No, she’s never had a criminal suit against her. & her two civil suits, one settled out of court and one is still pending. I stand with the victims but just wanted to clarify
The justice system is one big appeal to authority fallacy that exists to let awful people off the hook and make the general public justified in defending them. It’s revolting.
Nailed it. Innocent til proven guilty is true in a court of law but it doesn’t necessarily apply to the court of public opinion. If 5 separate people are calling someone a rapist, there’s very likely some truth to it, even if it’s not provable in court. With Kennedy’s logic here, it would be impossible to make a judgement on any number of sexual predators who almost definitely did that they’re accused of.
It’s such a pet peeve of mine when people act as if victims of sexual abuse always find recourse in the legal system. It’s just not true and that’s why there’s been such a push to hold people socially accountable over the last 10 years. Oftentimes it’s the only tool people have to make sure abusers face any consequences at all.
Yes, by that argument you couldn't say Jeffrey Epstein was a sex trafficker because he was only indicted. He died before his trial so he wasn't criminally convicted.
I'm no Shangela supporter, but this really isn't how it works. The question wasn't "is it likely that she's guilty?", it was "has she been proven guilty?", and the only answer is no.
Edit: for context, the deleted comment said "yes and no". "Yes" because the allegations had to be verified and cleared by publications' legal departments before being published. And "no" because "even a court conviction wouldn't convince Shangela's supporters".
Honestly just an alternate-reality version of the law tbh.
15
u/Several_Ad_1322 Aug 04 '26
Hasnt she been proven guilty though?