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.

 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.

Let me see if I can try to explain this one again, as I don't think it is as clearcut as that.

- Claim regarding DV is made, and taken to the police
- Police investigate
- Charges are filed - given the problems with getting DV/SV cases to this point, that would imply at least some degree of evidence has been discovered, as such charges don't tend to get filed willy-nilly.
- Muppet is arrested in August 2020, and released on bail, plus certain restraining orders.
- As noted by another poster, the NBC article from January confirmed that "Since then, the case has been the subject of more than a dozen court hearings, including pre-trial hearings." Source.
- Press release is issued, muppet leaves job(s), this thread starts
- A couple of days ago, charges were dismissed. The phrasing by DA's spokesperson is... ambivalent as to whether the muppet is innocent, but something had certainly changed since January:

“We dismissed the charges today because there was insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt,” Kimberly Edds, a spokesperson for the district attorney’s office, said in a statement.

Edds said that “significant additional information came to light.”

- Source.
Now, as far as I'm aware, all the court filings are still under seal, so we don't know what came up in previous hearings, nor do we know what has come up recently to damage the case. They've certainly stopped a long way from saying, for example, that evidence has come up showing he is innocent - just that they think they'd have too much difficulty meeting a sufficient evidentiary standard to secure a prosecution - again, not an uncommon end result with DV/SV cases.

Here's the thing, though - muppet is crowing about "justice" and "restoring his good name", when no justice has been reached for either party, and given the stories that have since come out about how he was to work with, I'm not sure he has a good name to salvage.

He hasn't been found innocent by a court of law, and until such time as he is, the cloud of "well, there was enough evidence for him to be charged" is going to hang over him.

Is that fair? I don't know.

Is this outcome fair to the person who reported an incident to the police, and now has to deal with the legal system saying "Sorry, you won't get your day in (criminal) court"? Absolutely not.

It is worth bearing in mind that criminal courts don’t find people innocent. The verdict is either guilty or not guilty (or not proven in some jurisdictions). Even with a full criminal court case and justice being served the most that can be said is whether or not somebody has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or not.

Being “proven innocent” isn’t a thing. It’s tied to presumption of innocence- innocent until proven guilty, and that you can’t prove a negative.

Aash wrote:
It is worth bearing in mind that criminal courts don’t find people innocent. The verdict is either guilty or not guilty (or not proven in some jurisdictions). Even with a full criminal court case and justice being served the most that can be said is whether or not somebody has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or not.

Being “proven innocent” isn’t a thing. It’s tied to presumption of innocence- innocent until proven guilty, and that you can’t prove a negative.

Not to rain on your parade too much because again, i have no experience in the American justice system, but in some judicial systems there are indeed options to qualify that a person is actually proven innocent. Germany for example has it. It's not a standard you need to to meet to walk free - that still operates on the 'reasonable doubt' system - but above that, for cases where it can actually be proven that you definitely did not do the crime you've been accused of.

American court would never need to pronounce you innocent because our whole system is predicated on innocent unless proven guilty, so not guilty in fact means innocent.

 AduroT wrote:
American court would never need to pronounce you innocent because our whole system is predicated on innocent unless proven guilty, so not guilty in fact means innocent.

Not entirely true as criminal cases are decided beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas a civil case is decided on the balance of probability so it is entirely possible (and indeed does happen) that a criminal case can return a verdict of not guilty, but the same defendant can be found against in civil proceedings and have to pay damages for the crime the criminal court found then not to be guilty of. A result of the different standards of proof required. So, no, “not guilty” doesn’t necessarily mean “innocent”.

@Tsagualsa, I wasn’t aware of that, thanks for the info!

Aash wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
American court would never need to pronounce you innocent because our whole system is predicated on innocent unless proven guilty, so not guilty in fact means innocent.

@Tsagualsa, I wasn’t aware of that, thanks for the info!

