A Child Molester, if the Allegations Against them are True,

[tekisui]

cannot undo the damage that they did. No matter how much they give for the rest of their lives.

Child molestation is of the most serious crimes one can commit. It can ruin lives and perpetuate a cycle of abuse. It can not be absolved or righted.

Child rape should never be taken lightly. Accusations of child rape should never be taken lightly. Accusations of child rape should never be made lightly.

No matter who the perpetrator may be, or the status they hold. It is an absolute and permanent crime against humanity.

[ZombieHorde]

1. Why did you start a new thread for this? nt

[tekisui]

3. I am disgusted by so many getting mealy mouthed around the subject.

[TahitiNut]

12. Why must we have DICK-MEASURING contests on DU so often??

Just WHAT is the "virtue" in trotting out one's tout-rage and proclaiming it greater than some pointy-fingered straw-man? Is loss of all reason in the possession of quivering anger of benefit to anyone? Where's the sense in haranguing others for allegedly having less foamy-mouthed rabidity? Of what possible good does this do??

:puke:

[CatWoman]

14. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

DUzy!!

DUzy!!!!!

:rofl:

[TahitiNut]

15. It's really a perversion.

Not that I'm against perversions, you understand. :silly:

[CatWoman]

16. I've got the tape measure

you game?

:rofl:

:hi:

[TahitiNut]

19. If I say I'm game ...

... someone might shoot me. :silly:

(Your place or mine, lover??) :evilgrin:

[CatWoman]

22. you're so crazy!!!

:)

:loveya:

[tekisui]

17. I'm not interested in the degree of mouth foam.

But, I have seen people saying that even if someone is guilty of child rape, yet they did much good, then their crimes should be forgotten or forgiven. That is a dangerous thought. But, I guess I am doing no good, in response. I should probably just take a break for awhile.

[TahitiNut]

23. I've seen entire communities go apeshit insane over "child abuse" claims

... that were unfounded ... BUT THEY WERE OH-SO-FUCKING SURE! Does East Wenatchee ring a bell?

[tekisui]

25. Point taken.

[woo me with science]

48. You are right.

There is a subculture of hysteria around child abuse in our culture that has very little to do with genuine concern for children. Many of those who are so utterly convinced of Jackson's guilt have posted in other threads indicating that they would just as easily leap to believe accusations arising solely from the dreams or fantasies of someone in therapy with a recovered memory therapist.

For some, the allure of outrage and victimhood makes the burden of proof for accusing someone of horrific crimes sink dangerously low.

[pipi_k]

72. And the Fells Acres case in Mass

where the accusations by the children became ever more wild and outrageous as the kids were "questioned" by law enforcement agents. The whole atmosphere took on the flavor of the Salem Witch hunts.


I truly believe that many, if not all, of the Amirault family were innocent.

[anigbrowl]

32. Yes, you should take a break

Nothing personal, but discussion of this subject has indeed turned into e-peenery (which is what usually happens).

[Rabrrrrrr]

24. Well said, TahitiNut. Well said. It drives me insane.

It's amazing how many people will get foamed at the mouth if person A is treated poorly and sing out in loud self-rightouesness not to be judgmental, to be better than the republicans, to be better than the freepers - but then, if Person B somehow fails in the purity test, they'll turn and sneer and pout-rage, and when we sensible people say "Hey, wait a minute, if Person is supposed to get treated thus and such, then shouldn't person B?" and then they snap back at us, "Oh, so then you support (whatever the self-righteous purity-test bete noir du jour is), is that what you're saying?"

And then we say, "No, we're just trying to hold everyone to the same standards of judging"

and then they say "So you ARE in favor of (whatever the self-righteous purity-test bete noir du jour is)."

:eyes:

[snake in the grass]

36. It is true that...

...Jackson was found not guilty, so I won't continue to speculate on the subject nor will I claim he was wrongly acquitted. As we all know, our justice system is the best in the world. Just ask Rodney King or the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. However, I would have never let my children spend the night at his Neverland ranch. I'm curious as to how many out there, who are so eager to defend him, would have put their money where their mouths are and sent the kiddies to Uncle Michael?

Any takers?

[babythunder]

38. Why is

Jackson being compared to OJ? Because he was another black defendant that was "wrongly" found not guilty of committing a crimes against a white person? Seriously I'm really trying to understand the comparison of these two.

[snake in the grass]

42. That almost doesn't even warrant an answer.

Almost. I'll try to explain. If you read closely, I also compared the justice done in the Rodney King trial and as I recall, most of the "peace officers" were white. You're the one seeing race here, not me, and it is a cheap trick. If anything, it has more to do with being a celebrity and having the money to buy justice. Be that as it may, I will not take part in the discussions of Jackson's innocence or guilt. I simply asked how many of his defenders would let their kids stay over at his ranch. This question you, unfortunately, didn't answer.

Let me add Troy Davis to the list of those so aptly treated by our justice system.

[babythunder]

57. A great deal of people

who detested Michael Jackson which btw is their own prerogative have used the comparison of OJ a great deal and I've seen it done repeatedly on this board. My question why are the two being equated when they were accused of two very different things. At least that's better then Jackson being compared to Hitler and Bush/Cheney.

Also why are you defensive that I pointed the racial similarities between Jackson/OJ and their purported victims?

[snake in the grass]

61. What you call defensive is...

...me being annoyed at what appears to be someone wanting to make this a racial issue (perhaps I misinterpret your intent), while ignoring the core question. The OJ story presents itself not because of the racial background, but rather the brouhaha surrounding it, which was one of the biggest spectacles of recent judicial history. It also left many people asking the question of whether the system truly worked and if celebrity status afforded a "get out of jail free" card. To this day I find the OJ case very peculiar and contradictory, because he was found innocent in a criminal court and yet received a punitive sentence in the civil case. However, that is neither here nor there. My question is simple: how far does the trust go with those who vehemently defend Mr. Jackson? Would they entrust him with their children? Another poster here brought up a valid point that he/she wouldn't entrust his/her children to anyone just because of their celebrity status and I concurred. I used Jimmy Page as an example, but would like to qualify that somewhat. Assuming my child was an excellent guitarist and Page offered to take him/her under his wing, I would consider it, after taking a look at the situation. My presence or the presence of other children there for the sole purpose of deepening their skills would help in the beginning, until a trust had formed. Not that that would ever happen ha, ha.

[babythunder]

62. There have been many

celebrities who have been accused of heinous crimes (which most people suspected they were guilty of and were never convicted. There is no connection OJ is nowhere near the celebrity that Michael Jackson was and they aren't even in the same field. OJ was a Star athlete in his heyday and Michael Jackson was a megastar. Huge difference I wouldn't compare the Kobe Bryant Case to the Robert Blake Case.

Maybe it isn't a racial issue for you but I question the people on these threads who want to link the two and usually the linkage is followed be a Proclamation of Absolute Guilt.

In terms of the question of trust I think that's a non-starter. There are millions of situations and people that I would never allow my child to be in.

[niceypoo]

69. Your comparison is irrelevant

The OJ trial caused an unprecedented worldwide media frenzy for months and months on end, broadcast on live TV. Doesn't matter what 'field' they are in or how popular they were before or afterward. The trial spawned the 24/7 obsessive tabloid style cable news we have now.

It is widely perceived that OJ bought his way out of trouble.

It is widely perceived that MJ bought his way out of trouble. Hence the comparison.

Spare us the feigned ignorance. Of course MJ didn't do himself any favours by telling an interviewer that he routinely slept with little boys. Perception is everything.

[babythunder]

71. You are trying to

legitimize the connection between to the two and ignore the obvious.

Black defendants with white victims and the general public being outrage over not guilty verdicts.

Jackson never went to trial it only got to the level of allegations

OJ was a police chase, Indictment, trial, verdict, etc

Most importantly one was accused of murdering two people savagely and the other child molestation.

So yea keep telling me that these two cases being linked has nothing to do with race.

[Number23]

63. "A great deal of people

who detested Michael Jackson which btw is their own prerogative have used the comparison of OJ a great deal and I've seen it done repeatedly on this board.

As have I.

[Rabrrrrrr]

43. Because like OJ, there are, apparently, a lot of people who "JUST KNOW!" of his guilt

they're totally sure of it.

Just like they were SO ABSOLUTELY SURE within minutes of the news release that the white college rugby team was guilty of raping that black woman in SC or NC or wherever the hell it was.

Some people JUST KNOW FOR SURE about other people's guilt.

I don't know how they do it, but they do.

[snake in the grass]

47. From my point of view...

...that is exactly the point and you present it well. Some are so absolutely sure, one way or the other. Jackson was found innocent, so I find it unnecessary to discuss that further. However, I'm not absolutely sure and would have, therefore, not let my kids stay over at his place, if the situation had ever presented itself. I'm curious as to how far his defenders would go to make their point.

[Rabrrrrrr]

51. I would not have let mine, either - but that was before all the sex accusations.

The dude was a genius in the musical realm, but he was also really odd and never quite right in the head.

And I don't think I would let my kids stay at ANY adult's house without other children being around.

That's just fucking weird.

If I could stay there with the kid, or if I was personal friends with him, maybe.

But an adult asking if a kid can have a sleepover?

Fuck no.

[snake in the grass]

52. I'll have to go with you on that.

I was never a fan of Michael Jackson (preferred Prince back in the day), but if Jimmy Page would ask if my kids could stay at his place, the answer would also be "no".

[babythunder]

53. It must be magic!

who knew that it wasn't necessary for DNA evidence, juries, Judges, police investigation, because all we had to do was round-up a few posters from DU to ascertain guilt or innocence.

[niceypoo]

70. Of course MJ didnt do himself any favors...

...by telling interviewers that he routinely slept with boys and saw nothing wrong with it.

Americans are not at all forgiving when it comes to crimes against children, real or perceived.

[babythunder]

75. Sounds like this molester

did a really good job of trying to cover-up his crimes.

[Rabrrrrrr]

44. interesting non sequitor.

But when I used the word "judging" I was not speaking of actual courtrooms, I was speaking of the courtroom of common opinion.

Sorry about that. I should have used a different word. I can see how it could be confusing.

[TahitiNut]

39. Long ago, I discovered that deliberate calm, cold reasoning is most valuable ...

... when many others are running around with their hair on fire. Thus, when the fingers of outrage begin to grasp at my gut due to some particularly heinous allegations, I tend to grit my teeth and focus, refusing to compete in the chicken dance (running around the coop flapping wings or lips).

It's the more outrageous allegations and accusations wherein we are well-advised to adhere to principles of fairness and justice. After all, our recent history over the last 100 years demonstrates how easily communities decorate their trees with bitter fruit when they're stampeded by outrage. I'd be a fool indeed to think myself immune ... from being on either end of such a stampede.

[BlooInBloo]

27. Showing off the ginormous size of one's e-penis is one of the joys of the internet.

[sandnsea]

29. If you dare

check out this thread. Fair warning, take a stiff shot first, it is so crazy I even backed out of it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5939585

[BlooInBloo]

31. That's a funny one.

[pnwmom]

33. Huh? n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. How big is yours?

[TahitiNut]

68. Sorry. While I appreciate your interest, you're just not my type.

:eyes:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. I actually thought you were a girl, thus it would have been funny.

[TahitiNut]

81. Ah. Well, I used up all my libido so long ago that I tend to think I'm a neuter.

I've never been inclined to be "one of the guys" or act out social stereotypes. That's not to say I didn't like bumping uglies in "my day" (making the beast with two backs) ... a LOT. It's just that I find ritualistic gender roles to be boring ... and always have. However (checking crotch), I'm surely a straight male (not that it matters much anymore), at least demographically, and am wholly a "whatever floats your boat" liberal.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

83. I think I got you mistaken for tahiti_girl or some such name. My apologies for the confusion.

[Baikonour]

77. Post of the year.

Calling it now.

[Fridays Child]

2. What is this in reference to?

[tekisui]

5. People making the claim that acts of pedophile could be ignored

if a person did a lot of good in the world.

[babythunder]

58. Your statement would be

a very valid point if JACKSON HAD ACTUALLY BEEN CONVICTED! Other then your personal jury and few other people Jackson was never actually convicted in a court of law.

But this fact continues to escape you. Almost every great celeb we could dredge up every rumor, innuendo, accusation, and make proclamations of guilt based on what how we perceived them and would you think that was a fair process?

Look Michael was a fucked up man no two ways about it, judging from the surgery he had done on himself I would venture to say he absolutely loathed the body he was in. And think that his fuckedness is why he became such a big target for controversy and eventually legal troubles. Now whether his actions extended into illegal acts YOU nor I will ever know because the accused is dead and the victim's (assuming we are talking about the kid who took the pay-off) credibility is tainted.

[magellan]

4. "if the allegations against them are true" being the operative clause. n/t

[mzteris]

13. +1

:thumbsup:

[Philosoraptor]

6. Your average child molester has NO hit records or multi millions of $$

[pnwmom]

34. And the ability to pay $20 million settlements to avoid civil claims

and criminal charges.

[11 Bravo]

7. Do you have a point? I've been at DU for 7 years and haven' seen any pro-child molestation posts.

[UndertheOcean]

8. He thinks this post is pro-child molestation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5939853&mesg_id=5939853

[tekisui]

10. It is dangerously close to molestation apologist thinking.

[Rabrrrrrr]

20. Dangerously close? It's not even in the same solar system.

If that's what you think "dangerously close" is, then the world is in trouble. There is absolutely nothing of apologetics for molestation in that post.

[tekisui]

28. You're right.

I jumped on the OP, went in with pre-judgments. I should stay to my practice of avoiding those threads.


Thanks again, Rabrrrrr!:hi:

[BlooInBloo]

30. People who are suitably stupid cannot tell what solar system they're in.

[Fridays Child]

21. That's not a defense of pedophilia but a fair observation of human nature...

...if I'm picking up what you're putting down.

[BobRossi]

9. It's not often that this happens.

But I agree with you.

[tekisui]

11. Not often that the subject comes up or that you agree with me?

[DaveinJapan]

18. First of all, I agree with you that child rape is one of the worst

and most heinous of crimes.

Here's the thing that just hit me though. Didn't we recently have a topic where a severely retarded person was being put to death or imprisoned or whatever in Texas for something of a pedophile nature? Noone demonized the guy iirc.

Why does that pertain to this? Because at this point I've become convinced that Jackson was, in fact, completely insane. Seriously.

I don't know what sort of diagnosis a shrink would come up with, but his brain was broken. He had regressed, was completely delusional, and really did have the brain capacity of a child. Like the way he referred to his kids as "presents"...something totally deranged about that. He was "playing house" or "playing dad" or something bizarre like that.

So the way I see it if he did do something to those kids, sick as it was, in his brain it would've been akin to "playing doctor". Doesn't excuse it. Doesn't make it any less repulsive. But to me it does mitigate the situation somewhat. I think if he had been found culpable, the fair conclusion would've been "not guilty by reason of insanity" and the fair result would've been for him to be locked up in a mental institution forever ala John Hinkley.

I guess for this reason, I'm not really understanding all the vitriol not only here but all around the intertubes (seems like people are angry that he would have fans, but that's not very realistic given his superstar status). In particular here though, I'm surprised this angle hasn't come up already (or perhaps I'm the deranged one who is totally missing the point).

[pnwmom]

35. No one demonized the other guy -- but he was "put to death or imprisoned"

as opposed to Jackson, who was never held accountable for his actions. And eventually acquired three children of his own to play with -- and was allowed to keep them in almost total isolation from the rest of the world.

Yeah, Jackson was mentally ill: I agree. You're surprised at the vitriol. What I don't understand is how there is so much adulation for him.

[DaveinJapan]

41. not the point

the comments seemed to indicate that guy should NOT have been punished as he was.

As for the adulation, I guess some can separate the art from the artist and some can't. His behavior doesn't affect my enjoyment of his music any, I still dig it as much as I ever did.

[pnwmom]

56. Enjoying his music is different from joining the throngs on the streets

who are mourning his passing.

[sandnsea]

26. Agreed

But weird does not equal child molester. And if one actually read the evidence against him, it was weak and vacillating.

I don't think people are trying to condone child molestation. I think they are trying to say the music and entertainment can stand on its own, like the entertainment of many individuals who have done god knows what in their entertainment careers.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tammywammy]

40. Actually, he was found not guilty, not innocent, there is an important distinction. n/t

[SPedigrees]

46. Sorry but there is no legal difference. innocent = not guilty, and vice versa

[tammywammy]

50. Yes there is

Innocent means one thing and Not Guilty means another. Michael Jackson was found Not Guilty, not innocent. The Duke Lacross men were actually declared innocent.

[SPedigrees]

64. Then perhaps you would like to explain the important distinction.

I have a degree in criminal justice and have sat on a number of juries. 'Not guilty' and 'innocent' are legal synonyms.

[foo_bar]

78. if they were legal synonyms, couldn't one plead "innocent"?

