Guilty Until Proven Innocent???

[Alex]

So apparently Ronnie Radke from Falling In Reverse is accused of participating in a gang rape on a women after a gig.

http://www.metalinjection.net/shock...e-radke-accused-of-participating-in-gang-rape

Now I'm not saying he did or didn't do it but it seems when stuff like this comes up people are quick to say the accused is guilty. I understand that accusations shouldn't be taken lightly but there is always the chance (especially when pertaining to celebrities) that the accusor is doing it for an alterior reason (fame money, etc)

Again I'm not saying he did or didn't do it but the amount of people saying he should be thrown in jail without waiting for any evidence is rather startling. Some people will point to Radke's previous criminal convictions but that only means he's done something in the past. I know as a society we judge people who have been to jail but that doesn't mean they can't reform and become a contributing member of society.

Onto the actual case I'd be suspicious of someone who posted allegations on Facebook. Call me old fashioned/skeptical but if someone has attacked you/raped you going on Facebook would be the last thing I'd do. Plus people say all sorts of random stuff on social media.

For some reason this reminds of the Michael Jackson cases in a way. The personalities of the musicians involved would lend themselves to them commiting a crime but at the same time because of their personalities some people may feel they can get something out of accusing them of things.

I mean if it turns out he did do it he'll get what's coming to him, if he didn't he's been accused of being a rapist when he actually wasn't but he'll have that hanging over his head as well as his previous convictions. And it won't help actual rape victims when their actual accusations are met with skepticism if something like this allegation turns out to be false.

What do you guys think.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

In my experience whatever the crime may be, a certain amount of evidence should be needed in order to make an educated decision on whether a person in guilty or innocent of a crime, if all people have is a Facebook rant then they have nothing and it's stupid to condemn a person at that point.

Sometimes you can look at ones past and make a pretty solid guess, sometimes you can look at ones personality and make a pretty solid guess but those should be the exception, not the rule. I don't know much about Ronnie Radke but I don't see enough on him to suggest he partook in a gang rape at this point. It's possible he did it but I'm not going to assume he did it until there is something to use against him.

Society in general has gotten extremely judgy these days, when social media sites like Twitter and Facebook get going everyone is quick to throw in their 2 cents, many of them sitting on this high and mighty pedestal where they act morally superior to everyone. No celebrity, no matter how minor or major they are is protected from this, every questionable thing they do is out there for the world to see and there are plenty of people who seem betrayed when they are accused of something questionable. Although some of those celebrities are guilty many of them aren't, because of that it seems a little ridiculous to scream for the chair because someone went off on social media.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Society in general has gotten extremely judgy these days, when social media sites like Twitter and Facebook get going everyone is quick to throw in their 2 cents, many of them sitting on this high and mighty pedestal where they act morally superior to everyone.

Which is made even worse by the notion that while our society is absolutely fabulous at displaying sympathy, we fall far short in the area of empathy.

Good gosh, we love sympathy; to drip with sorrow for people we read about in the news whom we've never met and never will meet. Of course, by tomorrow we will have forgotten about them and gone about feeling sorry for someone else.....but sympathy is considered a virtue and we're great at feeling it for all the victims of the world (and some of the perpetrators).

Empathy is looking at someone elses plight (say: Ronnie Radke) and asking oneself: "What if this were happening to me?" and "How would I act if I were in his/her position?" along with: "Am I not entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?"

This all happened to a man in my town a few years ago. He coached a young girls softball team and was accused by a 10-year-old girl of molestation. Before any legal proceedings could take place, his house was egged and windows were broken, his car tires were slashed and he was beaten up in a parking lot. He was thrown out of the softball league and, from what I read, his job was saved only by the fact that his employer had to wait until he was proven guilty to fire him.

The girl's story unraveled easily enough and she soon admitted she made it up because she was upset about something unrelated to the coach.....but for him, the damage was already done.

Had his 'neighbors' bothered to show some empathy....to ask themselves how they would feel in his situation....none of this garbage would have taken place. Instead, their only thoughts were to feel sympathy for a lying 10-year-old.

All the media coverage today....and all "the public must learn the truth" is good in some regards, but bad in others. Ask Ronnie Radke.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Which is made even worse by the notion that while our society is absolutely fabulous at displaying sympathy, we fall far short in the area of empathy.

Good gosh, we love sympathy; to drip with sorrow for people we read about in the news whom we've never met and never will meet. Of course, by tomorrow we will have forgotten about them and gone about feeling sorry for someone else.....but sympathy is considered a virtue and we're great at feeling it for all the victims of the world (and some of the perpetrators).

Empathy is looking at someone elses plight (say: Ronnie Radke) and asking oneself: "What if this were happening to me?" and "How would I act if I were in his/her position?" along with: "Am I not entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?"

This all happened to a man in my town a few years ago. He coached a young girls softball team and was accused by a 10-year-old girl of molestation. Before any legal proceedings could take place, his house was egged and windows were broken, his car tires were slashed and he was beaten up in a parking lot. He was thrown out of the softball league and, from what I read, his job was saved only by the fact that his employer had to wait until he was proven guilty to fire him.

The girl's story unraveled easily enough and she soon admitted she made it up because she was upset about something unrelated to the coach.....but for him, the damage was already done.

Had his 'neighbors' bothered to show some empathy....to ask themselves how they would feel in his situation....none of this garbage would have taken place. Instead, their only thoughts were to feel sympathy for a lying 10-year-old.

All the media coverage today....and all "the public must learn the truth" is good in some regards, but bad in others. Ask Ronnie Radke.

I'm completely with you on the empathetic point and how a lot of people can sure be sympathetic but not empathetic. It's nice to be sympathetic to a person but it's even better when you can somewhat understand where the other person is coming from, I know it's done gangbusters for me especially when I get into a heated argument. It's probably not the best wording but sometimes people just have to get over themselves, their own line of thinking and simply open their minds to what others might be thinking, just take a step back and try and look at the situation objectively. It doesn't mean they have to agree, they can completely 100% disagree but just because one can't agree doesn't mean they can't understand either and sometimes simply understanding is enough.

It's great to have sympathy for someone but these days too many people have what I guess you could call blind sympathy, a little too often people seem sympathetic even when they know maybe 10% of the story or even 0% of the story and at times that can be very dangerous. When a situation arises that doesn't involve a certain person it's probably best to hear the story out before they decide on how they feel.