Now, I'm no Whisper, but I took a stab at writing an MJ article [concerning the child molestation case].
http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/how-the-american-court-system-works-for-dummys/
How the American Court System Works for Dummys
I’ve heard some outlandish reasonings on why Michael Jackson was acquitted of all his charges in the 2003-2005 case. More often then not, none of these people do not know how the actually court system works, which entirely discredits any of their attempts at making a point, but is entertaining none the less. So lets go through some laws and regulations. But before that, lets take a brief review of what sort of viewpoints I’m speaking of.
Heres a prime example of our dear naysaying friends:
I’m sorry you had to read through that. I hope your IQ didn’t go down too many points, I know I know, its hard on me too. But let us highlight some errors (and oh, there is many of them) on the “reasoning” of Michael Jackson’s so-called “got off” verdict, and correct them for our common knowledgeable challenged friends . The text in red will be reviewed briefly.
Criminal justice is the system of legislation, practices, and organizations, used by government or the state, which are all directed to maintain social control, deter and control crime, and sanctioning those who violate laws. The primary agencies charged with these responsibilities are police (law enforcement), courts, and corrections which administers punishment for those found guilty. When processing the accused through the criminal justice system, government must keep within the framework of laws that protect individual rights. The pursuit of criminal justice is, like all forms of “justice“, “fairness” or “process”, essentially the pursuit of an ideal. Throughout history, criminal justice has taken on many different forms which often reflect the cultural mores of society.
The criminal justice system consists of law enforcement (police), courts, and corrections. Criminal justice agencies operate within rule of law.
Policing
Main article: Police
The first contact an offender has with the criminal justice system is with the police (or law enforcement) who make the arrest. Police or law enforcement agencies and officers are empowered to use force and other forms of legal coercion and legal means to effect public and social order. The term is most commonly associated with police departments of a state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility. The word comes from the Latin politia (“civil administration”), which itself derives from the Ancient Greek πόλις, for polis (”city”).[10] The first police force comparable to the present-day police was established in 1667 under King Louis XIV in France, although modern police usually trace their origins to the 1800 establishment of the Marine Police in London, the Glasgow Police, and the Napoleonic police of Paris.[11][12][13]
The notion that police are primarily concerned with enforcing criminal law was popularized in the 1930s with the rise of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as the pre-eminent “law enforcement agency” in the United States; this however has only ever constituted a small portion of policing activity.[14] Policing has included an array of activities in different contexts, but the predominant ones are concerned with order maintenance and the provision of services.[15]
Courts
The courts serve as the venue wherein disputes are then settled and justice is administered. With regard to criminal justice, there are a number of critical players in any court setting. These include the judge, prosecutor, and the defense attorney. The judge, or magistrate, is a person knowledgeable in the law whose function is to objectively administrate the legal proceedings and offer a final decision on how a case is disposed.
In America and most other nations, guilt or innocence is decided through the adversarial system. In this system, two parties will both offer their version of events and argue their case before the court. Truth is decided by which party offers the argument which is more sound and compelling.
The prosecutor is the lawyer who brings charges against a criminal. It is the prosecutor’s duty to explain to the court what crime was committed and to detail what evidence has been found which incriminates the accused. The prosecutor should not be confused with a plaintiff or plaintiff’s council. Although both serve the function of bringing a complaint before the court, the prosecutor is a servant of the state who accuses criminals while the plaintiff is the complaining party in civil disputes.
A defense attorney counsels the accused on the legal process and, at trial, will attempt to offer a rebuttal to the prosecutor’s accusations. It is the defense attorney’s duty to present exculpatory evidence and argue on behalf of their client. In modern America, all accused criminals are offered the assistance of a defense attorney. Those who cannot afford a private attorney may be provided one by the state. Historically, however, the right to a defense attorney has not always been universal. For example, in Tudor England criminals accused of treason were not permitted to offer arguments in their defense.
The final determination of guilt or innocence is typically made by a third party. This party may come in the form of a judge, a panel of judges, or a jury panel composed of disinterested citizens. This process varies depending on the laws of the specific jurisdiction. In some places the panel (be it judges or a jury) is required to issue a unanimous decision while in others only a majority vote is required. In America, this process depends on the state, level of court, and even agreements between the prosecuting and defending parties. Other nations do not use juries at all, or rely on theological or military authorities to issue verdicts.
Some cases can be disposed of without the need for a trial decision at all. If the accused confesses their guilt, the entire process may be circumvented and the verdict will quickly be rendered. Some nations, such as America, allow plea bargaining in which the accused pleads neither guilty or not guilty, but accepts a reduced punishment in exchange for their cooperation. This reduced sentence is a reward for sparing the state the expense of a formal trial. Many nations do not permit the use of plea bargaining, believing coerces innocent people to plead out in an attempt to avoid a harsh punishment.
The entire trial process, whatever the country, is fraught with problems and criticisms. Bias and discrimination form an ever-present threat to an objective decision. Any prejudice on the part of the lawyers, the judge, or jury members threatens to destroy the court’s credibility. Some people argue that the often byzantine rules governing courtroom conduct and processes restrict a layman’s ability to participate, essentially reducing the argument process to a battle between the lawyers. In this case, the criticism is that the decision is based less on sound justice and more on the lawyer’s eloquence and charisma. The jury process is another area of frequent criticism, as there are few mechanisms to guard against poor judgment or incompetence on the part of the layman jurors.
Corrections
Offenders are then turned over to the correctional authorities, from the court system after the accused has been found guilty. Like all other aspects of criminal justice, the administration of punishment has taken many different forms throughout history. Early on, when civilizations lacked the resources necessary to construct and maintain prisons, exile and execution were the primary forms of punishment. Historically shame punishments and dismemberment have also been used as forms of censure.
The most publicly visible form of punishment in the modern era is the prison. Prisons may serve as detention centers for prisoners both before, during, and after trial. Early prisons were used primarily to sequester criminals and little thought was given to living conditions within their walls. In America, the Quaker movement is commonly credited with establishing the idea that prisons should be used to reform criminals. This can also been seen as a critical moment in the debate regarding the purpose of punishment.
Punishment (in the form of prison time) may serve a variety of purposes. First, and most obviously, the incarceration of criminals removes them from the general population and inhibits their ability to perpetrate further crimes. Many societies also view prison terms as a form of revenge or retribution, and any harm or discomfort the prisoner suffers is “payback” for the harm they caused their victims. A new goal of prison punishments is to offer criminals a chance to be rehabilitated. Many modern prisons offer schooling or job training to prisoners as a chance to learn a vocation and thereby earn a legitimate living when they are returned to society. Religious institutions also have a presence in many prisons, with the goal of teaching ethics and instilling a sense of morality in the prisoners.
There are numerous other forms of punishment which are commonly used in conjunction or in place of prison terms. Monetary fines are one of the oldest forms of punishment still used today. These fines may be paid to the state or to the victims as a form of reparation. Probation and house arrest are also sanctions which seek to limit a person’s mobility and their opportunities to commit crimes without actually placing them in a prison setting. Many jurisdictions may require some form of public service as a form of reparations for lesser offenses.
Execution or capital punishment is still used around the world. Its use is one of the most heavily debated aspects of the criminal justice system. Some societies are willing to use executions as a form of political control, or for relatively minor misdeeds. Other societies reserve execution for only the most sinister and brutal offenses. Others still have outlawed the practice entirely, believing the use of execution to be excessively cruel or hypocritical.
