Did you read the link you posted or did you just post the first thing google spouted out? First of all, that link is a law that applies to a specific organization, the AIA. Second, the law talked about there is intended to protect 'good samaritans' who acted in good faith from harmful repercussions from their actions. For example (and only an example that pops to mind. . .totally hypothetical), somebody who saves a person from drowning and certain death but accidentally breaks that persons arm in the process can't be sued for breaking the drowning persons arm.
Did you read the link you posted or did you just post the first thing google spouted out? First of all, that link is a law that applies to a specific organization, the AIA. Second, the law talked about there is intended to protect 'good samaritans' who acted in good faith from harmful repercussions from their actions. For example (and only an example that pops to mind. . .totally hypothetical), somebody who saves a person from drowning and certain death but accidentally breaks that persons arm in the process can't be sued for breaking the drowning persons arm.
Nope, that's Europe and a couple small American states. You don't have to help anyone in California.
On reading you link I found this text:
*All states require certain professionals and institutions to report suspected child abuse, including health care providers and facilities of all types, mental health care providers of all types, teachers and other school personnel, social workers, day care providers and law enforcement personnel. Many states require film developers to report.
*18 states have broad statutes requiring "any person" to report.
Which ties to what I just posted a minute ago in reply to someone else that people who are not professionals working in areas where child welfare is a concern are not deemed qualified to determine when abuse is taking place and what qualifies as abuse. Only 18 states, according to the link, provide such broad rules requiring "any person" to report things. So the question is, did anybody witness MJ fall into the category of a qualified professional as defined by the laws and if not, did anybody witness it in one of those 18 states? If yes to either of those conditions, then bring them up on charges.
[EDIT] Sorry, I posted this before I saw your later response which said:
"Never mind. After further research, I discovered that the people that have come forth as witnesses don't fit the law of those that MUST report child abuse. I personally think that IF they are telling the truth, they are just as guilty as MJ and be brought up on Perjury charges.
"
Even if a person feels that to report a crime would endanger their life or their family for fear of reprisal by somebody who knows they "blew the whistle?"
My preconceived notion about what a deranged closet homo he is based on what he has done to his physical appearance via plastic surgery. I mean come on he's freaky! He looks more like a white version of his sister Janet now than he looks like the guy on the front of Thriller. Just his physical appearance screams out "sexual pervert" and he doesn't do anything to fix it! I can't believe he didn't sue the doctors who did it to him. ..but maybe that's because he enjoys looking like a white woman.
I really have my doubts about these witness's for the prosecution. You have the abused admit to telling a lie. His brother or whatever did the same.
Now they are parading all these people around who said they thought they saw something but didnt actually see something. And to top it off they all have axes to grind with the singer.
The man is certified whacked out of his mind. But that doesnt make him a child molestor.
As for the OP question? Why stop there? Why not prosecute these parents for auctioning up their children?
This case is a classic hollywood disaster waiting to happen for this idiot prosecutor.
Now they are parading all these people around who said they thought they saw something but didnt actually see something. And to top it off they all have axes to grind with the singer.
The man is certified whacked out of his mind. But that doesnt make him a child molestor.
As for the OP question? Why stop there? Why not prosecute these parents for auctioning up their children?
This case is a classic hollywood disaster waiting to happen for this idiot prosecutor.
So he might be homosexual... that doesn't mean he'd enjoy being raped. Just like straight women don't enjoy being raped.
Actually, some women have rape fantasies. I have a few friends that want to be "heavily taken advantage of". They aren't freaks either, just your average upper middle class white girls.
God only knows what kind of strange fantasies MJ has.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
Umm... no shit? I was providing you a link to the only "Good Samaritan" laws I could find. They basically say that you can't sure someone who legitimately is trying to help you. Nothing about crime-prevention.
I wasn't arguing with you or trying to disprove you. Please remove the stick from you arse.
I heard on the radio that someone testified to seeing Jackson engaged in oral sex with a kid. Not sure who they were talking about. Not really following this all too close. Jackson is a freak and I hope, if not found guilty, he's at least barred from being around kids. Plus, those dimbulbs on CourtTV make following this thing extremely difficult.
Well then next time try qualifying your reply/post with some thoughts of your own and more than just a single link and maybe I'll have some idea what you are trying to say. How was I or anybody else supposed to know if you were posting an agreement or a rebuttal or what? To me it looked like you were saying, "yes there are good samaritan laws like the ones the OP is talking about, here's a link." But that's apparently not what you were trying to say and now I understand that. Could have saved a lot of needless arguing and personal attacks if you had just qualified your original reply with some qualification. Posting nothing but a single link leaves me and others to draw our own conclusion about what thought it is you are trying to relay and why. Please remove the rocks from between your ears, replace with functioning brain.
Well what I am really saying is that regardless of whether or not he is homosexual, he is also a freak. So he is a homo freak. I never meant to imply that being homo automatically made him a freak. I just think he is a freak AND a homo. The freak part of him probably wouldn't mind being raped. The homo part of him would want the pounding to be by men. Although if in my original post I offended some homosexuals, I really don't give a $hit. I understand I am supposed to be accepting and realize that homosexual does not mean freak. So I make that distinction. Doesn't really mean I believe it.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
i haven't been following the case, and i'd rather leave it to the lawyers, jury, and judge. however to answer your question there is a law that if you even know about child abuse, you must report it. at least here in texas...
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: 389
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter