Bill cosby guilty

[PACOX]

I mean bad people often do good things as well. Napoleon gave us a reworked legal code that simplied a lot of things and is still used in a lot of places around the world. Unfortunately he also started like 4-5 major wars which lead to thousands of deaths. Hitler was pretty central in pulling the world out of a global economic depression and rebuilt a nation before the whole war that killed millions and extermination camps things. We remember these people for the really bad things they did. We really didn't let them off the hook because we could find some examples of helpful moments.

Bill Cosby while not on the scale of these terrible people mentionable is really no different. Yeah he made people laugh. He entertained a lot of people. He no doubt lead the black community in many things and no doubt funded many great projects that helped the black community. But at the end of the day he was a rapist. Not just a once when he and her were a little drunk in college and the details are a bit blurry (even though it's terrible as well). But a true predator that actively hunted his prey and drugged them repeatedly. This is a man that probably could have had sex with at least some if not most of these women anyway if he had just gone about it the normal way. Rich, famous, the reason most of them were around him in the first place situation. But he didn't do that. The man probably got a sick thrill from doing it and enjoyed raping women. He is an absolutely terrible person in every way. Guilty as fuck. But he had a good lawyer so he gets to go free. At least at this point no one will probably be exposing themselves to him to be drugged to be raped and the guy is so old its probably not working so well anymore anyway, but.. a really predator was put back on the streets because of a technical loophole that only someone with damn near unlimited funding could pull off.

So sure, I will say he did some good things. But I will only remember him for one thing. Being a rapist with a good lawyer. That's it. I just hope no one is harmed because of it. At least beyond the mental pain most these women probably feel because of him walking free today.

What really tarnishes his legacy isn't just that he did those things. I believe in growth after you have paid your dues. He did the stuff while people looked up to him, people even tolerated his BS because he inspired many. Now when you think back on him he looks like a con artist. But worst has been the utter lack of remorse he has shown since his trial. He clearly has a god complex and everyone should be lucky to have him.

[Santti]

What really tarnishes his legacy isn't just that he did those things. I believe in growth after you have paid your dues. He did the stuff while people looked up to him, people even tolerated his BS because he inspired many. Now when you think back on him he looks like a con artist. But worst has been the utter lack of remorse he has shown since his trial. He clearly has a god complex and everyone should be lucky to have him.

Apparently, he is very senile. Read that he keeps forgetting his daughter is dead, only having to re-learn and re-cope with the fact, over and over again. Chances are, that he barely even remembers his crimes in the past, or even comprehend them anymore.

[Ripster42]

It's definitely the correct court ruling but you have to wonder why he was offered this deal in the first place. It was not even a criminal case!

Because there wasn't enough evidence to get a conviction in the eyes of the DA before he gave testimony. Within the first two pages of the state's decision it says this.

[cubby]

Apparently, he is very senile. Read that he keeps forgetting his daughter is dead, only having to re-learn and re-cope with the fact, over and over again. Chances are, that he barely even remembers his crimes in the past, or even comprehend them anymore.

And that slide to senility happened while he spent the last of his days in jail. Pretty fitting end to a sexual predator.

- - - Updated - - -

What really tarnishes his legacy isn't just that he did those things. I believe in growth after you have paid your dues. He did the stuff while people looked up to him, people even tolerated his BS because he inspired many. Now when you think back on him he looks like a con artist. But worst has been the utter lack of remorse he has shown since his trial. He clearly has a god complex and everyone should be lucky to have him.

Agreed. Some bad acts can be forgiven if they happened first, then the person pulls out of "badness" and does good deeds and helps the world, etc. But Cosby went the wrong way, garnering a world wide following/fame, and then using that to rape women.
(and, before you ask, no, it would not have been ok to rape women first and then do good)

[Svifnymr]

It's definitely the correct court ruling but you have to wonder why he was offered this deal in the first place. It was not even a criminal case!

The thing to understand is that there was no deal. If Cosby could be prosecuted, then he could have taken the Fifth in the civil case to not answer any questions that could incriminate him criminally. There was no criminal case, so by announcing that they would never bring a criminal case, he no longer could claim he couldn't answer to avoid incriminating himself. If they had never done that, then there would be no civil case either.