Academic discipline
Criminal justice is distinct from the field of criminology, which involves the study of crime as a social phenomena, causes of crime, criminal behavior, and other aspects of crime. Criminal justice emerged as an academic discipline in the 1920s, beginning with Berkeley police chief August Vollmer who established a criminal justice program at the University of California, Berkeley in 1916.[16] Vollmer’s work was carried on by his student, O.W. Wilson, who led efforts to professionalize policing and reduce corruption. Other programs were established in the United States at Indiana University, Michigan State University, San Jose State University, and the University of Washington.[17] As of 1950, criminal justice students were estimated to number less than 1,000. Until the 1960s, the primary focus of criminal justice in the United States was on policing and police science.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, crime rates soared and social issues took center stage in the public eye. A number of new laws and studies focused federal resources on researching new approaches to crime control. The Supreme Court, under the leadership of Earl Warren, issued a series of rulings which redefined citizen’s rights and substantially altered the powers and responsibilities of police and the courts. The Civil Rights Era offered significant legal and ethical challenges to the status quo.
In the late 1960s, with the establishment of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) and associated policy changes that resulted with the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The LEAA provided grants for criminology research, focusing on social aspects of crime. By the 1970s, there were 729 academic programs in criminology and criminal justice in the United States.[17] Largely thanks to the Law Enforcement Education Program, criminal justice students numbered over 100,000 by 1975. Over time, scholars of criminal justice began to include criminology, sociology, and psychology, among others, to provide a more comprehensive view of the criminal justice system and the root causes of crime. Criminal justice studies now combine the practical and technical policing skills with a study of social deviance as a whole.
See also -
Main list: List of basic criminal justice topics
Criminal Justice Portal
* Corrections
* Courts
* Crime
* Criminal law
* Criminal procedure
* Criminologists
* Criminology
* History of criminal justice
* Law
* Organized crime
* Penology
* Police
* Social justice
* Sentence (law)
As you see my fellow incompetent, low IQ friends, you cannot “buy” a judge, do your own jury selection (or any illegitimate excuse your small mind can think of in order to ensure his false innocence). Those procedures are all up to the government and officials. The accused has no availability to bribe anyone. Yup, thats right – no matter how rich and famous you are. If Michael Jackson could buy all those things, why bother going to court in the first place? It is claimed that the members of the jury were just star-struck fans of his. 12 Caucasian conservative jurors from Santa Barbara, California is not exactly your ideal of secure vindication if you ask me. All jurors were forbidden to watch television, read magazines, newspapers or any mass media coverage of the trial to accomplish non bias and objective judgment. You know, I could of skipped all this, but apparently, a disturbing percentage of our fellow Americans don’t even understand our own justice system. Guess what? You do know its a crime to lie under oath? WOW!
Do you fit the profile of a stupid ass?
There is no such thing as a profile of a predator, a pedophile or whatever you call it. Nothing in life can be that easy, that simple. However, there is a list of actions and descriptions that can fit what is called the profile of a dumb ass. If any of these argumentation seems familiar to you, chances are, those people you’re talking with are indeed, dumb asses.
1. When supplying undisputed facts about the trial (court transcripts, videos, etc) does the opposing party accuse you of having no life? Do they say ‘you must be living with your mom with nothing to do’ because it is impossible to be well informed by this particular subject matter to have time of your own to spare?
2. Do they conveniently tell you that they don’t feel like reading “all of that” long documents? Do they ignore your every vital question and fact you bring up front to the table? Do they have selective memory? Do you find yourself often repeating your points over and over again (as well as your questions) and have them been ignored, yet other, minor and throwaway statements of yours answered?
3. Do these people state that Michael Jackson paid off [x] amount of people to his benefit, but maintain that he is broke?
4. Do they bring up irrelevant issues to confirm Michael Jackson’s alleged guilt? Cosmetic surgery, skin color, etc. Is he referred to a “has-been”, in regards to his music career?
5. They state that he is guilty – point blank fact— without saying anything else, and don’t ever explain why they’re so confident, and say things like its so “obvious” that he is, without in any extensive detail? Do they get angry when you ask them to?
6. When dropping names like “Thomas Sneddon”, “Jordan Chandler”, “Janet Arvizo”, “Gavin Arvizo”; so on and so forth – do they even know what you’re talking about?
