-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Actor Anthony Anderson charged with aggravated rape
- Thread starter shuri
- Start date
- Status
RevenantKioku
PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS oh god i am drowning in them
Who?
Shogmaster
Member
Tuvoc said:
Several people witness the girl running out of his trailer naked and screaming/crying. I believe he is pretty much fuxxored unless there's some incredible stuff coming in his defense soon.
Well isn't he innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Shame. I can match you cliche for cliche all day.pnjtony said:
Listen you moron, what he said is not blaming the victim but rather not neccessarily believing the accusation.
Blaming the victim requires a belief that the accusation occured but that it was really her fault: "She deserved it, that slut. You could tell she wanted it from the clothes she was wearing."
Goddamn, I hate it when people treat it as if its fucking beyond belief that a rape accusation could be false and anyone who says otherwise is "blaming the victim". We don't have the facts and cannot make any judgements on what happened.
Shogmaster said:
I'm seeing how the defense will spin it now. "A girl tries to seduce both actors into casual sex, she gets naked, and all of a sudden flies out the door, screaming and crying the whole way. She really just wants the money!"
But this is a shame, really. I don't see how actors/athletes get away with this malarky. But when the hammer drops on these guys, I hope it hits hard.
Shogmaster
Member
I just hope this doesn't effect Harold and Kumar negatively.
Shogmaster
Member
We fail teh english! We murder self!
Spike Spiegel
Member
Didn't he play a minor villain in Romeo Must Die?
EDIT: Nevermind, I see it on his bio.
EDIT: Nevermind, I see it on his bio.
D
Deleted member 284
Unconfirmed Member
Ninja Scooter
Member
he's making a run for it!
"We goin to mexico bitch!"
"We goin to mexico bitch!"
I'd just like to point out that the presumption of innocence (or, "innocent until proven guilty") only applies to jurors in a criminal trial, no one else. The Constitution does not mandate that everyone in society presume someone is innocent until a jury finds otherwise; even if a jury does find otherwise, anyone is entitled to think differently. Yet for some reason, many people (talk show pundits typically, even those who profess to be well-educated about the law) think that we have no right to think what we want to think until a jury or trial uncovers the magical "truth." There's a good article about it here if you're interested:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20020617.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20020617.html
ConfusingJazz
Member
Lil' Dice said:
Then profit?
AstroLad said:
I've never gotten that impression from anyone, on tv or in person. Just cause someone brings up "he's innocent til proven guilty" doesn't mean they're saying you're not allowed to believe whatever the hell you want. I really don't get how you made that assumption.
someone cites the, "he's innocent til proven guilty" thing in a conversation doesn't mean they're trying to tell you you're not allowed to believe what you want. They're merely arguing for patience in personal judgment. Do you really feel that when someone mentions this they're trying to impede on your right to think freely?
levious said:
If you watch television or read editorial columns, people respond to others thinking someone may be guilty before trial by saying, "no, he's innocent until proven guilty!" This is to what I'm referring. It's not exactly a rare phenomenon; turn on any news channel for a few hours and you'll see it. This is why someone actually took the time to write a whole article about the idea.
what?
Why are you getting aggravated?
You said that some people think that we have no right to believe what we want because he's innocent until proven guilty... that's specifically what I was trying to clarify, since I really doubt anyone really thinks that.
If that's not exactly what you meant, I'm sorry.
I apologize if I'm not smart enough to have a conversation with you.
Why are you getting aggravated?
You said that some people think that we have no right to believe what we want because he's innocent until proven guilty... that's specifically what I was trying to clarify, since I really doubt anyone really thinks that.
If that's not exactly what you meant, I'm sorry.
I apologize if I'm not smart enough to have a conversation with you.
dskillzhtown
keep your strippers out of my American football
FoneBone said:
For that career to be a joke, he has been in alot of money making movies. I am thinking alot of actors would love to have that much work and involved in that many hits.
I met him at a party here in Houston. He seemed alright, he was making eyes at my girl though. If there is physical evidence, he is screwed in this case though. A naked woman running out of a trailer screaming and crying is not exactly an innocent situation.
dskillzhtown said:
Just because it is reported in the media doesn't mean it is true. There were so many factual inaccuracies about the Kobe case the first few weeks it came out. Remember the whole "terrible vaginal injuries" and people could hear her screaming on other floors, it all turned out to be total bullshit and at this moment I wouldn't be surprised if they dismissed the case now. Of course I don't know what happened in this case yet and we won't know until the trial occurs (unless they leak everything like they did in Eagle).
Originally Posted by levious:
so this thread can be summed up in three words... Kobe is innocent!
The GAF Kobe contingent is hilarious. Not because of some of their points about some evidence (which they are probably right on), but that many of them had the same opinion on Kobe's innocence before anything started looking bad for the prosecution's side in the first place.
And I agree with Astrolad to the extent, that some people do treat 'innocent until proven gulity' as some sort of sacred cow. Like, if someone was found innocent, even if it was on a technicality, some people act like somehow the criminal (if he was indeed gulity) is somehow vindicated and cleared by an innocent verdict. Legally speaking, yes, but he's still gulity. Some people act like, if a person is found innocent or gulity, then that person must be indeed innocent or gulity. And that's not necessarily the case at all.
As for AA, assuming the report is right, then he's screwed and deserves whatever he gets (though that won't be much I'm sure, knowing our legal system and semi-celebrites). If the report is false as some have acted like or feel, then that's a whole different story.
so this thread can be summed up in three words... Kobe is innocent!
Kobex Jr.?bionic77 said:
The GAF Kobe contingent is hilarious. Not because of some of their points about some evidence (which they are probably right on), but that many of them had the same opinion on Kobe's innocence before anything started looking bad for the prosecution's side in the first place.And I agree with Astrolad to the extent, that some people do treat 'innocent until proven gulity' as some sort of sacred cow. Like, if someone was found innocent, even if it was on a technicality, some people act like somehow the criminal (if he was indeed gulity) is somehow vindicated and cleared by an innocent verdict. Legally speaking, yes, but he's still gulity. Some people act like, if a person is found innocent or gulity, then that person must be indeed innocent or gulity. And that's not necessarily the case at all.
As for AA, assuming the report is right, then he's screwed and deserves whatever he gets (though that won't be much I'm sure, knowing our legal system and semi-celebrites). If the report is false as some have acted like or feel, then that's a whole different story.
MASB said:Originally Posted by levious:
so this thread can be summed up in three words... Kobe is innocent!
Kobex Jr.?
And I agree with Astrolad to the extent, that some people do treat 'innocent until proven gulity' as some sort of sacred cow. Like, if someone was found innocent, even if it was on a technicality, some people act like somehow the criminal (if he was indeed gulity) is somehow vindicated and cleared by an innocent verdict. Legally speaking, yes, but he's still gulity. Some people act like, if a person is found innocent or gulity, then that person must be indeed innocent or gulity. And that's not necessarily the case at all.
As for AA, assuming the report is right, then he's screwed and deserves whatever he gets (though that won't be much I'm sure, knowing our legal system and semi-celebrites). If the report is false as some have acted like or feel, then that's a whole different story.
Actually, I assumed he was guilty at first. I followed the whole thing almost religiously since the beginning. The news that came out at first was really bad like I said before, so take it with a grain of salt as 90% of that stuff turned out to be either grossly exaggerated or totally untrue. At the same time, there were also a lot of lies about the alleged victim as well in the beginning. All I am saying is that don't make up your mind before you see the evidence. Though a naked lady running out of a trailer screaming is not what you would call "good" evidence for Anderson IF it is true.
Charges dropped today. Too bad it won't be splashed all over the news like his arrest was....
http://www.newsday.com/entertainmen...524.story?coll=sns-ap-entertainment-headlines
http://www.newsday.com/entertainmen...524.story?coll=sns-ap-entertainment-headlines
- Status