>Now, prosecutors say the evidence did not support criminal charges, and the case has been closed.
love how they put this part right at the bottom.
1845
redcoatwright3 days ago
+557
Yeah kind of an important piece of info and the headline makes it sound like he got off on a technicality.
"Not enough evidence" is another way of saying there's no proof to support the claim
**Edit:** going to remove the stuff accusing the accuser of lying because I have no evidence to say that's the case... ironic, eh
557
blackdynomitesnewbag3 days ago
+119
Not enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t mean there’s no evidence.
119
visforvienetta3 days ago
+77
The problem is there's no evidence *of r**** in many cases.
If the man says the sex was consensual but doesn't deny having sex with her, the physical evidence won't contradict his story for the most part - especially if there was no violence or struggle involved.
It's why r*** is so hard to convict, it so often comes down to he said she said and "she said" frankly isn't enough for a conviction without completely up-ending the principle of "innocent until proven guilty"
77
blackdynomitesnewbag3 days ago
+7
I don't know the details of this case, and I don't care to know. I was just pointing out the flaw in op's logic
7
Shinjischneider2 days ago
+2
Only about 3% of rapes lead to a conviction because of that.
I've seen cases where there was actual video footage of the woman being almost beaten to death and yet the culprits walked free because the Cops didn't do their job (or outright were in cahoots with the culprits).
I've seen cases where the culprits walked free at first because the woman had sex with a completely different man the same day...
2
visforvienetta2 days ago
In the first case, that's completely unacceptable and is a clear failing of the justice system.
In the second case, I suspect it was less "because she had sex earlier so she can't be a r*** victim" and more "she had sex earlier so all the forensic evidence from the r*** is compromised by the earlier sex, meaning we can't get a conviction"
0
Shinjischneider2 days ago
+2
No. It was that she had casual Sex that evening and that the judge considered the r*** "not that bad" because of it
2
Shinjischneider2 days ago
+3
Judges will always find a reason to blame the victim.
If she wore a skirt she made it too easy.
If she wore jeans she made her ass too s***
And yes. Both are actual quotes
3
xlews_ther1nx3 days ago
+2
This is where civil cases (Trump) come in
2
iiSpook2 days ago
+1
Neither does it mean that he's guilty.
1
blackdynomitesnewbag2 days ago
+1
Well, clearly
1
juanjing3 days ago
+19
> Edit: going to remove the stuff accusing the accuser of lying because I have no evidence to say that's the case... ironic, eh
Not irony. Just hypocrisy. Either way, that now-deleted sentiment was the only part I took issue with.
19
redcoatwright3 days ago
-10
explain how it's hypocrisy, I realized I incorrect and rectified it... please explain the hypocrisy.
-10
juanjing3 days ago
+30
It was hypocritical to accuse the woman of lying without evidence. Not ironic.
30
redcoatwright3 days ago
-6
Oh okay so you do think that it's bad she accused the guy without enough evidence?
I don't agree with that, hence why I removed that part.
-6
juanjing3 days ago
+26
> Oh okay so you do think that it's bad she accused the guy without enough evidence?
What? No. What even is this? I will answer as if this is a legitimate question, but I doubt it is.
I think if she believes she was raped, she should be allowed to report it, even with a lack of what a prosecutor calls "evidence." Don't you? To me, this was never in question, but maybe to you it was? I'm genuinely confused.
If she believes she was raped, what do you think she should have done?
> I don't agree with that, hence why I removed that part.
This confuses me.
You said she was probably lying because it couldn't be prosecuted, and the reason given was a lack of evidence. You accused her of lying with zero evidence. That's the definition of hypocrisy, and was the only part of your statement I took issue with.
26
Tymareta3 days ago
+8
If I were to follow you from your workplace one night, and take your wallet at knife point, but never actually lay a hand on you, and the incident is witnessed by nobody, would you genuinely argue that -you- would be in the wrong for reporting the incident/accusing me of mugging you?
Because that is the reality for most r*** cases, the police don't give a f***, so r*** kits often sit untested or ignored, so what evidence is there left to present when the bar to clear is "beyond a reasonable doubt"? This is why myself and near every victim of SA I know never bothered to report, as not only would the case go nowhere, we'd deal with walnut's like yourself claiming that we're lying and openly deriding us for daring to speak up.
8
monaforever2 days ago
+5
Wait, are you saying you think people should only report crimes if they're sure that there's enough evidence to prosecute the crime?
5
juanjing3 days ago
+157
> "Not enough evidence" is another way of saying there's no proof to support the claim i.e. this is probably bullshit
This is why we need the hashtag "Believe Women." JFC.
"Not enough evidence" actually means "not enough evidence." Using critical thinking, can you imagine a scenario in which a r*** occurred with no physical evidence? Do you know how many r*** accusations go un-investigated for this exact reason?
Two possible explanations:
A. The accusers are all (or mostly) liars.
B. Unless you witness it happening, while also having witnessed what led up to it, it's hard to present concrete evidence of a r***.
Life isn't the movies. Rapes aren't always bad guys physically forcing damsels into distress.
157
redcoatwright3 days ago
+305
> This is why we need the hashtag "Believe Women." JFC.
This woman WAS believed... the idea behind believing women was to take it seriously and investigate the crime. It is not to crucify someone based on an accusation.
She was believed, the crime was investigated which I know because they produced evidence for it but in the investigation they realized there was not enough evidence to support the claim so they didn't charge the crime.
Prior to that movement and the #metoo movement, women were straight up not believed when they made an accusation or worse yet they wouldn't even make the accusation because they knew they wouldn't be taken seriously. Obviously we still have work to do on this but the fact that this accusation was taken seriously and investigated means she was believed.
Also I do agree with people that the crime may have taken place but that isn't for us to decide. We don't know the evidence, we know nothing about this.
305
juanjing3 days ago
-125
> This woman WAS believed... the idea behind believing women was to take it seriously and investigate the crime. It is not to crucify someone based on an accusation.
Again, please see the comment I responded to. The implication was that she was probably lying. Based on zero evidence.
So, we don't have enough evidence to prosecute a r***, but we *do* have enough evidence to accuse her of lying about it? Doesn't that seem a little hypocritical to you?
> Prior to that movement and the #metoo movement, women were straight up not believed when they made an accusation or worse yet they wouldn't even make the accusation because they knew they wouldn't be taken seriously. Obviously we still have work to do on this but the fact that this accusation was taken seriously and investigated means she was believed.
This makes me feel like you don't have any real prior knowledge about how r*** accusations or MeToo, or BelieveWomen actually relate to each other. It kind of seems like you're just pulling things out of the air that sound like they support your biased argument.
42% of rapes go unprosecuted. 98% of rapists go free. Does that sound like success to you? You think we've solved that problem? I think we can do better.
-125
redcoatwright3 days ago
+106
All right well I have been taking this conversation seriously up until
> 42% of rapes go unprosecuted. 98% of rapists go free
Which I can find no evidence to support, in actual fact 84% of SAs do not result in an arrest and 91% are not prosecuted. Your numbers are made up, you are not credible.
[Source](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9136376/)
I actually do care about this issue, enough not to make shit up on the internet lmao
106
XilenceBF3 days ago
+9
The person you responded to changed
>”The evidence did not support criminal charges”
To
>”Not enough evidence”
So that person changed the whole narrative with that subtle change. The original statement indicates that there *was* evidence but that it didn’t seem like a r*** I’m legal terms beyond a reasonable doubt. The altered statement sounds like the justice system shrugged their shoulders saying “we dont know”.
Highly different.
Rapes are endlessly complicated because for the most part it’s a he said/she said situation. So many circumstances could have led him to believe she consented. I don’t know if there are any more details known. Without more details we have not enough to judge the situation on.
I absolutely hate the fact that so many people who commit r*** go unpunished. I’ve heard about several situations in my environment and it really pisses me off. (I was shocked how much harassment women have to deal with in general, specially when they’re not with men).
But at the same time I was a friend to someone who got falsely accused of r*** by a girl he was convinced was the one for him, was friends with for a long time and who made a move on him. She then regretted it, told her sister it was a mistake who then reported it to uni who reported it to the police. His life got put on hold for close to 2 years because of this. His academic career is basically over, his mental state is ruined and he no longer trusts women.
So I think it’s good that we don’t always end up believing women fully. It’s just too complicated.
9
juanjing3 days ago
-1
> So I think it’s good that we don’t always end up believing women fully. It’s just too complicated.
You had me up til this point.
The problem is the legal system, not untrustworthy women. Because you know who else lies? Men. Non-binary people. Everybody lies. Ask Dr. House.
Not to mention the fact that "believe women" doesn't mean "believe everything anyone who is a woman says without questioning it." That would be wrong to do, obviously.
-1
XilenceBF3 days ago
+6
Yeah okay I apologize. I meant “believe women blindly” instead of fully. In this case the woman was believed and therefore the case was investigated.
6
juanjing3 days ago
-4
> I meant “believe women blindly” instead of fully.
Still wrong.
> In this case the woman was believed and therefore the case was investigated.
