cuda1179 wrote: [Statutory rape is NOT something you can sweep under the rug with a payoff. In fact, the police are legally obligated to file charges if a minor is assaulted, regardless of if they made a criminal complaint. They have NO legal ability to no file charges. If they don't they can be held criminally liable themselves.
I think you have a few things mixed up here.
Police don't file charges at all in the sense that you're saying - that's for prosecutors to do.
I also think you're confusing police officers and mandatory reporters. Mandatory reporters are not required to be law enforcement but as you say they are obligated to report abuse that they see, reasonably suspect, or have reported to them and can be held liable if they do not.
The reason I point out this distinction isn't pedantry, but that last point: the police absolutely cannot be held criminal liable for failing to protect. There is well established case law at this point that the police have no responsibility to protect any one specific citizen.
I researched this a bit, and as it turns out, it looks like we are both wrong somewhat. Police can not be required to physically protect you, however, many states do have laws requiring police to take statements from sexual assault victims and to file when reasonable belief exists. Some of these states have also have limited Prosecutorial Discretion on whether or not to bring these charges when the victim is a minor. At least in Illinois police failure to take a statement about sexual assault is a legal violation.
cuda1179 wrote: [Statutory rape is NOT something you can sweep under the rug with a payoff. In fact, the police are legally obligated to file charges if a minor is assaulted, regardless of if they made a criminal complaint. They have NO legal ability to no file charges. If they don't they can be held criminally liable themselves.
I think you have a few things mixed up here.
Police don't file charges at all in the sense that you're saying - that's for prosecutors to do.
I also think you're confusing police officers and mandatory reporters. Mandatory reporters are not required to be law enforcement but as you say they are obligated to report abuse that they see, reasonably suspect, or have reported to them and can be held liable if they do not.
The reason I point out this distinction isn't pedantry, but that last point: the police absolutely cannot be held criminal liable for failing to protect. There is well established case law at this point that the police have no responsibility to protect any one specific citizen.
I researched this a bit, and as it turns out, it looks like we are both wrong somewhat. Police can not be required to physically protect you, however, many states do have laws requiring police to take statements from sexual assault victims and to file when reasonable belief exists. Some of these states have also have limited Prosecutorial Discretion on whether or not to bring these charges when the victim is a minor. At least in Illinois police failure to take a statement about sexual assault is a legal violation.
To be fair he gave a better effort at saying he was sorry than most. I’m all for punishing the guilty and public shunning to enforce social change but those shouldn’t be life sentences. Certainly I think reparations should be made to victims but I don’t expect the guy to hide in a corner wallowing in shame for the rest and of his life. Shunning abusers forever is one sure way to ensure perpetual division without any form of reconciliation and down that road human decency doesn’t fair any better than it does in an environment of cover ups and hush money.
Don’t do it again and don’t be an ass about being called out on it and let forgiveness reign and all that so long as he’s actually sorry. Forgiveness is a great virtue and all but it doesn’t demand stupidity toward repeat offenders.
LordofHats wrote: To be fair he gave a better effort at saying he was sorry than most. I’m all for punishing the guilty and public shunning to enforce social change but those shouldn’t be life sentences. Certainly I think reparations should be made to victims but I don’t expect the guy to hide in a corner wallowing in shame for the rest and of his life. Shunning abusers forever is one sure way to ensure perpetual division without any form of reconciliation and down that road human decency doesn’t fair any better than it does in an environment of cover ups and hush money.
Don’t do it again and don’t be an ass about being called out on it and let forgiveness reign and all that so long as he’s actually sorry. Forgiveness is a great virtue and all but it doesn’t demand stupidity toward repeat offenders.
C.K.'s apology and ownership of his wrong doing seemed earnest to me. From memory of his apology he admitted outright what he did, and acknowledged that he was blind to the power structure he was abusing. I don't know what more can be done in the apology department. He lost his show, a movie that was about to premier was cancelled and he hasn't performed in almost a year, so he has paid a literal price for his actions too. I very much doubt his career will return to the heights it reached prior to his admission-especially since he passed off as rumors his bizarre antics for years-I'd understand people having difficulty reconciling that aspect of the story with his apology and moving forward. Still, I think he has enough of a fan base willing to forgive him and, if he can fly right, will embrace his new work.
From the article about C.K.'s return: The performance was unannounced.
That's, maybe, not the best was to re-start his career when "unannounced performances" (of a different type) were what got him into trouble in the first place :/
Mario wrote: From the article about C.K.'s return: The performance was unannounced.
That's, maybe, not the best was to re-start his career when "unannounced performances" (of a different type) were what got him into trouble in the first place :/
Mario wrote: From the article about C.K.'s return: The performance was unannounced.
That's, maybe, not the best was to re-start his career when "unannounced performances" (of a different type) were what got him into trouble in the first place :/
Dat sick burn doh.
Take that act on stage Mario
But then the audience gave him an ovation after, so I guess you could say they liked how he finished. They were shocked that he came at all, but still rose to the occasion to applaud his efforts. Okay, I think I am done with dick jokes.
So, the Argento story takes another turn. It looks like McGowan's current partner, model Rain Dove, is the one who gave police Argento's texts.
Asia Argento, an outspoken advocate of the #MeToo movement and a Harvey Weinstein accuser, recently denied that she sexually assaulted former co-star Jimmy Bennett when he was 17 years old and she was 37. However, shortly after her denial, text messages that were reportedly Argento’s were leaked to TMZ, which seem to support Bennett’s accusations against the actress.
On Monday, actress and fellow proponent of #MeToo, Rose McGowan, released a statement that named model and activist Rain Dove as the person who brought the incriminating text messages between Argento and Dove to the police.
Dove is a 28-year-old model, actor, and activist. Recently, Dove appeared in Refinery29’s produced web series on Facebook, Strangers.
In her statement, McGowan says that she introduced Argento to Dove — the “being [she’s] been dating” — after the death of Argento’s boyfriend Anthony Bourdain. Together, McGowan, Dove, and Argento visited Berlin, where Argento “mentioned that she was being extorted for a large sum of
money every month by someone who was blackmailing [Argento and Bourdain] with a provocative image.” Neither McGowan nor Dove knew at the time that the person was now 22-year-old Bennett.
Dove, who goes by the “they” pronoun, continued to text with Argento after their meeting, according to McGowan. “They said that they had been texting with Asia and that Asia had revealed that she had indeed slept with Jimmy Bennett. Rain also shared that Asia had stated that she’d been
receiving unsolicited nudes of Jimmy since he had been 12,” McGowan states.
Dove informed McGowan that they wanted to take the text messages to the police. “An hour after our conversation was finished, Rain Dove confirmed that they had turned over the texts and were in conversation with officers. Almost 48 hours later, the texts were in the press.”
On Wednesday, Dove wrote a tweet seemingly aimed at Argento, stating, “Friend, family, acquaintance it doesn’t matter when it comes to justice — you do not get special treatment.”
+1 Awesomeness to Rain Dove for that final statement!
8 months seems kinda light in my opinion. Though, I'd imagine his attorney fees are crippling at this point and he has had almost four years of legal battles so that is something, I guess. Still, if my privacy was violated in the way he violated others I'd want more than a slap on the wrist for the perpetrator.
Not that I am defending the Fappening, but seriously, what kind of idiot stores nudie pics of themselves on the cloud? It just seems like a total invitation to be humiliated.
cuda1179 wrote: Not that I am defending the Fappening, but seriously, what kind of idiot stores nudie pics of themselves on the cloud? It just seems like a total invitation to be humiliated.
Not defending the people who steal peoples private data, proceeds to blame the people whose private data was stolen.
"I'm not defending bank fraud, but seriously, what kind of idiot stores their card details online? It just seems like a total invitation to lose all your money."
cuda1179 wrote: Not that I am defending the Fappening, but seriously, what kind of idiot stores nudie pics of themselves on the cloud? It just seems like a total invitation to be humiliated.
In most cases, it's photos they've taken on their iPhone and not realised they're automatically 'backed-up' to the cloud.
How much time should people dedicate to studying computer security before they no longer deserve to have their privacy violated? Also, what further lifestyle restrictions are necessary to deserve protection of the law?
cuda1179 wrote: Not that I am defending the Fappening, but seriously, what kind of idiot stores nudie pics of themselves on the cloud? It just seems like a total invitation to be humiliated.
Not defending the people who steal peoples private data, proceeds to blame the people whose private data was stolen.
."
I'm not blaming the victim. I'm just saying people should be a little more aware of reality. It's like saying "don't walk alone at night in a bad neighborhood".
You're not saying this happened because someone committed a crime, you're saying it happened because the victim didn't protect their self from being attacked by criminals.
cuda1179 wrote: Not that I am defending the Fappening, but seriously, what kind of idiot stores nudie pics of themselves on the cloud? It just seems like a total invitation to be humiliated.
Not defending the people who steal peoples private data, proceeds to blame the people whose private data was stolen.
."
I'm not blaming the victim. I'm just saying people should be a little more aware of reality. It's like saying "don't walk alone at night in a bad neighborhood".
Not only is it victim blaming, but you also don’t understand what “the cloud” is. Your saying the equivalent of “if you don’t want to get mugged don’t go outside ever”. Apples cloud is about as secure as it gets. Nothing wrong with keeping anything on it. These people were victims of fraud. Fraud anyone could have fallen victim to. Perhaps we would not all have nude photos to take, or care if we did, but we all have something valuable online. Card details, banking, personal information. Very few in industrialised countries now live totally without putting personal informatikn online.
And right here is what I'm talking about. It is something that ANYONE could fall for.
The difference between credit card info and nudie pics are that if your credit card info is breached there is a way to rectify the situation. Not so much with pictures.
You're not saying this happened because someone committed a crime, you're saying it happened because the victim didn't protect their self from being attacked by criminals.
That is blaming the victim.
So, by your definition, telling a college coed she needs to not drink from strange cups at parties is also victim blaming?
Calling her an idiot who is inviting herself to be raped would be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: Not that I am defending the Fappening, but seriously, what kind of idiot stores nudie pics of themselves on the cloud? It just seems like a total invitation to be humiliated.
And right here is what I'm talking about. It is something that ANYONE could fall for.
The difference between credit card info and nudie pics are that if your credit card info is breached there is a way to rectify the situation. Not so much with pictures.
You're not saying this happened because someone committed a crime, you're saying it happened because the victim didn't protect their self from being attacked by criminals.
That is blaming the victim.
So, by your definition, telling a college coed she needs to not drink from strange cups at parties is also victim blaming?
If you are saying that is the cause of date rape, you're blaming the victim.
You should blame the criminal instead. Rapists are the cause of rape.
