Man wins right to sue rape-accuser for defamation after he was cleared of rape charges.

Reddit View
February 13, 2015

article here

Hope he wins a shitload of money and this leaves an impression on other women who try and pull the same shit.

The gossip was merciless and long-lasting, he claims, escalating into vandalism of his vehicle and threats of violence against himself and his friends. It became so bad Mr. Caron fled his home in Vanderhoof, B.C., to go into “hiding” in Prince George.

Fucking white knights

Post Information
Title Man wins right to sue rape-accuser for defamation after he was cleared of rape charges.
Author Kelly_Gruber
Upvotes 1418
Comments 92
Date 13 February 2015 04:42 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Original Link
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
white knightthe red pill

[–]dw0r400 points401 points  (16 children) | Copy

I think that there should be a new law formed named Simon's law that states that she needs to register in a database of false rape accusers and needs to disclose it immediately to any man she speaks to in a non-formal setting.

Then the world might take this seriously.

[–]forgotmyothernames 101 points101 points [recovered] | Copy

yes, but the females who lie need to be found guilty of lying in a separate trial. Every female that doesnt get a rape conviction isnt a liar.

[–]dw0r69 points70 points  (3 children) | Copy

Of course the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt would need to apply I agree.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Problem is..that would be a civil matter where burden is preponderance of truth...i.e. more likely than not...i.e. over 50%

[–]dw0r4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'm saying I think it should be criminal given the damages it can cause.

[–]idle_reception25 points26 points  (5 children) | Copy

Doesn't matter. Long story short I'm facing legal issues because of a women who's filled two prior charges that she ended up recanting. One completely, in court, and dropping the second one once another women feced up her story was fabricated.

My lawyer thinks it's a joke they're even taking it serious.

[–]1cover207 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy

Well if she testified that the charges were false, then she should be convicted of the false and malicious charge -- if you're lucky enough to be in a jurisdiction where that's a crime.

[–]idle_reception13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy

She testified she may have said yes but said no half way through. No charges against her but it was enough to get that guy off the hook.

The second incident the other women came out and told detectives she lied to prevent her bf from thinking she cheated, this came out after the man was imprisoned for 4 months. Even more twisted she fucked two brothers, same night, same room but only claimed rape on then eldest. (he kicked her out in the morning)

Unfortunately I live in a state where this can all be accessed by a simple Google search. Try explaining first and second degree sexual assault charges along with two other felony charges that stemmed from these false allegations to friends, family, employers.

I live in a 75k+ town and still hear his name get thrown around as a rapist. No charges against either girl.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

Technically any woman who either admits to, or is found to, have made a false rape accusation is guilty of falsifying a police report and perjury. They're liable civilly, too.

Unfortunately, as we all know, that would be terrible PR for a police department and local governments.

[–]d4rkj4y19 points20 points  (1 child) | Copy

Looks like I have found my next web-design project

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

this is a great idea. please do it

[–]Dopamine374 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

The closest i found was Paul Elams: Register-her

[–]Gadnuk_1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

In many states If you commit perjury you are subject to the penalties of the crime you lied about. This should include mandatory minimum sentences of multiple years for people who lie about rape.

Unfortunately the pussy pass is recognized by most courts of law so 'justice' is served merely in finding the male innocent.

[–]LewisSkolnick96 points97 points  (2 children) | Copy

Whatever happens - this ruling is good news.

It's bad news for the ladies who just want to make shit up I guess...

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

I agree, and you shouldn't have to "win" the right to sue someone for defamation, especially in something this serious. If you didn't actually rape the person who's accusing you, you have every right to receive compensation for your time, stress, and reputation loss.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Especially considering all the extra-judicial punishment that comes with mere accusations. Like white knights vandalizing your car or losing your job, etc...

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (1 child) | Copy

This is a revolutionary day for true rape victims everywhere; the amount of frivolous and spite-driven allegations the legal system has to deal with will drop, if he wins.

[–]putsch80 217 points217 points [recovered] | Copy

He won't get shit from her. She will get on the stand and cry, saying how she felt trapped and used. And the jury will forgive her.

