Bill Cosby released - conviction overturned

Podge_irl

Overheal wrote: »

That's not why it's not being pursued. He cannot be charged for the same crimes again under Double Jeopardy. The State really ****ed this up. The court system doesn't have a clause mooting criminal justice if the defendant is past a certain age, or of a certain infirmity. Just go look at the Robert Durst trial.

There is no double jeopardy here. They could retry him for the crimes just like they could after a mistrial - they just can not use his sworn statements as evidence.

Podge_irl

Mellor wrote: »

He is still guilty. Based on his 2005 civil testimony.

The 2018 formal charge was overturned.

He does have victims. His 2018 criminal conviction was overturned as it was violated a plea deal made in 2005 - violating that would be highly illegal.

However his 2005 testimony from those proceeding stand. Where he admitted in court that he drug, and had sex with women. Based on that testimony, it's perfectly valid to call him a rapist.

Keep up.






It's not a technicality he got off on. He got off on the fact they agreed to not charge him. Imbeciles in the DA office, but legally this is the right outcome.

He can't be sentenced for his crimes due to a plea deal. That does not imply the crimes didn't happen.

He can be sentenced for his crimes if found guilty. They just can’t use the statements as evidence for his guilt. If they could build a case without them they could retry him.

MOR316

joseywhales wrote: »

Well this is why we have the courts, I outsource my judgement to the professionals. Gossip about is irrelevant.

Problem with this is, been explained already but, he basically said...

"Yeah I drugged her with a sedative and had sex but, it was casual and consensual..."

That's gonna stick to you regardless

joseywhales

MOR316 wrote: »

Problem with this is, been explained already but, he basically said...

"Yeah I drugged her with a sedative and had sex but, it was casual and consensual..."

That's gonna stick to you regardless

I guess blame the prosecution for using the witness testimony. They messed it up and it took too long to bring the case against him also, he is not guilty for me, even if I think he committed a crime.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

I guess blame the prosecution for using the witness testimony. They messed it up and it took too long to bring the case against him also, he is not guilty for me, even if I think he committed a crime.

So you do believe he is guilty, just not in the legal definition?

I.e you know he is a rapist but cannot legally define him as one.

joseywhales

Deleted User wrote: »

So you do believe he is guilty, just not in the legal definition?

I.e you know he is a rapist but cannot legally define him as one.

Yes, what I think is probably true is irrelevant though. I suppose it would come into play if I interacted with him personally but I do not so it's irrelevant what I think of him.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

Yes, what I think is probably true is irrelevant though. I suppose it would come into play if I interacted with him personally but I do not so it's irrelevant what I think of him.

No, fair enough. Just wondering.

lawrencesummers

The release of Cosby, or more so his ability to pay lawyers to formulate a successful appeal shows to me the problem with the BLM movement.

It’s not about skin colour. It’s about rich and poor and the difference in society for a rich person and a poor person, it just happens that a lot of the poor people are people of color.

That’s not to say racism doesn’t exist, but the problems are not always down to race, more so they are problems of poverty.

Overheal

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The release of Cosby, or more so his ability to pay lawyers to formulate a successful appeal shows to me the problem with the BLM movement.

It’s not about skin colour. It’s about rich and poor and the difference in society for a rich person and a poor person, it just happens that a lot of the poor people are people of color.

That’s not to say racism doesn’t exist, but the problems are not always down to race, more so they are problems of poverty.

So you are saying there are no correlatives between race and poverty? Overall I disagree with your premise, the fact that money can determine whether you get justice or not is one of the things that movement and others like it have highlighted as a problem. Ultimately what we seem to agree is racism does exist, being rich helps your due process, but we disagree where you say skin color doesn't factor, and evidence that money helps you in the criminal justice system, as an argument, doesn't highlight any 'problem' in the BLM movement, their movement is about the racism part of it, which you and I agree, does exist, which is not incongruent with the parallel fact that problems are 'not always' down to race. There's enough data on the board though to demonstrate that racism has resulted in generational wealth disparities (which will only get more disparate with the removal of estate taxes, with every rich asshole becoming an asshole dynasty), which, in turn, will continue in this observation to result in racially disparate outcomes because of worsening disparities in wealth etc.

lawrencesummers

Overheal wrote: »

So you are saying there are no correlatives between race and poverty? Overall I disagree with your premise, the fact that money can determine whether you get justice or not is one of the things that movement and others like it have highlighted as a problem. Ultimately what we seem to agree is racism does exist, being rich helps your due process, but we disagree where you say skin color doesn't factor, and evidence that money helps you in the criminal justice system, as an argument, doesn't highlight any 'problem' in the BLM movement, their movement is about the racism part of it, which you and I agree, does exist, which is not incongruent with the parallel fact that problems are 'not always' down to race. There's enough data on the board though to demonstrate that racism has resulted in generational wealth disparities (which will only get more disparate with the removal of estate taxes, with every rich asshole becoming an asshole dynasty), which, in turn, will continue in this observation to result in racially disparate outcomes because of worsening disparities in wealth etc.

I think overall the societal problems that BLM are attributing to race are actually problems of poverty more so than problems of race.

Sure racism exists, there is no doubting that but the inequalities in society are down to poverty more than anything else.

Overheal

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I think overall the societal problems that BLM are attributing to race are actually problems of poverty more so than problems of race.

Sure racism exists, there is no doubting that but the inequalities in society are down to poverty more than anything else.

The problems of poverty Are the problems of race.

https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/tulsa-race-massacre

https://www.history.com/news/red-summer-1919-riots-chicago-dc-great-migration

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/redlining-what-is-history-mike-bloomberg-comments/

osarusan

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The release of Cosby, or more so his ability to pay lawyers to formulate a successful appeal shows to me the problem with the BLM movement.

Has anybody (BLM themselves, or Cosby, or anybody else) linked the Cosby case to BLM or race?

I don't think I've ever seen it referenced from that perspective.

Strange interpretation to take from the case in my opinion.

lawrencesummers

osarusan wrote: »

Has anybody (BLM themselves, or Cosby, or anybody else) linked the Cosby case to BLM or race?

I don't think I've ever seen it referenced from that perspective.

Strange interpretation to take from the case in my opinion.

Not really, it just proves that a jailed black person with resources has afar different experience to a jailed black person without resources.

lawrencesummers

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The release of Cosby, or more so his ability to pay lawyers to formulate a successful appeal shows to me the problem with the BLM movement.

It’s not about skin colour. It’s about rich and poor and the difference in society for a rich person and a poor person, it just happens that a lot of the poor people are people of color.

That’s not to say racism doesn’t exist, but the problems are not always down to race, more so they are problems of poverty.

What?

What the hell is that?

I've been one of the most vocal opponents of BLM but I can't for the life of me see how you could manage to link them with Bill Cosby.

Bizarre take.

I genuinely can't make head nor tail of the point you are trying to make.

lawrencesummers

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Not really, it just proves that a jailed black person with resources has afar different experience to a jailed black person without resources.

Remove the word black.

What changes?

lawrencesummers

Overheal wrote: »

The problems of poverty Are the problems of race.

https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/tulsa-race-massacre

https://www.history.com/news/red-summer-1919-riots-chicago-dc-great-migration

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/redlining-what-is-history-mike-bloomberg-comments/

They are inextricably linked, but on balance I see the issues that BLM March for (and rightly so) as being problems of poverty as opposed to race primarily and Cosby is a good example of why that is the case.

lawrencesummers

Deleted User wrote: »

Remove the word black.

What changes?

The sentence and the sentence gets shorter.

lawrencesummers

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The sentence and the sentence gets shorter.

That's clever.

Incorrect, but clever.

lawrencesummers

Deleted User wrote: »

What?

What the hell is that?

I've been one of the most vocal opponents of BLM but I can't for the life of me see how you could manage to link them with Bill Cosby.

Bizarre take.

I genuinely can't make head nor tail of the point you are trying to make.

This has nothing to do with opposing BLM, I’ve no issue with that movement, if you do then that’s your issue. I just see that a lot of their issues are down to poverty as opposed to race, and Cosby shows how a Black person with money has a different outcome.

lawrencesummers

lawrencesummers wrote: »

This has nothing to do with opposing BLM, I’ve no issue with that movement, if you do then that’s your issue. I just see that a lot of their issues are down to poverty as opposed to race, and Cosby shows how a Black person with money has a different outcome.

But why bring them up?

It's just bizarre.

lawrencesummers

Deleted User wrote: »

But why bring them up?

It's just bizarre.

Because Cosby is black.

lawrencesummers

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Because Cosby is black.

Lol. Ok.

Should they get involved with Morgan Freeman if he gets a parking ticket?

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Lol. Ok.

Should they get involved with Morgan Freeman if he gets a parking ticket?

Some people seem to think the BLM movement has become a catch all for all things black.

dog_pig

osarusan wrote: »

Has anybody (BLM themselves, or Cosby, or anybody else) linked the Cosby case to BLM or race?

I don't think I've ever seen it referenced from that perspective.

Strange interpretation to take from the case in my opinion.

Bill Cosby's spokesman said that the case being overturned was "justice for Black America."

joseywhales

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The release of Cosby, or more so his ability to pay lawyers to formulate a successful appeal shows to me the problem with the BLM movement.

It’s not about skin colour. It’s about rich and poor and the difference in society for a rich person and a poor person, it just happens that a lot of the poor people are people of color.

That’s not to say racism doesn’t exist, but the problems are not always down to race, more so they are problems of poverty.

If you are saying that the issues of poverty discrimination supercede racial discrimination then I agree. In terms of the amount of people if affects and the lack of support available. Being poor and a minority is a double whammy but I would rather be rich and a minority than poor and the majority race.

MOR316

Why is the BLM movement been used here?

If he was a white person, he'd have got off. If he wasn't famous and was poor, he'd still have gotten off...It had nothing to do with him and all about the prosecution messing up, just like OJ...

Seriously, can any of you people read? Do you refuse to read past the headline?

Bizarre

MOR316

MOR316 wrote: »

Why is the BLM movement been used here?

If he was a white person, he'd have got off. If he wasn't famous and was poor, he'd still have gotten off...It had nothing to do with him and all about the prosecution messing up, just like OJ...

Seriously, can any of you people read? Do you refuse to read past the headline?

Bizarre

In fairness only one person used it, and anyone replying to him had your exact reaction.

MOR316

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness only one person used it, and anyone replying to him had your exact reaction.

Had a drink...I posted...

Potential-Monke

sligeach wrote: »

He wasn't found not guilty because of any technicality. He walked free because of facts. Of that, I am sure.

Grand. I'm referring to a grown adult, regardless of mental condition, having children sleep over, in his bed, but it's ok because he was on the ground. Yeah, that's perfectly normal and acceptable.

I don't even like kids, and I know that's just wrong. Remove the fame and money and I wonder would it be as acceptable...

Henry...

What.Now wrote: »

So tell me, If I accidentially bumped into him on the street he could sue me if I called him an abuser?

Prob kick your hole

joseywhales

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Grand. I'm referring to a grown adult, regardless of mental condition, having children sleep over, in his bed, but it's ok because he was on the ground. Yeah, that's perfectly normal and acceptable.

I don't even like kids, and I know that's just wrong. Remove the fame and money and I wonder would it be as acceptable...

As a child I slept in many adult's beds, my uncles bed, my mate's dad's bed or maybe it was his mom's bed, my own dad's bed many many times, they all owned multiple beds, I slept in dozens of people's beds as a child. Of course I was alone in those beds but there's no doubt about it, I was a pre pubescent child and I slept in their bed.

briany

Tilden Katz wrote: »

Oh goody gumdrops. Another Michael Jackson rant from sligeach.

Sligeach. Many people agree with you and believe that MJ was innocent. Many others do not agree with you and believe MJ was guilty. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts on the topic. Let it go.

Seems to me like all that being found not guilty in a court of law can protect you from is a custodial sentence or some other form of legal restitution. It cannot not protect you from suspicion, pariah status, extra-judicial punishment, reduced employment opportunities, shaming, threats and so on. Your world can become something of a prison even without going to a jail, and it's a whole life sentence. Where's the justice in that?



This isn't even speaking about Michael Jackson so much, but the idea that you could be accused of something heinous, even if it's a total fabrication, be cleared in court, but always have this question mark, this stink hanging over you just doesn't sit right with me, and makes me think that we haven't really advanced beyond the high middle ages in our thought.

Potential-Monke

joseywhales wrote: »

As a child I slept in many adult's beds, my uncles bed, my mate's dad's bed or maybe it was his mom's bed, my own dad's bed many many times, they all owned multiple beds, I slept in dozens of people's beds as a child. Of course I was alone in those beds but there's no doubt about it, I was a pre pubescent child and I slept in their bed.

But you didn't sleep with a group of other children on the bed of an unrelated multi millionaire? One thing sleeping by yourself in family and friend beds, completely different when there's a load of them together with an unrelated adult. That's just me though. Obviously some people think it's perfectly acceptable.

briany

briany wrote: »

Seems to me like all that being found not guilty in a court of law can protect you from is a custodial sentence or some other form of legal restitution. It cannot not protect you from suspicion, pariah status, extra-judicial punishment, reduced employment opportunities, shaming, threats and so on. Your world can become something of a prison even without going to a jail, and it's a whole life sentence. Where's the justice in that?



This isn't even speaking about Michael Jackson so much, but the idea that you could be accused of something heinous, even if it's a total fabrication, be cleared in court, but always have this question mark, this stink hanging over you just doesn't sit right with me, and makes me think that we haven't really advanced beyond the high middle ages in our thought.

I kind of agree....

But do you think OJ is innocent?

MOR316

MOR316 wrote: »

Had a drink...I posted...

I know that feeling

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

I kind of agree....

But do you think OJ is innocent?

If the glove don't fit...

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

I kind of agree....

But do you think OJ is innocent?

It's not really a question of whether I think OJ was innocent of what I presume you mean was the charge of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson. Someone who is found not guilty in a court is not, by extension, found definitely innocent, but I do think someone found not guilty has a right to live as any other freeman, and not be subject to harassment, slander, libel or assault based on another party's presumption of their guilt. If this cannot be the case, then the assurance to every accused man that they'll have their day in court means a lot less than I personally think it ought to.

briany

briany wrote: »

It's not really a question of whether I think OJ was innocent of what I presume you mean was the charge of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson. Someone who is found not guilty in a court is not, by extension, found definitely innocent, but I do think someone found not guilty has a right to live as any other freeman, and not be subject to harassment, slander, libel or assault based on another party's presumption of their guilt. If this cannot be the case, then the assurance to every accused man that they'll have their day in court means a lot less than I personally think it ought to.

Oh right.

It's good in theory, but never works like that.

Life doesn't work that way though.

It's a little silly to think that your own opinions will be superceded by judicial practices or by stuff like technicalities.

By extension, you'd be of the opinion that once someone leaves prison, they should not be subjected to any abuse or prejudice for their crimes as they have paid their state sanctioned punishment.

I don't think you believe that. You simply can't.

briany

briany wrote: »

It's not really a question of whether I think OJ was innocent of what I presume you mean was the charge of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson. Someone who is found not guilty in a court is not, by extension, found definitely innocent, but I do think someone found not guilty has a right to live as any other freeman, and not be subject to harassment, slander, libel or assault based on another party's presumption of their guilt. If this cannot be the case, then the assurance to every accused man that they'll have their day in court means a lot less than I personally think it ought to.

And also, do you think OJ was guilty of killing his missus and the other lad?

joseywhales

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh right.

It's good in theory, but never works like that.

Life doesn't work that way though.

It's a little silly to think that your own opinions will be superceded by judicial practices or by stuff like technicalities.

By extension, you'd be of the opinion that once someone leaves prison, they should not be subjected to any abuse or prejudice for their crimes as they have paid their state sanctioned punishment.

I don't think you believe that. You simply can't.

The alternative is mob rule, we must adhere to that or we risk chaos. We have systems to protect us from ourselves.

Potential-Monke

joseywhales wrote: »

We have systems to protect us from ourselves.

Unfortunately, that seems to apply only to the law abiding people.

That’s weird- this thread appeared on the boards front page yet it hasn’t been posted in since July.