1st: accused of domestic abuse, false imprisonment, menacing, and something else by ex girlfriend. The charges were dropped but not because he was declared innocent but because “We dismissed the charges today as a result of having insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.” Which is legalese for them saying "there isn’t enough evidence to say he did or didn’t do it besides hearsay so we have to dismiss the charges. So again he wasn’t “found innocent”, they just never went to trial.
2nd: he’s been accused of grooming multiple under age Rick and Morty fans. A plethora of fans have come forward with incriminating pictures of messages from their convos on various messenger services. This one hasn’t had much traction since like January but it happened at the same as his domestic abuse case was going public.
He wasn’t supposed to be “found innocent”, he was supposed to be “proven guilty”. The way you put it into quotations makes it sound like you want him to prove his innocence when the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
Not at all, I personally have no pony in this race. But if the issue never went to trial he literally wasn’t found innocent. No trial = No guilt or innocence legally speaking. Getting charges dismissed doesn’t automatically equate legally either to guilt or innocence under the circumstances that he got for dismissal. The only qualifier is “there wasn’t enough evidence produced to make this worth the courts time.” Now if that means to you he’s automatically been proven “innocent” I don’t know what to tell you. To me it doesn’t mean he’s innocent, just the other party couldn’t reliably prove their accusations. I do notice you are silent about the grooming thing though.
It’s also interesting to see people making the comparisons to Depp and Heard trial when they did actually prove Depp was abusive towards Heard but Heard wasn’t a saint either. Anyone who actually paid attention to the trial without any bias can in no logical mind think either of them were innocent angels.
It’s somewhat pedantic, but the point is really that, in our legal system you are innocent until proven guilty. It’s also the morally correct approach in a lot of ways outside of the legal system.
I choose not to reply about the allegations because I have no information about the situation other than the paragraph you wrote.
That still doesn’t render my point invalid that you think someone needs to prove their innocence in a court, even when the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. If there wasn’t enough evidence to prove him guilty then he’s not guilty. Or do you think that everyone who’s ever stepped foot in a court to plead their innocence is guilty, even if the prosecution had no real evidence against the person?
Not really invested in the Heard and Depp trial either, but the man had his whole career ruined over it so I think he’s been dealt more than his fair share of punishment.
Nope but it’s a case by case basis. The burden of proof is on the prosecution but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, depending on the accusation laid. If I punch you but you don’t report it till the bruise is gone for what ever reason and you have no witnesses or evidence to prove it, did a crime still occurr?
I am still unclear… what’s he done or is accused of doing???
I mean one is discussed in the article linked…
But there are 2 different accusation cases:
1st: accused of domestic abuse, false imprisonment, menacing, and something else by ex girlfriend. The charges were dropped but not because he was declared innocent but because “We dismissed the charges today as a result of having insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.” Which is legalese for them saying "there isn’t enough evidence to say he did or didn’t do it besides hearsay so we have to dismiss the charges. So again he wasn’t “found innocent”, they just never went to trial.
2nd: he’s been accused of grooming multiple under age Rick and Morty fans. A plethora of fans have come forward with incriminating pictures of messages from their convos on various messenger services. This one hasn’t had much traction since like January but it happened at the same as his domestic abuse case was going public.
He wasn’t supposed to be “found innocent”, he was supposed to be “proven guilty”. The way you put it into quotations makes it sound like you want him to prove his innocence when the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
Not at all, I personally have no pony in this race. But if the issue never went to trial he literally wasn’t found innocent. No trial = No guilt or innocence legally speaking. Getting charges dismissed doesn’t automatically equate legally either to guilt or innocence under the circumstances that he got for dismissal. The only qualifier is “there wasn’t enough evidence produced to make this worth the courts time.” Now if that means to you he’s automatically been proven “innocent” I don’t know what to tell you. To me it doesn’t mean he’s innocent, just the other party couldn’t reliably prove their accusations. I do notice you are silent about the grooming thing though.
It’s also interesting to see people making the comparisons to Depp and Heard trial when they did actually prove Depp was abusive towards Heard but Heard wasn’t a saint either. Anyone who actually paid attention to the trial without any bias can in no logical mind think either of them were innocent angels.
It’s somewhat pedantic, but the point is really that, in our legal system you are innocent until proven guilty. It’s also the morally correct approach in a lot of ways outside of the legal system.
It all reads to me like they couldn’t prove he was guilty. So, there’s your answer.
I choose not to reply about the allegations because I have no information about the situation other than the paragraph you wrote. That still doesn’t render my point invalid that you think someone needs to prove their innocence in a court, even when the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. If there wasn’t enough evidence to prove him guilty then he’s not guilty. Or do you think that everyone who’s ever stepped foot in a court to plead their innocence is guilty, even if the prosecution had no real evidence against the person? Not really invested in the Heard and Depp trial either, but the man had his whole career ruined over it so I think he’s been dealt more than his fair share of punishment.
Nope but it’s a case by case basis. The burden of proof is on the prosecution but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, depending on the accusation laid. If I punch you but you don’t report it till the bruise is gone for what ever reason and you have no witnesses or evidence to prove it, did a crime still occurr?
Not being found guilty IS being found innocent, that’s how justice works
A long list of unprofessionalism and sexually explicit actions/conversations. He’s been booted from the show.