Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim65
Stop trying to play the victim. I've served Jury Duty too. Juries get verdicts wrong all the time, OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, Casey Anthony, etc. Not too mention the many verdicts that have been overturned using DNA. I mean it 100% that I don't trust juries, especially in celebrity trials, which this absolutely was.
I didn't answer your question because it was irrelevant to anthing. What would I do? Who cares? It just sounds like you're making excuses why Jackson lied.
You say "Comiskey tells him to keep the money and shut up" and when I ask you where the quote came from, you get in a huff.
You say "I never said he wasn't guilty to some extent" a person is either guilty or not, he can't be a little guilty.
This is exactly why I said I didn't want to debate Joe Jackson fans.
|
I said to not bother responding, but of course you couldn't understand and pay attention to that request either.
And the only one playing the victim seems to be you.
And of course, even though you weren't in the courtrooms to hear and see all of the testimony and evidence in each of those cases you referenced, you know as an incontrovertible fact those juries were all wrong. I am just floored when I hear of someone in today's world that has the audacity and gall to think they know more than an actual jury that is presented with all the pertinent facts and testimony, when all they really know is what they most likely read in the paper or saw on the news. You have shown an almost complete, if not total, lack of comprehension of any of the points I was trying to get across to you.
What you have demonstrated is a bigoted and biased attitude, and what appears to be an almost complete lack of any open mindedness, whatsoever. Quite frankly, those qualities would make someone the absolute worst candidate for ever being a jurist, ever! You seem to go by only your own pre-formed opinions, based on whatever information suits your needs and thinking, and totally disregard and discard any fact, evidence, or other factors that do not totally support your pre-formed opinions. You apparently only want to look at things as either black or white, but the world doesn't exist that way and instead has an infinite number of gray shades representing where most things in our lives actually exist, somewhere between the extremes.
As I said in my earlier post, and repeat it again, the fact that you completely disregarded my initial request to try putting yourself in Jackson's place told me everything I needed to know about how were, and that it was a total waste of my time to ever hope to have an intelligent conversation about Jackson's situation with you. And thank you for this subsequent response in your latest post explaining you didn't deign me worthy of an answer because YOU deemed the question irrelevant. Your response completely and overwhelmingly confirmed and validated my initial thinking and opinion of you. The circumstances and unusual occurrences in this case were unique to Jackson alone. And therefore, these unique positions and circumstances are the ONLY relevant things in looking at my reason for engaging with you to begin with, how Jackson's case should maybe have been viewed differently than those of the others, and possibly lead to some different, maybe lesser, degree of punishment.
Your refusal to respond shows you just believe what you want. You don't want to ever debate Jackson fans, because you've already decided you're always right and they're always wrong. There's an old saying about how when someone complains about everyone else (in this case Jackson fans) always not liking and agreeing with them, maybe they need to go look in the mirror because the problem after all isn't them, it's you!!!
Once more, don't bother responding, I've wasted way more time on this than you deserve, I'm just ignoring you from now on. Do yourself a favor though, and go look up the actual rule that was in place, including the prescribed punishment of instant and permanent banishment from MLB, at the time of Jackson's alleged transgression. I only refer to it as alleged because he technically was never found guilty of breaking any actual law. And the rule put in place by MLB a couple years later doesn't count, because you're not supposed to be able to be retroactively charged with something there was no law/rule on the books for at the time something originally occurred, at least not in today's thinking.