[–]pl231 52 points52 points [recovered] | Copy

trapped and used by who? I think the fact that he's been cleared makes it relatively likely he will get some compensation

[–]whoops_fap 68 points68 points [recovered] | Copy

Trapped and used by Pete.

No it was really Adam.

It all started with my father.

Trapped and used by society.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

It's scary how accurate this is.

[–]ThePragmatist4244 points45 points  (2 children) | Copy

Um.. Have you ever actually met people? There are a significant number of women that don't like men in general. There are also a significant number of men that feel it's their job to 'protect' women from 'bad' men, despite the fact that their White Knighting is literally sexism at it's finest. Treating women differently because they are women.

I really wish this was hyperbole but there are plenty of cases that have proven what I've said to be true. Recent news of a man having his genitals cut off by his psychotic wife was met with posts of support for the WOMAN. Suggestions that the man deserved to have his genitals removed. Imagine the opposite of this happening. A man mutilating his wife because she did something to upset him. The outrage would be real.

Oh, I apologize to all the women I just verbally raped with my words of truth but you were asking for it by wearing those headphones.

[–]TRPsn9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

DUDE!! Just because they wear headphones doesnt mean they should have to hear everything that comes through those headphones. Thats victim blaming you verbal rape apologist!

[–]Rooi_Aap2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

There are also a significant number of men that feel it's their job to 'protect' women from 'bad' men, despite the fact that their White Knighting is literally sexism at it's finest. Treating women differently because they are women.

Reminds me of that episode of Scrubs where Turk went up to a female lead surgeon and told her "he has her back", all proud of himself. She put him in his place sarcastically and told him that her needing "protection" is a major insult. That is feminism done right.

EDIT: S03E15 "My Tormented Mentor"

[–]putsch80 69 points69 points [recovered] | Copy

Trapped and used by some prior sexual encounter with him or some other man. Or confused/traumatized because she was raped by someone similar to this man. Don't underestimate the hamster, and remember there will be other hamsters on the jury.

[–]solbrothers3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy

I recently subscribed to /r/trp. I keep seeing this term, hamster. Can you elaborate on what that means?

[–]TRPsn10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy

Look over to the right of your screen where it says "NEW HERE." I would read all of those just to get a better understanding of TRP, and you can form your own opinion about life as a man.
As for hamsters, they just keep running in circles using the same bullshit to get away with the same bullshit because of feels. Im not very good with words so someone else can tag in and explain it way better than I.

[–]solbrothers8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy

Thanks for your help. I will see myself over to the sidebar.

[–]let_terror_reign11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'll explain. What do hamsters do best? Run their damn wheel. They don't care about the world outside. They only care about the wheel. Such are women and 'feelings'. Women will do anything to preserve their feelings of indignation, however terribly rationalized it is. By hamster we mean rationalizing anything to make yourself feel better. The way a hamster would just run its wheel no matter what.

Guys hamster too. When they make up excuses they know aren't the real reason why they don't do something. Like saying nah I'm too comfortable in this chair I don't want to go talk to her. Reality? Anxiety to approach.
The wheel keeps on turning to keep worldview consistent and feeling nice.
Women will rationalize and where any moderately self aware guy would feel guilty for rationalization, they will honestly believe their own bullshit.

[–]leredditaccounts2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Google "Post-hoc rationalisation", that's basically what hamstering is

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Glossary on the right lazy boy.

[–]Facha66916 points17 points  (1 child) | Copy

Nope. It will be claimed by every feminazi that to punish this helpless female will only prevent others from coming forward with legitimate claims. You all know the drill.

[–]JovianTrainWreck0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Shit man, who knows what her hamster will come up with during the proceedings, but remember the hamster is a powerful beast.

I hate it, but putsch80 might be at least partially right. I see some reduced sentences and the like coming fourth, but you know what, I for one am going to celebrate this small victory. Where's my whiskey?

Here's to men's rights.

[–]jcrpta18 points19 points  (24 children) | Copy

You're missing the bigger picture.

She's a minor. Not sure how Canadian law works, but were I to hazard a wild guess, she won't own a house or any other significant asset he can take.

BUT.... I can think of a few possible benefits. Legal precedent, demonstrating in a public forum that he's innocent to name two.