7. Do they mention O.J. Simpson?
8. Do they bring up Jackson’s money, use the words “pay off” frequently?
9. Can they spell properly? Hows the grammar? Do they often speak in one, giant run on sentence? Is the general tone that of a stereotypical internet teenager? Do they not take advantage of capital letters, periods, commas and miscellaneous grammar uses? D0 deY tAlk liKe DiiZZ?
10. Do they misspell the word pedophile? Is pedophile often shorten to “pedo”?
11. Do these opposing parties call you [and Jackson] any names? Even if you are polite?
12. Are their opposing statements very brief? Or very long, but with nothing really substantial in the midst of all the ranting, and self assured righteousness?
13. Do they justify everything, regardless of any logical thesis of yours in return, with his celebrity, fame and fortune?
14. Are you accused of fabricating anything? Even when you do link to the legitimate source you are speaking of? Have they mentioned Photoshop at least once? Are they calling various valid truths pointed out to them as “bullshit” without reason, or if any, because they haven’t heard of it or just don’t believe it? And when you prove them wrong [exceptionally] are they still in denial, and grasp at strings by asking you dumb down, petty questions in order to hang on to their weakling opinions? (Prime example: Vitiligo).
15. When you tell them to do research of their own, or read court transcripts because that it will assure them that Michael Jackson is innocent, do they suddenly become lazy and never do it, even if [and in many cases] they were the ones who asked for it in the first place??
16. Do they say anything about Michael Jackson’s sexuality? If so, do the words “gay”, “fag”, “homo” or any offensive slur for the proper word ‘homosexual’ pop up?
17. Is there a lot of profanity and excessive cursing? Is there any real point concluded in the midst of their standpoint? If they do state any ‘facts’ (aka mass media sheep ‘facts’), do they ever provide a source? Or do they just say it period, and than expect you to believe it and challenge it for yourself?
18. Is Jesus Juice ever mentioned?
19. Do they refer to Michael Jackson by his government name, or “J.acko” (and any variant of the nickname)? Is there any mention of words like ‘freak’, ‘creepy’ or any similar nouns?
20. Do the opposed ever maintain that they think Jackson is sick, and that pedophilia is wrong and disgusting, while simultaneously making child molestation jokes at the same time? Are many of these jokes repetitive; have you heard them all before? Do they consist of graphically describing what Jackson does to little boys?
21. Is the age of what adolescent boys Jackson supposedly likes change, and gets younger and younger irregardless of the fact that the Accusers we’re 13 or 14? Are they referred to White boys, although both Chandler and Arvizo are neither Caucasian?
22. Has bleaching, white woman/black boy and other worn out to death popular sayings ever appear?
Common misconceptions of people who believe in Michael Jackson’s innocence:
1. We’re obsessed. Only people who defend Michael Jackson are obsessed, they have to be in order to actually think he’s not guilty. Everyone else who “in their right mind” does. Although, this reasoning does not apply to them, who are willingly participating in the same debate, because they believe he is guilty.
2. We only believe in his innocence because we’re fans. In particular, obsessed fans. Even despite the fact that fan or not, we still provided evidence to confirm our beliefs.
3. We have no lives in order to know facts and ongoings about the case. Yeah, we can learn and follow a case prior to judging a man (instead of calling him names and shouting GUILTY! before he’s even brought to trial) and continue our own personal activities, interact with friends and families at the same time. Call it a gift.
So apparently, heterosexual child molesters are fine. Wait, wasn't there something like this in the Bible... ‘Thou shall not kill” - Commandment 6. Nah...
Many of our good radical Christian (who give religious people a bad name) friends often point to random excerpts of the Bible to confirm their discriminative beliefs (irregardless of the fact that the Bible is not the quintessential word of God directly). As a church going God fearing child, I found out that the name of these people are in fact “Christian Hate Groups”. Yes you read right…
I am LaMike and I approve of this message.
