Forum menu
innocent of being a sexual predator.
Although he has been found not guilty of any illegal behaviour, you still describe him as a sexual predator?
What's the definition of a "sexual predator" and when does their behaviour become illegal?
Cynically, he’ll never work again because the public stigma means his movies would be avoided
Really?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt23952252/
I do find some of the comments here very concerning.
The man was found not guilty - to have any faith in a modern rule of law that has to conflate in your mind to innocent.
On my first post I said I hoped he could rebuild a life but it would not be the same life as before. I still hope for that. But it won't be the same life as basically the fact he's not too pleasant a person has been aired very much in public. But that's not the same as being found some weird legally 'not guilty but also not innocent' bullshit outcome some of you seem to wish for.
Remarkable the number of people on here who don't know the difference between "he shouldn't be sent to prison because the allegations haven't been proven to the criminal standard and he hasn't been duly convicted" and "he should be socially and professionally shunned as a sexual bully". Does Prince Andrew have a login here?
homophobia most likely. Probably wouldn’t have batted an eye if Spacey had been interested in (younger) women.
Would be a very weird form of homophobia for people in relatively gay-friendly showbiz to repeatedly pick on this one particular actor 15+ years for being gay, out of all the gay actors in the world. Plus, of course, there's all the remarkably consistent testimony of him being a terrible person - even if that behaviour wasn't proven to be criminal.
remarkably consistent testimony of him being a terrible person
Doesn't this apply to a lot of "superstars"? Their money, power and influence goes to their head and they behave in ridiculous self entitled ways?
Doesn't make them criminals.
Remarkable the number of people on here who don’t know the difference between “he shouldn’t be sent to prison because the allegations haven’t been proven to the criminal standard and he hasn’t been duly convicted” and “he should be socially and professionally shunned as a sexual bully”.
Exactly.
homophobia most likely.
The homophobia thing is Spacey's transparent attempt to deflect criticism of his behaviour. This didn't happen because of homophobia, it happened because he spend decades behaving like a ****.
But thols your point wasn’t that he is a nasty piece of work, it was that (and I quote)
The finding of not-guilty in itself doesn’t mean that a person is innocent
yet that’s the very foundation that our legal system is based upon. he is absolutely innocent (of the many crimes he was tried for). He may or not be a unpleasant individual but that’s neither here nor there when it comes to his innocence
it happened because he spend decades behaving like a ****.
Which is perfectly legal, plenty of people have been doing exactly that on this forum.
But once again, you've fallen straight into the tabloid 'where there's smoke' mentality despite having been found not guilty twice. Once I can kinda see but you would think the second case would be a bit more robust.
Whether he's an arsehole or not is neither here nor there, the law applies equally to everyone and if it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt then that's that.
Which is perfectly legal,
The things he's accused of are not perfectly legal. He was found not guilty because those crimes are extremely difficult to prove, they come down to one person's word against another's. The idea that he was just a bit rude in dealing with people completely ignores the things he was accused of doing for decades.
The Trump rape trial is an excellent example of someone who is guilty as sin being found not guilty. That case failed to meet the legal definition of rape (it was legally sexual abuse, not rape,) but the accusations were completely consistent of the behaviour that Trump has boasted about. Trump then tried to twist his technical defense into an argument of innocence, which the judge in the case utterly rejected. He was found not guilty, but is very much not innocent.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-trial-columnist-carroll-4974ef026f3da61bc6f1b7ddda3ad10e
He was found not guilty because those crimes are extremely difficult to prove, they come down to one person’s word against another’s.
Elton John appeared as a witness for Spacey. He had been accused of assaulting someone at a party at Elton's house. Turns out he wasn't even there in the entire year that the alleged assault took place, let alone the specific date/ event in question. Unless Elton is lying, that seems pretty conclusive.
He may or not be a unpleasant individual but that’s neither here nor there when it comes to his innocence
You're aware of the #metoo movement? You understand how difficult it has been to get evidence against Harvey Weinstein? All of the women who came forward to give evidence, all that testimony? You know that he spoke to Hilary Clinton and asked for her help in shutting down Ronan Allen's reporting? Harvey was convicted of just 4 counts of rape and 1 count of sexual assault. That's it. All those women over countless decades...
These are men with huge influence and power and can afford the very best lawyers. I'm not surprised he walked away. To call him innocent stretches credulity
The things he’s accused of are not perfectly legal. He was found not guilty because those crimes are extremely difficult to prove, they come down to one person’s word against another’s.
Do you not see what a scary road you are travelling down here? You are basically saying that, regardless of the jury outcome in your mind he's not innocent of the charges of illegal activity (separate to being an unpleasant person - specifically the illegal elements) because he got as far as sitting in the dock. What would have to have happened in court for you to feel comfortable in your head that he needs to walk away considered an innocent (specifically innocent of the charges of illegal activity, not good) man?