[–]Kelly_Gruber[S,🍰] 23 points24 points  (16 children) | Copy

Because she's a minor her parents will be held accountable for any payment to this man if he wins

[–]TruthFromAnAsshole5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is categorically false is Canada.

Vicarious liability does not apply to parents of minors in tort law.

[–]rattamahatta2 points3 points  (13 children) | Copy

But their parents didn't accuse anyone... her father would be just another victim of his daughter's insanity. He has rights, too.

[–]hohndo15 points16 points  (7 children) | Copy

And responsibilities..his daughter being one of them.

I'm pretty sure the parents had to be involved with the case so it's not like they weren't part of this ordeal.

[–]getomc8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy

Just because women are a liability doesn't mean no one should be responsible for them.

[–]rattamahatta-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

Their fathers? So you think an innocent man should always be responsible for every stupid shit their little brat daughters pulls?

[–]rattamahatta-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

Do you have any evidence for their parents being involved? How are you "pretty sure".

[–]hohndo0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I don't know. All I know is she's a minor.

According to my research, under certain conditions a "independent" or "spouse" can sue without a representative that's over 18. There are a couple other reasons, but I'm sure those are the most common.

There were a bunch of terms they used for someone over 18 to be their representative and "guardian" was one of the first mentioned.

The situation doesn't affect me so I don't really give a shit. If this were in the US, I'd spend more time on it.

In the US, parents are responsible for their kids financially unless the kid proves to the court they are independent at some point before the case. So, if they are involved, or not, they have to pay up. They are the liable and responsible ones for their kin.

[–]rattamahatta1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I don't know man, it seems wrong in this case. The father couldn't have possibly stopped his daughter from making a false accusation. You know who I think is liable for the damages? The court that doesn't seem to require evidence anymore.

[–]TruthFromAnAsshole1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Don't worry, OP is talking out of their ass. Parents are not held liable for their children's tort in Canada.

In some cases, if the child is young enough, a court can find that the child isn't liable, but even for a toddler, the parent isn't held liable.

If she did something while performing working duties, while working for her parents, then possibly, but that's a totally different doctrine.

[–]FeministOnABuffalo 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

How about the family being held liable for all the damages their son caused by setting off the sprinkler in his school?

Something like $40,000 because their son was throwing scissors at it.

[–]TruthFromAnAsshole1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

That's a very special circumstance.

His parents were able to be held liable for that because of Section 10 the School Act (British Columbia) which states that if school property is damaged by a student the parents can be held jointly liable.

So in the case you're referring to (Nanaimo-Ladysmith school district no. 68 V. Dean) the trial judge was bound by the School Act, and the precedent from Coquitlam School District V. Clement.

In fact, the judge actually stated she disagreed with this act, despite being bound by it.

17 As an initial observation, I agree with the submissions of both counsel that this provision appears to be "draconian", in the sense that it could have a disastrous financial effect on a young person and his or her parents. Mr. Justice Esson said as much in Clement at para. 16: The section has the capacity to inflict upon parents, by imposing liability quite irrespective of fault on their part, a harsh and perhaps unjust burden of potentially ruinous dimensions. In this case damages of some $3 million are alleged. These, however, are matters for the legislature. It may be that the legislature will consider whether the section now serves a social purpose sufficient to justify the hardships which it can create.

To answer your question, we still don't have vicarious liability to parents as a concept in our legal system, but that particular action had a statutory law that applied to specific circumstance.

For the case at hand, even if she defamed him at school, this isn't a crime against the school's property, and that statute wouldn't apply.

[–]Kelly_Gruber[S,🍰] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

Play stupid games win stupid prizes, parents are held accountable for their children. Sad but that's the way it is when underage kids are protected by law.

[–]rattamahatta0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Two different topics. Children being protected from liability is one thing, their parents being held liable for something that is not a result of their actions is another. But if you have the law handy, point me to it.

[–]putsch80 7 points7 points [recovered] | Copy

The downside of this is if he loses, it validates her claims. Don't assume that the truth will set him free; this isnt hollywood.

[–]Glenwalk10 points11 points  (5 children) | Copy

He won't lose. He just needs to show 51% that she was lying. His records of where he was + her statements to the police/social media do just that.

