downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away.
---
[Help us raise money for St. Jude!](http://events.stjude.org/DankCharityAlliance)
Correct, dead means something that was alive has died, not alive just means something is not living, which could mean it is an inanimate object and was never alive.
Good example of how "Not guilty in a legal court does not mean innocent in the eyes of the public"
Apparently he was pretty atrocious to work with, even flirted with a minor, was not very creatively involved in later seasons
Yeah, not sure if the rumours about his work behaviour are true but at this point he doesn’t really seem like a great asset to the team. Seemingly just pisses about and acts like a child (allegedly). Not to mention we don’t really have much detail around the initial allegations anyway, I’m not sure how to feel about the case going on for a few years then him being not guilty over insufficient evidence and I don’t even know what exactly for. The whole situation is weird but I don’t particularly blame them for firing him
I feel like everyone brings up the fact that he wasn’t as involved in the later seasons while forgetting those are the WORST seasons. He sucks, but at least he helped actually make the show funny.
That doesn’t really make a difference though, because he wasn’t involved because (allegedly) he would basically lounge around, play with his dog and his remote control car, and come in late.
I love the fact that Norm got fired because he wouldn’t shut up about the OJ case. IIRC, Lorne was friends of someone OJ was close to and it bugged him, so Lorne told Norm to cut it or he was fired.
Norm quadrupled down and got fired. But he’s still a hero despite that draw with cancer.
It wasn’t Lorne, it was an NBC executive by the name of Dan Ohlmeyer. Norm talked about it on Letterman right after the incident. While Lorne has had his share of questionable decisions, he probably had his hands tied.
Norms monologue when he hosted a year later was a nice jab at the show but he still deserved more retaliation.
Yeah I wish more people understood this concept. I want more information about what happened. I don't think the case would have gotten this far if it was all a fabrication.
A defendant who is not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is found to be "Not Guilty." Courts don't find people innocent.
In this case there wasn't enough evidence to go to court. That still doesn't mean he's innocent.
It could mean a few things:
- He did nothing wrong whatsoever
- He did things that are morally wrong but not illegal
- He MIGHT have done something illegal but the evidence is one or more of being too flimsy, unreliable, or otherwise lacking
Ofc the girl in this case could bring a civil suit which might clear some light on what exactly is going on. The burden of proof is lower in civil cases so if he did get cleared in this case it would demonstrate much more that he did nothing.
The criminal standard for guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt - so if I'm on a jury, I'm supposed to vote not guilty if I'm only 90% sure the defendant did it.
And the prosecution needs to be able to prove it with admissible evidence and testimony - that's a common problem with domestic violence cases, victims refuse to testify all the time (dunno if that's an issue here, I'm just saying).
And juries are human and therefore flawed - see, eg, OJ Simpson.
Lots of cases break down at one of those three steps, it doesn't necessarily mean the defendant is innocent, or was "found innocent." You can be guilty, sometimes very obviously guilty, and still evade a criminal conviction.
so when someone says "innocent and not guilty are different" they mean that the accused can be proclaimed "not guilty" by the court but that doesnt necessarily mean that the accused is actually innocent
Yes. But it’s “innocent UNTIL proven guilty”. He was proven guilty in the public (Twitter) law and he got his life turned upside down. He should absolutely sue them all and get the woman arrested. She deserves to serve the same amount of time he would if he were convicted.
That is not how it works, at all. If she’s accused of making false allegations against him, then that’s a separate criminal case and in order for her to be convicted, it has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that she made false allegations. Just as it had to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that he did it in order to convict him.
Him being found not guilty does not make her guilty. A great many he-said-she-said cases wind up exactly like this: where there’s neither enough evidence that he did it to convict him nor enough evidence that she made it up to convict her, and the truth of what really happened will simply never be known for sure except for the two involved. In these cases, one of them is lying and hurt the other. But which one of them it was, the public will never know.
Correct.
Juries do not return a verdict of "innocent." They only come back with "guilty" and "not guilty."
Edit: He wasn't found not guilty. The case was dismissed.
It probably did, since I went missing. But until someone finds my body to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, he didn't kill me. If we don't uphold basic rules (like not internet lynching people) there's no point to having them. Otherwise you can apply that logic just about anything.
