not guilty? really?

Jun 13, 2005 14:26

***I was not there, I did not see, I do not know ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 2

kyooverse June 13 2005, 23:25:11 UTC
Wouldn't having an underage boy in your bed constitute an attempted lewd act?

I don't think it does. It's an action, not an intention, you know? There's something about that rhetoric that gets me. I haven't put my fingers on it yet. Perhaps it has something to do with this is idea that if an adult male allows a younger male into his bed, then he is planning "perversion." It bothers me.

I wonder how much our minds are leading us to conclusions. Michael is not working on the same level as most of us -- to be honest. If the charge was, "Dis bitch is CRAZY!" guilty as charged... but the rest of it seems to be... well... specious, suspicious adult minds which are incredulous.

For his own legal safety, he should probably only put his own underaged kids in his bed. People's minds are attuned to darkness.

Which strikes me as weird... I mean, what matters more... MJ or that ish going on in Iraq? I do worry about the priorities of this country and her people.

Reply

pinkpurlgrrl June 14 2005, 18:33:48 UTC
I agree that there is a difference between intention and action. You can not know another's intent (even if they tell you what they are/were intending). But, there are points in time where you (you = the family, the community, the legal system) have to stop and say "is this OK behavior, should we be worried?" Well, that's pretty much what happened. The jury came back with an answer that surprised me. I'm not invested in the outcome of this specific case - but I am invested in what our culture chooses to set up as rules and values ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up