IT Employment

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Sue Jacko or not?

0 helpful
38 replies

by jkaras

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I'm sure all have heard the lastest on the Micheal Jackson raid on his Neverland Ranch. Apparently yet another child during a sleepover was molested. I know Jacko is rather wierd and has been in trouble for possible molestations. My question is this, do the parents have a right to sue him for damages knowing full well of his past?
To me, they knew about the possibility of it happening and were counting on it. They put the child with a known alledged sex offender and prostituted their child for a payday. I think this is a horrible display of poor parenting that should result in removal of care from the parents, showing that they cannot make a good decision. This is a prime example of our society wanting money for nothing and willing to sell just about anything to acquire wealth to prove they are someone.
Whether the kid is telling the truth or lying due to parental pressure, they too need to be held accountable.

38 replies

by cactus pete

Well, honestly, you can't hold someone guilty of allegations. You can't find someone quilty of bad parenting for seeing that someone has never been found guilty of allegations, either.

Sure, I wouldn't have sent anoyone there [including myself], but the saying it's bad parenting when the justice system never convicted the guy before?

by maecuff

I agree with what you said. However, as a parent, I would have never allowed my child to spend the night with Michael Jackson, whether guilty or not, I'd have waaay too many concerns. I just wish he'd quit calling and inviting my kids over.

by road-dog

If I had a neighbor that settled a serious allegation of molestation out of court for a substantial amount of money, my kids would be declining invitations to the slumber party at that home.

My "no f***ing way" burden of proof is considerably lower than what is required for criminal prosecution.

I don't even allow my daughter to hang out with the neighbor's daughter who is 12, wearing makeup, and chasing boys.

I'm convinced that any parent who allows their child to stay over at the "never tell Ranch" is either absent of a sufficient level of paranoia to be a good parent, or using their own child as lawsuit bait.

So, is Jackson going to jump bail or jump off a building? I hear Roman Polansky has a spare room...

by jkaras

Never tell that cracks me up!! I imagine R Kelly could crash there also with Pee Wee providing a how to clinic of self satisification.

by jkaras

That's fair enough. I too believe that you are innocent till proven guilty. My statement was alledged pointing out a know issue with Michael. Whether he bought his way out of trouble or give in to a blackmail settlement while being innocent all along. We will never know and can only speculate.
However it has been no secret to his indiscretions. I feel that these parents shouldnt be allowed to sue for monitary gain. I feel that that lawsuit would be as frivulous as a smoker sueing a cigarette company for getting cancer. The smoker knew all along it wasnt healthy but chose to smoke reguardless. Should child services be brought into this situation?

by jimhm

You are forgetting about the brain dead judges - in the US Liberal courts system ... Where they believe someone should be held accountable for the stupid things people do. Smoke - use a lawn-mower as a hedge trimmer and cuts off the tips of their fingers - hold a hot cup of coffee in between you legs when you are driving then sue because you burnt your 80 year old cutch...

Have you seen - the labels on stuff over here - This was not designed to be used as a X - don't do this with it ... don't take the radio into the shower with you ... Can you protect - those future Darwin Award winners from themselfs...

This parent knew thier 12 year old son would end up in Jack'os bed - and need some big time dollars. He will settle out of court for a few million to the parents - they will drop the complaint - and he will go on buying kids...

But - even so - its one of those cases these liberal judges will let come to court...

by lordinfidel

Is if I put my child intentionally in harms way, do I have a right to sue and collect money.

I'm not defending michael, if he is truly guilty of being a pedophile then he should not be around children. (honestly/personally, I think he is just out there and can't think like a rational adult, allowing himself to be put into questionable situations.)

But like others have said, if a parent brings their child there and leaves them alone, unsupervised with michael, then they should not be allowed to sue him for allegations.

My feeling is, if my child was molested I would not be looking for payday, but instead I would want to kill the SOB or at least have him thrown in jail without the possiblity of parol or having contact with children ever again.

Any parent that is looking for money in those instances, other then to help the child thru counsling, has motives other then the child's welfare that need to be looked at closely.

Then ask yourself, who is truly molesting the child? The molester or the parent?

by maecuff

the molester committing a crime. The parents should closely scrutinized as to whether or not they are fit parents, but the molester is still the one molesting.

by jkaras

How do you feel or anyone for that matter concerning a released sexual predator right of privacy? I have seen multiple times released convicts that are pointed out in their community by their neighbors with signs alerting everyone etc.. They paid their debt to society and are unable to live in our society as equal. I dont think these people are good or anything but I do believe they deserve the chance to redeem themselves. I feel that the neighbors with kids should be alerted to protect their kids but harrassing is going to far.

by jimhm

Put it to you this way - if you had little ones would you want to know that your neighbor was convicted and served time for child molstation? Or would you just he paid his debt and now has the right to be free, to do it again. I think the rate of molsters to re-affend is somewhere around 80%... So now you are risking your childrens safety on not knowing.

When they are convicted of a crime - any crime - it should be known when they move into a community that a predator has arrived.

They gave up there rights to privacy when they committed that crime - and now pay.

by oz_media

I just want one of his licence plates, they're gonna be hot on E-Bay. I bet his handiwork in the Fed Pen (yeah right, more like the country club at Neverland)will raise more cash than his last album did. They say that bad press is better than good, I agree but this is kids so I don't think this is the quality press a star would hope for.

Anyhow, I think that even though he isn't CONVICTED of being a pedophile, anyone would be deaf and dumb to not see this as a POTENTIAL threat especially when it comes to children. But you also have to see it that if YOUR kid met the largest pop idol in the world, you wouldn't really want to squash his dreams of meeting or staying with IT either. Unfortunately, he doesn't like the parents to stay, even though his latest PR ventures show he doesn't mind, but earlier he was seen as saynig he prefers the one on one because children are inhibited by parents, THEY ARE ALSO WATCHED AND MONITORED ACCORDINGLY BY THE PARENTS!!

I would want my son to be able to stay with his hero, but given past allegations (even if not guilty) when it comes to children you can never be TOO careful.

It's hard to guage the sincereity of the parents intent, but I do think that it's more than likely that they aren't wealthy and famous and would really benefit from a nice limp of cash. The first person to allledge these crimes was awarded a heap of dough, but they wer going out on a limb to do so. Now it's known that Jacko is willing to just pay off an out of court settlement, others are trying too. Unfortunately, this one may not be as easy as a simle cash grab due to the nature of the proceedings.

But damn, why couldn't he invite me over for a little twinkie tug, I'd sure as hell cash in, after he picked his head up off the ground.

I'd stil like a licence plate though, I wonder if he'll actually number and sign a limited set of jacko does a little whacko plates? I do feel for his children though. Unfortunately he like to feel other people's children too.

Oh wacko jacko, 5'11" 120lbs, why hasn't hs eating disorder been in the headlines? Proves he's not REALLY a female celebrity though.

by cactus pete

I sent that and the radio promptly cut into regular programming about Jacko "negotiating his surrender".

by jimhm

Sounds like if the parents sent the kid to the ranch - they were looking for the $$$$'s to come flowing in for selling thier kid.

Sounds a little to fishy to me. Yea Jack'o needs some mental help - he is a sicko - but the parents knew what he was like - and sent the kid anyway. Come on - they are looking for a pay day... period.

by maecuff

that whole Pee Wee debacle was ridiculous. Who was he hurting? And what do they think goes on in X-rated movie houses?

by road-dog

that they busted guys in an adult movie theatre, presumably for indecent exposure....While an 18 foot penis was probably proudly displayed on the big screen.

by maecuff

Thanks, now tonite I'm gonna have nightmares about an 18 foot penis. I'd like to think it would be attached to a gigantic Russell Crowe, but it will probably end up being Pee Wee Herman.

by thechas

There are a number of people who either do not watch news reports, or who choose not to believe negative news about people they admire.

