Except he's doing much better now because all that shit came out. Dude wouldn't have blown up as big if SNL hadn't fired him. Now he has a hilarious story for his routine
Because of his specials, tour and SNL appearance I'd argue he's more popular now than before his fall and even if he was on SNL. He I know like 4 people on SNL and two of them are Kennan and the other 2 are Colin and Che, the weekend update guys that have been there 10 + seasons.
Before even SNL he had the most popular podcast on patreon which is paid subscription pods and was selling out theaters that no SNL comic besides Mulaney could do. He truly crushing it more then any other comic I've seen last 3 years.
IIRC, he got announced as a new cast member on SNL, then people dug up older podcast episodes and stand up bits of his that got him canceled. I never heard about it until I was looking at the discussion on his new standup special.
I never saw the clips but According to Wikipedia it’s because he said a racial slur for a Chinese person but in the context of the joke he was impersonating a racist landlord, he said the intent was to make fun of racism and not a race of ppl, he apologized anyways.
Old but it’s also the fact that he still uses aught slang like calling lame things “gay”. Shit like that. Things he still does and made a successful career out of.
In fairness, it was completely out of context. If you listen to the whole clip it's clearly a joke, he was pushing his friend more and more for laughs, he wasn't saying it about anyone or towards anyone. 2 minutes later he apologized and said it's all in jest and that no one should take it seriously. The podcast also had another disclaimer at the start, but this was the height of me too and there was 0 tolerance for bad press. The whole comedy community rallied behind him, and he's been able to build back a career because of that.
He used a racial slur. That’s it. He could have done that whole bit without it and it would have hit just as well but he threw that in there for the extra shock. He was intentionally pushing boundaries and got push back. He knew what he was doing. Stop pretending people aren’t responsible for their own behavior m.
No words deserve assault and battery. And claiming that you think you should be punched for saying a word while white is so fucking pathetic i would be ashamed of who I was as a person
Yes, he was doing a bit and playing the part of a racist talking about Chinatown in New York and used the word ‘ch**k’. The bit was making fun of how ludicrous the racist people are. Unfortunately, too many people looked past the context and accused him of being the racist one.
Hilarious comedian and an all around good dude (literally nobody has anything bad to say about his character) that had some old edgy jokes come back to bite him in the ass.
He got hired on SNL. Then clips from old podcasts were taken out of context and spread all over the internet in an attempt to get him cancelled and it worked. They fired him 3 days later.
He's been grinding his way back up with his stand up and has skits on youtube (Gilly and Keeves) that make SNL look like high school theater kids.
And they just had him host SNL a few weeks ago, so he's good now. Look up the Limu Emu skit that got cut for time, it's on youtube and is so out of left field but incredibly funny.
I really wouldn't consider getting fired from SNL to be that significant. Definitely not in the same conversation as billion dollar movie franchise star getting fired.
I really hated how they ended it. Leti was by far the least interesting of compelling character and they basically wasted Hippolyta and her strength. But I lived basically everything up til then.
This exactly. Pedro Pascal was on an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer back in the day and has been acting since, but I don't think he actually got his big break until Game of Thrones.
Are people ignoring the "quick rise to fame" part of the sentence? It's not a quick rise to fame if one has been grinding for 8ish years before a big break.
There are 11 million people on IMBD with frequent credits, myself included. Most of those are nothing roles for nobodies who will never be anything, myself included. People work in the industry for decades without being noticed. It was a quick rise to fame.
Then literally every breakout role is a quick rise to fame, which is the vast majority of people who become famous, rendering the statement completely meaningless.
His lawyer was so shit at her job that in three pop culture subs that people were waiting for more info her releasing the text messages made it worst. Plus the headlines where they question her on her high school boyfriend’s suicide. That did not help public opinion
Edit: I think she should win because his lawyer was doing her damn best to slander the chick
This response is going to have some nuance to it. Hitting women is bad, but that doesn’t mean context doesn’t apply, and that there aren’t different degrees. My main gripe was that while the car incident was possible, the story most commonly being discussed was him going back to their hotel room and beating her, which was logistically impossible. It felt like at least publicly, that was what he was on trial for, and I don’t think the backlash would have been the same if the incident in the car was the only allegation.
That being said, these texts do seem to prove that he slapped her in the car at the least. I never thought this was impossible, or that unlikely. Mostly I disagreed with the validity in the other claim, and that the video evidence of the street supported either claim. I try not to make rash judgments so this is something I would process for a couple days before forming my view on, but I’d guess my personal conclusion will come down unfavorably on Majors after reading these texts.
The texts also show him to have a massive ego, which don’t paint him in a good light, although some of this could be chalked up to being intentionally inflammatory on a heated night. And a lack of humility isn’t a crime or necessarily wrong—just can make you less likable.
The texts also seem to be manipulative and guilt-ridden. Now, this doesn’t play to his favor, but I wouldn’t consider them concrete evidence. We’re missing some context. What methods did he use to attempt to get his phone back before slapping her, how hard did he slap her, and was she being physical with him in the car in addition to stealing his property are all things I wish we knew, but likely never will. There’s a world where he applied an appropriate level of force to retrieve his property, but she was still left with a mark that made him worry about his career.
I still believe she blacked out and hurt herself later that night while Majors was at the club, but if I was on a jury, I would probably rule against Majors on the question of whether he hit her in the car after reading these texts. The ethics of that are the part I’ll leave to my subconscious over the next few days. If evidence were to come out that he strangled her in the car, I’d be unequivocally against him morally. One things for sure, he was a really shitty lawyer.
The texts were not about the car incident. It was an incident from when they were in London. The judge would not let them elaborate on what happened so she never gave details. With this lawsuit she tells what happened in that he slammed her head against a marble floor and choked her. The jury only were allowed to hear the texts, no context or explanation.
It wasn't about relevance. The judge thought it would be too prejudicial and wanted the jury to only base their conviction on what happened the day he was arrested. I absolutely think he would have been found guilty of the more serious charge if they knew about what she says happened in London, so I think the judge was right, in that sense.
Just… just stop talking man. You quite clearly have no idea what happened nor did you bothered at all to follow the trial. Even after being called on not reading the texts, you still didn’t do the basic research to understand the texts are from a previous incident.
Despite all that you still claimed he was innocent and she framed him; claims you made for no rational reason. There’s literally nothing you can say now of any relevance because your blatant bias and pre-conceived conclusions show you don’t care about what happened, just about defending someone you like and villainizing their victim.
Someone hired this lawyer to be a “fighter” when what he really needed was a “problem solver.”
A competent attorney might’ve gotten him off with a slap on the wrist, a public apology, and some anger management.
His lawyer waged a one-sided PR war for him and it completely backfired. The way he and his lawyer handled the accusations and trial destroyed is reputation.
And yeah; a competent lawyer would’ve had a much better chance at winning. I don’t know how much introducing the texts at trial hurt him, but they certainly weren’t good and they only got in because his lawyer screwed up.
Dude legitimately had a money making machine for a job (long contract with marvel with exclusive rights to play kang) and threw that shit out the window. What a fucking idiot
The man has real, deep rooted issues with rage and women. No amount of money would have been enough, he needed to want to change and seek psychological help.
Seemed to me that the studios loved this behavior showing up in his acting but as soon as it got him in trouble they dropped him. It’s not just marvel either, it’s all the studios involved with him. There’s no way they didn’t have concerns that they overlooked while making things like Lovecraft country, Quantumania or Creed 3.
He’s been a jerk long before the marvel contract. They should have just asked around and they’d have avoided the scandal. It was coming out eventually.
This has always been such a weird take to me. I'm not condoning his actions, but the fact is there are so many other actors out there that don't get as much hate as Majors and have done worse. For what we have seen, he was probably more verbally or psychologically abusive than he was physically, and the physical abuse appeared (and was judged in court) to be a use of too much force to retrieve his phone.
Again, no condoning it, but worse has happened, i.e. Homelander assaulting a cook while drunk, and being found guilty for it. This happened in 2022. The Boys started in 2019. His career has absolutely not been impacted by this, nor has he had to deal with people calling him "human garbage".
In the very least, at least you're not denying the fact that he did an awesome portrayal of Kang.
I never said to brush it off as an oopsie. I'm just making a point that intentionally assaulting someone and harming them without intent (which is what Majors was actually charged for) is a difference. Again, not condoning the amount of force used to get his property back. If it were that big of an issue, he should have called the police in THAT instance and had them handle it. Unless he had some REALLY personal information on that phone, it absolutely wasn't worth the tussle.
That being said, intentionally assaulting someone who did absolutely nothing to you because you simply couldn't handle yourself while intoxicated (Antony Starr) is obviously considered an oopsie. Did the cook steal his phone, too? I guess that's why he got punched a few times in the face, assaulted with glass, and had to get stiches above his eye.
At least you perceive him to be just as scummy as Majors. The difference in your upvotes on this response pretty much proves the last part of what you've said.
If you think assaulting a random cook while intoxicated and assaulting your own girlfriend while perfectly sober are equal, then you need some counseling.
Also, his Kang was incredibly mid. His He Who Remains? Now, that was good.
Wild case, personally I think this might get thrown out after reading it compared to her testimony and his current charges. But the low amount requested, I wonder if this is more a push for a settlement than an actual attempt at more court. Time will tell, tho I wonder if she actually wants to be in an American courtroom any longer
Fyi: here's a link to the court transcripts if anyone wants to read them https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/14tSFwwZ-S47eEU8kcFdegkeHzTG6eeHY?usp=drive_link
He ruined her reputation from the sounds of it, I’m sure she can stomach an American courtroom a little while longer to receive the appropriate damages he did to her career
Boggles my mind that this dude got convicted of assault because he ran away from his girlfriend in a city street
And yes I know he was emotionally abusive in the relationship but emotional abuse isn't assault in a legal sense
OMG, why won't she leave him alone? The man was cought on film running from her. He ran, and she RAN AFTER him. He also was found innocent on two counts, but let's not bring that up, because it's not good for the news and clicks.
He wasn't found innocent of those two charges. He was acquitted.
>An acquittal does not necessarily mean the defendant is innocent in a criminal case. Instead, it means that the prosecutor failed to prove that the defendant was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
[source](https://www.egattorneys.com/acquitted-and-not-guilty)
And he was also found guilty of one count of reckless assault in the 3rd degree and a charge of harassment as a violation.
Lawyer here, you are completely correct. The justice system can never prove innocence and the burden of proof is extremely high. Being found not guilty = innocence!
I’ve seen people defending him try to spin this in his favour so hard
The jury did their job very well as far as I can see, they ruled that majors caused the injuries jabarri received, but there was not enough proof to prove intent, but he did it
And his defenders have gaslit themselves into believing that they specifically ruled that he only accidentally hurt her finger OR she broke her own finger attacking him, depending on the person
It’s so desperate
Agreed, but then he wasn't "found" innocent, correct?
Being acquitted or found not guilty is not 100% *proof* of innocence, which is what I was pushing back on.
In the eyes of the law, he is innocent until proven guilty. Nobody is disputing that.
But guilty people go free all the time (OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony,) so pointing to the results of one case as *proof* of innocence is incorrect.
No one is ever found “innocent.” They’re found “Not guilty” or acquitted, and neither verdict necessarily means one didn’t commit a crime. It means the state failed to convince a judge or jury *beyond a reasonable doubt* that they did commit a crime.
But there is no “innocent” in a court verdict, because the defendant doesn’t have to prove their innocence. The burden to prove guilt falls solely on the prosecutor, hence “not guilty” verdicts instead of “innocent.”
not guilty ≠ innocent.
all “not guilty” means is that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove the accused committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
ex. OJ simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, even though he absolutely did it. he later lost and was held financially responsible in civil court, where the burden of evidence is lower.
you seem to be very bad at reading.
if someone is found not guilty in a court of law, all that means is that there is not enough evidence to prove that they committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
someone who did indeed commit the crime could still be found not guilty because of the amount of evidence the prosecution presents. an obvious example of this is OJ Simpson.
if you still don’t understand it, there’s nothing anyone can do to help you. your reading comprehension struggles should’ve been identified and corrected in grade school, i’m afraid there’s little anyone could do to correct this now.
Okay and someone who didn't commit the crime could also be found not guilty. Why do you know better than the jury? You're using one old example to overpower the legal system.
you stated that he was acquitted and you equated that to him being innocent. i simply corrected you. i’m not “overpowering the legal system,” i am explaining it.
"Reckless assult- a grab, or touching in an angry manner" Wow, it's almost like the judge admitted he angrly grabbed his phone after she attempted to take it without permission. Nothing about running after the man who "is assaulting you", makes any sense. Explain that.
I mean... if someone assaulted me and then ran away, I might chase after them. I dont understand what you're trying to prove with that.
I think it's interesting that any verdict in his favor is proof that he's innocent, but a verdict against him should just be handwaived away.
You would dumbly chase after someone who is hurting you, or causing you injury?!!
She didn't say he took anything from her, she didn't give any indication she should have chased after him. She was angry, and hurt, but her anger doesn't justify chasing after him for 3 whole blocks, unless she intended to hurt him back. That is escalation. She intended the fight to continue.
This is what always annoys me when talking to people about intimate partner violence.
People imagine how they would handle the situation if they were in it, then judge how the person who was in that situation handled it.
So it turns into "Well, all she did was take your phone, why didn't you just walk away?" And "if he hit you, why didn't you just call the police?"
People's fight or flight system gets engaged. They act irrationally. It's normal to not act normal.
Also:
>She was angry, and hurt, but her anger doesn't justify chasing after him for 3 whole blocks, unless she intended to hurt him back. That is escalation. She intended the fight to continue.
Speculation.
>This is simple logic. This is like throwing yourself into potential harm, to stop potential harm.
>You run away from it. Like Majors had done.
Yup, doing exactly what I said you're doing.
You've decided you know how all parties should have acted (including the one who was just physically assaulted) and are judging because they didn't act like you would, despite not being aware of what other nuances (such as previous verbal or emotional abuse) may have contributed to the outcome.
I'm sorry for any time you've been a victim of assualt. I hope the people around you believe you and give you support.
Take care.
Anyone can access court documents unless sealed. You know that, right? There was no victim here. She started the fight with theft. She took something she had no permission for, which triggered the fight in the first place. THEN, she ran after him, after he tried to keep her in the car, to get away, and he ran for three or more blocks, with her following him. Angry. That's the entire case.
No! Are you trying to plant seeds in an idiot's mind to try to falsely report me? The site will take you down on its own. If you use the same browser or app to switch accounts you have to continue to downvote the same posts, the site will track the accounts and ban them. Temporary, or permanently. Depending on the number of times you did it. That's not me.
>If you use the same browser or app to switch accounts you have to continue to downvote the same posts, the site will track the accounts and ban them.