Kilkrazy wrote: [
If you are saying that is the cause of date rape, you're blaming the victim.
You should blame the criminal instead. Rapists are the cause of rape.
Please watch the previously linked youtube video. I'm not saying that a perpetrator isn't to blame. They are, totally. What I am saying is that precautions should be taken.
Maybe I'm just an old fogy that preferred the days of Polaroid pics hidden in the back of a drawer.
Of course people should take precautions, but if a crime happens the criminal should be held wholly responsible.
Blaming the victim isn't a PC-gone-mad SJW slogan, it is a recognition of the fact that whenever we look at a crime, and say it was partly because the victim performed or failed to perform some particular behaviour, we reduce the burden of responsibility of the criminal.
I'm not attacking you personally, and I'm sorry to have given that impression. I am just trying to point out this important idea that we should focus on the criminal.
Hey, in a perfect world a woman should be able to walk through Hell's Kitchen at 3am wearing nothing but high heels and a pair of pasties, double fisting tubes of lube.
Anyone harasses her is in the wrong.
I just don't believe that saying that forethought is necessary takes anything away from a victim or lessens the responsibility of the perpetrator.
Or, maybe it does, depending on the intent of how it is worded.
And right here is what I'm talking about. It is something that ANYONE could fall for.
The difference between credit card info and nudie pics are that if your credit card info is breached there is a way to rectify the situation. Not so much with pictures.
Not if you get your identity stolen there isn't. ID theft is very very hard to fix. You can put in mitigating measures, but you cannot every get full control back, and it is a total nightmare to deal with. Once your data is out there it is out there.
Kilkrazy wrote: [
If you are saying that is the cause of date rape, you're blaming the victim.
You should blame the criminal instead. Rapists are the cause of rape.
Please watch the previously linked youtube video. I'm not saying that a perpetrator isn't to blame. They are, totally. What I am saying is that precautions should be taken.
Maybe I'm just an old fogy that preferred the days of Polaroid pics hidden in the back of a drawer.
It's not like these people posted their pictures on instagram. They had them in apples cloud. It is secure. It's a lot more secure than putting them in the back of a draw. That risks someone breaking in to your house and steeling them, something that has happened in the past. The only failing I can see on the part of the victim here is that their security advisers (that they will have, being celebrities) need to take IT security as seriously as they do personal security. That does not make it their fault, just a lesson learned.
Woman who drinks at a frat party is an idiot who is inviting being raped. Saying that is just calling on her to take responsibility.
Are you insinuating women shouldn't be careful with drinking random cups at a party?
There is a difference between being a total victim and being a victim due to circumstances of your own creation. If you die in a car crash because of circumstances beyond your control, it's horrible. If you die because you didn't wear your seatbelt and were texting, it's also horrible and you didn't deserve it, but you also should have known better.
There is a difference. Dieing in a car crash because you were not looking where you are going (texting) is not the same. That’s like falling off a building because you are drunk. Not caused by the actions of others. Being drunk does not cause others to rape you. Having nude pictures stored in a secure file online does not cause people to steal them. Texting whilst driving does cause you to not look where you are driving. In that case the person is the perpetrator of a crime not the victim.
And he didn’t say “random cups”. Your changing what has been said to put weven more blaim on the victim.
Woman who drinks at a frat party is an idiot who is inviting being raped. Saying that is just calling on her to take responsibility.
Are you insinuating women shouldn't be careful with drinking random cups at a party?
There is a difference between being a total victim and being a victim due to circumstances of your own creation. If you die in a car crash because of circumstances beyond your control, it's horrible. If you die because you didn't wear your seatbelt and were texting, it's also horrible and you didn't deserve it, but you also should have known better.
I am saying your opinion speaks for itself, and speaks poorly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steve steveson wrote: There is a difference. Dieing in a car crash because you were not looking where you are going (texting) is not the same. That’s like falling off a building because you are drunk. Not caused by the actions of others. Being drunk does not cause others to rape you. Having nude pictures stored in a secure file online does not cause people to steal them. Texting whilst driving does cause you to not look where you are driving. In that case the person is the perpetrator of a crime not the victim.
And he didn’t say “random cups”. Your changing what has been said to put weven more blaim on the victim.
Steve steveson wrote: There is a difference. Dieing in a car crash because you were not looking where you are going (texting) is not the same. That’s like falling off a building because you are drunk. Not caused by the actions of others. Being drunk does not cause others to rape you. Having nude pictures stored in a secure file online does not cause people to steal them. Texting whilst driving does cause you to not look where you are driving. In that case the person is the perpetrator of a crime not the victim.
And he didn’t say “random cups”. Your changing what has been said to put weven more blaim on the victim.
I take it you didn't exactly read the entire thread. He was referencing (and misleadingly misquoting) my previous post where I did literally state "strange cups". So the only person that changed what was stated was NinthMusketeer.
But to come up with a better parallel:
Alt-right protestor doing non-violent alt-right, but seriously misguided protesting. He gets sucker punched by an Antifa counter protestor. Shifting any blame onto the Alt-right protestor is "blaming the victim", right? And we all know no one on this forum would do that.
Woman who drinks at a frat party is an idiot who is inviting being raped. Saying that is just calling on her to take responsibility.
Are you insinuating women shouldn't be careful with drinking random cups at a party?
There is a difference between being a total victim and being a victim due to circumstances of your own creation. If you die in a car crash because of circumstances beyond your control, it's horrible. If you die because you didn't wear your seatbelt and were texting, it's also horrible and you didn't deserve it, but you also should have known better.
