Danny Masterson Charged with Three Counts of Rape "By Force or Fear" *GUILTY 2 of 3*

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:
The sad thing is I don't think he needed any bribery. He probably just saw it as a "good kid" made one mistake.
It very well could be and that plays into more of the boys will be boys club... Or the good ol' boys club... Hard to say. Maybe no bribe. Could be just a donation to his campaign... The girl was unconscious for God's sake. But I sure get what you mean... A judge is more concerned with the perp's future than with what happened to the VICTIM. Makes me ill...
 
I agree with you on this statement. The victim who came forward in 2016 is difficult because she made her report only after someone reached out to her. Why didn't she go to the police after it happened?

I need to actually look more into this case... That is a hard fact to sell... Or not wonder about...
 
Came across this while searching for the Stanford case.


Interesting. I think I remember that somehow, the campus court thing, maybe not this particular article... Kangaroo court for sure... I called a court Monkey Court once. I don't think I have ever been forgiven for that... :( But it was true...
 
That article is just another sign of the problems sexual assault victims face.
I can't disagree. I used to be a pretty optimistic person but as you have seen, consider myself quite a cynic in some ways these days and not just with this subject but many, particularly when it comes to justice. Or politics for that matter.

When you have so many people who are killing small children, thinking these same people know how or have a clue what sexual assault is of even an adult woman is a big stretch... I know I am mixing apples and oranges but just not been my week or two I guess... I truly need to tone it down and get some balance back...

Here is something on this thread I was going to say earlier--can a hooker or prostitute be raped? Of course. What are the chances of her being taken seriously, being believed or coming forward? Probably pretty slim... I don't doubt however many end up in that because they were molested or raped as children or teenagers... Not all, but some...

Most would say they asked for it or put themselves in such a position... Get in a stranger's car, stand on a street corner or whatever the way... It is true to a point.. I get irate though when such things are glamorized... Sugar Babies is now glamorized to naive college students...

This conversation could go on for years and in many directions... It is good it is being talked about though...
 
I don't think I have mentioned this on this forum but I may have. I know I mentioned it once somewhere... Not my home county but a neighboring one, a few years ago there was a case... This county too is home, we have a property there... The perp was the FIRE CHIEF in one little city in the county I believe. He was a also I think a jailer at the county... Highly thought of I guess at least by some. I would not know him from Adam. My sister-in-law pointed his wife and kids out to me once at a sporting event and as she said hello to her whispered to me and said do you know who that is...

Well he was sexually assaulting female inmates... We are NOT talking about a prison but a small county jail/courthouse/sheriff's department. Not girls in for life. Not young women in there for years... If I recall correctly, he was taking them or releasing them from their cells to probably common areas or for whatever reason and knew where the cameras were not... This corner or that corner... Think about it what are you going to do?? What can you do? You are just in who knows on some minor or not violation and he works for the system/the county/the very place you need to see the judge in...

I would have to go look for it, I don't know details other than what the papers printed... But either someone else in the system became aware or suspicious or one inmate finally trusted someone and told that one person in the system... Think about it one of their own and an apparently respected FIre Chief too in the county, a wife and young daughters I think... The way it turned out there were several young women over time... Would the others have come forward, probably not and I don't think they had... Even when it came out and he was charged, you can imagine the talk and judgment too of female county inmates... I believe his wife stood by him, etc... Of course some put up a bit of a campaign of what a good guy, Fire Chief, family man, etc. Gag. Makes me think of our case in that the perp some tried to paint as this perfect man, there too, former cop (fired), former firefighter (volunteer, let go) on a smaller scale... In the deputy case I am talking about here though, versus the word of maybe some young female in on too many traffic violations or something... They brought in a judge from another county... Maybe a retired one, I can't recall. I think many of us were waiting to see what would happen... Expecting him to get a slap on the hand, all connected ya know... He got a fairly serious sentence all things considered and he was shocked as were his "friends"...

I bring this up because it is a case of adult women. It is a case of power over ones that may not appear like the best citizen after all they are in jail at least for a day or 50... It is a case of the very place you would have to report it is the place it is happening...

It is a case of where I don't think many said a word until they realized there were others and there was a chance the county was seriously going to take him to task and charge him... Even then some were like no way, he would never do such a thing, the girls are lying... So to all and to @Howell here is an adult female case... None may have ever come forward but for power in numbers and perhaps they got questioned after the first one came forward, perhaps they looked back and investigated or perhaps others came forward when they saw he was charged... What if this had been ten years later or more? Or longer...? I don't doubt some of the victims were looked for after realization came about... I think most were in their young 20s, not sure. I don't know names and don't want to... They did their best to safeguard them by initials... But I believe most were young and in for nothing serious...

Here is a pretty vanilla article about it and it in no way covers the extent of it... I think he tried to hit a deal but the Judge does not have to go by such an agreement... There are more articles out there...

 
Last edited:
Imagine this. There he is big Fire Chief probably running a pancake breakfast and there is a female seeing his hypocrisy knowing she can't say a word or won't be believed while he probably grins at her and says hello... Now that she is out of JAIL and cuffs. Imagine him going home and sleeping with his wife... Family seemed and looked like one would expect. Involved in the community, sports, wife well known, wife of the Chief... Probably perfect polish... Hard to say what she knew if anything... Or if at all costs, the perfect picture would be portrayed. Not judging her... I don't know...
 
Serious question, how long should the statute go on something like that??? Imagine too, a jailer in uniform probably gun, etc. A female in a cell he can probably get out any time he likes, and possibly shackled to take to whatever corner... I would have to research but for some reason I believe he did nights. I don't think he was a county "officer"... Just a part-time jailer I think...
 
Here you go... The lawyers and sides made a deal and agreed to 8.5 years but the Judge went against it and gave him 30! Now THERE IS A JUDGE! Not impressed with too many sometimes but there ya go...

 
Ain't he just cute? I am sure he felt all the females in their cells were just lusting for him... SICK. There was SHOCK at the 30 years... And an outcry from a few...
 
Here you go... The lawyers and sides made a deal and agreed to 8.5 years but the Judge went against it and gave him 30! Now THERE IS A JUDGE! Not impressed with too many sometimes but there ya go...



Walk into jail thinking "Man 81/2 years is going to be really hard, but at least I'll still be only in my late fifties when I leave." Then half paying attention to what is being said because you know what you bargained for and wait "WHAT!"

:backtalk:
:rofl:
 
Walk into jail thinking "Man 81/2 years is going to be really hard, but at least I'll still be only in my late fifties when I leave." Then half paying attention to what is being said because you know what you bargained for and wait "WHAT!"

:backtalk:
:rofl:
I wish we had had this judge. No kidding. There are lawsuits being decided now in the case for the women and they it sounds like had a Madison jury.. I was unaware of this until I looked for the case... A smart move really they got it well way from midwest Wisconsin....

I am trying to remember the judge's words at sentencing in this jailer case... He made some really good points including what it did for any respect for law enforcement, serious abuse of a position of power, the vulnerability of the victims and more. If I recall correctly, Mr. in the wrong, as you see, did take some responsibility (evidence was strong) "copped" a plea, had people there speaking for him and in his favor I believe and then this sentence came down... Poor guy... I think it was remarked how hard it was going to be for him as a "cop" in prison... WHAT??? Hypocrites! That old attitude ya know... These girls were just nobodies, he feels he is a somebody... As do some idiots in most communities worldwide...
 
One other thing I am pretty sure of but would have to try to find it--is when someone in the department got clued in, a basic surveillance thing went on and I suppose or would imagine they were careful of which employees/detectives, etc. knew... I am pretty sure they tracked him etc. and where he went and when off camera... Pretty sure he HAD to plea because he would have never beat it or lied his way out... Kudos to Polk County on that one...

The paper above with is 28 years to go is the very town he was Chief (fire) in... Kudos to them...

Now I should tell ya about the other county... Some of it is so crazy not sure I would be believed but as you can see generally if I say something I can back it up... Document it... Oh well...

Been up too many hours... The Whiskey Cake menu helped for awhile... :D I need to not sidetrack this thread. The case though is a good example of adult females, superior, positions of vulnerability and how long should a statute run in such a case?
 
Actually, having sex with an intoxicated person IS considered rape in several states. Though not all. And the law really doesn't care what someone thinks of it.


CALIFORNIA Penal Code section 261 (a)(3) reads:

Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused.

If the party is so intoxicated that he or she cannot give legal consent, he/she is “prevented from resisting.” In order to give legal consent, a person must be able to exercise reasonable judgment. In other words, the person must be able to understand and weigh the physical nature of the act, its moral character, and probable consequences. Legal consent is consent given freely and voluntarily by someone who knows the nature of the act involved.

This means, if the other party says “yes, yes, yes,” both before and during sexual intercourse, you could still be charged with rape.


WASHINGTON WAC 504-26-221 reads:

Even if words or conduct alone seem to imply consent, sexual activity is nonconsensual when:
(c) A reasonable person would or should know that the other person lacks the mental capacity at the time of the sexual activity to be able to understand the nature or consequences of the act, whether that incapacity is produced by illness, defect, the influence of alcohol or another substance, or some other cause. When alcohol or drugs are involved, a person is considered incapacitated or unable to give valid consent if the individual cannot fully understand the details of the sexual interaction (i.e., who, what, when, where, why, and how), and/or the individual lacks the capacity to reasonably understand the situation and to make rational, reasonable decisions.




FLORIDA statue 794.011 reads:

“Consent” means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission. “Consent” shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.
(c) “Mentally incapacitated” means temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling a person’s own conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or intoxicating substance administered without his or her consent or due to any other act committed upon that person without his or her consent.


