Danny Masterson Charged with Three Counts of Rape "By Force or Fear"

masterson.jpg



Danny Masterson Charged with Three Counts of Rape "By Force or Fear"
If convicted on all counts, the That '70s Show actor could face 45 years to life in prison.
By Anthony Breznican
June 17, 2020


Actor Danny Masterson has long been accused of acts of sexual violence, and on Wednesday the That ’70s Show actor was finally arrested after being charged with the rapes of three women in separate incidents dating back to 2001 and 2003.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey's office charged the 44-year-old with three counts of "rape by force or fear." "If convicted as charged, the defendant faces a possible maximum sentence of 45 years to life in state prison," the district attorney's office said in a statement.

The complaint accuses him of raping a 23-year-old woman in 2001. He is also charged with committing two other assaults in 2003, one against a 28-year-old woman in April, and another against a 23-year-old woman between October and December of that year.



The case will be prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Reinhold Mueller of the Sex Crimes Division, who stated that all of the alleged rapes occurred at the actor's Hollywood Hills home.

Prosecutors noted that they declined to file sexual assault charges against Masterson in two other cases, "one for insufficient evidence and the other based upon the statute of limitations for the crime alleged."


Masterson has been held on $3.3 million bail. He is represented by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau, who previously represented Bill Cosby, Michael Jackson and Mike Tyson against sex crime charges. In a statement to the Associated Press, Mesereau insisted that Masterson is innocent.

“We’re confident that he will be exonerated when all the evidence finally comes to light and witnesses have the opportunity to testify," the attorney said. “Obviously, Mr. Masterson and his wife are in complete shock considering that these nearly 20-year old allegations are suddenly resulting in charges being filed, but they and their family are comforted knowing that ultimately the truth will come out,” Mesereau said. “The people who know Mr. Masterson know his character and know the allegations to be false.”

The criminal complaint doesn't name the victims, but the timeline of the accusations matches those of four women who accused Masterson of sexual assault in 2016 and 2017 as part of the #MeToo movement. Last year, they sued Masterson, along with the Church of Scientology, to which he belongs, alleging that the powerful and secretive organization stalked and intimidated them for coming forward with their police reports. Masterson and Scientology officials all denied wrongdoing.

Masterson responded to the suit with a statement: “This is beyond ridiculous. I’m not going to fight my ex-girlfriend in the media like she’s been baiting me to do for more than two years. I will beat her in court—and look forward to it because the public will finally be able [to] learn the truth and see how I’ve been railroaded by this woman. And once her lawsuit is thrown out, I intend to sue her and the others who jumped on the bandwagon for the damage they caused me and my family.”

In the lawsuit, the women each claim Masterson forced himself on them or took advantage of them when they were intoxicated and unable to consent.

Masterson is set to be arraigned on Sept. 18.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cousin Dupree

I know nothing - Grandmabear about herself.
It's not legally rape until a jury determines that it is. And I don't think any reasonable jury would call it rape. Only the most irresponsible of DAs would even pursue a case like that.

And no, it's not even close to the same idea. Getting a man "all worked up" sexually is a lot different than a sales prospect. Particularly if a woman is doing it on purpose, as in the case CD was describing. That is triggering a biological, primal urge. I understand what the laws in most states say, I just think they're unreasonable. A consent to intercourse ought to be an irrevocable waiver. But since we now essentially live in a gynocracy, all of these laws have been changed to protect women's feelings and shield them from responsibility for their own behavior. You could only bring yourself to admit this woman was "probably" in the wrong here.

Well then if a jury has to decide if it's rape or not I guess Casey Anthony didn't kill her kid, and OJ didn't kill Nicole and Ron. At least they were never convicted so they're innocent. There are A LOT of women who've been raped and never reported it to the police. The reasons for this are in your assigned reading list from a few pages ago.

If I murder someone and am never arrested or investigated in the case, does that mean I'm not a murderer?
 

Cousin Dupree

I know nothing - Grandmabear about herself.
It's not legally rape until a jury determines that it is. And I don't think any reasonable jury would call it rape. Only the most irresponsible of DAs would even pursue a case like that.

And no, it's not even close to the same idea. Getting a man "all worked up" sexually is a lot different than a sales prospect. Particularly if a woman is doing it on purpose, as in the case CD was describing. That is triggering a biological, primal urge. I understand what the laws in most states say, I just think they're unreasonable. A consent to intercourse ought to be an irrevocable waiver. But since we now essentially live in a gynocracy, all of these laws have been changed to protect women's feelings and shield them from responsibility for their own behavior. You could only bring yourself to admit this woman was "probably" in the wrong here.

BBM

WOW!! I have no idea about your family so I'll just put this in general terms. If you had a daughter is that what you'd tell her the rules are?
 

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'
LOL it is just what I figured so I guess I could have responded with what I thought, seems to be spelled a bit differently though. Government and rule, etc. by women LOL. Considering the old boys' school still exists almost everywhere that is hilarious...

Do rape laws exist? Yup. Domestic abuse laws? Yup. Restraining orders? Yup. Sure all looks great, ha, doesn't it? Try using any of those laws for safety or to get real justice... Clearly a man can be a victim too (not being sexist here), I am simply talking women because they tend to be the majority of victims in these cases...
 

SheWhoMustNotBeNamed

Administrator
Staff member
Excuse me for a bit, I have to go look up gynocracy... I know each of the two parts of the word, but I want to be sure... LOL...

Don't worry. It's just a word thrown out there with zero truth.
"Government by women". Except women are outnumbered 3-4 to 1 almost everywhere in government.

United States women in congress = 23.7%
Women in statewide elected offices = 28.9%
Women in state legislature = 30%
Women in municipal offices = ~20%

 

Cousin Dupree

I know nothing - Grandmabear about herself.
Don't worry. It's just a word thrown out there with zero truth.
"Government by women". Except women are outnumbered 3-4 to 1 almost everywhere in government.

United States women in congress = 23.7%
Women in statewide elected offices = 28.9%
Women in state legislature = 30%
Women in municipal offices = ~20%



Those numbers clearly need to come down. White men have ruled this nation since it's founding and things are starting to get out of hand for us.*1


*1 I'm kidding. That's sarcasm.
 

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'
Don't worry. It's just a word thrown out there with zero truth.
"Government by women". Except women are outnumbered 3-4 to 1 almost everywhere in government.

United States women in congress = 23.7%
Women in statewide elected offices = 28.9%
Women in state legislature = 30%
Women in municipal offices = ~20%


Yes and most women can tell you still even in average jobs and not government (more so there I am sure) one has to prove themselves twice as much if they are one of the few... Or they feel they do... It is a joke and is still a joke. I personally do not think we have come as far as some think... And at times feel we are going backwards... I don't mean women, I mean all of it.

Crimes against children for instance... Crime in general... Jokes of sentences. Serial offenders released... Okay. I had better stop...
 

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'

Howell

Active member
Well then if a jury has to decide if it's rape or not I guess Casey Anthony didn't kill her kid, and OJ didn't kill Nicole and Ron. At least they were never convicted so they're innocent. There are A LOT of women who've been raped and never reported it to the police. The reasons for this are in your assigned reading list from a few pages ago.

If I murder someone and am never arrested or investigated in the case, does that mean I'm not a murderer?
Yes, that's exactly what it means. "Murder" is a legal determination. Legally, both Simpson and Anthony are innocent of murder.
 

Howell

Active member
BBM

WOW!! I have no idea about your family so I'll just put this in general terms. If you had a daughter is that what you'd tell her the rules are?
Yes, that is what I would teach my daughters. 'You are responsible for your own behavior. Do not drink to excess as that will lower your inhibitions and impair your judgment. Don't place yourself into situations where a man could take advantage of you. Do not go alone to a man's hotel room/bedroom, take off your clothes and get in bed with him if you do not intend to have sex. Do not rely on him to prevent you from getting pregnant; that's your responsibility.' These aren't profound nuggets of wisdom, they're just basic common sense ideas that all girls should be taught.
 