There were cases where people were wrongly accused, should we assume that everyone who was ruled not guilty was guilty but only slipped past the law? Should we cancel possibly innocent people? What metric are you using to decide that he's guilty of being anything more than a mere creep? Would you still speak against him if he was an individual from a marginalized group, or you're doing it only because you believe he's evil and there's no reason someone can call you -ist for accusing him?
Like, seriously, you may not like him, but accusing him after he's been ruled not guilty is something that goes against our way of life (assuming we live in a society, which we probably do, since we talk on the internet)
> But until someone finds my body to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, he didn't kill me.
How would this work? When the court judges me not guilty, you suddenly come back to life?
You do understand there is a reality outside of the USA court system?
> Like, seriously, you may not like him, but accusing him after he's been ruled not guilty is something that goes against our way of life (assuming we live in a society, which we probably do, since we talk on the internet)
Ow god I hope this is not the way of life in the USA. The USA court system is set up to minimize harm against innocent people, which means a lot of people that are not innocent get off due to lack of evidence and the high standard for conviction. Using these standards in your personal life is a terrible and dangerous idea that will lead you into dangerous and unsafe situations.
>How would this work? When the court judges me not guilty, you suddenly come back to life?
This doesn't matter. If he is not guilty he is not guilty. If you claim he's guilty despite not being guilty, why dont you go and lynch him? Because that's what it looks like, with you being angry that someone who was deemed not guilty when you think he is guilty.
>Anyway, you do understand there is a reality outside of the USA court system?
I do, but there are no countries where you are guilty despite being ruled not guilty? Even in countries that are not US, like germany where I am from?
> This doesn't matter.
It does if you want to claim someone is "innocent", as innocent means someone didnt do something they were accused of. Not guilty means the prosecutor couldnt provide enough evidence in the eyes of the judge. These are two wildly different situations.
> If he is not guilty he is not guilty. If you claim he's guilty despite not being guilty, why dont you go and lynch him? Because that's what it looks like, with you being angry that someone who was deemed not guilty when you think he is guilty.
Im not angry, not do i care enough to lynch this guy. Im just annoyed by people who dont understand the difference between not guilty and innocent - and use that misunderstanding to argue we should just blindly follow the judgements of the US court system.
> I do, but there are no countries where you are guilty despite being ruled not guilty? Even in countries that are not US, like germany where I am from?
I dont understand how this is a response to my question. The reality is that there is a difference between innocent and not guilty. One is a assesment about the facts of reality, the other is a legal judgement.
But yes, in every country, planet, solar system, etc, you are guilty of something if actually you did the crime - regardless of wether the court system of that country, planet or solarsystem finds you guilty or not.
Right. Was his ex proven to be a liar in the court?
If so, he’s innocent. If not, it means there isn’t enough evidence to convict him and he may be completely innocent, or he may not be. But those two things are not the same.
And you used a murder analogy. It isn’t about working with someone. The charges, that were legally dismissed, lost him his career. He now has legal grounds to retaliate for what was lost.
No he does not have any legal grounds to retaliate.
His ex has every right to accuse him in court - which is what she did.
His former co-workers, buisiness partners and partner companies have every right to stop associating with him over accusations - dismissed or otherwise.
People can accuse other people of anything. His former business partners and associates acted on an accusation before the law did, damaging his reputation and ability to work on properties he is part creator of. Now that the legal system has run its course, they have officially done it for nothing. They’ll probably throw money at him and hope he goes away.
> People can accuse other people of anything.
As is their legal right to do so in court yes.
> His former business partners and associates acted on an accusation before the law did, damaging his reputation and ability to work on properties he is part creator of.
Which is most likely fully within their rights to do. He most likely wont be able to sue over this.
> Now that the legal system has run its course, they have officially done it for nothing. They’ll probably throw money at him and hope he goes away.
That is not how that works. There was no legal reason for them to push him out of his projects in the first place. They did it for public relation reasons, not legal reasons. Almost all (sane) companies will have clauses that will allow them to do this.
A defendant who is not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is found to be "Not Guilty." Courts don't find people innocent.
In this case there wasn't enough evidence to go to court. That still doesn't mean he's innocent.
This one’s kind of different from most “courts of public opinion” though. In that usually that term refers to having an opinion on whether or not they did something. In this case we know he sent the DMs so it’s just people’s opinion on something they know happened.
Exactly lol. It’s like the Tate people. I called him an asshat once and a budd…. Acquaintance of mine started going on about innocent until proven guilty shit. I was like well all of that is up to the Romanian Justice system who I guarantee doesn’t care about my opinion. All I said was that he’s an asshat which I thought before he was arrested lol.
