Do you really give a rat's fat, hairy ass about the Jackson verdict?

[iconoclastic cat]

I have to know. If you select "Yes," please explain. Is it a pop cult thing? What?

On edit: I'll say it again: If you select "Yes," please explain.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. I always thought the blancmange should have won Wimbledon.

[iconoclastic cat]

3. He was sporting...

[tyedyeto]

2. Huh?

BLANCMANGE.' 4O, PODGORNY: O :shrug:

[iconoclastic cat]

4. Link:

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode07.htm#7

[Mojambo]

5. Not so much, no. n/t

[kansasblue]

6. I care so little I can't even finish thi

[youspeakmylanguage]

7. I didn't before, but now I'm angry...

Money and fame trump justice once again...

[ET Awful]

8. Not particularly, but I do find it interesting the level of hatred

shown for the Constitutional concept of presumed innocence and the requirement that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I could care less about Jackson himself, but I find it ironic that the same people that scream about how this and that violate the Constitution get all pissy when the Constitution works in favor of someone who they'd already convicted in their mind.

[youspeakmylanguage]

10. The Constitution should work in favor of EVERYONE...

Regardless of wealth or fame. That's what angers me, though I can't speak for anyone else.

Do you think your average citizen middle-aged man could sleep in bed with young boys and not be convicted in this country? If you have a son, would you want him sleeping in a middle-aged male neighbor's bed? What if your neighbor was a rich celebrity? What if he was a Republican politician or a preacher?

The whole sordid business stinks to high-heaven.

[ET Awful]

11. Your average citizen doesn't start their trial with witnesses perjuring

themselves.

Or had you forgotten about that. Both the accusers mother and brother admitted to lying under oath. Sorry, but that alone indicates that the whole works is a sham.

Witnesses lied.

If I didn't want my son sleeping at a middle-aged mans house, I wouldn't let him sleep there.

[youspeakmylanguage]

12. Wrong Answer!

Jackson should NOT have been sleeping with boys. Period. He has no business sharing a bed with ANY minors, regardless of the reason. Period.

Again, so because the kid has a crook for a mom means it was ok to sleep with Mr. Jackson and drink the "jesus juice"? AT THE VERY LEAST he should have been convicted for serving alcohol.

[ET Awful]

13. Examples? Here, a simple Google search works wonders

http://www.google.com/search?q=jackson+witness+lied+under+oath&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

30,500 hits for "jackson witness lied under oath".

Sorry, but when witness lie, it shows an ulterior motive, and makes it impossible to convict anyone under the Constitutional requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[youspeakmylanguage]

14. They were lying in a separate trial - so much for you working wonders...

I'm still waiting for the links showing these witnesses perjured themselves at the beginning of this trial.

So if someone is convicted of perjury in a completely unrelated case involving financial fraud, their children/siblings have no protection against alleged pedophiles and no right to see them judged fairly?

I wonder what the verdicts would have been if the jury had heard about this: http://www.courttv.com/trials/jackson/042105_ctv.html

[ET Awful]

15. LOL . . .

I see, so let's see . . . if, for example, someone lies to the UN (for example) about troops massing along the Saudi Border and thereby gains support for Desert Storm, do you believe him a decade later or do you question everything he's saying because he was shown to be a liar previously?

Sorry, but once you damage your credibility by lying about something one time, then you try to make the SAME TYPE OF ACCUSATION later, your motives and credibility are going to be questioned.

Sorry, but unlike Bush, I remember how the phrase goes. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

A preponderence of the evidence did NOT support a guilty verdict. If you have a problem with that, then I certainly hope you never serve on a jury because you have proven yourself incapable of passing a verdict within the law.

[youspeakmylanguage]

17. What?

Sorry, but once you damage your credibility by lying about something one time, then you try to make the SAME TYPE OF ACCUSATION later, your motives and credibility are going to be questioned.

I didn't realize this family accussed JC Penney of pedophilia. Perhaps you can provide links to that case as well.

MANY of the victims of Catholic clergy abuse (and sexual abuse in general) later became substance abusers and criminals. Does this mean their accusations are just as easily dismissed as Jackson's accuser?

Comparing this to Bush lying at the UN is the worst load of BS I've read all day. I hope you never serve on a jury when a celebrity is on trial because there would certainly be no chance of a fair trial. Do you have an autograph collection at home?

Try again.

[ET Awful]

19. LMAO.

I don't give a shit WHO is on trial.

If you can't prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, I would never vote to convict.

I don't give a shit if it's Joe in apartment 2B or Renee Zelwigger. It doesn't matter.

As to your foolish "celebrity" jab, it says much more about you that you would make such a presumption. I could care less who the defendant is, I care what the law is.

The law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt (I'm not sure which part of that it is that you have trouble comprehending), a reasonable doubt existed in this case, thus, pursuant to the laws of the state of California and the Constitution of the United States, a guilty verdict can NOT be handed down by any jury working within the law.

If you don't like the law, that's your problem. Personally, I value the law and believe that it works in most cases. There was a reasonable doubt, there can not be a conviction when there is a reasonable doubt. Sorry if you don't like the law.

Don't bother replying, I'm done arguing with someone who would rather ignore the law and presume guilt.

[youspeakmylanguage]

21. Hey, allow me to go first...

*plonk*

[Pool Hall Ace]

9. I only care about getting him off the airwaves so we can get down to

real news.

Michael Jackson is not appealing to me at all, so I don't care about his life one iota.

[Mr. McD]

16. No.

[ComerPerro]

18. Sorta. I mean, I'm curious. But now that I know, I don't really care

It doesn't really affect me or my life.

Just Jackson and the accuser.

Although, I was kinda hoping he'd be found not guilty.

[Orsino]

20. Chris Rock: "I haven't seen white people this angry...

...since they canceled M*A*S*H."

[ghostsofgiants]

22. Nope, couldn't care less

In fact, while I was watching the verdict, I was saying to myself and others "why the fuck am I even watching this?"