In practice it seldom happens -because cases where one could be proven innocent usually don't advance to trial at all- and it's not really a thing that the courts like, because it effectively leads to 'tiers' of innocence in court, which is very much not what was intended.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I really honestly dislike a lot of things about cancel culture, and this really is on of the worst aspects of it.

If he's guilty then he deserves it... Should wait until he is confirmed guilty though.

Would you let someone accused and prosecuted for sexual assault on minor watch your kids alone under the argument they have not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial? I don't think there is a single parent alive on planet Earth who would do so. If I were that company, I would have edged my bet and distance myself in such a situation. It's a bit cruel, but there are probably a good number of people who have reasonable doubts that he might very well be guilty despite the lack of capacity for prosecution. Fortunately for people in such a position, time and good behavior can help a lot if you managed to maintain good relationships in the industry. Most people accused in mediatic trials and found not guilty or with their case dismissed move on without much problem a year or two afterward. I mean, even OJ and Casey Anthony live fairly good lives despite being infamous for the crimes they most probably committed.

Companies can suspend employees instead of firing them; pending the results of the trial. If the employee poses no danger to staff/customers at the workplace then they might remain working; if there's a potential danger then a company can suspend at the very least.

Of course companies can also fire someone if the court case is a "broke the camels back" situation where its just the latest in a string of mounting reasons to not want the employee to remain (this can also include personal vendettas/internal politics of the company not just undesirable behaviour/risk)

 Dysartes wrote:



- Claim regarding DV is made, and taken to the police
- Police investigate
- Charges are filed - given the problems with getting DV/SV cases to this point, that would imply at least some degree of evidence has been discovered, as such charges don't tend to get filed willy-nilly.

In the US justice system filing DV willy nilly isn't exactly uncommon. Even in instances where the man is a clear victim, even in cases where it's totally one sided AND the woman used a weapon a man stands a non insignificant chance of being the one arrested and charged. DV allegations have been used as a weapon before as well.

 Overread wrote:
Companies can suspend employees instead of firing them; pending the results of the trial. If the employee poses no danger to staff/customers at the workplace then they might remain working; if there's a potential danger then a company can suspend at the very least.

On an ongoing TV show though, a suspension would require to find a replacement for the actor involved so that the production remains on schedule. At that point you might as well just terminate. There is also the issue that a suspension without pay is going to result in the person simply leaving their job for another. Plus, delays and long waiting times in the justice system are fairly normal. It usually takes a few years to go from a formal accusation to a verdict. Suspending someone for three years is pretty darn stupid; at that point you are simply firing them and that's it. There is also the issues specific to the entertainment industry. In that industry where people turn into household name, reputation is essential as it's both a marketing tool and also gives you great influence if positive. The other side of the blade though is that a bad reputation will sink a career very fast.

 Dysartes wrote:
- A couple of days ago, charges were dismissed. The phrasing by DA's spokesperson is... ambivalent as to whether the muppet is innocent, but something had certainly changed since January:

“We dismissed the charges today because there was insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt,” Kimberly Edds, a spokesperson for the district attorney’s office, said in a statement.

Edds said that “significant additional information came to light.”

- Source.
Now, as far as I'm aware, all the court filings are still under seal, so we don't know what came up in previous hearings, nor do we know what has come up recently to damage the case. They've certainly stopped a long way from saying, for example, that evidence has come up showing he is innocent - just that they think they'd have too much difficulty meeting a sufficient evidentiary standard to secure a prosecution - again, not an uncommon end result with DV/SV cases.

It's not hard to guess. In a he said/she said case, there are only two witnesses that matter, and one doesn't have to testify. My guess is that enough information about the accuser came up that the prosecutor did not expect her to be able to withstand cross examination and remain credible.

IN cases like this, the accused usually avails themself of their 4th amendment right to not testify, which means that the trial boils down to the credibility of the accused. If you've ever heard the phrase "putting the victim on trial" this is that sort of situation. IF the accused has a drug problem, or owes a lot of money, or has a history of lying, or whatever... that can be brought up to let the jury know not to believe her.