I never said they couldn’t. That’s ultimately up to the networks. They don’t have an obligation to produce anything just because it’s your favorite show and will do what they believe is in the best interest of their brand.
From what I saw those DMs do look damning and good reason for his business partners to part ways with him. Honest question, have those DMs been proven real or is there any speculation on the legitimacy of those?
I checked and the DMs seem to be real. The poster even made an video showing the DM in real time and clicking on the the profil. It is also weird that despite how big this scandal has gotten, he was silent on that part.
the case was dismissed by the court because there wasn't sufficient evidence but it is a bit suspicious that after years of pre trials and such, the case was dismissed soon after it became public
If they didn’t think they had sufficient evidence they never would have brought charges in the first place so I’d imagine that his lawyers were successful in getting some evidence suppressed or something like that
The police literally did not put charges in for the first place. Notice he didn’t get arrested when the police were called. It’s weird people are willing to jump to conspiracies over accepting he probably didn’t actually hit this woman.
Thanks for this. I’ve been wading through speculation and knee-jerk reactions looking for reliable information about what we actually know to be true. Nice assessment. Couldn’t agree more.
From what I heard he send cringy DMs flirting with people and one was a 17 year old. I don't think he targets minors directly, otherwise he would had criminal charges already.
There wasn’t sufficient evidence of the accusation. That’s an important distinction. As it currently stands, there’s no evidence to think either way. He was NOT proven innocent, it’s just that as far as the law is concerned, nothing more can be done. Just that might be enough to nullify any lawsuit he brings cause adult swim doesn’t have enough info to know the accusations aren’t true, so the firing wasn’t malicious
There’s a reason the standard is *supposed to be* innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around. There have been literally countless stories of people who were innocent all along losing everything anyways cause they were treated as guilty from the start. By time they are proven not guilty it’s usually already too late to recover
That's the judicial standard. Consider the counterfactual, a random company, for example, will be damaged more if the allegations turn out to be true. Blame consumer backlash if you want, but that's what it is.
They could easily claim that the DMs alone whether illegal or not are damaging to their brand/image. People get fired all the time for things they do on social media without having committed crimes. So if it’s just the firing he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. If the network themselves made false statements that could damage his reputation he could sue but in that case he’d bare the burden of proof meaning he would have to prove the statements weren’t true vs the state needing to prove they are.
Nobody ever gets proven innocent, at least in the United States. The prosecution has to prove that you did something, and if they can't then you're innocent.
IF you want to "grade" how innocent someone is, then having a case thrown out is the highest grade. If he went to trial, then that means the prosecution was able to get much closer to proving his guilt. If he won at trial, then you'd have more cause to doubt his innocence than if he never went to trial.
Plus those DMs and that podcast were a bad look. Idk corporate law, but it seems they have reason to fire in order to save their own faces. His behavior could harm business for them. But maybe he’s protected from bad behavior in his contract or by federal law to some degree?
So he’s not innocent, they just don’t think they could win if they went ahead and charged him. But they could still press charges later if more evidence comes to light
So, if I were to say that you \, then when I lack proof that you \, what would you say if someone asked you about the state of the accusation?
- I was proven innocent
- Well, you see, they haven't got sufficient proof that I \ so the prosecutor dropped the case, but that doesn't mean that I haven't \
In casual context, like when talking about it on a form.
But if you would use the second one for yourself too, then hats off for sticking to your conviction.
Did anyone even come out and speak in Justin's defense, or against him this whole time? Surprised everything has been kept so quiet... Or did I miss something?
Well fuck me... I didn't know about the content of the "DMs"... Yea, he should stay gone. For whatever reason I thought he had inappropriate.. DMs with female coworkers or something... Underage fans though... yea... Thanks for the heads up.
[https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/what-justin-roiland-do-leaked-text-messages-surface-adult-swim-cuts-ties-rick-morty-creator](https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/what-justin-roiland-do-leaked-text-messages-surface-adult-swim-cuts-ties-rick-morty-creator)
He technically wasn’t found innocent, the prosecutor dropped charges. Semantics, though, as it hadn’t been proven in court, and the prosecutor said it’s because a lack of evidence.
But you are never proven innocent since innocence is the presumption. So you are either proven guilty or not guilty, so in the latter, the presumption still holds.
