Those that witnessed Michael Jackson abusing children...

[TheGameIs21]

I think the Michael Jackson is guilty. My concern is that all of the people that witnessed him abusing kids... Isn't there a law that requires you to take action? Are they going to be charged? I know that no matter who they are, I will turn in ANYONE if I catch them giving a kid oral sex or jacking them off.

I'd like to see the parents of the kids that the witnesses caught MJ screwing around with, charge the "witnesses" with failing to report a felony.

 

[conjur]

I'm just not getting solid vibes these people are telling the truth.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm just not getting solid vibes these people are telling the truth.

Same here.

 

[cKGunslinger]

As far as I understand it, no one has actaully *seen* him abuse or molest any children - just multiple reports of "odd" behavior with them (sleeping in the same sleeping bag, in bed together topless, odd "tickling" games - nothing illegal in itself, just suspicious.)

He's definitely a freak, but so far, no one has any solid evidence that's he crossed the 'legal' line (although any normal parent would never let thier child stay with him unsupervised.)

 

[ahurtt]

You mean like the "good samaritan law" on the final episode of Seinfeld? Where Jerry and the gang got arrested for video taping a thief robbing a fat guy and laughing about it? No such law I know of. As long as the witness didn't actively participate, assist, instigate, or conspire to cover it up there's nothing that can be done. They were not accomplices just because they chose to look the other way. You can't arrest somebody who happened to witness something because they walked into the wrong place at the wrong time and saw something they wished they hadn't and then just turned around and walked out. That was something they had no control over and they don't want their lives all screwed up because they picked to open a certain door at a very bad time. And they wouldn't be very willing to testify against the actual perpetrator if they were implicated themselves. Haven't you ever seen any mafia movies where they agree to overlook the wrongs of the little guy in exchange for testimony against the boss? Nobody is going to come forth with information if they are threatened themselves. There are 2 ways you can get people to testify. . .1= you have something you can convict them for and use that as a bargaining chip against them for their testimony. 2=You got nothing on them but subpoena them to testify in court because you think they know something. By doing #2 now you have something to make them testify. . .if they don't show up in court and testify they go to jail for not answering a summons. Same outcome as with #1. But you can't just cage somebody you need information from without offering them something for that information. It would be nice if the witnesses came forward voluntarily to begin with, and maybe now that MJ is caught some of them are coming forward without a fight. But you can't make laws based on what would be nice.

 

[Kibbo]

I beleive that there is a law that states you are responsible for helping someone in dire need so long as doing so wouldn't put yourself in harm's way. I'm not sure, though.

If one beleives that the law should follow principles of morality, then this law would be perfectly justifiable.

I can make laws that say that abandoning a child is illegal because "it would be nice" for that not to happen.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
I beleive that there is a law that states you are responsible for helping someone in dire need so long as doing so wouldn't put yourself in harm's way. I'm not sure, though.

If one beleives that the law should follow principles of morality, then this law would be perfectly justifiable.

I can make laws that say that abandoning a child is illegal because "it would be nice" for that not to happen.

I'm not sure such a law exists; there are specific requirements for teachers, for example, to report any suspected abuse; such requirements would be unecessary if there were already a blanket law covering such situations. Either way, taken at face value, it's better to have testimony against an abuser than to chase after people to make them 'articles after the fact'.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
You mean like the "good samaritan law" on the final episode of Seinfeld? Where Jerry and the gang got arrested for video taping a thief robbing a fat guy and laughing about it? No such law I know of. As long as the witness didn't actively participate, assist, instigate, or conspire to cover it up there's nothing that can be done. They were not accomplices just because they chose to look the other way. You can't arrest somebody who happened to witness something because they walked into the wrong place at the wrong time and saw something they wished they hadn't and then just turned around and walked out. That was something they had no control over and they don't want their lives all screwed up because they picked to open a certain door at a very bad time. And they wouldn't be very willing to testify against the actual perpetrator if they were implicated themselves. Haven't you ever seen any mafia movies where they agree to overlook the wrongs of the little guy in exchange for testimony against the boss? Nobody is going to come forth with information if they are threatened themselves. There are 2 ways you can get people to testify. . .1= you have something you can convict them for and use that as a bargaining chip against them for their testimony. 2=You got nothing on them but subpoena them to testify in court because you think they know something. By doing #2 now you have something to make them testify. . .if they don't show up in court and testify they go to jail for not answering a summons. Same outcome as with #1. But you can't just cage somebody you need information from without offering them something for that information. It would be nice if the witnesses came forward voluntarily to begin with, and maybe now that MJ is caught some of them are coming forward without a fight. But you can't make laws based on what would be nice.

hmmm... in australia, teachers, doctors, psychologists, social workers are legally mandated to report suspected incidents of child abuse. I guess those laws don't apply to the rest of the population..?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm just not getting solid vibes these people are telling the truth.

