Oh No.. Star Treks Lieutenant SULU is Accused of Sexual Assault.

originally posted by: Autorico
a reply to: intrepid

It's really difficult to imagine George being aggressive because I've never seen him be that way. That doesn't mean he isn't capable, just hard to imagine for me.

Exactly. It's the antithesis of what we know about George.

a reply to: ketsuko

There is no way to prove it now.

Correct. So what would be the point in lying about it?


Your friend passes out after two drinks? That being the case, I would think they would not drink at all.

a reply to: Phage

Lightweights need to drink sometimes too, Phage. Jeeze.

originally posted by: Phage

Oh. Sorry.

You're right, of course. There is no proof of sexual assault. It just don't exist.

They let you do anything. They like it. Really.

Well the problem is that assault is what a person feels is an assault. The same scenario can be either good or bad for a person, so communication needs to take place, but decades later is kind of late unless it is a pedophile type situation.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Read the claim. It is a description of an assault. Not a lot of grey to it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xtrozero

Read the claim. It is a description of an assault. Not a lot of grey to it.

Read the article. He said he shared this with others over the years when "talking about strange things")paraphrased). If that's the case it would have come out by now. Sounds like BS to me.

a reply to: intrepid

If that's the case it would have come out by now.

Maybe. But apparently not.

Sounds like BS to me.

It could be. But what would be the point?

I think this whole subject really boils down to the ultimate motivations of the alleged 'victim'.

If the motive is criminal prosecution then it should be given merit and investigated to the fullest of the law. If, on the other hand, the ultimate motivation is money then I believe this calls into question the character of the accuser. Given that civil cases are much more successful following a criminal conviction it is often difficult to determine the ultimate motivation of the victim. HOWEVER, in the event of an affirmative criminal conviction, the ultimate motivations of the victim become irrelevant...and they should be entitled to any and all remedies under the law. Consequently, perhaps there should be a significant negative repercussion for (well) after the fact accusations...such as a prohibition against seeking civil damages in the absence of a criminal conviction for the same alleged act.

Defense attorneys in civil proceedings often say just the fact that there was a criminal trial, regardless of disposition, will naturally bias a jury in favor of the plaintiff. This advantage needs to be removed.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
In this case, the statute of limitation precludes either course of action.

So...what's the point of lying about it?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I read an article the other day that explained that victims usually go the civil suit route because there is less burden of proof.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xtrozero

Read the claim. It is a description of an assault. Not a lot of grey to it.

Not Grey????????????????????????? Really? lol

A model 23 years old at the time is saying now almost 40 years last that "Takei took advantage of him when he was most vulnerable."

So Phage what the hell does that mean... Give me a break...

It seems in Hollywood, everyone has been abused, or everyone is trying to get in the "I been assaulted too club".

a reply to: Xtrozero

A model 23 years old at the time is saying now almost 40 years last that "Takei took advantage of him when he was most vulnerable."

That paraphrasing is not accurate.

a reply to: Autorico

And you read correctly. However, civil awards are staggeringly more successful following a criminal conviction, and the awards are far more punitive. Consequently, it is much better to attempt a criminal prosecution prior to attempting civil litigation.

a reply to: Phage

You make a valid point.

Because the topic has traction in the media right now, and there is a better climate for seeking some sort of remuneration, even if it's as simple as getting paid (out of court settlement style) to drop the matter in the public eye. In essence "hush money".

edit...and even further to the point; we could turn that question around 180 degrees and ask the same thing...if there's nothing which can be done, then why bring it up now? Cuts both ways.

originally posted by: Phage
It could be. But what would be the point?

Attention.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

if there's nothing which can be done, then why bring it up now?

To bring attention to the fact that it happens.
That those with status (power, celebrity) can abuse that status. If that abuse is not confronted it will continue. That seems to be what its about.

I just knew this guy wasn't a real liberal!

a reply to: Phage

Maybe you're correct.

I just wonder though...40 years ago was 1977. The original series ran from 66-68 and was nearly cancelled due to low ratings after the first season. It was only revived due to a cult following and only ran for two more seasons after that. How much impact would such a revelation about Takei made in '77 vs. today?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

How much impact would such a revelation about Takei made in '77 vs. today?

This incident is alleged to have occurred in 1981. Takei outed himself in 2005. It probably would have had an impact.

en.wikipedia.org...(film_series)

a reply to: Phage

I stand corrected on the 1977 date.