I am saying your opinion speaks for itself, and speaks poorly.
.
It speaks poorly that I think people should take some personal responsibility to ensure their own personal safety? Wow, that's logic right there.
Steve steveson wrote: There is a difference. Dieing in a car crash because you were not looking where you are going (texting) is not the same. That’s like falling off a building because you are drunk. Not caused by the actions of others. Being drunk does not cause others to rape you. Having nude pictures stored in a secure file online does not cause people to steal them. Texting whilst driving does cause you to not look where you are driving. In that case the person is the perpetrator of a crime not the victim.
And he didn’t say “random cups”. Your changing what has been said to put weven more blaim on the victim.
I take it you didn't exactly read the entire thread. He was referencing (and misleadingly misquoting) my previous post where I did literally state "strange cups". So the only person that changed what was stated was NinthMusketeer.
But to come up with a better parallel:
Alt-right protestor doing non-violent alt-right, but seriously misguided protesting. He gets sucker punched by an Antifa counter protestor. Shifting any blame onto the Alt-right protestor is "blaming the victim", right? And we all know no one on this forum would do that.
Woman who drinks at a frat party is an idiot who is inviting being raped. Saying that is just calling on her to take responsibility.
Are you insinuating women shouldn't be careful with drinking random cups at a party?
There is a difference between being a total victim and being a victim due to circumstances of your own creation. If you die in a car crash because of circumstances beyond your control, it's horrible. If you die because you didn't wear your seatbelt and were texting, it's also horrible and you didn't deserve it, but you also should have known better.
I am saying your opinion speaks for itself, and speaks poorly.
.
It speaks poorly that I think people should take some personal responsibility to ensure their own personal safety? Wow, that's logic right there.
Gerard Depardieu has been accused of sexual assault and rape by a 22-year-old actress, who filed a complaint on Monday, according to French news channel BFM.
The unnamed actress is accusing Depardieu of having assaulted and raped her at his Paris home on two occasions, on Aug. 6 and Aug. 13. The young woman was studying at a school where Depardieu is teaching, according to BFM. The pair was meeting at Depardieu’s home to rehearse for a play.
A preliminary investigation has been launched.
Depardieu’s lawyer, Hervé Témime, told BFM that his client strongly denied the allegations. “Gerard Depardieu is shaken by this complaint … and is absolutely contesting any assault, rape, or any criminal act,” Témime said.
Depardieu is the second major French film industry figure to be accused of sexual assault, following prominent French director Luc Besson, who is still being investigated for allegedly raping Dutch/Belgian actress Sand Van Roy.
Depardieu stars in Netflix’s French series “Marseille.” He earned an Oscar nomination for his role in the 1990 film “Cyrano de Bergerac.” The actor also earned accolades for Bernardo Bertolucci’s “1900,” Francis Veber’s “La Chèvre,” François Truffaut’s “The Last Metro,” Peter Weir’s “Green Card,” and the mini-series “The Count of Monte Cristo.”
Although he’s considered an iconic actor in France, he’s often made headlines for spurring controversies. Back in 2013, he became a local pariah after relocating to Belgium to pay less taxes. He’s also been criticized due to his friendship with President
Vladimir Putin, who offered him a Russian passport.
Steve steveson wrote: There is a difference. Dieing in a car crash because you were not looking where you are going (texting) is not the same. That’s like falling off a building because you are drunk. Not caused by the actions of others. Being drunk does not cause others to rape you. Having nude pictures stored in a secure file online does not cause people to steal them. Texting whilst driving does cause you to not look where you are driving. In that case the person is the perpetrator of a crime not the victim.
And he didn’t say “random cups”. Your changing what has been said to put weven more blaim on the victim.
I take it you didn't exactly read the entire thread. He was referencing (and misleadingly misquoting) my previous post where I did literally state "strange cups". So the only person that changed what was stated was NinthMusketeer.
But to come up with a better parallel:
Alt-right protestor doing non-violent alt-right, but seriously misguided protesting. He gets sucker punched by an Antifa counter protestor. Shifting any blame onto the Alt-right protestor is "blaming the victim", right? And we all know no one on this forum would do that.
It would be, and I don’t believe anyone has said otherwise. Obviously assuming the alt right protester is not doing anything that comes under the heading of “fighting talk”.
Ayn Rand was fighting this very same thing back in the late 40's and early 50's. This is nothing new over there.
I'm just amazed at the amount of people learning about this stuff for the first time, recently. I guess I was the fool. I just assumed everyone knew what was going on over there, same as everyone knows what goes on in religious institutions.
Ayn Rand was fighting this very same thing back in the late 40's and early 50's. This is nothing new over there.
I'm just amazed at the amount of people learning about this stuff for the first time, recently. I guess I was the fool. I just assumed everyone knew what was going on over there, same as everyone knows what goes on in religious institutions.
That would be the Ayn Rand who had her little cult ostracise the member who didn't want to sleep with her any more?
Ayn Rand was fighting this very same thing back in the late 40's and early 50's. This is nothing new over there.
I'm just amazed at the amount of people learning about this stuff for the first time, recently. I guess I was the fool. I just assumed everyone knew what was going on over there, same as everyone knows what goes on in religious institutions.
Casting Couch and the creepy vicar (and scoutmaster) were well known tropes when I was a boy in the 60s to 70s.
