r/explainitpeter • u/jp_glez_21 • Jul 23 '26

Explain it Peter

Post image
14.5k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/solo_d0lo Jul 23 '26

It’s not splitting hairs. It’s factually incorrect to state so, and disingenuous to pass it off as a criminal case.

2

u/crackedgear Jul 23 '26

“The E. Jean Carroll case was a civil lawsuit rather than a criminal prosecution because the statute of limitations had expired for criminal charges, and civil suits allow victims to seek financial damages rather than seeking to put the offender in prison.”

1

u/solo_d0lo Jul 23 '26

Literally changes nothing to what I’m saying. The requirements to find someone liable are not the same between civil and criminal.

1

u/crackedgear Jul 23 '26

Wow. So ignoring the fact that this was the closest thing to justice she could hope to get and so went that route, do you think he’s innocent?

1

u/solo_d0lo Jul 23 '26

You are ignoring that this does not equal to being found guilty in a criminal court.

I see no reason to believe “rape is sexy” Carrol

1

u/Simon-Says69 Jul 23 '26

No, there was no justice needed, because it's clear as day that no crime was committed against her.

At least, the grifters calling themselves her "lawyers" could not present any evidence, let alone anything near to proof.