[TV] Rick and Morty

[Biomega]

The irony on display here is absolutely breathtaking......

Like, seriously, you should probably take your own advice here and just stop posting immediately, because you are so completely incorrect it's hilarious.

The justice system does not prove innocence. Never has. Never will. Full stop. If you don't understand this, you have no business making judgment calls about other people's understandings of the "logic" behind the system....

I think you might be misunderstanding - they're saying he's innocent precisely BECAUSE that's how the justice system works and that is the default assumption. So if they couldn't prove his guilt then he's innocent before the law BY DEFINITION.

That being said, this only applies to courts of the law. Not the court of public opinion.

[everydaygamer]

Honestly if there is no proof why assume guilt? At least the other stuff has something tangible to grab onto, just focus on that if you hate him so much.

Anyways I doubt he'll get his job back and at this point it's very unlikely the show will recover. Best case it's still good but a shadow of its former self.

[Fabinas]

The irony on display here is absolutely breathtaking......

Like, seriously, you should probably take your own advice here and just stop posting immediately, because you are so completely incorrect it's hilarious.

The justice system does not prove innocence. Never has. Never will. Full stop. If you don't understand this, you have no business making judgment calls about other people's understandings of the "logic" behind the system....

I am fully aware that the US judicial systems decides whether someone is guilty or not guilty (In Europe it's either guilty or innocent).

I am fully aware that not guilty =/= innocent.

But read the comment i responded to, before rushing into hothead internet keyboard conflicts.

Biomega got it.

[Endus]

True. It's even MORE.

Not enough evidence to secure a conviction is an estimation the DA did. It might have been considered enough by them, but still not enough for a judge and jury to convict.

According to the judicial system, not only he's innocent, he might be eligible for reparation for being dragged to this with no sufficient evidence.

Presumption of legal innocence only applies in a few incredibly narrow aspects of the court system and only the court system. People vastly misunderstand what it actually means. It does not, for instance, mean the courts have to treat a defendant as if they're an innocent person; you can be held in jail, without bail, denied freedoms, your property may be seized or frozen, etc.

All "innocent until proven guilty" means, really, is that you have to get your trial before a conviction. The alternative is presumptive guilt, where you'd be jailed on the State's whim and have to sue in the courts for release, based on innocence you'd have to prove at court.

It does not mean any declaration of innocence, either legally or any further use of the term. Just that the courts can't treat you as guilty until you've had your day in court.

But what you typed there is absolutely so WRONG. If you don't know the logic behind how the judicial systems and how justice works, don't go insinuate things that only prove you're a SJW

Oh look, meaningless bullshit slander terms of the far-right.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you might be misunderstanding - they're saying he's innocent precisely BECAUSE that's how the justice system works and that is the default assumption. So if they couldn't prove his guilt then he's innocent before the law BY DEFINITION.

That being said, this only applies to courts of the law. Not the court of public opinion.

A presumption of innocence in no way suggests actual innocence.

If you walk into a school and kill 37 children on-camera while live-streaming your spree to a million followers and admit you did it but plead "not guilty", you're getting "presumed innocent" as much as anyone else does. As a concept, it literally does not mean what a lot of people think it means.

[Finlandia WOAT]

All "innocent until proven guilty" means, really, is that you have to get your trial before a conviction. The alternative is presumptive guilt, where you'd be jailed on the State's whim and have to sue in the courts for release, based on innocence you'd have to prove at court.
.

If we're getting into the legal weeds, all "innocent until proven guilty" refers to is how our court system is structured. It means zero onus is placed on the accused in proving their innocence, rather, the entire onus is placed on the accusing party (ie the state) in proving the accused party's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other words- if the Sherriff of Nottingham accuses Robin Hood of stealing the Krabby Patty Secret Formula- then Robin Hood does not have to offer a single shred of evidence as to his innocence, the entire onus is placed on the Sherriff of Nottingham to prove Robin Hood's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wrt Justin Roiland, all it means is the DA did not think that they could make the case to jury that Roiland committed the crimes he is accused of beyond a reasonable doubt. This could be because he is completely innocent. It could be because it's a he said, she said, and Roiland is a wealthy individual who can afford a team of high priced lawyers to comb through every inch of evidence and the DA's case and find the smallest of cracks, operating in a system where all they have to do is show that the prosecution's case is not utterly airtight. Who can say?

Given the revelation of his texts to minors + the Adult Swim staff petition to have him removed, I don't think he'll be entitled to a breach of contract. He'll have to comfort himself with the royalties from Rick and Morty for the next couple of decades. I'll spare him a prayer before bed tonight.

[VMSmith]

A presumption of innocence in no way suggests actual innocence.

This is not a disagreement with this statement but further information that relates to the comment:

The spokesperson for the DA's office also stated that “significant additional information came to light.”.

We don't know what this means, specifically, but it strongly implies that the accusations contained untruths.

[sam86]

Wrt Justin Roiland, all it means is the DA did not think that they could make the case to jury that Roiland committed the crimes he is accused of beyond a reasonable doubt. This could be because he is completely innocent. It could be because it's a he said, she said, and Roiland is a wealthy individual who can afford a team of high priced lawyers to comb through every inch of evidence and the DA's case and find the smallest of cracks, operating in a system where all they have to do is show that the prosecution's case is not utterly airtight. Who can say?

USA is famous for joke cases for even more joke reasons than false accuse with no evidence, if they had a proof of his actual guilt, he would been in jail since ages, and u don't even need a lawyer for a solid case like that, lawyers will jump on u, big ones, for share cut of fine after he is proven guilty
the chance he is actually innocent is far higher than 'he has better lawyers', he may been a shit person (no surprise, his characters ooze with god complex), but there is no evidence for his criminal acts

[Biomega]

A presumption of innocence in no way suggests actual innocence.

If you walk into a school and kill 37 children on-camera while live-streaming your spree to a million followers and admit you did it but plead "not guilty", you're getting "presumed innocent" as much as anyone else does. As a concept, it literally does not mean what a lot of people think it means.

Your example only "works" because it's a category error.

You don't go into the category "presumptive innocence" and then somehow advance to "actually innocent" after an acquittal. That's not how it works in the law, for the obvious reason that you can NEVER prove innocence - you can only fail to prove guilt (and innocence then arises from the doctrine). Proving innocence is tantamount to proving a negative, which is an argumentative no-no. Which is WHY, in the law, you need a doctrine to establish it in the first place.

What you're really talking about is how it works in PUBLIC OPINION (sometimes).

You can't mix and match between concepts. Either you're talking about legal contexts, in which case there's innocence until proven guilty, not presumed innocence until actual innocence; or you're talking about public opinion contexts, in which case people can and do think whatever they want, proof or no proof.

Which is what's happening here. There's some accusations, there's some ancillary reports of various behaviors, and public opinion determines its own assessment arising from those circumstances, irrespective of legal constraints, argumentative logic, or any form of process whatsoever. People can think whatever they like.

I have no idea what he ACTUALLY did. I'm sure many people think he's a major-league dickwad. Having never met him and not being privy to all the relevant information, the best I can do, personally, is say that he's been accused of some things and that many people have said he's not a very nice person. And that the law did not have enough proof to be reasonably certain of a good chance to convict him of whatever he's accused of. That doesn't mean I think he's innocent, and it doesn't mean I think he's guilty. I'm fine with tentatively accepting accusations that he's probably a douchebag, simply because people who've risen to sudden money, fame, and power within their respective field of activity are disproportionately prone to becoming douchebags in the process. But at the end of the day, my opinion is worth jack shit.

[Endus]

Your example only "works" because it's a category error.

You don't go into the category "presumptive innocence" and then somehow advance to "actually innocent" after an acquittal. That's not how it works in the law, for the obvious reason that you can NEVER prove innocence - you can only fail to prove guilt (and innocence then arises from the doctrine). Proving innocence is tantamount to proving a negative, which is an argumentative no-no. Which is WHY, in the law, you need a doctrine to establish it in the first place.

What you're really talking about is how it works in PUBLIC OPINION (sometimes).

No, what I'm saying is that the concept of "presumption of innocence" has absolutely nothing at all to do with innocence or guilt, whether a guilty verdict is issued by the court or not. All it means is that you are entitled to a trial before you can be found guilty; that your guilt cannot be presumed by the court and conviction issued summarily.

That's it.

That's the whole deal.

Cops can drag a rapist off his most recent victim mid-rape, and the courts will still "presume innocence" by offering him a trial before conviction.

There is no category of "presumptive innocence"; that's my point. It's just a procedural description of how the legal system approaches the concept of a trial. Literally nothing else about the legal system "presumes innocence". Cops can use significant violence to effect an arrest. You can be put in jail, without bail, while awaiting trial. You can be interrogated repeatedly leading up to that trial, with tremendous pressure applied. You can be kept manacled in court while on trial. The judge can condemn your actions from the bench, even, as long as they're careful to stick to known facts. Presumption of innocence is literally just that one thing. Trial before conviction and sentencing. That's it.

People keep trying to argue as if there's some state of "presumed innocence" so if charges don't get filed or they get dropped, or the defendant's found "not guilty", that they're somehow "innocent", even by implication. And that's deeply wrong, and relies precisely on the idea that "presumed innocence" exists in any real sense outside the most narrow legal interpretation as a "category" at all. And it doesn't.

[Relapses]

It's kind of funny that the same people who arguing against the court of public opinion are the ones who seemingly cannot understand the onus for prosecutors to find somebody guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If the state tries a defendant with less-than-stellar evidence, they don't get a second chance if better evidence becomes available later. Dropping charges doesn't necessarily mean the defendant was 100% innocent, it just means they weren't certain the case would withstand the possibility of reasonable doubt. And considering we will likely never know what -- if any -- evidence there was to support the charges against Roiland, this whole topic seems wildly overblown.

[eschatological]

USA is famous for joke cases for even more joke reasons than false accuse with no evidence, if they had a proof of his actual guilt, he would been in jail since ages, and u don't even need a lawyer for a solid case like that, lawyers will jump on u, big ones, for share cut of fine after he is proven guilty
the chance he is actually innocent is far higher than 'he has better lawyers', he may been a shit person (no surprise, his characters ooze with god complex), but there is no evidence for his criminal acts

As a lawyer, this is absolutely untrue. False accusations make up a miniscule, single digit percentage of all cases, in most crimes less than 5%.

Cases are dropped all the time for a wide slew of reasons. It doesn't mean he's innocent, but obviously JR would want to immediately exonerate himself, because that's what all defendants do whenever something goes their way - they misinterpret the dropping of the case as evidence of their absolute innocence.

In sexual harassment/assault cases, which are often between two people with no other witnesses, these cases are dropped all the damn time, alarmingly so. There are many reasons, ranging from: the physical evidence wasn't documented properly/in a timely manner (for any number of reasons like delayed reporting out of fear of reprisal, police incompetence, the well-studied disbelief of victims of crimes of a sexual nature by male cops, etc), the status of either the victim or the offender (too negative for the former, too positive/powerful for the latter), there is no physical evidence making the whole case about testimony, and so on, and so forth. Crimes of a sexual nature are some of the most under-reported, under-prosecuted crimes in this country.

And they are very rarely proven to be false accusations. Maybe JR will, in this case, but I bet you dollars to donuts it's all bluster and he's not going to press charges for false accusations.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The spokesperson for the DA's office also stated that “significant additional information came to light.”.

We don't know what this means, specifically, but it strongly implies that the accusations contained untruths.

It doesn't really imply anything other than that the additional information makes it harder for the DA to meet their burden of proof. A person could infer that to mean their were untruths.

[s_bushido]

False accusations make up a miniscule, single digit percentage of all cases, in most crimes less than 5%.

Ah, but that's the beauty of it. A case like this WILL be used as evidence of rampant "bitches trying to destroy men!" despite the obvious fact that he very well could have been guilty of everything that was alleged...but the DA simply didn't have enough evidence to prove it in court.

[Darththeo]

As a lawyer, this is absolutely untrue. False accusations make up a miniscule, single digit percentage of all cases, in most crimes less than 5%.

Cases are dropped all the time for a wide slew of reasons. It doesn't mean he's innocent, but obviously JR would want to immediately exonerate himself, because that's what all defendants do whenever something goes their way - they misinterpret the dropping of the case as evidence of their absolute innocence.

In sexual harassment/assault cases, which are often between two people with no other witnesses, these cases are dropped all the damn time, alarmingly so. There are many reasons, ranging from: the physical evidence wasn't documented properly/in a timely manner (for any number of reasons like delayed reporting out of fear of reprisal, police incompetence, the well-studied disbelief of victims of crimes of a sexual nature by male cops, etc), the status of either the victim or the offender (too negative for the former, too positive/powerful for the latter), there is no physical evidence making the whole case about testimony, and so on, and so forth. Crimes of a sexual nature are some of the most under-reported, under-prosecuted crimes in this country.

And they are very rarely proven to be false accusations. Maybe JR will, in this case, but I bet you dollars to donuts it's all bluster and he's not going to press charges for false accusations.

It is actually disturbing how many get dropped. And some I know are just because terribly enough the victim's mental health is helped by dropping the charges because the mere accusation invokes the "fake charge" crowd that ends up harassing the accuser/victim.

It doesn't help that in some the rich offender offers money to drop the charge and the victim does it because the money helps them more than going to conviction.

Seriously, a dropped case doesn't mean as much as people think.

[Okacz]

Well, not for absolutely no reason, if the other things about him at the workplace were true. Based on what was said by others who worked for him, it seemed like his firing was just waiting for any excuse for it to happen.

Having hard time finding much about him being "difficult to work with" etc from before the accusations. After the accusations, yes, a lot of people brought up how terrible a person he was to work with, how much they wished he would stop working with them, but at the same time how little they were associated with him.

Of course this must be due to the fact that such a foul monster must have terrified them into submission and forced to work with him, which is why they are only safe to speak up when he was almost convicted. After all he convinced everyone that he spend a lot of time writing and working on the show up until the accusations, after which everyone he worked with agreed that all he did was voices, and not much of that as well.

[Zenfoldor]

Meh, if the case was dropped I think he should be able to work again. I'm hesitant to discard his talent over internet jibber jabber.

[Makabreska]

Meh, if the case was dropped I think he should be able to work again. I'm hesitant to discard his talent over internet jibber jabber.

Well, case was dropped, him being a dick who is hard to work with is still there. Doubt he will be brought back. Also, his "can't shut up" and overly self-aware type of comedy got really boring and annoying, which was really visible in High on Life.

[schwank05]

Also that "not enough evidence to secure a conviction" is not remotely the same as a declaration of innocence.

Innocent until proven guilty. If he was not found guilty in a court of law, he is still innocent. This crap has been weaponized so much that most of these cases have lost any steam they may build before you even start.

[Fabinas]

Presumption of legal innocence only applies in a few incredibly narrow aspects of the court system and only the court system. People vastly misunderstand what it actually means. It does not, for instance, mean the courts have to treat a defendant as if they're an innocent person; you can be held in jail, without bail, denied freedoms, your property may be seized or frozen, etc.

All "innocent until proven guilty" means, really, is that you have to get your trial before a conviction. The alternative is presumptive guilt, where you'd be jailed on the State's whim and have to sue in the courts for release, based on innocence you'd have to prove at court.

It does not mean any declaration of innocence, either legally or any further use of the term. Just that the courts can't treat you as guilty until you've had your day in court.



Oh look, meaningless bullshit slander terms of the far-right.

- - - Updated - - -



A presumption of innocence in no way suggests actual innocence.

If you walk into a school and kill 37 children on-camera while live-streaming your spree to a million followers and admit you did it but plead "not guilty", you're getting "presumed innocent" as much as anyone else does. As a concept, it literally does not mean what a lot of people think it means.

Legally, you can be declared/found guilty or not guilty (for USA) / innocent (for many countries in Europe) ONLY by a court. NOONE else has that power, at least in most democratic and civilised countries.

If you DON'T go to court, because the authorities cannot find enough evidence to send you there, you are presumed innocent. Because there's no charge, no trial, no court decision. Legally, you have done NOTHING. Therefore, you're innocent, because there's no formal accusation on which your degree of liability can be decided.

You might have done something or everything, but then the proof of burden is on whoever claims you did.

Claim anything else and you end up making accusations equal to convictions.

It's that simple and your blah blah is unneeded.

[Endus]

Innocent until proven guilty. If he was not found guilty in a court of law, he is still innocent. This crap has been weaponized so much that most of these cases have lost any steam they may build before you even start.

I've already pointed out how deeply incorrect this framing of that maxim is that I don't feel I should have to repeat myself. The only thing "innocent until proven guilty" means is that you get a trial before you get convicted and sentenced. It doesn't apply to any other aspect of the legal system even, let alone greater society outside the legal system.

- - - Updated - - -

Legally, you can be declared/found guilty or not guilty (for USA) / innocent (for many countries in Europe) ONLY by a court. NOONE else has that power, at least in most democratic and civilised countries.

If you DON'T go to court, because the authorities cannot find enough evidence to send you there, you are presumed innocent. Because there's no charge, no trial, no court decision. Legally, you have done NOTHING. Therefore, you're innocent, because there's no formal accusation on which your degree of liability can be decided.

You're weirdly trying to use a court's determinations as if they're objective descriptors of reality, and that's just flatly not the case. Again, "presumption of innocence" is not "implication of actual innocence".