shape
carat
color
clarity

Verdict is in on MJ's doctor

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
34,685
The court is waiting for the lawyers and defendant and will read verdict at 1:00 PST, in one hour.
After listening to six weeks of testimony they deliberated only 10 hours and asked for no testimony to be read back.
Don't short deliberation time tend to mean a guilty verdict?

What do you predict?

I predict Dr. Murray will not . . . Beat It!
 
I think guilty.
 
Guilty. I can't imagine anything but...
 
Kaleigh|1320696395|3056270 said:
Guilty. I can't imagine anything but...

That's what I thought about OJ.
 
kenny|1320697444|3056284 said:
Kaleigh|1320696395|3056270 said:
Guilty. I can't imagine anything but...

That's what I thought about OJ.


Yeah, true that.
 
Me too, and Casey Anthony. I still think they undercharged this guy. Should have made it 2nd degree -- reckless indifference to risk of death. If he gets 4 yrs he'll be out in 18 months, what do you want to bet?
 
I realize it's Bad and Dangerous, but MJ was not a Monster and being Gone Too Soon is not a Black and White thing.
But since This is IT I have Butterflies over this Breaking News.

I think after all this time Dr. Murray, the Smooth Criminal, instead of thinking Leave Me Alone is thinking, just Give it To Me since you Wanna Be Startin' Something'.

So everyone, after this trial Keep the Faith and Keep Your Head Up so we can Heal the World.
 
JewelFreak|1320699116|3056308 said:
Me too, and Casey Anthony. I still think they undercharged this guy. Should have made it 2nd degree -- reckless indifference to risk of death. If he gets 4 yrs he'll be out in 18 months, what do you want to bet?

I don't have much faith in the justice system though my dh keeps telling me it's the best thing we have. Better to err on the side of letting guilty people free than punishing innocent people. But the idealist in me wants the guilty to answer for their crimes against humanity without hurting the innocent people. Sigh. The world is a harsh and complicated place.
 
Guilty.
 
I'm glad they remanded him in custody.
 
Oh my. I'm glad that he was found to be guilty because in the end, he was the professional in charge of all of that stuff. But how can he be guilty, and Casey Anthony be set free!?! This world is crazy!...
 
Tuckins1|1320702674|3056370 said:
Oh my. I'm glad that he was found to be guilty because in the end, he was the professional in charge of all of that stuff. But how can he be guilty, and Casey Anthony be set free!?! This world is crazy!...

Different attorneys, judge and jury.
Truth does not prevail.
Talent does.
 
JewelFreak|1320699116|3056308 said:
Me too, and Casey Anthony. I still think they under]2nd degree]harged this guy. [/b]Should have made it -- reckless indifference to risk of death. If he gets 4 yrs he'll be out in 18 months, what do you want to bet?


I agree with you--simply put he killed his patient with his negligence. He should go away for a long, long time. {And I am no MJ fanatic, I just think the guy was soooooooo deficient in his caregiving}
 
I think he is definitely guilty of malpractice and should have his license taken away, but I just don't think it was a criminal act. Michael
Jackson bears a lot of responsibility for his own death. He had been misusing drugs for years, and anyone nuts enough to ask for propofol as a sleeping aid is looking for trouble.
 
If you put a loaded gun into the hands of a person who has been suicidal for years you are criminally negligent-- regardless of their own culpability. It's two different issues, two different wrongs. But the guilt of the suicidal person doesn't absolve or cancel out the guilt of idiot who gave him a gun. Both are crimes. Both are punished. Separately; as they should be. Same thing here. Michael was an addict and the drugs were the loaded gun. I think it is the right outcome. Michael's culpability in his own death doesn't absolve the doctor's criminal actions.

And I'm not an MJ fan at all.
 
Plus the Dr. will do little time IMHO.
The sentence may vary from probation only, to 4 years behind bars.

Even if he gets the harshest 4-year sentence overcrowding in California jails means non-violet offenders end up serving very little if any of their time.

So, it's not like he'll get the gas chamber or anything.
 
No way he would have been criminally charged if the patient hadn't been famous.

Annoys me to no end that we tolerate there being two justice systems: one for the rich & famous and one for everyone else.
 
MissStepcut|1320723305|3056574 said:
No way he would have been criminally charged if the patient hadn't been famous.

Annoys me to no end that we tolerate there being two justice systems: one for the rich & famous and one for everyone else.


He provided drugs illegally to his patient who he knew had an addiction and was prosecuted for manslaughter which has a criminally negligent standard. There is precedent for this, and other doctors have been held accountable whose patients weren't famous.
 
Gypsy|1320723735|3056583 said:
MissStepcut|1320723305|3056574 said:
No way he would have been criminally charged if the patient hadn't been famous.

Annoys me to no end that we tolerate there being two justice systems: one for the rich & famous and one for everyone else.


He provided drugs illegally to his patient who he knew had an addiction and was prosecuted for manslaughter which has a criminally negligent standard. There is precedent for this, and other doctors have been held accountable whose patients weren't famous.
I am not saying his actions weren't criminal, or that there isn't some precedent for it. It's just uncommon that the MD would face anything but civil penalties for non-famous patients. (Slightly sensational) article on the subject: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/14/us-jackson-malpractice-idUSTRE78D3P620110914
 
Celebrity or not. The thing is, NO Doctor should ever give propofol outside of a medical setting. He failed his oath, over and over and the standard of care was negligent. Period.
 
