Current Events > Justin Roiland is innocent

(+) Yeah! (+)

It's not up to any of us to condemn anyone in these stories. It's the people who interact with him every day who choose to do that. Seems pretty obvious what they have chosen.

Not why people feel like they need to act as a judge and decide that they can't take anything they read or hear at face value because they need proof to do so. You're not that important.

Also I think people are (purposefully) ignoring how difficult it is to prove domestic abuse to the courts. The system is not on the side of the victims in most cases.

@shockthemonkey

Apologies if I came off as abrasive or combative in my attempt to discuss with you, the fault there is on me.

Once again, my sympathies towards you and situation you say you went through.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


For one thing, there is a big difference between "someone sharing their traumatic experience", and someone actively calling upon other people to condemn someone else.

And no, I wouldn't dismiss them, that is the entire point. I would want to hear both sides of a story. How is that dismissing it if I am literally asking for more information about it?

Again, if he was just looking for comfort that is one thing, but if he is going to straight up ask me to say she, a person I don't know anything about, is guilty because HE, a person I don't know a single thing about, said so with no other information is the insane hypothetical that is somehow reality for some reason.

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

And no, I wouldn't dismiss them, that is the entire point. I would want to hear both sides of a story.

"I was abused by my ex"
"Oh? Do you have his phone number so I can hear what he has to say?"

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

Again, if he was just looking for comfort that is one thing, but if he is going to straight up ask me to say she, a person I don't know anything about, is guilty because HE, a person I don't know a single thing about, said so with no other information is the insane hypothetical that is somehow reality for some reason.

If you don't know a single thing about them you're not relevant to their situation and your opinion or belief overall doesn't matter.

Punished_Blinx posted...

"I was abused by my ex"
"Oh? Do you have his phone number so I can hear what he has to say?"

If you don't know a single thing about them you're not relevant to their situation and your opinion or belief overall doesn't matter.

You missed the point and then I guess you got it? That is my entire point is yes, I am going to be neutral because I don't know either of them, and you can't get mad when I don't believe you over someone else when I know neither of you equally and there is no evidence.

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

Again, if he was just looking for comfort that is one thing, but if he is going to straight up ask me to say she, a person I don't know anything about, is guilty because HE, a person I don't know a single thing about, said so with no other information is the insane hypothetical that is somehow reality for some reason.

Hey real quick.

There's a big difference between saying "that person is guilty" and "I wouldn't say that person is innocent."

Aye, I'm guilty of that, I argued the wrong thing and seemingly completely missed the point like an idiot and for that, I am genuinely apologetic.

The dismissal of Roiland's case specifically does not mean he has been found innocent. He very well could be, but it's also plausible that he's guilty. Evidence could surface later that is not present now. I can't hold much of an opinion on something I have very little info on for his case, I can simply cast doubt on his potential innocence, but that's it.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I feel like you are too much thinking about this in the context of a person you actually know rather than some random person on an internet message board you know nothing about

If not then you are basically saying you just want me to just lie to some random internet dude I don't know and say "Yeah man she is guilty for sure since you said so".

Also I am not so much concerned with this random girl I don't know, but rather concerned with the concept of people just dogpiling on someone else for no other reason other than someone else told them to.

synklare posted...

The dismissal of Roiland's case specifically does not mean he has been found innocent.

You don't find people innocent. People are considered innocent by default and you go through a process to determine if they are guilty. That's why courts use the term "Not Guilty" and not innocent.

The case being dropped does mean Roiland is innocent and given the lack of public evidence against him for this specific charge, there's not anything for the public to view him as guilty for domestic violence either.

synklare posted...

The dismissal of Roiland's case specifically does not mean he has been found innocent. He very well could be, but it's also plausible that he's guilty. Evidence could surface later that is not present now. I can't hold much of an opinion on something I have very little info on for his case, I can simply cast doubt on his potential innocence, but that's it.

Guess we'll all just be waiting until October when everything surrounding this case gets unsealed.

CyricZ posted...

Hey real quick.

There's a big difference between saying "that person is guilty" and "I wouldn't say that person is innocent."

???

He straight up asked me "Is she innocent?" in regards to domestic violence. It is a pretty flat yes or no question with no real other interpretation there bud.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Guess we'll all just be waiting until October when everything surrounding this case gets unsealed.

It'll be interesting to see what evidence there was. I'm willing to change from judgement on him depending on what evidence there was as I could see it a situation where the evidence wasn't enough for a conviction by jury.

Still there's far more than enough other stuff he's done that whether or not he's domestic abuser won't change much.

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

???

He straight up asked me "Is she innocent?" in regards to domestic violence. It is a pretty flat yes or no question with no real other interpretation there bud.

If you think just a little past the end of your nose you might see there's a possible third answer to that question, which is "I cannot say whether she's innocent".

I know this is hard, but we believe in you.

Boy this really puts my other recent discussions with Tmaster in a new context.

KarsaToblakai posted...

No, no they aren't. That's only in the courtroom.

Its also sensible for real life as well tbh.

CyricZ posted...

If you think just a little past the end of your nose you might see there's a possible third answer to that question, which is "I cannot say whether she's innocent".

I know this is hard, but we believe in you.

?????????? LMAO What? Did you even read my original post in response to him asking if she was innocent? Or are you literally just coming in at the end pulling shit from your ass? Here lemme get it for you:

Jennywentnorth8 posted... 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?

SHRlKE posted...

Its also sensible for real life as well tbh.

It absolutely isn't.

This doesn't mean you just accept every accusation but you're not wrong at all for assuming guilt either.

furb posted...

A person can be not criminally guilty and criminally innocent -- see committed no crime -- but still have committed otherwise reprehensible actions that othet persons can use to judge character.

fair comment

KarsaToblakai posted...

It absolutely isn't.

This doesn't mean you just accept every accusation but you're not wrong at all for assuming guilt either.

Too many cases of people jumping to conclusions and later being wrong to say this with any certainty imo. Better to just err on the side of caution imo.

Tmaster148 posted...

It'll be interesting to see what evidence there was. I'm willing to change from judgement on him depending on what evidence there was as I could see it a situation where the evidence wasn't enough for a conviction by jury.

Still there's far more than enough other stuff he's done that whether or not he's domestic abuser won't change much.

That's why I've been erring on the side of waiting. Everything is under seal but despite what evidence may or may not exist there was still such a profound lack of it that a judge saw fit to dismiss the case outright instead of having the case go to trial.

I'm curious what actually exists and why everything was sealed from the public record, but at least it's expiring fairly soon and we'll learn all about it in October.

Every single day people have to make judgment calls on people with limited information. That's just part of life. Likewise people are called out if they ignore the warning signs that aren't considered 'proof' so we just have to follow our gut most of the time. It would be nice if we could get 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' for every crime committed but it doesn't work like that.

But the thing is when it comes to society the judgment calls from the public generally lean towards the people in power. We have seen this over and over again. It is overall pretty hard for these people to be held accountable.

But Roiland was 'cancelled' because of the people around him. The people he interacted with every day. They made the judgment call with the information they had. Which is a helluva lot more than what anyone else here has. It wasn't due to this court case. Hell domestic abuse specifically is something many people are more happy to overlook even when guilt was found in the courts.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Shock man I don't know what else to say to you other than just because you say something doesn't mean other people have to just believe it is true. ESPECIALLY when those people have 0 bias towards you. And DOUBLE ESPECIALLY when it is on an internet message board. If you really cannot understand this very simple concept then that is that I guess.

A_Good_Boy posted...

It's not nothing, but it's a leap to go from "Justin Roiland sends inappropriate jokes to people over the internet" to "Justin Roiland kidnaps people, locks them in his home, and viciously beats them and assaults them" without knowing any evidence to verify those claims.

Yeah. I actually didn't hear about all that. My sources usually don't comment on it until there's proof. Which was just the text messages.

Punished_Blinx posted...

Every single day people have to make judgment calls on people with limited information.

People could just chose not to be judgemental or pass judgement on situations that dont impact then directly.

For situations that affect people directly then sure.

Punished_Blinx posted...

But Roiland was 'cancelled' because of the people around him. The people he interacted with every day. They made the judgment call with the information they had. Which is a helluva lot more than what anyone else here has. It wasn't due to this court case. Hell domestic abuse specifically is something many people are more happy to overlook even when guilt was found in the courts.

They did that specifically to distance themselves from him so that people wouldn't connect Justin Roiland's input on Rick and Morty to their jobs. They cancelled him in self-defense to save their jobs. They were worried that since Justin was kicked off his various shows and fired from different networks that their jobs were in jeopardy, so they put out a hit piece suggesting he hadn't had any creative input on the show for years. The most damning thing they could say about him is he brought a porn star to work and made everyone uncomfortable and was a shitty boss. That, plus his garbage texts, are the only things we actually know about the guy. Everything else is under seal and we won't be able to hear about it for certain for another few months.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

He turned a topic about Justin Roiland into one about himself. The two cases are completely different, and Shock shouldn't be using his own situation as a cudgel to win internet arguments about unrelated cases.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I really don't know how I could possibly make it more clear that I have 0 bias towards him. I have said it probably 10 times at this point. The shockthemonkey law of "if someone says it then it must be true" obviously doesn't apply to me I guess

SHRlKE posted...

People could just chose not to be judgemental or pass judgement on situations that dont impact then directly.

For situations that affect people directly then sure.

They could. But they won't. Just like we could choose to let it play out on its own without any input or discussion but instead we would prefer to argue about it. That's just people.

A_Good_Boy posted...

They did that specifically to distance themselves from him so that people wouldn't connect Justin Roiland's input on Rick and Morty to their jobs. They cancelled him in self-defense to save their jobs. They were worried that since Justin was kicked off his various shows and fired from different networks that their jobs were in jeopardy, so they put out a hit piece suggesting he hadn't had any creative input on the show for years.

Did anyone say this was why?

They could. But they won't. Just like we could choose to let it play out on its own without any input or discussion but instead we would prefer to argue about it. That's just people.

Its just virtue signaling in its purest form.

Anyone who looks at his texts and says "gross. Oh well." Is fucking gross.
If he wasn't famous those texts alone would turn popular opinion against him and his employer would be absolutely right to not want to be associated with him.

Since he's that "famous Rick and Marty guy!" people will do whatever gymnastics they can to say "Oh but hey, he hasn't committed a crime though."

Fucking. Gross.

Double Vaginal?

SHRlKE posted...

Its just virtue signaling in its purest form.

Oh, fuck off.

You want virtue signaling, talk to the people playing the goddamn OJ card or shitting on an actual DV survivor.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I would ask for evidence but I already know how you feel about that.

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

I would ask for evidence but I already know how you feel about that.

And nobody consented to you shitting up this topic but we all know how you feel about consent.

DrizztLink posted...

And nobody consented to you shitting up this topic but we all know how you feel about consent.

Everyone remembers me saying I see no issues with someone jerking off alone in the bedroom to deepfakes, in a topic that was made like 2 months ago? That's a pretty big surprise to me to be honest but cool I guess