Howell

Active member
This article fits in pretty well with the current conversation. I don't for some reason have a single problem believing this...

You probably should. Consider what this woman has said:

“I didn’t know how to respond—but before I could even think about what to do about it, he pulled me into one of these little side [booths], and pulled down my pants, and turned me around, and within no time was inside of me. I was just in shock,” Cox told The Daily Beast.

Cox went on to say that she didn’t feel that she could say no.

“There was not really a chance in my mind to object or resist. It just happened really fast. I froze and was in shock. Nothing like that had ever happened to me before in any way, shape or form. I was completely caught off-guard,"
[emphasis mine]

She tacitly admits that she did not say "no", that she didn't object, and she didn't resist. Her reasons for this are because she "didn't feel that she could" and there was "not really a chance" to do so. Do you realize how much time it would take and how difficult it would be for a man to pull down a woman's pants/underwear and be inside her without her cooperation? It wouldn't happen "within no time". But she had no chance to do so... This is after she willingly accompanies him to a private area, a man she claims she was already uncomfortable with. Also absent from this article is the "victim's" admission that she was drunk at the time.

As to why you have no problem believing it, that likely has to do with the media insisting that you should "Believe Women". Of course, by necessity, that means you should disbelieve men. Approaching it objectively, I think this story is incredible on its face.
 

Cousin Dupree

I know nothing - Grandmabear about herself.
You probably should. Consider what this woman has said:

“I didn’t know how to respond—but before I could even think about what to do about it, he pulled me into one of these little side [booths], and pulled down my pants, and turned me around, and within no time was inside of me. I was just in shock,” Cox told The Daily Beast.

Cox went on to say that she didn’t feel that she could say no.

“There was not really a chance in my mind to object or resist. It just happened really fast. I froze and was in shock. Nothing like that had ever happened to me before in any way, shape or form. I was completely caught off-guard,"
[emphasis mine]

She tacitly admits that she did not say "no", that she didn't object, and she didn't resist. Her reasons for this are because she "didn't feel that she could" and there was "not really a chance" to do so. Do you realize how much time it would take and how difficult it would be for a man to pull down a woman's pants/underwear and be inside her without her cooperation? It wouldn't happen "within no time". But she had no chance to do so... This is after she willingly accompanies him to a private area, a man she claims she was already uncomfortable with. Also absent from this article is the "victim's" admission that she was drunk at the time.

As to why you have no problem believing it, that likely has to do with the media insisting that you should "Believe Women". Of course, by necessity, that means you should disbelieve men. Approaching it objectively, I think this story is incredible on its face.

Try looking at things from the woman's perspective dude. The law is the law and morals are morals!
 

SleutherLou

#LivelikeLizzy
You probably should. Consider what this woman has said:

“I didn’t know how to respond—but before I could even think about what to do about it, he pulled me into one of these little side [booths], and pulled down my pants, and turned me around, and within no time was inside of me. I was just in shock,” Cox told The Daily Beast.

Cox went on to say that she didn’t feel that she could say no.

“There was not really a chance in my mind to object or resist. It just happened really fast. I froze and was in shock. Nothing like that had ever happened to me before in any way, shape or form. I was completely caught off-guard,"
[emphasis mine]

She tacitly admits that she did not say "no", that she didn't object, and she didn't resist. Her reasons for this are because she "didn't feel that she could" and there was "not really a chance" to do so. Do you realize how much time it would take and how difficult it would be for a man to pull down a woman's pants/underwear and be inside her without her cooperation? It wouldn't happen "within no time". But she had no chance to do so... This is after she willingly accompanies him to a private area, a man she claims she was already uncomfortable with. Also absent from this article is the "victim's" admission that she was drunk at the time.

