You're viewing a single thread.
I shamelessly stole this, but I agree with the opinion:
There are those who believe Justin Roiland must be guilty of something anyway so it's a "good move to distance themselves." Those people have short memories regarding Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.
The remaining allegations against Justin Roiland are just that, with no proof against Roiland. Screenshots only prove that a conversation took place not who was actually speaking.
Make no mistake that if there's an actual crime committed then he should go to jail. But the rule of law is that he's presumed innocent until proven guilty. The argument that "It's a private company, they can do what they want" ignores that fact.
Justin Roiland has been unjustly treated in this, and many fans are voicing our opinions about it. The truth is that the show is moving forward despite our objections
This is a terrible take. He was an annoyance and liability for the show. He contributed minimally and these productions are better off without him.
The "Innocent until proven guilty" part of the argument only makes sense of he was only fired for breaking the law.
While I do not disagree with your opinion, all charges were dropped. He may be a complete dipshit, but until something is proven you're just witch hunting
There was more than just the stuff with his wife though. Dude likes 14 year old girls and had many inappropriate texts with underage girls. Go listen to the audio of when he was a guest on a podcast talking about how some 14 year old girls are "developed" and physically ready etc. He's fucking gross and was a hindrance to the show.
That said. The rest of the crew was happy to drop him, so I have no problem continuing to support the show.
I definitely support the show, but it is still a public declaration of guilt without evidence or trial. If there were inappropriate texts with minors the investigators would have surely done something. You're calling the guy guilty instead of just calling him sleazy. There's a big difference in losing your job for an accusation vs a guilty verdict.
I do think moving forward without him was the right choice, but I do not believe publicizing the accusations against him and ruining him without a trial was right
We live in a society with both social and legal consequences for our actions.
Presumption of innocence is for legal matters. Me calling him guilty is not a legal matter. It's a social consequence of his actions.
The gross texts are available to read. They are undisputed facts. He is guilty of sending them.
There are no legal consequences for those texts. The social consequences include losing his job.
Do you feel we should live in a society with only legal consequences and no social consequences?
Both of your points were already addressed in the OP.
The gross texts are available to read. They are undisputed facts. He is guilty of sending them.
There are screenshots with no one claiming ownership. Investigators saw far more than you or I did and decided there wasn't enough evidence to push charges.
Do you feel we should live in a society with only legal consequences and no social consequences?
Coughs in Johnny Depp
I guess my question to you is: why make the comment at all, when your concerns were already addressed? I'm here. I'll talk to you. How was your day?
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.
Edit: Also with all these celeb scandals happening you'd think that celebrities would not use their official or traceable accounts to do shady shit, but maybe that's expecting too much smartness from them.
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.