I suspect that the parents choose to ignore the stories about MJ and saw no problem with allowing their child to spend time at the Neverland Ranch.

If they did understand the risk, they are even more reprehensible than MJ and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Chas

by oz_media

"There are a number of people who either do not watch news reports, or who choose not to believe negative news about people they admire."

oh, oh , oh . awwww no, I won't.

LOL:-)

by deadly ernest

This matter raises two major issues.

1. The parents had to have known that he was suspect and should have insisted on suitable covereage, ie 'Yes he can go as long as I am there as well.' The fact that they did not means that they have to accept some responsibility.

It is possible that the child had no reason to suspect anything but the parents should have. Thus if they sue and get anything then it should be placed in a trust account under the control of a public trustee and be given to the child when they turn 18. Also the parents should be forced to pay a proportional amount into the trust fund as well due to their partial responsibility in allowing the situation to occur.

2. What is molestation and at what age is sexual activity wrong. These issues have plagued mankind since day one. Over the centuries societies have had differing view points and the current ones are by far the most dangerous.

In the past people had been allowed to lawfully participate in sexual activity when they were physically able to do so, today we put an arbitrary age as a starting point. Yet despite that we KNOW that most people are capable of being sexually active well before they reach that approved starting age, this is just asking for trouble in most situations.

I have not seen the report you mention and you do ot mention the child's age, so I cannot speculate to much on the probability of the child having been a willing active particpant.

The key points in this issue is was the youngster in a position to make a reasonable, knowing decision to participate and did they agree if they were? It is only when those questions have been adequately answered can we talk about it truely being abuse, molestation etc.

I know of a case where a 13 year old girl 'blackmailled' a 25 year old male into having sex with her. She was often left in his care by the parents and she threatened to claim that he had molested her if he did not have sex with her. After 6 months of being regular lovers the parents found out and had him charged, he got sent away for 2 years hard and 3 years parole. The courts felt there were some mitigating circumstances after the girl took the stand and told her side, despite parental opposition for her to take the stand. When he came out of prison she was 17 and went to court to get permission to marry him, they are still together after 20 years. He was convicted of molesting her, but did he? This whole issue is a hot potato that most govts, and people, refuse to examin closely and deal with properly.

by jkaras

I do agree with your first point, to me that seemed fair and thought out. However, your second point is in the grey area. I have seen younger girls scheme to get old guys in that king of example. I feel a grown man desiring the company of 10-13 boys for a sleepover is like a fat guy at an all you can eat buffet. I dont care what excuse given, a grown man shouldnt be bumping uglies with a child. The teenagers today may have bodies of adults, but that doesnt excuse adults from getting their freak on. It is a conscious decision to satisfy a sexual taboo. The reason we use a age of maturity for sex is because even at that age they are not completly mature, but responsible for their actions. Also it keeps older men away from taking advantage of nieve girls as well as help reduce teenage pregnancy.

by deadly ernest

To a certain extent I agree with you, but the problem that I see is the artificiality of the barriers that society is putting up. For most of our history societies have seen people as being mature and able to make their own way in life by their mid-teens, 14 was the most common age males were seen as adult, and similar for females.

With the current high levels of teenage pregnancy through out the wetern societies, mostly due to the boys not taking precautions the way to reduce this would be to permit older men to date the young girls as we would be scared as hell of getting the girl pregnant and be mush more responsible in that regard, even if it was only to ensure we kept our pay instead of apying child support.

However, I am not actively saying we should blow away all the laws re sex etc, just that they need to be looked at and rewritten in a sensible manner that takes the realities into account. I also pointed out that the older person is NOT always the aggressor in these situations and we rarely know the truth of what happened.

Personally I would like to see the laws on who can have sex based on tests of their mental stability and emotional maturity than an arbitrary age. Boy would that piss some off I know many people (male and female) of all ages who would fail such tests.

by lordinfidel

But If you leave your child unsupervised with a known child molester, in the hopes that he commits a crime so you can collect money.