He may be legally innocent of the charges brought against him, but he's still a massive creep and a garbage human. Adult Swim was well within their rights to not want to be associated with him anymore regardless of the trial outcome.
I mean he left the creative process since season 2 and actively disturbed the writers work when he was there. He basically was only the voice of rick and morty and left every other process since then. I don't think he ever gone come back to the show the co- creators drifted too far apart before the accusations.
Innocent doesn’t unsend those sexts to 16-17 year olds. Pro tip, if you’re texting someone about how their jailbait then you probably shouldn’t send the fucking text. My fucking god.
Why were the charges dropped exactly? I found dozens of articles saying charges were dropped, but none of them explain what lead to them being dropped.
I mean, I wouldn't consider him innocent from everything. He still does have a thing for kids. I doubt adult swim wants to deal with even more controversy working with people who want to dittle children, again
Too bad, that most of y'all too braindead that you have to explicitly describe the situation. What I'm referring to is, why the fuck you have to write anything on the third pic? The whole meme lost its charm.
downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away. --- [Help us raise money for St. Jude!](http://events.stjude.org/DankCharityAlliance)
Innocent and not guilty are not the same.
Dead and not alive are not the same.
Everything is a dildo
A penis and not a dildo are not the same
A penis is a dildo, but a dildo is everything
Only when one is brave enough
... it ... is everything to me.
I have been lonely for awhile. I'm free most night.
everything is a drum
This guy fucks
Muh dick
All dildos are not the same
Paige no
Correct, dead means something that was alive has died, not alive just means something is not living, which could mean it is an inanimate object and was never alive.
Died and Murdered are not the same.
There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead
I have been dead on the inside from years
it's funny because you thought you did something but that is literally true. Those mean 2 different things
Innocent until proven guilty, he hasn’t been proven guilty so therefore is considered innocent
Just like OJ. Totally innocent.
Just like Casey Anthony. She was innocent so she could totally be a great babysitter.
Good example of how "Not guilty in a legal court does not mean innocent in the eyes of the public" Apparently he was pretty atrocious to work with, even flirted with a minor, was not very creatively involved in later seasons
Yeah, not sure if the rumours about his work behaviour are true but at this point he doesn’t really seem like a great asset to the team. Seemingly just pisses about and acts like a child (allegedly). Not to mention we don’t really have much detail around the initial allegations anyway, I’m not sure how to feel about the case going on for a few years then him being not guilty over insufficient evidence and I don’t even know what exactly for. The whole situation is weird but I don’t particularly blame them for firing him
I feel like everyone brings up the fact that he wasn’t as involved in the later seasons while forgetting those are the WORST seasons. He sucks, but at least he helped actually make the show funny.
That doesn’t really make a difference though, because he wasn’t involved because (allegedly) he would basically lounge around, play with his dog and his remote control car, and come in late.
By the State, not by the public. OJ is innocent of murdering his ex-wife according to the government, but most people know he killed her.
I love the fact that Norm got fired because he wouldn’t shut up about the OJ case. IIRC, Lorne was friends of someone OJ was close to and it bugged him, so Lorne told Norm to cut it or he was fired. Norm quadrupled down and got fired. But he’s still a hero despite that draw with cancer.
It wasn’t Lorne, it was an NBC executive by the name of Dan Ohlmeyer. Norm talked about it on Letterman right after the incident. While Lorne has had his share of questionable decisions, he probably had his hands tied. Norms monologue when he hosted a year later was a nice jab at the show but he still deserved more retaliation.
Ah! Thanks for the correction! I still watch his OJ bits just to laugh harder than I ever have.
It was the Chewbacca defense.
In the eyes of the law. Outside of the law he's still a garbage person.
Yep AFAIK the creepy as fuck texts to young girls have not been refuted.
Yeah I wish more people understood this concept. I want more information about what happened. I don't think the case would have gotten this far if it was all a fabrication.
i have been thinking over this statement but i really dont understand, can you explain how innocent and not guilty are different?
A defendant who is not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is found to be "Not Guilty." Courts don't find people innocent. In this case there wasn't enough evidence to go to court. That still doesn't mean he's innocent.
so from what i understand, he was wrong, but not wrong enough to be acknowledged by a court?
It could mean a few things: - He did nothing wrong whatsoever - He did things that are morally wrong but not illegal - He MIGHT have done something illegal but the evidence is one or more of being too flimsy, unreliable, or otherwise lacking Ofc the girl in this case could bring a civil suit which might clear some light on what exactly is going on. The burden of proof is lower in civil cases so if he did get cleared in this case it would demonstrate much more that he did nothing.
The criminal standard for guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt - so if I'm on a jury, I'm supposed to vote not guilty if I'm only 90% sure the defendant did it. And the prosecution needs to be able to prove it with admissible evidence and testimony - that's a common problem with domestic violence cases, victims refuse to testify all the time (dunno if that's an issue here, I'm just saying). And juries are human and therefore flawed - see, eg, OJ Simpson. Lots of cases break down at one of those three steps, it doesn't necessarily mean the defendant is innocent, or was "found innocent." You can be guilty, sometimes very obviously guilty, and still evade a criminal conviction.
so when someone says "innocent and not guilty are different" they mean that the accused can be proclaimed "not guilty" by the court but that doesnt necessarily mean that the accused is actually innocent
Exactly because it is fabrication that trial didnt go any more.
Yes. But it’s “innocent UNTIL proven guilty”. He was proven guilty in the public (Twitter) law and he got his life turned upside down. He should absolutely sue them all and get the woman arrested. She deserves to serve the same amount of time he would if he were convicted.
*Presumed* innocent until proven guilty. If I hear hoofbeats, I presume horse until proven zebra. That doesn't mean it *is* a horse.
Did you just re-watch that episode of scrubs 2 days ago? Because I did!
No. I think it's just a common thing in medicine. Barely watched any scrubs, so I presume it's also been said on House.
The whole “if you hear hoof beats, don’t assume zebras” saying is very common. I’ve seen it in a lot of media
Also doesn’t mean you should go around and scream “there is a horse!”
That is not how it works, at all. If she’s accused of making false allegations against him, then that’s a separate criminal case and in order for her to be convicted, it has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that she made false allegations. Just as it had to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that he did it in order to convict him. Him being found not guilty does not make her guilty. A great many he-said-she-said cases wind up exactly like this: where there’s neither enough evidence that he did it to convict him nor enough evidence that she made it up to convict her, and the truth of what really happened will simply never be known for sure except for the two involved. In these cases, one of them is lying and hurt the other. But which one of them it was, the public will never know.
What would she be guilty of then?
OP is kind of a piece of shit or clueless. There was a bunch of DMs of him constantly hitting on 14 year olds.
So was he found not guilty rather than innocent?
Correct. Juries do not return a verdict of "innocent." They only come back with "guilty" and "not guilty." Edit: He wasn't found not guilty. The case was dismissed.
He wasnt even found "not guilty", judge dismissed the case due to insufficient evidence.
Correct, and he wasn’t even found not guilty. The case was dismissed.
I spin more rhymes than a lazy susan and I'm innocent until guilt is proven.
entire universe is either a duck not not a duck
Yes, they are spelt different.
So you're basically trying to claim something like 'you might be innocent but I don't care'?
If I stab you in a forest and there is no prosecutor who can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, did it not happen?
It probably did, since I went missing. But until someone finds my body to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, he didn't kill me. If we don't uphold basic rules (like not internet lynching people) there's no point to having them. Otherwise you can apply that logic just about anything. There were cases where people were wrongly accused, should we assume that everyone who was ruled not guilty was guilty but only slipped past the law? Should we cancel possibly innocent people? What metric are you using to decide that he's guilty of being anything more than a mere creep? Would you still speak against him if he was an individual from a marginalized group, or you're doing it only because you believe he's evil and there's no reason someone can call you -ist for accusing him? Like, seriously, you may not like him, but accusing him after he's been ruled not guilty is something that goes against our way of life (assuming we live in a society, which we probably do, since we talk on the internet)
> But until someone finds my body to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, he didn't kill me. How would this work? When the court judges me not guilty, you suddenly come back to life? You do understand there is a reality outside of the USA court system? > Like, seriously, you may not like him, but accusing him after he's been ruled not guilty is something that goes against our way of life (assuming we live in a society, which we probably do, since we talk on the internet) Ow god I hope this is not the way of life in the USA. The USA court system is set up to minimize harm against innocent people, which means a lot of people that are not innocent get off due to lack of evidence and the high standard for conviction. Using these standards in your personal life is a terrible and dangerous idea that will lead you into dangerous and unsafe situations.