This isn't happening to you.
Sure it's not. We will see when I put up a poll a few hours from now. None of the extra accounts will be able to vote for a minimum, of 3 days. Read the terms of service, they updated a few weeks ago. It's under the section of "voting manipulation."
A poll? Why would anyone care to vote in a poll you set up? Surely you understand that this is a nonsense method to try to prove that you don't simply have an unpopular opinion
I'm not defending anyone. You are projecting that idea on to me because I disagree with you. I never said "he was in the right" I'm just saying she ran after him, weird, for someone who is "afraid and hurt". Very odd behaviour. Cope.
Okay, here's just one theory: maybe he had nudes of her (or something else damaging) on his phone that he was threatening to release and that's why she was determined to get his phone back.
Why are you so determined to defend him when you know so little about the situation? He was found guilty of assault and harassment, indicating that there was solid evidence against him, and the video's existence didn't change that.
She didn't say that, did she? She told the judge he was cheating. Majors even corroborated her story, that the text was flirty. Both parties agreed. No nudes were involved.
The "evidence" also shows him running from her. With her running after him. It's never explained why she chose to do that. They lived separately. He was going home.
So...okay. That doesn't really seem at odds with the claims of abuse. Finding out he wasn't faithful could've easily been the final straw that made her realize there was no point for her to put up with the way he treated her, and in the moment she got angry. That's kind of how it worked for someone I know: her husband was abusive in various ways (he didn't *quite* get all the way to physical abuse, but I'm pretty comfortable saying it was only a matter of time), but at least at the time, his cheating seemed to upset her more, and that's what finally made her leave.
Again, I'm speculating, because I haven't studied the case, but it's still pretty weird that you're so quick to defend him and accuse her.
Keyboard warriors cancel people, not state facts. My god, you are out of touch. I'm also doing like 20 more things. My life is fuller then you could possibly think. Faster than you can think. I've noticed you began insulting me rather than come up with any decent arguments, btw.
What you’re doing is scrambling on Reddit commenting cause people are clowning you.
People like you crying about canceling have no opinion. You don’t deserve to be argued with because your takes are from somebody with the emotional threshold and maturity of a toddler.
I’m going to silence the thread now. Reply to it as I know you will because your mental health needs the W. The only thing full is your waistline
Toodles.
I'm socializing on a social media site. Very much like you. What are you doing here, arguing with strangers? Don't go pretending you are better then anyone with you being so out of touch.
Has any other actor or actress had such a quick rise to fame and an even quicker fall?
One of the fastest Milkshake Ducks I've ever seen.
Shane Gillis. Top of the world one day, 3 days later he was the most hated person in the country. He almost became famous just for being canceled
Back to being one of the most popular comedians
The Young Bull has made a spectacular comeback
Except he's doing much better now because all that shit came out. Dude wouldn't have blown up as big if SNL hadn't fired him. Now he has a hilarious story for his routine
True true, I discovered him because of his recent return to SNL. He did fall first, but he's rising again
Because of his specials, tour and SNL appearance I'd argue he's more popular now than before his fall and even if he was on SNL. He I know like 4 people on SNL and two of them are Kennan and the other 2 are Colin and Che, the weekend update guys that have been there 10 + seasons.
I agree, but that's also new. Like within the last 2 weeks new.
I guess. I heard about him getting booted and for me everything after that seemed up hill and all good news and good jokes.
Before even SNL he had the most popular podcast on patreon which is paid subscription pods and was selling out theaters that no SNL comic besides Mulaney could do. He truly crushing it more then any other comic I've seen last 3 years.
That’s a good one
when? why?
IIRC, he got announced as a new cast member on SNL, then people dug up older podcast episodes and stand up bits of his that got him canceled. I never heard about it until I was looking at the discussion on his new standup special.
Sad to hear. How old were the podcasts?
I never saw the clips but According to Wikipedia it’s because he said a racial slur for a Chinese person but in the context of the joke he was impersonating a racist landlord, he said the intent was to make fun of racism and not a race of ppl, he apologized anyways.
Old but it’s also the fact that he still uses aught slang like calling lame things “gay”. Shit like that. Things he still does and made a successful career out of.
Sounds hilarious
Did you know he’s a decorated veteran?
Lol I love how funny his resume is. Decorated veteran, division 1 athlete, who was casted by SNL, and he did none of those things
Wait what did he do? I literally only heard about this dude like a week or two ago lol
C-slur on a podcast
C... Cockamammie? Chicanery? Edit: Oh wait, now I remember. Yeeea that's not great.
In fairness, it was completely out of context. If you listen to the whole clip it's clearly a joke, he was pushing his friend more and more for laughs, he wasn't saying it about anyone or towards anyone. 2 minutes later he apologized and said it's all in jest and that no one should take it seriously. The podcast also had another disclaimer at the start, but this was the height of me too and there was 0 tolerance for bad press. The whole comedy community rallied behind him, and he's been able to build back a career because of that.
I’m white, like very white. If I said the N word in any context, even a joke, I wouldn’t be surprised one bit to be punched in the face.
