Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
When it comes to a DV case, it's rarely as obvious. Spiteful ex-partners are a thing, maybe the DV was more mutual abuse than an initial glance at the evidence might suggest, maybe the evidence is weak but the prosecutor is bringing it for personal or political reasons (high profile cases can further an attorney's career even if they lose). Maybe they are guilty of it but the evidence isn't there to find them guilty. The conviction rate for state tried felonies in the US isn't super high.

this is a lot of words for "I think women lie about abuse a lot."

I feel like you should try to take comments like this in good faith instead of viewing it in tribal warfare. Women lie, men lie. It's important not to jump to conclusions.

I feel like you should try to take comments like this in good faith instead of viewing it in tribal warfare. It's important not to assume tribalism is the only reason someone might think an opinion is thinly veiled. The most tribal thing you can do is to just ascribe a disagreement to tribalism.

Be the change you want to see in the world

If you really hate cancel culture, than you should be fighting for better workplace protections.

Write your congress critters please.

This honestly reminds me a bit of the Rooster Teeth scandals from a few years ago. And Blizzard more recently. Not exactly the same, but it's a heck of a trend.

Some people fail to grow up and somehow they go over a cliff at some point where failing to realize they're not in highschool or collage anymore and they still obsess over sex like awkward teenagers. And somehow somewhere along the line that spirals down into weird sex fantasies and abusive behavior. It certainly puts the cringier sex-themed episodes of R&M into a strange light.

I don't think it's just an issue with workplace protections. Most places have "workplace protections." A consistent problem is celebrity success and the investment of massive amounts of money into specific creatives who are seen a golden geese and the habit of letting them get away with just about anything to keep the money rolling in. It's not even close to just Roiland. Lots of actors, actresses, and staff across numerous industries have been making more and more accusations since Weinstein's downfall. The way we prop up certain people and put them on pedestals is the problem, especially when it results in an accumulation of money, influence, and vested interest centering on them.

It's a cultural problem and you can see it in this very thread to some extent.

 Lance845 wrote:
It's really weird that they did this over this instead of the grooming teenagers gak he was caught doing.

I agree with the innocent until proven guilty bit. But mother fether had recordings and text chains confirmed to be real that are floating all over where he says things that I would kill an adult man for saying to my 15 year old daughter.

To my knowledge, the texts couldn't be firmly ascribed to a source and the story for their release was 'I got them anonymously.'

Which yeah, still probably should have raised eyebrows but like I said. These came out when Roiland was at his peak, right after Rick and Morty took the internet by storm. People were invested in him because they were invested in the show.

They looked the other way.

That and it wasn't widely reported because the source couldn't be confirmed. I only found out about these recently when they resurfaced on reddit (and still haven't been widely reported on in mainstream news media because their source is unverifiable). They're only surfacing and being talked about on social media and in the BuzzFeed brand of reporting on what people on social media talk about.

 Polonius wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
When it comes to a DV case, it's rarely as obvious. Spiteful ex-partners are a thing, maybe the DV was more mutual abuse than an initial glance at the evidence might suggest, maybe the evidence is weak but the prosecutor is bringing it for personal or political reasons (high profile cases can further an attorney's career even if they lose). Maybe they are guilty of it but the evidence isn't there to find them guilty. The conviction rate for state tried felonies in the US isn't super high.

this is a lot of words for "I think women lie about abuse a lot."

Yeah, no, sometimes when you try to reduce an argument to far you overshoot the mark.

The case with the Tennessee cops has far more than simply being fired because charges were filed.

I was just pointing out why the assertion that "a court case exists therefore there must be sufficient evidence" was flawed, and pointing out that your statement that "people indicted of crimes are guilty a really high percentage of the time" is at best misleading. As far as I can see Roiland was charged and not indicted (correct me if I'm wrong, that seems to be the case from a googling). And the state tried felony conviction rate isn't really that high, for ANY type of felony it's not that high, and for DV it's even lower (though not a whole lot lower, enough to be statistically significant), you can speculate as to why (and I don't think it's because women lie about abuse "a lot", thank you very much).

Court cases often are not obvious one way or the other, otherwise they'd have a higher success rate than they do. For every 2 to 4 cases where guilt is blatantly obvious, there's another 1 or 2 where it's not at all obvious and the difference between acquittal and conviction may come down to something as simple as a bad jury instruction or a lawyer getting away with a misstatement of the law/fact that a biased judge or absent minded defence attorney decides to let through.

If there's publicly available and strongly compelling evidence against Roiland that's been released, sure, then that would be grounds to put him in the that basket. I'm just pointing out that the fact he's been charged alone is not a compelling reason as you seemed to be asserting, it only takes a casual glance at a cross section of court cases that have both failed and succeeded to realise that.

 LordofHats wrote:
The way we prop up certain people and put them on pedestals is the problem, especially when it results in an accumulation of money, influence, and vested interest centering on them.

I absolutely agree with this. I wish people would stop idolising actors, celebrities, influencers, athletes. These people rarely got into these positions because they're good people. Sure, appreciate them for the talent they have that got them there, but I always wonder when we are horrified when celebrities do something that is seen as a bad influence... why are we letting these people influence us to begin with? Why are we teaching our kids to aspire to be like an athlete that we know nothing about besides how well they can kick a ball or hit it with a stick in the first place? (I know Roiland isn't an athlete, it just reminded me of recent cases where athletes over here were found to be doing bad things).

Idolizing is... It is.

What people desperately need to learn is to let go, and to not assume that the people who make the things they like are perfect paragons. Perfect paragons don't exist.

 LordofHats wrote:
Idolizing is... It is.

What people desperately need to learn is to let go, and to not assume that the people who make the things they like are perfect paragons. Perfect paragons don't exist.

Except Mr. Rogers.

 Lance845 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Idolizing is... It is.

What people desperately need to learn is to let go, and to not assume that the people who make the things they like are perfect paragons. Perfect paragons don't exist.

Except Mr. Rogers.

But that's the darkest thing.

Because we sit here, dreading the day that someone says Mr Rogers or Betty White did something horrible XD

So... this is probably related to the speed of the termination:

https://www.avclub.com/justin-roiland-report-colleagues-concerned-for-years-1850082762

In the piece, multiple staffers who worked with Roiland (who spoke to the publication on the condition of anonymity) recalled instances where Roiland “paraded a high-profile porn star through the Rick and Morty writers room, openly discussed threesomes and was involved in at least one instance of alleged sexual harassment during the show’s third season, notably its first with female writers.” The A.V. Club has reached out to Roiland’s representation for comment.

The report also includes quotes from colleagues who allege that “other than voice work,” Roiland “has not had any meaningful creative presence on any of the series that bear his name.” He would skip important meetings, cancel last minute or arrive drunk, and leave writers waiting until the last second to file phoned-in voice performances.

When it comes to the working environment he fostered, a “substantial number” of Rick & Morty, Koala Man, and Solar Opposites staffers say they never met Roiland in person, even over Zoom—they also detail division between Roiland and Rick & Morty co-creator Dan Harmon so bitter it excludes speaking terms, and required intervention from a professional mediator. The A.V. Club has reached out to Harmon’s representatives for comment.

Well, that sounds like a whole pile of issues.
It also sounds like a whole bunch of people were competing to NOT be the first one to make a call or complaint.

 LordofHats wrote:


Because we sit here, dreading the day that someone says Mr Rogers or Betty White did something horrible XD

Betty White was stone cold (in the best way).

Mr Rogers though... I can't remember a time he didn't come off as creepy. I've always just assumed horrible was there.

Voss wrote:
Well, that sounds like a whole pile of issues.
It also sounds like a whole bunch of people were competing to NOT be the first one to make a call or complaint.

The dude's name was on the show. Who were they going to complain to? When even the other show's creator wouldn't speak with him, but he kept his job?

People put up with crap like that for the same reason they always have: snitches get stiches, and people who complain end up "not fitting in" and out of work. Look at Weinstein: other than a few people, everybody kept quiet because that dude had power.

Yeah, makes sense why they fired him immediately. I'd look for any excuse to, as well, if someone kept coming in drunk and was an all around ass. And their excuse is a silver platter encrusted with gems, that is magically enchanted to make your food taste gourmet.

And in a day and age where jobs are not easy to get; a lot of people will put up with a lot more than they should because they really can't afford to lose their job.

Especially if the job they currently have is paying well or is at least in the area of business they want to work in.


You don't want to make waves and risk losing your job when the next one could be hard to get even without "whistleblower" attached to your name.

The report also includes quotes from colleagues who allege that “other than voice work,” Roiland “has not had any meaningful creative presence on any of the series that bear his name.” He would skip important meetings, cancel last minute or arrive drunk, and leave writers waiting until the last second to file phoned-in voice performances.

I dunno... this sounds like a lot of "Yeah, well, he didn't really do anything anyway" damage control/distancing to make it sound like everything at R&M was trucking along without him so as to convince people that they can keep moving forward despite losing the actor for both their lead characters.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

The report also includes quotes from colleagues who allege that “other than voice work,” Roiland “has not had any meaningful creative presence on any of the series that bear his name.” He would skip important meetings, cancel last minute or arrive drunk, and leave writers waiting until the last second to file phoned-in voice performances.

