"That 70s Show" Actor Danny Masterson Again Facing Rape Charges

[Leo656]

Yeah, the truth is it's a nice adage but "Innocent Until proven Guilty" is mostly platitudes. I, myself, have paid more fines for the sh*t I didn't do than anything I ever DID do. Assault, mostly. Did I hit those people? Sometimes yes, sometimes absolutely no. In the instances where I did hit them it was always retaliatory. But when you go in for the mug shot and you've got long hair and tattoos, it doesn't matter who swung first, You're Guilty.

My Dad once got high on crack, tried to bash my skull in with a sledgehammer, and was strangling me while trying to push my head through a window. I gave him one good smack to get him off of me, which knocked his glasses off and gave him a tiny scratch. He called 911 like a bitch, we both got taken out in cuffs but guess who got charged? Guess who got the fine? Guess who had a prosecutor say with a straight face, "As far as I'm concerned, a parent can beat their kid to death if they're inclined because they wouldn't ever do it unless their punk kid did something to deserve it. And that's all I'm looking at right now, a punk. So you can pay this fine or you can do time, your choice."

You're always judged in the court of opinion based on appearance and economic status way before any evidence is presented. That's a provable fact.

But SHOULD it be "Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty"? Yes, it should. Is it really? Absolutely not. Unfortunately. I'd have like an extra ten grand in my pocket, theoretically, if the law worked the way it was supposed to. But it's all really based on what you look like and how much money you have. And when it comes to actual punishment, it's all about what kind of lawyer you can afford.

I wish that weren't so, however.

[PizzaPower1985]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Yeah, the truth is it's a nice adage but "Innocent Until proven Guilty" is mostly platitudes. I, myself, have paid more fines for the sh*t I didn't do than anything I ever DID do. Assault, mostly. Did I hit those people? Sometimes yes, sometimes absolutely no. In the instances where I did hit them it was always retaliatory. But when you go in for the mug shot and you've got long hair and tattoos, it doesn't matter who swung first, You're Guilty.

My Dad once got high on crack, tried to bash my skull in with a sledgehammer, and was strangling me while trying to push my head through a window. I gave him one good smack to get him off of me, which knocked his glasses off and gave him a tiny scratch. He called 911 like a bitch, we both got taken out in cuffs but guess who got charged? Guess who got the fine? Guess who had a prosecutor say with a straight face, "As far as I'm concerned, a parent can beat their kid to death if they're inclined because they wouldn't ever do it unless their punk kid did something to deserve it. And that's all I'm looking at right now, a punk. So you can pay this fine or you can do time, your choice."

You're always judged in the court of opinion based on appearance and economic status way before any evidence is presented. That's a provable fact.

But SHOULD it be "Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty"? Yes, it should. Is it really? Absolutely not. Unfortunately. I'd have like an extra ten grand in my pocket, theoretically, if the law worked the way it was supposed to. But it's all really based on what you look like and how much money you have. And when it comes to actual punishment, it's all about what kind of lawyer you can afford.

I wish that weren't so, however.

Exactly. Everything you said is exactly right. Your speaking truth to power here... but that's not the way it should be. Every person should be given the benefit of the doubt, first. It's something I often criticize my fellow leftists for. Yeah, I mean the really sad, unfortunate truth is economic status, race and sometimes creed is an unfair predictor of a lot more than just guilt or innocence in the justice system. Economic status often dictates a lot in society (the kind of job you can get, loans, medical care, area you can live in etc.) and as a result the society (and its people) often suffers for it. It's a large reason why things are so f*cked up.

[PizzaPower1985]

Found this... Apparently all of the plaintiffs have or had previous histories/relationships with the accused. Is that motive enough for a cash grab scheme?

https://lawandcrime.com/celebrity/wh...son-rape-case/

[Leo656]

I'd always heard that it was women he was dating who were accusing him. I thought that too was common knowledge.

I'm not comfortable that the idea that supposes if two people may have had consensual relations at one point, it's therefore impossible that a guy can later force himself on the same person against their will. "If she said Yes once, it's Yes in perpetuity" is a fallacy, but it's how most guys get away with it.

I know that's how most rape defenses work, but it's scummy. Statistics say that the vast majority of rapes happen when the victim is on close terms with the perpetrator, generally a boyfriend or ex-boyfriend. The "stranger in the bushes" form of rape happens far less often.