As to why you have no problem believing it, that likely has to do with the media insisting that you should "Believe Women". Of course, by necessity, that means you should disbelieve men. Approaching it objectively, I think this story is incredible on its face.

Why did I know that when we received your response to this article you would be blaming the victim?, I have waited for your reply hoping that I would be wrong,but nope predictably you think it's her fault,she had been drinking,she went outside with him.... I honestly dont know what to make of you other than that so far you come across as someone who basically believes a man has every right to have sex with a woman regardless of whether she wants him to or not and I really dont know what to say about it without being rude!
 

SheWhoMustNotBeNamed

Administrator
Staff member
So the LAW about rape doesn't matter because some people don't like it. But the LAW that says Casey Anthony and OJ are not murderers is perfectly fine.
Women should learn to control their own behaviors to prevent men from getting the wrong idea, but men are not responsible at all for their own behavior.
Got it.

1595110085189.png
 

Cousin Dupree

I know nothing - Grandmabear about herself.
Oh dear God, it's a real word!! :teehee:

gynocracy

Also found in: Thesaurus, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

gy·noc·ra·cy
(gī-nŏk′rə-sē, jĭ-)
n.
Variant of gynecocracy.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
gynocracy
(dʒaɪˈnɒkrəsɪ; ɡaɪ-)
n
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) another name for gynaecocracy
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
Gynocracy
women as the ruling class, 1728.
Dictionary of Collective Nouns and Group Terms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
 

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'
You probably should. Consider what this woman has said:

“I didn’t know how to respond—but before I could even think about what to do about it, he pulled me into one of these little side [booths], and pulled down my pants, and turned me around, and within no time was inside of me. I was just in shock,” Cox told The Daily Beast.

Cox went on to say that she didn’t feel that she could say no.

“There was not really a chance in my mind to object or resist. It just happened really fast. I froze and was in shock. Nothing like that had ever happened to me before in any way, shape or form. I was completely caught off-guard,"
[emphasis mine]

She tacitly admits that she did not say "no", that she didn't object, and she didn't resist. Her reasons for this are because she "didn't feel that she could" and there was "not really a chance" to do so. Do you realize how much time it would take and how difficult it would be for a man to pull down a woman's pants/underwear and be inside her without her cooperation? It wouldn't happen "within no time". But she had no chance to do so... This is after she willingly accompanies him to a private area, a man she claims she was already uncomfortable with. Also absent from this article is the "victim's" admission that she was drunk at the time.

As to why you have no problem believing it, that likely has to do with the media insisting that you should "Believe Women". Of course, by necessity, that means you should disbelieve men. Approaching it objectively, I think this story is incredible on its face.
That is because you have blinders apparently and see it from one perspective and a very slanted one because almost all women can identify with this... I do not have proof it is true but I find it very easy to believe and not at all unusual unfortunately...
 

Howell

Active member
Don't worry. It's just a word thrown out there with zero truth.
"Government by women". Except women are outnumbered 3-4 to 1 almost everywhere in government.

United States women in congress = 23.7%
Women in statewide elected offices = 28.9%
Women in state legislature = 30%
Women in municipal offices = ~20%

Does our government work in the interest of men, tho? Do divorce laws, rape laws, employment laws, etc. favor men? How many laws have been created specifically to protect the interests of only men? Is there a "Violence Against Men Act"?
 

Cousin Dupree

I know nothing - Grandmabear about herself.
Does our government work in the interest of men, tho? Do divorce laws, rape laws, employment laws, etc. favor men? How many laws have been created specifically to protect the interests of only men? Is there a "Violence Against Men Act"?

White men RULE this country. It seems to me that when anyone else outside of the white guy elite club wants a bit more power the white guy elites will only give in if it helps them. I think it would be best for you to sit down and think what other people's lives must be like. Y'know, people unlike us, white men.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,528
Messages
51,137
Members
279
Latest member
Clarice
Top