I dunno... this sounds like a lot of "Yeah, well, he didn't really do anything anyway" damage control/distancing to make it sound like everything at R&M was trucking along without him so as to convince people that they can keep moving forward despite losing the actor for both their lead characters.

With all the nihilism and meta-humour in R&M it might just work to replace him if they go the direct route and make that whole shitshow into a plot point, 'Yeah all the characters are now voiced by completely different people, we don't care, you're gonna eat up the slop anyway because everything is meaningless and you, the audience, are dumb creatures barely better than beasts, and it's your fault for caring about anything in the first place. What are you gonna do, stop consuming?' - it fits the cynical bend of at least some of their writing quite well.

There have already been about a half dozen, honestly hilarious, youtube videos mocking the idea.

Charges dropped :

US prosecutors have dropped domestic violence charges against Rick and Morty co-creator and voice actor Justin Roiland.
Charges involving an ex-girlfriend were dismissed "due to a lack of sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt", a spokeswoman for Orange County district attorney told the Associated Press.
Roiland tweeted the word "justice", and said: "I'm still deeply shaken by the horrible lies reported about me."
He said he wanted to "move forward".
He added: "I'm so disappointed that so many people were so quick to judge without knowing the facts, based solely on the word of an embittered ex trying to bypass due process and have me 'cancelled'.
"That it may have succeeded, even partially, is shameful."

Roiland, 43, co-created Rick and Morty in 2013 with Dan Harmon and voiced the title characters for the anarchic Emmy-winning animated sitcom about a scientist and his grandson.
When the charges came to light in January, Adult Swim, part of the Cartoon Network, said it had "ended our association" with Roiland, and that Rick and Morty would continue without him for its seventh season. Reports said his roles would be recast.
Days later, Hulu followed by also dropping Roiland, who worked on the US streaming site's animated shows Solar Opposites and Koala Man.
The BBC has contacted Hulu and Adult Swim for comment in the light of the charges being dropped.

The gaming company set up by Roiland in 2016, Squanch Games, also said in January it had "received Justin Roiland's resignation".
In May 2020, prosecutors in California charged Roiland with two counts of domestic battery with corporal injury and false imprisonment by menace, violence, fraud and/or deceit, of an unidentified woman who was living with him at the time.
A police complaint said the alleged incident, which dated from January that year, resulted "in a traumatic condition" for the woman.
This January, his lawyer said his client was innocent, adding: "We look forward to clearing Justin's name and helping him move forward as swiftly as possible."

Someone might want to tell the donkey that "...a lack of sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" does not equal innocence.

And not taking it to trial definitely doesn't equal justice, for either party.

It seems pretty unlikely he'll just get his old jobs back, since this was mainly used as a reason for them to jettison him from their projects and teams. It depends if he lays low for a while until he can wait for people to forget about this, though judging from his statement I doubt it.

 Grimskul wrote:
It seems pretty unlikely he'll just get his old jobs back, since this was mainly used as a reason for them to jettison him from their projects and teams. It depends if he lays low for a while until he can wait for people to forget about this, though judging from his statement I doubt it.

The next step is usually a round of lawsuits for defamation etc. levelled against people that do not take care to couch their words in carefully-coded legalese.

 Dysartes wrote:
Someone might want to tell the donkey that "...a lack of sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" does not equal innocence.

And not taking it to trial definitely doesn't equal justice, for either party.

To be fair, an accusation isn't proof of guilt either. I'm not one for ruining someone's career or life on a "maybe".

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Someone might want to tell the donkey that "...a lack of sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" does not equal innocence.

And not taking it to trial definitely doesn't equal justice, for either party.

To be fair, an accusation isn't proof of guilt either. I'm not one for ruining someone's career or life on a "maybe".

The inclusion of "beyond a reasonable doubt" makes me think they found some evidence to support the case, but there was enough wriggle room that a lawyer could convince a jury.

It isn't like they're saying "insufficient evidence a crime took place", or anything like that.

If the only reason they're not going to trial is "the DA isn't sure they can win", I wouldn't be trumpeting about so-called "justice", y'know?

Behind the scenes something had to have changed. A witness backed out or some new evidence came up that was good for the accused/bad for the accuser. Something.

That or they did the whole process backwards. Who goes through the motions of starting pre-trial and even arresting someone before having an idea if you can win?

Seems more probable something came up in the pre-trial process that changed minds about the likelihood of conviction, but the case is so shrouded in fog we'll probably never know what it was unless someone leaks it.