Wrong again.
The comment I replied to labeled her a liar due to the lack of evidence. My only point was that a lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean she lied. That's it.
-4
Shinjischneider2 days ago
+2
Damn. The incels really hated your facts there.
2
08TangoDown083 days ago
+50
> This is why we need the hashtag "Believe Women." JFC.
She was believed. It was investigated, brought to a court and there wasn't enough evidence to prove her claims.
What exactly are you asking for here? That the court ignore the fact that there's a lack of evidence and find him guilty based entirely on her word?
50
Daddict3 days ago
+36
I don't think anyone is suggesting we find him guilty. The point here is that she isn't guilty of lying either. He wasn't exonerated, it's just that a crime which is hard to prosecute didn't have enough evidence for the prosecution to believe they could clear reasonable doubt. Doesn't mean he's a rapist, doesn't mean she made it up. Hell he could be innocent and she could be telling her honest perception about whatever happened.
What this case should not be used as is "proof" that false accusations are at all a common issue, because there's no evidence that this is a false accusation.
36
08TangoDown082 days ago
+3
I never accused her of lying either. But this cuts both ways, there can be, and have been, cases where false accusations have destroyed people's reputations and livelihoods.
Having the case dropped for a lack of evidence absolutely doesn't mean he didn't commit the act, you're absolutely right. And we know that a lot of r*** cases can leave very little evidence. But we don't have a perfect way to get to the truth of these claims in our society yet so we have no option but to work within the systems we have.
It's a horrible situation all around, and if she is telling the truth then it must be utterly crushing for her to see him walk. But that's the world we live in, this happens for lots of assaults and even murders because there's a lack of evidence or the evidence was mishandled. I'm not really sure how we resolve that as a society without advancing to the point where we have better ways to prove these crimes.
3
juanjing3 days ago
+2
> What exactly are you asking for here? That the court ignore the fact that there's a lack of evidence and find him guilty based entirely on her word?
Another strawman.
I've explained it so many times at this point.
The (now edited out) phrase i was responding to implied that a lack of evidence meant that the woman was lying. You guys are working really hard to find ways to misinterpret a simple two-word phrase.
2
08TangoDown083 days ago
+17
How is it a strawman? I asked you a question. You not liking how I worded the question doesn't make it a strawman.
You still haven't answered it either, what do you expect the court to have done differently, if anything?
17
juanjing3 days ago
+14
>How is it a strawman?
Go back through every comment I've made in this thread. Point out where I said anything about the court doing anything differently. You can't, because I didn't.
My entire point - which i have explained so many times... - was that calling her a liar without evidence was hypocritical. The original comment is now edited because the guy ended up agreeing with me, btw.
> You not liking how I worded the question doesn't make it a strawman.
Coincidentally, *this* is also a strawman. You're really bad at this!
> You still haven't answered it either, what do you expect the court to have done differently, if anything?
I have. You just don't like my answer because there's nothing for you to argue against. I don't have any evidence of the court, the cops, or anyone else doing anything wrong. The *only* part is took issue with was the hypocrisy of calling her a liar without evidence.
14
BossButterBoobs3 days ago
+68
^ This is why we DON'T need the phrase "believe all women" because people genuinely take it literally and consider all accusations real just because a woman said so and anything less than a conviction means the man "got away with it".
The phrase should be understood as "don't discredit women" but that doesn't hit the same I guess.
68
violue3 days ago
+28
> This is why we DON'T need the phrase "believe all women"
It's "believe women" and yes there is a difference. No one is advocating for "believe *all* women". As though they are a universally infallible group.
28
BossButterBoobs3 days ago
-2
Ok, fair, but that is how it's taken.
-2
notathrowaway753 days ago
+18
Well, no. They said believe women and you changed it to believe all women. It's not taken as given, it is being changed.
18
BossButterBoobs3 days ago
-1
No, it is genuinely taken like that. It was also phrased like "believe all women" plenty times before so it's not like I was just misinformed. This is the first thing that pops up when you google it,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opinion/metoo-sexual-harassment-believe-women.html
I've heard it both ways. I just don't feel like arguing over what amounts to split hairs in the scheme of things. Simply saying "women" itself implies "all women" by default anyways.
-1
DiscoInferiorityComp3 days ago
+6
It’s interesting how that literal reading seems to solely show up in criticism of the phrase, and, not in how anyone actually uses it. "But I saw a reply guy use it as a strawman. therefore it is dangerous".
6
juanjing3 days ago
-8
> Ok, fair, but that is how it's taken.
You see why that's a ridiculous thing to say, right? You could use that argument against literally ANY statement.
"Hey, don't stare at the sun."
"Oh, you mean I shouldn't ever even look at a drawing of the sun? Or a photo? Or my son? That's ridiculous, I'm not doing that!"
Literally just as dumb.
-8
BossButterBoobs3 days ago
+24
That's a pretty fallacious argument you just made.
Obviously we disagree so have a good one.
24
juanjing3 days ago
> That's a pretty fallacious argument you just made.
That's rich coming from someone who purposefully warped the meaning behind a two-word phrase by literally adding words to it... just so they could argue against it.
Do you know what a strawman is?
> Obviously we disagree so have a good one.
Do we? Do you think we shouldn't believe women?
0
RellenD3 days ago
+1
This is a comment thread in response to a comment where someone suggested the woman was a liar just because the case wasn't prosecuted.
1
juanjing3 days ago
-9
Wrong.
Please re-read the thread.
The comment I replied to said she was "probably lying." That's the sentiment I'm responding too.
-9
BossButterBoobs3 days ago
+16
Yeah, I read it. And my comment remains the same.
16
juanjing3 days ago
-1
Lol great. Resist that urge to think critically.
-1
jab1363 days ago
+10
Police solve less than 50% of murders, and that doesn't even include missing persons cases. There are tens to hundreds of thousands r*** kits untested across the US. Police and the rest of the legal system are corrupt AF.
You forgot option c where either the cops fucked up collecting evidence, or someone got bribed
10
PJSeeds3 days ago
+15
Lol for f***'s sake, this guy is a relatively unknown character actor with occasional small roles on tv. He does not have bribe your way out of legal trouble money.
15
juanjing3 days ago
+8
> You forgot option c where either the cops fucked up collecting evidence, or someone got bribed
Do you think that's what happened in this case? Which one was it? Did the cops f*** up, or did this guy bribe them?
8
Foosrohdoh3 days ago
+5
Are you suggesting we should still believe her accusation? You seem to be supporting the idea that even though there was “not enough evidence” that we should still believe what she was saying. If you’re suggesting we don’t know either way then the tone of your comment is too aggressive when making that case.
5
mackzarks3 days ago
+2
It's entirely possible that THIS specific accuser is a liar, not all (or mostly).
2
juanjing3 days ago
+51
It's also possible that she's not lying.
Notice the comment I replied to, and how it implies that she is probably lying. Then please notice how my comment is a response to that comment.
51
Bulky-Bad-91533 days ago
+1
There has to be a point where we accept that the accuser was lying. What you're suggesting is that a man that's been investigated and completely cleared should be judged as still potentially guilty. That's insane. There has to be a line.
Pray tell, what what you accept as proof that he didn't do it if not this?
1
juanjing3 days ago
+25
> There has to be a point where we accept that the accuser was lying.
Of course. Find some evidence and let's do it. Otherwise you are declaring them guilty without having proven it, which would be blatant hypocrisy.
> What you're suggesting is that a man that's been investigated and completely cleared should be judged as still potentially guilty.
Lol no. What the f*** are you talking about? This is the wildest strawman yet. Congrats i guess.
> There has to be a line.
Okay, what's your line. When do you think it's appropriate to label someone a liar?
> Pray tell, what what you accept as proof that he didn't do it if not this?
You can't prove a negative. There's no way to prove it wasn’t r***, especially if they can prove they actually had sex.
You know what you can do though? You can take the facts at fave value. They say there's not enough evidence to prosecute. To me, that means (i hope you're sitting down) that there's not enough evidence to prosecute.
I don't have any idea if he raped her. I don't have any idea if she believes she was actually raped or not. But the original comment i responded to originally said she was "probably lying," based off the fact that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in that statement, and followed up with the fact that this is literally why we have that hashtag. Any other strawman misinterpretations are on you guys.
25
RellenD3 days ago
+5
>What you're suggesting is that a man that's been investigated and completely cleared should be judged as still potentially guilty
You're suggesting we condemn someone because there wasn't enough evidence of a crime that they may have been a victim of.
There's no reason to conclude either way in this case.
"Completely cleared" is also not an accurate description of the occurrence.
5
helendestroy3 days ago
+18
not what i took from it at all
18
Missa18193 days ago
+5
There's a difference between not enough evidence and the evidence not supporting criminal charges. The evidence not supporting criminal charges more likely means that the investigators have evidence but that the evidence shows that nothing criminal occurred.
5
lockethebro3 days ago
+8
no? there's not enough proof for most sexual assault claims to be prosecuted. that doesn't mean they didn't happen, or that they're bullshit.
8
Sabrinasockz3 days ago
+14
That's a major leap from "not enough" to "no proof". It literally just means there isn't enough evidence that they think would convince a jury. Y'all are so quick to support a rapist
14
CrocoPontifex3 days ago
+44
And you are quick to call someone a rapist.
Whats even the point, there is no avenue to prove innocence in the eyes of self appointed social media judges like you.
44
L0rdSkullz3 days ago
+14
"Inncoent until proven guilty" doesn't exist anymore, it's WILD to call this man a rapist when the courts literally just went "well we can't convict him".
These people have lost their minds
14
redcoatwright3 days ago
+10
Evidence is the stuff that supports a case, if there's enough evidence to say he did it then they'd charge him with the crime. It's literally how this system works, he may be a creep but it's a bit of a stretch to go from creep to straight up rapist without there being evidence to support it.
Also this dude is not some A list actor who can pull his weight to get off of charges, ALSO district attorneys love to charge even remotely well known people with crimes on flimsy evidence so this NOT being charged is actually pretty telling to me.
**Edit:** DAs are oftentimes political entities so they like to charge well known people if they can for reputation and optics.
10
byllz3 days ago
+2
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is a high bar, and it's the bar the justice system has to cross. There is a much lower bar to reasonably believe something true without being able to prove beyond reasonable doubt. This in no way exonerates him, or shows there isn't good, but doubtable, evidence of his crime.
2
IStillLikeBeers3 days ago
+1
Right, but there's a gulf between "no evidence" and "not enough evidence". It's not that hard to understand...they don't mean the same thing. All we know is there is not enough evidence to support a conviction. We don't know there is *no* evidence.
1
juanjing3 days ago
+64
Maybe because people find a line like this and interpret it as total exoneration.
All this means is there was no physical evidence of r***. Meaning no DNA, and no injuries. That doesn't mean that r*** didn't occur though.
We prosecute murders without bodies, but we [*often, as in 98% of the time,](https://rainn.org/facts-statistics-the-scope-of-the-problem/statistics-the-criminal-justice-system/) can't successfully prosecute r*** without "smoking gun" evidence.
ETA: There, this comment is now pedant-friendly. Complete with a source!
64
hulkhands813 days ago
+54
It also doesn’t mean that it DID occur.
54
ManitouWakinyan3 days ago
+21
Obviously. We just don't know. But the context that r*** is notoriously hard to prosecute is reasonable to keep in mind when forming opinions about this.
21
RellenD3 days ago
-1
So you think that makes it ok to say the accuser was lying?
-1
hulkhands813 days ago
+7
Equally ok to say the accuser is telling the truth as it is the accuser is lying.
7
Bavles3 days ago
+18
I mean, that's not true. They got Danny Masterson for rapes that happened 20 years ago.
18
juanjing3 days ago
-1
Good lord.
*Often can't
There.
-1
havewelost63883 days ago
+18
Yeah. You said something that was objectively untrue and got called out for it. *Good Lord!*
18
juanjing3 days ago
+27
Listnook loves pedantry.
I love the implication that you guys didnt pick up on the obvious meaning of what I was saying, instead zeroing in on what it would mean if I were being unnaturally literal.
In other words, Listnook gonna Listnook.
27
havewelost63883 days ago
-12
Words mean things outside of Listnook. That's not pedantry, that's just the truth.
-12
juanjing3 days ago
+19
More pedantry. Shocker.
Truly though, I wish you the best of luck navigating any conversation that isn't 100% literal and comprehensive precisely to your tastes. Big world out there. Lots of ways to get points across. You should try one.
19
ManitouWakinyan3 days ago
+7
Any time you're saying "words mean something," you can be pretty confident a pedantic point is in the air.
7
tlsrandy3 days ago
+13
The problem is these situations abut the American judicial concept of innocent until proven guilty.
The difficult nature of prosecuting consent based sex crimes and innocent until proven guilty make for messy public discourse.
13
RellenD3 days ago
+1
Thankfully, that's just in terms of criminal prosecution. It has nothing to do with how we talk about things.
1
tlsrandy3 days ago
+5
No, I was talking about public discourse.
5
RellenD2 days ago
+1
Yeah, and I'm saying innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard about criminal prosecution. It has nothing to do with public discourse, thankfully.
1
tlsrandy2 days ago
+4
I wouldn’t be so thankful for that. The public information you get about high profile cases is often convoluted and misleading. Thus the messy public discourse.
Unless you prefer just generally holding people responsible for hearsay and conjecture in which case, I disagree with your approach but you’re free to do what you want.