You cite Trump, so I think it fair enough to spin that.........whilst obviously a totally different case Trump's continued insistence on having won the election despite legal process determining the opposite feels to me like it's in the same ballpark. A "yeah I know the verdict was not guilty but they are really difficult cases to make stick so I just know he's guilty as **** anyway" attitude is sniffing down the same rabbit hole.
So, should there be a sanction against those making allegations that are proven to be false in a court? Should these accusers benefit from anonymity once shown to have lied? I thought that was called perjury but maybe that needs a higher burden of proof.
(Note: I'm only considering where a third party has given evidence against them).
There has been a few others also recently that have made me doubt the justice system. Anyone who heard the recording of Mason Greenwood would be more than surprised that he got off.
A little different in that Greenwood never faced charges in court.
In my, perhaps naïve, view Greenwood's case is more troubling than Spacey's.
Do you not see what a scary road you are travelling down here?
I pointed out that he was found not guilty rather than being found innocent. That's not a scary road, it's a description of how the legal system works.
Like Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump, Spacey has numerous allegations against him spanning decades. The evidence isn't sufficient to put Spacey in prison, but I don't think many people believe he's the innocent victim in all this.
You understand how difficult it has been to get evidence against Harvey Weinstein?
Harvey Weinstein is serving life for crimes he was convicted of. I suspect there was plenty enough evidence
As convert points out, Sounds like you are saying that in cases of rape, which I acknowledge are hard to prove, no defendant can ever be ‘truely innocent’ ?
I pointed out that he was found not guilty rather than being found innocent. That’s not a scary road, it’s a description of how the legal system works.
No. Only in your head. You are just plain wrong here and need to appreciate it
One starts a trail as innocent until proven guilty. Therefore if the jury determines you not guilty your status remains unchanged - i.e. innocent. At no point is your status in a transition between the two. Its binary.
Tbh your twisting of that is a bit unpleasant.
Sounds like you are saying that in cases of rape, which I acknowledge are hard to prove, no defendant can ever be ‘truely innocent’ ?
Nobody's saying that. Don't make things up.
it’s a description of how the legal system works.
The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty.
So by being not found guilty, by default he must be presumed innocent. That’s how the legal system works..
Trump has never been charged with or prosecuted for rape or any other sexual offence. He has never been acquitted or convicted of any criminal offence.
Doesn’t this apply to a lot of “superstars”? Their money, power and influence goes to their head and they behave in ridiculous self entitled ways?
Doesn’t make them criminals.
Amazingly, there is a spectrum of entitled behaviour between "being a pain in the arse" (I want Bolivian sheep's milk in my latte, not Argentinian) to "being a sexual predator" (repeatedly propositioning and pressuring people to have sex with you when there is an age, wealth and power imbalance).
Trump has never been charged with or prosecuted for rape or any other sexual offence.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-trial-columnist-carroll-4974ef026f3da61bc6f1b7ddda3ad10e
Yes - that is a civil lawsuit. He was not prosecuted or charged with any sexual offence. He was not acquitted of rape.
The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered by the state to be innocent until proven guilty.
You're entitled to draw your own conclusion as an individual. Hitler and Bin Laden were never convicted of any offence. They're both guilty of murder.
He’s a very creepy guy and everyone in the business knows it, that’s why he’ll never work as an actor again.
Didnt stop Roman Polanski
Hitler and Bin Laden were never convicted of any offence
hitler and bin Laden never went before a court so that argument falls flat on its face …
You’re entitled to draw your own conclusion as an individual
You are at liberty to think whatever you want however i suspect if you were so brave as to claim he was guilty from a platform anyone took any notice of, you may yourself find yourself in court for libel
i suspect if you were so brave as to claim he was guilty from a platform anyone took any notice of, you may yourself find yourself in court for libel
A libel suit would be in a civil court, which is a different matter to a criminal trial. Trump lost $5 million in a civil case against Jean Carrol, despite not having been convicted of a crime. Spacey's lawyers will be telling him to shut up and say nothing about the case. They absolutely will not want to start launching libel suits, keeping it in the news is the absolutely last thing Spacey wants.
The things he’s accused of are not perfectly legal.
I never said they were, I was saying behaving like a **** isn't a crime and should have absolutely NO bearing on a persons legal rights.
These are men with huge influence and power and can afford the very best lawyers. I’m not surprised he walked away. To call him innocent stretches credulity
@nickc I was talking with respect to his legal standing and nothing more.
hitler and bin Laden never went before a court so that argument falls flat on its face …
They aren't given the presumption of innocence, so that argument works pretty well. Fred West was never convicted of murder but nobody seriously doubts that he was guilty.
Burden of proof in a civil case is on the balance of probabilities (greater than 50-50), not beyond reasonable doubt (greater than 90-10). Spacey has been found not guilty of any criminal activity at the latter higher burden of beyond reasonable doubt. That might mean he is wholly innocent, or it might mean that there was sufficient doubt in the minds of a jury of peers so as not to convict. I have no idea since I am not party to proceedings. Legally, it does not matter, he has been proven innocent of any criminal activity. Of course if there is a future civil damages case, that burden of proof is lower but that does not carry a legal conviction.
The BBC seemed to imply guilt on its initial webpage, Spacey centrepiece with a whole column of different people making separate allegations on the right hand side. The page soon disappeared and as Spacey said, 'those allegations were a stab in the back.' Wonder how those allegators feel now?
Wonder how those allegators feel now?
Assuming the allegations were factual, I imagine they are angry and disappointed at the verdict.
Wonder how those allegators feel now
I bet they're (croco)dialling their lawyers right now
Assuming is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. We know that at least one of them is a liar.
He is innocent of the charges, that's the end of that matter.
That's not to say that the behaviour wasn't inappropriate and unwelcome, but a jury has decided (after much deliberation, and I believe a partial decision rather than unanimous) that he didn't meet the threshold for being found guilty.
However, that doesn't make his past behaviour beyond reproach
An arbitrator in LA ordered Spacey to pay nearly $31 million to the makers of “House of Cards” for violating his contract by sexually harassing crew members.
So, both sides have valid points here. But the simple fact is that he is innocent of any crime.
If only Andrew Malkinson could have afforded snappy lawyers like Spacey.
Thought it distasteful that some of the jurors waited around in the lobby to meet Spacey afterwards.
hitler and bin Laden never went before a court so that argument falls flat on its face
Yes, precisely. They were (and are) innocent in the eyes of the state. We all know they were guilty.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a maxim of criminal law and speaks to whether the state can apply criminal sanctions in the absence of a conviction (it can't). It doesn't control what you are entitled to think about the person or whether the person bears moral guilt (more accruately - shame) for what they did.
The defamation point is a red herring. "Innocent until proven guilty" has nothing to do with defamation law. This might seem like all the same thing to you. It's not.
Thought it distasteful that some of the jurors waited around in the lobby to meet Spacey afterwards.
For real? That's quite disturbing.
OK he's been found innocent of these specific charges. Would anyone here leave their teenage lad with him though?
But the simple fact is that he is innocent of any crime.
He was found not guilty of these charges. He has been accused of numerous serious crimes spanning decades. You'd be brave to bet that he is innocent of any crime whatsoever.
I was talking with respect to his legal standing and nothing more.
Aye, fair enough
pointed out that he was found not guilty rather than being found innocent.
He doesn't need to be "found innocent"...there is no such thing under English and Welsh law. He is innocent of these charges as a basic principle of law.
It surprises me that seemingly intelligent people can't (or won't) understand the distinction.
He is innocent of these charges as a basic principle of law.
I think people are maybe confusing the legal situation with their own personal views.
He is, legally, innocent. I would be inclined to be cautious of his behaviour around easily influenced young men.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Groping employees then being surprised they didn't appreciate is how sex offenders behave, not normal people.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66188135
The court heard the complainant alleges the incident happened as he drove Spacey to a showbiz party in the early 2000s.
When asked if he caused the accuser to "come off the road" when he grabbed the man, the actor replied: "That never happened. I was not on a suicide mission on any of those years."
Giving evidence, Mr Spacey told the court he had developed a "flirtatious" relationship over time with the accuser, and that he touched the man in "romantic" and "intimate" ways.
"Yeah, I am a big flirt," he told the court.
Speaking about touching the man, he continued: "It did not happen in a violent, aggressive, painful way.
"It was gentle… and it was, in my mind, romantic."
Mr Spacey said the complainant said things like "this is new for me".
He explained the touching did not progress because the alleged victim "made it clear that he did not want to go any further".
Thats Spacy admitting sexual assault!
Groping employees then being surprised they didn’t appreciate is how sex offenders behave, not normal people.
if it’s so clear cut he was guilty to you, an individual who I assume wasn’t in court, didn’t hear all the evidence, and didn’t receive direction from the judge, I’m genuinely surprised it wasn’t so clear cut to the jury who were tasked with deliberating the verdict ….
I reckon they could have saved everyone in the courtroom the time and effort and just got you to decide the verdict based on what you have read in the media..much easier for all concerned 👍
That quote is a clear admission of sexual assault. there is no other interpretation to it. Sexualised touching without consent