The absence of a “no” does not equal consent. And, according to the UF Police Department, consent is not the “inability to make decisions due to intoxication by any substance.” Here’s the thing: You can’t legally consent to sex if you are intoxicated above the legal limit.


There are more. I'm just not going to search all 50 states.
In the same way that a person should not have sex with a child because they cannot legally consent to sex, or a severely mentally challenged person with the mind of a child because they cannot legally consent to sex...they should not have sex with a severely intoxicated person because they cannot LEGALLY consent to sex.
None of the laws you've quoted say any such thing. There is no "legal limit" for having sex. If you're referring to the legal limit for driving, that is not a standard that applies in rape cases.

Did you not read the language used in the statutes you posted?

"...prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused."

"When alcohol or drugs are involved, a person is considered incapacitated or unable to give valid consent if the individual cannot fully understand the details of the sexual interaction (i.e., who, what, when, where, why, and how), and/or the individual lacks the capacity to reasonably understand the situation and to make rational, reasonable decisions."

"“Mentally incapacitated” means temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling a person’s own conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or intoxicating substance administered without his or her consent or due to any other act committed upon that person without his or her consent."


No where does it state that having sex with an intoxicated person is rape.
 
Legally, yes, she can. Legally, consent can be revoked at any time. It may seem ridiculous, but according to the law, it's rape.



You can call her a "tease" and whatever else you want to call her. And I'd probably agree. But again, consent can be revoked at any time. If he were to continue, *legally*, that would be considered rape. She verbalized NO, he does not stop. That's rape. Is she a nice person? Probably not. She probably got a kick out of it. Morally? She's probably in the wrong here. But that doesn't change things legally.

If someone can't get affirmative consent ("YES!"), and have the person literally asking you for what they want, they need to work on their game. Most people don't want to have sex with someone who is...less than enthusiastic. Nobody owes anyone else their body. No matter what the preceding circumstances are.


If I go to buy a car, and I tell the salesman yes, I want to buy this car! And we go back to the office and he draws up all the papers. And we talk and we get all the details worked out and he runs my credit and gets all the insurance nailed down. And I've literally pulled the down payment out of my purse. And he puts the contract on the desk to sign. And I say, "Ya know what? Nevermind." Similar. Obviously one is with your body and one is a car. But the idea is the same. I got that salesman "all worked up" for nothing!
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.
 
Has anyone read the documents posted?

What the majority of the complaints in those documents are about have to do with Scientology & less about a crime. The LA PD investigated one of the claims in 2004, 1 year after the fact, and the case was dismissed in 2004.

It reads more to show that these women have an issue with Scientology.

I do question why these adult women lived &/or dated Danny Masterson and stayed in the relationship if it was so traumatic.
 
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.
A biological primal urge? You mean like a woman's urge to carry a child? Quit excusing a male. Women have urges and sexual ones as well. What differentiates the human race from the rest of animals is the ability to control oneself and make conscious choices.

How about the primal urge for revenge or an eye for an eye? They exist in my opinion. Again, one has a CHOICE on whether to act on such... It can be very difficult to control especially if pushed too far but again it does not excuse it. It MAY mitigate it some if that is the right word.

As much as you hate or disagree with these laws, your excuse for something being a primal urge for a man is just that, an excuse.

I will agree to the point that a woman who intentionally teases or plays with fire without knowing what the man may be capable of is not a wise woman. It still does not excuse him if he acts on it. And she hurts her own sex, females, by playing games (if she is indeed doing that) when there are very true abused and harmed rape victims. It still as I think I have said above previously, does not excuse the man for acting on it though either, if she said no or pulled back, no matter whatever primal urge per you that it is he cannot control.

If he cannot control such, perhaps he belongs with the ape population who also do not need to make a paycheck nor live in society and he can likely act on any primal urge he wants even when that female ape is teasing him with an unsheathed banana between her lips..

Again, nowhere close to how I would ever talk normally--I think I and others do actually see some of your points but do not make it one sided on women and claim it is a primal and/or biological urge for a man as if it cannot be helped nor controlled almost at that point...

Maybe it is. Sow your seeds to populate the earth, that primal need. Just as most women have a biological urge to want you to impregnate them and be mothers... And there sure did used to be a "biological" clock and still is really. Hmmm. Has that primal urge to mother changed or is it always true. I think it does exist in us but still humans are the top of the food chain for a reason and because they can REASON but at times I really have to wonder if it is true of all...

We have tailbones too... I gather we don't need tails any longer...

Not that my overall belief is in evolution, but just saying...

To me what you are saying is very close to the attitude of some pretty serious offenders. She teased, she wore this, she did that... And I could not resist my primal urge...

Really??
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,006
Messages
240,698
Members
967
Latest member
minaji88
Back
Top Bottom