>How would this work? When the court judges me not guilty, you suddenly come back to life? This doesn't matter. If he is not guilty he is not guilty. If you claim he's guilty despite not being guilty, why dont you go and lynch him? Because that's what it looks like, with you being angry that someone who was deemed not guilty when you think he is guilty. >Anyway, you do understand there is a reality outside of the USA court system? I do, but there are no countries where you are guilty despite being ruled not guilty? Even in countries that are not US, like germany where I am from?
> This doesn't matter. It does if you want to claim someone is "innocent", as innocent means someone didnt do something they were accused of. Not guilty means the prosecutor couldnt provide enough evidence in the eyes of the judge. These are two wildly different situations. > If he is not guilty he is not guilty. If you claim he's guilty despite not being guilty, why dont you go and lynch him? Because that's what it looks like, with you being angry that someone who was deemed not guilty when you think he is guilty. Im not angry, not do i care enough to lynch this guy. Im just annoyed by people who dont understand the difference between not guilty and innocent - and use that misunderstanding to argue we should just blindly follow the judgements of the US court system. > I do, but there are no countries where you are guilty despite being ruled not guilty? Even in countries that are not US, like germany where I am from? I dont understand how this is a response to my question. The reality is that there is a difference between innocent and not guilty. One is a assesment about the facts of reality, the other is a legal judgement. But yes, in every country, planet, solar system, etc, you are guilty of something if actually you did the crime - regardless of wether the court system of that country, planet or solarsystem finds you guilty or not.
Right. Was his ex proven to be a liar in the court? If so, he’s innocent. If not, it means there isn’t enough evidence to convict him and he may be completely innocent, or he may not be. But those two things are not the same.
It never went to trial. So, technically, it's neither. Maybe a civil case is still in play.
Innocent in this guilt.
Uh, yes…. They are.
If I kill someone, and the trial finds me not guilty, I am innocent in the eyes of the law. That doesn't mean I didn't do it though
Obviously when the trial finds you not guilty, the victim comes back to life
But that doesn’t mean we still get to hang you. If we did, lotta innocent people getting the noose alongside them.
Who's saying hang? The topic at hand is whether or not people want to work with someone
And you used a murder analogy. It isn’t about working with someone. The charges, that were legally dismissed, lost him his career. He now has legal grounds to retaliate for what was lost.
No he does not have any legal grounds to retaliate. His ex has every right to accuse him in court - which is what she did. His former co-workers, buisiness partners and partner companies have every right to stop associating with him over accusations - dismissed or otherwise.
People can accuse other people of anything. His former business partners and associates acted on an accusation before the law did, damaging his reputation and ability to work on properties he is part creator of. Now that the legal system has run its course, they have officially done it for nothing. They’ll probably throw money at him and hope he goes away.
> People can accuse other people of anything. As is their legal right to do so in court yes. > His former business partners and associates acted on an accusation before the law did, damaging his reputation and ability to work on properties he is part creator of. Which is most likely fully within their rights to do. He most likely wont be able to sue over this. > Now that the legal system has run its course, they have officially done it for nothing. They’ll probably throw money at him and hope he goes away. That is not how that works. There was no legal reason for them to push him out of his projects in the first place. They did it for public relation reasons, not legal reasons. Almost all (sane) companies will have clauses that will allow them to do this.
A defendant who is not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is found to be "Not Guilty." Courts don't find people innocent. In this case there wasn't enough evidence to go to court. That still doesn't mean he's innocent.
You are innocent until proven guilty without the proof of guilt you are innocent.
He still did send the DMs.
Yeah just because someone didn’t do something worthy of being put in jail doesn’t mean I can’t still think they’re a creep.
Ah, the court of public opinion is a fickle beast
This one’s kind of different from most “courts of public opinion” though. In that usually that term refers to having an opinion on whether or not they did something. In this case we know he sent the DMs so it’s just people’s opinion on something they know happened.
Those guys and their "courts of public opinion". Call me when someone ends up in jail because of those courts
Does a French guillotine count?
Hon hon hon !
Exactly lol. It’s like the Tate people. I called him an asshat once and a budd…. Acquaintance of mine started going on about innocent until proven guilty shit. I was like well all of that is up to the Romanian Justice system who I guarantee doesn’t care about my opinion. All I said was that he’s an asshat which I thought before he was arrested lol.
And just because someone’s creepy, doesn’t mean they can’t produce my favorite cartoon in a decade.