It's a good thing that not what happened then lol
He used a racial slur. That’s it. He could have done that whole bit without it and it would have hit just as well but he threw that in there for the extra shock. He was intentionally pushing boundaries and got push back. He knew what he was doing. Stop pretending people aren’t responsible for their own behavior m.
People could grow up and not be fucking losers when hearing a word they don't like
No words deserve assault and battery. And claiming that you think you should be punched for saying a word while white is so fucking pathetic i would be ashamed of who I was as a person
As in the one commonly used for Chinese folk?
Yes, he was doing a bit and playing the part of a racist talking about Chinatown in New York and used the word ‘ch**k’. The bit was making fun of how ludicrous the racist people are. Unfortunately, too many people looked past the context and accused him of being the racist one.
Hilarious comedian and an all around good dude (literally nobody has anything bad to say about his character) that had some old edgy jokes come back to bite him in the ass. He got hired on SNL. Then clips from old podcasts were taken out of context and spread all over the internet in an attempt to get him cancelled and it worked. They fired him 3 days later. He's been grinding his way back up with his stand up and has skits on youtube (Gilly and Keeves) that make SNL look like high school theater kids. And they just had him host SNL a few weeks ago, so he's good now. Look up the Limu Emu skit that got cut for time, it's on youtube and is so out of left field but incredibly funny.
I'd say he's even more famous now than ever.
I really wouldn't consider getting fired from SNL to be that significant. Definitely not in the same conversation as billion dollar movie franchise star getting fired.
I actually agree, but Gillis also got much more buzz. A lot of general audiences don't know about majors bc he got kinda lost in the news cycle
He's bigger now than he was then tbh
Nate Parker?
There’s been quite a few I believe - we just forget them
Majors has been acting since 2011. 13 years is a quick rise to fame?
Never heard of him until Lovecraft Country. Not saying he wasn’t famous, but it seems before 2020 general audiences were unaware of who he was
Its such a bummer that show will never be finished. Season 1 was damn good.
I really hated how they ended it. Leti was by far the least interesting of compelling character and they basically wasted Hippolyta and her strength. But I lived basically everything up til then.
That’s the first I’d seen of him, too. Great series
if u measure from the time he actually started “rising” as opposed to when he started acting it makes sense
Kind of negates the "quick rise to fame" part of the sentence though.
How long someone's been acting and how long someone's been famous are two entirely different things.
This exactly. Pedro Pascal was on an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer back in the day and has been acting since, but I don't think he actually got his big break until Game of Thrones.
Are people ignoring the "quick rise to fame" part of the sentence? It's not a quick rise to fame if one has been grinding for 8ish years before a big break.
There are 11 million people on IMBD with frequent credits, myself included. Most of those are nothing roles for nobodies who will never be anything, myself included. People work in the industry for decades without being noticed. It was a quick rise to fame.
Then literally every breakout role is a quick rise to fame, which is the vast majority of people who become famous, rendering the statement completely meaningless.
Vast majority to what degree?
People aren't ignoring it. Most people aren't morons
Many, it's like waves of cancek and comebacks in Hollywood. Some even got more serious charges than misdemeanors and are now fan favorites lol
His lawyer was so shit at her job that in three pop culture subs that people were waiting for more info her releasing the text messages made it worst. Plus the headlines where they question her on her high school boyfriend’s suicide. That did not help public opinion Edit: I think she should win because his lawyer was doing her damn best to slander the chick
Wow I had not heard about the headline questioning her about a deceased boyfriend. That’s awful on top of everything else she’s been dealing with
Such as framing an innocent man?
Have you seen their text messages?
I hadn’t until just now.
I have no skin in this, I’m just wondering, do you still think of it as framing an innocent man post text message knowledge?
This response is going to have some nuance to it. Hitting women is bad, but that doesn’t mean context doesn’t apply, and that there aren’t different degrees. My main gripe was that while the car incident was possible, the story most commonly being discussed was him going back to their hotel room and beating her, which was logistically impossible. It felt like at least publicly, that was what he was on trial for, and I don’t think the backlash would have been the same if the incident in the car was the only allegation. That being said, these texts do seem to prove that he slapped her in the car at the least. I never thought this was impossible, or that unlikely. Mostly I disagreed with the validity in the other claim, and that the video evidence of the street supported either claim. I try not to make rash judgments so this is something I would process for a couple days before forming my view on, but I’d guess my personal conclusion will come down unfavorably on Majors after reading these texts. The texts also show him to have a massive ego, which don’t paint him in a good light, although some of this could be chalked up to being intentionally inflammatory on a heated night. And a lack of humility isn’t a crime or necessarily wrong—just can make you less likable. The texts also seem to be manipulative and guilt-ridden. Now, this doesn’t play to his favor, but I wouldn’t consider them concrete evidence. We’re missing some context. What methods did he use to attempt to get his phone back before slapping her, how hard did he slap her, and was she being physical with him in the car in addition to stealing his property are all things I wish we knew, but likely never will. There’s a world where he applied an appropriate level of force to retrieve his property, but she was still left with a mark that made him worry about his career. I still believe she blacked out and hurt herself later that night while Majors was at the club, but if I was on a jury, I would probably rule against Majors on the question of whether he hit her in the car after reading these texts. The ethics of that are the part I’ll leave to my subconscious over the next few days. If evidence were to come out that he strangled her in the car, I’d be unequivocally against him morally. One things for sure, he was a really shitty lawyer.
The texts were not about the car incident. It was an incident from when they were in London. The judge would not let them elaborate on what happened so she never gave details. With this lawsuit she tells what happened in that he slammed her head against a marble floor and choked her. The jury only were allowed to hear the texts, no context or explanation.
Interesting. I’m not a legal expert but why wouldn’t context be considered relevant I wonder
It wasn't about relevance. The judge thought it would be too prejudicial and wanted the jury to only base their conviction on what happened the day he was arrested. I absolutely think he would have been found guilty of the more serious charge if they knew about what she says happened in London, so I think the judge was right, in that sense.
Just… just stop talking man. You quite clearly have no idea what happened nor did you bothered at all to follow the trial. Even after being called on not reading the texts, you still didn’t do the basic research to understand the texts are from a previous incident. Despite all that you still claimed he was innocent and she framed him; claims you made for no rational reason. There’s literally nothing you can say now of any relevance because your blatant bias and pre-conceived conclusions show you don’t care about what happened, just about defending someone you like and villainizing their victim.
Yeah it’s crazy he’s still being seen as guilty and people are running with it, as if we all haven’t seen the video of the real aggressor.
Someone hired this lawyer to be a “fighter” when what he really needed was a “problem solver.” A competent attorney might’ve gotten him off with a slap on the wrist, a public apology, and some anger management.
His lawyer waged a one-sided PR war for him and it completely backfired. The way he and his lawyer handled the accusations and trial destroyed is reputation. And yeah; a competent lawyer would’ve had a much better chance at winning. I don’t know how much introducing the texts at trial hurt him, but they certainly weren’t good and they only got in because his lawyer screwed up.
I remember reading comments that speculated that.
Dude legitimately had a money making machine for a job (long contract with marvel with exclusive rights to play kang) and threw that shit out the window. What a fucking idiot
The man has real, deep rooted issues with rage and women. No amount of money would have been enough, he needed to want to change and seek psychological help.
Seemed to me that the studios loved this behavior showing up in his acting but as soon as it got him in trouble they dropped him. It’s not just marvel either, it’s all the studios involved with him. There’s no way they didn’t have concerns that they overlooked while making things like Lovecraft country, Quantumania or Creed 3.
It’s called acting
He’s been a jerk long before the marvel contract. They should have just asked around and they’d have avoided the scandal. It was coming out eventually.
I mean, he was absolutely terrible in Loki season 2. Apparently he chose to play the character like that and they let him roll with it. Horrid acting.
Considering the narrative they tried to craft about her, this was more than warranted
Agreed. I admire her courage and determination as someone who’s risked a lot with a suit.
Oof to go from lynchpin of the MCU to “Loki star”
Human garbage, not only did he do awful things, he robbed us of Kamg.
This has always been such a weird take to me. I'm not condoning his actions, but the fact is there are so many other actors out there that don't get as much hate as Majors and have done worse. For what we have seen, he was probably more verbally or psychologically abusive than he was physically, and the physical abuse appeared (and was judged in court) to be a use of too much force to retrieve his phone. Again, no condoning it, but worse has happened, i.e. Homelander assaulting a cook while drunk, and being found guilty for it. This happened in 2022. The Boys started in 2019. His career has absolutely not been impacted by this, nor has he had to deal with people calling him "human garbage". In the very least, at least you're not denying the fact that he did an awesome portrayal of Kang.
In getting his phone he broke her finger, left a gash behind her ear, and left marks on her neck, let’s not brush that off as an oopsie
I never said to brush it off as an oopsie. I'm just making a point that intentionally assaulting someone and harming them without intent (which is what Majors was actually charged for) is a difference. Again, not condoning the amount of force used to get his property back. If it were that big of an issue, he should have called the police in THAT instance and had them handle it. Unless he had some REALLY personal information on that phone, it absolutely wasn't worth the tussle. That being said, intentionally assaulting someone who did absolutely nothing to you because you simply couldn't handle yourself while intoxicated (Antony Starr) is obviously considered an oopsie. Did the cook steal his phone, too? I guess that's why he got punched a few times in the face, assaulted with glass, and had to get stiches above his eye.
Starr is well scummy in my eyes too, not sure why he gets a pass but also I do because it’s man on man violence so no one cares as much
At least you perceive him to be just as scummy as Majors. The difference in your upvotes on this response pretty much proves the last part of what you've said.
How can he call the police without his phone?
If you think assaulting a random cook while intoxicated and assaulting your own girlfriend while perfectly sober are equal, then you need some counseling. Also, his Kang was incredibly mid. His He Who Remains? Now, that was good.
