Vic Mignogna

[Shaddy]

No, Vic's still in the home release. I can't say I expected otherwise, but I wish he'd been replaced, even before the scandal. He just isn't good in that role, at all. I only wish Broly had been recast before the movie came out. I don't remember who said it here, but a good point was made that if he'd been replaced afterward, the original version of the movie would have become this premium "holy grail" artifact because it has the "original" voice, like those people that treat full-series downloads of the Ocean dub as really important rare collectibles or whatever, regardless of the actual quality. The fact that it would probably come packaged with "he was taken off the movie because of FALLLSE AAAACUUUSATTTIOOONSNNSSS" as an additional way of deifying the guy doesn't help.

[Valerius Dover]

There's no way they're ever going to redub any of his finished work in re-releases either. Scott Freeman's voice has been left untouched every time one of the anime he was has been re-released, despite the fact that he was actually thrown in jail. Regarding Pierre Taki's roles in Judgement and Frozen (and possibly others), that's in Japan. They are a lot stricter when it comes to things like this there, so it can't be compared.

[Fionordequester]

I'm gonna default to my innocent until proven guilty stance.

You know what I just realized? That phrase already defeats itself; at least as far as this situation goes. For OTHER crimes, like murder, it might make sense. But for THIS situation?

I don't want you using it anymore. I'm sick of listening to it, and I'll tell you exactly why.

In order for Vic to be the good guy, EVERY one of his accusers have to the bad guy! With all the charges levied against him, there is absolutely no circumstance where both Vic AND his accusers are innocent! So by defaulting to one's innocence, you're ALSO defaulting to the other's guilt!!

"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't a coherent phrase! Not for this case! By presuming Vic's innocence, you're presuming everyone else's guilt. By presuming that his accusers are innocent, you're presuming that Vic is guilty.

So if you're not SURE who's guilty or innocent, fine! Just say THAT! But stop it with the "innocent until proven guilty". It's meaningless, now. Completely and utterly meaningless. The only way it would have any grounding is if you've completely forgotten about seeing his accusers as actual people; people whose anguish and sorrow is every bit as real as whatever Vic is going through (and I'm not saying he isn't suffering, as well. A person doesn't need to be evil to do bad things).

[Polyphase Avatron]

I'm gonna default to my innocent until proven guilty stance.

You know what I just realized? That phrase already defeats itself; at least as far as this situation goes. For OTHER crimes, like murder, it might make sense. But for THIS situation?

I don't want you using it anymore. I'm sick of listening to it, and I'll tell you exactly why.

In order for Vic to be the good guy, EVERY one of his accusers have to the bad guy! With all the charges levied against him, there is absolutely no circumstance where both Vic AND his accusers are innocent! So by defaulting to one's innocence, you're ALSO defaulting to the other's guilt!!

"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't a coherent phrase! Not for this case! By presuming Vic's innocence, you're presuming everyone else's guilt. By presuming that his accusers are innocent, you're presuming that Vic is guilty.

So if you're not SURE who's guilty or innocent, fine! Just say THAT! But stop it with the "innocent until proven guilty". It's meaningless, now. Completely and utterly meaningless. The only way it would have any grounding is if you've completely forgotten about seeing his accusers as actual people; people whose anguish and sorrow is every bit as real as whatever Vic is going through (and I'm not saying he isn't suffering, as well. A person doesn't need to be evil to do bad things).

I pretty much said this exact same thing a few pages ago.

[Fionordequester]

I pretty much said this exact same thing a few pages ago.

Did you? Huh... I didn't have your post in mind while typing this up. I was just about as mad as I'd ever allow myself to be in any civil debate, and typed this up when I finally figured out how to express it in words.

I suppose it's possibility your post might've influenced me without my realizing it, though. Sorry if you felt like I plagiarized you. I didn't mean it, honest!

[JulieYBM]

I wanted to wish her well but being the anti-social introverted girl that I am--and being that I haven't shaved in two days so I can get electrolysis on Monday--I shied away.

Oh this was serious. I thought it was some April Fools Joke and was wondering if I was missing something because it seemed a bit late in the month for it.

Forgive me, I do not understand your comment.

[KBABZ]

No, Vic's still in the home release. I can't say I expected otherwise, but I wish he'd been replaced, even before the scandal. He just isn't good in that role, at all. I only wish Broly had been recast before the movie came out. I don't remember who said it here, but a good point was made that if he'd been replaced afterward, the original version of the movie would have become this premium "holy grail" artifact because it has the "original" voice, like those people that treat full-series downloads of the Ocean dub as really important rare collectibles or whatever, regardless of the actual quality. The fact that it would probably come packaged with "he was taken off the movie because of FALLLSE AAAACUUUSATTTIOOONSNNSSS" as an additional way of deifying the guy doesn't help.

Yeah we don't need to have Vic tied to a Snyder Cut situation here, that'd be an awful mess of a situation.

[AgitoZ]

So if you're not SURE who's guilty or innocent, fine! Just say THAT! But stop it with the "innocent until proven guilty". It's meaningless, now. Completely and utterly meaningless. The only way it would have any grounding is if you've completely forgotten about seeing his accusers as actual people; people whose anguish and sorrow is every bit as real as whatever Vic is going through (and I'm not saying he isn't suffering, as well. A person doesn't need to be evil to do bad things).

I'm still gonna default to innocent until proven guilty. Again, if anyone jumps to assuming that they all must be lying it's their problem not mine. You and many people like to talk very absolutely about how I should look at the info so far but unfortunately you're all wasting your time.

There are things like the McMartin preschool trials where people were convinced for years that horrible things were happening and that there was too much testimony for something not have happened. But after years of investigation nothing happened. I hope things don't take as long as that all did and I also hope that no one in the end has been harmed.

[JulieYBM]

Mic Vignogna is unlikely to be convicted of anything but for him to drag so many unrelated parties into a court battle is ridiculous and goes to show that he really doesn't know what the hell he is doing.

[Fionordequester]

I'm still gonna default to innocent until proven guilty.

But I told you... You aren't taking that position! You THINK you are, but you're not. Your statement is contradictory by it's very nature, in this case. That's part of the reason why that logic is only applied to criminal cases.

Besides, Vic Mignogna isn't the one being prosecuted, here. He's the one doing the prosecution! So even by your logic, that applies to his accusers, not Vic himself.

[Saturnine]

Oh well, gotta say this whole thing is unfolding in an unexpected direction. At first I'd be quick to believe his accusers, but right now I'm not really so sure myself. More and more people seem to be flocking to his side right now too.

[JulieYBM]

Oh well, gotta say this whole thing is unfolding in an unexpected direction. At first I'd be quick to believe his accusers, but right now I'm not really so sure myself. More and more people seem to be flocking to his side right now too.

"Why are they flocking to his side?" is a question you should be asking. He's now stupidly put himself in the position of having to prove the guilt of dozens of parties who are largely unrelated to somehow prove the validity of his claims of innocence. He clearly does not know what it is he is doing.

[SaiyaSith]

Oh well, gotta say this whole thing is unfolding in an unexpected direction. At first I'd be quick to believe his accusers, but right now I'm not really so sure myself. More and more people seem to be flocking to his side right now too.

"Why are they flocking to his side?" is a question you should be asking. He's now stupidly put himself in the position of having to prove the guilt of dozens of parties who are largely unrelated to somehow prove the validity of his claims of innocence. He clearly does not know what it is he is doing.

I'm not sure where you're getting this information, but Vic is the one suing for defamation (among other things). He just has to deny the allegations under oath and it's the defendants job to prove said allegations to the court.

[Kinokima]

Oh well, gotta say this whole thing is unfolding in an unexpected direction. At first I'd be quick to believe his accusers, but right now I'm not really so sure myself. More and more people seem to be flocking to his side right now too.

"Why are they flocking to his side?" is a question you should be asking. He's now stupidly put himself in the position of having to prove the guilt of dozens of parties who are largely unrelated to somehow prove the validity of his claims of innocence. He clearly does not know what it is he is doing.

I'm not sure where you're getting this information, but Vic is the one suing for defamation (among other things). He just has to deny the allegations under oath and it's the defendants job to prove said allegations to the court.

That’s not how it works. It’s not as simple as you are making it out to be.

Vic has to prove the statements were false, the accusers knew the statements were false and acted out of malice. The burden of proof on a civil defamation case is on the Plantiff not the other way around.

[SaiyaSith]

"Why are they flocking to his side?" is a question you should be asking. He's now stupidly put himself in the position of having to prove the guilt of dozens of parties who are largely unrelated to somehow prove the validity of his claims of innocence. He clearly does not know what it is he is doing.

I'm not sure where you're getting this information, but Vic is the one suing for defamation (among other things). He just has to deny the allegations under oath and it's the defendants job to prove said allegations to the court.

That’s not how it works. It’s not as simple as you are making it out to be.

Vic has to prove the statements were false, the accusers knew the statements were false and acted out of malice. The burden of proof on a civil defamation case is on the Plantiff not the other way around.

Vic is the one suing for defamation, so the whole case is already built around the allegations being false presented with his reasons why. The ruling will be decided by the judge/ jury based off of the evidence presented by both parties. It's the defendant's job to defend their original allegations. Also don't forget that the case is being held in Dallas Tx.

[WittyUsername]

Oh well, gotta say this whole thing is unfolding in an unexpected direction. At first I'd be quick to believe his accusers, but right now I'm not really so sure myself. More and more people seem to be flocking to his side right now too.

"Why are they flocking to his side?" is a question you should be asking. He's now stupidly put himself in the position of having to prove the guilt of dozens of parties who are largely unrelated to somehow prove the validity of his claims of innocence. He clearly does not know what it is he is doing.

I'm not sure where you're getting this information, but Vic is the one suing for defamation (among other things). He just has to deny the allegations under oath and it's the defendants job to prove said allegations to the court.

It just occurred to me, but didn’t he already issue at least two apologies for his alleged behavior? That seems like it could potentially hurt his case.

[Kinokima]

I'm not sure where you're getting this information, but Vic is the one suing for defamation (among other things). He just has to deny the allegations under oath and it's the defendants job to prove said allegations to the court.

That’s not how it works. It’s not as simple as you are making it out to be.

Vic has to prove the statements were false, the accusers knew the statements were false and acted out of malice. The burden of proof on a civil defamation case is on the Plantiff not the other way around.

Vic is the one suing for defamation, so the whole case is already built around the allegations being false presented with his reasons why. The ruling will be decided by the judge/ jury based off of the evidence presented by both parties. It's the defendant's job to defend their original allegations. Also don't forget that the case is being held in Dallas Tx.

Yeah and you still don’t understand how defamation cases work.

[kemuri07]

So if you're not SURE who's guilty or innocent, fine! Just say THAT! But stop it with the "innocent until proven guilty". It's meaningless, now. Completely and utterly meaningless. The only way it would have any grounding is if you've completely forgotten about seeing his accusers as actual people; people whose anguish and sorrow is every bit as real as whatever Vic is going through (and I'm not saying he isn't suffering, as well. A person doesn't need to be evil to do bad things).

I'm still gonna default to innocent until proven guilty. Again, if anyone jumps to assuming that they all must be lying it's their problem not mine. You and many people like to talk very absolutely about how I should look at the info so far but unfortunately you're all wasting your time.

There are things like the McMartin preschool trials where people were convinced for years that horrible things were happening and that there was too much testimony for something not have happened. But after years of investigation nothing happened. I hope things don't take as long as that all did and I also hope that no one in the end has been harmed.

This is the attitude that I find must annoying in this thread: this false-ass pious bullshit where you think you're taking the moral high ground because "innocent until proven guilty." Sure, fine, whatever. Here's the problem with that:

You are, ideally, an intelligent human being. Meaning that you're able to critically think and use common sense. So while, yes, because Vic Mignogna hasn't been charged with anything, legally he's innocent. HOWEVER, a quick glance over the situation, and the number of accusations over the years about Mignogna makes it extremely unlikely that all these people, with complaints spread years apart, would somehow either: A. all be wrong in their accusations or B. are all involved in some conspiracy to take down Vic. Neither option makes that much sense.

And also a quick glance at your example doesn't really fit in this context. Since the main issue surrounding that case was the problematic way the kids (all of whom were very young) were interviewed, and the possible mental illness of the person accusing the school.

The reason why I get so upset when people default to the "Innocent until Proven Guilty" line is that it's disingenuous way to be justified in not being against Vic. If you really want to stay neutral--then stay fucking neutral.

[SaiyaSith]

That’s not how it works. It’s not as simple as you are making it out to be.

Vic has to prove the statements were false, the accusers knew the statements were false and acted out of malice. The burden of proof on a civil defamation case is on the Plantiff not the other way around.

Vic is the one suing for defamation, so the whole case is already built around the allegations being false presented with his reasons why. The ruling will be decided by the judge/ jury based off of the evidence presented by both parties. It's the defendant's job to defend their original allegations. Also don't forget that the case is being held in Dallas Tx.

Yeah and you still don’t understand how defamation cases work.

Pretty sure everything I said is accurate.

[miguelnuva1]

"Why are they flocking to his side?" is a question you should be asking. He's now stupidly put himself in the position of having to prove the guilt of dozens of parties who are largely unrelated to somehow prove the validity of his claims of innocence. He clearly does not know what it is he is doing.

I'm not sure where you're getting this information, but Vic is the one suing for defamation (among other things). He just has to deny the allegations under oath and it's the defendants job to prove said allegations to the court.

It just occurred to me, but didn’t he already issue at least two apologies for his alleged behavior? That seems like it could potentially hurt his case.

Yes and one of those he said it was not his intention to hurt anyone if he did. Vic said months ago he was likely guilt just that he wasn't trying to hurt anyone which would have been a better argument to go with versus he never did anything.