Bill Cosby Freed
- Thread starter boozeman
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 55,030
Wow
jsmith6919
Honored Member - RIP
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2013
- Messages
- 28,407
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 128,724
I don't get the #MeToo people are losing their fucking minds.
Yes, it is shitty this fuckass got off on a technicality, but the dude is about ready to croak and they act like he is going to go on some rape rampage now he is out on the streets.
Yes, it is shitty this fuckass got off on a technicality, but the dude is about ready to croak and they act like he is going to go on some rape rampage now he is out on the streets.
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 40,358
That's one of the most disgusting statements I've ever heard in my life. To use race as a cloak for sexual assault is horrifying.
That's a bad human being right there.
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 22,889
Seems like the right result.
A prior DA said "I don't have enough to convict, all I have is the word of a loony looking lady that no one would ever want to sleep with and she waited years to come forward. I know, I will strike a deal with Cosby wherein he is forced to testify civilly on the grounds that I promise I'll never charge him criminally. This isn't criminal justice but a civil settlement wherein the victim is financially compensated is some justice and it's better than no justice, since the statute of limitations is otherwise going to expire and he'll never have any consequences at all."
Deal struck. Cosby testifies civilly that he used qualuudes on women. He settles a civil case with the victim for $4m dollars. Victim at least somewhat compensated.
New DA takes office, throws old deal out window. Old DA says, "This is unconstitutional. I struck a deal with him and you can't use his statements or any leads that you got from following those statements."
New DA disregards, uses statements. Judge for some reason allows statements, evidence stemming from statements, allows trial at all. Cosby convicted.
PA Supreme Court, seemingly rightfully to me and the old DA, concludes that the trial was improper because you can't fucking trick defendants into testifying against themselves and then charge them using that evidence that they handed you.
I mean, tell me where I'm wrong here?
A prior DA said "I don't have enough to convict, all I have is the word of a loony looking lady that no one would ever want to sleep with and she waited years to come forward. I know, I will strike a deal with Cosby wherein he is forced to testify civilly on the grounds that I promise I'll never charge him criminally. This isn't criminal justice but a civil settlement wherein the victim is financially compensated is some justice and it's better than no justice, since the statute of limitations is otherwise going to expire and he'll never have any consequences at all."
Deal struck. Cosby testifies civilly that he used qualuudes on women. He settles a civil case with the victim for $4m dollars. Victim at least somewhat compensated.
New DA takes office, throws old deal out window. Old DA says, "This is unconstitutional. I struck a deal with him and you can't use his statements or any leads that you got from following those statements."
New DA disregards, uses statements. Judge for some reason allows statements, evidence stemming from statements, allows trial at all. Cosby convicted.
PA Supreme Court, seemingly rightfully to me and the old DA, concludes that the trial was improper because you can't fucking trick defendants into testifying against themselves and then charge them using that evidence that they handed you.
I mean, tell me where I'm wrong here?
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 22,889
I mean, it seems to me to be basic consitutional rights more than a "technicality."