[–]TruthFromAnAsshole5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy

He just needs to show 51% that she was lying.

This is a Canadian case, so this is mistaken... but in a good way.

In Canada, in a defamation case the defendant has to prove that what they published is true. (Published can mean pretty much anything, including saying it to just one other person).

He has to prove she did say it, and has to prove damages caused by her actions (damage to reputation counts). But, once he's shown she said it, she may prove it's true.

Edit: in Canada, for civil law, it is balance of probabilities as well, not beyond reasonable doubt.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]TruthFromAnAsshole0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

She will pay. Parents are not vacariously liable for their children's actions. There are some cases where a very young child committed a tort, and even then, parents aren't vacariously liable (interestingly enough, the children can be too young, and so no one is found liable; but the wouldn't apply here).

So she will almost certainly be found liable, and it will be her responsible for paying it. We almost never assess punitive damages in Canada, so it likely won't be all that much (she's also gonna have to pay a shit ton in legal fees). If she doesn't have the money to pay now, there are a number of alternatives. A successful plaintiff can seize property to cover it (so say the girl's parents bought her a nice set if diamond earings dude can can take them) or garnishment, any job I'm the future, he can get a portion of her wage until the debt is settled.

Of course, her parents, friends other family etc... can chose to pay for her. Tort law is meant to help the plaintiff recover their loss, not punish the defendant.

[–]Glenwalk0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Ah right, I mixed up the onus on that one.

[–]tk421awol2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

As much as I wish you were correct, I'm too busy in sales to point out why you are not. Would you be more interested in Arizona oceanfront or shares of the Brooklyn Bridge?

[–]wetfartz2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

Not sure where abouts ur from but my understanding is that for civil case such as when you sue someone it usually would be in front of a judge rather than a jury

[–]putsch80 8 points8 points [recovered] | Copy

I'm a licensed attorney in Oklahoma and Texas. In both of those states, either party would have the right to request a jury trial.

[–]GrizzlyGareBear1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

This is taking place in Canada

[–]putsch80 9 points9 points [recovered] | Copy

Doesn't matter. Canadian provinces allow jury trials in defamation cases. Check out p.134 of this article.

As stated in that article, the court rules in British Columbia normally allow juries to be waived, but that exception doesn't apply in a defamation case.

[–]GrizzlyGareBear1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Gotcha, thanks for the link and explanation

[–]boinko031 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Thats where "a jury of your peers" comes in. Put 12 men on the jury and see what happens, a mixed jury though and i see your point

[–]Dyalibya3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Unless we get a RP on the jury, spread them pills people

[–]humanmeat0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

In Canada civil cases don't use juries but one judge... so should be objective, free of emotional bias

[–]robot_tingles0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Not if there are any women on the jury.

[–]Heriion0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Excellent observation. The more I read TRP, the more I realize that people won't change. To be honest, we won't ever vote logic or truth into office. If we want our freedom as men, we can't vote for it, we must take it.

[–]tedted8888-3 points-2 points  (6 children) | Copy

Maybe if he was a quitted. It's my understanding he was found innocent which means he didn't do it rather than there was insufficient evidence

[–]tk421awol7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy

(A) The word is acquitted.

(B) There is no such thing as a finding of innocent.

(C) This never went to trial, so there was no verdict either way.

(D) He was never charged. He was investigated and showed the complaint to be bullshit. Now he wants to sue the lying POS who accused him, and for once we're seeing justice in a court of law.

[–]TruthFromAnAsshole0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

(B) There absolutely is. It's known as Actual Innocence.

[–]Gere101 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

No, you're wrong.

At least in the US, you can only be found "not guilty" of a crime; a court will never rule "innocent" because failing to convict you means the prosecution wasn't able to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you understand statistical hypothesis testing, it's quite simple. The court presents a null hypothesis that you are guilty and then assesses the evidence to see if the results support the claim at a certain significance level. It's not as mathematically clear cut as that, but the important thing to understand is that the court will only prove or disprove that you are guilty; and that being "not guilty" != being "innocent."

Actual innocence is a state you can claim, but it can never be proven by a court.

