Bill Cosby - Is it true???

You know how feminists claim that telling dirty jokes encourages rapists? What you're saying right now is the actual version of that. Every time someone attacks the presumption of innocence and says it's perfectly okay for a lynch mob to assume someone is guilty and pull out the pitchforks this is what you're defending:



This is what happens when people say the presumption of innocence belongs in a courtroom. This is the sickening end result of telling a mob that the presumption of innocence is "a legal presumption" and was "never intended" and can never "reasonably be construed" to apply to the actual public. Tell me, what's next? Claiming that equality of the races/sexes/whathaveyou is only a "legal" presumption? Claiming that censorship isn't censorship unless it's the government doing it? Oh wait...

How many people backed accusations of witchcraft again? How many people testified that they were victims of "ritual satanic abuse" despite that we know, now, that the entire satanic panic was a total and complete fabrication?

She admitted to having sex with someone too drunk to know where he was or what was going on. It is the FEMINIST standard that drunk people can not consent to sex and having sex with them is rape. In fact that's such a feminist cause celebre that right now there's nearly three decimal places of lawsuits against universities over their kangaroo court systems.

Funny how you can simultaneously use epithets such as "douchey anti-feminist"* while also ignoring that it is your own side that tied the noose Amy Schumer should rightly hang from. Pray tell does that make you an anti-feminist as well?


*I reiterate as always that "anti-feminist" does not, and more importantly can not mean anything. Amy Schumer, Julie Bindel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bell Hooks, and Christina Hoff-Sommers are all "feminists". It is impossible to not be "anti-feminist" because no matter what you will inevitably wind up staunchly opposed to a major mainstream feminist figurehead. Therefore the term is meaningless.

Going by your posts so far the number of people involved doesn't matter, except when it leads to a guilty verdict then it does. Except when we're talking about a woman then it doesn't, unless it supports her innocence then it does again. So in summation if it's a male accused then no matter how many people might be lying we should always assume he's guilty the moment anyone makes an accusation, and if it's a female accused then no matter what we should never believe they're guilty until there's a huge number of people... even if the female is self-admitting to something far less than what males have already been convicted for.

Again how many people testified that they had witnessed someone practicing witchcraft? How many victims of ritual satanic abuse that never happened came forward? How many communists were outed? You're acting like we've never seen this exact pattern of mass hysteria before.

 

Seems like the old dude probably did it to the exact extent that all the hyperbole-spewing mainstream media are trying to polish: infrequently but over the course of many, many-many moons.

Dozens of women willingly appearing on a magazine cover either mean he necro-banged twice as many women or that some are out for money/fame/book deal. I won't drop statistics, but--IIRC from the UCR vs. NCVS--a good half of women sexually assaulted don't report it out of shame or fear or whatever.

I am glad that I am essentially married and thus off the market in 2016 where the dating (er, casual fucking) world is a little like playing minesweeper with your balls resting on the main charge of a TC/6. They really should offer free suicide pistols to guys caught in the crossfire: Guilty or innocent, it's the only way out, brah.

 

I agree with you on this, but speaking from what I have observed, I believe that the wealthy get a more favorable version of those presumptions than do those who can't afford infinite lawyering. Were he a common plebe like the rest of us; his PD would be trying to negotiate a plea from the outset and there'd be little chance of a trial. Bet you a paycheck this goes to trial.

And frankly, I want it to. It will put all the speculation to bed and send a message to the other predators that someone who is incapacitated can't consent to sex. Whether they say they can or not.
--- merged: Jan 5, 2016 at 1:26 PM ---

This is a non-sequitur and somewhat of an ad hominem argument. Not to speak for @Levite, but he did not say lynching was OK. What he said was the presumption of innocence occurs in the courtroom and everyone outside of the process gets to have their opinion, because that opinion has no force of law.

Lynching and any other form of vigilantism is a felony crime, and is not condoned in law or by society.

 

In order: Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit.

More thoroughly...

Bullshit: If that were true Amy Schumer would be in prison or at minimum living the life of ostracization and scorn that innocents like Tim Hunt and Paul Nungesser currently are. And we're not even getting near the utter miscarriage of justice that led to an incapacitated victim being charged as the perpetrator at Amherst purely because he had a penis.

