Not necessarily. But I do wanna say that I am not going to say either way until facts are out, but that doesn't mean we should say the victim is lying and such. We should wait till the facts are out to say who is innocent, guilty, etc.
in a court of law it is innocent until proven guilty. In public eye we are allowed to believe what we want, and with the evidence provided, as well as sinatraa being a huge douche since OW days, i believe hes a rapist.
I would avoid calling him a rapist if it isn't what he did. Not only is it defaming it is ignorant to the people who were actually raped. Its not a term you throw around.
Yes, in the scope of the public eye, people may hold any opinions they want, but ya gotta be careful when publicly announcing your personal belief, as it can be precieved as the objective truth to others who arnt fully informed. premature cancelling isnt cool :/
she attached multiple screenshots/video recordings as well as an audio clip of her audibly saying no and sinatraa saying "stop im close" or somethin along those lines
Saying that the victim is potentially lying also goes against this precedent. Neither side should be considered innocent or guilty until the facts come forward and we know for sure one way or the other. That is what I meant by Not Necessarily.
wdym not neccesarily? Innocent until proven guilty is a human right, also you are not the one who gets to say who is inocent or guilty, also his exgf is no longer pursuing legal actions against him, dont be so entitled
I am neither biased nor emotional. I am saying that in some cases, yes it is best to say innocent until proven guilty, but don't disregard the alleged victim's statements. Neither should be considered innocent nor guilty until the facts of the case come forward.