Not at all, I personally have no pony in this race. But if the issue never went to trial he literally wasn’t found innocent. No trial = No guilt or innocence legally speaking. Getting charges dismissed doesn’t automatically equate legally either to guilt or innocence under the circumstances that he got for dismissal. The only qualifier is “there wasn’t enough evidence produced to make this worth the courts time.” Now if that means to you he’s automatically been proven “innocent” I don’t know what to tell you. To me it doesn’t mean he’s innocent, just the other party couldn’t reliably prove their accusations. I do notice you are silent about the grooming thing though.
It’s also interesting to see people making the comparisons to Depp and Heard trial when they did actually prove Depp was abusive towards Heard but Heard wasn’t a saint either. Anyone who actually paid attention to the trial without any bias can in no logical mind think either of them were innocent angels.
It’s somewhat pedantic, but the point is really that, in our legal system you are innocent until proven guilty. It’s also the morally correct approach in a lot of ways outside of the legal system.
I choose not to reply about the allegations because I have no information about the situation other than the paragraph you wrote.
That still doesn’t render my point invalid that you think someone needs to prove their innocence in a court, even when the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. If there wasn’t enough evidence to prove him guilty then he’s not guilty. Or do you think that everyone who’s ever stepped foot in a court to plead their innocence is guilty, even if the prosecution had no real evidence against the person?
Not really invested in the Heard and Depp trial either, but the man had his whole career ruined over it so I think he’s been dealt more than his fair share of punishment.
Edit: Also with all these celeb scandals happening you’d think that celebrities would not use their official or traceable accounts to do shady shit, but maybe that’s expecting too much smartness from them.
Nope but it’s a case by case basis. The burden of proof is on the prosecution but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, depending on the accusation laid. If I punch you but you don’t report it till the bruise is gone for what ever reason and you have no witnesses or evidence to prove it, did a crime still occurr?
Not at all, I personally have no pony in this race. But if the issue never went to trial he literally wasn’t found innocent. No trial = No guilt or innocence legally speaking. Getting charges dismissed doesn’t automatically equate legally either to guilt or innocence under the circumstances that he got for dismissal. The only qualifier is “there wasn’t enough evidence produced to make this worth the courts time.” Now if that means to you he’s automatically been proven “innocent” I don’t know what to tell you. To me it doesn’t mean he’s innocent, just the other party couldn’t reliably prove their accusations. I do notice you are silent about the grooming thing though.
It’s also interesting to see people making the comparisons to Depp and Heard trial when they did actually prove Depp was abusive towards Heard but Heard wasn’t a saint either. Anyone who actually paid attention to the trial without any bias can in no logical mind think either of them were innocent angels.
It’s somewhat pedantic, but the point is really that, in our legal system you are innocent until proven guilty. It’s also the morally correct approach in a lot of ways outside of the legal system.
It all reads to me like they couldn’t prove he was guilty. So, there’s your answer.
Not being found guilty IS being found innocent, that’s how justice works
I choose not to reply about the allegations because I have no information about the situation other than the paragraph you wrote. That still doesn’t render my point invalid that you think someone needs to prove their innocence in a court, even when the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. If there wasn’t enough evidence to prove him guilty then he’s not guilty. Or do you think that everyone who’s ever stepped foot in a court to plead their innocence is guilty, even if the prosecution had no real evidence against the person? Not really invested in the Heard and Depp trial either, but the man had his whole career ruined over it so I think he’s been dealt more than his fair share of punishment.
Edit: Also with all these celeb scandals happening you’d think that celebrities would not use their official or traceable accounts to do shady shit, but maybe that’s expecting too much smartness from them.
Nope but it’s a case by case basis. The burden of proof is on the prosecution but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, depending on the accusation laid. If I punch you but you don’t report it till the bruise is gone for what ever reason and you have no witnesses or evidence to prove it, did a crime still occurr?