All of which leads to...

Bullshit: Throwing the presumption of innocence as a fundamental societal value and not merely a legal principle out the window is exactly what leads to lynchings and the erosion of the legal value itself, something which has already happened today just as it once did before... not that there was ever really a break in the middle for undesirables (the poor, minorities, etc).

The man in that picture was murdered because of exactly the "logic" you're all using right now. Word for word. This isn't even a metaphor anymore, things aren't "like" the logic of a lynch mob the arguments being made today ARE that of a lynch mob . We've got feminist writers openly calling for a reversal of the burden of truth in court and congresscritters openly saying it's better than innocents go to jail than a guilty person go free, that's the complete and wholesale reversal of every principle out justice system was founded on. The social values are the legal values. Throw one out the window and you lose the other, either de jure or de facto at the hands of a mob.

Tell that to Paul Nungesser and Tim Hunt. At least they weren't killed, others aren't so lucky even today.

 

Not bullshit, and no comparison to what happened with Cosby, either in the case of Amherst OR Amy Schumer. Get your facts straight.

Amy Schumer self-reported an incident that you have chosen to interpret as sexual assault. No complaint has been filed, she has neither been sued or charged with a crime.

Amherst expelled a student based on an allegation of sexual assault that they found credible, after an investigation and proceeding that met DOE standards for a preponderance of the evidence. That student became aware of evidence he believed exonerates him and has sued Amherst. That lawsuit has not been adjudicated. Hardly a lynching. I believe the young man is still alive. He wasn't dragged from a jail and hanged. Do you consider that a lynching merely because of his race? According to our standards of jurisprudence, he was afforded due process.

Here we go with those darn old inconvenient facts again: the man in the picture, Will Brown, was murdered (yes, lynched by a mob) in Omaha Nebraska in 1919. He was accused of assault. It is unlikely he was guilty as he had advanced rheumatism, but there was no trial so we have no finding of fact. You've provided plenty of bullshit yourself trying to compare that horrible crime to what is happening to Bill Cosby. As far as I know, Cosby hasn't been dragged from a jail, shot, hanged, and had his body cremated. The allegations against him are numerous and, frankly, credible, and supported by his own testimony when deposed in a civil lawsuit.

On a side note, the Tuskeegee Institute reports that 4,742 lynchings occurred in the United States between 1882 and 1968, the last of which occurred in 1964. 1,297 whites were lynched, and 3,445 blacks.

The presumption of innocence is a principal of law, not of society. People have opinions and you can't stop them from having them or expressing them (in the good ol' USA we have something that guarantees the right to have and express an opinion, it's called the first amendment to the constitution). Many people believe Bill Cosby is guilty, that hardly constitutes a lynching. Many people believed OJ Simpson brutally murdered his wife, yet he was acquitted of that crime and nobody drug him to a lamppost for hanging.

Objectivity is required of the legal system, and Bill Cosby will be afforded due process. Will Brown was not. In fact, Will Brown was defended by Omaha police but they were overrun by a crowd of over 5,000 people.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the phrases "de jure" or "de facto." De jure means according to rightful entitlement or claim. To what entitlement or claim in law do you refer? De facto refers to that which does exist in fact or in effect, whether or not by right. Social values are not legal values. You cannot equate the two. I will grant you that our system of laws is based on shared societal values, but that is not globally true either of all values or all laws.

Again, not relevant to the topic. Nungesser faced due process and was acquitted, and has had unfair media coverage. Cosby has settled numerous cases in which he was accused in civil proceedings, and his own sworn testimony has come back to haunt him.

Tim Hunt was vilified in social media because of remarks he made at a luncheon that were taken well out of context. Yes, he was treated unfairly but hardly lynched. He is currently a professor of immunology at University College in London, UK.

 

I feel the same way about people using the term 'lynch mob' as I do those who use 'Nazi'.
Unless you are talking about a group of people who are actually dragging someone to a tree, wrapping a rope a rope around that persons neck and pulling them up in the air until they are dead, don't use the word.

 

This mostly says what I would have said, and mostly says it better.

 

at this point his image is tainted