Same here.

Doesn't matter. They say they saw it and are swearing to it in court. I agree with the OP. Bring these chumps up on charges.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
I think the Michael Jackson is guilty. My concern is that all of the people that witnessed him abusing kids... Isn't there a law that requires you to take action? Are they going to be charged? I know that no matter who they are, I will turn in ANYONE if I catch them giving a kid oral sex or jacking them off.

I'd like to see the parents of the kids that the witnesses caught MJ screwing around with, charge the "witnesses" with failing to report a felony.

I think the lesson is that money corrupts, these people weren't about to rock the boat so long as their pay cheques were coming from MJ.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
You mean like the "good samaritan law" on the final episode of Seinfeld? Where Jerry and the gang got arrested for video taping a thief robbing a fat guy and laughing about it? No such law I know of.

Good Samaritan Laws

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm just not getting solid vibes these people are telling the truth.

all the people testifying against him were either FIRED by him, STOLE from him, or were paid LARGE SUMS to the tune of MILLIONS to keep them from suing him, and some have ADMITTED Lying. His lawyer should be able to ruin any credibility they have. There's no way MJ will survive in the pen

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
You mean like the "good samaritan law" on the final episode of Seinfeld? Where Jerry and the gang got arrested for video taping a thief robbing a fat guy and laughing about it? No such law I know of. As long as the witness didn't actively participate, assist, instigate, or conspire to cover it up there's nothing that can be done. They were not accomplices just because they chose to look the other way. You can't arrest somebody who happened to witness something because they walked into the wrong place at the wrong time and saw something they wished they hadn't and then just turned around and walked out. That was something they had no control over and they don't want their lives all screwed up because they picked to open a certain door at a very bad time. And they wouldn't be very willing to testify against the actual perpetrator if they were implicated themselves. Haven't you ever seen any mafia movies where they agree to overlook the wrongs of the little guy in exchange for testimony against the boss? Nobody is going to come forth with information if they are threatened themselves. There are 2 ways you can get people to testify. . .1= you have something you can convict them for and use that as a bargaining chip against them for their testimony. 2=You got nothing on them but subpoena them to testify in court because you think they know something. By doing #2 now you have something to make them testify. . .if they don't show up in court and testify they go to jail for not answering a summons. Same outcome as with #1. But you can't just cage somebody you need information from without offering them something for that information. It would be nice if the witnesses came forward voluntarily to begin with, and maybe now that MJ is caught some of them are coming forward without a fight. But you can't make laws based on what would be nice.

This is what I'm refering to. And this.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: rickn
There's no way MJ will survive in the pen

Lol, I don't actually agree with this. You think because he is "feminine" therefore he is weak? I see him as a manipulator of people and situations (I don't mean that in a good way) and I also see him as a "survivor".

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: rickn
There's no way MJ will survive in the pen

Lol, I don't actually agree with this. You think because he is "feminine" therefore he is weak? I see him as a manipulator of people and situations (I don't mean that in a good way) and I also see him as a "survivor".

no, I think that because child molesters in prison get their asses kicked on a daily basis, as well as getting their butts plugged..and MJ would probably pay for that one

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: rickn
There's no way MJ will survive in the pen

Lol, I don't actually agree with this. You think because he is "feminine" therefore he is weak? I see him as a manipulator of people and situations (I don't mean that in a good way) and I also see him as a "survivor".

no, I think that because child molesters in prison get their asses kicked on a daily basis, as well as getting their butts plugged..and MJ would probably pay for that one

are child molesters not segregated from the main prison population?