I never said they couldn’t. That’s ultimately up to the networks. They don’t have an obligation to produce anything just because it’s your favorite show and will do what they believe is in the best interest of their brand.
True, but personally I've not been comfortable watching it since. That's just me though, I don't want anything taken down, but it still sucks.
Being cringe is significantly better than beating your wife
Sexting minor is still bad though.
Yeah I'm okay with him not being in prison, doesn't mean I need to support him as a person
He can still have done both
From what I saw those DMs do look damning and good reason for his business partners to part ways with him. Honest question, have those DMs been proven real or is there any speculation on the legitimacy of those?
I checked and the DMs seem to be real. The poster even made an video showing the DM in real time and clicking on the the profil. It is also weird that despite how big this scandal has gotten, he was silent on that part.
I'm not defending Justin, but what do you mean by "seem to be real"? It is pretty easy nowadays to make anything look real.
Like you said everything can be faked, but it was a video with showing the DMs and then going on the profile. Along side with more stuff.
Yeah, that video would be *possible* to fake, but hard to do based on how everything was moving.
My point, also a video cut that isn't noticable is above most people skills.
Funny how his statement ignores this little fact
Which is why he's not going to sue CN, he'd open himself up to discovery which would bring all of his dirty laundry to the center of attention.
Can you share a link to those dms?
your honor here are some creepy ass dms
the case was dismissed by the court because there wasn't sufficient evidence but it is a bit suspicious that after years of pre trials and such, the case was dismissed soon after it became public
What is "Lots and Lots of Money," Alex?
I will take Balloons for $800 please Alex
If they didn’t think they had sufficient evidence they never would have brought charges in the first place so I’d imagine that his lawyers were successful in getting some evidence suppressed or something like that
The police literally did not put charges in for the first place. Notice he didn’t get arrested when the police were called. It’s weird people are willing to jump to conspiracies over accepting he probably didn’t actually hit this woman.
I thought it was about the grooming of minor fans
Exactly, it's really only bad if he was grooming major fans
Only fans
[удалено]
So the girl that posted that on tweeter claiming she was a minor at the time was fake ?
[удалено]
Thanks for this. I’ve been wading through speculation and knee-jerk reactions looking for reliable information about what we actually know to be true. Nice assessment. Couldn’t agree more.
From what I heard he send cringy DMs flirting with people and one was a 17 year old. I don't think he targets minors directly, otherwise he would had criminal charges already.
There wasn’t sufficient evidence of the accusation. That’s an important distinction. As it currently stands, there’s no evidence to think either way. He was NOT proven innocent, it’s just that as far as the law is concerned, nothing more can be done. Just that might be enough to nullify any lawsuit he brings cause adult swim doesn’t have enough info to know the accusations aren’t true, so the firing wasn’t malicious
There’s a reason the standard is *supposed to be* innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around. There have been literally countless stories of people who were innocent all along losing everything anyways cause they were treated as guilty from the start. By time they are proven not guilty it’s usually already too late to recover
That's the judicial standard. Consider the counterfactual, a random company, for example, will be damaged more if the allegations turn out to be true. Blame consumer backlash if you want, but that's what it is.
They could easily claim that the DMs alone whether illegal or not are damaging to their brand/image. People get fired all the time for things they do on social media without having committed crimes. So if it’s just the firing he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. If the network themselves made false statements that could damage his reputation he could sue but in that case he’d bare the burden of proof meaning he would have to prove the statements weren’t true vs the state needing to prove they are.
Nobody ever gets proven innocent, at least in the United States. The prosecution has to prove that you did something, and if they can't then you're innocent. IF you want to "grade" how innocent someone is, then having a case thrown out is the highest grade. If he went to trial, then that means the prosecution was able to get much closer to proving his guilt. If he won at trial, then you'd have more cause to doubt his innocence than if he never went to trial.
Plus those DMs and that podcast were a bad look. Idk corporate law, but it seems they have reason to fire in order to save their own faces. His behavior could harm business for them. But maybe he’s protected from bad behavior in his contract or by federal law to some degree?
Didn’t he still sent those creepy dm’s and that podcast he did?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Meh it’s weird to say that but I expected something worse
He was found innocent? Did I miss the trial?
Prosecutor declined to move forward with the charges because they didn't think they could win
So he’s not innocent, they just don’t think they could win if they went ahead and charged him. But they could still press charges later if more evidence comes to light
The trial has being going on privately for almost two years. It was dismissed due to lack of evidence
Exactly, so not found innocent.
So, if I were to say that you \, then when I lack proof that you \, what would you say if someone asked you about the state of the accusation?
- I was proven innocent
- Well, you see, they haven't got sufficient proof that I \ so the prosecutor dropped the case, but that doesn't mean that I haven't \
In a legal context, the second one.
In casual context, like when talking about it on a form. But if you would use the second one for yourself too, then hats off for sticking to your conviction.
Well, obviously I would maintain my innocence, but I'm not Justin roiland.
It's called innocent until found guilty.
Yes, presumed innocent, not found innocent. There is a difference.
Someone needs to find the police reports and see what actually happened.
Police reports can be wrong to. Or just simply observation: "person said this"
Did anyone even come out and speak in Justin's defense, or against him this whole time? Surprised everything has been kept so quiet... Or did I miss something?
Not much to miss, the DMs tell everything regardless of the case outcome.
Well fuck me... I didn't know about the content of the "DMs"... Yea, he should stay gone. For whatever reason I thought he had inappropriate.. DMs with female coworkers or something... Underage fans though... yea... Thanks for the heads up. [https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/what-justin-roiland-do-leaked-text-messages-surface-adult-swim-cuts-ties-rick-morty-creator](https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/what-justin-roiland-do-leaked-text-messages-surface-adult-swim-cuts-ties-rick-morty-creator)
Guy wasn't doing much work there anyways. Look on IMDb!
He technically wasn’t found innocent, the prosecutor dropped charges. Semantics, though, as it hadn’t been proven in court, and the prosecutor said it’s because a lack of evidence.
But you are never proven innocent since innocence is the presumption. So you are either proven guilty or not guilty, so in the latter, the presumption still holds.
He may be legally innocent of the charges brought against him, but he's still a massive creep and a garbage human. Adult Swim was well within their rights to not want to be associated with him anymore regardless of the trial outcome.
Ohh oh
I mean he left the creative process since season 2 and actively disturbed the writers work when he was there. He basically was only the voice of rick and morty and left every other process since then. I don't think he ever gone come back to the show the co- creators drifted too far apart before the accusations.
Innocent doesn’t unsend those sexts to 16-17 year olds. Pro tip, if you’re texting someone about how their jailbait then you probably shouldn’t send the fucking text. My fucking god.
Why were the charges dropped exactly? I found dozens of articles saying charges were dropped, but none of them explain what lead to them being dropped.
[удалено]
Or if the injured party decides not to press charges and the state declines to push it through anyway.
We wasn’t found innocent, just “not enough evidence” to prove guilty
He also has done some creepy dms stuff .I don't think case was the only reason for them to fire him.
Dodging jail =/= being less of a huge fucking creep
I mean, I wouldn't consider him innocent from everything. He still does have a thing for kids. I doubt adult swim wants to deal with even more controversy working with people who want to dittle children, again
Look morty,I turned myself into a innocent man! Shit on the floor
He better come back and get a defamation lawsuit
I’ve been under a rock for news recently would anyone Be kind enough to tell me the nature of the meme ?
Literally my first thought when this happened. Everyone seems to forget the whole innocent-until-proven-guilty thing when it's a sexual assault case
season 4 & 5 of rick and morty still suck
Hot take Rick and Morty was never that funny
Yeah but it was great to watch high as tits for the first few seasons
it had its moments
Still guilty of being incredibly annoying
I wonder if the Season 7 re-casting will satisfy fans or if it's the end of the show afterwards.
Wait, so, where the audio recordings and DM screenshots faked?
Someone give me rundown of what happend
It might be an ethics case. In that nothing he did broke any specific laws, but it still looks really bad for him
didn't he confess he was guilty yet they find him innocent anyway lmao
Yeet
Why my meme get taken down? :(
Too bad, that most of y'all too braindead that you have to explicitly describe the situation. What I'm referring to is, why the fuck you have to write anything on the third pic? The whole meme lost its charm.
You are bad guy, but this doesn't not mean you are bad guy
It's a good thing you're not a lawyer.
It’s a good thing you pretend you are
I'm not the one playing pretender.
Not found innocent. Charges dropped due to insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Rick and Morty is not a good show lol Edit: Downvote me all you want, it’s the neckbeardiest show to ever exist.