[–]TruthFromAnAsshole1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

On appeal, you don't get presumption of innocence.

So if you appeal you basically have two avenues, you can argue that the trial judge erred in law at some point, or you can argue that you are actually innocent.

If you proceed with the latter and win your appeal, winning your appeal is known as a finding of actual innocence. Depending on jurisdiction of course.

So yes, you can be found innocent in a court of law.

[–]TekkomanKingz76 points77 points  (3 children) | Copy

A direct strike to the heartland of Feminism.

Truly heart warming. If this guy gets money we can celebrate.

[–]1jb_trp17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy

"Alright, Black knights, I've got missles on lock."

"Fire when ready, Mr. Caron."

[–]TheLife_5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

If he get's money, I'm moving to Canada.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours26 points27 points  (0 children) | Copy

Of course it's not in tbe USA. God forbid we hold a girl accountable for lying, it's only the guys life she ruined.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy

once she gets sued her name will be in the media... on the internet... every man will know

[–]HeinousFu_kery5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

This will be worth watching and will likely not produce a global sea-change in the way that these false allegations are handled since the accuser is a minor, and the evidential procedures are a bit tangled. Definitely a step in the right direction, though.

[–]SemperFiWashout 7 points7 points [recovered] | Copy

I hate to be so cynical, but she will cry in court, he will lose, and she will countersue (and win) for emotional distress.

[–]1beerthroway5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

The similarities between rape culture and the Salem witch trials are astounding. We act like our culture is above that nonsensical "accusation -> instant guilt" paradigm, but we play right into it. Women running around pointing fingers and everyone killing that person without question.

I hope the day comes soon when it's over.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Well it isn't. They've closed ranks around Mattress Girl and even Jackie from UVA. God help you if you doubt the word of a woman - if the feminists don't get you, the white knight orbiters will.

[–]suloco2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Bring back ancient China. If you made an accusation which was then proven to be false, you were sentenced with the same punishment that would have befallen the convicted party. That would be a fresh thing to see nowadays..

Edit: logic

[–]SeekingTheWay1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

omg yes please. we need this.

[–]Elatea2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is very good news for any man with these accusations in the future

[–]ChairBorneMGTOW1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Does legal precedent in British Columbia apply to the rest of Canada? What about the Commonwealth? I'm not very familiar with that sort of legal / jurisdictional questions. Tried googling and couldn't find a straightfoward answer that I could understand...

[–]Glenwalk2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not certain about this but:

It's the BC Court of Appeal, so it will be pretty much binding on all trial judges across Canada. Courts of Appeal in Canada won't be bound by it, but it will carry weight.

In countries where this issue of privilege has not yet been decided, (UK, AUS, NZ) it will be considered and may be adopted. There's probably already existing case law on this issue in the states, so the courts there will find that more relevant than in BC.

[–]ChairBorneMGTOW2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Cheers, thanks amigo! I know a dude in Ontario who was JUST found not guilty about 2 weeks ago, of an alleged sexual assault. This could help get him some financial compensation for 18 months of uncertainty whether he was going to live free or in a cage, and having his name dragged through the mud.

[–]Glenwalk4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Unless he actually has proof she lied, it won't help him much. If it's just a he said /she said thing he's probably out of luck.

[–]alecesne1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Check out this article about an unbalanced relationship degenerating into rape accusations and vengeful spear campaign. None of the parties was particularly wise, but this highlights the increasing power of pointing the finger in contemporary public discourse.

[–]1cover201 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

This legal debate isn't about rape at all. It's about whether ANY police report can be subpoenaed into evidence.

So it could have been a false charge of a burglary or a murder, not rape. Or a police report about one thing that affects a trial about a different thing.

I think Canada must already have the law to prosecute false rape accusations. But if the guy could not get to the police report, then he couldn't press his case against the bitch.

[–]_FASTLIKETREE0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Winning rights makes perfect sense in USA 21st century where up is down and black is white. I need one of those memes "rights, you keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means"

[–]Doomsday_0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Unfortunately the guy's life is probably still ruined.

[–]socio_j0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Bravo! A small victory in the battle against feminism, but these women must learn that their actions have consequences.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This is why I wouldn't ever live in Canada.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter