|is Michael Jackson a f****** idiot or what?||trekkie1|
Nov 21, 2002 6:58 AM
|Does this confirm he's a total nutcase? Boycott the idiot, if you weren't already.
Nov 21, 2002 8:27 AM
|I think he is only liked in Europe. He is universally looked at as a weirdo here in the states. He, like Cher, is no longer even vaguely the same person they were ten years ago thanks to cosmetic surgery. What a hack job. Very, very weird person.
If he dangled a child over the railing in the USA, he would be arrested for child endangerment. I feel sorry for his kids.
Male/female?? Black/white?? Human/Android?? you decide.
|can't belive it||trekkie1|
Nov 21, 2002 8:41 AM
|This seems worse to me than the woman caught on tape smacking around her kid in the SUV. But, then, the SUV aspect of that is what was notable, right?
If I were with the Division of Family Services whereever Jackson lives here in the States, when he returns I'd start procedings to take his kid. That's just plain assinine, endangering the life of the child. Aside from all his other weirdness, that ought to be enough to keep him away from children permanently.
Just goes to show that money and fame don't mean squat when it comes to having common sense or leading a happy life. Exhibit 1.
|it's not the same as whacking your kid||Starliner|
Nov 21, 2002 9:17 AM
|Michael is a bizarre guy for sure, and used poor judgement for sure, but the mother who whacked her child around did something far worse to her child's psyche than what he did to his kid.|
Nov 21, 2002 9:21 AM
|Actual harm, yes, the mother was worse; reckless risk of harm, Jackson. Her acts didn't appear to endanger the life of the child.|
|fear of heights||Starliner|
Nov 21, 2002 10:26 AM
|Maybe Michael's not afraid of heights, and didn't realize the fallout from his 'joke'. Maybe he unwittingly created a living metaphor of his own life - having achieved lofty heights, only to have come crashing down...
The mother wasn't joking; her abuse was real and intended. Much, much more dangerous.
Nov 21, 2002 9:11 AM
|Hes definately a total wierdo now...
I think they implanted a childs nose on him, and now hes outgrown it. Looks like a small pig nose, you can see right down the nostrils.
|Now hang on a minuite||Eager Beagle|
Nov 21, 2002 8:54 AM
|Not that I have anytime for MJ, but what's this all about?
Where exactly was the great danger in all this - 2 secs of hanging on to him over a rail? OK, not smart and I wouldn't do it, but I do think this must have been a quiet day for the press.
Are they suggesting that he was out to deliberately harm the kid? Doesn't seem so.
I think many people would say that putting a small kid in a seat on the back of your bike/in a trailer/101 other things is dangerous etc, but that doesn't get in the press.
Let's have a deep breath and ask what the press agenda here is?
|you gotta be kidding||trekkie1|
Nov 21, 2002 9:16 AM
|Hanging a child over a rail 4 stories up doesn't seem unnecessarily dangerous? This was with one arm around him. The child could have wiggled and fallen to his death. Further. this is absolutely no "good side" of doing this, as might be seen when riding with a child, etc. This was pure recklessness, more akin to throwing your kid on the back of a motorcycle and driving drunk.
No, he did not appear to be deliberately intending to harm the kid. The pure recklessness of the act does have to tell you something about his sick mind, though, doesn't it?
Finally, anyone see the extreme irony of this? He was in Berlin to be given an award for helping to raise money for children. If I were the organizers, I'd withdraw the award in a heartbeat. This is sort of like the president of MADD getting caught driving drunk.
|No I am not kidding.||Eager Beagle|
Nov 21, 2002 9:36 AM
|I already said it was not smart - read unessarily dangerous.
If you seriously think that this is akin to throwing your kid on the back of a motorcycle and driving drunk, then all I can say is that you have an intersing view of the two issues.
No it doesn't tell me a lot about his "sick mind" - I'm not a psychologist and cannot comment. I do however have some time for his explaination that it was a terrible mistake and he regrets it greatly. Doesn't sound that sick to me. There are lots of parents in the world who do a lot of worse things to their children. Everyone makes mistakes.
I still say that this is mostly press deciding to have a go on a quiet day.
