'Murica! (229 Viewers)

AFL_ITALIA

MAGISTERIAL
Jun 17, 2011
31,786

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,329

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,750
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/07/arts/television/danny-masterson-rape-trial-sentencing.html

I got to say I think his association with Scientology really hurt him here. It makes him go from respected actor to crazy person. Any empathy you might have had left for him disappears because of it.

Also, while I do think in general the sentences for rape are too low in Europe, they seem very high in the US. I mean 30 years to life. Jesus.
You're the lawyer, but I gotta say... any Hollywood type surrounded with privilege and influence who gets convicted on 20-year-old rape charges had to be pretty frigging guilty as hell.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,329
You're the lawyer, but I gotta say... any Hollywood type surrounded with privilege and influence who gets convicted on 20-year-old rape charges had to be pretty frigging guilty as hell.
Yeah, I agree. I mean, if they couldn't question the reliability of the evidence.. In such an old case.. And I'm sure he could afford decent lawyers.

But I was speaking more about the sentence. 30 years is a lot. And I think the association with Scientology made him look well and truly corrupted and it pointed to his actions being part of some sort of scheme. I don't know, I just think this connection was probably not a good look for him.

Kind of makes me sad that I won't be able to look at Hyde the same way though.
 

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
70,797
Yeah, I agree. I mean, if they couldn't question the reliability of the evidence.. In such an old case.. And I'm sure he could afford decent lawyers.

But I was speaking more about the sentence. 30 years is a lot. And I think the association with Scientology made him look well and truly corrupted and it pointed to his actions being part of some sort of scheme. I don't know, I just think this connection was probably not a good look for him.

Kind of makes me sad that I won't be able to look at Hyde the same way though.
Speaking of lawyering, check out this badass

 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,750
Yeah, I agree. I mean, if they couldn't question the reliability of the evidence.. In such an old case.. And I'm sure he could afford decent lawyers.

But I was speaking more about the sentence. 30 years is a lot. And I think the association with Scientology made him look well and truly corrupted and it pointed to his actions being part of some sort of scheme. I don't know, I just think this connection was probably not a good look for him.

Kind of makes me sad that I won't be able to look at Hyde the same way though.
It depends. Criminal courts are weird, and I say this as an emotionally scarred foreman. (I mean foreman of a jury, not Eric or Red.) All it takes is the defense lawyer landing one juror sympathetic to a religious cults, and the whole prosecution is shot due to unanimous decision requirements. But yeah, otherwise it could have polarized the jury. But the guy should have been able to afford a defense who had 50 ways to poke holes in that.

And remember: in real life, Fez was banging Hollywood hotties right and left. So you can't say he's the only character who didn't quite measure up to the actor.
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,750
I've been on California juries. They don't convict for sh*t. I mean, look at Kamala Harris.

That said, I get where you might be coming from. White wimmin in Cali wanting to prosecute big bad male rapist culture. But there's a real personality split around there. They overwhelmingly elect white male judges in elected offices -- hoping for more convictions of them dangerous darkies that might threaten their privilege. But a California juror is very, very different from a California voter.

Most voters have no clue how the jury system works, so they feel reading a newspaper article and forming an opinion is jurisprudence. You'd be better off with Judge Joe Brown.

On a jury? People with histories of domestic abuse or weird psychoses abound. Defense attorneys know how to land them on juries and play their feeble heart strings. They frame the aggressor as a victim of sexual violence, and the resistance to convict pours out because in their own heads they're living their own The Burning Bed fantasies starring them instead of Farrah Fawcett.

Voters are completely different. And this is what the white male savior feminist allies don't get... they will be burned to the stake as much as anyone. One of my longtime friends was housemates and fellow club lacrosse players with Aaron Persky. If you don't know his story, you of all people probably should:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Persky

As long as I knew him going to law school, Aaron was a ladies-respect kind of guy. A bit of a bleeding heart liberal who stood up for women's rights and all. But all it took was the Stanford rape case of Chanel Miller, and women in Santa Clara County made him out to be as bad as the rapist for only enforcing the recommended sentence. They demonized him online, ran a campaign to recall him as a judge. The dude got railroaded. And I could tell 99% of the women who recalled him made snap judgements about him and his character from just a few paragraphs of a news clip. The guy's entire life was reduced to one decision that painted him as some rapist enabler. It was beyond a joke. Pretty much a public career lynching if ever there was one.

But those are voters. They are not the peeps in the courtroom by any means.
 
Last edited:

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
75,661
Yeah, I agree. I mean, if they couldn't question the reliability of the evidence.. In such an old case.. And I'm sure he could afford decent lawyers.

But I was speaking more about the sentence. 30 years is a lot. And I think the association with Scientology made him look well and truly corrupted and it pointed to his actions being part of some sort of scheme. I don't know, I just think this connection was probably not a good look for him.

Kind of makes me sad that I won't be able to look at Hyde the same way though.
scientology has a lot more power and influence than you would think. I think it was a big reason the case took so long to come around.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,329
scientology has a lot more power and influence than you would think. I think it was a big reason the case took so long to come around.
People overestimate 'influence' on jurors and judges. The vast majority of them do judge in good faith.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,329
It depends. Criminal courts are weird, and I say this as an emotionally scarred foreman. (I mean foreman of a jury, not Eric or Red.) All it takes is the defense lawyer landing one juror sympathetic to a religious cults, and the whole prosecution is shot due to unanimous decision requirements. But yeah, otherwise it could have polarized the jury. But the guy should have been able to afford a defense who had 50 ways to poke holes in that.

And remember: in real life, Fez was banging Hollywood hotties right and left. So you can't say he's the only character who didn't quite measure up to the actor.
I think it came at a very bad time for him. Of course most people have hated Scientology for a long time, but at this point there have been so many scandals surrounding it that people just assume it is inherently evil.

And yeah, of course actors aren't their roles. They don't have to be either. But Hyde's laid back coolness is in such stark contrast to Masterson being a convicted rapist it hurts to look at him.
 
Last edited:

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,329
There are a couple of things about this case that I find surprising, but the jury was presented a lot more information than we have so I'll have to assume they got it right.

What does surprise me is that Kutcher was quite vocal in his support, at least initially. I mean, why take the risk unless you really believe he did nothing wrong?

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,750
There are a couple of things about this case that I find surprising, but the jury was presented a lot more information than we have so I'll have to assume they got it right.

What does surprise me is that Kutcher was quite vocal in his support, at least initially. I mean, why take the risk unless you really believe he did nothing wrong?

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
I really think the public has no idea how ridiculously trivial and moronic the court of public opinion is versus what happens in a court of law with a process of rules, arguments, witness accounts, evidence, cross-examination, and jury deliberation. Most believe guilt or not is a matter of a like button on a Facebook post.

Just look at what happened with the case of Bob Lee's murder in SF this year, when the whole time I smelled a rat and instinctively knew the guy was up to some shady business with shady people. And I was only looking at the gaps and inconsistencies of what little publicly reported evidence there was to the case. Didn't stop Musk and his minions piling on with homeless mayhem theories.

And as a level of evidence, character witnesses are just that. Kutcher never got raped by him, so he probably seemed like a cool dude back then.
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,750

Would this be the first time since Franklin Pierce and William R King that a president's and vice president's combined ages were last older than that of the entire country?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 11, Guests: 210)