1332
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Backspacecentury@kbin.social 429 points 1 year ago

Great, now do the Scientologist pricks that protected him for years and threatened his victims.

[-] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

On another note if you are interested in the topic, I can't recommend Growing Up in Scientology enough on YouTube.

Aaron is an amazing educator, commentator, and satirist on the subject of Scientology. Beyond that he has one of the most genuine, yet charismatic personalities of any person on the platform. I can't say enough good things about him, his journey, and his work with both exposing as well as freeing people from Scientology's grip.

Growing Up in Scientology: https://youtube.com/@GrowingUpInScientology?si=7AqjhAIP4ptYDJfi

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] londos@lemmy.world 298 points 1 year ago

By the time he gets out, he'll be That 70's Guy.

[-] angelsomething@lemmy.one 138 points 1 year ago

Turns out red was right all along.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 127 points 1 year ago

Is it just me or does 30 years to life seem longer than you would expect? I'm not trying to argue what he deserves or what the correct amount of time is for rape. I'm just saying that if I had to guess what kind of sentence someone would get for 2 counts of rape, I'd have guessed something like 15 years at most. It seems especially unusual given that he's rich, white, and presumably a first-time offender.

If the sentence is unusually long, would that mean an appeal is more likely to be successful?

[-] The_v@lemmy.world 132 points 1 year ago

After the rapist Brock Turner was given a slap on the wrist, California passed mandatory sentencing for rape.

He was accused of 3 rapes but convicted of 2. He received the maximum sentencing for each.

His lawyers are likely going to fight the conviction constantly until the money runs dry.

My personal thought is the conviction is unlikely to be overturned but a sentence reduction is likely. So he got the maximum sentence. Danny will likely be behind bars for at least 6-10 years for his crimes.

[-] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 112 points 1 year ago

You do mean Brock Allen Turner, who was a student at Standford and was convicted of rape from an incident on January 18, 2015?

I hate to be wrong on that we're talking about two different Brock Allen Turners.

[-] The_v@lemmy.world 82 points 1 year ago

That's the right Brock Turner who was sentenced to 6 months and was released after 3 months. Judge Aaron Persky thought a longer sentence would unduly harm the rapist, Brock Allen Turner.

[-] Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think they're referring to THE RAPIST BROCK ALLEN TURNER who raped an unconscious girl in an alley. I heard he moved to Ohio and goes by his middle name. So THE RAPIST ALLEN TURNER

[-] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Didn't rapist Brock Turner change his name or something?

[-] Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

I think they're referring to THE RAPIST BROCK ALLEN TURNER who raped an unconscious girl in an alley. I heard he moved to Ohio and goes by his middle name. So THE RAPIST ALLEN TURNER

[-] Sanity_in_Moderation@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

The rapist Allen Turner is the same person. Yes. Allen Turner is a rapist.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 year ago

California passed mandatory sentencing for rape.

I knew about Brock Turner, but I didn't know California passed new laws as a result. Do you mean mandatory minimum sentences? Or was the maximum raised too? Would 15 years have been illegal for Turner, but is legal for Masterson?

6-10 years for his crimes.

6-10 years is more what I would have expected given his fame and wealth. I wouldn't have been surprised at 15. But, 30 to life seems more like what I'd expect from a second-degree murder sentence for someone with a criminal history, not rape by a rich white Hollywood celebrity.

[-] Icaria@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

Sentencing has never made much sense. Depends upon jurisdiction, how many charges prosecutors can tack on, how many you end up going to trial over, how many you get convicted over, and who is responsible for sentencing (in some places the jury sentence, in some the trial judge, in others sentencing is a separate proceeding with a separate judge).

One of the big factors here is that Masterson and his lawyers still deny everything. He didn't cut a deal, hasn't shown remorse since he hasn't admitted to any wrong-doing, and the judge chose to sentence consecutively. First trial was a mistrial, second trial got 2/3 convictions, and apparently they intend to appeal. So depending upon appeal, he is currently facing somewhere between being acquitted on appeal to facing life in prison. In a lot of cases like this, some sort of deal is cut on lesser charges or lesser sentencing in exchange for admitting guilt and not dragging this on through appeal, hence typically shorter sentences. Masterson/his lawyers are instead rolling d20s and the current outcome is a 1.

[-] clockwork_octopus@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

It’s longer than I’d expect, but it’s what it should be, so it’s refreshing that a judge somewhere is taking rape seriously.

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] Coreidan@lemmy.world 89 points 1 year ago

Wooops I guess he’s not rich enough to pay off judges and prosecutors. Sucks to suck.

[-] can@sh.itjust.works 67 points 1 year ago

Scientology couldn't even save him?

I bet if it was Tom Cruise they would have done more.

[-] Vex_Detrause@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 year ago

What if Scientology wanted this. So many what ifs when you include Scientology.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] dangblingus@lemmy.world 77 points 1 year ago

Man, I love That 70s Show, but so much fuckery and creepy shit happened during production. The irony being that this guy could have had any woman he wanted without assaulting them. He was the "cool funny" one on the show. Fucking gross piece of shit.

[-] June@lemm.ee 40 points 1 year ago

Idk about any woman he wanted. There are plenty of people who were never attracted to him, and he may be dysfunctional in a way that draws him to those people.

No one can ever have anyone they want. There will always be someone that says no, and if you don’t have the maturity to accept that and let go of your sense of entitlement you might wind up turning into a predator like Masterson.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] elevenfingerfrk@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago

Rape is about power. Rapists aren’t interested in anyone who wants to give it to them consensually. They want to feel that they are really hurting someone, really destroying their humanity. If it doesn’t demean and permanently fuck up their victim then they want no part in it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Ulrich_the_Old@lemmy.ca 63 points 1 year ago
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 63 points 1 year ago

Just for curiosity's sake, what did he do to deserve 25 1/2 years before he can be eligible for parole that convicted rapist Brock Allen Turner didn't do when he raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster? They were both convicted in California. Why did Turner, who has been going by Allen Turner and was last seen in the Dayton, OH area, do differently such that his custodial sentence was for 6 months, roughly 2% of the custodial time that Masterson will serve?

Let me be clear that my issue here isn't that Masterson was penalized too much. He took two women's lives and he should spend the rest of his in prison for it. It's just that I see two rapists, one was righteously destroyed by the justice system and the other whose court proceedings essentially made it seem like no one wanted to punish him at all but they very reluctantly felt like they had to.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago

He finally got what he deserved. Let's just hope that he can't hurt anyone ever again.

[-] crypticthree@lemmy.world 54 points 1 year ago
[-] NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social 52 points 1 year ago

Hello ~~Wisconsin~~ Incarceration!

[-] DeathWearsANecktie@lemm.ee 36 points 1 year ago

I believe the song "incurably innocent" by At The Drive-In is about this piece of shit. He sexually assaulted Cedric's wife.

Bastard is better behind bars.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

Has Ashton said anything new yet? The guy built a reputation for defending victims of abuse, but when they're his buddy Danny's victims he suddenly has no comment and continued to hang out with him until he was jailed. Every person that was arrested with the help of Ashton Kutcher was automatically called guilty by him without trial, but when his friend rapes people he's all "I just can't know". I lost all my respect for him for refusing to ditch an obvious rapist

[-] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 70 points 1 year ago

I mean, does it really matter? I don’t follow the situation, but his lack of opinion on this matter can be a blight on his reputation but it doesn’t change what he did for other victims.

Besides, who cares about a celebrity’s opinion anyway?

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ohlaph@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

I feel like the church 9f scientology should be held accountable here as well as they tried to hush the women.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago

I feel sorry for his castmates. I'm sure they were counting on decades of reruns and residual checks.

[-] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

I mean it sucks that it’s a missed money opportunity, (who wouldn’t love to coast on prior work they’ve done?) but a lot of the actors and actresses turned out just fine monetarily speaking idk. They’ll be alright.

I really only feel sorry for the people he raped and the people who have to handle these types of cases day in and day out.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] orangeNgreen@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Can’t Hyde from that.

[-] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

What's the difference between this and what Trump did? I'm curious why this one gets prison time, but Trump didn't. If it was two decades ago when this happened, I would habe thought it was past the statue of limitations.

[-] hypelightfly@kbin.social 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Criminal vs civil trial due to the statute of limitations. Trump could not be criminally charged as the crime happened too long ago. The law limiting the time was changed in 2006 but that can't be retroactively applied.

The problem is that many alleged victims of sexual assault, like Carroll, cannot avail themselves of the criminal justice system. At the time when Carroll alleges Trump raped her, the statute of limitations for rape in the state of New York was five years. In 2006, New York changed the law and abolished the statute of limitations for certain types of assault, but that change does not apply retroactively to crimes committed before 2006.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/e-jean-carroll-sued-trump-defamation-last-resort-blame-statute-ncna1077321

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
1332 points (99.0% liked)

News

23650 readers
3791 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS