Post by mslo79 on Feb 25, 2020 7:09:34 GMT
I see the OP's point as putting aside our personal feelings towards Harvey(which generally is not good for most of us I would assume as it seems he's sort of the main fall guy for all of this shady behavior in Hollywood), given all of this #MeToo BS that's going to make things tougher for the accused straight up (like in terms of public opinion) regardless of this Harvey case.
so it's like in the 'old days', the accused could get away with a lot, but nowadays it's almost like the opposite of that is true in that if you do something somewhat minor, you get hanged for it anyways. like nowadays it's like a random male could grab a random females butt for example and they will probably try to claim assault or some other serious charge over it which i I think is BS as while a random guy should not do that stuff, it's not worth ruining someone over it either. but it seems many in today's world take things too far as far as punishment for someone.
but given what brief stuff I heard a while ago about his case... it appears there is no hard evidence against him, which looks good in his favor, but with I think it's multiple witnesses, that's not looking good for him as if it was a couple of people it would be easier to write it off but after a certain point (like when you start getting many accusing him of shady stuff) it starts looking more likely he crossed the line and is guilty on some level. still, I am not a fan of witnesses (and the like) as I tend to like more hard evidence, especially if someone is going to jail for a good portion of their life over it. because I am of the mindset I would rather risk let a guilty person go than risk putting a innocent person behind bars. that's why I tend to prefer more physical evidence etc even though I realize it's not always this easy etc. but I imagine some court cases are tough to get to the truth since when it's based on witnesses many people can exaggerate what actually happened and end up destroying someone when what actually happened was not as bad as the witness said it was etc.
p.s. I voted for the 'Possible Yes' option.
so it's like in the 'old days', the accused could get away with a lot, but nowadays it's almost like the opposite of that is true in that if you do something somewhat minor, you get hanged for it anyways. like nowadays it's like a random male could grab a random females butt for example and they will probably try to claim assault or some other serious charge over it which i I think is BS as while a random guy should not do that stuff, it's not worth ruining someone over it either. but it seems many in today's world take things too far as far as punishment for someone.
but given what brief stuff I heard a while ago about his case... it appears there is no hard evidence against him, which looks good in his favor, but with I think it's multiple witnesses, that's not looking good for him as if it was a couple of people it would be easier to write it off but after a certain point (like when you start getting many accusing him of shady stuff) it starts looking more likely he crossed the line and is guilty on some level. still, I am not a fan of witnesses (and the like) as I tend to like more hard evidence, especially if someone is going to jail for a good portion of their life over it. because I am of the mindset I would rather risk let a guilty person go than risk putting a innocent person behind bars. that's why I tend to prefer more physical evidence etc even though I realize it's not always this easy etc. but I imagine some court cases are tough to get to the truth since when it's based on witnesses many people can exaggerate what actually happened and end up destroying someone when what actually happened was not as bad as the witness said it was etc.
p.s. I voted for the 'Possible Yes' option.