Michael Jackson is he or isnt he ???

#21
Phil306 said:
knowing California law and juries, he will walk.
Not sure what California law has to do with it, as we have pretty much the same sex offender statutes and registry mandates as other states. And like in any other state in America, the guy that can afford the best attorney usually wins the case. :?

The jury problem I can definitely buy, though. All of the smart people here are too busy trying to find ways out of jury duty to actually serve (usually because they have jobs to go to!).
 
#22
Sarge wrote...

"Yes but it doesn't matter if you famous as long as you have the money you can do what the fcuk you like. just remember one thing, OJ Simpson did that in the late nineteys and now look at him, sitting on piles of cash and not in jail!!!"

Actual OJ is virtually broke, he was successfully sued in the civil court by his late-wife's family, and he's virtually ostaracised in Hollywood. Restaurants won't take bookings from him because if he walks in, other diners have a habit of getting up and leaving. He may not be in jail, but he's not a free-man.
 
#23
My 4 year old son sometimes sneaks in my bed in the mornings, nothing wrong with that. Wacko felt it was okay to sleep with kids that were not his own by his own self admission. He called it friendship. There is something wrong with that. I mean, imagine your kid comes home from a sleepover and says he/she slept with their friends Dad after they all had pizza watching tele. GUILTY and I wish I was on the jury.
 
#24
Maj_Boothroyd said:
Sarge wrote...

"Yes but it doesn't matter if you famous as long as you have the money you can do what the fcuk you like. just remember one thing, OJ Simpson did that in the late nineteys and now look at him, sitting on piles of cash and not in jail!!!"

Actual OJ is virtually broke, he was successfully sued in the civil court by his late-wife's family, and he's virtually ostaracised in Hollywood. Restaurants won't take bookings from him because if he walks in, other diners have a habit of getting up and leaving. He may not be in jail, but he's not a free-man.
My apologies and i stand corrected for my lack of current info.

Respec.
 
#25
watertight said:
My 4 year old son sometimes sneaks in my bed in the mornings, nothing wrong with that. Wacko felt it was okay to sleep with kids that were not his own by his own self admission. He called it friendship. There is something wrong with that. I mean, imagine your kid comes home from a sleepover and says he/she slept with their friends Dad after they all had pizza watching tele. GUILTY and I wish I was on the jury.
But your son SNEAKING INTO your bed is not illegal as far as i am aware, however TAKING a child (especially if it is not your own) into your bed is a no no.
 
#26
Sarge said:
watertight said:
My 4 year old son sometimes sneaks in my bed in the mornings, nothing wrong with that. Wacko felt it was okay to sleep with kids that were not his own by his own self admission. He called it friendship. There is something wrong with that. I mean, imagine your kid comes home from a sleepover and says he/she slept with their friends Dad after they all had pizza watching tele. GUILTY and I wish I was on the jury.
But your son SNEAKING INTO your bed is not illegal as far as i am aware, however TAKING a child (especially if it is not your own) into your bed is a no no.
According to his whole post, he was agreeing with you!
 
#27
On the point of Californian law, do they have a double jeopardy clause against getting tried for the same crime twice?
 
#28
It's interesting that Californian law is *very* intense on the subject of alcohol. You are absolutely, positively, not allowed to give alcohol to a minor - which in this case seems to be anyone under 21. Apparently it's 4 years in jail with no chance of parole. Which raises the interesting point that at the age of 18 in Cali you are allowed to own a gun, drive a car, have sex, get married (not always in that order with regard to those last two), join the military, fight, kill and die for your country...but a swift half of beer? Oooh no, can't let you have that.
 
#29
Juvenal said:
It's interesting that Californian law is *very* intense on the subject of alcohol. You are absolutely, positively, not allowed to give alcohol to a minor - which in this case seems to be anyone under 21. Apparently it's 4 years in jail with no chance of parole. Which raises the interesting point that at the age of 18 in Cali you are allowed to own a gun, drive a car, have sex, get married (not always in that order with regard to those last two), join the military, fight, kill and die for your country...but a swift half of beer? Oooh no, can't let you have that.
California proves quite nicely that a Nazi is a Liberal who's had his car nicked. Go to Nevada instead, it's next door and the locals are friendly.
 
#30
One_of_the_strange said:
Juvenal said:
It's interesting that Californian law is *very* intense on the subject of alcohol. You are absolutely, positively, not allowed to give alcohol to a minor - which in this case seems to be anyone under 21. Apparently it's 4 years in jail with no chance of parole. Which raises the interesting point that at the age of 18 in Cali you are allowed to own a gun, drive a car, have sex, get married (not always in that order with regard to those last two), join the military, fight, kill and die for your country...but a swift half of beer? Oooh no, can't let you have that.
California proves quite nicely that a Nazi is a Liberal who's had his car nicked. Go to Nevada instead, it's next door and the locals are friendly.
Smoking,Drinking,Gambling and Gun Ownership are compulsory in Nevada and the locals really are much more friendly than the Nazi Californians :lol:
 
#31
"Not sure what California law has to do with it..."

Laws are different from state to state. What constitutes a felony in California, can be a misdemeanor in Alambama, and vice versa.

What most states DON'T have, which California does, is an abundance of liberals. Remember, liberals, at least here, are most likily to acquit someone and look for the "good" in them.

There is a reason California is referred to as the state of "fruits and nuts."
 
#32
"On the point of Californian law, do they have a double jeopardy clause against getting tried for the same crime twice?"

Well, that depends upon exactly what you mean. Generally, yes. The US Constitution bans double jeopardy. However, there are exceptions.

Take the Rodney King incident. Those officers were tried in state court for assault with a deadly weapon. They were acquited. However, the federal government tried them for violation of civil rights and convicted them. So, there are ways around it.

Also, you can be tried in state and/or federal court, and as a military person, be tried by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), no matter what the outcome of the local trial. So, you can be found guilty, of lets say drunk driving in state court. Then be tried by the military for the samething, however usually something like AWOL is used, and be convicted again.
 
#33
"It's interesting that Californian law is *very* intense on the subject of alcohol. You are absolutely, positively, not allowed to give alcohol to a minor - which in this case seems to be anyone under 21. Apparently it's 4 years in jail with no chance of parole."

Actually, your quite wrong. Providing alcohol to a minor is a misdemeanor, under the Business and Professions Code. Meaning, the MAXIMUM penalty you can receive is a $1,000 fine and a year in county jail. However, that never occurs. Usually its a $250 fine and that is it. Unless your a multiple, repeat offender.
 
#34
My apologies, a quick recheck of the sources and it seems they took the maximum of 4 1 year sentences and assumed he'd serve them consecutively - hence the 4 years. But the 21 year limit is still pretty idiotic. 18 (same age as is required for most of my list above) would make far more sense.
 

Similar threads

Top