What's your point - take the child into care on the back of this? That should really help the situation.
|Holy Freakin' Cow!||Matno|
Nov 21, 2002 12:06 PM
|People need to mind their own business. Michael Jackson may be a freak, but he didn't do anything that lots of perfectly normal people wouldn't do. Comparing this to child abuse is absurd. Children at that age are rarely afraid of heights, so there probably wasn't any "trauma" involved. The whole world needs to relax a little, especially when it comes to telling other people how to raise their kids.|
|Is your thinking cap out for repair?? That is a creepy paragraph||128|
Nov 21, 2002 12:52 PM
|Creepy? Looks like common sense to me...||Eager Beagle|
Nov 21, 2002 1:54 PM
|kindly enlighten us as to why that's creepy?|
Nov 25, 2002 9:08 AM
|OK, all of you non-parents, I'll explain it. If you never dangle your kid from a balcony you will never have to explain to you spouse why you dropped your kid off the balcony. If you never let the kid near the stove you never have to stop your wife in the hospital hallway and say something like, "maybe you should wait a few days before you see him". If you never leave your guns accesable you will never have to ask for leave from prison to attend your kids feuneral.
Get it? Endangerment means to put in danger. Endangerment is illegal because the consequences of small mistakes are too large to accept in an endangered situation. If your child slips from your grip in your living room, he may break an arm, but most likely will escape injury. That same slip while you are endangering him by dangling him off a balcony will result in consequences unacceptable by society, hence the illegality of the endangerment.
Is this too complicated? It's not about the harm he did to the kid, because he didn't harm him. It's about taking unacceptable risks with the life of a child. It's a crime, and it ought to be.
|Not that you were talking to me||Eager Beagle|
Nov 25, 2002 9:19 AM
|because I am a parent, but OK - you have convinced me.
So - lock up everyone with a kiddie seat on their bike - it's dangerous and not needed, trailers, ditto, putting kids in cars, ditto, those who let their kids ride bikes, ditto, those who let them play contact sports, ditto, and so on.
But ESPECIALLY, those parents who make mistakes - they are the worst, and ideally should be slaughtered in public, and their remains fed to decorative carp.
Let's just hope that the media can take up this selfless and worthy crusade with the same vigour as they did with Wacko Jacko...
|no one survives being born - nm||MJ|
Nov 25, 2002 9:43 AM
|Enlightenment? More like someone turned off your light...||Matno|
Nov 25, 2002 10:16 AM
|"Endangerment" as you put it is NOT a crime. It is not illegal. Don't know where you got that idea, but it's wrong. There is NO WAY that you could ever draw a definitive line between what is endangerment and what is an "acceptable risk." You may be concerned about what you perceive as "unacceptable risks." That's fine. Don't take those risks with YOUR children. Just don't turn to my tax dollars to pay for their therapy down the road. Overprotective parents are almost as bad as neglectful ones. (There are some things that children ought to be shielded from. "Danger in any form" is not one of them). People who try to be overprotective of other people's children ought to be locked up or shot. (That's an exaggeration of the penalty, don't take it personally, I just want to make sure you get my point). I am a firm believer in parental autonomy, a concept which our society seems to be leaving farther and farther behind. (e.g. the emergence of "children's rights" - a concept which is 99% garbage).|
|WRONG: endangerment IS a crime||trekkie1|
Nov 26, 2002 11:24 AM
|Every person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, [willfully inflicts unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering on a child,] [or] [willfully causes or, as a result of criminal negligence, permits a child to suffer unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering,] [or] [has care or custody of a child and
[a] [willfully causes or, as a result of criminal negligence, permits the child to be injured,] [or]
[b] [willfully causes, or, as a result of criminal negligence, permits the child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered,]]
is guilty of a violation of Penal Code section 273a, subdivision (a), a crime.
Now, that does not mean Jackson committed it, but there is a crime of child endangerment, but requiring a showing of "circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death." I don't know if hanging a kid off a 4 story balcony qualifies.
I did a Google search for "crime child endangerment" and this is what I got. There are hits for other states, too.
Dec 2, 2002 9:41 AM
|Notice that the law requires "willful causation" or criminal negligence. Good luck showing either of those under any circumstance that doesn't actually result in injury. Holding a child in your arms from a 4th story balcony certainly wouldn't satisfy that. Maybe holding a child by its hair...|
|I think you read the wrong paragraph.||Matno|
Nov 21, 2002 4:32 PM
|Mine was the one that focused on relaxing and using common sense.|
|Only in America could a poor black boy from Gary, Indiana||carnageasada|
Nov 21, 2002 5:02 PM
|grow up to be a rich white woman in Hollywood.|
|LOL! Reminds me of...||Matno|
Nov 21, 2002 8:51 PM
|A great Michael Jackson parody on "In Living Color" a few years back (The "Black or White" song). Hilarious. Anyone know where I can find a copy of it?|| |