So, my guess is that the DA finally decided it wasn't going to be worth it, or the accuser recanted some of her accusations.

Here's the thing, though - muppet is crowing about "justice" and "restoring his good name", when no justice has been reached for either party, and given the stories that have since come out about how he was to work with, I'm not sure he has a good name to salvage.

He hasn't been found innocent by a court of law, and until such time as he is, the cloud of "well, there was enough evidence for him to be charged" is going to hang over him.

Is that fair? I don't know.

Is this outcome fair to the person who reported an incident to the police, and now has to deal with the legal system saying "Sorry, you won't get your day in (criminal) court"? Absolutely not.

Well, of course he's going to take a victory lap. the odds of going to jail went down dramatically, so I'd feel pretty good.

Nobody who has even a passing understanding of the US criminal justice system thinks we have a good process for DV or sexual crimes. It often comes down to work against word, and people will usually revert to their biases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
In the US justice system filing DV willy nilly isn't exactly uncommon. Even in instances where the man is a clear victim, even in cases where it's totally one sided AND the woman used a weapon a man stands a non insignificant chance of being the one arrested and charged. DV allegations have been used as a weapon before as well.

Yeah, nobody seems to know, because this is an area where people generally have a pretty clear agenda. I would guess that the number of a maliciously false accusations is pretty low, but the number of exaggerated claims is probably higher. Obviously false claims are very common in divorce and custody disputes, to the point where family law attorneys usually have experience navigating it.

It's also worth noting that the victim's restraining order is upheld, so he can't go within a 100ft of them and the police are still refusing to return his firearms, so it sounds like both the judge and the police think there is some threat there even if they couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

And none of this relates to the dodgy messages to minors which has yet to be bought to trial I believe.

 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 mean, taking a case this far requires enough evidence to convince a grand jury and the judge that the accused, more likely than not, committed the crime of which he was accused. Since the defense team isn't pointing to specific evidence that exonerated him, my guess is that the accuser is simply either not sympathetic or otherwise might not appear credible, or credible enough to convince all 12 members of a jury.

This guy didn't spend a night in jail and then had the charges dropped the next day. It spent years in a courtroom, so the idea that the case completely fell apart, but the defense isn't saying how, seems unlikely.

I mean, the case was dismissed, and he can go back to doing whatever he wants. Based on the hit pieces, he might not have a ton of work lined up, but we'll see. Very few people have been cancelled for long.

From what I've read, it sounds like he was fired for stuff that happened in the workplace. Coworkers complaining to management and not wanting to work with him and the like. I'd guess that the hope was just that the charges would provide cover for the firing, but weren't what started the process.

 LunarSol wrote:
From what I've read, it sounds like he was fired for stuff that happened in the workplace. Coworkers complaining to management and not wanting to work with him and the like. I'd guess that the hope was just that the charges would provide cover for the firing, but weren't what started the process.

Well, if they'd have wanted to fire him, they wouldn't have waited until the arrest become public knowledge.

More likely was that while he was a PITA to work with, he had contractual rights to some of his job, plus as the literal voice of the franchise he would be hard to replace. However, once the arrest came up, it wasn't hard to cut him loose. Keep in mind that while people like him have contracts, there are usually morals clauses that allow for termination due to scandal.

And as others have pointed out, those pieces emerged immediately after they fired him, which means the employers no doubt provided plenty of the material for the articles.

I do agree that the vibe from CN and Hulu is one of relief that he's gone.

They likely also wanted to wait until they had cover to fire him due to the possible fan backlash. Rick and Morty has a particularly infamous fanbase.

I would pose it's probably more cynical than that.

The companies involved don't give a gak one way or the other. The decision was pure PR. Innocence or guilt probably didn't matter into the decision. Once the news broke the lawyers walked in and said 'best we kick him to the curb and wash our hands' and that's what happened.