That's not to excuse them, of course.
Against that, "satanic abuse" hysterias such as the Orkneys have been completely debunked.
Some disappointing news regarding Kevin Spacey and Steven Seagal, Los Angeles DA determined that the statue of limitations were up for their respective 1992 and 1993 assault accusations, so no charges filed. That has to be a further punch in the stomach for those accusing Spacey and Seagal. I am sure there are good reasons for crimes having a limit on when they can be prosecuted, but I don't think sexual assault should fall under that protected class of crimes.
The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office has declined to file sexual assaultcharges against Kevin Spacey, Anthony Anderson and Steven Seagal.
The DA's office released formal declinations in each of the sex abuse cases against the three actors.
Spacey had been accused of assaulting a man in West Hollywood in 1992. According to the declination, the statue of limitations has expired. The district attorney's office added that the case did not involve an underage victim.
The Oscar-winning actor still faces multiple accusations of sexual misconduct, including from at least 20 people at London's Old Vic Theatre, who reported being the subject of Spacey's inappropriate behavior over a time period of 18 years.
Actor Anthony Rapp, 46, told BuzzFeed last October that when he was a teenager, Spacey, then in his 20s, made a sexual advance toward him. Spacey, 59, stated that he did not remember the alleged incident, but apologized for what "would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behavior."
He later sought "evaluation and treatment," according to a statement at the time from his spokesperson.
In the case of Seagal, the allegation of assault is from 1993, when the victim was 18 years old. The declination states that the statute of limitations expired in 1999.
The action star was accused earlier this year by two women of sexual assault and rape. One of them, Regina Simons, said Seagal raped her at his home when she was in her late teens. She said he invited her to a wrap party for the 1994 film "On Deadly Ground," but that when she showed up no one else was there.
Seagal's attorney Anthony Falangetti denied the accusations on behalf of his client in a statement to ABC News.
"Mr. Seagal denies all accusations and continues to stand his ground that he has not engaged in any such misconduct. The allegations that have been made against Mr. Seagal are false and have no substantive material support," he said in the statement.
"The accounts of both women are completely fictitious and totally made up," the statement continued. "The allegations are a disservice to women who are victimized because of real predators in the film industry."
From the same article, Anthony Anderson, star of the TV show Black-ish, also had charges dropped:
As for Anderson, the woman who accused him of assault declined to be interviewed by investigators, the declination stated.
Earlier this summer, the "Black-ish" star was under investigation after the woman filed a complaint with the LAPD's Hollywood Division, claiming Anderson assaulted her more than a year ago.
Anderson disputed the claim.
I am curious why the accuser in Anderson's case didn't consent to be interviewed by investigators. Not great optics there.
A statute of limitations is a good idea, but reading the blurbs it seems the statute for sexual assault is only 5 years, which is ridiculously low, even if you ascribe to the notion that a statute should apply to crimes like this.
Also, was anyone else kinda pissed-off that the most prominent headline about Aretha Franklin's funeral service was that Ariana Grande's dress was supposedly too short rather than about the... bishop(?) groping her?
Bran Dawri wrote: A statute of limitations is a good idea, but reading the blurbs it seems the statute for sexual assault is only 5 years, which is ridiculously low, even if you ascribe to the notion that a statute should apply to crimes like this.
Also, was anyone else kinda pissed-off that the most prominent headline about Aretha Franklin's funeral service was that Ariana Grande's dress was supposedly too short rather than about the... bishop(?) groping her?
Edit: damn my thick fingers.
Was the limitation for sake of ensuring you can still get reliable evidence or something like that? Could swear it was to that effect...
So basically after like 20 years what evidence to support accusations COULD be had besides word of both parties?
What's the appropriate age is another thing of course.
Mmm, it would have to be a case-by-case basis, but one can imagine a scenario where dna evidence is recovered, but no perp found until much later, by connection with a similar case or even sheer dumb luck.
Obviously, in a he-said-she-said-this-happened-over-fifteen-years-ago case there's only so much a public prosecutor can do even with no statute on such crimes, so why have one?
Bran Dawri wrote: A statute of limitations is a good idea, but reading the blurbs it seems the statute for sexual assault is only 5 years, which is ridiculously low, even if you ascribe to the notion that a statute should apply to crimes like this.
And I don't. There is are few good reasons for there to be a statute of limitations on most types of sexual assault and many, many reasons why there shouldn't.
Bran Dawri wrote: Also, was anyone else kinda pissed-off that the most prominent headline about Aretha Franklin's funeral service was that Ariana Grande's dress was supposedly too short rather than about the... bishop(?) groping her?
Yes! Thank you for bringing that up, because that should have been the leading headline from Franklin's service. The still shots pretty clearly show him grabbing her. Hell you can see her gaze land on his hand as he is doing it. Disgusting.
Cross posting from The Predator thread( aptly named in this case):
Pretty damn dense on Shane Blacks part:
As we’ve reported, Shane Black’s The Predator underwent final hour reshoots earlier this year, but as it turns out, Black tinkering with the film’s final act was only the tip of the iceberg in regards to its behind the scenes, post production issues. A report from Los Angeles Times today sheds light on a whole new issue, and it sounds like Black has some explaining to do.
According to the site, Black cast his friend Steven Wilder Striegel (47) in a brief role, “a three-page scene shared with actress Olivia Munn.” It was only after filming wrapped that Munn learned Striegel is a convicted sex offender, having plead guilty back in 2010 “after facing allegations that he attempted to lure a 14-year-old female into a sexual relationship via the internet.” In fact, it sounds like nobody was aware of Striegel’s past at the time, save for Black himself.
Last month, Munn approached 20th Century Fox with what she had learned, and to their credit, the studio swiftly edited Striegel out of the film.
As a spokesperson explained to LA Times, “Our studio was not aware of Mr. Striegel’s background when he was hired. We were not aware of his background during the casting process due to legal limitations that impede studios from running background checks on actors.”
Black and Striegel are longtime friends, and Black has also cast him in both Iron Man 3 and The Nice Guys. According to Black, he’s just been trying to “help a friend.”
“I personally chose to help a friend,” Black said in a written statement to LA Times. “I can understand others might disapprove, as his conviction was on a sensitive charge and not to be taken lightly. [Striegel was] caught up in a bad situation versus something lecherous.”
As for Munn, she notes that she found it “both surprising and unsettling that Shane Black, our director, did not share this information to the cast, crew, or Fox Studios prior to, during, or after production.” She added in her statement to LA Times, “I am relieved that when Fox finally did receive the information, the studio took appropriate action by deleting the scene featuring Wilder prior to release of the film.”
We were not aware of his background during the casting process due to legal limitations that impede studios from running background checks on actors.
Wut?!
I ran a background check on the dog sitter I hired for a weekend. Transaction came out to less than $150 and studios aren't able to do background checks on actors signed on to multi-million dollar projects? I am simply amazed if this is true.
To be fair most jobs don't run a background check on the average person. The only ones that generally do insist upon it are those who would be working with vulnerable adults or children. If the acting role didn't require it chances are the studios just didn't see a need to run a background check.
Most employers won't spend out for a background check or a CRB (police) check if its not required. Even multimillion £/$ films won't just throw money in any old direction; if they can make a saving they will.
Actually I'm fairly sure in the UK most would only run a CRB check (checks for previous convictions) and wouldn't go into a full background check.
[Striegel was] caught up in a bad situation versus something lecherous.”
Plead guilty to trying to lure a 14yr old girl into sex. Maybe there is a more in depth story behind the whole thing, but thats like textbook "lecherous".
[Striegel was] caught up in a bad situation versus something lecherous.”
Plead guilty to trying to lure a 14yr old girl into sex. Maybe there is a more in depth story behind the whole thing, but thats like textbook "lecherous".
Thing is sometimes you get less of a sentence if you plead guilt rather than attempt to defend yourself even if you are innocent or misled (eg the girl might have lied about her age online; however the letter of the law might mean that even in such a situation the guilty can't be absolved). Short clipped statements as to crimes often leave out a lot of details and specifics to a situation so its hard to form a proper opinion of what did or did not occur.
Of course lack of details means we also can't be sure if he was worse; he could have been active in knowing her age and deliberate in seeking her out etc... So he could both be far worse or less worse than one might imagine.
In the end I'm still not surprised he got the job for acting as unless there were minors present the contract likely didn't involve nor require a police check.
Overread wrote: To be fair most jobs don't run a background check on the average person. The only ones that generally do insist upon it are those who would be working with vulnerable adults or children. If the acting role didn't require it chances are the studios just didn't see a need to run a background check.
Irrelevant, the quoted studio rep said that legally studios can't perform background checks on actors. That is the big WTF issue I had. The statement is ambiguous, but it makes me wonder if actors are a protected group while other trades on a set might be eligible for background checks. Can the crew be given background checks?
Overread wrote: Most employers won't spend out for a background check or a CRB (police) check if its not required. Even multimillion £/$ films won't just throw money in any old direction; if they can make a saving they will.
Background checks aren't that expensive to run. Let's say a studio just wanted to run them on the leads, that would be akin to a rounding error on a major movie's budget. If they did the entire cast and crew it still wouldn't amount to much more than is spent on on a day or two of craft services. And how much do re-shoots costs? Studios are all about legally protecting their asses and their investments. If they can't legally run background checks that is odd and I'd like to know more, because other business can and do run background checks all the time.
[Striegel was] caught up in a bad situation versus something lecherous.”
Plead guilty to trying to lure a 14yr old girl into sex. Maybe there is a more in depth story behind the whole thing, but thats like textbook "lecherous".
Yeah...
I guess it is nice having loyal friends like that, but Blacks' statement is pants on the head stupid. Wonder if he thinks the girl lured his friend into that "bad situation".
It's still a cost that has to be justified. Sure it might be a rounding error; most of the individual costs are going to be small; its when they all add up that you get to big numbers.
Also what about the law on privacy? It might be that background checks are not simply allowed to be done by any employer without justification or only in certain lines of work.
There might also be a social aspect in that many people would feel it an invasion of their private life beyond the reasonable requirements to employ them for that line of work etc... At the end of the day its acting on a film set (or any one of a number of other film jobs) not the secret service or the police.
Overread wrote: It's still a cost that has to be justified. Sure it might be a rounding error; most of the individual costs are going to be small; its when they all add up that you get to big numbers.
How much does deleting a 3-page scene and re-shooting/re-editing cost a studio? The costs of a background check is negligible compared to the savings it can provide when a problem is preemptively found.
Overread wrote: Also what about the law on privacy? It might be that background checks are not simply allowed to be done by any employer without justification or only in certain lines of work.
There might also be a social aspect in that many people would feel it an invasion of their private life beyond the reasonable requirements to employ them for that line of work etc... At the end of the day its acting on a film set (or any one of a number of other film jobs) not the secret service or the police.
Privacy laws may be at play here, but I don't know and you don't know so its all speculation.
As for your second point I think the answer is "so, what?"
Background checks aren't only used for sensitive jobs. I've had to take them for most of the positions I've had, including an accounting position. I think you are underestimating how prolific background checks are in the hiring process. Maybe this is just a US thing, but where is Hollywood? The US. So again, why are studios not legally allowed to run these checks?
Is that studio rep lying? Maybe.
This company seems to provide background checks for the entertainment industry.
However, actors aren't listed as one of the groups they provide services for (bold emphasis mine):
Corra Group provides comprehensive background screening solutions to the Entertainment Industry. Production Companies and Film Studios use Corra Group to screen their in-house employees, temporary workers, outside vendors, as well as reality TV candidates and other talent. The entertainment industry not only faces lawsuits for negligent hiring, but also risks substantial loss to revenue and reputation should a production become derailed due to anti-social acts committed by cast or crew. Screening in the entertainment industry is no longer option; it is now necessary to provide the most comprehensive screening available to protection against liability.
"other talent" could mean actors, but I'd think that would be more prominent in the list if it were referring to on-screen leads and such.
Their pitch muddies the waters further as it seems they do checks on talent. Bold emphasis mine.
Every year, production companies spend millions of dollars developing shows for film and television. Those projects can be heavily funded by advertisers and major networks, all who have a reputation to protect. Ill-informed casting decisions and highly-publicized scandals can threaten everything you’ve worked so hard for. At the very least, a dangerous or dishonest contestant can produce a hectic PR scramble, dismissal of contestants and a rush to find last-minute replacements. Worst case: violence, lawsuits and the loss of major revenue.
Many of these situations can be prevented with comprehensive and thorough background checks. We are a leader in this industry and have worked with networks and production companies on hundreds of shows. Prior to starting Collective Intelligence our owner worked in the industry for a decade, so we understand production needs from your point of view: budgeting, casting, coordinating, filming and meeting deadlines. Save the drama for the show and let us help you make the most successful talent and crew choices.
Bottom line (if you are still reading), a background check is money well spent. If there is a legal reason why studios can't perform them on actors I'd like to know what that reason is. Google isn't returning much but now I have a new bone to gnaw on for a while. I'll post any relevant information I can find.
Aye a big difference could be the US vs UK legal and social aspects to hiring new workers. The biggest thing the UK pushes on is CRB checks which are polices database checks which check for past convictions which is typically related to things like sex offenders and thus typically tends to only be done when the job entails work with minors/vulnerable adults.
However it could also just be that you and I apply to very different sectors and thus whilst they are common in your lines of work they are not in mine. I have to say that for hiring someone like a dog-sitter most in the UK - that I'm aware of - would not think about doing a background check as such beyond googling their name and asking around for someone reliable and with a good reputation. Ergo we'd likely not pay a company to do it.
I also agree it would be interesting to know if actors are an exception and if so how come or if there is just more to it than that.
Overread wrote: I have to say that for hiring someone like a dog-sitter most in the UK - that I'm aware of - would not think about doing a background check as such beyond googling their name and asking around for someone reliable and with a good reputation. Ergo we'd likely not pay a company to do it.
Even if you are leaving that person with a key and access to your house while you are away? Can I dog sit for you? I promise not to steal everything...
I have had background checks done on me just for minimum wage service industry jobs. Hell every job I have done involved that. Strange that it was not done/is not allowed for something like the above
For #MeToo to amount to a social-reform movement that thrives far into the future, it would, perhaps, need to evolve into something new. The revelation of Harvey Weinstein’s behavior began a thunk, thunk, thunk of prominent downfalls, but celebrity scandals do not a transformative movement make. If #MeToo were ever to enter a new era of its own—one that moved public focus away from Hollywood and to everyday workplaces, for example—how would the world know? Would there be some revelation that creates a clear dividing line? Some op-ed that cuts through the chatter? A vote?
Or would change come thanks to an actor announcing “Phase Two” of the #MeToo movement as a possible shield when another actor has accused them of statutory rape?
This is the strange question now presented by Asia Argento. One of the first public accusers of Harvey Weinstein, the performer found herself becoming the accused in August when The New York Times reported she’d secretly reached a payoff agreement with the former child actor Jimmy Bennett. He had said that in 2013, when he was 17 and she was 37, she pushed sex on him in a California hotel room. Argento replied to the Times story by publicly denying Bennett’s claims, and on Wednesday, her lawyer Mark Jay Heller put out a statement that tries to flip the narrative, accusing Bennett of “sexually attacking” Argento in that hotel room. But it does not only do that.
“ASIA ARGENTO LAUNCHES ‘PHASE TWO’ OF THE #METOO MOVEMENT,” begins Heller’s statement. It defines the second phase as one in which “all victims, whether or not they have led a blemish-less life, should have the courage to come forward and not be afraid that the abuse that they are complaining of will be colored by any negative dynamics in their history.” Which is to say that someone who has what Heller calls a “gray area” in their past like Argento does—that “gray area” being the question of whether she took advantage of the teen who once played her son in a movie—should still be able to speak out about abuse they’ve endured. It’s sort of a reversal of the Bible’s “let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone.”
Isn’t that redundant, though? All along, #MeToo has insisted that the possible imperfections of an accuser should not keep them silent. When news of Bennett’s allegations became public, for example, a lot of folks in the movement responded by pointing out that they didn’t invalidate Argento’s own tales of having endured abuse. “Many perpetrators of sexual violence are themselves victims of it,” my colleague Hannah Giorgis wrote, echoing those responses. “This neither absolves Argento of her alleged crimes nor renders her own story of victimization void.”
It’s hard to avoid a suspicion of another motive, then, to Argento acting as though she’s the first champion of this point of view. The statement offers the supposedly expanded scope of “Phase Two” even to Bennett, who, “interestingly enough,” Argento thinks has a right to speak out against her despite his “troubled history.” The statement spends an inordinate amount of space describing that history, listing “his stalled acting career,” “a lawsuit against his own parents,” “a history of drug use,” and police investigations of allegations of misconduct with minors. It’s unclear whether the public is to disregard such “troubled pasts” in “Phase Two,” or whether “Phase Two” just means paying more attention to this particular accuser’s troubles.
Heller’s statement calls the Argento-Bennett situation a “crazy tangled web of sexual interactions,” but there’s no disputing a $380,000 deal was made with Bennett in 2017, of which $250,000 has been paid. Argento claims that this agreement was reached because her late partner Anthony Bourdain simply wanted to end Bennett’s extortion efforts against Argento, even though she says Bennett was the one who had assaulted her. She now says she will not pay out the rest of the settlement. Bennett’s story is that the deal was, as stated in the documents that the Times obtained a copy of, recognition that Argento had behaved inappropriately with him.
What is the wider world supposed to do with these competing stories? Heller’s statement excoriates the media for trying situations such as these in the “Court of Public Opinion,” which enables “fake news.” But it also expresses hope that “in the Court of Public Opinion it will ultimately be determined that Asia never initiated an inappropriate sexual contact with a minor, but rather she was attacked by Bennett and might even be suffering the fallback of a smear campaign by those already accused who may have a vested interest in their accusers being denied credibility.”
But Argento is not simply litigating her innocence. She’s reasserting her status as a shaper of the #MeToo movement—though in somewhat breathtakingly blinkered fashion. Heller’s statement gives her credit for kicking off “phase one” of the movement by accusing Weinstein. But really the term “me too” as used to reckon with sexual misconduct was coined in 2006 by the activist Tarana Burke, one of the many non-celebrities and/or women of color whose stories have been overshadowed by white stars in the past year. Thus the entire post-Weinstein wave has been, if anything, Phase Two. Someone who’s been involved as prominently as Argento has been should be sensitive to the implications of her erasing figures like Burke.
Movements aiming to shift both culture and policy often excel when they are broad-based and strive toward a sense of leaderlessness. Black Lives Matter, for example, works as a horizontal coalition (its adherents prefer the term “leaderful” to “leaderless”). When individuals are crowned as pivotal, it can draw needed attention away from others, and it can expose the movement to easier attack. And when mass and multifront change is being asked for, mass and multifront action is required.
Argento’s statement about “Phase Two” attempts to stake out her ongoing prominence in the movement. In doing so, it worsens the problem of over-centering celebrities all along. “Watch carefully who are called ‘leaders’ of the movement,” Burke tweeted earlier this year. The activist had been frequently recognized as a “founder” of #MeToo, but felt that the concrete nature of her contributions had been ignored. “It’s as if 25+ years of on the ground movement building work is not enough,” she wrote. “Or maybe spending most of that time being invested in the lives of Black and brown Girls isn’t enough.”
Now, in response to the allegations against Argento, Burke has further helped clarify how the movement might evolve. “It will continue to be jarring when we hear the names of some of our faves connected to sexual violence unless we shift from talking about individuals and begin to talk about power,” she tweeted. “Sexual violence is about power and privilege.”
Shift from talking about individuals: It’s a counterintuitive recommendation when #MeToo has been telling women and men that their stories deserve to be heard. Burke is not saying otherwise. But before Weinstein’s fall, she and others were laboring for wide social and policy changes so as to help people, unfamous and otherwise, stop abuse. If there really is to be a next phase of #MeToo, perhaps it will resemble a return to that state of affairs. Or rather, it will reveal that such fundamental work has never stopped, even if Argento would appear to want to keep controlling the discussion.
TL: DR - Argento is claiming the 17-year old boy accusing her of sexual assault actually assaulted her, and she is initiating a "Phase 2" of #MeToo that appears to call for not nullifying a victim's story even if they themselves have questionable pasts. As the article points out no one was really doing that, so what is the point of this "Phase 2"?
Argento is officially blaming the victim and trying to shield herself from criticism because she too was victimized. Classy lady!
At his age it isn't going to be any kind of a cake walk. There is a real chance he could die in prison.
I won't lose any sleep over a serial rapist dying in prison. 3-10 years seems way too light for someone who spent over 40 years pulling this gak, but I guess this is sentencing for a single case.
Hope the prison commissary Cosby frequents stocks the Jello Pudding deep.
At his age it isn't going to be any kind of a cake walk. There is a real chance he could die in prison.
I won't lose any sleep over a serial rapist dying in prison. 3-10 years seems way too light for someone who spent over 40 years pulling this gak, but I guess this is sentencing for a single case.
Hope the prison commissary Cosby frequents stocks the Jello Pudding deep.
I am sure his fellow inmates will have all the Jell-O jokes in the world for him.