4
MrPisster3 days ago
-8
So the news article buried the lede because they don’t want people to think he’s exonerated?
I fail to see the logic or the motivation.
I’d be more likely to believe they want to maximize time on the page by not giving people permission to close it out by showing readers the most important part of the story right at the top.
-8
juanjing3 days ago
+9
> So the news article buried the lede because they don’t want people to think he’s exonerated?
No. This is a strawman, and a false assumption. I never said they buried the lede, and that sentence is not the lede.
> I fail to see the logic or the motivation.
Try looking at it from the other side. What sense would it make to make that the headline? It basically means the investigation was a stalemate, but the story is that he's not being prosecuted, for a really common reason.
> I’d be more likely to believe they want to maximize time on the page by not giving people permission to close it out by showing readers the most important part of the story right at the top.
It's not the most important part of the story. Again, the fact that you think this line carries any amount of importance is concerning.
42% of rapes don't get investigated. The top reasons: Lack of evidence, victim scared to cooperate, lack of police resources.
But you see one line that scratches your confirmation bias just right, and none of that matters anymore.
9
MrPisster3 days ago
+2
Huh, that’s a lot of assumptions. Im pretty busy and you don’t seem to give a f*** if you are talking to someone in good faith so I’m just going to say “f*** off” and move on.
2
NoExcuse4OceanRudnes3 days ago
-1
No, that's the headline.
-1
BrewKazma3 days ago
+535
He will always be Lem to me.
535
ColonelCrackle3 days ago
+189
I thought he was Phil.
(Just kidding, obviously. I actually remember him most as Rufus on Timeless)
189
Vers_333 days ago
+38
Claudia was also very on that show. I enjoyed it.
38
harrier12152 days ago
+5
Pretty sure it was a Kripke show
5
Mxfish13133 days ago
+36
Omg I was trying to think of the name of that show (Timeless) for hourrrrrs last week! Thank you!!!
Also, he will always be Lem to me, I miss Better Off Ted every single day of my life.
36
idontknowjuspickone3 days ago
+2
I always confuse timeless and travelers
2
ilikepants7123 days ago
+32
He was in the first episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
32
peanutmanak472 days ago
+1
That's how I know of him.
1
Sethrich982 days ago
+5
That was a great show. Lotta shows should have been canceled before that one.
5
ithinkther41am2 days ago
+2
I feel like I only knew this dude from The Boys and the “Drax them Sklounts” Key & Peele skit.
2
goliathfasa2 days ago
+1
Stanislaw?
1
BookWurm_903 days ago
+439
I remember this guy from always sunny, wow
439
TRILLDUNPHY3 days ago
+233
I TORE HIS ASS APART!
233
Whipwreckeded3 days ago
+81
“Now when you say sister do you mean….?”
81
luisc1233 days ago
+32
“… I mean my sister”
32
PantsDontHaveAnswers3 days ago
+15
That whole situation with Dennis is a lot like what was alleged to happen here too.
15
spate423 days ago
+41
and from Better Off Ted!
41
ManfredTheCat3 days ago
+4
I loved him in that show
4
joshonalog3 days ago
+70
No you’re thinking of the much more successful, longer lasting, critically acclaimed comedy Better Off Ted. (I am joking oc but I miss that show 😭)
70
bumps-3 days ago
+23
I remember this guy being warned about the terries, DRAX THEM SKLOUNST
23
Mot61803 days ago
+7
With great power comes great respronsitrillitrance
7
Ghost-hat3 days ago
+2
He was preparing in case any terries tried to get froggy
2
HungryDust3 days ago
+7
First episode ever
7
Janderson24943 days ago
+5
He was great in Preacher
5
PhilLeshmaniasis3 days ago
+3
I remember him from a twix commercial.
3
Frankensteins_Moron53 days ago
+1
First episode of the series!
1
TheSadPhilosopher2 days ago
+1
Same
1
ghoti003 days ago
+255
This guy's greatest role was in Better off Ted.
255
NovoMyJogo3 days ago
+78
He and Phil are one of the greatest duos on TV. They just worked together so well
78
ghoti003 days ago
+74
The episode where the lights don't respond to black people is one of the best and funniest sitcom episodes almost no one's ever seen. It's just brilliant.
74
the__ghola__hayt3 days ago
+40
"It gets dark when you leave the room."
"How can I stay mad at you when you say things like that?"
40
Fantom_Renegade2 days ago
+2
I still think of him when it takes an extra second for an automatic sensor to work for me
2
JeSuisOmbre3 days ago
+473
this guy lost his ding dong to a woman with ice powers
473
BlackSpinedPlinketto3 days ago
+180
I absolutely don’t remember him in the show at all.
180
Harford03 days ago
+207
He's the superheroes PR guy
207
Due_Art29713 days ago
+80
Is he in episode 1 of It's Always Sunny?
80
Accomplished-City4843 days ago
+80
He was in Preacher too and Better Off Ted
80
AWorldwithoutSin3 days ago
+28
Ohh, not Lem!!!
28
puddStar3 days ago
+23
And Timeless
23
-JimmyReddit-3 days ago
+3
Every time I see him I just think of him as Hoover lol
3
ryan227883 days ago
+3
And studio 60
3
beamanblitz3 days ago
+3
Yeah I would say his role on preachers was bigger than his role on the boys lol
3
kiddfrank3 days ago
+39
So I took him to the back alley, and I TORE HIS ASS APART
39
FngrsRpicks23 days ago
+4
Ridiculous eye stare
4
Ripoutmybrain3 days ago
+5
Also key and peele on a plane skit.
5
BurnerProfile694203 days ago
+7
we gonna draxx them sklounts (edit: misspelled sklounst)
7
alterrible3 days ago
+6
Ribbit
6
1______23 days ago
+2
Yep
2
beamanblitz3 days ago
+1
Yes
1
akchahal3 days ago
+114
Fun fact he starred in the NBC show "Timeless" where his colleague and love interest was played by Claudia Doumit.
They also worked together on The Boys.
114
bros4023 days ago
+30
yess he was so good as Rufus.
30
DivisonNine3 days ago
+8
Both have the same creators no? Tons of casting overlap
Also the VA for Anakin plays a main character Wyatt on timeless
8
milkymaniac3 days ago
+19
>Claudia Doumit
Newlywed wife of Hollywood's good boy
19
MaeBelleLien3 days ago
+2
I was so excited when this news beefed.
2
paparoup2 days ago
+1
Back to back fun fact,Claudia Doumit just married The Boys co star ~~John~~ Jack Quaid.
1
NotFredRhodes2 days ago
+1
Jack*
1
paparoup2 days ago
+1
This happens when you try to put clothes on your toddler and answer at the same time! thanks, corrected
1
ahuangb3 days ago
+161
Managed to slip my radar, and noticed that it wasn't posted anywhere(while the initial accusation was) on listnook. Thought it's only fair I should post it
161
Nero2t23 days ago
+251
What's crazy is there's a much bigger actor on the same show who has admited to breaking into houses at night and kindapping young women from their homes, and somehow *that* story is flying under the radar. Granted, he can't be prosecuted, but its weird that he's not canceled after the stuff resurfaced
251
thetimeenigma3 days ago
+53
Who? Can they not be named?
53
ahuangb3 days ago
+121
Frenchie
121
Nero2t23 days ago
+79
Tomer Capone/Frenchie
archived interview in hebrew:
https://archive.md/hx9z6#selection-269.199-269.218
79
Arkatructruc3 days ago
+128
Tomer Capone who is playing Frenchie was in the IDF, willingly, proudly, and did a lot of fucked up shit.
128
Diredr3 days ago
+83
It's okay though, he felt bad about it when he stopped to ask himself "Are we the baddies?". Of course he never apologized for doing it, he still supports the people who keep doing it but his feelings were hurt so that makes up for it. Somehow.
83
Nero2t23 days ago
+43
yeah the tone of his stories is as if you're basically supposed to feel bad about *him* and all the things "he's been through". There's no empathy for the victims whatsoever
43
lumpiestspoon33 days ago
+14
Yep, this attitude is called "Shooting and Crying"
14
i_sell_you_lies3 days ago
+3
So my typical wank sesh...
3
biskutgoreng3 days ago
+4
I dont think he ever did that self reflection part
4
Mundane_Put_57803 days ago
+13
This is not a laughing matter but I literally laughed out loud reading your comment, just out of sheer sadness in how fucked this world is 😂 Like damn!! Dude literally did an entire interview on it and nothing happened!!
13
BusinessPurge3 days ago
+2
Series regulars get more chances.
I didn’t know that was happening, they are spending that money well to hide it.
2
ALasagnaForOne2 days ago
+5
Zionists get more chances
5
LetsGoBohs3 days ago
+8
Isn’t he a theatre student living in Philadelphia?
8
PolicyCommercial63923 days ago
+35
this is from October of 2025 why are you posting this now????
35
ahuangb3 days ago
+11
Because no one else did
11
banallfurries6663 days ago
-10
so you’re resurfacing old drama
-10
ahuangb3 days ago
+7
You're free to see it that way
7
PolicyCommercial63923 days ago
+8
and on his birthday
8
Epyon2143 days ago
-11
Because attention is on Frenchie right now for casually talking about the war crimes he committed during his time in the IDF
-11
ahuangb3 days ago
+18
Are you saying I posted this to deflect attention away from Frenchie's actor being an IDF terrorist? I don't see why it would do that, but no that's not the reason I posted it.
I watched the most recent episode of The Boys earlier and it made me wonder about what happened to Barrett's character, cause I didn't remember. I then remembered about the sexual assault case I read about last year here on this sub and looked up what was going on with that. Then I saw this article and saw that no one had posted it on listnook like the initial accusation.
It's only fair that both parts get posted, no?
18
LouisianaBoySK2 days ago
+4
The innocent post never get posted or attention like the accusation.
4
PolicyCommercial63923 days ago
+1
he was in season 2 of Gen V what are you going on about
1
Blayzewhatever3 days ago
+4
"I did NOT tear his ass apart!"
4
turtleofgirth3 days ago
+2
Didn't he also get arrested with two others on a plane?
2
A-WILD-PATBACK2 days ago
+1
Terries tryna get froggy
1
monchota3 days ago
+5
Then why was this even said? No ones name should be released unless charges are filed.
5
Excellent-Base-6373 days ago
+1
He was on an episode of The Office, he took over Stanley's job
1
flyingseel3 days ago
+1
Yeah I always see him as "new Stanley" too haha.
1
PM_ME_GLUTE_SPREAD2 days ago
+1
For anybody else who couldn’t remember, he played Seth, one of the public relations writers for Vought.
1
mirosama21 day ago
+1
Better off Ted actor.
1
ComprehensiveTour2783 days ago
-19
For everyone dismissing this, r*** is one of the hardest crimes to prove. The absence of evidence does not equal the absence of harm. If you only believe a woman when she brings an entire mountain of proof, that says something about you, not her. Even when evidence exists, prosecutors rarely secure convictions. That reality is not a victory. It is a failure of the system and a loss for survivors.
-19
daandriod3 days ago
+43
Sorry but no, Innocent until proven guilty needs to be the backbone of any legal system. Its not perfect and inevitably some people will not be able to recieve justice, But the alternative is vastly worse. If a crime cannot be proved then we can't just randomly punish people off accusations
43
DocDerry3 days ago
+19
There should be some evidence right? Other than accusations?
19
shoeboxchild3 days ago
+11
So it’s assume a victim is right, not innocent until proven guilty and then when the guy is found innocent he’s still in the wrong?
To be clear, I take sexual assault very seriously but the reality is some people do lie about it, and sometimes that sucks too because it can ruin someone’s life
But if they went through the entire court process and he’s found innocent you think he should still carry the stigma that he did it? If not then why bring this up?
11
MajorFuckingDick3 days ago
+10
My issue is and always will be that survivor advocates are always the worst people. You know how many r*** survivors in my personal life have called me insensitive? Zero. But every activist wants to call any sort of inaction the worst thing to do when its often the only thing to do. You dont even care about victims. You care about being vindictive to rapist.
Proving you didnt sexually assault someone is one of the hardest things in the world, the court of public and professional opinion almost only cares about the allegation because most people already know how hard it is to prove and any sort of credibility to an allegation is treated as true. Short of proving a grudge or having never met at all an allegation from people who can prove they spent time with you is damning.
I dont even doubt he did the things alleged. Drunk sex is a mess legally however and they dont have the requirements I assume. He cant consent either if they had both been drinking.
10
mofeus3053 days ago
+3
What EXACTLY are you leading at here? If someone is accused of r*** just once we should just say "Yeah, they probably did it even though there is no evidence"?? The problem with this is there is no half way approach. Either you will trust someone or not trust them.
3
pasher56203 days ago
+6
The what the f*** is the point of Innocent until proven guilty then huh? Our entire judicial system is centered on the idea that we shouldn’t label someone a criminal if there isn’t proof showing they actually did the crime. Why is it with r*** that just the accusation is enough to label people. I’m so sick of this mentality. She was believed, her accusations investigated, and they didn’t find enough evidence to show he did r*** her. Until such time as enough proof can be found to show he did r*** her, then he isn’t a rapist.
We don’t have to label her a liar and shit talk her like some incel types would, but we also don’t have to go around thinking he stilled raped her without evidence.
6
DrFlabbySelfie2 days ago
And he gets to have this attached to his name while she gets to remain anonymous.
185 Comments