TV Rick and Morty

[VillellaMcMeans]

I'd say Depp is doing just fine

Heard on the other hand...

(..or "Gal", in this case.)

You really think all the support he was has now has compensated him enough for what he went through financially/emotionally/reputation/etc...? Didn't Depp file for bankruptcy protection...? All those movies he missed out on he can never do again being older now etc...

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

I've never been a regular watcher, but I read an article in Psych Today or something that broke down, very comprehensively, the Pickle Rick episode. Without ever seeing the show, just reading this episode synopsis, it sounded especially well done, and funny. Deeper than typical shit. Too bad it's probably as Aidan said, fun while it lasted. I must go watch the past seasons now. Irrespective of the outcome, the thing has turned and it won't turn back, I think. Like how Scrubs sucked after all the Scrub people left.

Is the pickle episode about Jesus etc...?

 

[Duke Klingenpooper]

Is the pickle episode about Jesus etc...?

It was about Rick's resolute avoidance of family intimacy, confront the hard things in close relationships. A more knowledgeable viewer could give you a more astute take, though.

 

[tvstrip]

You really think all the support he was has now has compensated him enough for what he went through financially/emotionally/reputation/etc...? Didn't Depp file for bankruptcy protection...? All those movies he missed out on he can never do again being older now etc...

It was Heard that filed for bankruptcy because she can't afford the verdict.

Yes, I think he's better than before, especially at the time of the allegations.
The op-ed was in December 2018; it's not like he was particularly hot between then and the trial verdict.

And even then:
How Johnny Depp Turned Abuse Allegations Into a Comeback
https://msmagazine.com/2023/01/25/johnny-depp-abuse-amber-heard/

No longer a has-been, Depp could be back on his way to a box-office draw. The irony of that outcome is that Depp accomplished the very thing women have been baselessly accused of attempting since time immemorial: leveraging victimhood to gain status.

 

[tvstrip]

The real question is whether Roiland will be found innocent in court. I don't know enough about him whether to opine if the allegations are possibly true or full of shit.
If he's found innocent, he's in for a comeback - R&M fans will welcome him with open arms, and might even be the best thing to happen to the show
If he's found guilty, I'd say he's probably done.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

It was Heard that filed for bankruptcy because she can't afford the verdict.

Yes, I think he's better than before, especially at the time of the allegations.
The op-ed was in December 2018; it's not like he was particularly hot between then and the trial verdict.

And even then:
How Johnny Depp Turned Abuse Allegations Into a Comeback
https://msmagazine.com/2023/01/25/johnny-depp-abuse-amber-heard/

Oh haha well good for him then...but we'll have to agree to disagree here because I think that he's missed out on film opportunities and income that he won't get back despite the news article speculating he could be a bigger box office draw than before...I guess time will tell if that news article speculation will be proven correct...

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

The real question is whether Roiland will be found innocent in court. I don't know enough about him whether to opine if the allegations are possibly true or full of shit.
If he's found innocent, he's in for a comeback - R&M fans will welcome him with open arms, and might even be the best thing to happen to the show
If he's found guilty, I'd say he's probably done.

I'll be interested to see if he is not found guilty will his comeback compensate him enough...because alls he being accused of is hitting his girlfriend in a domestic dispute that's hardly a major crime and too easy for girls to use the police for revenge purposes as seen in the Depp case...

 

[tvstrip]

I'll be interested to see if he is not found guilty will his comeback compensate him enough...because alls he being accused of is hitting his girlfriend in a domestic dispute that's hardly a major crime and too easy for girls to use the police for revenge purposes as seen in the Depp case...

What really bothers me, at least from a legal perspective, is the delay to trial. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he was arrested in Aug 2020 for incidents in Jan 2020, which if that wasn't enough, his freaking pre-trial is this April. I get that domestic violence victims don't always come forward immediately, but that kind of delay is also unfair for the accused, since the entire trial is going to be basically based on testimonial evidence. Any physical evidence that could incriminate/exonerate him is long gone, and so now it's just going to be a mud-slinging war to discredit the witnesses.

I haven't really dug into what's going on, but what's up with the delay to trial anyways? A lot of places would have the case thrown out since the accused to entitled to a timely trial.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

What really bothers me, at least from a legal perspective, is the delay to trial. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he was arrested in Aug 2020 for incidents in Jan 2020, which if that wasn't enough, his freaking pre-trial is this April. I get that domestic violence victims don't always come forward immediately, but that kind of delay is also unfair for the accused, since the entire trial is going to be basically based on testimonial evidence. Any physical evidence that could incriminate/exonerate him is long gone, and so now it's just going to be a mud-slinging war to discredit the witnesses.

I haven't really dug into what's going on, but what's up with the delay to trial anyways? A lot of places would have the case thrown out since the accused to entitled to a timely trial.

I don't know if America has it in their Constitution to have trial in reasonably time like Canada does...I think that's why most people get bail on America and Canada starting to give most bail too because yeah time spent in pretrial jail can never be paid back...

 

[Xombie3000]

I don't know if America has it in their Constitution to have trial in reasonably time like Canada does...I think that's why most people get bail on America and Canada starting to give most bail too because yeah time spent in pretrial jail can never be paid back...

It is actually in our Constitution. The Sixth Amendment states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

It is actually in our Constitution. The Sixth Amendment states:

Ok thanks man so for some reason courts in America aren't abiding to the reasonable time part of the Constitution like Canada courts do...

 

[tvstrip]

It is actually in our Constitution. The Sixth Amendment states:

So it begs the question: is getting a pre-trial 2.5 years after being charged not a violation of his constitutional rights?

 

[FreeOnes_Adam]

So it begs the question: is getting a pre-trial 2.5 years after being charged not a violation of his constitutional rights?

How about the adult actress who's been waiting for 4 years???

 

[tvstrip]

How about the adult actress who's been waiting for 4 years???

Sorry, drawing a blank. Who are we referring to?

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

How about the adult actress who's been waiting for 4 years???

In no country do victims have constitutional rights above the accused - nor should they if the priority is not convicting the wrongly accused...

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

So it begs the question: is getting a pre-trial 2.5 years after being charged not a violation of his constitutional rights?

Of course that is not a reasonable time to go to trial...but for too long all over the world courts are protecting the interests of the government not the interests upholding conditional rights...Canada now has limits to how long the government has to delay trials and this is just the beginning...in my opinion if the government charges anyone they should be ready to go to trial the next day or they shouldn't even lay charges - it's that simple for me...either bring someone to trial or don't bother charging them...

 

[Duke Klingenpooper]

In no country do victims have constitutional rights above the accused - nor should they if the priority is not convicting the wrongly accused...

That's a mess of logic, with all due respect. The accused and the victim both have certain inalienable and constitutional rights, with neither trumping the other. The priority is not "not convicting the wrongly accused", it's convicting the right and justly accused. There's a difference in approach.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

That's a mess of logic, with all due respect. The accused and the victim both have certain inalienable and constitutional rights, with neither trumping the other. The priority is not "not convicting the wrongly accused", it's convicting the right and justly accused. There's a difference in approach.

We can agree to disagree on that but the fact still remains that no where in the world are victim rights in any countries Charter of Rights or Constitution...I'm curious as to where you've seen constitutional rights for victims because you're probably just thinking of the propaganda that most politicians spout to get votes...there a difference between a countries Constitutional rights and freedoms and just policy/laws/ideals/etc...

 

[Duke Klingenpooper]

We can agree to disagree on that but the fact still remains that no where in the world are victim rights in any countries Charter of Rights or Constitution...I'm curious as to where you've seen constitutional rights for victims because you're probably just thinking of the propaganda that most politicians spout to get votes...there a difference between a countries Constitutional rights and freedoms and just policy/laws/ideals/etc...

The right, for example, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - if an aggressor wrongly deprives you of those things (murder, for example), you're still in possession of those rights, and they have been deprived you - this is why if the murder beef don't stick, you can still sue 'em (OJ) in civil court. The very idea of a victim presumes the idea, the expectation of *not* being victimized. It's ensconced in laws, baked in.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

The right, for example, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - if an aggressor wrongly deprives you of those things (murder, for example), you're still in possession of those rights, and they have been deprived you - this is why if the murder beef don't stick, you can still sue 'em (OJ) in civil court. The very idea of a victim presumes the idea, the expectation of *not* being victimized. It's ensconced in laws, baked in.

This presumption you just elaborated on...I see you've connected it to an example from the American Constitution...but do you know of any court rulings that support your interpretation...?

From all the court cases I've seen the Constitution protects from government infringements on these rights...the government not providing trials within a reasonable time has never been a reason for any victims to file a legal case against the government or the accused as far as I know unless you can direct me to any case law contradicting this...