Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Christopher]

I understand there's enough Weinstein's in show business and in general but honestly until i see hard proof of misconduct i will never believe anyone, especially if they claim to have proof but then fail to show it.

Except the benefit of the doubt should go both ways. When people make accusations, it's important to take those accusations seriously and investigate in good faith, rather than assuming they're lying. At the same time, the accused deserves the presumption of innocence and a vigorous defense if charges are filed. Giving one side the benefit of the doubt does not mean presuming the guilt of the other side. It shouldn't be about favoring either side based on belief; we should reserve judgment, stay objective, and let an investigation determine where the facts lie.

 

[Turtletrekker]

If he really did threaten to call ICE on the lady -- for any reason -- then none of the rest of it even matters to me. That's all I need to know.

 

[Christopher]

If he really did threaten to call ICE on the lady -- for any reason -- then none of the rest of it even matters to me. That's all I need to know.

Good grief, yes. Well, the rest still matters, but that alone would be damning, if true.

 

[FPAlpha]

Except the benefit of the doubt should go both ways. When people make accusations, it's important to take those accusations seriously and investigate in good faith, rather than assuming they're lying. At the same time, the accused deserves the presumption of innocence and a vigorous defense if charges are filed. Giving one side the benefit of the doubt does not mean presuming the guilt of the other side. It shouldn't be about favoring either side based on belief; we should reserve judgment, stay objective, and let an investigation determine where the facts lie.

Absolutely but until the accusing side shows proof ( especially if they claim they have it) i will disregard it and rule in favor of the accused. Standard law rules.

 

[Christopher]

Absolutely but until the accusing side shows proof ( especially if they claim they have it) i will disregard it and rule in favor of the accused. Standard law rules.

As I said, the law actually says that the accuser deserves the benefit of the doubt too -- because calling the accuser a liar is itself an accusation. When the accusation is made, it's the responsibility of the legal system to presume the accuser is innocent of lying and investigate diligently. If a suspect is charged, then it's the responsibility of the legal system to presume the accused innocent until proven guilty. As I said, presuming the innocence of one side does NOT mean presuming the guilt of the other. It means investigating without prejudice and letting the evidence decide.

And you are not a judge or a juror, you're just a spectator. It's not your place to "rule" one way or the other. And a snap judgment based on media hearsay is not a "ruling" of any kind, it's just an assumption. The whole reason we have a legal system is because it's wrong to jump to conclusions when other people's guilt is involved.

 

[FPAlpha]

As I said, the law actually says that the accuser deserves the benefit of the doubt too -- because calling the accuser a liar is itself an accusation. When the accusation is made, it's the responsibility of the legal system to presume the accuser is innocent of lying and investigate diligently. If a suspect is charged, then it's the responsibility of the legal system to presume the accused innocent until proven guilty. As I said, presuming the innocence of one side does NOT mean presuming the guilt of the other. It means investigating without prejudice and letting the evidence decide.

And you are not a judge or a juror, you're just a spectator. It's not your place to "rule" one way or the other. And a snap judgment based on media hearsay is not a "ruling" of any kind, it's just an assumption. The whole reason we have a legal system is because it's wrong to jump to conclusions when other people's guilt is involved.

I ruled it for myself, maybe that wasn't clear and i have chosen the wrong word. Nothing i said though contradicts you. Both sides have equal merit before the law but as long as the accuser does not provide proof i will presume the accused is innocent.

Social media though works differently - judgement is passed immediately without proof, camps are formed and reputations ruined without a shred of evidence and this is what drives me up the wall.

 

[Christopher]

Social media though works differently - judgement is passed immediately without proof, camps are formed and reputations ruined without a shred of evidence and this is what drives me up the wall.

That's true, but I don't think the famous, successful male celebrity is the one more likely to need our sympathy and support.