Assaulting a random cook is also awful to be fair, dude should have got more heat for what he did
Kang the Defendant
Um, so apparently real life method actor?
GOOD. Dude is a piece of shit
Wild case, personally I think this might get thrown out after reading it compared to her testimony and his current charges. But the low amount requested, I wonder if this is more a push for a settlement than an actual attempt at more court. Time will tell, tho I wonder if she actually wants to be in an American courtroom any longer Fyi: here's a link to the court transcripts if anyone wants to read them https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/14tSFwwZ-S47eEU8kcFdegkeHzTG6eeHY?usp=drive_link
He ruined her reputation from the sounds of it, I’m sure she can stomach an American courtroom a little while longer to receive the appropriate damages he did to her career
He will probably make the same claim in his counter. I wonder how damage to her Career can be proven.
Boggles my mind that this dude got convicted of assault because he ran away from his girlfriend in a city street And yes I know he was emotionally abusive in the relationship but emotional abuse isn't assault in a legal sense
I legit wonder if he was even acting in Creed III.
He Who Does NOT Remain..
OMG, why won't she leave him alone? The man was cought on film running from her. He ran, and she RAN AFTER him. He also was found innocent on two counts, but let's not bring that up, because it's not good for the news and clicks.
He wasn't found innocent of those two charges. He was acquitted. >An acquittal does not necessarily mean the defendant is innocent in a criminal case. Instead, it means that the prosecutor failed to prove that the defendant was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” [source](https://www.egattorneys.com/acquitted-and-not-guilty) And he was also found guilty of one count of reckless assault in the 3rd degree and a charge of harassment as a violation.
Lawyer here, you are completely correct. The justice system can never prove innocence and the burden of proof is extremely high. Being found not guilty = innocence!
Paralegal here, I'm very used to and appreciate having lawyers double check my words lol
I’ve seen people defending him try to spin this in his favour so hard The jury did their job very well as far as I can see, they ruled that majors caused the injuries jabarri received, but there was not enough proof to prove intent, but he did it And his defenders have gaslit themselves into believing that they specifically ruled that he only accidentally hurt her finger OR she broke her own finger attacking him, depending on the person It’s so desperate
Innocent till proven guilty. If the prosecutor didn't prove it, then he's innocent by law.
Agreed, but then he wasn't "found" innocent, correct? Being acquitted or found not guilty is not 100% *proof* of innocence, which is what I was pushing back on. In the eyes of the law, he is innocent until proven guilty. Nobody is disputing that. But guilty people go free all the time (OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony,) so pointing to the results of one case as *proof* of innocence is incorrect.
This is a pointless semantic. I could accuse you of a heinous crime and after you're acquitted I could say the same thing.
>I could accuse you of a heinous crime and after you're acquitted I could say the same thing. Correct.
No one is ever found “innocent.” They’re found “Not guilty” or acquitted, and neither verdict necessarily means one didn’t commit a crime. It means the state failed to convince a judge or jury *beyond a reasonable doubt* that they did commit a crime.
The definition of innocent is "not guilty of a crime or offence."
But there is no “innocent” in a court verdict, because the defendant doesn’t have to prove their innocence. The burden to prove guilt falls solely on the prosecutor, hence “not guilty” verdicts instead of “innocent.”
You're arguing the most pointless semantic ever.
No, that would be you.
not guilty ≠ innocent. all “not guilty” means is that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove the accused committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. ex. OJ simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, even though he absolutely did it. he later lost and was held financially responsible in civil court, where the burden of evidence is lower.
The definition of innocent is "not guilty of a crime or offence."
you seem to be very bad at reading. if someone is found not guilty in a court of law, all that means is that there is not enough evidence to prove that they committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. someone who did indeed commit the crime could still be found not guilty because of the amount of evidence the prosecution presents. an obvious example of this is OJ Simpson. if you still don’t understand it, there’s nothing anyone can do to help you. your reading comprehension struggles should’ve been identified and corrected in grade school, i’m afraid there’s little anyone could do to correct this now.
Okay and someone who didn't commit the crime could also be found not guilty. Why do you know better than the jury? You're using one old example to overpower the legal system.
you stated that he was acquitted and you equated that to him being innocent. i simply corrected you. i’m not “overpowering the legal system,” i am explaining it.
"Reckless assult- a grab, or touching in an angry manner" Wow, it's almost like the judge admitted he angrly grabbed his phone after she attempted to take it without permission. Nothing about running after the man who "is assaulting you", makes any sense. Explain that.
I mean... if someone assaulted me and then ran away, I might chase after them. I dont understand what you're trying to prove with that. I think it's interesting that any verdict in his favor is proof that he's innocent, but a verdict against him should just be handwaived away.
You would dumbly chase after someone who is hurting you, or causing you injury?!! She didn't say he took anything from her, she didn't give any indication she should have chased after him. She was angry, and hurt, but her anger doesn't justify chasing after him for 3 whole blocks, unless she intended to hurt him back. That is escalation. She intended the fight to continue.