Then the definition of child molester becomes twisted.

With michael, my contention is that the guy is surrounded by people watching him, aides and what have you. I just can't beleive that in that sort of public light that his staff is going to sit by while he molests children. It's just a stretch if you think about it.

Now does he have a warped sense of child-adult relationships, absolutely. I don't think he should be left alone with children, only because he is irresponsible when it comes to them. Not because he allegedly molests them.

by maecuff

I think that it is reprehensible that a parent would prostitute a child for a pay off. I'd rather see them tossed off a bridge than be prosecuted. I mean really, what could they offer society, nothing. My only point is, regardless of that, the molester is still committing the crime. It kind of goes along with when a woman gets raped and her prior sex life or the clothes she wears becomes an issue. It's not part of that issue. True, it may not be wise to wear a short skirt with no panties at a frat party, get drunk and pass out. That still does not make her responsible for any crime that could be committed, nor does it exonerate the criminal. It just makes her stupid.

by hal 9000

There is something wrong in the State of Denmark or what the here something less than a sweat smeeling thing.

Firstly we have a child remembering alledged abuse under therpy "Represed Memory Syndrome" I think that is called and it has shown to be anything but reliable, then we have a Law Enforcment guy who been after Wacko for 10 years and has the ability to raid the place while Wacko isn't there with a Mobile Forensics Lab.

Sorry but it all smells of over kill to me, if he did it then I would hang him and not allow the so called parents any right to sue but in these cases you are guilty until proved inconent and even then the stigma never leaves and that is a Best Case Senaro.

And would only happen to a person who doesn't have the media presence that Wacko does. In this case I think we will see a trail by Media and to hell with any LAW as it isn't important.

It is when I see things like this that I want to see Reforms in the Legal System as the whole thing is just too well put together for my liking.

by road-dog

This case will dominate our media wall to wall. All evidence will be weighed by pundits, hosts, attorneys, and "experts" ad nauseum.

Jacko has the bucks to hire a dream team of attorneys to pick apart every shred of evidence and will surely leverage every angle that the California criminal code has to offer.

As for the raid "when he wasn't there", I don't know how it works in your neck of the woods, but law enforcement doesn't make an appointment to serve a warrant here.

Regardless of "vendetta", the DA has to convince a judge that he has a case in order to get hus search and arrest warrants. The Judge issuing the warrants knows that this will get ugly and his actions must be defensible.

No reform is necessary. This will be played by the book and the public will have a chance to see it all play out on T.V.

It's not as fishy as you think, I suspect. Jacko paid off one teenager for allegations a few years back. Although the records are sealed, you don't pay off on a serious but false allegation, you fight it. Payoffs are what are fishy to me.

by deadly ernest

Yep cops don't make appointments to conduct raids, but they do usually try to coordinate them for when the person is home so that they can observe them under the duress of having the place searched, they often give away little hints about where to look through body language. Often you will wait outside until the person arrive home to have this little advantage. The only time you would voluntarily give up this help is when you know they will not be back for some days and this was the earliest you could get your warrant.

Secondly most people will fight a false accusation, but some types of charges are almost impossible to prove as false and you are left in the position of paying out $200,000 for legal expenses to defend, or settle out of court for $100,000; then it becomes purely economic and many do settle for this. Remeber when you go to court you dont get your expenses paid for you unless you can prove 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' that the accusation was false and totally unjustified, and if you had been able to do that you would have done so during the investigation phase and not ended at the court.

by hal 9000

You need to make a "Finicial Decission" of what is this is going to cost me in going to court and at the same time knowing that the very same media who has built you up will have free access to every area of you're life that you have been trying to keep to you're self.

This is what I find offencive with the legal system the way that you can be tried by the media and there are many who will want to paint you as guilty no matter what the evidence actually is. Remember what really happens in a Court has nothing to do with Justice by winning so you get a sanatised version of what both sides what to say and then the media comes along and puts their spin on things by only reporting as they see fit and in the way that they want to this is something that has been going on for a long time now and is now known as "TRIAL BY MEDIA" and is something where real evidence has no real effect on what ends up as tomorrows fish wrappers. 20 years ago there was a dirvise media but now it has been consolated into a small group that is "All Powerfull" and gets it's way.

Don't believe me just look at the Public Outcry when a rulling doesn't come out the way that the media wants they stir up the population with half truths against the Courts or the presiding Judge and there are political endevours to remove these people or Reform the Courts. This whole thing stinks to me and personally I want nothing to do with it as that is what we have our Courts for and from my interpuration of what is the alledged endevour of our Legal System is it is better to let 100 guilty people go free than to have one inconent person wrongly convicted.

It is about time that the media started to remember this rather than constantly trying to gain rattings so they can sell their advertising space for more this is what they are only interested in and Bob you should know this!

by john_wills

The parents cannot sue Jacko because he has done THEM no wrong, except maybe emotional distress. The victim can sue his parentsfor exposing him to a pervert and Jacko for perversion. But the victim is a minor, which usually means that the parents sue on his behalf. If the parents are part of the problem, some public custodian should do the suing, besides trying to protect the victim from his parents' further carelessness. Such custodians do exist, but I have forgotten their title in California; they are county employees and their attorney is the County Counsel.

by lordinfidel

chicks these days are hard core alchies.

It takes several cases now to get them drunk.

And 9 out of 10 times they out drink you; then you wake up your cash is gone, you have some weird color nailpolish on you, they write some message on your chest like "Leslies Bitch" and there is always something foreign lodged in your ass that was not there before.

And not even something manly like a tequila bottle or football, no it has to be something like a bunch of flippin daises or a barbie doll.

I have no idea why they find that funny.... it really hurts....

by jimhm

I don't know, if I woke with something jammed in my butt hole and my money gone - I wouldn't drink so much the next time. Maybe you didn't please her enough - you know - passed out in the first few minutes of activity.

But you must know some pretty strange women... Flowers in your butt... the only time I hear that was at hospital - some guy was a royal pain to the nursing staff for over a week. One day they came in to take a rectal temp on him. Well a daizy normally can't tell temp.. but he laid there butt high - with the flower sticking out for 30 minutes.... so that all the staff could see.

by road-dog

They serve warrants as quickly as possible after getting signatures. Recon is taken and officers are briefed on what is being sought. All persons in the address are rounded up and questioned.

Having MJ at the house would probably not helped or hurt the case. This was a search for physical evidence suspected to exist, hence the evidence team and the crime lab onsite. They are working hard to dot I's and cross T's.

The previous settlement was estimated at 20 million dollars. One could put up quite the defense and still saved money. This was witness tampering, not a civil action settlement...

by hal 9000

You should really know that they would only have been looking for what the kid had told them was susposed to be there and there is therapy involved here with "Recovered Memories" which are anything but "Rock Solid Evidence" in any Court around the World.

As far as the other case he in all likely hood could have got out of it for a hel of a lot less even if he was guilty as the kid was not willing to give any evidence and the action fell through and it was only when a civil trial was threatned that Waco settled to avoid any bad publicity that would have been generated and I for 1 think that it would have cost him far more than $29 Mill in lost sales by destroying a KIG who was susposed to be a "Fan" as this would paint him as a heartless mongeral who was only interestred in money. His actions while being expensive have only polorised the members of the comunity into loving him or hating him so those that would never have bought his records previously will not and those that would have will continue. Do you think that this would have been the outcome if he had of walked into the Fisaco that is a Court with all the media present and got the same outcome?

by deadly ernest

Over here we always try to serve warrants on the persons stated because it does us good to see the shocked look on their face and whilst shocked they often let things slip either verbally or by body language. If the physical evidence was there it may have been hidden, in which case a bit of the accussed's body language often helps you to know where to look.

Around here it is NOT possible to buy off a witness or settle out of court on a criminal matter, unless it has gone to court as a civial matter becuase the prosecutor refuses to run with such a poor case.

Also in the PR game that Jacko is in spending 5 million and 12 months on lawyers to win a case can also cost you around 100 million in lost PR and revenue. You cant be recording albums or doing shows whilst waitting to appear in court. It is this aspect that some people rely on when they start litigation.

If Jacko was guilty and the evidence was good the prosecutor should, and would have continued with the case and added charges of 'perverting the course of justice.' But a lot depends on what evidence they had, with a weak case the prosecutor may have been more than happy to get out from under a hot potatoe.

by oz_media

My niece, who I used to take care of while her mother was ill for a while, used to play with the nice man next door who was also taking care of his niece. they had a big swing set and a small pool, not to mention acres of land for games and soprts.

Thank god nothing ever happened, it was Clifford Olsen!

by jkaras

However our justice system punishes those who break the law and paid their debt to society once released. To me it's not the job of the community to punish or harrass others regardless of the crime. If convicts are not given the opprotunity to repent or change then what's the point? You might as well put them to death since their lives are over without the opprotunity to change. Yes it definitly different with molesters vs. crimminals cause they cant help themselves.

Everyone has a right to privacy, NIMBY gets carried away at times. What are we going to do, have a town for just molesters? People get into trouble due to false accusations ie divorce etc.. and politicians grandstand and tank peoples lives to promote themselves during election times. The truth isnt always served cause a gabble gets rapped. There is no easy way out of this issue to properly protect, I dont have a problem informing neighbors of the issue for awareness but taking action against it is wrong. People abuse power and soon if you dont fit into the desired community you cant live there?

by oz_media

You have a very valid point and one which I've thought of many times, it's almost a catch 22 situation.

I think it falls back on our inadequate prison system. If a convicted rapist can be properly identified and worked wth to help resolve these issues, rehabilitation MAY be possible in some cases. We aren't talking about someone who may go and rob yuo rAM/PM store after he is released though. These men/women have shown they have the ability to take a childs life and contort it for MANY years if not a lifetime. These MEN or Women who are the offenders MAY be rehabilitated but what about the young life they have effected?

You see, many of these adult offenders are victims of similar actions during thier childhoods. This has then in turn confused and distorted thier concept of reality to a point where they can harm children. We may be able to help them see this wrongdoing and be conciously aware of such thoughts in the future as well as how to deal with such ideas.

a child has less control of his concious mind and relies on his subsoncious more often than an adult, this is why they are so creative and care free. life and imagination is alm ost art that floew from them without thought. To try and help a child overcome rape and sexual abuse is much harder, they have less control over concious thought, don't understand right from wrong the way an adult should etc.

OS i think the question that needs to be answered is ARE these released convicts actually STABLE enough to be in a populated area? Many psychologists would say they are better off in an adult neighbourhood with no temptations around them. This creates a healthy atmosphere where they properly learn how to use concious thought to control subconcious impulses. There will be e need for these people to once again be around children as they will develop stronger skills however with the current state of our rehabilitative, prison and court systems, I have to doubt release in the first place.

Courts and jails simply cannot hold people for as long as they should or need to, help is often sought out while in jail and then ignored once released whereas these people DO need further attention when entering the public lifestyle again.

I thin it is sad that a man enters the free world with his neighbours knowing his crimes and avoiding contact with him. This is also a reality that a criminal must learn to understand BEFORE the offense though, unfortunately from concious control that is rarely available.

It may be better if we were honest and actually offered a disclaimer when warning of a criminal.

"The person who is being released into your neighbourhood has not received proper medical or psychological evaluation or assistance. We canot hold this person in jail as we do nothing to help him there, we will be releasing him into your neighbourhood and hope that he does not repeat offend and that he rehabilitates HIMSELF, we can't be bothered, we don't have the money, we don't have the facility to help him.

Good luck!"

OM

This discussion is closed to new replies.