All I see is a pattern of behavior. I don't see anything that discredits anyone; rather the opposite, if he does this often enough for there to be an entire well of people who come forward.

[PizzaPower1985]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I'd always heard that it was women he was dating who were accusing him. I thought that too was common knowledge.

I'm not comfortable that the idea that supposes if two people may have had consensual relations at one point, it's therefore impossible that a guy can later force himself on the same person against their will. "If she said Yes once, it's Yes in perpetuity" is a fallacy, but it's how most guys get away with it.

I know that's how most rape defenses work, but it's scummy. Statistics say that the vast majority of rapes happen when the victim is on close terms with the perpetrator, generally a boyfriend or ex-boyfriend. The "stranger in the bushes" form of rape happens far less often.

All I see is a pattern of behavior. I don't see anything that discredits anyone; rather the opposite, if he does this often enough for there to be an entire well of people who come forward.

Fair points. The more I find out the more I kinda hope he fries. We'll see.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Yeah, the truth is it's a nice adage but "Innocent Until proven Guilty" is mostly platitudes.

It is a platitude otherwise no one would be detained pending a trial. The fact that bail exists is that at least temporarily buy the assumption of innocence if you have the money.

I'm not comfortable that the idea that supposes if two people may have had consensual relations at one point, it's therefore impossible that a guy can later force himself on the same person against their will. "If she said Yes once, it's Yes in perpetuity" is a fallacy, but it's how most guys get away with it.

Preach.

[Autbot_Benz]

Variety
@Variety
·
39m
Danny Masterson, the former star of “That ’70s Show,” was convicted Wednesday on two counts of forcible rape. He faces a potential sentence of 30 years to life in prison on the two charges.

https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/dan...al-1235616690/

[ProphetofGanja]

What a freakin' creep. Figures he's a scientologist

[Coola Yagami]

which one was he again? I don't know the name of the actors other than Miley, Ashton and Topher.

[ZariusTwo]

Now serving 30 years

https://deadline.com/2023/09/danny-m...gy-1235538637/

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Now serving 30 years

https://deadline.com/2023/09/danny-m...gy-1235538637/

I still don't know who this is and what character he played on the show.

[KROW]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Now serving 30 years

https://deadline.com/2023/09/danny-m...gy-1235538637/

Oof. "Yes Man," is going to be an awkward re-watch.

[Andrew NDB]

Wait, these rapes happened 20 years ago? Uh...

[Leofan26]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Wait, these rapes happened 20 years ago? Uh...

Old laws had a worse reputation for woman vs new laws.

It’s like what happened with Cosby.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

I still don't know who this is and what character he played on the show.

Steven Hyde.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by LeotheLateBloomer

Steven Hyde.

Ohhhhhhh. Thanks for that.

Damn, he always came off as a douche in the show, it sucks he's an even bigger douche in real life.

[ZariusTwo]

Ashton and Mila have resigned from the child abuse charity organization THORN

https://time.com/6314436/ashton-kutc...nny-masterson/

[Warhorse]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Wait, these rapes happened 20 years ago? Uh...

And according to the article, there were three rapes spanning from 2001 to 2003. The first rape was his girlfriend at the time and the jury couldn't come to a conclusion for her, so it was dropped, but the other two they agreed with and this is what he is being convicted of.

On another note, one of the rape victims has made a statement that she will sue in civil court both the Masterson estate as well as the Church of Scientology. I'm surprised this organization is still allowed to conduct business. Feds were quick to burn Waco to the ground but look the other way with Scientology.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Warhorse

And according to the article, there were three rapes spanning from 2001 to 2003. The first rape was his girlfriend at the time and the jury couldn't come to a conclusion for her, so it was dropped, but the other two they agreed with and this is what he is being convicted of.

On another note, one of the rape victims has made a statement that she will sue in civil court both the Masterson estate as well as the Church of Scientology. I'm surprised this organization is still allowed to conduct business. Feds were quick to burn Waco to the ground but look the other way with Scientology.

Kinda surprised Scientology didn't 'silence' her. Those are some ****ed up and dangerous people. At the very least, they would sue the hell out of her since they're pretty sue-happy.