Michael Jackson rushed to hospital

  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Jackson
In summary, Michael Jackson has been rushed to a Los Angeles-area hospital by fire department paramedics who found him not breathing when they arrived at the singer's home. According to TMZ, Jackson is in a coma and may have died as a result of an overdose or suicide attempt.
  • #71
RIP Michael, you were the best !

Dammit, another of my icons died !

sad sad sad !

marlon
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
A skinner box indeed, SA, or pied piper, attracting an endless string of syncophants financially supporting a self indulgent man in a mask who built a boy magnet on his property. And they look the other way or deny what they see.
 
  • #73
It is nice to know how you come to your opinions - media hype.

The fact is that we don't know what happened. The testimony of the child and mother were inconsistent and rejected by a jury. While I have no reason to defend Jackson, it is entirely reasonable to consider the possibility that he was a victim of his fame. His money clearly made him a target for fraudulent law suits.

Suppose he really was just a quirky guy who meant no harm. I know that many strange claims about Jackson have come out over the years that proved to be bogus.
 
Last edited:
  • #76
Ivan Seeking said:
The Sun is classic bs.

I'd say the Sun and TMZ were about the same level on the BS-ometer.
 
  • #77
Ivan Seeking said:
The fact is that we don't know what happened. The testimony of the child and mother were inconsistent and rejected by a jury. While I have no reason to defend Jackson, it is entirely reasonable to consider the possibility that he was a victim of his fame. His money clearly made him a target for fraudulent law suits.
Any adult who shares his/her bed with children (especially other peoples' children) shows a serious lack of judgement at the very least. Yes, Jackson got past a jury trial on a criminal charge, in which the standards of proof are quite high, but later paid over $15M to settle the civil suit. A huge settlement is not an admission of guilt, but it certainly is indicative of the defendant's perception of even greater risk should a civil jury find for the plaintiff.
 
  • #78
turbo-1 said:
Any adult who shares his/her bed with children (especially other peoples' children) shows a serious lack of judgement at the very least.

And he wouldn't be the first person to show a serious lack of good judgement. Note that he also hung his baby from a balcony. That was certainly a case of poor judgement, but he meant no harm.

Yes, Jackson got past a jury trial on a criminal charge, in which the standards of proof are quite high, but later paid over $15M to settle the civil suit.

That was from a previous allegation. But the law suits could well be explained by the first point [above] and the fact that he was rich - it made him an easy target. If he really was as strange as some say [and as strange as he appeared in his later years], who can really say whether it was poor judgement and quirky behavior, or something else?

Macaulay Culkin refused to hang Jackson when he had a chance to do so in court. In fact what he said was that nothing happened.

I have this odd habbit of assuming people to be innocent until proven guilty. The fact is that he was never convicted of anything in court. Trial by the National Enquirer just doesn't work for me.
 
Last edited:
  • #79
Ivan Seeking said:
I have this odd habbit of assuming people to be innocent until proven guilty.
So do I. My problems with MJ arise from patterns of behavior, not just isolated incidents or one-off complaints that might be shake-downs. I cannot imagine any other music star that would be tolerated by his fans for sharing his bed with pre-pubescent boys. He not only freely admitted these incidents, but made statements explaining that sharing his bed with them was the highest expression of love.

I have nothing but respect for Jackson's musical ability, going 'way back to the Jackson 5. I was disturbed by his relentless self-mutilation at the hands of plastic surgeons, and that did not speak well to his mental health, IMO. His obsession with young boys may or may not have been innocent, but it certainly was disturbing.

It would have been nice to see Jackson make his planned professional come-back. His appearances were overbooked and might have helped to relieve some of his massive debt.
 
  • #80
turbo-1 said:
His obsession with young boys may or may not have been innocent, but it certainly was disturbing.

Funny that your posts seem to hint towards you believing that MJ was guilty of such acts. Do you have some evidence that the prosecutors didn't present in the court case, or do you just think you are better placed than the jurors to make a decision?

It's a shame that we can't talk about the legacy of a great artist without someone having to drag up some speculation about a part of his past.
 
  • #81
turbo-1 said:
Any adult who shares his/her bed with children (especially other peoples' children) shows a serious lack of judgement at the very least.

You've never heard of little kids crawling into bed with their parents? When I visit my nephew, he'll climb into bed with me in the morning...I'm not going to push him onto the floor, even if he does squirm and kick. I could see an equally innocent explanation when you're essentially babysitting kids, and they wake up scared in unfamiliar surroundings and seek out an adult to comfort them.

And, I agree with Ivan that an equally plausible explanation is that people tried to exploit him thinking they could make a fortune out of it. Afterall, the same ploy is used in vicious custody battles to try to discredit one of the parents with false accusations of molestation.
 
  • #82
Ivan Seeking said:
It is nice to know how you come to your opinions - media hype.

Nonsense. On the other hand, you would suggest that Mr. Jackson managed to attract boys to his theme park, separated them from their parents, got them into his bed, and never closed the deal.

It would be hubris for a loving parent to ignore this sort of behavior in favor of a court ruling. I think we are still allowed in the United States to exercise rational judgement that conflicts with legal proclamations.

But I'm in the minority here, and I'm sure you'll win your case among such astute, and music loving jurists.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
Ivan Seeking said:
It is nice to know how you come to your opinions - media hype.

The fact is that we don't know what happened. The testimony of the child and mother were inconsistent and rejected by a jury. While I have no reason to defend Jackson, it is entirely reasonable to consider the possibility that he was a victim of his fame. His money clearly made him a target for fraudulent law suits.

Suppose he really was just a quirky guy who meant no harm. I know that many strange claims about Jackson have come out over the years that proved to be bogus.
Yes, the mother seemed crazy and off kilter which is what killed their case. If we can believe that maybe its easy to target Jackson because he is a strange nutcase then we can also believe that maybe its easy to blow off the accusations of a person because they are a strange nutcase. And we are left with a child who is potentially the victim of both an unrepentant pederast celebrity and a half crazed incompetent mother.
Its been a while now so I don't remember all the details of the case but I was hearing about it daily and was fairly convinced by what I heard.
He was exonerated and so I'm not going to burn him in effigy and call for people to take the law into their own hands (little late for that now I spose). But I just feel rather uneasy about what may have happened to that boy that he will have to live with for the rest of his life.

Moonbear said:
You've never heard of little kids crawling into bed with their parents? When I visit my nephew, he'll climb into bed with me in the morning...I'm not going to push him onto the floor, even if he does squirm and kick. I could see an equally innocent explanation when you're essentially babysitting kids, and they wake up scared in unfamiliar surroundings and seek out an adult to comfort them.

And, I agree with Ivan that an equally plausible explanation is that people tried to exploit him thinking they could make a fortune out of it. Afterall, the same ploy is used in vicious custody battles to try to discredit one of the parents with false accusations of molestation.
For parents to sleep in the same bed with their own child is not so strange. But someone who is not a parent? Its just not a good idea.
And why did it keep happening? Wouldn't a halfway intelligent and responsible individual have stopped having young boys sleep in their bed after the first time they were accused of impropriety? There are just too too many aspects of what happened that fit the profile of a pederast, inability to control ones "habits" being just one of them.
 
  • #86
Phrak said:
This is something every parent should read.

Profile of a Pedophile

I've had men flirt with me before. It was a bit uncomfortable but not really a big deal. I got to learn to some degree what it was like for a woman to have someone they are not attracted to hit on them. One time though in high school I was 'hit on' by an older man but he didn't just hit on me. He said he wanted to be my friend and gave me a flower he had picked as a present. He asked me to sit down and talk with him eventually asking me about masturbation. It was really really creepy and I bolted. Had I even been gay I would have been creeped out by that guy. I got the same 'vibe' off of Jackson that I got off of that guy. Of course a 'vibe' doesn't make one guilty but I think that was part of what pushed me toward feeling Jackson was guilty.
 
  • #87
TheStatutoryApe said:
I've had men flirt with me before. It was a bit uncomfortable but not really a big deal. I got to learn to some degree what it was like for a woman to have someone they are not attracted to hit on them. One time though in high school I was 'hit on' by an older man but he didn't just hit on me. He said he wanted to be my friend and gave me a flower he had picked as a present. He asked me to sit down and talk with him eventually asking me about masturbation. It was really really creepy and I bolted. Had I even been gay I would have been creeped out by that guy. I got the same 'vibe' off of Jackson that I got off of that guy. Of course a 'vibe' doesn't make one guilty but I think that was part of what pushed me toward feeling Jackson was guilty.

I get the creepy thing, though unfortunately children are too young too feel that something is wrong.

For a season I hitched the Pacific coast from Mexico to Canada. I ran into plenty of homosexuals crusing for young men, but very few women to the dismay of my hopping hormones.

You're right. The sexual drive of men, attracted to prepubescent boys, for instance, is the same as heterosexuals. The category of their desires is different. The profile of pedophilic behavior is the result of taking action to consummate their desires in the face of an overwhelming majority empowered to harm them for it. Yours truly, for instance, ranks among those who would harm them. Their alternative is sexual neurosis, which says nearly everything about Mr. Jackson's host of odd behaviors.
 
Last edited:
  • #88
About.com is not a suitable reference for just about anything, never mind as a psychological profile on such a controversial topic as this. If we are going to discuss Jackson's alleged acts of paedophilia then please ensure that all links are from reputable sources.
 
  • #89
TheStatutoryApe said:
Of course a 'vibe' doesn't make one guilty but I think that was part of what pushed me toward feeling Jackson was guilty.

Have you sat down and spoken with Michael Jackson and had an analogous discussion to the one with the older man you talk about? If not, then how are you qualified to judge whether a man is guilty or not?
 
  • #90
Phrak said:
Nonsense. On the other hand, you would suggest that Mr. Jackson managed to attract boys to his theme park, separated them from their parents, got them into his bed, and never closed the deal.

Actually, that is what the court said.

It would be hubris for a loving parent to ignore this sort of behavior in favor of a court ruling. I think we are still allowed in the United States to exercise rational judgement that conflicts with legal proclamations.

What does that have to do with anything here? We aren't talking about what a parent would do. Obviously any parent might have judged Jackson to be a potential threat. The point is that you think it is alright to proclaim a man guilty when he was never convicted of the crime. What's more, you wish to do it based on media hype, innuendo, and circumstantial evidence. Even the psychiatrist for the prosecution in the criminal case declared that Jackson was a repressed ten year old. His closest friends describe him in the same way. For example, Paul McCartney described Jackson as a man-boy. Also, Jackson clearly had many friends and family members who loved him. He is often described as an incredibly kind and loving soul; even by his ex-wife, now that's saying something! There is certainly a possibility that Jackson was psychologically damaged, strange, and quirky, but harmless.

But I'm in the minority here, and I'm sure you'll win your case among such astute, and music loving jurists.

I would hope to win the argument with all in favor of justice. We have courts for a reason. Trial by media has more in common with the Salem witch trials than it does justice.

As for winning favor with jurists, that already happened in court. And as I said, I've never owned a Jackson record or CD.
 
Last edited:
  • #91
Isn't it easy to sit in a chair and say whether someone is guilty is not? As far as I know, none of us was there. How can you then pretend to know the facts. Show a little respect, the man has just passed away.
 
  • #92
Phrak said:
You're right. The sexual drive of men, attracted to prepubescent boys, for instance, is the same as heterosexuals. The category of their desires is different. The profile of pedophilic behavior is the result of taking action to consummate their desires in the face of an overwhelming majority empowered to harm them for it. Yours truly, for instance, ranks among those who would harm them. Their alternative is sexual neurosis, which says nearly everything about Mr. Jackson's host of odd behaviors.
You are not qualified to make statements declaring what constitutes paedophilic behaviour, nor are you in a position to comment on the sexual drives or psychological state of anyone.
 
  • #93
Monique said:
Isn't it easy to sit in a chair and say whether someone is guilty is not? As far as I know, none of us was there. How can you then pretend to know the facts. Show a little respect, the man has just passed away.

Exactly! One thing I learned through my time with jury duty, particularly going through the jury selection for a murder trial, is that the media doesn't waste their time trying to provide a fair representation of the facts...they have deadlines to meet! Seriously. The reporters would pop in and out of the courtroom, stay for 10 min or a half hour, get a few bits of background information like who was in the courtroom representing each side, collect a few juicy quotes, and run off to meet their deadline to write up something about it.

The judge even commented on the media presence. He was reminding the potential juror pool not to read the newspaper or watch the news stories on the trial, and that they (the jurors) would be the only ones aside from him and the prosecution and defense who were in the courtroom the entire time to hear ALL of the evidence presented. I think his remarks were just as pointed at the press present at the time as a caution to the jurors, but he made it very clear that what was reported in the news was unlikely to be a fair representation of what was happening in the courtroom.
 
  • #94
A number of people here are operating on a severe misunderstanding of what a jury verdict means. A jury verdict of not guilty does not automatically* imply that the person charged did not commit the crime. What it means is that it couldn't be proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that s/he comitted the crime. What's the difference? Well in some cases, even when a person is guilty, there simply isn't enough evidence to prove what happened one way or another, so the jury must acquit. A not guilty verdict does not require proving someone is not guilty, only not being able to prove they were guilty.

This case seems like an obvious one where a conviction would be impossible, regardless of if he was guilty. The alleged crimes happened in his home and there wasn't any physical evidence of them, just the testimony of some witnesses that may or may not have been reliable.

The point is, you cannot conclude based on an acquittal, that a person did not commit the crime they were accused of**. That simply isn't what an acquittal means. That also means that people who would claim Jackson is not guilty are speculating just as much as people who claim that he was guilty. No one knows to a high degree of certainty either way, the evidence either way is just not strong enough.

*The best not guilty verdicts would be based on some positive evidence that precludes guilt, though, such as a solid alibi. In those case, you can consider the accused to be proven to be not guilty.

**This also tells us that the criminal verdict of not guilty for OJ and the civil verdict of liable are not mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
  • #95
cristo said:
Have you sat down and spoken with Michael Jackson and had an analogous discussion to the one with the older man you talk about? If not, then how are you qualified to judge whether a man is guilty or not?

Did you read the sentence you quoted?
Perhaps my grammar skills aren't really up to snuff but I'm pretty sure I said that it wasn't enough to find him guilty. And I believe I commented on a "feeling" of guilt, not that he was actually guilty.
No I have not sat with him and I doubt that sitting in the same room with him would change the impression of what I have seen of him in interview. I'm not talking about some psychic phenomenon here, just an appraisal of speech and mannerisms.

Monique said:
Isn't it easy to sit in a chair and say whether someone is guilty is not? As far as I know, none of us was there. How can you then pretend to know the facts. Show a little respect, the man has just passed away.
No one on the jury was there either.

I really don't care that he's just died. I'm not religious and I do not have much respect for the man himself to begin with. If any notorious figure were to die today from George W. Bush to Kobe Bryant I would not care if people felt the need to discuss their alleged crimes.
If it bothers you though then I will shut up.
 
  • #96
Hootenanny said:
You are not qualified to make statements declaring what constitutes paedophilic behaviour, nor are you in a position to comment on the sexual drives or psychological state of anyone.

Pray tell, how are you qualified to declair the qualifications of others?
 
  • #97
TheStatutoryApe said:
Did you read the sentence you quoted?

Erm.. yes.. the bit that read "I think that was part of what pushed me toward feeling Jackson was guilty."

Perhaps my grammar skills aren't really up to snuff but I'm pretty sure I said that it wasn't enough to find him guilty.

But you said you think he is guilty. Hence my question.
 
  • #98
Phrak said:
Pray tell, how are you qualified to declair the qualifications of others?
Perhaps I am not and I will more than happy to apologise if you are indeed a qualified psychologist, rather than say an engineering technician?
 
  • #99
So Jackson's personal physician disappeared from the hospital after Jackson was dropped off there. Apparently he even left his vehicle which was towed away by police. Both the hospital and police had been looking for him because he was supposedly present when Jackson died (whether that means in the room or just in his home I am unsure).

From what I am hearing generally he, as the personal physician, would have written up and signed off on the death certificate but he disappeared without doing so which is why his body was transported to the LA coroners office for an autopsy. This may have been done anyway but it is apparently the routine for persons who die where a death certificate is not drawn up by the attending physician.

Reportedly there are physicians logs that indicate Jackson received a dosage of demerol from his doctor only about an hour before the approximate time of death. This may in part be why his physician declined to draw up the death certificate himself, to allow someone else to determine the cause of death and head off any assertions that he conspired to cover up malpractice.

The last I just heard is that the physician has resurfaced after meeting with his lawyers.
I heard all of this on the radio so I don't have links but here is a recent story about the doctor...
http://www.etonline.com/news/2009/06/75836/



Oh and apparently Jackson used to live in Pahrump (probably part time) down the road from Art Bell. Art says that he never mentioned this before because he did not wish to infringe on Jackson's privacy.
 
  • #100
TheStatutoryApe said:
And why did it keep happening? Wouldn't a halfway intelligent and responsible individual have stopped having young boys sleep in their bed after the first time they were accused of impropriety?

Just a quick point, you ask why a person would continue to allow young boys into their bed after being accused of impropriety. Fair enough, I agree. But at the same time why were the parents allowing their children to go there? It's a two way thing.

Purely on that basis I would say they were looking for a reason to sue. Targetting him if you will.

But I don't know the facts and will take the not guilty stance as that is what the jury found when presented the evidence and it is unfair for me to pass any other judgement on media hype alone.
 
  • #101
jarednjames said:
Just a quick point, you ask why a person would continue to allow young boys into their bed after being accused of impropriety. Fair enough, I agree. But at the same time why were the parents allowing their children to go there? It's a two way thing.

Purely on that basis I would say they were looking for a reason to sue. Targetting him if you will.

But I don't know the facts and will take the not guilty stance as that is what the jury found when presented the evidence and it is unfair for me to pass any other judgement on media hype alone.

This was one of the ploys of the defense. The parents aren't the alleged victims, its not a two way thing.
 
  • #102
TheStatutoryApe said:
This was one of the ploys of the defense. The parents aren't the alleged victims, its not a two way thing.

No, but for you to say that he kept allowing it AFTER being accused of such things is completely his fault and it not being the parents responsibility is incorrect.

Are you saying that if your child wanted to visit someone who you've never met, but know he's been accused of molestation, you would say 'carry on it's up to him to stop allowing kids in his bed'?
No, you wouldn't say that (at least I hope you wouldn't). He was accused and yes he should have stopped it, but for the parents to continue to allow it shows a serious failing on their part as they clearly judged him capable of taking care of their child, a judgement made whilts KNOWING the accusations against him.
No, you cannot blame them if he did anything, but for them to allow their child to go into his care, if there was any doubt as to his mental state is their responsibility. At the end of the day, the call is made by the parents to allow their child to visit him. If there was any doubt in their mind, they shouldn't have sent them, unless of course they had an alterea motive.

Again, this isn't me defending him or attacking him.
 
  • #103
jarednjames said:
No, but for you to say that he kept allowing it AFTER being accused of such things is completely his fault and it not being the parents responsibility is incorrect.

Are you saying that if your child wanted to visit someone who you've never met, but know he's been accused of molestation, you would say 'carry on it's up to him to stop allowing kids in his bed'?
No, you wouldn't say that (at least I hope you wouldn't). He was accused and yes he should have stopped it, but for the parents to continue to allow it shows a serious failing on their part as they clearly judged him capable of taking care of their child, a judgement made whilts KNOWING the accusations against him.
No, you cannot blame them if he did anything, but for them to allow their child to go into his care, if there was any doubt as to his mental state is their responsibility. At the end of the day, the call is made by the parents to allow their child to visit him. If there was any doubt in their mind, they shouldn't have sent them, unless of course they had an alterea motive.

Again, this isn't me defending him or attacking him.

Again, they were not the alleged victims. I do not care if they dressed him up pretty, sparyed cologne on his cash and prizes, then tucked them in together themselves. The only difference that makes is that the child is now perhaps the alleged victim of both Jackson and his parents. By your estimation both the parents and Jackson have not done what they ought have but this in no way detracts from the responsibility of anyone for the crime that may have occurred involving the actual alleged victim, the child.
 
  • #104
The parents were certainly stupid and wrong, but that doesn't make it not a crime if MJ really did molest those kids. That just puts them under fire from the legal system with him.
 
  • #105
TheStatutoryApe said:
Again, they were not the alleged victims. I do not care if they dressed him up pretty, sparyed cologne on his cash and prizes, then tucked them in together themselves. The only difference that makes is that the child is now perhaps the alleged victim of both Jackson and his parents. By your estimation both the parents and Jackson have not done what they ought have but this in no way detracts from the responsibility of anyone for the crime that may have occurred involving the actual alleged victim, the child.

Did I say it takes the blame off him? Did I say he is innocent on that basis?

I refer you to my last post:
jarednjames said:
Again, this isn't me defending him or attacking him.

I was simply trying to make the point that your statement regarding him being at fault, without mentioning the parents, is wrong. So as long as there were allegations flying round, the fact the parents let their child go into his care, puts some blame on them. They should be checked out (perhaps not as much as MJ), but certainly in some way, as they then put the child at risk (especially if they did what you describe above they should be just as much to blame for endangering the child). They are both responsible in some way.
 

Similar threads

Carrie Fisher, Actress of Princess Leia, Dies at 60
Replies
14
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top