THE END.
http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/how-the-american-court-system-works-for-dummys/
How the American Court System Works for Dummys
I’ve heard some outlandish reasonings on why Michael Jackson was acquitted of all his charges in the 2003-2005 case. More often then not, none of these people do not know how the actually court system works, which entirely discredits any of their attempts at making a point, but is entertaining none the less. So lets go through some laws and regulations. But before that, lets take a brief review of what sort of viewpoints I’m speaking of.
Heres a prime example of our dear naysaying friends:
I’m sorry you had to read through that. I hope your IQ didn’t go down too many points, I know I know, its hard on me too. But let us highlight some errors (and oh, there is many of them) on the “reasoning” of Michael Jackson’s so-called “got off” verdict, and correct them for our common knowledgeable challenged friends . The text in red will be reviewed briefly.
Criminal justice is the system of legislation, practices, and organizations, used by government or the state, which are all directed to maintain social control, deter and control crime, and sanctioning those who violate laws. The primary agencies charged with these responsibilities are police (law enforcement), courts, and corrections which administers punishment for those found guilty. When processing the accused through the criminal justice system, government must keep within the framework of laws that protect individual rights. The pursuit of criminal justice is, like all forms of “justice“, “fairness” or “process”, essentially the pursuit of an ideal. Throughout history, criminal justice has taken on many different forms which often reflect the cultural mores of society.
The criminal justice system consists of law enforcement (police), courts, and corrections. Criminal justice agencies operate within rule of law.
Policing
Main article: Police
The first contact an offender has with the criminal justice system is with the police (or law enforcement) who make the arrest. Police or law enforcement agencies and officers are empowered to use force and other forms of legal coercion and legal means to effect public and social order. The term is most commonly associated with police departments of a state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility. The word comes from the Latin politia (“civil administration”), which itself derives from the Ancient Greek πόλις, for polis (”city”).[10] The first police force comparable to the present-day police was established in 1667 under King Louis XIV in France, although modern police usually trace their origins to the 1800 establishment of the Marine Police in London, the Glasgow Police, and the Napoleonic police of Paris.[11][12][13]
The notion that police are primarily concerned with enforcing criminal law was popularized in the 1930s with the rise of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as the pre-eminent “law enforcement agency” in the United States; this however has only ever constituted a small portion of policing activity.[14] Policing has included an array of activities in different contexts, but the predominant ones are concerned with order maintenance and the provision of services.[15]
Courts
The courts serve as the venue wherein disputes are then settled and justice is administered. With regard to criminal justice, there are a number of critical players in any court setting. These include the judge, prosecutor, and the defense attorney. The judge, or magistrate, is a person knowledgeable in the law whose function is to objectively administrate the legal proceedings and offer a final decision on how a case is disposed.
In America and most other nations, guilt or innocence is decided through the adversarial system. In this system, two parties will both offer their version of events and argue their case before the court. Truth is decided by which party offers the argument which is more sound and compelling.
The prosecutor is the lawyer who brings charges against a criminal. It is the prosecutor’s duty to explain to the court what crime was committed and to detail what evidence has been found which incriminates the accused. The prosecutor should not be confused with a plaintiff or plaintiff’s council. Although both serve the function of bringing a complaint before the court, the prosecutor is a servant of the state who accuses criminals while the plaintiff is the complaining party in civil disputes.
A defense attorney counsels the accused on the legal process and, at trial, will attempt to offer a rebuttal to the prosecutor’s accusations. It is the defense attorney’s duty to present exculpatory evidence and argue on behalf of their client. In modern America, all accused criminals are offered the assistance of a defense attorney. Those who cannot afford a private attorney may be provided one by the state. Historically, however, the right to a defense attorney has not always been universal. For example, in Tudor England criminals accused of treason were not permitted to offer arguments in their defense.
The final determination of guilt or innocence is typically made by a third party. This party may come in the form of a judge, a panel of judges, or a jury panel composed of disinterested citizens. This process varies depending on the laws of the specific jurisdiction. In some places the panel (be it judges or a jury) is required to issue a unanimous decision while in others only a majority vote is required. In America, this process depends on the state, level of court, and even agreements between the prosecuting and defending parties. Other nations do not use juries at all, or rely on theological or military authorities to issue verdicts.
Some cases can be disposed of without the need for a trial decision at all. If the accused confesses their guilt, the entire process may be circumvented and the verdict will quickly be rendered. Some nations, such as America, allow plea bargaining in which the accused pleads neither guilty or not guilty, but accepts a reduced punishment in exchange for their cooperation. This reduced sentence is a reward for sparing the state the expense of a formal trial. Many nations do not permit the use of plea bargaining, believing coerces innocent people to plead out in an attempt to avoid a harsh punishment.
The entire trial process, whatever the country, is fraught with problems and criticisms. Bias and discrimination form an ever-present threat to an objective decision. Any prejudice on the part of the lawyers, the judge, or jury members threatens to destroy the court’s credibility. Some people argue that the often byzantine rules governing courtroom conduct and processes restrict a layman’s ability to participate, essentially reducing the argument process to a battle between the lawyers. In this case, the criticism is that the decision is based less on sound justice and more on the lawyer’s eloquence and charisma. The jury process is another area of frequent criticism, as there are few mechanisms to guard against poor judgment or incompetence on the part of the layman jurors.
Corrections
Offenders are then turned over to the correctional authorities, from the court system after the accused has been found guilty. Like all other aspects of criminal justice, the administration of punishment has taken many different forms throughout history. Early on, when civilizations lacked the resources necessary to construct and maintain prisons, exile and execution were the primary forms of punishment. Historically shame punishments and dismemberment have also been used as forms of censure.
The most publicly visible form of punishment in the modern era is the prison. Prisons may serve as detention centers for prisoners both before, during, and after trial. Early prisons were used primarily to sequester criminals and little thought was given to living conditions within their walls. In America, the Quaker movement is commonly credited with establishing the idea that prisons should be used to reform criminals. This can also been seen as a critical moment in the debate regarding the purpose of punishment.
Punishment (in the form of prison time) may serve a variety of purposes. First, and most obviously, the incarceration of criminals removes them from the general population and inhibits their ability to perpetrate further crimes. Many societies also view prison terms as a form of revenge or retribution, and any harm or discomfort the prisoner suffers is “payback” for the harm they caused their victims. A new goal of prison punishments is to offer criminals a chance to be rehabilitated. Many modern prisons offer schooling or job training to prisoners as a chance to learn a vocation and thereby earn a legitimate living when they are returned to society. Religious institutions also have a presence in many prisons, with the goal of teaching ethics and instilling a sense of morality in the prisoners.
There are numerous other forms of punishment which are commonly used in conjunction or in place of prison terms. Monetary fines are one of the oldest forms of punishment still used today. These fines may be paid to the state or to the victims as a form of reparation. Probation and house arrest are also sanctions which seek to limit a person’s mobility and their opportunities to commit crimes without actually placing them in a prison setting. Many jurisdictions may require some form of public service as a form of reparations for lesser offenses.
Execution or capital punishment is still used around the world. Its use is one of the most heavily debated aspects of the criminal justice system. Some societies are willing to use executions as a form of political control, or for relatively minor misdeeds. Other societies reserve execution for only the most sinister and brutal offenses. Others still have outlawed the practice entirely, believing the use of execution to be excessively cruel or hypocritical.
Academic discipline
Criminal justice is distinct from the field of criminology, which involves the study of crime as a social phenomena, causes of crime, criminal behavior, and other aspects of crime. Criminal justice emerged as an academic discipline in the 1920s, beginning with Berkeley police chief August Vollmer who established a criminal justice program at the University of California, Berkeley in 1916.[16] Vollmer’s work was carried on by his student, O.W. Wilson, who led efforts to professionalize policing and reduce corruption. Other programs were established in the United States at Indiana University, Michigan State University, San Jose State University, and the University of Washington.[17] As of 1950, criminal justice students were estimated to number less than 1,000. Until the 1960s, the primary focus of criminal justice in the United States was on policing and police science.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, crime rates soared and social issues took center stage in the public eye. A number of new laws and studies focused federal resources on researching new approaches to crime control. The Supreme Court, under the leadership of Earl Warren, issued a series of rulings which redefined citizen’s rights and substantially altered the powers and responsibilities of police and the courts. The Civil Rights Era offered significant legal and ethical challenges to the status quo.
In the late 1960s, with the establishment of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) and associated policy changes that resulted with the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The LEAA provided grants for criminology research, focusing on social aspects of crime. By the 1970s, there were 729 academic programs in criminology and criminal justice in the United States.[17] Largely thanks to the Law Enforcement Education Program, criminal justice students numbered over 100,000 by 1975. Over time, scholars of criminal justice began to include criminology, sociology, and psychology, among others, to provide a more comprehensive view of the criminal justice system and the root causes of crime. Criminal justice studies now combine the practical and technical policing skills with a study of social deviance as a whole.
See also -
Main list: List of basic criminal justice topics
Criminal Justice Portal
* Corrections
* Courts
* Crime
* Criminal law
* Criminal procedure
* Criminologists
* Criminology
* History of criminal justice
* Law
* Organized crime
* Penology
* Police
* Social justice
* Sentence (law)
As you see my fellow incompetent, low IQ friends, you cannot “buy” a judge, do your own jury selection (or any illegitimate excuse your small mind can think of in order to ensure his false innocence). Those procedures are all up to the government and officials. The accused has no availability to bribe anyone. Yup, thats right – no matter how rich and famous you are. If Michael Jackson could buy all those things, why bother going to court in the first place? It is claimed that the members of the jury were just star-struck fans of his. 12 Caucasian conservative jurors from Santa Barbara, California is not exactly your ideal of secure vindication if you ask me. All jurors were forbidden to watch television, read magazines, newspapers or any mass media coverage of the trial to accomplish non bias and objective judgment. You know, I could of skipped all this, but apparently, a disturbing percentage of our fellow Americans don’t even understand our own justice system. Guess what? You do know its a crime to lie under oath? WOW!
Do you fit the profile of a stupid ass?
There is no such thing as a profile of a predator, a pedophile or whatever you call it. Nothing in life can be that easy, that simple. However, there is a list of actions and descriptions that can fit what is called the profile of a dumb ass. If any of these argumentation seems familiar to you, chances are, those people you’re talking with are indeed, dumb asses.
1. When supplying undisputed facts about the trial (court transcripts, videos, etc) does the opposing party accuse you of having no life? Do they say ‘you must be living with your mom with nothing to do’ because it is impossible to be well informed by this particular subject matter to have time of your own to spare?
2. Do they conveniently tell you that they don’t feel like reading “all of that” long documents? Do they ignore your every vital question and fact you bring up front to the table? Do they have selective memory? Do you find yourself often repeating your points over and over again (as well as your questions) and have them been ignored, yet other, minor and throwaway statements of yours answered?
3. Do these people state that Michael Jackson paid off [x] amount of people to his benefit, but maintain that he is broke?
4. Do they bring up irrelevant issues to confirm Michael Jackson’s alleged guilt? Cosmetic surgery, skin color, etc. Is he referred to a “has-been”, in regards to his music career?
5. They state that he is guilty – point blank fact— without saying anything else, and don’t ever explain why they’re so confident, and say things like its so “obvious” that he is, without in any extensive detail? Do they get angry when you ask them to?
6. When dropping names like “Thomas Sneddon”, “Jordan Chandler”, “Janet Arvizo”, “Gavin Arvizo”; so on and so forth – do they even know what you’re talking about?
7. Do they mention O.J. Simpson?
8. Do they bring up Jackson’s money, use the words “pay off” frequently?
9. Can they spell properly? Hows the grammar? Do they often speak in one, giant run on sentence? Is the general tone that of a stereotypical internet teenager? Do they not take advantage of capital letters, periods, commas and miscellaneous grammar uses? D0 deY tAlk liKe DiiZZ?
10. Do they misspell the word pedophile? Is pedophile often shorten to “pedo”?
11. Do these opposing parties call you [and Jackson] any names? Even if you are polite?
12. Are their opposing statements very brief? Or very long, but with nothing really substantial in the midst of all the ranting, and self assured righteousness?
13. Do they justify everything, regardless of any logical thesis of yours in return, with his celebrity, fame and fortune?
14. Are you accused of fabricating anything? Even when you do link to the legitimate source you are speaking of? Have they mentioned Photoshop at least once? Are they calling various valid truths pointed out to them as “bullshit” without reason, or if any, because they haven’t heard of it or just don’t believe it? And when you prove them wrong [exceptionally] are they still in denial, and grasp at strings by asking you dumb down, petty questions in order to hang on to their weakling opinions? (Prime example: Vitiligo).
15. When you tell them to do research of their own, or read court transcripts because that it will assure them that Michael Jackson is innocent, do they suddenly become lazy and never do it, even if [and in many cases] they were the ones who asked for it in the first place??
16. Do they say anything about Michael Jackson’s sexuality? If so, do the words “gay”, “fag”, “homo” or any offensive slur for the proper word ‘homosexual’ pop up?
17. Is there a lot of profanity and excessive cursing? Is there any real point concluded in the midst of their standpoint? If they do state any ‘facts’ (aka mass media sheep ‘facts’), do they ever provide a source? Or do they just say it period, and than expect you to believe it and challenge it for yourself?
18. Is Jesus Juice ever mentioned?
19. Do they refer to Michael Jackson by his government name, or “J.acko” (and any variant of the nickname)? Is there any mention of words like ‘freak’, ‘creepy’ or any similar nouns?
20. Do the opposed ever maintain that they think Jackson is sick, and that pedophilia is wrong and disgusting, while simultaneously making child molestation jokes at the same time? Are many of these jokes repetitive; have you heard them all before? Do they consist of graphically describing what Jackson does to little boys?
21. Is the age of what adolescent boys Jackson supposedly likes change, and gets younger and younger irregardless of the fact that the Accusers we’re 13 or 14? Are they referred to White boys, although both Chandler and Arvizo are neither Caucasian?
22. Has bleaching, white woman/black boy and other worn out to death popular sayings ever appear?
Common misconceptions of people who believe in Michael Jackson’s innocence:
1. We’re obsessed. Only people who defend Michael Jackson are obsessed, they have to be in order to actually think he’s not guilty. Everyone else who “in their right mind” does. Although, this reasoning does not apply to them, who are willingly participating in the same debate, because they believe he is guilty.
2. We only believe in his innocence because we’re fans. In particular, obsessed fans. Even despite the fact that fan or not, we still provided evidence to confirm our beliefs.
3. We have no lives in order to know facts and ongoings about the case. Yeah, we can learn and follow a case prior to judging a man (instead of calling him names and shouting GUILTY! before he’s even brought to trial) and continue our own personal activities, interact with friends and families at the same time. Call it a gift.
So apparently, heterosexual child molesters are fine. Wait, wasn't there something like this in the Bible... ‘Thou shall not kill” - Commandment 6. Nah...
Many of our good radical Christian (who give religious people a bad name) friends often point to random excerpts of the Bible to confirm their discriminative beliefs (irregardless of the fact that the Bible is not the quintessential word of God directly). As a church going God fearing child, I found out that the name of these people are in fact “Christian Hate Groups”. Yes you read right…
I am LaMike and I approve of this message.
THE END.