Current Events > Justin Roiland is innocent

(+) Yeah! (+)

Itd have been better if he delivered this in his Rick voice and gave us a belch.

SSJKirby posted...

Doesn't he also have a bunch of other crap against him, not just the legal stuff that was dropped

Yes he is still a groomer and generally a douchebag to the people he worked with.

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

the worst thing anyone found were some cringe ass texts

Be sure to properly characterize them as "sexually suggestive cringe ass texts between a 35+ year old man and underaged girls"

I mean proving domestic violence beyond a shadow of the doubt could literally mean anything. It's been too long since it happened for there to be bodily evidence, and what probably happened was that it wasn't fully possible to prove if any bruises on her were real bruises and not make up. If there were like hospitalization records, then it'd be pretty easy, but then there would be stuff like proving the hit wasn't self-inflicted, and so-on

The burden of proving something like this like past a certain time frame (I mean these take fucking forever to fully go to court so if you're a victim, make sure to get like really tight knit evidence in a hospital at the time, really) where you won't have your own body as a clear evidence is just really difficult. Roiland could've easily beat her to near death and have gotten away as long as there weren't adequate examination within hours of the beating.

Unless there were video evidence, which considering the not guilty verdict, there probably wasn't. It sucks but the flip side is that sometimes people can get convicted wrongfully by less honest people, so the honest people need to also be screwed. That's sadly how life works, even though the real problem is that we have to worry about such slippery slopes in the first place

"I will develop... a fourth voice."

CyricZ posted...

"I will develop... a fourth voice."

But that's madness...

I wonder if Adult Swim will let him back on

Adult Swim can always use AI to make the Rick and Morty voices.

it worked for those AI presidents videos... lol >_>

Irony posted...

Yes he is still a groomer and generally a douchebag to the people he worked with.

Ill repeat again then. Why wasnt he charged with grooming?

It may be he is a douchebag. But it makes me uncomfortable because it feels like oh damn we cant get him on our original charges but the fact hes a bit of an ass is enough to cancel him. Its like people already decided he needed to be cancelled and then went out to find the facts to support that objective.

CE's infantile understanding of how the domestic violence legal process works is never not depressing

Dakimakura posted...

The guy who created Shrek

Bill Cosby created Shrek???

Slayer_22 posted...

Bill Cosby created Shrek???

that explains the scene where Shrek talks about pudding pops...

ZevLoveDOOM posted...

that explains the scene where Shrek talks about pudding pops...

Ogres are like puddin pops.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Whats the take here then? Are we going to start assuming hes guilty when there is no proof of that?

Too bad he was canceled already

Gobstoppers12 posted...

In the court of law. He may not be going to prison, but that doesn't mean he's not guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

VampireCoyote posted...

Innocent until proven guilty.

That is a legal term. We don't all have to start liking the guy, he's clearly a creepy somewhat abusive motherfucker at the very least.

pinky0926 posted...

That is a legal term. We don't all have to start liking the guy, he's clearly a creepy somewhat abusive motherfucker at the very least.

youre free to not agree with me but in my view:

VampireCoyote posted...

Innocent until proven guilty.

VampireCoyote posted...

youre free to not agree with me but in my view:
Innocent until proven guilty.

What do you make of the weird, creepy texts he sent underage girls and previous employees. A reminder that you are a person that is allowed to feel things out in an intuitive way and not a judge in a court of law who has to make legal decisions.

SHRlKE posted...

Ill repeat again then. Why wasnt he charged with grooming?

It may be he is a douchebag. But it makes me uncomfortable because it feels like oh damn we cant get him on our original charges but the fact hes a bit of an ass is enough to cancel him. Its like people already decided he needed to be cancelled and then went out to find the facts to support that objective.

1. He's rich and white
2. You can be a perverted creepy groomer without technically breaking laws

Joel Haver had a whole sketch about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7M24KrqhBw

Secondly, let's say he did break laws. That doesn't mean he would be arrested.

For example, tell me do you think if a poor black 42 year old man from Detroit sexually harrased underage school girls he would not be arrested?

Answer honestly.

Sometimes things aren't so clear cut.

pinky0926 posted...

What do you make of the weird, creepy texts he sent underage girls and previous employees. A reminder that you are a person that is allowed to feel things out in an intuitive way and not a judge in a court of law who has to make legal decisions.

he shouldnt do that

He got a good lawyer

UnfairRepresent posted...

1. He's rich and white
2. You can be a perverted creepy groomer without technically breaking laws
Joel Haver had a whole sketch about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7M24KrqhBw

Secondly, let's say he did break laws. That doesn't mean he would be arrested.

For example, tell me do you think if a poor black 42 year old man from Detroit sexually harrased underage school girls he would not be arrested?

Answer honestly.

Sometimes things aren't so clear cut.

You of all people claiming we should be dealing with this situation as more nuanced than it's currently getting is laughable as fuck.

you are right though

Justin will be fine. Hes not gonna get in with Disney or anything, but he'll find work.

I'm not gonna say his texts are okay, but if that's the worst thats come up in a season long manhunt, the worst hes done, then I'm honestly not too concerned that hes gonna be a problem.

Christ this topic shows why victims don't always come forward. Unless you have a veritable mountain of evidence, it's very likely any charges will get dropped and then YOU will be labeled a liar.

Roiland is, by all accounts, a complete piece of shit and deserves everything that is happening to him. I hope he fades into obscurity.

Yeah just because his case got dismissed doesn't necessarily mean he's "innocent". He's only innocent in the eyes of the court, but public opinion is a seperate issue. Personally, the leaked text, while not illegal, are pretty fucking creepy.

Never cared nor liked him but I agree with his message. People are too quick to cancel and attack someone

Shrike would legit be an OJ defender because "hey the court said he was innocent"

Prestoff posted...

Yeah just because his case got dismissed doesn't necessarily mean he's "innocent". He's only innocent in the eyes of the court, but public opinion is a seperate issue. Personally, the leaked text, while not illegal, are pretty fucking creepy.

The thing about this court case is that details about the case have remained anonymous. We only know he was charged with felony domestic violence and the case was dropped since it wasn't clear with the evidence that he was actually guilty.

To me, it's weird to focus on this case when there's a lot of other stuff out there about stuff he has done that was can more certainly prove.

At least in my personal opinion, if we had knowledge of the actual claims in the case I could understand why people would still focus on considering him guilty.

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

if someone accused me of domestic abuse, made a big scene about it with 0 proof, ended my career, then it got thrown out for not having evidence and people STILL shat on me for it I'd be pretty pissed

Also there was like 4 straight months where everyone just dog piled on him and the worst thing anyone found were some cringe ass texts. If not even internet fame and a trip on the "me too" twitter bandwagon can put some actual evidence into light then frankly I don't think it exists.

...and I have you tagged as "doesn't care about consent"

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Man I'm sorry you had to deal with that :(

And that was exactly my thought in this

Literally the whoest of the who

lol if he thinks this is why he was cancelled.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


And what if she is making this exact same post about you on another forum? How would you feel about the people just blindly believing her and showing support just because she made a post with exclamation marks on a forum? How is anyone supposed to know who to actually believe? Do we really want to live in a world where people just randomly pick a bias and stick with it instead of wanting actual evidence?

Funny that Jenny went with "what if she said that about you" and not "what if you're just lying". Despite those both being the same basic idea and honestly the point they're trying to make.

At the end of the day, the court of public opinion is going to make their decision and there's nothing jenny can do about it no matter how many years you've spent making cogent arguments on the Internet.

And the court of public opinion typically starts with trust in one party or the other.

I trust shock because I've known him longer and know that he isn't given to lying about something so serious.

And not for nothing, but I also don't have the cojones to doubt him to his face about something like this.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Maybe? I don't know either or you at all, and I certainly don't know the facts of your particular case. Why would I be able to make a judgement call on her innocence or not? Because some random guy on a message board said so?

If I went over to reddit and made a post that said "shockthemonkey eats human shit for breakfast, lunch and dinner" and every single comment was just "LMAO I knew it!" you would be cool with that? You wouldn't be looking through the comments hoping that maybe one person is saying "...Proof?" or even a cheeky "citation needed"?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I mean, you are simply stating something and there's no evidence to show that this ever happened. I'd initially believe your claims, but if after sometime and nothing has ever come up that ever shows it happened then I would doubt it.
Justin was charged with domestic violence back in 2020 and 2 years later the public still knows nothing about the claims that was happened and the case was dropped. There's not much to go on in regards to Justin and Domestic Violence as there is for Justin and being a creep towards underage girls.

It would be different if the case was dropped despite there being some evidence of wrongdoing. But that isn't the case.

We shouldn't forever paint people as guilty for something that there is no evidence of ever happening. It's just as bad as never believing the claims of victims, because it's possible some people may lie about it.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You really aren't. If someone were to strangle you to the point that you fell unconscious, there would be marks on your neck. If you were to make the claim then show that pictures of marks on your neck indicating that someone was putting force on it. It would be a believable claim.

Society shouldn't condemn people to being guilty over a charge that was never determined guilty when no evidence has been presented to the public. Especially when in the case of Roiland, there's actual stuff we can point at besides this Domestic Violence charge.

Topics not great.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You should probably stop using your own history as a cudgel to win internet arguments if you're just going to get mad when it doesn't go how you think it should.