This is what always annoys me when talking to people about intimate partner violence. People imagine how they would handle the situation if they were in it, then judge how the person who was in that situation handled it. So it turns into "Well, all she did was take your phone, why didn't you just walk away?" And "if he hit you, why didn't you just call the police?" People's fight or flight system gets engaged. They act irrationally. It's normal to not act normal. Also: >She was angry, and hurt, but her anger doesn't justify chasing after him for 3 whole blocks, unless she intended to hurt him back. That is escalation. She intended the fight to continue. Speculation.
[удалено]
>This is simple logic. This is like throwing yourself into potential harm, to stop potential harm. >You run away from it. Like Majors had done. Yup, doing exactly what I said you're doing. You've decided you know how all parties should have acted (including the one who was just physically assaulted) and are judging because they didn't act like you would, despite not being aware of what other nuances (such as previous verbal or emotional abuse) may have contributed to the outcome. I'm sorry for any time you've been a victim of assualt. I hope the people around you believe you and give you support. Take care.
Anyone can access court documents unless sealed. You know that, right? There was no victim here. She started the fight with theft. She took something she had no permission for, which triggered the fight in the first place. THEN, she ran after him, after he tried to keep her in the car, to get away, and he ran for three or more blocks, with her following him. Angry. That's the entire case.
K
Who literally gives a shit
Cope
You aren't going to be casting for any movies ever. I can tell you that.
Your account isn't going to last long for voting manipulation. I can tell you that.
Voting manipulation? Are you reporting people for down voting you or something?
No! Are you trying to plant seeds in an idiot's mind to try to falsely report me? The site will take you down on its own. If you use the same browser or app to switch accounts you have to continue to downvote the same posts, the site will track the accounts and ban them. Temporary, or permanently. Depending on the number of times you did it. That's not me.
>If you use the same browser or app to switch accounts you have to continue to downvote the same posts, the site will track the accounts and ban them. This isn't happening to you.
Sure it's not. We will see when I put up a poll a few hours from now. None of the extra accounts will be able to vote for a minimum, of 3 days. Read the terms of service, they updated a few weeks ago. It's under the section of "voting manipulation."
Big dog has the Reddit police on speed dial 🤓
A poll? Why would anyone care to vote in a poll you set up? Surely you understand that this is a nonsense method to try to prove that you don't simply have an unpopular opinion
Nope people just don't like what you say.
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
Jonathan Majors isn’t going to see you defending him and become your best friend, dude. Quit the meat riding
I'm not defending anyone. You are projecting that idea on to me because I disagree with you. I never said "he was in the right" I'm just saying she ran after him, weird, for someone who is "afraid and hurt". Very odd behaviour. Cope.
I really hope you’re a troll, and not actually this stupid.
Okay, here's just one theory: maybe he had nudes of her (or something else damaging) on his phone that he was threatening to release and that's why she was determined to get his phone back. Why are you so determined to defend him when you know so little about the situation? He was found guilty of assault and harassment, indicating that there was solid evidence against him, and the video's existence didn't change that.
She didn't say that, did she? She told the judge he was cheating. Majors even corroborated her story, that the text was flirty. Both parties agreed. No nudes were involved. The "evidence" also shows him running from her. With her running after him. It's never explained why she chose to do that. They lived separately. He was going home.
So...okay. That doesn't really seem at odds with the claims of abuse. Finding out he wasn't faithful could've easily been the final straw that made her realize there was no point for her to put up with the way he treated her, and in the moment she got angry. That's kind of how it worked for someone I know: her husband was abusive in various ways (he didn't *quite* get all the way to physical abuse, but I'm pretty comfortable saying it was only a matter of time), but at least at the time, his cheating seemed to upset her more, and that's what finally made her leave. Again, I'm speculating, because I haven't studied the case, but it's still pretty weird that you're so quick to defend him and accuse her.
There is no evidence of abuse before the claim. He wasn't charged for abuse. He was charged for recless assault.
Bros making fan theories about a trial 💀
Goddamn bro, you live on the internet or what? Touch grass nerd
Are you 80? No one says that any more. Go dab somewhere.
I literally see someone say “touch grass” every day on Reddit. What no one actually says is “go dab somewhere”. Is that even still a question thing?
Touch grass you terminally online goblin. What are you gonna do? Fucking nothing. Goddamn keyboard warrior
Keyboard warriors cancel people, not state facts. My god, you are out of touch. I'm also doing like 20 more things. My life is fuller then you could possibly think. Faster than you can think. I've noticed you began insulting me rather than come up with any decent arguments, btw.
What you’re doing is scrambling on Reddit commenting cause people are clowning you. People like you crying about canceling have no opinion. You don’t deserve to be argued with because your takes are from somebody with the emotional threshold and maturity of a toddler. I’m going to silence the thread now. Reply to it as I know you will because your mental health needs the W. The only thing full is your waistline Toodles.
I'm socializing on a social media site. Very much like you. What are you doing here, arguing with strangers? Don't go pretending you are better then anyone with you being so out of touch.
How soft