Tim McG Posted January 1, 2016 Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) Waiting to see how a "he said she said he said she said" defense can put a man in jail. If that happens, no man is safe from any casual sexual contact with a woman. On that basis, I should be spending serious time in Federal Prison.....35 years after the fact. It's no more than a case of "buyer's remorse." She went to his his house, willingly, took drugs [her choice] and got screwed.That isn't rape anymore than leering a a woman's boobs is sexual assault. Edited January 1, 2016 by Tim McG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted January 1, 2016 Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 But they have Cos on tape admitting pills, etc. That is how this case is proceeding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlhoots Posted January 1, 2016 Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 4 hours ago, Tim McG said: Waiting to see how a "he said she said he said she said" defense can put a man in jail. If that happens, no man is safe from any casual sexual contact with a woman. On that basis, I should be spending serious time in Federal Prison.....35 years after the fact. It's no more than a case of "buyer's remorse." She went to his his house, willingly, took drugs [her choice] and got screwed.That isn't rape anymore than leering a a woman's boobs is sexual assault. Yuck!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted January 1, 2016 Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 He says one thing, she another. However, based on his prior history, he's not credible. Moreover, it will be up to the trier of fact -- the jury -- to determine who's telling the truth. Just because they have different stories, that doesn't mean the truth can't be determined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejp626 Posted January 1, 2016 Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 24 minutes ago, Brad said: Just because they have different stories, that doesn't mean the truth can't be determined. I would actually disagree with that. Just as with Rashomon, there is no absolute truth in these kinds of matters, since Cosby probably did feel justified in his actions. Anyway, it doesn't help that the jury is being asked to decide about things over 10 years ago. That said, one can certainly say there is a pattern of behavior, and a reasonable person would conclude that Bill is a sexual predator. Nonetheless, this will be a difficult case to prosecute, since if the judge does allow in all these "extraneous" witnesses, it will probably be appealed forever. It is also pretty clear that this is a "political" prosecution, since the new DA actually ran on a platform of charging Cosby on the stand. No matter what you think about this case, it just feels sleazy and unjust to have criminal case proceedings dependent upon the outcome of an election -- and points to the general abuses that arise from having these positions being elected ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonnymax Posted January 1, 2016 Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 16 hours ago, Tim McG said: Waiting to see how a "he said she said he said she said" defense can put a man in jail. If that happens, no man is safe from any casual sexual contact with a woman. On that basis, I should be spending serious time in Federal Prison.....35 years after the fact. It's no more than a case of "buyer's remorse." She went to his his house, willingly, took drugs [her choice] and got screwed.That isn't rape anymore than leering a a woman's boobs is sexual assault. Without a doubt, the most ignorant and disgusting post I've read here in a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HutchFan Posted January 1, 2016 Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 1 hour ago, sonnymax said: Without a doubt, the most ignorant and disgusting post I've read here in a long time. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted January 1, 2016 Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 1 hour ago, ejp626 said: I would actually disagree with that. Just as with Rashomon, there is no absolute truth in these kinds of matters, since Cosby probably did feel justified in his actions. Anyway, it doesn't help that the jury is being asked to decide about things over 10 years ago. That said, one can certainly say there is a pattern of behavior, and a reasonable person would conclude that Bill is a sexual predator. Nonetheless, this will be a difficult case to prosecute, since if the judge does allow in all these "extraneous" witnesses, it will probably be appealed forever. It is also pretty clear that this is a "political" prosecution, since the new DA actually ran on a platform of charging Cosby on the stand. No matter what you think about this case, it just feels sleazy and unjust to have criminal case proceedings dependent upon the outcome of an election -- and points to the general abuses that arise from having these positions being elected ones. About Cosby "probably did feel justified in his actions," how does one feel justified about (all this admitted by Cosby in the civil suit deposition, if it turns out to be admissable) acquiring Quaaludes and then giving them to women in order to render them semi-unconscious so they could not effectively resist his having sex with them? His only defense, I would assume, is that these women knew he was giving them Quaaludes and that they wanted to have sex him while they were in a drugged state. Good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 1, 2016 Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 Consent and enforcement tend to be equally difficult to establish. So good luck to both, really. Especially considering how old the incident itself is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted January 1, 2016 Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 17 minutes ago, Scott Dolan said: Consent and enforcement tend to be equally difficult to establish. So good luck to both, really. Especially considering how old the incident itself is. Re: "Consent and enforcement tend to be equally difficult to establish." I think I understand" "consent" in this sentence but not "enforcement." Enforcement of what and by whom? And how would whatever "enforcement" means here be "established"? Maybe I'm just a bit thick-headed on New Year's Day, but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 1, 2016 Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 Poor wording on my part, Larry. Enforcement as in forced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejp626 Posted January 2, 2016 Report Share Posted January 2, 2016 4 hours ago, Larry Kart said: About Cosby "probably did feel justified in his actions," how does one feel justified about (all this admitted by Cosby in the civil suit deposition, if it turns out to be admissable) acquiring Quaaludes and then giving them to women in order to render them semi-unconscious so they could not effectively resist his having sex with them? His only defense, I would assume, is that these women knew he was giving them Quaaludes and that they wanted to have sex him while they were in a drugged state. Good luck with that. I'm not sure I've ever encountered anyone who couldn't justify or explain away their actions to themselves at least, no matter how monstrous to others. I would say that is the defining feature of Middlemarch after all, though one that I found increasingly tiresome. He might well have said to himself that these women knew that there was a quid pro quo at work, and then they had agreed to come to his place, even after he had made various advances, so they surely knew the score. The 'ludes were just part of the general loosening up and letting go of their inhibitions, since some of them would have been hung up over sleeping with an African-American. He was just helping them over the hump, so to speak. Well, that's how I would write it if I was going to stage this as a novel with access to Cosby's inner thoughts. I wouldn't buy it if I was on the jury, I should hasten to add... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted January 2, 2016 Report Share Posted January 2, 2016 4 hours ago, Scott Dolan said: Poor wording on my part, Larry. Enforcement as in forced. Gotcha. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alankin Posted January 2, 2016 Report Share Posted January 2, 2016 He said, she said, said... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 0:58 PM, ejp626 said: I would actually disagree with that. Just as with Rashomon, there is no absolute truth in these kinds of matters, since Cosby probably did feel justified in his actions. Anyway, it doesn't help that the jury is being asked to decide about things over 10 years ago. That said, one can certainly say there is a pattern of behavior, and a reasonable person would conclude that Bill is a sexual predator. Nonetheless, this will be a difficult case to prosecute, since if the judge does allow in all these "extraneous" witnesses, it will probably be appealed forever. It is also pretty clear that this is a "political" prosecution, since the new DA actually ran on a platform of charging Cosby on the stand. No matter what you think about this case, it just feels sleazy and unjust to have criminal case proceedings dependent upon the outcome of an election -- and points to the general abuses that arise from having these positions being elected ones. Rashomon is a movie and if this case does go to trial, the jury or the judge will have to determine what are the facts. If I recall my course on evidence correctly -- 35 years ago mind you! -- prior bad acts are not admissible to prove that on this occasion he acted the same way he acted on other occasions. In other words, it will be a difficult case to prosecute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Right. Prior acts can only be used to determine sentencing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 44 minutes ago, Scott Dolan said: Right. Prior acts can only be used to determine sentencing. There are exceptions, which may apply in this case: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-04/bill-cosby-s-past-may-yet-be-heard-in-court http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-sali/this-will-be-key-issue-in-the-bill-cosby-case_b_8899646.html http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-central-question-in-the-bill-cosby-criminal-case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Very interesting, Larry! Thanks for the links. I definitely learned something new today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Russell Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 I have a problem with the Jeffrey Toobin New Yorker article (the only one of Larry's three that I've read so far; Thanks, Larry!). I was taught that a prior conviction for one crime is considered irrelevant to the matter at hand. Now Toobin is suggesting that the prosecution may present not a prior conviction, but rather a number of witnesses alleging that he did things similar to what the prosecution is charging. Then, as Toobin says, the prosecution will not base its case upon evidence regarding the crime charged, but rather that the jury members ask themselves, Can they all be lying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Read the first article Larry posted. that will clear up your confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danasgoodstuff Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 It goes to credibility...especially his if he should be so foolish as to get on the stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 On 1/1/2016 at 5:39 PM, Tim McG said: Waiting to see how a "he said she said he said she said" defense can put a man in jail. If that happens, no man is safe from any casual sexual contact with a woman. On that basis, I should be spending serious time in Federal Prison.....35 years after the fact. It's no more than a case of "buyer's remorse." She went to his his house, willingly, took drugs [her choice] and got screwed.That isn't rape anymore than leering a a woman's boobs is sexual assault. I agree. If you can't tell the difference between consensual sex and rape, you should probably avoid casual sexual contact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted January 7, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) Am I the only one who thinks Tim is a freaking troll 1 Bonds 2 Paterno 3 Cosby Saying getting raped by this monster is buyers remorse GTFOH with that stupid shit Tim joins Dumb Dan G on my ignore list Edited January 7, 2016 by Soulstation1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 On January 1, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Tim McG said: Waiting to see how a "he said she said he said she said" defense can put a man in jail. If that happens, no man is safe from any casual sexual contact with a woman. On that basis, I should be spending serious time in Federal Prison.....35 years after the fact. It's no more than a case of "buyer's remorse." She went to his his house, willingly, took drugs [her choice] and got screwed.That isn't rape anymore than leering a a woman's boobs is sexual assault. We don't know for a fact that the women were fully aware of what they were taking, and why he was giving it to them. That's where the entire case becomes problematic. If his attorney can prove that they did indeed fully understand the ramifications, then we eventually see The Cosby Show back on Nick At Nite in the future. If the prosecutor can prove that they had no idea what they were taking, or had been lied to about what it was, then it's game over, Billy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 On 1/1/2016 at 10:07 AM, sonnymax said: Without a doubt, the most ignorant and disgusting post I've read here in a long time. Agreed. Awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.