Your scenario falls apart in that those pictures have already been pinned all over the office, neighborhood, etc... before the person talked to me approached me about settling for $50(We're talking about the Michael Jackson case, remember?)
1.) It's not worth $50 for me to have that person remove the pictures if they've already been posted to the public and everyone already knows.
2.) Even if it wasn't, it's still not worth $50.
There is a difference between choosing to settle before the case is publicized and after.
Michael Jackson settling after it was already being played on national TV and everyone already knowing didn't help.
Let me give you another scenario.
If someone wants me to settle $50-100 for me giving them the wrong medication and I know I'm at fault, I will do it.
However, I will not do it when my case is already publicized in which coworkers, family members, and friends already know in addition to the state board of pharmacy adding me on their watch list for possibility of revoking my license. I will gladly go to court to defend my innocence.
$20 million is no small chump change, even for a person like Michael Jackson. Was he ever classified as a "Billionaire" or even close to it at any point in his lifetime? Yeah, if you're a Billionaire losing $20 million is nothing, but not when you're still a millionaire.
That's more than the price he paid for his Neverland ranch.
If I know I'm completely innocent, I will never settle a case for even 1 cent.
Choosing to "settle" a case essentially admits fault(especially when it's already a highly publicized case like it seems to have been) IMO. It may not in the "official" court papers, but it does in many people's eyes.
How far did this case go? Did they go as far as getting DNA samples off the child's nut sack like they did for Kobe Bryant's rape case? I find it hard for someone to prove in court that I touched his/her nut sack with no witnesses or DNA evidence present.
What evidence did they present to the authorities?
Yes, the second case against Jackson in 2005 was a complete fraud. but I'm not sure about the first case however.
Will Warren Buffett or Obama settle with me for $20 million to prove that they didn't molest me all for the case of protecting their image? I doubt it. I'm sure they will go to court.
As you know, "Garbage in, garbage out". That assumes you have the right numbers first or everything one predicted goes as planned.
Did doing that make him more than $20 million vs. him not choosing to settle? I don't know.
Keep in mind that when you're a celebrity, everything is pretty much public. Even a private case will be picked up by the paparazzi within 2 minutes and be played on Entertainment Tonight, National Inquirer, and other shitty ragtag magazines/TV shows that influence John Q. Public's opinion.
I don't think many people consider me to be a right winger.
I'm just saying in this scenario, their A+B+C+D calculation might not have turned out to be what they assumed.
Sure, it might not work out to be optimal, but it might have. It is nothing more than weighing the best option
The MJ fans wouldnt have a problem if he said that about any other chester. It is insane how someone who can sing and dance can make people overlook the fact that he was a twisted pedo.
Drako
Lifer
- Jun 9, 2007
- 10,697
- 161
- 106
I concur completely.
This media blitz and idol worship of some washed up pop star is pretty sickening to the majority of sane people. Jackson had about a 10 year run of greatness, which includes 3 of the best pop music albums ever made. After 1987 or so, his music turned to crap as he let the drugs/self absorption/wierdness take over.
HomerJS
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2002
- 39,259
- 32,737
- 136
People who calling MJ a pedo and low life need to admit they just hate the guy. We know he was accused of child molestation. We know he was found not guilty in court. We know he did completely inappropriate things with underage children (admitted in interviews). I?m not condoning anything he did in his personal life in fact things he did were pretty fucked up. He time and time again put himself in positions ripe for the accusations.
I think most of the complaints should be with the media. The media does what it does. We get wall to wall coverage of Jacksons death. We get coverage of celebutards with no talent. We get wall to wall coverage of missing white girls despite all the missing non-white people in this country. If you transported Elvis Presley?s time on earth to Jacksons the media blitz would be similar. By the way the life of Elvis is celebrated annually but I don?t hear Peter King or anyone else complaining about the fact that Elvis at 24 dated and had sex with a 14 year old girl. Kinda inappropriate in fact it would be molestation.
I think peoples outrage is selective.
I think most of the complaints should be with the media. The media does what it does. We get wall to wall coverage of Jacksons death. We get coverage of celebutards with no talent. We get wall to wall coverage of missing white girls despite all the missing non-white people in this country. If you transported Elvis Presley?s time on earth to Jacksons the media blitz would be similar. By the way the life of Elvis is celebrated annually but I don?t hear Peter King or anyone else complaining about the fact that Elvis at 24 dated and had sex with a 14 year old girl. Kinda inappropriate in fact it would be molestation.
I think peoples outrage is selective.
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Here's the thing, we are supposed to have this "innocent until proven guilty" thingy in this country.
Well, guess what? MJ was found innocent! While I have my own thoughts on the subject, for someone holding the position that he does to go on camera and make difinitive statements (not even accusations) like Rep. King did, it was not only blowing directly into the wind of the foundation of our country, it was as stupid as a politician could be.
As for the "free speech" thing, there is no such thing. There is always a cost for what you might say whether it be financial (being sued), emotional (affecting another's feelings) or being held personally responsible (losing your job as Rep. King just might). Just because you have a right to say it, doesn't mean that others don't have a right to be offended by it or see you in the light that you deserve to be seen in.
For the record, MJ was a freak compared to the "average man", likely got away with crimes against children and this fawning over him needs to stop already. But I'd never be stupid enough to say it in front of cameras as a politician that is coming up for reelection.
OJ is innocent too, right?
I have always wondered that, if the parents actually believed MJ molested the child, why did they settle?
If I recall correctly he was getting death threats etc. Personally I would not take the money but if we're going to be throwing out game theory calcs it was a lose lose situation for the Chandlers.
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Here's the thing, we are supposed to have this "innocent until proven guilty" thingy in this country.
Well, guess what? MJ was found innocent! While I have my own thoughts on the subject, for someone holding the position that he does to go on camera and make difinitive statements (not even accusations) like Rep. King did, it was not only blowing directly into the wind of the foundation of our country, it was as stupid as a politician could be.
As for the "free speech" thing, there is no such thing. There is always a cost for what you might say whether it be financial (being sued), emotional (affecting another's feelings) or being held personally responsible (losing your job as Rep. King just might). Just because you have a right to say it, doesn't mean that others don't have a right to be offended by it or see you in the light that you deserve to be seen in.
For the record, MJ was a freak compared to the "average man", likely got away with crimes against children and this fawning over him needs to stop already. But I'd never be stupid enough to say it in front of cameras as a politician that is coming up for reelection.
OJ is innocent too, right?
According to a jury of his peers and in the eyes of the law regarding the murder of his ex-wife and her companion, yes.
Do you have a problem with our judicial system and wish that it be changed to more of a public opinion/populist type of option?
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
People like MJ that are famous and have money are in a position of power. The parents might have wanted to do the right thing, but I'm guessing there was more than just lawyers talking during the case. People that have power can put pressure on their accusers in other ways. They can send people to keep repeatedly telling the family, you are going to lose. They can attack them at their job making the employer not wanting them working there. In general make life very uncomfortable for the accuser without actually breaking the law.
MJ had people working for him as security and body guards that I'm sure didn't get that line of work by being the good guys.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
OJ was found guilty in civil court for the deaths. Just shows how screwed up the court system is. One branch can charge you with the deaths while the other says you are innocent.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter