(AFP Photo) What is that about? I guess it doesn’t matter. No one really cares…right? It’s odd. Just like the pasty-face Michael Jackson. According to the AFP:
“The 12-member panel ranged in age from a 20-year-old man to a 79-year-old widow….There were no African Americans. The jury was described as being formed by eight non-Hispanic whites, three Hispanics and one Asian.”
Ha! This is the jury O.J. Simpson should’ve had. Instead of playing golf and searching for the “real killer,” he’d be pushing up daisies right now.
By the way, did I tell you that I detest the term “African American?”
Who’s talking about Michael Jackson: Wizbang, who links to Jackson’s secret Grand Jury testimony…
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 38 comments }
La Shawn,
All I can say is…L-O-L
Your MJ commentary is PRICELESS.
Nah LB,
You never told me you detest the term “African American”
LOL
I didn’t want any misunderstandings.
Slightly off topic, but does deal with Michael. I was listening to the radio this morning and they were talking about how there was a 7 hour marathon of Michael Jackson videos on Sunday. I think it was on BET. Anyway, neither of the two guys even knew about it; just the girl. One of the guys asked her if they showed them in chronological order. She said no, and it would have been real confusing for kids asking “Who’s that black guy?” And on that note, I remember about a year ago my kids saw my Thriller CD and said “THAT’S Michael Jackson?!”
One of my friends from high school always hated the term “African American” too. Her attitude was “Call me black.”
So to finally commment on the subject, I don’t know why they are so concerned about having “African American” jurors. It’s not like Michael is black anymore. Or white. Whether or not he’s guilty of the charges, he’s still a freak. It’s hard to really narrow down when it started. Was it after Thriller, Bad, or Dangerous?
Dragonlady, I guess MJ got his jury of like-skinned peers
So if he is found guilty, people should remember, like he always said, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white.
Concerning the racial composition of the jury, I think this MSNBC online commentary by Jon Bonné gets at the salient issues.
Oops! Let me give the URL:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7019430
Abrams on MSNBC was talking about this and his take is that there were no blacks on the jury because Jackson chose to live in a predominantly white area. Geoffrey Fieger even said that it is crazy for Jackson to claim he is not being tried by a jury of his peers since he “makes himself up like a white woman.”
I read that the jury “reflects the local population of the area”, in which only 2% of residents are black. Still, controversial nonetheless.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/10975517.htm?1c
In a case like this where a celebrity is on trial who is considered a ‘Peer’, of equal stature ? It would seem to me that the prosecution is giving the defense plenty of cause for appeal.
Even if the jury was all black would the 12 members be considered peers of Michael Jackson, and by what criteria are they judged to be peers.
Being on a jury is not my favorite thing, you have to report everyday, and unless picked it is a 3 week period where your time is owned by the local government. If picked you are there for the duration be it another 3 weeks or however long the trial takes.
On high profile cases like this one and the Scott Peterson trial those jurors were there for 6 months or more and that is six months where your time is not your own.
From what I have seen as far as OUR system works it works pretty darn well. I sat on two juries one recently and the weed out process, the pre-emptory process is a way for each side to get the type of jury they want. The jurors I served with all knew what was at stake and I believe tried to be impartial as could be and tried to make a judgement as to what evidence was presented.
Whether Michael Jackson is found guilty or not only the jurors will hear all of the evidence and decide whether he is or not. And generally they do a good job and follow the instructions and the evidence as prescribed.
The biasness in the press depending how they lean, will be presented that way to sway public opinion. This swaying of public opinion is what helps I think the appeal process, although it should not.
And having NO Blacks serve on this jury I think is a mistake on the part of the prosecution and maybe by design by the Defense.
only time will tell:
mark
Why aren’t you complaining about how truly horrible the Bush tax cuts for the rich are? When they get our tax money we are suffering for the sake of the rich? Come on! His tax cuts for the rich come out of the taxes paid by us – the regular 98% who aren’t rich. The rich get our tax dollars because they – PAY big bucks to get Bush elected and they spend big bucks to spread lies about decent people who want to stop Bush and his lying advisors. Stop the Jackson coverage and start focusing on the really BIG PROBLEMS like tax theft from the lower 98% of taxpayers going to the rich.
Mike you look at things backwards. The rich don’t “get our tax money” as you wrote. They pay gobs of money to the federal government and the Bush tax cut lessened the gobs by 3%.
We are sorry that you listen to people and read writings from people that have programmed your brain backwards but that doesn’t mean that we should think like you do and rant like you do about a non-issue.
In fact. You look at it so backwards that you don’t realize that the ECONOMY has recovered from the recession very well because of the tax break for ALL taxpayers.
Economics 101 shows that when the people are allowed to keep more of their money instead of paying it to the federal government that they have more disposable income to spend.
When people have more income to spend that means businesses all over do better when the people spend that money. Services and retailers and manufacturers all over end up having to hire more people to produce the goods and services and sell them because of the slight boost to the economy that a SMALL tax cut offers.
Thanks for participating in liberal to conservative conversion 101 (Economics 101). We’ll see you on the other side.
La Shawn. I see you wrote that you detest the term “African American”.
So that I am not offensive,
how would you like for us to refer to you?
Gee Mike,
It’s not polite to hijack threads on other people’s blogs. I do have to address your complaint however. An across the board tax cut may in fact provide a bigger benefit to someone who earns more money, just like you are complaining about. See, it’s like this, if Michael Jackson for example pays $900,000 in Federal income tax this year, and I pay $9,000 in Federal income taxes, and Bush gets a 2% reduction for us across the board, Michael will save $18,000, while I’ll only save $180, which I guess speaks to your point. What you are missing is that he’ll still be paying a whopping $872,000 to my $8,720. Now suppose I didn’t earn enough to have to pay ANY taxes. Well darn it, 2% of nothing is nothing, so I get NO savings, which I gues speaks even more to your point, if you can bring yourself to ignore that $872,000 and $8,720 Michael and I are still having to pay out (which obviously you have).
If my race must be referenced at all, please call me BLACK.
In other words, “African American” is not a nationality, at least not mine. I am an American of African descent.
La Shawn,
You are absolutely right, and absolutely American, period.
It’s good to hear from you again, Montie.
Amen. Thank God I don’t have to decide between Missourian/American and Missourian/Californian.
45 years ago, deeply offended by announcers who said Joe Lewis was “A credit to his race” I worked for the time when the color of one’s skin would matter only in selecting cosmetics.
Perhaps in my grandson’s time, but I doubt it.
La Shawn,
From that AFP photo on your page Michael Jackson looks whiter than the Wonderbread I bought this morning.Are you sure that isn’t Johnny or Edgar Winter wearing a black wig??
La Shawn
You can call me Hunky-Dego – short for Hungarian Sicilian. Or, preferably, just Frank.
PS = Why does Michael Jackson need Black Jurors.
Quite obviously, he is not Black any more.
To Mike.
The racial make-up of the Jackson jury aside for the moment, Have you ever opened yourself up to a logical critique of your “beliefs?” Really, not trying to be mean here. But, in the light
of current events, like the election being over, shouldn’t you at least accept the fact that no one with any brains at all buys that “tax cuts for the rich” crap anymore. Most everyone, even democrats, concede that to be simple class warfare.
America used to be proud of it’s rich. But leftys of late are trying to make us ashamed of them. Why? ……….
To add a bit to pajamazon’s comment, why is it that so many of the high profile lefty democrats are filthy stinking rich, ie Senator Kennedy, George Soros. If they are so much for “spreading the wealth,” why haven’t they, and their fellow lefty wealthies given their fortunes to the poor so that we can all be middle class?
Oh, and my 8-year-old daughter came up with another MJ funny question for me last night. “Mommy why does Michael Jackson make himself look like a girl?” And she saw the Janet cd and thought it was Michael, too. I had to tell her that I saw them together before and they are not the same person. Besides he looks more like LaToya.
David Spade doing Hollywood Minute on SNL: “LaToya Jackson. Out of all the Jacksons, how screwed up do you have to be to be known as ‘The crazy one?’” I think MJ’s got her beat finally.
As delightful as the image of OJ pushing up daisies is, even if he’d been convicted, he would have been unlikely to face execution until sometime around 2015. California has some prisoners who are still on Death Row for killings that took place in the 1970s.
To Mark:
Nowhere in the American judicial system is the word “peer” used to describe the makeup of a jury. The eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution secures the right of those accused in criminal prosecutions “to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed” (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=13&page=transcript) Trial by a “jury of peers” actually stems from a misinterpretation of the Magna Carta, which stated “No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” The Magna Carta dates from 1215; the idea this document guaranteed a jury of peers arose in the 17th century. In the United States, we don’t have an officially recognized system of social castes in which people have peers. The statutory presumption is that we are all peers, and therefore it is unnecessary to add that word to the description of the jury.
Mike
Tax cuts for the rich now there’s a classic, typical class envy with no substance… all dressed up and no place to go eh Mikey ?
I got a rebate from the Presidents tax cut, didn’t You ? I was hoping he would cut taxes again maybe and really drive the liberals nutz.
Mark
“African American” is perhaps the most pernicious term I’ve ever heard. I’ve been bitching about it for many moons. I’m white, I think.
I can’t imagine why such admired celebrities as Smokey Robinson, Eddie Murphy, Elizabeth Taylor and Stevie Wonder would risk sullying their own images by appearing for MJ. They must really love the old pervert. Warts and all!
Well, they just announced that MJ got a black alternate juror
At least we know that Stevie Wonder wasn’t an eyewitness to anything.
UPDATE: There is now 1 black man on the jury.
Harsh, Juliette, harsh!!! LOLOL
Thanks Funk Phd, I have heard the phrase ‘Jury of Peers’ for a long time, and recently on the news but leave it to the British to corrupt our system.
Mark
Yeah, but Stevie could have been an earwitness — sharpened senses and all. But seeing how he’s a witness for the defense, never mind.
Just wait for JESSIE JACKSON and AL SHARPTON to start whinning of the unfair biased racsis jedicial systemcourt of the UN and complain why dont they just get a life and stop being such pains in the butt
La Shawn: You mean you don’t like the moniker “Person of Color”?
That’s even worse!
We have been having a debate pretty much all month long on my blog about race. I refuse to be called “Native American” and have gotten shouted down for it. I really prefer Indian. That said, person of color reeks.
Comments on this entry are closed.