidence, or I have something else in my background I dunno about.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about John Romero:
Something dangerously wrong with him is more than enough reason to have him commited or forced to go through some form of therapy, it most certainly is especially since you know he wont do it himself. And of course if you are crazy you don't know you're crazy line that people always say. He's not going to get help on his own.And do you purposely keep skipping over the dangling baby incident? I dunno where you are from, but around here thats a crime, and one with a portentially fatal outcome, yet he never even got called or reprimanded for it.
And are you going to sit there and tell me there isn't something morally/ethically/disturbinging/mentally wrong with a 40something year old man climbing into bed with a bunch of 13 year old boys that aren't even his own kids? Come on, you can't seriously be trying to defend behaviour like that. It is enough grounds to have him commited. It WILL happen again, he isn't going to stop. This isn't the first time allegations have been brought up over this very issue and he didn't stop then either. It's very patterned behaviour.
Look, I fully agree with you that the guy is pretty weird, however I disagree with the insinuation that he is truely insane to the point that he is not responsible for his actions, which would be the point at which putting him under someone else's authority in some way would be justified, if he is still sane enough to be responsible for what he does and he does not commit crimes he should not be subject to the state locking him up because he is too weird.
I have no idea how the dangling baby incident played out exactly, it may have been a case of child endangerment if there was risk that the kid would fall down, maybe a case could be made there for removing his kids from him but not much more.
Allegations of 'patterned behavior' are cheap, find five friends and you can create a barrel of them out of thin air, as long as nothing can be actually proven allegations are pretty worthless.
quote:
We were all impressed when Mod wrote:
Look, I fully agree with you that the guy is pretty weird, however I disagree with the insinuation that he is truely insane to the point that he is not responsible for his actions, which would be the point at which putting him under someone else's authority in some way would be justified, if he is still sane enough to be responsible for what he does and he does not commit crimes he should not be subject to the state locking him up because he is too weird.I have no idea how the dangling baby incident played out exactly, it may have been a case of child endangerment if there was risk that the kid would fall down, maybe a case could be made there for removing his kids from him but not much more.
Allegations of 'patterned behavior' are cheap, find five friends and you can create a barrel of them out of thin air, as long as nothing can be actually proven allegations are pretty worthless.
But thats just it, many people DON'T concider him sane enough to make those choices on his own. Like the sleeping with boys examples. He has been accused of molestation before, and he still continued to sleep with teenage boys. He doesn't have to be sane enough to be responcible for his actions if his actions are harmful to society in order to have him go through forced therapy. In fact, if you are insane, you can't even stand trial in the first place for actual crimes.
It played out that he dangled his few month old baby strait out of a window several stories up from a hotel and swung it there over the drop. It goes beyond endangerment, a normal person would have thier children removed and be barred from dealing with children in the future, but not MJ. Oh no.
What Allegations of patterned behaviour? Those weren't allegations, those were the words right out of his own mouth that he does it and continues to do it. And he punctuated the phrase with the all too common pedophile defense "If I'm guilty of anything, its of loving children too much."
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Maradon! said:
Man, nudists are so fucking weird.
Yeah, but Maradon, you need to consider the frugality of being a nudist. You wouldn't use as much shampoo, since you wouldn't have to wash your underwear while showering!
quote:
Densetsu wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
While, quite honestly, I don't care, I would just like to point out that in America, it is still innocent until proven guilty. I hate seeing people condemning him the moment charges are brought up.
That's absurd, it'd never work.
quote:
So quoth Azizza:
This is just proof that if you have the money and/or are famous, you can get away with anything.
What Azizza said.
Can't really believe he got off for every charge...
quote:
Katrinity attempted to be funny by writing:
Verdict to be announced sometime between 4:30 and 4:45 PM EDT.Micheal Jackson and crew are on way to court house now.
So who thinks Guilty or not Guilty?
I related to the matter by making it directly affect me. I told my dad, "If he's guilty, I'll eat breakfast first. If not guilty, then I'll take my shower first." Feeling dirty, naturally that's the way I laid it out.
Anyway, you gotta wonder. How many people has he paid off, now? If he's innocent, wouldn't he want to go to court to prove his innocence? Then again, he is a freak. All that stuff he buys that just goes to storage in warehouses...while people starve the world over...sigh, I hate celebrities. Kait fucked around with this message on 06-14-2005 at 12:55 PM.
quote:
Kait had this to say about Tron:
All that stuff he buys that just goes to storage in warehouses...while people starve the world over...sigh, I hate celebrities.
Because God knows the few million(if that much) Michael Jackson can afford to spend now days will make a difference where the billions and billions already spent every year don't!
quote:
This one time, at Kait camp:
All that stuff he buys that just goes to storage in warehouses...while people starve the world over...sigh, I hate celebrities.
This is one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Snoota gently hums:
Because God knows the few million(if that much) Michael Jackson can afford to spend now days will make a difference where the billions and billions already spent every year don't!
No, you just don't understand. Forcible redistribution of wealth is the only way to live in peace and harmony with our fellow people. It's been proven over and over in practice that it's the only fair way to govern--just look at any historically communist state.
Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao had it exactly right. Obviously.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Check out the big brain on Faelynn LeAndris!
But thats just it, many people DON'T concider him sane enough to make those choices on his own. Like the sleeping with boys examples. He has been accused of molestation before, and he still continued to sleep with teenage boys. He doesn't have to be sane enough to be responcible for his actions if his actions are harmful to society in order to have him go through forced therapy. In fact, if you are insane, you can't even stand trial in the first place for actual crimes.It played out that he dangled his few month old baby strait out of a window several stories up from a hotel and swung it there over the drop. It goes beyond endangerment, a normal person would have thier children removed and be barred from dealing with children in the future, but not MJ. Oh no.
What Allegations of patterned behaviour? Those weren't allegations, those were the words right out of his own mouth that he does it and continues to do it. And he punctuated the phrase with the all too common pedophile defense "If I'm guilty of anything, its of loving children too much."
You can't have it both ways, either he is insane and not fit to stand trial, since he is so far gone that he is not responsible for what he does or sane enough to stand trial and be responsible for his actions and thus sane enough to have the right to be as eccentric as he wants as long as he does not commit crimes in the process. I have the right to go to sleep every night dreaming of killing Barbara Streisand because I hate her music so much, I can even go so far as to draw pictures of her decapitated body and write Kratos / Barbara Streisand slash fiction, as long as I don't start preparing to really kill her or incite someone else to do so the state has no right to touch me.
You cannot throw someone into an asylum just because they are deemed 'harmful to society' by whomever you would appoint to the task of picking out the harmful as long as they have not commited an actual crime. What you are advocating here is pretty close to thoughtcrime, it cannot be proven that he has commited a crime, yet you want him locked away because of some patterns of apparently legal behavior make him dangerous in your eyes.
Actually in the case of a normal person most likely no one would have even noticed. Perhaps he should not be a parent, I'll give you that, that's still a far cry from forcible therapy.
quote:
Bloodsage's fortune cookie read:
No, you just don't understand. Forcible redistribution of wealth is the only way to live in peace and harmony with our fellow people. It's been proven over and over in practice that it's the only fair way to govern--just look at any historically communist state.Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao had it exactly right. Obviously.
You're jumping to a huge conclusion from "The resources spent on building MJ a golden Peter Pan statue he will stash into a bunker under Neverland and never look at again could have been put to better use" to "Maoism rules!".
quote:
We were all impressed when Bloodsage wrote:
No, you just don't understand. Forcible redistribution of wealth is the only way to live in peace and harmony with our fellow people. It's been proven over and over in practice that it's the only fair way to govern--just look at any historically communist state.Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao had it exactly right. Obviously.
Jesus Christ, I'm not supporting forcible redistribution of wealth. I don't even know how you came by that conjecture, except through pure hatred. I'm just saying, I think it's hilarious that people like Michael Jackson, Ozzy Osbourne, etc. are beloved (part of) the world over, even though they don't actually contribute to the betterment of any and everyone. While people who do, but receive no coverage from the media, well...
quote:
Mod had this to say about pies:
You're jumping to a huge conclusion from "The resources spent on building MJ a golden Peter Pan statue he will stash into a bunker under Neverland and never look at again could have been put to better use" to "Maoism rules!".
Thank you -_- Kait fucked around with this message on 06-14-2005 at 09:13 PM.
quote:
We were all impressed when Mod wrote:
You can't have it both ways, either he is insane and not fit to stand trial, since he is so far gone that he is not responsible for what he does or sane enough to stand trial and be responsible for his actions and thus sane enough to have the right to be as eccentric as he wants as long as he does not commit crimes in the process. I have the right to go to sleep every night dreaming of killing Barbara Streisand because I hate her music so much, I can even go so far as to draw pictures of her decapitated body and write Kratos / Barbara Streisand slash fiction, as long as I don't start preparing to really kill her or incite someone else to do so the state has no right to touch me.You cannot throw someone into an asylum just because they are deemed 'harmful to society' by whomever you would appoint to the task of picking out the harmful as long as they have not commited an actual crime. What you are advocating here is pretty close to thoughtcrime, it cannot be proven that he has commited a crime, yet you want him locked away because of some patterns of apparently legal behavior make him dangerous in your eyes.
Actually in the case of a normal person most likely no one would have even noticed. Perhaps he should not be a parent, I'll give you that, that's still a far cry from forcible therapy.
There are plenty of social, emotionally, and mentally harmful mental illnesses that do not encroach on a persons ability to stand trial for what they have done. However, when they go to trial, and these harmful behaviours come up, they may be aquitted of the crime due to thier illness being a defect, but will still be institutionalized.
For me to be advocating thought crime, for one it would have to be only something he was thinking and not actually doing, and second an actual crime and not just harmfull mental behaviour. Now he wasn't thinking of getting into bed with teenage boys, he WAS getting into bed with teenage boys. Thats pretty mental if you ask me, and I'm pretty sure most would agree harmful to the boys. It stretches the line of a crime because of grey areas, but his usage of it stretches even that. That behaviour is wrong unless you are just, well.. bizzarly mental or a pedophile. And thats only even the one item on a long long list of mental weirdness.
On the dangling kid bit, no with the knee-jerk society we have today, someone would have noticed, and they most definitely would have taken the kids away and arrested him on the spot of several things. Child Endangerment for one. And that does come with forced therapy as well as a prison sentence/fine. Average Joe WOULD be held accountable, and pretty severely.
He should not be a parent, and he should not be allowed to be around children. ESPECIALLY not allowed to have children 'sleep over'. If he wont get help, either on his own or forced, he shouldn't be allowed to infulence children. Even if those children happen to belong to enamoured, blind, or defunct parents infatuated with Michael Jackson.
quote:
Kait enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Jesus Christ, I'm not supporting forcible redistribution of wealth. I don't even know how you came by that conjecture, except through pure hatred. I'm just saying, I think it's hilarious that people like Michael Jackson, Ozzy Osbourne, etc. are beloved (part of) the world over, even though they don't actually contribute to the betterment of any and everyone. While people who do, but receive no coverage from the media, well...
This is almost as dumb as what you originally said, for a multitude of reasons. For one, who are you or anyone else to dictate or force someone to contribute to "any and everyone". Secondly, they do contribute, it just happens to be a in way that you don't concider "Up to par" with your standards or qualifications. And well... The rest of the statment is just nonsensical.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Faelynn LeAndris was all like:
This is almost as dumb as what you originally said, for a multitude of reasons. For one, who are you or anyone else to dictate or force someone to contribute to "any and everyone". Secondly, they do contribute, it just happens to be a in way that you don't concider "Up to par" with your standards or qualifications. And well... The rest of the statment is just nonsensical.
WHEN DID I EVER SAY ANYTHING ABOUT FORCING THEM TO DONATE ALL THEIR MONEY?!?!?! My god, do you people like to jump to conclusions.
I already said my piece in my last response, I ain't repeating it.
