It is BS how they treat "victims" vs the "accused." With the "victim" they assume first of all that an actual crime has occurred. And then for the (almost always a) guy they put his name and face everywhere. They also take away rights from any man accused of domestic violence, pre-emptively. You automatically can't buy a gun in a lot of states.
There could be no evidence whatsoever. No harm whatsoever. Many such cases are brought. (Not sure what made it a felony accusation in this case; maybe someone was actually hurt here)
At one point I knew a lot of guys who were getting divorced. You bet there were domestic violence allegations. I don't know if any of it was true, but according to these guys those bitches would say anything to get the money and the kids. So I believe that. These guys weren't beating up their own wives; they were trying to leave them.
The same court that put Roiland's name on blast, while the accuser's an anonymous Jane Doe because we got to protek wahman.
Presumption of innocence, what's that?
Simp gets his comeuppance. Love it when they eat their own.
It is BS how they treat "victims" vs the "accused." With the "victim" they assume first of all that an actual crime has occurred. And then for the (almost always a) guy they put his name and face everywhere. They also take away rights from any man accused of domestic violence, pre-emptively. You automatically can't buy a gun in a lot of states.
There could be no evidence whatsoever. No harm whatsoever. Many such cases are brought. (Not sure what made it a felony accusation in this case; maybe someone was actually hurt here)
At one point I knew a lot of guys who were getting divorced. You bet there were domestic violence allegations. I don't know if any of it was true, but according to these guys those bitches would say anything to get the money and the kids. So I believe that. These guys weren't beating up their own wives; they were trying to leave them.