|
| Monday, June 13, 2005 |
| Ahhh ... The American Justice System |
I haven't been following the Michael Jackson case closely at all, I'll admit. But when the definition of molestation "touching that brings sexual gratification to either party" (as was stated by a radio commentator this morning so I don't know how accurate that is) how can this man be found not guilty?! He wasn't even charged with a misdemeanor for giving alcohol to minors!!!
So pissed right now. That sick, sick bastard. |
posted by FINY @ Monday, June 13, 2005   |
|
| 7 Comments: |
-
But how do you know if he's guilty? I haven't been following it closely either, so I don't know the details. But the jury heard the evidence and made their decision based on it.
-
Yeah, I don't know that he's guilty. The more and more I talked to people who actually FOLLOWED the trial, the more I found that most people agreed that the prosecutors really didn't prove their case. This was more of a emotional reaction because I think it's ridiculously creepy for a grown man to hang around with little kids so much. I know I wouldn't trust him with my (ficticious) children that's for sure!
-
no shit! i feel like those mothers and fathers knew what wold happen and actually tried to "sell" their kids. i did follow part of it, and the mother f the main victim was ludicrous.
-
quite honestly, I think the guy is a pedophile. that said, I don't think that there was enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to find him guilty.
really, though, why isn't anyone mad at the parents? think about it - would you leave your kid alone with a man who's been previously accused of molestation? i'm thinking "no!"
-
Oh my God mikey's still alive!! Good to have you back, dude.
-
-
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
But how do you know if he's guilty? I haven't been following it closely either, so I don't know the details. But the jury heard the evidence and made their decision based on it.