MissStepcut|1320724534|3056592 said:
Gypsy|1320723735|3056583 said:
MissStepcut|1320723305|3056574 said:
No way he would have been criminally charged if the patient hadn't been famous.

Annoys me to no end that we tolerate there being two justice systems: one for the rich & famous and one for everyone else.


He provided drugs illegally to his patient who he knew had an addiction and was prosecuted for manslaughter which has a criminally negligent standard. There is precedent for this, and other doctors have been held accountable whose patients weren't famous.
I am not saying his actions weren't criminal, or that there isn't some precedent for it. It's just uncommon that the MD would face anything but civil penalties for non-famous patients. (Slightly sensational) article on the subject: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/14/us-jackson-malpractice-idUSTRE78D3P620110914


I have no idea what you are reading into that article, but it certainly doesn't support your "double standard" theory toward doctors of famous patients IN THE LAW. It actually is good proof of sensationalism in the media as it discusses the two prosecutions of two doctors, both for famous patients and ignores listing those of non-famous patients. That's the flaw of the article writer. He's biased toward the famous patients. And clearly didn't bother looking up cases where doctors of regular people have been prosecuted. Don't confuse his bias with the law's.
 
The law doesn't require prosecutors to go after anyone in particular, so there certainly isn't a bias "in the law."
 
MissStepcut|1320725405|3056605 said:
The law doesn't require prosecutors to go after anyone in particular, so there certainly isn't a bias "in the law."

The law includes those who create and enforce it. You said there is a bias in enforcement and used this case as your "proof". I think this is a poor example of "proof" and have stated why. Lindsay Lohan however, is a good example. I am not saying your assertion is flawed, I'm critiquing your proof.
 
Gypsy|1320725633|3056608 said:
MissStepcut|1320725405|3056605 said:
The law doesn't require prosecutors to go after anyone in particular, so there certainly isn't a bias "in the law."

The law includes those who create and enforce it. You said there is a bias in enforcement and used this case as your "proof". I think this is a poor example of "proof" and have stated why. Lindsay Lohan however, is a good example. I am not saying your assertion is flawed, I'm critiquing your proof.
I only linked it to show how rare it is that MDs face criminal charges. It's not "provable" in any meaningful way that Jackson's MD would have evaded criminal charges if Jackson had been a middle class person, but that's certainly my suspicion.
 
I want Arny Klein to answer tough questions in the Civil trial..
 
MissStepcut|1320725934|3056611 said:
Gypsy|1320725633|3056608 said:
MissStepcut|1320725405|3056605 said:
The law doesn't require prosecutors to go after anyone in particular, so there certainly isn't a bias "in the law."

The law includes those who create and enforce it. You said there is a bias in enforcement and used this case as your "proof". I think this is a poor example of "proof" and have stated why. Lindsay Lohan however, is a good example. I am not saying your assertion is flawed, I'm critiquing your proof.
I only linked it to show how rare it is that MDs face criminal charges. It's not "provable" in any meaningful way that Jackson's MD would have evaded criminal charges if Jackson had been a middle class person, but that's certainly my suspicion.


Then you should have stated your comments as an opinion rather than a fact.

Your words:
No way he would have been criminally charged if the patient hadn't been famous.

Annoys me to no end that we tolerate there being two justice systems: one for the rich & famous and one for everyone else.

You should have stated:

I suspect he would not have been charged criminally if the patient....

I am annoyed by what I perceive as there being two justice systems...
 
I hear what you're saying but I don't think it's necessary to couch obvious opinions like that.
 
MissStepcut|1320728735|3056633 said:
I hear what you're saying but I don't think it's necessary to couch obvious opinions like that.

Perhaps I was overly sensitive because I know you are in law school. And this is a legal topic. And I, personally, try to be very careful about the fact that as a JD people tend to give weight to legal-ish stuff I say (even when I wish they wouldn't), so I try to make it clear when I am stating a personal (not legal) opinion that that is all it is. And I was (perhaps unfairly) holding you to the same standard. When I became a member of the bar, it was impressed on me that I was part of the law-- an officer of the courts entrusted with a duty. And so when topics like this come up and I am talking as me, Gypsy, it is my habit to be careful.
 
Gypsy|1320719967|3056553 said:
If you put a loaded gun into the hands of a person who has been suicidal for years you are criminally negligent-- regardless of their own culpability. It's two different issues, two different wrongs. But the guilt of the suicidal person doesn't absolve or cancel out the guilt of idiot who gave him a gun. Both are crimes. Both are punished. Separately; as they should be. Same thing here. Michael was an addict and the drugs were the loaded gun. I think it is the right outcome. Michael's culpability in his own death doesn't absolve the doctor's criminal actions.

And I'm not an MJ fan at all.


I hear what you say Gypsy, I am just not sure I agree. Under that logic my brother should have gone to jail when he came home from
work and took off his gun and when he left the kitchen to use the restroom, his son took the gun and shot himself in the head. He had been depressed. I realize that is entirely different from the MJ case.

Whether it was a criminal act seems like it would be based on intent. I don't have any kind of legal background so it is just my opinion.
There are just so many things that bother me about this case, probably a lot of it is not based on the law but other issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top