So we've gone from "Guilty until proven innocent" to "The charges were dropped, but that's not the same as innocent, so still guilty!".

That seems fair...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So we've gone from "Guilty until proven innocent" to "The charges were dropped, but that's not the same as innocent, so still guilty!".

That seems fair...

Charges were dropped so innocent and charges were only dropped so still possibly guilty are both equally fallacious claims but I don't think it's unfair to point out Roiland invited the latter by claiming the former. bs squares in its natural environment, aka the court of public opinion.

My morbid curiosity wants to know why. Dropping a case so far along so abruptly is abnormal (especially a case involve sex/domestic issues that so rarely even go so far). Usually prosecutors this far in just go to the end and the dominos come on down. My morbid curiosity wants to know what changed, but it'll probably go die in the corner. The case was dropped with almost as much detail as it began with.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So we've gone from "Guilty until proven innocent" to "The charges were dropped, but that's not the same as innocent, so still guilty!".

That seems fair...

More that "Charges were dropped, but in a way that doesn't settle the issue, so crying 'Justice' is stretching credulity at the moment" - no-one who has investigated the situation has said the guy is innocent, just that the prosecution didn't think they had a bulletproof case to take to trial, so the claim now sits in a murky grey area.

Essentially, "not taken to trial" =/= "innocent", but it also =/= "guilty" either. Schrodinger's Offender, if you will.

Isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard operating procedure?

Not for this sort of thing. All it seems to mean is here "He's still guilty, we just can't prove it!".

It's essentially a form of trying to justify cancelling someone based on a new story rather than facts and police investigation/court hearing results.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not for this sort of thing. All it seems to mean is here "He's still guilty, we just can't prove it!".

It's essentially a form of trying to justify cancelling someone based on a new story rather than facts and police investigation/court hearing results.

I agree there's a bit of double standards here when it comes to the legal case against him - if he's charged he must be guilty, but when the charges are dropped that doesn't prove anything.

However, it would also seem that the arrest was something of a catalyst for people in the companies he worked for/in to take action against what is reported to have been a fairly consistent pattern of toxic behaviour on Roiland's part. Even though he's not guilty of the assault charges, that doesn't excuse any other behaviour he's displayed in the past that is deemed inappropriate. Firing them because of that behaviour isn't cancelling them (what does that word even mean any more?), it's taking appropriate action against someone for breaking the rules of their employer.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not for this sort of thing. All it seems to mean is here "He's still guilty, we just can't prove it!".

It's essentially a form of trying to justify cancelling someone based on a new story rather than facts and police investigation/court hearing results.

Does the state of the proceedings so far trigger double jeopardy? Can he later be criminally tried for this same thing again if e.g. new evidence turns up?

Tsagualsa wrote:
Does the state of the proceedings so far trigger double jeopardy? Can he later be criminally tried for this same thing again if e.g. new evidence turns up?

Double jeopardy only attaches at the conclusion of a trial. The trial here didn't quite start yet.

A judge can dismiss a case with prejudice, which isn't double jeopardy but means the prosecutors can't bring the case a second time (they'd have to appeal the dismissal) but I don't think that applies at this stage of the procedure?

The charges were dropped so they could be brought again but that would be about as unusual and weird as them being dropped this far in to begin with. The court proceedings themselves haven't been that well reported on so I don't know. I would assume new evidence led to the drop, unless some seriously did their diligence ass-backward.

 LordofHats wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:
Does the state of the proceedings so far trigger double jeopardy? Can he later be criminally tried for this same thing again if e.g. new evidence turns up?

Double jeopardy only attaches at the conclusion of a trial. The trial here didn't quite start yet.

A judge can dismiss a case with prejudice, which isn't double jeopardy but means the prosecutors can't bring the case a second time (they'd have to appeal the dismissal) but I don't think that applies at this stage of the procedure?

The charges were dropped so they could be brought again but that would be about as unusual and weird as them being dropped this far in to begin with. The court proceedings themselves haven't been that well reported on so I don't know. I would assume new evidence led to the drop, unless some seriously did their diligence ass-backward.

Thanks - my native legal system operates completely different from anglosphere law, so i only have a foggy idea how all of it works that i mostly picked up from movies and TV. Appreciate the clarifications!

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard operating procedure?

That is the standard for a criminal conviction, mainly because the consequences of such are typically very severe (ranging from barring working certain careers through enforced loss of liberty up to execution in barbaric nations).

The standard for civil cases is essentially more likely than not, which is what would apply to any legal case involving being fired for the allegations. It is also leads to some odd situations where an individual probably did a crime, but it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt, in which case the victim would not be able to secure a criminal conviction but could secure civil damages.