WWE releases Enzo Amore

[Mr. Nerfect]

Ah okay, fair enough. Well, just to contribute:

I just know too many women who have come up against the wall of people saying "she's probably lying." It's just not something I feel comfortable saying myself, even if something does seem shady or whatever. I've done it myself and I regret it to this day, because it turned out they were telling the truth.

As I said earlier, it costs nothing to give someone the benefit of the doubt, and it doesn't immediately mean you throw the accused into jail and throw away the key. That's why investigations into these things happen. I just don't see any benefit to assuming someone is lying about sexual assault. No one assumes that about any other crime. If someone says "my stereo got stolen," people say "fuck, that sucks" and wonder how they got warped back in time to the 1990's. It's just gross to me that there's this macho bubble of resistance to the likelihood of these things, and this hyper-critical analysis of a fucked up person's behavior in the wake of it and leading up to it.

But I wonder if this might be, at least in part, why these things aren't falsely reported very often. Because people (and not just men, there are a lot of women who do this too) make it extraordinarily hard for people who come forward and say this happened to them. If it were as simple as saying it and waving a magic wand, maybe more fucked up people would say it to take out their enemies?

You obviously need a very high standard for definitive guilt, but I just don't feel comfortable, at all really, setting my standard for dignity very high. This woman obviously needs help -- one way or another.

[Evil Vito]

Originally Posted by Noid As I said earlier, it costs nothing to give someone the benefit of the doubt, and it doesn't immediately mean you throw the accused into jail and throw away the key. That's why investigations into these things happen. I just don't see any benefit to assuming someone is lying about sexual assault.

This is pretty much how I feel. It feels to me like when someone in the public eye is accused, there's always going to be people cynical that the accuser is making a false accusation just to "make a name for themselves" or whatever, and I've just never bought into it. I'm not throwing the book at the accused, but I don't see a purpose in assuming the other person is lying about being sexually assaulted.

In my opinion, if someone is accused with sufficient proof, the individual who is accused should do one of two things:

1) Admit to it if they have done it.
or
2) Provide proof that what they are accused of is false.

Innocent until proven guilty should of course always continue to be the standard for actually going to prison or other punitive punishments. But being an actor, musician, or whatever else is a privilege. If there is reason to believe that someone has abused that privilege then it should be taken away immediately. After that, it is up to society to decide whether they can be forgiven and resume that kind of lifestyle until the authorities can look into the matter.

In Enzo's case, I still believe he was fired for his failure to disclose initially. Had he disclosed he likely would still be on paid suspension until the investigation can be concluded.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Originally Posted by #BrotherVito DELETED In Enzo's case, I still believe he was fired for his failure to disclose initially. Had he disclosed he likely would still be on paid suspension until the investigation can be concluded.

100% agreed

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by #BrotherVito DELETED Innocent until proven guilty should of course always continue to be the standard for actually going to prison or other punitive punishments. But being an actor, musician, or whatever else is a privilege. If there is reason to believe that someone has abused that privilege then it should be taken away immediately. After that, it is up to society to decide whether they can be forgiven and resume that kind of lifestyle until the authorities can look into the matter. In Enzo's case, I still believe he was fired for his failure to disclose initially. Had he disclosed he likely would still be on paid suspension until the investigation can be concluded.

Very well said.

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by Noid As I said earlier, it costs nothing to give someone the benefit of the doubt, and it doesn't immediately mean you throw the accused into jail and throw away the key. That's why investigations into these things happen. I just don't see any benefit to assuming someone is lying about sexual assault. No one assumes that about any other crime. If someone says "my stereo got stolen," people say "fuck, that sucks" and wonder how they got warped back in time to the 1990's

Wait... of course people do that about any other crime. If someone is a clear pathological liar, a nutjob and an overall unreliable person and they say "this other person robbed me, threatened to kill me, attacked me, etc." and the other person is like "... That didn't happen", the benefit of the doubt would go to the one who isn't a pathological liar. In EVERY crime. It's not rape-specific.

People do that about ANY crime, rape included. People who doubt her because she's a clear bullshitter are not the ones making a special exception because it's rape. People saying "she's probably not lying because it's rape" are OBVIOUSLY the ones making a special exception because it's rape.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan People do that about ANY crime, rape included. People who doubt her because she's a clear bullshitter are not the ones making a special exception because it's rape. People saying "she's probably not lying because it's rape" are OBVIOUSLY the ones making a special exception because it's rape.

Well stated