So get off this misconception now, or risk looking like someone who doesn't read past posts 
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Kait said this:
WHEN DID I EVER SAY ANYTHING ABOUT FORCING THEM TO DONATE ALL THEIR MONEY?!?!?! My god, do you people like to jump to conclusions.
I already said my piece in my last response, I ain't repeating it.
So get off this misconception now, or risk looking like someone who doesn't read past posts
Wow, you seem to be the one jumping to conclusions here.
Fae never said anything about you saying that they should be forced to donate all their money. He was simply saying that you aren't one to say they should have to contribute to everyone in a way you see fit (through the betterment of mankind or a multitude of other ways)
You seem to be the one not reading posts.
Falaanla Marr fucked around with this message on 06-14-2005 at 09:30 PM. <--- (Using three of these makes me more right)
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris was listening to Cher while typing:
There are plenty of social, emotionally, and mentally harmful mental illnesses that do not encroach on a persons ability to stand trial for what they have done. However, when they go to trial, and these harmful behaviours come up, they may be aquitted of the crime due to thier illness being a defect, but will still be institutionalized.For me to be advocating thought crime, for one it would have to be only something he was thinking and not actually doing, and second an actual crime and not just harmfull mental behaviour. Now he wasn't thinking of getting into bed with teenage boys, he WAS getting into bed with teenage boys. Thats pretty mental if you ask me, and I'm pretty sure most would agree harmful to the boys. It stretches the line of a crime because of grey areas, but his usage of it stretches even that. That behaviour is wrong unless you are just, well.. bizzarly mental or a pedophile. And thats only even the one item on a long long list of mental weirdness.
On the dangling kid bit, no with the knee-jerk society we have today, someone would have noticed, and they most definitely would have taken the kids away and arrested him on the spot of several things. Child Endangerment for one. And that does come with forced therapy as well as a prison sentence/fine. Average Joe WOULD be held accountable, and pretty severely.
He should not be a parent, and he should not be allowed to be around children. ESPECIALLY not allowed to have children 'sleep over'. If he wont get help, either on his own or forced, he shouldn't be allowed to infulence children. Even if those children happen to belong to enamoured, blind, or defunct parents infatuated with Michael Jackson.
A behavior cannot become criminal by 'stretching the line of a crime', you cannot have punishment without a law to base it on, if something isn't codified as a crime you cannot be punished for it, no matter how 'wrong' it may subjectively seem to people. If you feel that sharing a bed with a minor should be illegal that's a whole other debate, but apparently that alone is not a crime and as such MJ has not broken the law and there is no basis to hospitalize or jail him.
As for illness, for that to be grounds for aquital it must be severe enough to have made it impossible or extremely difficult for the individual to act in a lawful manner, since Jackson was standing trial regularly we can infer that this is not the case, we arrive at the end result of him being both able to act in a lawful manner and the state not being able to prove that he has not done so, thus there is no basis for forcing him into therapy. If however it were shown that he is not in fact capable of acting in a lawful manner, there would be a case for institutionalizing him.
quote:
From the book of Kait, chapter 3, verse 16:
WHEN DID I EVER SAY ANYTHING ABOUT FORCING THEM TO DONATE ALL THEIR MONEY?!?!?! My god, do you people like to jump to conclusions.
I already said my piece in my last response, I ain't repeating it.
So get off this misconception now, or risk looking like someone who doesn't read past posts
You don't read very well do you?
First, I only said that you or anyone else has no right to dictate they do it at all.
Second, I no where in there said anything about finacial donations or anything of the like. In fact, my whole post insinuated the fact that they contributed (Even MJ Hate him or not) already. Just not in the ways you seem to like, and none of them really having to do with financials.
You're the only one obsessed with money here is seems. 
> Falalalalalallaana
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Mod booooze lime pole over bench lick:
You're jumping to a huge conclusion from "The resources spent on building MJ a golden Peter Pan statue he will stash into a bunker under Neverland and never look at again could have been put to better use" to "Maoism rules!".
What she said was that she hated celebrities for spending money on themselves instead of giving it to the poor.
