• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Looks Like Cosby May Walk

TomC said:
Gospel said:
TomC said:
I think that he was wrongfully convicted. I thought that before the court ruling about prosecutorial misconduct.

That's not the same as innocent.

It's rather ironic that you keep insisting that the USA judiciary treated a black man fairly. That isn't your usual line.
Tom
Click to expand...

Aaaight Aaaiight. Yup yup. Roger that (slowly backs away and exits chat room).
Click to expand...

I understand your unwillingness to respond. Makes perfect sense to me.
Tom
Click to expand...

You claim that he's not innocent, then you claim he was wrongfully convicted which means he's innocent. That's difficult to respond to. As for how my insisting that black people be treated fairly is somehow not in alignment with my pointing this out goes, that's just batshit crazy.
 
You can wrongfully convict a person who did the crime and is in fact guilty of the crime.

You can invent evidence and have people lie to convict somebody who actually did the crime.

It would be a wrongful conviction of somebody who was guilty of the crime.
 
ideologyhunter said:
Wikipedia has an article titled 'List of honorary degrees awarded to Bill Cosby'. Total, 72, many of them Doctor of Humane Letters or Doctor of Fine Arts. Rescinded: 62, almost all of them rescinded in the time period from the arraignment to the conviction. There's a nice dilemma for honorary degree boards.
Click to expand...

Obama has the distinction of being the Nobel Peace Prize winner who ordered the launch of the most missiles and drone strikes.

Are the organizations rescinding these awards explaining why they were wrong in giving them in the first place?
Tom
 
You claim that he's not innocent, then you claim he was wrongfully convicted which means he's innocent.
Click to expand...

No.

You are the one asserting that a wrongful conviction means innocent. I'm not saying any such thing.
Tom
 
TomC said:
You claim that he's not innocent, then you claim he was wrongfully convicted which means he's innocent.
Click to expand...

No.

You are the one asserting that a wrongful conviction means innocent. I'm not saying any such thing.
Tom
Click to expand...

No, the legal system asserts it.:
Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice said:
A wrongful conviction is a conviction that is factually inaccurate, that is, the wrong person was convicted or a person was convicted for a crime that did not occur. An actual innocence exoneration is an official act that erases the legal status of guilt based on a judgment of factual innocence.
Click to expand...

You can't redefine legal terms to suit your needs on the fly. An error of impunity occurred here.
 
All too true. From what we're hearing today, it seems insane that the prosecutors set up their case with the 2005 deposition as their big item. And now Cos gets to play victim and thumb his nose at his detractors (being careful not to say anything that the 50 women can sue him over, it seems.) He famously has said he feels no remorse and would never have claimed to feel remorse, even if it meant parole denied.
 
TomC said:
Gospel said:
TomC said:
I think that he was wrongfully convicted. I thought that before the court ruling about prosecutorial misconduct.

That's not the same as innocent.

It's rather ironic that you keep insisting that the USA judiciary treated a black man fairly. That isn't your usual line.
Tom
Click to expand...

Aaaight Aaaiight. Yup yup. Roger that (slowly backs away and exits chat room).
Click to expand...

I understand your unwillingness to respond. Makes perfect sense to me.
Tom
Click to expand...

Me too. Who wouldn't, given your behavior.
 
TomC said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Well, this didn't matter and Cosby was convicted... and just now, the PA Supreme Court just ruled that it does matter, meaning his civil deposition 'immunity' should have been honored. This is a Law and Order episode here.

So Cosby is to go free. Certainly tainted, but free. He'll need to live out the rest of his life in comfortable luxury.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this make Cosby yet another victim of wrongful conviction by prosecutorial misconduct? I've always thought so.
Tom
Click to expand...

No. He did the crime, it's just the evidence was illegally obtained. He's walking on a technicality.
 
Artemus said:
No, the legal system asserts it.:
Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice said:
A wrongful conviction is a conviction that is factually inaccurate, that is, the wrong person was convicted or a person was convicted for a crime that did not occur. An actual innocence exoneration is an official act that erases the legal status of guilt based on a judgment of factual innocence.
Click to expand...

