Bill Cosby in the spotlight looking good!

[xBiffx]

All those sluts should be ashamed.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I find it disappointing, if not altogether surprising, that even now that there are 48 identified victims, and Cosby's deposition testimony (and lack thereof) lend further credibility to their allegations, there are still people willing not only to defend him but to throw shade on his victims. I am not one given to jumping to conclusions in these situations, but I can see no realistic likelihood that he is not guilty of at least a significant portion of the acts of which he stands accused.

 

[xBiffx]

I find it disappointing, if not altogether surprising, that even now that there are 48 identified victims, and Cosby's deposition testimony (and lack thereof) lend further credibility to their allegations, there are still people willing not only to defend him but to throw shade on his victims. I am not one given to jumping to conclusions in these situations, but I can see no realistic likelihood that he is not guilty of at least a significant portion of the acts of which he stands accused.

His testimony leads to nothing more regarding rape charges. Nothing. That is a point missed by many. He testified about drugs, not about rape or sexual assault so how could his testimony lend credibility to anything but drug allegations. He still maintains he didn't do anything but give them drugs. That's a long ways a way from being proven a rapist.

Very scary territory if all that is needed to prove rape is allegations of rape. Regardless of how many people jump on the bandwagon.

 

[lotus503]

I find it disappointing, if not altogether surprising, that even now that there are 48 identified victims, and Cosby's deposition testimony (and lack thereof) lend further credibility to their allegations, there are still people willing not only to defend him but to throw shade on his victims. I am not one given to jumping to conclusions in these situations, but I can see no realistic likelihood that he is not guilty of at least a significant portion of the acts of which he stands accused.

Its weird but people like to frame their individual opinions based on legal standard.

I don't need evidence beyond reasonable doubt and a conviction in a court of law to think Cosby is a serial rapist.

 

[xBiffx]

Its weird but people like to frame their individual opinions based on legal standard.

I don't need evidence beyond reasonable doubt and a conviction in a court of law to think Cosby is a serial rapist.

Some require some sort of standard to judge things by. If that standard is no more than how you "feel" about something, how is that objective, let alone standard. Feelings change, facts don't.

 

[lotus503]

Some require some sort of standard to judge things by. If that standard is no more than how you "feel" about something, how is that objective, let alone standard. Feelings change, facts don't.

Sure, if one woman came out and said he raped her, I give it much less weight than over 30 women with a self admittance he gave drugs to women he wanted to have sex with.

So its not a comparison between "feel" and "fact".

I don't feel Cosby is a rapist, I think he is a rapist because over 30 people have claimed they raped him and self admittance he gave drugs to women he wanted to have sex with.

While the evidence may not reach the legal standard of guilt, its sure does meet the common sense standard and since i'm not on a jury I don't have to stick my head in the sand.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

His testimony leads to nothing more regarding rape charges. Nothing. That is a point missed by many. He testified about drugs, not about rape or sexual assault so how could his testimony lend credibility to anything but drug allegations. He still maintains he didn't do anything but give them drugs. That's a long ways a way from being proven a rapist.

Very scary territory if all that is needed to prove rape is allegations of rape. Regardless of how many people jump on the bandwagon.

He admitted buying drugs to give women he intended to have sex with, and refused to answer a question regarding whether he had given drugs to women without their knowledge. That is very damning (within the context of his having 48 women accusing him of drugging them and performing sex acts on them). If you refuse to acknowledge that you're being willfully ignorant.

Your latter point is inane slippery-slope nonsense. Nobody is saying that allegations of rape are enough to "prove" his guilt in a legal sense. To me, the evidence is adequately clear that I am confident he is guilty of at least some of what he's been accused of, and I think less of him as a person - in fact, I think he's a complete scumbag. That doesn't mean he should go to prison, unless there is adequate evidence to prove criminal wrongdoing, beyond a reasonable doubt, within the applicable statute of limitations, however.

 

[CZroe]

I find it disappointing, if not altogether surprising, that even now that there are 48 identified victims, and Cosby's deposition testimony (and lack thereof) lend further credibility to their allegations, there are still people willing not only to defend him but to throw shade on his victims. I am not one given to jumping to conclusions in these situations, but I can see no realistic likelihood that he is not guilty of at least a significant portion of the acts of which he stands accused.

"Victims?"
Accusers. They are technically accusers until we know otherwise. You know this... RAPIST!

 

[CZroe]

He admitted buying drugs to give women he intended to have sex with, and refused to answer a question regarding whether he had given drugs to women without their knowledge. That is very damning (within the context of his having 48 women accusing him of drugging them and performing sex acts on them). If you refuse to acknowledge that you're being willfully ignorant.

Your latter point is inane slippery-slope nonsense. Nobody is saying that allegations of rape are enough to "prove" his guilt in a legal sense. To me, the evidence is adequately clear that I am confident he is guilty of at least some of what he's been accused of, and I think less of him as a person - in fact, I think he's a complete scumbag. That doesn't mean he should go to prison, unless there is adequate evidence to prove criminal wrongdoing, beyond a reasonable doubt, within the applicable statute of limitations, however.

You also know that refusing to answer (pleading The Fifth) cannot be legally used against him and that we can't legally discriminate against him based on unsubstantiated accusations, so it isn't "damning."

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

You also know that refusing to answer (pleading The Fifth) cannot be legally used against him and that we can't legally discriminate against him based on unsubstantiated accusations, so it isn't "damning."

That is pure-dee bullshit. His refusal to answer is inadmissible in court but it sure as hell factors into any reasonable person's view of whether he is guilty. I don't even understand your latter point (that "we can't legally discriminate against him based on unsubstantiated accusations"). We most certainly can do so. He can be legally stigmatized and, if he were employed without an employment contract (like 99% of Americans), fired based only on "unsubstantiated allegations." I don't know if you're just trolling, but if you're not you are one strange ranger . . .

 

[lotus503]

"Victims?"
Accusers. They are technically accusers until we know otherwise. You know this... RAPIST!

No they are technically accusers in the eyes of the law.

In the realm of personal/public opinion they are rape victims, because my personal opinion does not have to reflect legal standard.

 

[xBiffx]

Sure, if one woman came out and said he raped her, I give it much less weight than over 30 women with a self admittance he gave drugs to women he wanted to have sex with.

So its not a comparison between "feel" and "fact".

I don't feel Cosby is a rapist, I think he is a rapist because over 30 people have claimed they raped him and self admittance he gave drugs to women he wanted to have sex with.

While the evidence may not reach the legal standard of guilt, its sure does meet the common sense standard and since i'm not on a jury I don't have to stick my head in the sand.

30 women, a lot of which didn't say anything at all for years. And many who were able to read the previous accusers story in the news ahead of time.

It doesn't help that we are talking about a very successful comedian/actor with very deep pockets. A lot of these women know that their stories aren't going to land him in a gray bar hotel however it may land them a nice payday.

Is it ok to ruin his life based on accusations alone though? Since we aren't talking about jail time at this point.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

30 women, a lot of which didn't say anything at all for years. And many who were able to read the previous accusers story in the news ahead of time.

It doesn't help that we are talking about a very successful comedian/actor with very deep pockets. A lot of these women know that their stories aren't going to land him in a gray bar hotel however it may land them a nice payday.

Is it ok to ruin his life based on accusations alone though? Since we aren't talking about jail time at this point.

Cry me a river. He is an old man with more money than God. In the great majority of these cases, the statute of limitations for any civil action has run, and these women stand to gain nothing by coming forward. His life is not "ruined," and to the extent it is, he richly deserves that.

 

[xBiffx]

Cry me a river. He is an old man with more money than God. In the great majority of these cases, the statute of limitations for any civil action has run, and these women stand to gain nothing by coming forward. His life is not "ruined," and to the extent it is, he richly deserves that.

So its OK because he is rich. He can take it. Got it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

So its OK because he is rich. He can take it. Got it.

The only reason I bring up his wealth is that he is much more insulated from having his life "ruined" than 99.999% of the population. The reason it's OK (not that I agree his life is "ruined") is that he is almost certainly, in my view, a serial sex offender.

 

[alien42]

So its OK because he is rich. He can take it. Got it.

you completely missed his point. you had just stated that Cosby's victims were just in it for the money, yet for the vast majority of them, the statute of limitations has expired.

ie, your point was completely nullified.

 

[First]

We are sitting with nearly 50 accusers yet no evidence of rape exists other than he said she said. None of the witnesses managed to tell anyone about their encounters before the statute of limitations ran out. Cosby was that good, so good that he managed to pick 50 women who wouldn't make a peep.

Oh wait, there is this one that might fall within the statute of limitations:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aped-Playboy-Mansion-statute-limitations.html

But there is a mighty uphill battle even in this case. One being lack of evidence, as usual, and the fact that the accuser can't even remember exactly when it all took place.

lol

 

[werepossum]

He admitted buying drugs to give women he intended to have sex with, and refused to answer a question regarding whether he had given drugs to women without their knowledge. That is very damning (within the context of his having 48 women accusing him of drugging them and performing sex acts on them). If you refuse to acknowledge that you're being willfully ignorant.

Your latter point is inane slippery-slope nonsense. Nobody is saying that allegations of rape are enough to "prove" his guilt in a legal sense. To me, the evidence is adequately clear that I am confident he is guilty of at least some of what he's been accused of, and I think less of him as a person - in fact, I think he's a complete scumbag. That doesn't mean he should go to prison, unless there is adequate evidence to prove criminal wrongdoing, beyond a reasonable doubt, within the applicable statute of limitations, however.

This, exactly. His lawyer's willingness to have him deposed - but NOT answer the key question, whether or not he ever gave these drugs to a woman without her prior knowledge and consent, under oath - to me speaks volumes. I'm perfectly willing to believe that not all of his accusers are being truthful. After all, even if the statute has run there's some valuable publicity to be garnered. But a couple of those women have quite successful careers and stand to lose more than they might gain, and at least one did file a complaint immediately. Therefore I believe he is guilty of rape (or at the least, attempted rape) of at least some of these women.

 

[mikeymikec]

He admitted buying drugs to give women he intended to have sex with, and refused to answer a question regarding whether he had given drugs to women without their knowledge.

I'm reminded of Hot Fuzz at this point: "She tripped and fell on her own shears".

 

[Atomic Playboy]

30 women, a lot of which didn't say anything at all for years. And many who were able to read the previous accusers story in the news ahead of time.

It doesn't help that we are talking about a very successful comedian/actor with very deep pockets. A lot of these women know that their stories aren't going to land him in a gray bar hotel however it may land them a nice payday.

Is it ok to ruin his life based on accusations alone though? Since we aren't talking about jail time at this point.

Can you point to a single other instance in the history of human civilization where four dozen people from a wide variety of locations have independently accused a celebrity of heinous acts without any prior communication between each other and said accusations were proven to be 100% false? Thousands of years humans have been falsely accusing each other of all manner of things, many trying to look for a quick payday; never once have such accusations been on such a grand scale with dozens of accusers who never agreed to corroborate each other's tales, and didn't even know each other prior to the accusations becoming public. Why didn't we see dozens of accusations crop up against Mike Tyson or Kobe Bryant or Marv Albert or R. Kelly or Dave Letterman or Roman Polanski or Woody Allen or Ben Roethlisberger? It's such an utterly absurd conspiracy theory that it beggars belief.

Now celebrities using their positions of power to commit heinous acts over several decades and using their influence to cover it up? That's happened. Look at Jimmy Savile or Jerry Sandusky or Rolf Harris, people who got away with decades of child molestation because they were shielded by power. Look at all the accusations of molestation within the Catholic Church that were covered up for decades. It's not hard to find examples of celebrities or rich people or people in positions of power using their position to do horrifying things to a wide variety of victims; we have examples of that dating back to antiquity. But it's easier to believe that Bill Cosby is the first person in human history to inspire dozens of false rape accusations by random golddiggers who don't even know each other than to add him to the list of thousands who have abused positions of authority to victimize people below them? Come on now. That's intellectually lazy and morally reprehensible.

 

[xBiffx]

Can you point to a single other instance in the history of human civilization where four dozen people from a wide variety of locations have independently accused a celebrity of heinous acts without any prior communication between each other and said accusations were proven to be 100% false? Thousands of years humans have been falsely accusing each other of all manner of things, many trying to look for a quick payday; never once have such accusations been on such a grand scale with dozens of accusers who never agreed to corroborate each other's tales, and didn't even know each other prior to the accusations becoming public. Why didn't we see dozens of accusations crop up against Mike Tyson or Kobe Bryant or Marv Albert or R. Kelly or Dave Letterman or Roman Polanski or Woody Allen or Ben Roethlisberger? It's such an utterly absurd conspiracy theory that it beggars belief.

Now celebrities using their positions of power to commit heinous acts over several decades and using their influence to cover it up? That's happened. Look at Jimmy Savile or Jerry Sandusky or Rolf Harris, people who got away with decades of child molestation because they were shielded by power. Look at all the accusations of molestation within the Catholic Church that were covered up for decades. It's not hard to find examples of celebrities or rich people or people in positions of power using their position to do horrifying things to a wide variety of victims; we have examples of that dating back to antiquity. But it's easier to believe that Bill Cosby is the first person in human history to inspire dozens of false rape accusations by random golddiggers who don't even know each other than to add him to the list of thousands who have abused positions of authority to victimize people below them? Come on now. That's intellectually lazy and morally reprehensible.

So its guilt by association? OK. These accusations didn't happen all at once and they didn't happen in a vacuum. There is no conspiracy theory required to say that there isn't any proof of rape.

So is Cosby now guilty of using his position of power to influence these women into not talking?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So its guilt by association? OK. These accusations didn't happen all at once and they didn't happen in a vacuum. There is no conspiracy theory required to say that there isn't any proof of rape.

There's a conspiracy theory required to say that 48 independent accusers are all lying. It's literally unprecedented. Your version of events requires one person to accuse a beloved and widely-respected celebrity of an act that no one thought he would ever do and 47 people to hear that accusation and independently think "I'm going to jump on that gravy train!" That's a frankly insane assumption to make. But I guess Quaaludes won't melt steel beams.

 

[xBiffx]

There's a conspiracy theory required to say that 48 independent accusers are all lying. It's literally unprecedented. Your version of events requires one person to accuse a beloved and widely-respected celebrity of an act that no one thought he would ever do and 47 people to hear that accusation and independently think "I'm going to jump on that gravy train!" That's a frankly insane assumption to make. But I guess Quaaludes won't melt steel beams.

I didn't say they were lying. I said that they have no proof they were raped.

 

[jackstar7]

I didn't say they were lying. I said that they have no proof they were raped.

Hey, you want to hang out with the guy and trade notes, that's up to you. Most of us have higher standards for the sort of person with which we wish to spend time.

 

[CZroe]

you completely missed his point. you had just stated that Cosby's victims were just in it for the money, yet for the vast majority of them, the statute of limitations has expired.



ie, your point was completely nullified.

There is no statute of limitations on blackmail... not that it's the case here, but that's why people still deserve presumption of innocence. Legal payouts aren't the only kind of motivation for a public accusation.