Similarly, the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure provide for only two possible verdicts that can be returned by a jury: guilty or not guilty. There is no verdict of innocent. And, not guilty does not mean innocent.

When a jury returns a verdict of not guilty, that means that the state has not convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt as to all the elements of the crime with which the defendant has been charged. For example, in a first degree murder case, the state must prove that the defendant deliberately and with malice unlawfully caused the death of another human being. If the defendant presents a valid defense that he killed the victim in self-defense, then the defendant is not innocent of homicide -- he did in fact kill another human being -- but he is "not guilty" of homicide because the state did not convince the jury that the defendant acted with premeditated malice aforethought. <...>

The legal system and legal terminology should be respected. I suggest that the media should make an effort to use the correct terminology when commenting on court cases. The word innocent should not be used promiscuously.

http://www.massbar.org/about-the-mba/press-room/journalists%27-handbook/6-not-guilty-does-not-mean-innocent (the Massachusetts Bar Association)

Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty."

http://www.oregoncriminalattorney.com/innocent.html (some guy who passed the bar)

[musicblind]

79. Thank you I tried to deal with this poster before I think. They'll just ignore you.

[Rabrrrrrr]

45. Holy Christ - if that's all it takes to get your knickers wound up that much

maybe you're better off on ignore.

Wow.

Just. Wow.


Your final line is also incredibly childish - accusing people of being critical merely because they're jealous. How fucking pathetic is that?

p.s. - the answer is, "It's really super-duper utterly and totally fucking pathetic", just in case you don't know.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. Does that pass for honesty where you come from?

He was found Not Guilty. That in no way means that he was innocent.

[Zorra]

49. And no one can undo the awful damage that an innocent person

incurs from being falsely accused of being a child molester.

Falsely accusing someone of this heinous crime usually ruins the life of the victim, and anyone that falsely accuses someone of this crime with malicious intent should be put in prison for a long time.

[armyowalgreens]

54. Child rape is an accusation that should never be taken lightly. Which is why I choose not to villify

someone who has only been accused. If it is true that child rape is as bad as you say, and I agree that it is, why do people insist on throwing around accusations?

A false accusation of child rape can be just as destructive as the act of raping a child.

[LAGC]

60. Yeah, but in this case, the accusation was valid.

Michael Jackson admitted to sleeping with little kids in his bed. He plied them with alcohol and showed them pornographic pictures (that were proven to have the kids fingerprints all over it). Sometimes if it walks like a duck...

[armyowalgreens]

67. LOL bullshit. You have shown me evidence of everything but child molestation...

You'd make a horrible lawyer.

[musicblind]

80. Actually it was found the boys rifled through his collection of HETERO porn without his permission

And without him being present. It was also found, in a court of law, that he never gave them alcohol. He was found not guilty of that specific charge in fact. He did admit that he slept with kids in his bed. The kids that have slept in his bed, including Macaulay Culkin have stepped forward to vouch that nothing inappropriate or sexual ever happened. The fact that you think this must be a sexual thing is telling of how cynical some people are.

[LAGC]

82. Whats HETERO porn have to do with it?

Are you saying because it wasn't GAY porn that it proves that he isn't a pedophile? Most pedophiles ARE heterosexuals, many are married or lead otherwise normal relationships with adult members of the opposite sex along-side their nefarious activities. Now, I've never heard this about the kids just "stumbling upon" his porn -- do you have a link to support this supposition? And I suppose you see no problem with him sleeping in the same bed as the kids?

[Deja Q]

55. I know and fully agree. When I was a child, I was molested by 2 people... assaulted by a 3rd.

I'll spare the details right now...

You ARE right - such behavior does attempt to ruin lives. And it certainly messes up one's own adult intimate life...

Trouble is, I don't see MJ like that. Nuts, he was, but not a molester.

[winyanstaz]

59. I believe child rape is the worst crime on the planet..

and anyone convicted of this crime should NEVER ever be allowed to walk among the free again. Never.
They cannot be cured and the risk that they will rape another child is just too great for anyone to turn them loose again. If they are turned loose and rape again, the ones that turned them loose should also go to prison for releasing such a monster into society.
One child is one child too many.

[Vickers]

73. "if the Allegations Against them are True"

They have whole religions founded on the "if" concept.

:eyes:

[Clintonista2]

74. I am no fan of MJ, but what a ridiculous OP

He was given a fair trial and found not guilty.