You can't redefine legal terms to suit your needs on the fly. An error of impunity occurred here.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think the term we are looking for is "prosecutorial mistake" or something like that.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
TomC said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Well, this didn't matter and Cosby was convicted... and just now, the PA Supreme Court just ruled that it does matter, meaning his civil deposition 'immunity' should have been honored. This is a Law and Order episode here.

So Cosby is to go free. Certainly tainted, but free. He'll need to live out the rest of his life in comfortable luxury.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this make Cosby yet another victim of wrongful conviction by prosecutorial misconduct? I've always thought so.
Tom
Click to expand...

No. He did the crime, it's just the evidence was illegally obtained. He's walking on a technicality.
Click to expand...

Not illegally obtained, it was inadmissible.
 
I think Cosby is guilty, but I don't think it's unreasonable that the court threw out the conviction.

Prosecutor runs for office on the promise of voiding an immunity deal made by previous DA, voids said immunity deal, and gets a conviction. Public sees this, AFAIK doesn't see evidence that Cosby violated terms of deal, future witnesses may be reluctant to take deals. Other criminals may walk as a result.
 
I think Cosby is guilty, but I don't think it's unreasonable that the court threw out the conviction.
Click to expand...

I don't. Based on both news reports and some court records posted on line, I'm pretty sure Constand went to Cosby's place intending, or at least expecting, to trade sex for some help with her career. Cosby took advantage of that. Sleazy, yes on both of their parts. But hardly uncommon in those circles and not rape.

A guy like Cosby could do a lot for an aspiring starlet. He could seriously boost her career just by mentioning her name at a meeting or putting her on some list. That's largely why powerful men attract women, hot women, even when they're as ugly as Weinstein. Some rich powerful guys don't take advantage of this, but lots do. And lots of good looking women don't take advantage of the power they have over men, but some do.

I honestly believe that what happened was this. Constand decided to bang Cosby for help with her career. She didn't really find him attractive and wanted drugs to get her through. Which he supplied and she took. Then they had sex. But she didn't get the career boost she expected. So, over a few years she decided it was rape. Probably helped along by the #MeToo movement.

But I don't think she was raped. I think she's more like a hooker who didn't have a firm price. She was dissatisfied with the payment rendered by the john.

This doesn't make Cosby a good guy, an innocent. But it doesn't make him a rapist either.
Tom


ETA ~In a way, Cosby reminds me of the baker Phillips. Assholish behavior that used to be taken for granted isn't any more. Some people, especially the privileged, must learn that the hard way.~
 
Except, drugs. I haven't given women drugs before sex. I don't think I'm an outlier regarding that.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Except, drugs. I haven't given women drugs before sex. I don't think I'm an outlier regarding that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps my checkered past is showing.
But doing drugs then getting laid was extremely common back in the day. Guys were expected to provide.
Tom
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
TomC said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
He didn't testify that they both did them.
Click to expand...

They did both testify that she asked for some and took them herself.
Tom
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm talking about his Civil trial testimony, where he admitted to conspiring to obtain quaaludes to give women.
Click to expand...

That isn't what you said.

Again, I'm showing off my checkered past. But conspiring to buy prescription drugs without a prescription is barely a crime. It certainly isn't rape.

Frankly, it was an efficient alternative to buying her dinner, sitting through some dumb chick flick movie, then buying drinks afterwards.

I guess you had to be there.
But yeah, women have cadged all kinds of stuff from horny men with sex. Even the tacit promises of sex can get some guys to spend half their paycheck.
Tom
 
TomC said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Yeah, I'm talking about his Civil trial testimony, where he admitted to conspiring to obtain quaaludes to give women.
Click to expand...

That isn't what you said.

Again, I'm showing off my checkered past. But conspiring to buy prescription drugs without a prescription is barely a crime. It certainly isn't rape.

Frankly, it was an efficient alternative to buying her dinner, sitting through some dumb chick flick movie, then buying drinks afterwards.

I guess you had to be there.
But yeah, women have cadged all kinds of stuff from horny men with sex. Even the tacit promises of sex can get some guys to spend half their paycheck.
Tom
Click to expand...

That just sounds creepy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom