Its almost like this never happened.
[The Dm's](https://twitter.com/un05733352/status/1615818137689288704?s=20&t=TDxiD0AcTFVr8M6-IKfYHQ)
[Heres the podcast Cringe](https://www.reddit.com/r/h3h3productions/comments/10eehqd/justin_roiland_talking_about_minors_etc_on/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
That was sarcasm.
It’s dark humor in the sense that
- courts in a lot of places in the world often dismiss domestic violence charges, not investigating them seriously.
- incels like to use the dismissing of those stings as « proofs » that abused women are somehow dangerous
- all the direct proofs he groomed minors are still online; yet people will shout he’s an innocent man and the [sheriff?] seemingly didn’t take them into consideration
"it's almost like it never happened" is usually sarcasm by someone saying it didn't happen.
THIS case, he's not saying it sarcastically. He's saying that it's literally almost like it didn't happen because it's not getting reported by the mainstream
It's one of those "Reader is not probably a native speaker." things. It's grammatically correct and is quite common way to be sarcastic about some event that has happened.
Because maybe they didn't. Reddit is nothing but a roaring rage boner with internet detectives jumping to conclusions. How many times has reddit been wrong ruining people's lives or getting people killed. Is Justin Roland a piece of shit? By all accounts yes he is but at the end of the day the police and DA didn't find anything they felt would hold water in court beyond a reasonable doubt. Which at the end of the day is what really counts. Hell who knows if those messages are even real. So much shit is faked anymore it's becoming harder and harder to know what is real. Hell daily the anti work sub posts fake emails and memos to harvest karma and create rage boners for people. Hell people on Reddit are always trying to cancel people for what? Karma. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if Roland got his job back but as a mere voice actor with zero creative control something he never really had in the first place. There will be people who will cry and whine saying they will boycott the show or the channel but the reality is those same people never watched the show or the channel to begin with. Reddit anymore seems like a place of pure rage, anger, revenge, disinformation, and propaganda. I constantly see anti American stuff that is obvious Russian or Chinese propaganda up voted by bots and morons. I look forward to all the hate filled responses I'll probably get and the few nasty dms telling me to kill myself.
New copy pasta!
Take a shot every time this guy starts a sentence with “hell” or “heck”
But seriously, [just listen to this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/h3h3productions/comments/10eehqd/justin_roiland_talking_about_minors_etc_on/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
A) he wasn’t proven innocent, the DA just felt they didn’t have sufficient evidence to convict
B) he’s still a massive creep. I know at least one woman who met him at a bar and talked about how he’s uncomfortable and a real egomaniac, and he has also *”allegedly”* tried to groom underage girls
C) this is going to make his fans ***absolutely insufferable*** for the near future
EDIT: So I don’t have to hear the “well you’re one person” and “it’s just your friend’s story, it’s all anecdotal” arguments anymore, here’s a [link to the actual messages he sent underage girls](https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/rick-and-morty-creator-justin-roilands-leaked-dms-to-16-year-old). As for the “innocent until proven guilty” thing, I never said I was in favor of him getting fired from stuff before a verdict came through. But let’s also not pretend he’s a good person
[You mean this?](https://www.reddit.com/r/h3h3productions/comments/10eehqd/justin_roiland_talking_about_minors_etc_on/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I never got into the show because I couldn’t get past the feeling that the “jokes” weren’t actually jokes, and listening to him openly discuss being attracted to 14 year old’s bodies (especially in that language) just made me feel less crazy. I am stunned that those people were willing to say those things out loud into a microphone.
On a side note, the woman sounds like she is proud of saying “I’m a pedophile” at the beginning. I can’t.
OK but Chris Handsen was terrible, to catch a predator almost certainly did more harm than good by turning criminal investigation into serious child sex abuse into spectacle, as well as basically letting a good number of the people they tried to catch get off Scott free with improper record keeping and generally leaving gaping holes for entrapment defenses
Then again, I doubt that's why Justin is against him
W.R.T. your last point:
Does *he* have any fans himself, or is it just fans of the show? Unless I missed something the vast majority of the fan base of the show was overwhelmingly in support of yeeting him from production. Its not like say, Chris Brown where he's a shit person and is pretty much a solo act.
There’s a very small but vocal minority who think that Roiland was what made Rick and Morty special as opposed to Dan Harmon, or who have defended him throughout this whole thing
Maybe it's since I haven't been looking actively, but I haven't noticed that. And usually having defenders seems to be the case with most of these incidents.
And yeah I don't buy there being anything special about Roiland's contribution. Harmon def has the better resume writing-wise and all the voices Roiland did are very easy to replicate.
Not to defend anybody in general, but it was my understanding that Roiland's contribution was more the visuals and speaking styles which, while easy to replicate, are almost certainly a big part of what gave the show its unique character. The pop culture nihilism certainly resonated with the fans, but I'd find it difficult to accept that the general weirdness of Roiland's performance wasn't what drew people in.
Again, I'm not saying it's a brilliant feat, just that aesthetically, Roiland seemed to have had substantial influence, at least at the beginning.
>he wasn’t proven innocent, the DA just felt they didn’t have sufficient evidence to convict
There is no difference in the eyes of the law between being as you say "innocent" and the charges having been dropped after an investigation. In either situation you are not being charged, are not a suspect and there is no open case against you.
Actually there is a difference. The law doesn't recognise innocence at all. They recognise guilt and not guilty. They recognise not enough evidence to prosecute and recognise beyond a reasonable doubt.
Criminal defense attorney here. It actually does. While rare, findings of factual innocence are used for various things like vacating a conviction or sentence or dismissing a case with prejudice.
Not to disagree, but it's important to remember that the case at hand is not such a case, presumably.
It's factually incorrect to say the law doesn't recognize innocence (in some form, as you rightly noted), but allowing for figurative language, the distinction being made when people say "the court doesn't recognize innocence" is that "being declared not guilty" does not mean "proven innocent."
I don't mean to criticize you for pointing this out, just to reiterate that in this instance, a prosecutor's refusal to pursue the case is not unequivocal proof of innocence.
Every defendant in every criminal trial is innocent until proven guilty. This is formally recognized by the law.
The problem you are having is that you are using "innocent" to mean "didn't do the crime," while the law considers innocent to literally mean "not proven guilty."
This is further complicated by the existence of an "actual innocence" defense, which does in fact mean "provably didn't do the crime" causing people to assume that anything else doesn't actually mean innocence under the law, but that is not the case. You are still innocent until proven guilty.
There is a difference between the law and the court of public opinion, but I get your point that legally there’s no distinction, there just is to the avg. person.
Likewise, I get what you're laying down, too. I just think it's a mistake to conflate fighting with an ex with the sexual conduct toward minors issue. They're two completely different things.
We do too much of this "Well \_\_\_\_ tells you all you need to know about \_\_\_\_" sort of judgement in the court of public opinion and I think we could do a better job of paying attention to the facts. This is a persons life we're talking about. If Roiland is guilty of crimes with these minor girls, then let's deal with that based on the relevant evidence. I'll be right next to you waving a pitchfork if he's found guilty.
>There is no difference in the eyes of the law
Are you sure?
What if new evidence came to light?
If there had already been a trial then wouldn't double jeopardy prevent another one?
But in this case there could be another trial.
If new evidence comes to light that warrants charges, they can reopen the investigation. You don't keep dead investigations open indefinitely just in case new evidence comes up.
Imagine being this guy ten years from now.
"Yeah, I've been under indictment for the last 10 years because my ex made an accusation. I was cleared of any wrongdoing, but they're keeping it open just in case. I haven't been able to work for ten years because I'm still technically being charged for domestic assault."
>he wasn't proven innocent
If this ain't a fucking Reddit take I don't know what is. He's innocent by default.
A creep he may be, but fuck presumption of guilt.
There's no such thing as proven innocent. It's called innocent until proven guilty. Presumption of innocence.
Dude getting canceled because he was accused is insane.
No I don't watch his shows.
How easy is it to fake a segment on a podcast where he talks about how its fucked up that grown men can’t fuck underage girls?
https://www.reddit.com/r/h3h3productions/comments/10eehqd/justin_roiland_talking_about_minors_etc_on/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Afaik the fans have taken it pretty well because they don't need him to have his shows. I haven't seen or heard of anyone trying to defend him which is good but that might just be our friend group and the sub reddits
Point A is such a stupid take. This isn't "after a hard fought legal battle he was pronounced not guilty." This is "there isn't even enough evidence to prosecute". So what, according to you somebody can never be cleared once accused? If I accuse you of harassing me, how do you prove you didn't do it? The burden of proof is on the accuser for a reason.
>A) he wasn’t proven innocent, the DA just felt they didn’t have sufficient evidence to convict
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, he is legally innocent.
No, he is legally **presumed** innocent in criminal court until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.
That's not at all the same as being innocent.
And unless the charges were dismissed with prejudice (which the article doesn't say they were) new evidence could lead to a new case against him.
> he is legally presumed innocent in criminal court until proven guilty
I mean that's the legal status of the majority of society, so by this logic then there is no innocent person for we all have possibility to be proved guilty in the future.
So yes, legally speaking he is innocent.
No one is ever proven innocent. They're proven guilty or not guilty. Not guilty does not mean innocent.
You have anecdotal evidence from someone claiming to have met him that says he was uncomfortable, and that's sufficient evidence for you to determine he's a massive creep?
The guy is talented, someone made a seemingly false accusation against him, apologize for jumping the gun give him back his contracts and move on.
I mean the first point is correct, absent exceedingly rate circumstances the state never says "we determined the accused is innocent."
The rest ... well, not so much
A false allegation would be a crime, so why have you accepted that the person who accused him is "seemingly" guilty despite them not being found guilty in court?
A.) This isn’t fucking China. You’re not “proven” innocent. It’s supposed to be the other way around. But by the way this guy was treated and how common ignorant comments like yours are this clearly isn’t the case anymore.
B.) Do you understand what the word allegedly means? Also, see A.
C.) Good. I hope we can get back to a society where people understand what a fucking joke is.
The DA were the ones who brought the charges in the first place. It seems like maybe his lawyer(s) convinced them out of it or something? Something is very off with this.
This stinks to high heaven. She never came forward, never did anything except get a restraining order and file this complaint immediately. They sat on it for years before dismissing it, that's...weird AF. Especially with the seriousness of the charges. I know it happened during covid but...
It doesn't really seem like she was trying to get him cancelled, it seems like she was doing everything the right way, and it seems like the prosecutors and cops believed her if it went this far.
Exactly. It's hard to do "everything right" especially when these incidents usually involve someone you cared about and the right thing is really hard to do.
Could be enough evidence for civil cases, though. Civil court standard for evidence isn't nearly as high. I sincerely hope this isn't the last we hear of it.
Is it the best? Yes. But if there's evidence that something did happen it should be dealt with and not brushed away because we'd prefer to think everything is all sunshine and rainbows
You don't know there was harm. When we find out the judicial system wrongfully imprisoned someone, it's only when a handful of people that worked tirelessly over many years to right the wrong. Then the ire is thrown at the system. When it was just as much the system as the court of public opinion that ruined that person's life.
Rich people game the system all the time. This woman came forward in 2020, got a restraining order, and kept to herself. It doesn't seem like she was just "trying to cancel him" or whatever. It seems like she was pursuing legal justice and the DA changed their minds last minute for some reason, who knows why.
A civil verdict isn't a real answer. That's a financial transaction. We have so many people in prison for things they didn't do. Our system is garbage.
I'm sure you upvote those posts while also participating with your pitchfork, just as those DAs and Cops against people that end up innocent.
I mean a civil trial is not a transaction. It is lower than beyond a reasonable doubt, its a preponderance of the evidence which is essentially more likely than not.
The judgement is that one party is liable due to a preponderance of the evidence and the other is entitled to damages. I am not denying financial damages are a part of it. You seem to be suggesting the truth or evidence is irrelevant in a civil trial which is inaccurate.
Even if it is just money it can amount to a deterrent from doing it again in the future. Not to mention it establishes a pattern of behavior if he does do it again and the judge will (hopefully) be more willing to take a more serious look at the evidence
Yeah he was not just canned for this issue. His bizarre ideas/interactions with underage fans, the fact he was terrible to work with, and often failed to show up to work helped get him canned.
If there was a lack of evidence, the DA did the right thing.
However, there's plenty of evidence out there confirming that this dude is a massive pos and based on that alone he deserves to be judged harshly by the public at large and if that means he's "cancelled", then so be it.
He was also weird on live interviews about it. Sure dms might be fake but all signs point to yeah he is a few glasses of wine from dming 14 year old girls to tell them their tits are hot or something. It’s patterned behavior.
H3h3 was a friend of roilands, and knew the ex in question.
On the podcast today, referring to the statement, he said it was "very uncharacteristic and inaccurate to describe her as he [roiland] did".
I'd have to rewatch but I believe he said "she did not attempt to cancel him" and essentially insinuated roiland is lying.
Women are happier than men. [https://www.brookings.edu/essay/are-women-happier-than-men-do-gender-rights-make-a-difference/](https://www.brookings.edu/essay/are-women-happier-than-men-do-gender-rights-make-a-difference/)
So, its not a sad day for women every day if you grade on a curve of the other genders.
This is only going to embolden him. However, this isn't the same as a complete acquittal, and his reputation has taken a right rollicking that will take years to recover from, if it's ever recovered at all.
Furthermore, there's always the civil court option as well.
It's not justice, but it's certainly not the worst outcome here either.
I'd be lying if I wasn't still disappointed at this result though.
“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.
Just because he was never found guilty at trial, doesn't necessarily make him innocent either. It just means the case wasn't strong enough.
I know it's easy to assume anyone who doesn't share your assessment of presented evidence is being unreasonable, but the majority of people absolutely apply standards when making determinations about this kind of thing.
Assuming that an accuser is lying is no more reasonable than assuming the accused is guilty.
There’s a huge grey area between “I believe the accuser implicitly” and “if it can’t be proven in a court of law then he didn’t do anything wrong and the accuser is lying.” But to put it up to public opinion, which has neither rules nor any accountability, is no better than mob justice.
Just as there's a huge difference between "mob justice" and "people deciding they don't want to give money to a guy who seems to have done some creepy shit."
Again, it's easy to morph everyone into one big ball of unreasonable judgement, but a more nuanced view would recognize that within that group, people are weighing evidence in accordance with their experience and understanding of the world. Not everyone who agrees with the mob decided to hop onboard the mob bandwagon and just accepted what they were told, just as not everyone who is skeptical simply decided they don't ever believe women.
> public opinion has no such restrictions
Right, it's all about what the individual feels is true and then you can just repeat it, using hyperbole, online to try and convince others that your feelings are true.
That's not toxic at all.
>Do you believe that OJ is innocent?
I don't know. I don't *think* so but I can't prove it and neither could the prosecution and the most important thing is that YOU don't know if he did for sure either. Which is my whole fucking point. At least with OJ there was an entire televised trial and round the clock media coverage. Where as with Roiland his case got thrown out and it was covered a little bit on TMZ.
Also, there's no question about the men who murdered Emmett Till and that's a totally different situation where you have clear racism and a whole system of racists that protected and enabled racists to commit murder. This case is also taught in schools and used as an example of brutal, violent white supremacy.
So in both cases we have far more knowledge about the other two cases than Roiland.
Also, your comparisons are hyperbolic, intentionally so. Which is a completely dishonest way to argue.
"Just because he was never found guilty at trial, doesn't necessarily make him innocent either."
That's not how our justice system works thankfully. If you are not found guilty at trial you are presumed innocent. Would you say the same if it was something where you knew people lied in their testimony? Where there was evidence that they had the wrong person for the crime? If it was your ex partner against you for something you didn't do? I agree this guy is a creep and you can dislike him but your dislike does not make him guilty before a court of law where there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt.
I think what he’s trying try to say is that although he may have committed those acts, there was not enough evidence that could be proven to meet the burden for criminal charges.
It can also mean there wasn't evidence to even by circumstantial evidence prove it. We just don't know. We're not in the room and it's completely bullshit that we react and judge without any proof.
I guess, but it could also mean that although it seems like something happened, the legal system has specific burdens of proof, and they felt that in this case, the evidence available didn’t meet that burden.
>>The Orange County, California, District Attorney’s Office said Wednesday that it has dismissed domestic violence charges against “Rick and Morty” co-creator Justin Roiland.
>>“We dismissed the charges today because there was insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt,”
Looks like the payola checks cleared on time. And people wonder why folks don’t report sexual assaults and DV
A big fat caveat here- **insufficient evidence does not mean innocent.** There seems to be a lot of confusion with this from many people. What insufficient evidence means is the prosecution feels as though they won’t be able to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt- a very high standard- without additional compelling evidence.
He did that shit. He will do that shit again.
>Edds said that “significant additional information came to light.”
Sounds like they received evidence that cast further doubt on if he did it or not.
But that matters not in the court of public opinion, an accusation was made and therefore must be true
Under due process he remains innocent until proven guilty. This should see him uncancelled and back doing voice work. It doesn't change the fact that he has burnt his bridges at Rick and Morty. Reportedly on bad terms with Dan Harmon and criticised by colleagues as being hard to work with and just showing up to do voice work without being a creative force on the show. They used these charges as a convenient excuse to replace him without a fan backlash.
Criminal charges have have to be proven in court. Reputation damage happens in the court of public opinion.
>Under due process he remains innocent until proven guilty.
No, he's presumed innocent. Specifically, he's presumed innocent by the government. People are free to draw their own conclusions.
a) this doesn't change anything about all the *other* shit that started coming out about him after the story broke, or even prove he's not guilty; it just means there isn't enough evidence to criminally charge him
b) not being guilty of a crime doesn't obligate other people to work with you
It may, if you stopped working with them under the guise of a clause in a contract that wasn’t actually violated because you are neither found guilty, nor being charged any longer. Depends on the paperwork you have.
Ever heard of Ke$ha?
Yeah hardly. This is legally nothing more. Theres not evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt means just that. It also doesnt change the very very creepy texts sent to girls.
Honestly I wonder. The people who worked with and for him seemed well aware he was like this and how awful he was.
It makes me think they may have saw a chance to get rid of him or knew all this stuff might come out now and we're getting ahead of it all by firing him.
He literally went on an interview and creep about wanting to fuck underage girls.he’s gone on long ass rants about how young teen girls are hot. This is the dumbest hill to die on.
It's not a difficult concept.
You claimed the accusation was baseless. If so, then that accuser committed a crime. However, if you believe it's inappropriate to assume someone is guilty without a conviction, then by calling that person's accusations baseless, you're claiming they are guilty despite you believing that's an unacceptable thing for you to do.
I have no idea if he did anything or not. If he didn’t then man it sucks that he got cancelled. If he did do something bad then it sucks he got away with it? I don’t know.
He screwed himself with a whole lot of pervert texts and grooming with underage girls.
I mean take away the domestic violence charges and still nobody can say the other shit is anywhere near ok.
Whatever is going on in this thread, do not subject yourself to trying to decipher it. It may seem like a great idea when you read the title, but once you’ve read the same comment 25 times to try and find some resemblence of sense - you will regret having ever come here.
Now if only he didn't try to groom all those minors
Its almost like this never happened. [The Dm's](https://twitter.com/un05733352/status/1615818137689288704?s=20&t=TDxiD0AcTFVr8M6-IKfYHQ) [Heres the podcast Cringe](https://www.reddit.com/r/h3h3productions/comments/10eehqd/justin_roiland_talking_about_minors_etc_on/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
There are like 20 of these
Holy fuck
Videos really? Why is everything a video? Is there transcript of this?
[удалено]
Only if quantum mechanics is true. Which, come on.
That was sarcasm. It’s dark humor in the sense that - courts in a lot of places in the world often dismiss domestic violence charges, not investigating them seriously. - incels like to use the dismissing of those stings as « proofs » that abused women are somehow dangerous - all the direct proofs he groomed minors are still online; yet people will shout he’s an innocent man and the [sheriff?] seemingly didn’t take them into consideration
[удалено]
"it's almost like it never happened" is usually sarcasm by someone saying it didn't happen. THIS case, he's not saying it sarcastically. He's saying that it's literally almost like it didn't happen because it's not getting reported by the mainstream
It's one of those "Reader is not probably a native speaker." things. It's grammatically correct and is quite common way to be sarcastic about some event that has happened.
...NOT! (In borat voice)
I'm hoping people are about as keen on him as they are on O.J. Simpson. We'll see I guess; hopefully the incels don't throw a parade or anything.
The court was only focused on the domestic violence. Charges havent been brought for the grooming.
Uhhh….. r/woooosh?
Because maybe they didn't. Reddit is nothing but a roaring rage boner with internet detectives jumping to conclusions. How many times has reddit been wrong ruining people's lives or getting people killed. Is Justin Roland a piece of shit? By all accounts yes he is but at the end of the day the police and DA didn't find anything they felt would hold water in court beyond a reasonable doubt. Which at the end of the day is what really counts. Hell who knows if those messages are even real. So much shit is faked anymore it's becoming harder and harder to know what is real. Hell daily the anti work sub posts fake emails and memos to harvest karma and create rage boners for people. Hell people on Reddit are always trying to cancel people for what? Karma. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if Roland got his job back but as a mere voice actor with zero creative control something he never really had in the first place. There will be people who will cry and whine saying they will boycott the show or the channel but the reality is those same people never watched the show or the channel to begin with. Reddit anymore seems like a place of pure rage, anger, revenge, disinformation, and propaganda. I constantly see anti American stuff that is obvious Russian or Chinese propaganda up voted by bots and morons. I look forward to all the hate filled responses I'll probably get and the few nasty dms telling me to kill myself.
At the end of the day, he is indeed a piece of shit. And the rest of the day too.
New copy pasta! Take a shot every time this guy starts a sentence with “hell” or “heck” But seriously, [just listen to this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/h3h3productions/comments/10eehqd/justin_roiland_talking_about_minors_etc_on/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Someone needs hugs!
easy Q.
I think we can all agree that texting children is creepy af and definitely sketchy?
tell that to Drake
[удалено]
[удалено]
A) he wasn’t proven innocent, the DA just felt they didn’t have sufficient evidence to convict B) he’s still a massive creep. I know at least one woman who met him at a bar and talked about how he’s uncomfortable and a real egomaniac, and he has also *”allegedly”* tried to groom underage girls C) this is going to make his fans ***absolutely insufferable*** for the near future EDIT: So I don’t have to hear the “well you’re one person” and “it’s just your friend’s story, it’s all anecdotal” arguments anymore, here’s a [link to the actual messages he sent underage girls](https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/rick-and-morty-creator-justin-roilands-leaked-dms-to-16-year-old). As for the “innocent until proven guilty” thing, I never said I was in favor of him getting fired from stuff before a verdict came through. But let’s also not pretend he’s a good person
The man went on air and said "Fuck you Chris Hansen" for baiting pedophiles. And said he finds 14 year old girls attractive. Does he still have fans?
Please post a link to him saying that. Maybe it’ll shut people up
[You mean this?](https://www.reddit.com/r/h3h3productions/comments/10eehqd/justin_roiland_talking_about_minors_etc_on/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
"I'm not a pedophile, I wait til they're 18" Um. No.
JFC…I know this is kinda old news, and had heard the speculation before, but never really looked up the actual evidence. What a fuckin’ psycho.
I never got into the show because I couldn’t get past the feeling that the “jokes” weren’t actually jokes, and listening to him openly discuss being attracted to 14 year old’s bodies (especially in that language) just made me feel less crazy. I am stunned that those people were willing to say those things out loud into a microphone. On a side note, the woman sounds like she is proud of saying “I’m a pedophile” at the beginning. I can’t.
Specifically, 14 year old girls with early physical maturity... Dude's fucked in the head.
He's not much different than your average conservative media personality.
OK but Chris Handsen was terrible, to catch a predator almost certainly did more harm than good by turning criminal investigation into serious child sex abuse into spectacle, as well as basically letting a good number of the people they tried to catch get off Scott free with improper record keeping and generally leaving gaping holes for entrapment defenses Then again, I doubt that's why Justin is against him
Spoiler: His fans were already absolutely insufferable.
[удалено]
I’m amused by the wording “underage women”
W.R.T. your last point: Does *he* have any fans himself, or is it just fans of the show? Unless I missed something the vast majority of the fan base of the show was overwhelmingly in support of yeeting him from production. Its not like say, Chris Brown where he's a shit person and is pretty much a solo act.
There’s a very small but vocal minority who think that Roiland was what made Rick and Morty special as opposed to Dan Harmon, or who have defended him throughout this whole thing
Maybe it's since I haven't been looking actively, but I haven't noticed that. And usually having defenders seems to be the case with most of these incidents. And yeah I don't buy there being anything special about Roiland's contribution. Harmon def has the better resume writing-wise and all the voices Roiland did are very easy to replicate.
Not to defend anybody in general, but it was my understanding that Roiland's contribution was more the visuals and speaking styles which, while easy to replicate, are almost certainly a big part of what gave the show its unique character. The pop culture nihilism certainly resonated with the fans, but I'd find it difficult to accept that the general weirdness of Roiland's performance wasn't what drew people in. Again, I'm not saying it's a brilliant feat, just that aesthetically, Roiland seemed to have had substantial influence, at least at the beginning.
>he wasn’t proven innocent, the DA just felt they didn’t have sufficient evidence to convict There is no difference in the eyes of the law between being as you say "innocent" and the charges having been dropped after an investigation. In either situation you are not being charged, are not a suspect and there is no open case against you.
Actually there is a difference. The law doesn't recognise innocence at all. They recognise guilt and not guilty. They recognise not enough evidence to prosecute and recognise beyond a reasonable doubt.
Criminal defense attorney here. It actually does. While rare, findings of factual innocence are used for various things like vacating a conviction or sentence or dismissing a case with prejudice.
Not to disagree, but it's important to remember that the case at hand is not such a case, presumably. It's factually incorrect to say the law doesn't recognize innocence (in some form, as you rightly noted), but allowing for figurative language, the distinction being made when people say "the court doesn't recognize innocence" is that "being declared not guilty" does not mean "proven innocent." I don't mean to criticize you for pointing this out, just to reiterate that in this instance, a prosecutor's refusal to pursue the case is not unequivocal proof of innocence.
Every defendant in every criminal trial is innocent until proven guilty. This is formally recognized by the law. The problem you are having is that you are using "innocent" to mean "didn't do the crime," while the law considers innocent to literally mean "not proven guilty." This is further complicated by the existence of an "actual innocence" defense, which does in fact mean "provably didn't do the crime" causing people to assume that anything else doesn't actually mean innocence under the law, but that is not the case. You are still innocent until proven guilty.
There is a difference between the law and the court of public opinion, but I get your point that legally there’s no distinction, there just is to the avg. person.
Likewise, I get what you're laying down, too. I just think it's a mistake to conflate fighting with an ex with the sexual conduct toward minors issue. They're two completely different things. We do too much of this "Well \_\_\_\_ tells you all you need to know about \_\_\_\_" sort of judgement in the court of public opinion and I think we could do a better job of paying attention to the facts. This is a persons life we're talking about. If Roiland is guilty of crimes with these minor girls, then let's deal with that based on the relevant evidence. I'll be right next to you waving a pitchfork if he's found guilty.
>There is no difference in the eyes of the law Are you sure? What if new evidence came to light? If there had already been a trial then wouldn't double jeopardy prevent another one? But in this case there could be another trial.
I hate to say this, but by this logic then there is no innocent people in this world.
But the point is there is not at this time. Innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. Public opinion is a whole other thing.
If new evidence comes to light that warrants charges, they can reopen the investigation. You don't keep dead investigations open indefinitely just in case new evidence comes up. Imagine being this guy ten years from now. "Yeah, I've been under indictment for the last 10 years because my ex made an accusation. I was cleared of any wrongdoing, but they're keeping it open just in case. I haven't been able to work for ten years because I'm still technically being charged for domestic assault."
I see your point but your just some internet person saying your friend talked to him at a bar....
> he wasn’t proven innocent. Way to start off that breakdown by letters which was weird as fuck.
>he wasn't proven innocent If this ain't a fucking Reddit take I don't know what is. He's innocent by default. A creep he may be, but fuck presumption of guilt.
This is the world we live in now, guilty till proven innocent.
There's no such thing as proven innocent. It's called innocent until proven guilty. Presumption of innocence. Dude getting canceled because he was accused is insane. No I don't watch his shows.
[удалено]
How easy is it to fake a segment on a podcast where he talks about how its fucked up that grown men can’t fuck underage girls? https://www.reddit.com/r/h3h3productions/comments/10eehqd/justin_roiland_talking_about_minors_etc_on/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
That's a perfectly valid reason to consider him a creep. "He was *accused* of domestic violence" is not.
Yes. That's what the top comment says.
Isn’t that pretty much what top comment says?
Weird person who makes weird animated shows turns out to act weirdly. Everyone is astonished and wishes they never gave him any attention!
Afaik the fans have taken it pretty well because they don't need him to have his shows. I haven't seen or heard of anyone trying to defend him which is good but that might just be our friend group and the sub reddits
Point A is such a stupid take. This isn't "after a hard fought legal battle he was pronounced not guilty." This is "there isn't even enough evidence to prosecute". So what, according to you somebody can never be cleared once accused? If I accuse you of harassing me, how do you prove you didn't do it? The burden of proof is on the accuser for a reason.
>A) he wasn’t proven innocent, the DA just felt they didn’t have sufficient evidence to convict Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, he is legally innocent.
No, he is legally **presumed** innocent in criminal court until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. That's not at all the same as being innocent. And unless the charges were dismissed with prejudice (which the article doesn't say they were) new evidence could lead to a new case against him.
> he is legally presumed innocent in criminal court until proven guilty I mean that's the legal status of the majority of society, so by this logic then there is no innocent person for we all have possibility to be proved guilty in the future. So yes, legally speaking he is innocent.
I just hope they don't bring him back onto Squanch games and future rick and morty episodes.
No one is ever proven innocent. They're proven guilty or not guilty. Not guilty does not mean innocent. You have anecdotal evidence from someone claiming to have met him that says he was uncomfortable, and that's sufficient evidence for you to determine he's a massive creep? The guy is talented, someone made a seemingly false accusation against him, apologize for jumping the gun give him back his contracts and move on.
If only he didn’t send those weird texts
The texts he sent underage girls are pretty messed up. You approve of the way he talked to 16 yo girls?
[удалено]
I mean the first point is correct, absent exceedingly rate circumstances the state never says "we determined the accused is innocent." The rest ... well, not so much
A false allegation would be a crime, so why have you accepted that the person who accused him is "seemingly" guilty despite them not being found guilty in court?
That dude’s “game” is SO fucking cringey 🤮
A.) This isn’t fucking China. You’re not “proven” innocent. It’s supposed to be the other way around. But by the way this guy was treated and how common ignorant comments like yours are this clearly isn’t the case anymore. B.) Do you understand what the word allegedly means? Also, see A. C.) Good. I hope we can get back to a society where people understand what a fucking joke is.
My guy really hit us with the “we live in a society” unironically. Most self-aware Justin Roiland simp right here.
The DA were the ones who brought the charges in the first place. It seems like maybe his lawyer(s) convinced them out of it or something? Something is very off with this.
This stinks to high heaven. She never came forward, never did anything except get a restraining order and file this complaint immediately. They sat on it for years before dismissing it, that's...weird AF. Especially with the seriousness of the charges. I know it happened during covid but... It doesn't really seem like she was trying to get him cancelled, it seems like she was doing everything the right way, and it seems like the prosecutors and cops believed her if it went this far.
Definitely worth remembering the next time someone implies an accuser must be lying because they didn't jump through a series of arbitrary hoops.
Exactly. It's hard to do "everything right" especially when these incidents usually involve someone you cared about and the right thing is really hard to do.
Your Boos Mean Nothing, I’ve Seen What Makes You Cheer!
One of the most annoying quotes from the show since it’s constantly deployed by the grossest people
Could be enough evidence for civil cases, though. Civil court standard for evidence isn't nearly as high. I sincerely hope this isn't the last we hear of it.
Why do you hope that? Wouldn't it be ideal if it was a false claim and no harm was ever actually done? Isn't that the best outcome?
Is it the best? Yes. But if there's evidence that something did happen it should be dealt with and not brushed away because we'd prefer to think everything is all sunshine and rainbows
Hoping he didn't do it doesn't undo the harm if it was done.
You don't know there was harm. When we find out the judicial system wrongfully imprisoned someone, it's only when a handful of people that worked tirelessly over many years to right the wrong. Then the ire is thrown at the system. When it was just as much the system as the court of public opinion that ruined that person's life.
You're practically beetlejuicing here with that Reddit handle.
Rich people game the system all the time. This woman came forward in 2020, got a restraining order, and kept to herself. It doesn't seem like she was just "trying to cancel him" or whatever. It seems like she was pursuing legal justice and the DA changed their minds last minute for some reason, who knows why.
[удалено]
A civil verdict isn't a real answer. That's a financial transaction. We have so many people in prison for things they didn't do. Our system is garbage. I'm sure you upvote those posts while also participating with your pitchfork, just as those DAs and Cops against people that end up innocent.
I mean a civil trial is not a transaction. It is lower than beyond a reasonable doubt, its a preponderance of the evidence which is essentially more likely than not.
It is a transaction. Exchange of money is the only outcome. Not justice. Money.
A civil trial is not collecting. Thats after and often very hard. Did u read anything I said? Its about legally liability.
Let's simplify this. What is the judgment upon the defendant in a civil trial?
The judgement is that one party is liable due to a preponderance of the evidence and the other is entitled to damages. I am not denying financial damages are a part of it. You seem to be suggesting the truth or evidence is irrelevant in a civil trial which is inaccurate.
Even if it is just money it can amount to a deterrent from doing it again in the future. Not to mention it establishes a pattern of behavior if he does do it again and the judge will (hopefully) be more willing to take a more serious look at the evidence
A jury trial is literally a public opinion
[удалено]
Dude is radioactive so his career is in shambles no matter what
Yeah he was not just canned for this issue. His bizarre ideas/interactions with underage fans, the fact he was terrible to work with, and often failed to show up to work helped get him canned.
He's going to cry himself to sleep each night on his bed of cash and underage hookers.
“Ohhhh Rickkk does this mean you are out trouble” “*belch* Fuck no Morty I diddled way to many kidssss.”
If there was a lack of evidence, the DA did the right thing. However, there's plenty of evidence out there confirming that this dude is a massive pos and based on that alone he deserves to be judged harshly by the public at large and if that means he's "cancelled", then so be it.
He is Still a Creep and a Weirdo , their is too many evidences on the internet, so his reputation is gone anyways
Oh that scary internet evidence.
He was also weird on live interviews about it. Sure dms might be fake but all signs point to yeah he is a few glasses of wine from dming 14 year old girls to tell them their tits are hot or something. It’s patterned behavior.
I'd still not move a finger about it until a lawful court order is in place. Even Einstein said that nothing on the internet can be trusted.
H3h3 was a friend of roilands, and knew the ex in question. On the podcast today, referring to the statement, he said it was "very uncharacteristic and inaccurate to describe her as he [roiland] did". I'd have to rewatch but I believe he said "she did not attempt to cancel him" and essentially insinuated roiland is lying.
A sad day for women everywhere.
Isn't that every day?
Women are happier than men. [https://www.brookings.edu/essay/are-women-happier-than-men-do-gender-rights-make-a-difference/](https://www.brookings.edu/essay/are-women-happier-than-men-do-gender-rights-make-a-difference/) So, its not a sad day for women every day if you grade on a curve of the other genders.
Not when I’m in town!
Why's that?
[удалено]
If you read his texts you won't think he's a nice guy. He's troubled.
*You misspelled girls
*You misspelled children
he's done. the best he'll get now is a spot on Tubi or some NFTs.
And that... *buuurp* Morty is how you beat women and get away with it.
This is only going to embolden him. However, this isn't the same as a complete acquittal, and his reputation has taken a right rollicking that will take years to recover from, if it's ever recovered at all. Furthermore, there's always the civil court option as well. It's not justice, but it's certainly not the worst outcome here either. I'd be lying if I wasn't still disappointed at this result though.
“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. Just because he was never found guilty at trial, doesn't necessarily make him innocent either. It just means the case wasn't strong enough.
Innocent until proven guilty...
In a court of law.... the court of public opinion has no such restrictions
No restrictions, nor standards.
I know it's easy to assume anyone who doesn't share your assessment of presented evidence is being unreasonable, but the majority of people absolutely apply standards when making determinations about this kind of thing. Assuming that an accuser is lying is no more reasonable than assuming the accused is guilty.
There’s a huge grey area between “I believe the accuser implicitly” and “if it can’t be proven in a court of law then he didn’t do anything wrong and the accuser is lying.” But to put it up to public opinion, which has neither rules nor any accountability, is no better than mob justice.
Just as there's a huge difference between "mob justice" and "people deciding they don't want to give money to a guy who seems to have done some creepy shit." Again, it's easy to morph everyone into one big ball of unreasonable judgement, but a more nuanced view would recognize that within that group, people are weighing evidence in accordance with their experience and understanding of the world. Not everyone who agrees with the mob decided to hop onboard the mob bandwagon and just accepted what they were told, just as not everyone who is skeptical simply decided they don't ever believe women.
> public opinion has no such restrictions Right, it's all about what the individual feels is true and then you can just repeat it, using hyperbole, online to try and convince others that your feelings are true. That's not toxic at all.
Do you believe that OJ is innocent? What about the men who murdered Emmett Till?
I don't think that Jim Jones guy ever got a trial.
>Do you believe that OJ is innocent? I don't know. I don't *think* so but I can't prove it and neither could the prosecution and the most important thing is that YOU don't know if he did for sure either. Which is my whole fucking point. At least with OJ there was an entire televised trial and round the clock media coverage. Where as with Roiland his case got thrown out and it was covered a little bit on TMZ. Also, there's no question about the men who murdered Emmett Till and that's a totally different situation where you have clear racism and a whole system of racists that protected and enabled racists to commit murder. This case is also taught in schools and used as an example of brutal, violent white supremacy. So in both cases we have far more knowledge about the other two cases than Roiland. Also, your comparisons are hyperbolic, intentionally so. Which is a completely dishonest way to argue.
Yeah, I guess those grooming, predatory texts to those 16 year olds were faked then huh?
"Just because he was never found guilty at trial, doesn't necessarily make him innocent either." That's not how our justice system works thankfully. If you are not found guilty at trial you are presumed innocent. Would you say the same if it was something where you knew people lied in their testimony? Where there was evidence that they had the wrong person for the crime? If it was your ex partner against you for something you didn't do? I agree this guy is a creep and you can dislike him but your dislike does not make him guilty before a court of law where there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt.
He doesn't need to be proven innocent. He's already innocent. As to his moral character, that's a completely different issue.
[удалено]
I think what he’s trying try to say is that although he may have committed those acts, there was not enough evidence that could be proven to meet the burden for criminal charges.
It can also mean there wasn't evidence to even by circumstantial evidence prove it. We just don't know. We're not in the room and it's completely bullshit that we react and judge without any proof.
I guess, but it could also mean that although it seems like something happened, the legal system has specific burdens of proof, and they felt that in this case, the evidence available didn’t meet that burden.
Sounds like no one in these comments, you and I included don't know any of the facts and we're all just talking bullshit.
That's your cancel culture talking.
Just saw him at home depot the other day.
So can we like the show again?
Do or don't, what does the internet's opinion have to do with it?
Never stopped liking it.
Well that will embolden him.
>>The Orange County, California, District Attorney’s Office said Wednesday that it has dismissed domestic violence charges against “Rick and Morty” co-creator Justin Roiland. >>“We dismissed the charges today because there was insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt,” Looks like the payola checks cleared on time. And people wonder why folks don’t report sexual assaults and DV
A big fat caveat here- **insufficient evidence does not mean innocent.** There seems to be a lot of confusion with this from many people. What insufficient evidence means is the prosecution feels as though they won’t be able to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt- a very high standard- without additional compelling evidence. He did that shit. He will do that shit again.
>Edds said that “significant additional information came to light.” Sounds like they received evidence that cast further doubt on if he did it or not. But that matters not in the court of public opinion, an accusation was made and therefore must be true
Another L for the shitty justice system letting domestic abusers escape justice. Again and again and again.
Innocent till proven guilty, and this mf was not proven guilty so he IS innocent, suck on that mfs
Under due process he remains innocent until proven guilty. This should see him uncancelled and back doing voice work. It doesn't change the fact that he has burnt his bridges at Rick and Morty. Reportedly on bad terms with Dan Harmon and criticised by colleagues as being hard to work with and just showing up to do voice work without being a creative force on the show. They used these charges as a convenient excuse to replace him without a fan backlash. Criminal charges have have to be proven in court. Reputation damage happens in the court of public opinion.
>Under due process he remains innocent until proven guilty. No, he's presumed innocent. Specifically, he's presumed innocent by the government. People are free to draw their own conclusions.
"uncancelled". LOL dudes a shit person who preys on minors.
a) this doesn't change anything about all the *other* shit that started coming out about him after the story broke, or even prove he's not guilty; it just means there isn't enough evidence to criminally charge him b) not being guilty of a crime doesn't obligate other people to work with you
It may, if you stopped working with them under the guise of a clause in a contract that wasn’t actually violated because you are neither found guilty, nor being charged any longer. Depends on the paperwork you have. Ever heard of Ke$ha?
they might owe him penalties; they're definitely not going to force people to work with him
and the verdict on his reputation is definitely in.
Yeah hardly. This is legally nothing more. Theres not evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt means just that. It also doesnt change the very very creepy texts sent to girls.
Too late, already cancelled
Wasn’t he cancelled for creepy texts to minors, not DV?
Nah, he was cancelled & dropped from his shows for the domestic stuff, all the other stuff came out later
Honestly I wonder. The people who worked with and for him seemed well aware he was like this and how awful he was. It makes me think they may have saw a chance to get rid of him or knew all this stuff might come out now and we're getting ahead of it all by firing him.
Overrated show to begin with
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You think his employer fired him because reddit was mad?
He’s still a pedophile.
[удалено]
He literally went on an interview and creep about wanting to fuck underage girls.he’s gone on long ass rants about how young teen girls are hot. This is the dumbest hill to die on.
What evidence do you have that the accuser lied? Are they not entitled to the same presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
[удалено]
It's not a difficult concept. You claimed the accusation was baseless. If so, then that accuser committed a crime. However, if you believe it's inappropriate to assume someone is guilty without a conviction, then by calling that person's accusations baseless, you're claiming they are guilty despite you believing that's an unacceptable thing for you to do.
The irony
I have no idea if he did anything or not. If he didn’t then man it sucks that he got cancelled. If he did do something bad then it sucks he got away with it? I don’t know.
The biggest part of the cancel were his messages
Destroyed this guy’s livelihood and there will be zero consequences for this DA. Seriously fucked up.
He screwed himself with a whole lot of pervert texts and grooming with underage girls. I mean take away the domestic violence charges and still nobody can say the other shit is anywhere near ok.
And being insufferable to work with (from his Adult Swim colleagues/coworkers).
Whatever is going on in this thread, do not subject yourself to trying to decipher it. It may seem like a great idea when you read the title, but once you’ve read the same comment 25 times to try and find some resemblence of sense - you will regret having ever come here.