Did MJ's death make you think about . . .

[toef]

Originally Posted by JimShaw

No it was not in the city's best interest. If they do not get funded by the family, the city will lose close to 4 million dollars. If you live in LA, that is you. I hope you enjoyed it.

The city did not "chose" to lock down the city, they had to because of the possible dangers that could have risen.

It was the family that decided to go public with the funeral and not keep it low key. They owe the city.



.

That seems like a bit of a contradiction.

The city will not "lose" $4 million. For one thing, they'll bring in some money from tax revenues that otherwise wouldn't have existed (thanks to hotels, food and whatever else people spend their money on while they're there). And aside from that, the money came out of an emergency fund, so you can consider it a sunk cost.

I don't blame the family, because they're entitled to do whatever they want, and did what they thought was best.

What would've happened if the city didn't provide any security? If people were injured, or property was destroyed? Then people would be complaining about the lack of a police presence, and wondering where their tax money was going. If there's anyone to blame, blame the city for making the security a bit excessive. They had more police on duty yesterday for the memorial than for the Olympics back in 1984. And was the SWAT team really necessary?

[toef]

Turns out the memorial only cost LA $1.8 million. Still quite a bit, but not nearly the $3.8 number that the mayor was throwing around.

So far they've received $17,000 in donations, so it should be paid off in no time.

[Damage Inc.]

I thought these ridiculous comments would stop by now.

You know, I might seem like some "hardcore fan", one of those like "Oh, I love everything he does! MICHAEEEL!".
But I'm not, I will always be honest about his or any person's work or actions.

Still I say, they dragged the poor guy into all this crap.

Why do you think he paid those millions?
Of course so they'd be quiet,
but he just wanted to give them what they wanted so they'd stop wrongfully accusing him.
It WAS like a robbery, they held a gun against his head, being the accusation.
And it's like "Give the money or we'll pull the trigger.", meaning killing off his innocence even though he was.
Some people are just dirty and manipulative like that, they'll exploit any way they can.
Wouldn't you throw your wallet if they'd threaten to ruin your life?

You also have to know that there was this one and the same guy after him.
He just had something against 'Michael Jackson' for no reason.
Well yeah, money... perhaps he was a racist too, you never know.


In the end, sure he'd sometimes sleep with children in his bed.
Sure, that's a little weird, especially suspicious only because of who he is.
But he cared too much to do anything wrong to anyone, especially children.
Also note, that at the time he was around children, he'd feel like one of them.
Of course he took responsibility when needed, but it was just a childish sleepover to him.
Just having a laugh.

However, the children would always come over and sleep there IF parents allowed.
Often he'd also sleep on the floor to let children sleep in his bed by themselves.
Besides that, did you see the size of some of his beds?!

He'd just let people stay over, he was sweet, he'd give them a carefree vacation.
And he would also not be alone and he'd play with them.
At night tell them stories and feed them cookies (lol, probably the worst thing he did)
and during day he'd run around the ranch with them.
He was a good person, a good father, very shy being himself and especially careful.


So don't make stupid childish accusing and insulting jokes about them.
What's the use?
You can make friendly jokes about him, there's no need to stamp someone into the ground.
He's pretty much there now OK, and it's enough...

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by toefer

The city will not "lose" $4 million. For one thing, they'll bring in some money from tax revenues that otherwise wouldn't have existed (thanks to hotels, food and whatever else people spend their money on while they're there). And aside from that, the money came out of an emergency fund, so you can consider it a sunk cost.

They will lose every dime they spent on it. Taxes are not collected for individual events. They are collected for overall support.

People eat and sleep wherever they are, and they don't necessarily sleep or eat in the same city the event is held in, either. The only guaranteed way to recoup the cost would have been for the City itself to charge for the event. That didn't happen.

Originally Posted by toefer

I don't blame the family, because they're entitled to do whatever they want, and did what they thought was best.

Actually, they weren't entitled to do anything they wanted; for example, they'd have to get permission to have a parade.

Originally Posted by toefer

What would've happened if the city didn't provide any security?

Nothing, if members of the general public, the news media, and the local thugs that disrupt events, agreed that the family could do whatever they wanted. But this usually isn't the case. This funeral was a disruption to many folks who didn't have the slightest interest in what the family wanted, and didn't want anything to do with it. However, all of those people now are stuck with the bill. And so it goes.

Originally Posted by toefer

If people were injured, or property was destroyed? Then people would be complaining about the lack of a police presence, and wondering where their tax money was going.

Such questions should be addressed a) to the people doing the destroying and injuring; and b)plenty of people were interested in the lack of police presence in places nowhere near the funeral, where it was also needed.

I'd like for my tax money to be used to protect the entire city, and let the family foot the bill for the security for their own mass events. It only makes sense. If I don't ask for the party, and I don't get a ticket, I can't see why I get stuck with the bill for cleaning up the mess.

Originally Posted by toefer

If there's anyone to blame, blame the city for making the security a bit excessive. They had more police on duty yesterday for the memorial than for the Olympics back in 1984. And was the SWAT team really necessary?

I don't know where you got that "more police on duty" thing, but I lived in Los Angeles during the 1984 Olympics, and you are way off base.

And yes, any time you have that many "celebrities", masses of people, and the possibility or mass violence such as the riot that broke out after the Laker victory last month, the riot teams need to be on site.

I guess you're not familiar with big city crowds at events like this.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

In the end, sure he'd sometimes sleep with children in his bed.
Sure, that's a little weird, especially suspicious only because of who he is.
But he cared too much to do anything wrong to anyone, especially children.
Also note, that at the time he was around children, he'd feel like one of them.
Of course he took responsibility when needed, but it was just a childish sleepover to him.
Just having a laugh.

It destroyed his legacy, despite all the recent attempts to gloss it over.

After all the chest-pounding and hair-rending is done, over the course of the next couple of days, you'll see the cautious re-emergence of the Questions About Jackson.

All that talk about postage stamps and so on will quickly fade away.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Purplegrasshopper

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

Ask OJ.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Purplegrasshopper

I personally don't care about the "public's perception." If he was not convicted in a court of law, he's not guilty. End of story.

I don't think anyone, at this point, is worried about Jackson going to jail. He spent his last years destroying the rest of his own life.

Not Guilty is not the same as Innocent, as I think you know.

This hagiography will rapidly fade. You are entitled to your opinion or regard for Jackson; it is not shared by most people, despite the impression touted recently.

I saw the "horde" in front of the hospital that day. Perhaps 300 people.

There was no horde at the funeral, either. Perhaps 2,000 showed up without tickets, at the barriers.

It's over. He's dead. There will be no statues, no stamps, no holidays, for a man who delighted in sleeping with young boys; it just doesn't work that way.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

People eat and sleep wherever they are, and they don't necessarily sleep or eat in the same city the event is held in, either.

Or...they don't. Did you see the interview of that wonderful contributer to society who said she has no money for gas to get home, no money for food or for a place to stay, but by-God she drove unpteem hours straight to be able to attend the memorial?

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by JimShaw

Once again, all the above is just my opinion but:

I would rather see us honor the men and women that have lost their lives keeping us safe than shut down a freeway for a funeral procession because someone is famous.

I know I don't know but my guess is that no one but the families know that names of the those who lost their lives in military action the same day MJ died. That is a shame. They should be the headlines.

Perfectly expressed; I agree, 100%.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by toefer

I don't want to be a Jackson apologist, but I think it's safe to say he helped more kids than he hurt (if he even hurt any). So maybe the real question is how many kids won't be helped now, now that he died?

If you ever get the chance, read "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" by Ursule K. LeGuin.

It's a very short story, only three or four pages.

But to make the story even shorter: How many children would agree must be hurt, to benefit any number of other children?

I can't do the math. Perhaps it is easier for others.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Diesel

And what sound evidence do you have that he actually hurt those children?

What risk would you take with any child, handing them over to a man like that?

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Or...they don't. Did you see the interview of that wonderful contributer to society who said she has no money for gas to get home, no money for food or for a place to stay, but by-God she drove unpteem hours straight to be able to attend the memorial?

That's who usually shows up at the shirt-rending type of functions.

Well, at least she got on camera, which was the most important thing.

[Blu-Raider]

MJ hasn't been relevant in 20 years.

I will be thrillered when this ridiculous circus dies down.

jmo.

[Grumpz]

I just want to know how people can defend MJ, and and offer up the "innocent until proven guilty" attitude?

If either of my children could (I must remain vague) describe certain abnormalities of a specific body part of any grown man but me...THERE'S A MASSIVE PROBLEM!

If your kids could do the same, what could you possibly think the reason would be?

[toef]

Originally Posted by Grumpz

I just want to know how people can defend MJ, and and offer up the "innocent until proven guilty" attitude?

If either of my children could (I must remain vague) describe certain abnormalities of a specific body part of any grown man but me...THERE'S A MASSIVE PROBLEM!

If your kids could do the same, what could you possibly think the reason would be?

That's the problem... who said the kid was telling the truth, or even came up with it on his own? One argument is that it was actually the kid's dad (or step-dad) who fed him all that info, to tell police. According to police reports, the kid's descriptions ended up being inconclusive. Some seemed right, some seemed wrong.

If my kid was molested, I wouldn't settle out of court either. I'd be pretty adamant about taking the guy to trial.

[Damage Inc.]

It's just sad it has to go down this path once again, the allegations.

To just stick to the topic, I guess it's clear how people think today.
Most here aren't that into him in any way
and pretty much know him just from hearing stuff in the news and such.
People that have followed him longer are pretty much shocked and sad about it.
Because many liked him as an artist AND a person.
And of course many other varying thoughts about him.

I'm just sick of both the standard "Oh I love everything he did!"
and the "He's a perverted criminal and you know it!".
I don't like either extremes, but I think we could and should generally agree he was a good person.
There has been more research on his accusations than the time it took to get a case against him.
They couldn't find anything, so why do they insist on finding him guilty of anything?
It's such a joke, it's like "We'll put him away one way or another, if you like it or not.".
It's plain harassment and childishly picking on someone you don't like the looks of
or does something unconventional but not wrong.

[Marcusarilius]

Originally Posted by franklinpross

Now that were into a few days after Michael's passing, what is creeping into your consciousness. His sad, perplexing existance? Or his Music and Magic
on stage, on discs, and on videos.

Wait till we find out the toxicology results. Like Liza said, . ." all hell will break lose" . . .

I guess its no surprise in some respects. Extreme artists/talent is usually there because of the individual persona really IS that different from the average John Q Public.
Its difficult to get all of those personal interviews from him about sleeping on a big bed with "other" children. Its difficult to get that image of him dangling his toddler off a balcony.
unfortunantly for me, I really am more conscience of his lunatic antics than his awesome library of music at this time, but In the end, I believe its his music that will be his true epitath.

[Grumpz]

Originally Posted by toefer

That's the problem... who said the kid was telling the truth, or even came up with it on his own? One argument is that it was actually the kid's dad (or step-dad) who fed him all that info, to tell police. According to police reports, the kid's descriptions ended up being inconclusive. Some seemed right, some seemed wrong.

If my kid was molested, I wouldn't settle out of court either. I'd be pretty adamant about taking the guy to trial.

How about because the kid was even partially correct? How would his father get the specifics to feed his kid?

I believe the child knew he had some sort of patch? Was it a lucky guess?

I also see a more logical but opposite side of this statement. I'd rather spend 22 million proving my innocence, than paying 22 million to make a lawsuit go away.

There's also rather large group of people in the NFL thread that would rather see Dante Stalworth serve 30 days in jail but pay 4.5 million to there family, if he had killed a family member of there own, instead of going to trial.

I don't agree but how much councilling does 22 million buy?

All speculation aside, MJ himself stated that it's ''natural/normal to have boys sleep in his bed with him."

That's all 99.9% of the parents on the planet need to realize the guy had major issues.

[Another_Dude]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

In the end, sure he'd sometimes sleep with children in his bed.
Sure, that's a little weird, especially suspicious only because of who he is.
But he cared too much to do anything wrong to anyone, especially children.
Also note, that at the time he was around children, he'd feel like one of them.
Of course he took responsibility when needed, but it was just a childish sleepover to him.
Just having a laugh.

Please stop.

This behavior is not "a little weird", its what a child molestor with money does. I would suggest you read the 4 pages of sworn testimony from one of the victims so you have a better idea of what happened on these sleepovers when Michael was "just having a laugh".

[Chordata]

Sleeping with little boys is indefensible. No two ways around that.