Do you care about the MJ verdict?

[uppityperson]

Poll question: Do you care about the MJ verdict?

feel free to kick to keep going

Edited to add: it should have read "Do you care about media coverage of the MJ verdict" but I won't change it now because that would totally screw up anyones vote.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Michael Who?

[kris10ep]

3. There are entirely too many

posts regarding this crap.

[Tripper11]

2. As loud as I can...NO!!!!!!

That will be all...

[htuttle]

4. I don't give a rat's ass!

And a rat's ass is very, very small.

See? --> *

[seabeyond]

5. man clicked no then saw the hell no. take one off no

and add on to hell no, lol lol

[izzie]

6. Not really but I have thought it was about him being odd

--

[smartvoter]

7. Hmmm. Not caring about justice, or injustice. To each his own. nt

[Bluebear]

8. Very "progressive", no?

[smartvoter]

9. LOL. nt

[uppityperson]

11. Not caring about the frenzy associated with 1 person's trial

Caring about all the rest of those at trial who aren't getting coverage, caring about working towards being able to continue to get trials. Caring about justice overall, not focusing on this 1 particular person.

I care about each person killed in a car accident, every day. I care about masses killed in a mass attack like OK city bombing. I care about justice for all, just not focusing in on it regarding 1 person.

[smartvoter]

13. I care about all those too. I don't pick and choose based on fame. nt

[uppityperson]

14. I meant "do you care about the media frenzy about MJ verdict"

the coverage is what I don't care about. thanks for helping me clear that up.

[smartvoter]

15. Okay. On this I agree. It's been waaaayyyy overplayed, even though

they banned cameras from the courts.

I think this is why we have opinions on it, ironically. We know the details because you can't watch or listen to news without hearing them.

[LandOLincoln]

16. Justice or injustice? That's the only reason

I do care, because from what little I saw of the trial--as I was scrambling to find the remote so I could change the channel--it was obvious that the prosecution was not making its case "beyond a reasonble doubt," which of course is the standard in criminal cases, and would have been one of the instructions to the jury before they began deliberations.

That was certainly the case the one time I served on a jury, 25-30 years ago in L.A. It was a relatively minor crime--a fellow was accused of stealing an old couples' car while they were at a gas station (neither was actually in or even near the car at the time).

We all knew the guy was guilty as hell--his defense was REALLY lame--but the prosecution was even lamer, didn't even come close to meeting the standard, and so our vote was a unanimous "not guilty." In this case I'm not sure justice was served (certainly the old couple didn't think so) but even they understood and accepted when we explained to them why we'd voted the way we did.

I suspect it was the same with the MJ jury, except in this case justice was definitely served IMO. Jackson is pretty obviously guilty as charged, but the plaintiffs are known grifters, none of the molested boys appears to have been forced, and what good could possibly come from locking up that sad, strange creature who used to be Michael Jackson? He needs therapy, not prison. Besides, I should think his financial and professional ruin would be enough punishment to satisfy any prosecutor.

Nancy Graceless excepted, of course...

(edit for typo)

[Montauk6]

10. I voted an honest "Yes"

And I find it fascinating that so many posts on this very topic come from people who claim not to care one whit about the case.

Hey, I'm just sayin'...

[tibbir]

12. It makes me sick to see what passes as news these days.