He also wasn’t found “innocent”, but “not guilty”.
There’s a vast difference between that. Not guilty means that we can’t prove he’s guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not that we can prove that he’s innocent.
It’s still very likely he committed crimes, but we can’t be sure enough to send him to jail.
Came here to say this! With all we’ve heard about the man, I’d say he’s slam-dunk “not innocent”. BUT, he was found not guilty as charged.
People really get up in arms because they don’t know the difference. And it’s not just some legal shenanigans, it’s a real-world thing.
Another example is my sleezebag Congressman, Matt Gaetz. People act like he wasn’t prosecuted due to being in Congress, money, whatever. No, he wasn’t prosecuted due to lack of evidence and witness testimony.
Is he an innocent man? Fuck no. But that’s not enough to lock him up. Given the nature of the case, I wouldn’t have prosecuted either. About zero chance of a jury returning a guilty verdict. Pretty sad about it, I really hoped to see that man in orange.
When Depp won against Heard, Reddit went full on circle jerk around Depp. Sure his ex was an abusive fuck, but that doesn’t excuse Depp’s horrendous actions and his general creepyness. Dude is 60 chasing after 20 year olds and complains when they’re immature. His ex may have been worse than him, but he’s still an abusive creep.
Just a small correction. Being not proven guilty doesn’t proves innocence. It just means that the accusation couldn’t be proven in court. That’s the price we pay for our justice system which tries to keep wrong convictions as small as possible, quite a few guilty people will walk free.
And I think in this case a guilty person walks free.
Do you have proof these accusations were false? Remember, a not guilty verdict only means the evidence presented was insufficient for a conviction, and does not mean the accusations were not real.
But in the case the original user clearly stated it was their opinion, not a fact. Individuals are allowed to have opinions of another person’s guilt, even if it differs from that of a jury.
So when a certain number of accusations against a person is reached that makes the accusations true?
No, but much more likely.
You really think he gives a shit if you watch his movies? Cute but please keep in mind the dude is super fucking rich and his estimated worth is about 70.000.000$.
You are still allowed to dislike innocent people. The law is not morality.
He also wasn’t found “innocent”, but “not guilty”.
There’s a vast difference between that. Not guilty means that we can’t prove he’s guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not that we can prove that he’s innocent.
It’s still very likely he committed crimes, but we can’t be sure enough to send him to jail.
Came here to say this! With all we’ve heard about the man, I’d say he’s slam-dunk “not innocent”. BUT, he was found not guilty as charged.
People really get up in arms because they don’t know the difference. And it’s not just some legal shenanigans, it’s a real-world thing.
Another example is my sleezebag Congressman, Matt Gaetz. People act like he wasn’t prosecuted due to being in Congress, money, whatever. No, he wasn’t prosecuted due to lack of evidence and witness testimony.
Is he an innocent man? Fuck no. But that’s not enough to lock him up. Given the nature of the case, I wouldn’t have prosecuted either. About zero chance of a jury returning a guilty verdict. Pretty sad about it, I really hoped to see that man in orange.
I have never heard about an “innocent” verdict, is that really a thing?
They are just making a point. No such thing, just pointing out that criminal courts don’t prove innocence.
I think the closest you get to that is if you counter-sue (or they get sued for lying in court, etc.) the accusers and win.
When Depp won against Heard, Reddit went full on circle jerk around Depp. Sure his ex was an abusive fuck, but that doesn’t excuse Depp’s horrendous actions and his general creepyness. Dude is 60 chasing after 20 year olds and complains when they’re immature. His ex may have been worse than him, but he’s still an abusive creep.
semen (the body fluid)
Just a small correction. Being not proven guilty doesn’t proves innocence. It just means that the accusation couldn’t be proven in court. That’s the price we pay for our justice system which tries to keep wrong convictions as small as possible, quite a few guilty people will walk free.
And I think in this case a guilty person walks free.
deleted by creator
where there’s smoke, there is fire my friend
deleted by creator
Do you have proof these accusations were false? Remember, a not guilty verdict only means the evidence presented was insufficient for a conviction, and does not mean the accusations were not real.
deleted by creator
But in the case the original user clearly stated it was their opinion, not a fact. Individuals are allowed to have opinions of another person’s guilt, even if it differs from that of a jury.
deleted by creator
No. But with these many accusations I really don’t need that to make an educated guess.
And nothing prevents me from doing so since I can’t do shit about that fucker beside not watching his movies.
deleted by creator
No, but much more likely.
Yes? That’s my point!
deleted by creator