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: rickn
There's no way MJ will survive in the pen

Lol, I don't actually agree with this. You think because he is "feminine" therefore he is weak? I see him as a manipulator of people and situations (I don't mean that in a good way) and I also see him as a "survivor".

no, I think that because child molesters in prison get their asses kicked on a daily basis, as well as getting their butts plugged..and MJ would probably pay for that one

are child molesters not segregated from the main prison population?

no

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: rickn
There's no way MJ will survive in the pen

Lol, I don't actually agree with this. You think because he is "feminine" therefore he is weak? I see him as a manipulator of people and situations (I don't mean that in a good way) and I also see him as a "survivor".

no, I think that because child molesters in prison get their asses kicked on a daily basis, as well as getting their butts plugged..and MJ would probably pay for that one

are child molesters not segregated from the main prison population?

no

are we sure about that?

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: ahurtt
You mean like the "good samaritan law" on the final episode of Seinfeld? Where Jerry and the gang got arrested for video taping a thief robbing a fat guy and laughing about it? No such law I know of. As long as the witness didn't actively participate, assist, instigate, or conspire to cover it up there's nothing that can be done. They were not accomplices just because they chose to look the other way. You can't arrest somebody who happened to witness something because they walked into the wrong place at the wrong time and saw something they wished they hadn't and then just turned around and walked out. That was something they had no control over and they don't want their lives all screwed up because they picked to open a certain door at a very bad time. And they wouldn't be very willing to testify against the actual perpetrator if they were implicated themselves. Haven't you ever seen any mafia movies where they agree to overlook the wrongs of the little guy in exchange for testimony against the boss? Nobody is going to come forth with information if they are threatened themselves. There are 2 ways you can get people to testify. . .1= you have something you can convict them for and use that as a bargaining chip against them for their testimony. 2=You got nothing on them but subpoena them to testify in court because you think they know something. By doing #2 now you have something to make them testify. . .if they don't show up in court and testify they go to jail for not answering a summons. Same outcome as with #1. But you can't just cage somebody you need information from without offering them something for that information. It would be nice if the witnesses came forward voluntarily to begin with, and maybe now that MJ is caught some of them are coming forward without a fight. But you can't make laws based on what would be nice.

This is what I'm refering to. And this.

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.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm just not getting solid vibes these people are telling the truth.

Same here.

Doesn't matter. They say they saw it and are swearing to it in court. I agree with the OP. Bring these chumps up on charges.

Of perjury?

 

[Insomniak]

I don't care. What Michael Jackson is or isn't doing has absolutely nothing to do with my life.

When your "news" focuses on entertainers, I think it's fairly obvious that news has become entertainment. But I already ranted about this in another thread.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm just not getting solid vibes these people are telling the truth.

Same here.

Doesn't matter. They say they saw it and are swearing to it in court. I agree with the OP. Bring these chumps up on charges.

Of perjury?

Actually I'd forgotten that we don't have laws compelling witnesses to report crimes. We should initiate those laws immediately, or better yet just summarily shoot anybody who's a big enough fvck wad to not report a crime.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
I don't care. What Michael Jackson is or isn't doing has absolutely nothing to do with my life.

When your "news" focuses on entertainers, I think it's fairly obvious that news has become entertainment. But I already ranted about this in another thread.

Well, your off topic rant here has nothing to do with my original (now understood to be incorrect) post about the law and the people that didn't report a crime against a child. Move on.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: rickn
There's no way MJ will survive in the pen

Lol, I don't actually agree with this. You think because he is "feminine" therefore he is weak? I see him as a manipulator of people and situations (I don't mean that in a good way) and I also see him as a "survivor".

no, I think that because child molesters in prison get their asses kicked on a daily basis, as well as getting their butts plugged..and MJ would probably pay for that one

are child molesters not segregated from the main prison population?

no

are we sure about that?

YES. Child Molesters are on the BIG LIST, they get stabbed and assaulted on a regular basis. He aint in for no Martha Stewart Federal Resort Getaway.

BTW, there are different levels to the prison system. He wouldn't be in the prison population that is in for minor stuff, he'd be in with prisoners that are in for murder and rape.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: ahurtt
You mean like the "good samaritan law" on the final episode of Seinfeld? Where Jerry and the gang got arrested for video taping a thief robbing a fat guy and laughing about it? No such law I know of. As long as the witness didn't actively participate, assist, instigate, or
snip snip snip blah blah . ..

hmmm... in australia, teachers, doctors, psychologists, social workers are legally mandated to report suspected incidents of child abuse. I guess those laws don't apply to the rest of the population..?

Well maybe those people who are deemed as professionals who work in areas where kids welfare is concerned are deemed qualified to determine when abuse is taking place and what qualifies as abuse whereas the general population is not deemed qualified to make such judgements.