Tell me Kait, what charities do you donate to? And how much?
quote:
Mod impressed everyone with:
A behavior cannot become criminal by 'stretching the line of a crime', you cannot have punishment without a law to base it on, if something isn't codified as a crime you cannot be punished for it, no matter how 'wrong' it may subjectively seem to people. If you feel that sharing a bed with a minor should be illegal that's a whole other debate, but apparently that alone is not a crime and as such MJ has not broken the law and there is no basis to hospitalize or jail him.As for illness, for that to be grounds for aquital it must be severe enough to have made it impossible or extremely difficult for the individual to act in a lawful manner, since Jackson was standing trial regularly we can infer that this is not the case, we arrive at the end result of him being both able to act in a lawful manner and the state not being able to prove that he has not done so, thus there is no basis for forcing him into therapy. If however it were shown that he is not in fact capable of acting in a lawful manner, there would be a case for institutionalizing him.
But thats just it, the 'bahviour' is criminal for the less man. Maybe not a crime with jailtime or whatever, or even punishment really for the asssailent, but it is grounds for several child agency actions. Including the imediate removal of children, and therapy for the assailant. It just isn't applying to MJ for some reason which makes no sense. Like I said several times before. Using his behavior as the example this time.
If for instance, my daughter were to bring over some friends to sleep over or whatever. And I was fucked up like he is and decided hey! Lets get into bed with them, and I crawled into bed with the little kiddies. Assuming MJ never molested anyone we'll say I had no intent whatsoever of molesting these kiddies, I just wanted to get into bed with em. If word of that ever got out, just about every agency related to children would be all over my ass. I would be forced to undergo evaluation, have my children removed, and a myraid of other things. Believe me, they have done more on less, and within the limits of the law.
As for the last statment, I was merely pointing out that severa mental illnesses can allow an individual to be perfectly able to stand thier own trial whether or not thier illness/behaviour is even involved. You can be a freaking nutjob and still hold up fine on trial, as proven by MJ. Unfortunately his behavior IS harmful, but that was not part of the trial, only the actual charges. Mostly because they were going for the big guns. Like I said, his activities are warrant enough to remove his children and barr children from staying with him due to a harmful environment. That does not require a criminal act, just that the conditions are harmful.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Maradon! was all like:
What she said was that she hated celebrities for spending money on themselves instead of giving it to the poor.Tell me Kait, what charities do you donate to? And how much?
You read it wrong, she doesn't mean money!
I got no news coverage. 
quote:
Maradon! thought about the meaning of life:
What she said was that she hated celebrities for spending money on themselves instead of giving it to the poor.Tell me Kait, what charities do you donate to? And how much?
It's called the Rosebud Society, and I don't donate money, I do actual work. 
And Fae, I can't even comprehend what you are saying. I concede defeat by confusion...your logic and my logic do not mix. Kait fucked around with this message on 06-14-2005 at 11:41 PM.
quote:
Kait had this to say about dark elf butts:
It's called the Rosebud Society, and I don't donate money, I do actual work.And Fae, I can't even comprehend what you are saying.I
I concede defeat by confusiontry to back out now, but still try to get in a last smart word and fail...your logic and mylogicincoherant rambling do not mix.
Fix it for you. Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 06-15-2005 at 12:13 AM.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Captain Planet:
Reports are coming in now that the jurors only found Jackson innocent because they were irritated by the mother of the children involved.
I saw some clips of reporters talking with the jury about the trial after it was all said and done. I heard this quote from one of the jurors:
"I didn't like it when [the boy's mother] snapped her fingers at us. That's when I thought, 'Don't snap your fingers at me!'"
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH! Sentow, Maybe fucked around with this message on 06-15-2005 at 03:11 AM.
quote:
Sentow, Maybeing:
"I didn't like it when [the boy's mother] snapped her fingers at us. That's when I thought, 'Don't snap your fingers at me!'"
Direct quote from a juror:
quote:
"What kind of mother allows their child to be molested by...not just michael jackson, but anyone!"
Wait, didn't you JUST ADMIT that he was guilty!?
