Knew this thread would bring out at least 1 incel.
I disagree with newname, but those of you that start using "incel" to describe everyone that disagrees with you, come across as stupid people who can't win an argument on the basis of facts, so attempt to shut down an argument by name calling.
It’s not “everyone that disagrees with you.”
Look at the context here. It’s a crime against women. Rape is not about sex. It’s about domination and degradation. While the term “incel” merely means involuntary celibate, incels are known to be not particularly fond of women.
No idea as to whether he did this or not. No evidence presented in the article which means, in all likelihood, none presented at trial. Just accusations.
Did these women come forward 20 years ago? Were rape kits performed?
Apparently, there was sufficient evidence presented to the jury to find him guilty on two counts of rape. You were not at the trial. How do you know no evidence was presented?
Prosecutors were able to file the charge under a “one-strike” sex crimes law that extends the statute of limitations for multiple forcible rapes.
Don't see that in findlaw.
The statute of limitations exists for a reason.
These claims are 20 years old and I see no evidence that was presented at trial in the article. Seems the only evidence are the claims of the women.
Per Section 799 of the CA penal code, there is no statute of limitations for crimes punishable by either the death penalty or life in prison. Forceable rape (multiple in this case) has a max sentence of life, so there is no SOL.
Read Section 799 - Prosecution for offense punishable by death or by imprisonment for life or for life without possibility of parole, or for embezzlement of public money, Cal. Pen. Code § 799, see flags on bad law, and search...
These claims are 20 years old and I see no evidence that was presented at trial in the article. Seems the only evidence are the claims of the women.
Per Section 799 of the CA penal code, there is no statute of limitations for crimes punishable by either the death penalty or life in prison. Forceable rape (multiple in this case) has a max sentence of life, so there is no SOL.
So they added this in 2017 effectively getting rid of the statute of limitations for more crimes (in addition to murder).
The following would seem to prevent charges from being brought in the case of an alleged rape in 2000 and 2003.
2) This subdivision applies to crimes that were committed on or after January 1, 2017, and to crimes for which the statute of limitations that was in effect prior to January 1, 2017, has not run as of January 1, 2017.
if accusations can lock him up, accusations can lock you up.
it’s absolutely terrifying that this can even be possible without hard evidence. Perhaps there was some presented, and I hope there was.
Luckily for Danny, he had a well funded legal team at his disposal through trial. He further has the resources to continue to maintain a team of attorneys to appeal the verdict. If the trial court got it wrong he will get his due process because he's got the resources.
How does the law get around the law (statute of limitations) to get indictments and convictions?
Do you feel as if Masterson was wronged?
I’m curious too if there was any incriminating evidence or just the victims’ accusations. I didn’t see anything in the media even confirming that Scientology even confirmed that the women reported the rape back then to them, in which case it would at least be a more compelling accusation, even if not evidence like a rape kit, eye witness, DNA evidence, circumstantial camera evidence showing collocation at the claimed times etc.
It is a potentially dangerous societal power structure in the making if both men and women “know” that accusations can do a man in for decades. It’s a legitimate concern and dismissing anyone voicing it as an incel doesn’t lessen the concern.
I don't know any of the details of the trial but I thought the sentencing seemed harsher than usual for the crime(s). Read the CA guidelines for sentencing, whatever happened must have been pretty egregious compared to many other situations of like criminal activity.
Testimony is evidence but there is a common meaning and legal meaning. In common language evidence means a physical item who's existence makes the occurrence of an event more probable. Witness testimony is known to be flawed and increasingly flawed with time. What this thread is saying is if 100% of the evidence is testimony that that should not be enough for a conviction of this severity. Outstanding claims require outstanding evidence.
What I don't understand is why the lawyers weren't jumping on this. A criminal case needs to be 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and it doesn't seem too tough to convince a jury that the witnesses are (at the very least) unreliable.
Testimony is evidence but there is a common meaning and legal meaning. In common language evidence means a physical item who's existence makes the occurrence of an event more probable. Witness testimony is known to be flawed and increasingly flawed with time. What this thread is saying is if 100% of the evidence is testimony that that should not be enough for a conviction of this severity. Outstanding claims require outstanding evidence.
What I don't understand is why the lawyers weren't jumping on this. A criminal case needs to be 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and it doesn't seem too tough to convince a jury that the witnesses are (at the very least) unreliable.
Maybe the lawyers realize their client is a scumbag and maybe the victims testimony was outstanding....
You'd think conservatives would be overjoyed that some Hollywood elitist and scientology freak who starred in a show that promoted drug use and premarital sex is getting what he deserves, but their instinct to side with rapists trumps all. "Sure he was found guilty by a jury, after a three-year investigation by the police, but what's the EVIDENCE???"
You'd think conservatives would be overjoyed that some Hollywood elitist and scientology freak who starred in a show that promoted drug use and premarital sex is getting what he deserves, but their instinct to side with rapists trumps all. "Sure he was found guilty by a jury, after a three-year investigation by the police, but what's the EVIDENCE???"
Exactly the brain washing is strong with this group.