Not exactly the same because he was never taken to court that I know of, but Chris Avellone of Planescape: Torment fame has won a libel suit against the two women that accused him of sexual abuse.

He was fired from all the companies he was working for at the time with Paradox going over how they had expunged all his work from Vampire the Masquerade.

As LordofHats said companies don't care until it turns into a PR issue, then they will take the path of least resistance, and call it a day.

M.

Slightly off there, Miguelsan.

He filed suit in Calafornia initially, and was hit with an anti-SLAPP countersuit, which he lost, and was ordered to pay damages.

Somehow he was then allowed to refile in South Dakota, though they were ordered to mediation rather than having a day in court, so he didn't win the suit. I'm assuming South Dakota doesn't have anti-SLAPP provisions.

There is a statement on his website claiming a settlement, but his lawyers already appear to have broken some of the probable terms of said settlement by leaking information, so who knows how that'll end up.

 Dysartes wrote:
Slightly off there, Miguelsan.

He filed suit in Calafornia initially, and was hit with an anti-SLAPP countersuit, which he lost, and was ordered to pay damages.

Somehow he was then allowed to refile in South Dakota, though they were ordered to mediation rather than having a day in court, so he didn't win the suit. I'm assuming South Dakota doesn't have anti-SLAPP provisions.

There is a statement on his website claiming a settlement, but his lawyers already appear to have broken some of the probable terms of said settlement by leaking information, so who knows how that'll end up.

Probably best not to drag that other case into this discussion at all, from what i understand of it it seems to have started from a totally different constellation, to the point that any comparision between the two cases does more to muddle the water even further than to explain things.

 Miguelsan wrote:
As LordofHats said companies don't care until it turns into a PR issue, then they will take the path of least resistance, and call it a day.

M.

Not to sound super jaded, but especially given the at will nature of employment in the US, what else are employers supposed to do? The reality is that very few employees, even creative talents, are worth bad press for a company.

 Polonius wrote:

 Miguelsan wrote:
As LordofHats said companies don't care until it turns into a PR issue, then they will take the path of least resistance, and call it a day.

M.

Not to sound super jaded, but especially given the at will nature of employment in the US, what else are employers supposed to do? The reality is that very few employees, even creative talents, are worth bad press for a company.

Redressing mistakes would be a start. Not holding my breath on that one.

Also a bit less of moral posturing would be nice. Corporations are here to earn money, not to dictate morality to society, terminating employees without even taking into account that the lofty ideals corporations claim to espouse are dropped like a lead balloon the first time bonuses for the board are threatened seems like a joke no matter how legal it might be.

M.

The Season 7 trailer has dropped. If that's the replacement(s) for Justin Roiland it sounds like it will be a fairly seamless transition as I couldn't really tell a difference.

There are better Rick soundalikes on YT.

The Rick is close enough. The Morty sounded off. I have a bad ear anyway though so I'd probably never have noticed in the first place.

Close enough for me.

From Polygon:

No word yet as to who exactly has been casted as Rick and Morty (Polygon has reached out to Adult Swim for comment), but from what we’ve heard of the trailer, the voices sound pretty spot-on. Sure, Rick doesn’t quite have that same staccato stutter and Morty’s tone sounds a wee-bit high, but if you closed your eyes and if nobody had told you about they’d be recast, you wouldn’t have even discerned the difference.

Yup. Close enough. Good.

Works for me. Morty's voice changing is kind of the point of the character anyway.

Aash wrote:

Being “proven innocent” isn’t a thing. It’s tied to presumption of innocence- innocent until proven guilty, and that you can’t prove a negative.

The only way I know to prove a negative is to positively prove another, mutually exclusive claim - like an alibi for a court case.

Which for a lot of accusations especially things like DV (or "you're a witch", or the modern-day equivalent "you're a pedo") which by their nature occur over a longer timespan is problematic at best. Add to that that eye-witness testimony is the weakest form of evidence, and yeah.
There's a good reason why the burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the defendant.