[gondrin]

Here is an explanation of why he is free, coming from an actual lawyer. It is in 3 parts but they are short.

[cubby]

Ego, usually there's little that you and I would agree about, but:

However, I do applaud you for understanding the issue here. You can't talk about 'justice' when the prosecutor lied to the accused, saying he'd give him immunity for testimony in instance X, and then goes back on the deal to get a conviction in bigger case Y. Maybe the prosecutor set it up on purpose to get a more 'sure' conviction in the bigger case? He said/she said cases are known for being hard to convict, but if you can use the accused one's own words, especially when said accused own's words were said when he thought he had immunity for it? Yeah, that's what the decision was about. That's a BAD precedent, imo.

The prosecutor didn't lie. A previous prosecutor made the deal, which wasn't written down btw, and the next prosecutor decided to move forward with criminal charges. And it wasn't any kind of cut and dried situation - it literally took the final appellate court to reverse it, and that decision was split.

Cosby? Well, he's done. Maybe he's going home, but he's not going home a hero of any sort, and what he does have left probably won't be a lot better despite that he'll have longer to live...maybe.

Cosby is in the hell he deserves. By all accounts he's blind and slipping deeply into senility, including having to be reminded that his daughter is dead, because he continues to forget. So he gets that dark hell every other day or so.

Plus, let's also remember Cosby is guilty - the technicality that let him out didn't exonerate him of his confession. Remember, his lawyers aren't saying "innocent!" they are saying "treat him fairly".

And it's worse, too, because he's black. There is an enormous divide in the black community because of the historic and modern mistreatment of blacks in the justice system. Him getting released is being celebrated and vilified at the same time - shit is fucking convoluted.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is an explanation of why he is free, coming from an actual lawyer. It is in 3 parts but they are short.

[click the here to see the clips]

This is actually a terrific summary for those that haven't followed the case closely or don't know/care about the legal minutiae/technicalities involved.

[Masark]

Apparently, he is very senile. Read that he keeps forgetting his daughter is dead, only having to re-learn and re-cope with the fact, over and over again. Chances are, that he barely even remembers his crimes in the past, or even comprehend them anymore.

Yeah, so senile that he's planning to go out on a comedy tour.

You're falling for court theatrics.

[Zaktar]

Yeah, so senile that he's planning to go out on a comedy tour.

You're falling for court theatrics.

Or you are, who really knows?

[cubby]

Kevin Steele, the district attorney from Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, who put Bill Cosby in prison in 2018, has filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate the disgraced comedian’s conviction.

The D.A.’s petition to the Supreme Court argues that the Pennsylvania ruling raises issues under the Constitution’s due process clause. In a press release accompanying the filing, Steele argues: “The question presented to the Court is: ‘Where a prosecutor publicly announces that he will not file criminal charges based on lack of evidence, does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment transform that announcement into a binding promise that no charges will ever be filed, a promise that the target may rely on as if it were a grant of immunity?'”

Interesting. The DA is arguing there was no written agreement, only the statement that the DA's office wouldn't prosecute because they lacked evidence. No written agreement was cited in court. And the lack of any "deal" was so compelling that the trial court continued with the trial. Twice.

The other side is a historical racial issue, which is why we are seeing so many black celebrities coming out on the side of Cosby, people who perhaps wouldn't normally do so on an issue like this. If that comes out and/or sounds bad, shout and I'll explain further. Please don't run me over without asking for clarification.

SCOTUS is potentially going to hear the case - if they grant cert. Seriously curious how this plays out.

- - - Updated - - -

However, I do applaud you for understanding the issue here. You can't talk about 'justice' when the prosecutor lied to the accused, saying he'd give him immunity for testimony in instance X, and then goes back on the deal to get a conviction in bigger case Y. Maybe the prosecutor set it up on purpose to get a more 'sure' conviction in the bigger case? He said/she said cases are known for being hard to convict, but if you can use the accused one's own words, especially when said accused own's words were said when he thought he had immunity for it? Yeah, that's what the decision was about. That's a BAD precedent, imo.

I want to clarify this point/issue. Cosby was never given immunity. No written agreement exists regarding immunity from prosecution prior to Cosby offering his testimony. The defense relied on a press statement. Read that again.

[Fargus]

What is the point of appealing to the supreme court? That process is going to take years and he'll most likely be dead by then.

[Egomaniac]

What is the point of appealing to the supreme court? That process is going to take years and he'll most likely be dead by then.

People made that same argument when he was put on trial and again when he was convicted.

[cubby]

What is the point of appealing to the supreme court? That process is going to take years and he'll most likely be dead by then.

It shouldn't take that long, cert will be granted or not, and SCOTUS will rule on the merits of the appeal. Nothing about what DA Steel is appealing will take a large amount of time. Might happen next term.

[Svifnymr]

I want to clarify this point/issue. Cosby was never given immunity. No written agreement exists regarding immunity from prosecution prior to Cosby offering his testimony. The defense relied on a press statement. Read that again.

Really it comes down to the previous civil trial. If he believed he could not take the fifth in that trial due to the "deal", then that's about it. If he had taken the fifth in that civil trial, none of the testimony would have existed. If the legal idea is that "well, he was led to believe he had a deal so he would waive his 5th, but we never really made a deal, so it's his own stupidity", it'll be an odd argument to make.

- - - Updated - - -

What is the point of appealing to the supreme court? That process is going to take years and he'll most likely be dead by then.

There is still the legal issues that might affect other trials (of people without his resources) going forward, so these topics are still worth following up on by the courts.

[cubby]

Really it comes down to the previous civil trial. If he believed he could not take the fifth in that trial due to the "deal", then that's about it. If he had taken the fifth in that civil trial, none of the testimony would have existed. If the legal idea is that "well, he was led to believe he had a deal so he would waive his 5th, but we never really made a deal, so it's his own stupidity", it'll be an odd argument to make.

It actually doesn't come down to what he "believes". What it comes down to are what written agreements were in place. He still could have taken the 5th in the civil trial. Remember, the "agreement" that he and his counsel were under the impression existed was a media press statement. That's not an agreement. So much so that the judge in the civil trial didn't think it was one. Granted, the PA SCOTUS disagreed, but they were divided.

The DA at the time didn't grant Cosby immunity, but only said they did not have enough evidence to proceed with charges at the time. We can't be sure if SCOTUS will grant cert nor how they will rule if they do. I would guess they would side with Cosby on this one, given the overall circumstances, but it's not as cut and dried as people were led to believe.

Moreover, the issue is steeped with historical racial injustice, which is why we see so many celebrities/etc coming out in support of a Sexual Predator.

[Svifnymr]

It actually doesn't come down to what he "believes". What it comes down to are what written agreements were in place. He still could have taken the 5th in the civil trial. Remember, the "agreement" that he and his counsel were under the impression existed was a media press statement. That's not an agreement.

That is what the entire appeal is debating though, whether it was an agreement or not. If there was no agreement, then the initial prosecutor intentionally mislead him and violated his 5th amendment rights. No matter the avenue of that lie, he stated he did it for the express purpose of removing the 5th amendment protections since there would be no risk of incrimination. Cosby believed such and was advised such.

So much so that the judge in the civil trial didn't think it was one. Granted, the PA SCOTUS disagreed, but they were divided.

The DA at the time didn't grant Cosby immunity, but only said they did not have enough evidence to proceed with charges at the time. We can't be sure if SCOTUS will grant cert nor how they will rule if they do. I would guess they would side with Cosby on this one, given the overall circumstances, but it's not as cut and dried as people were led to believe.

Moreover, the issue is steeped with historical racial injustice, which is why we see so many celebrities/etc coming out in support of a Sexual Predator.

As I said, if they decide that a prosecutor can lead you to believe that you will not be prosecuted in order for you to testify and incriminate yourself, then go "ha ha, just kidding, lock him up", it does erode some protections that would apply for people less well off than Cosby. I suppose it could formalize into a standard of everything in writing in some kind of Miranda-style ruling, but I would think it would still remove the testimony from evidence that Cosby never would have given otherwise.

[cubby]

That is what the entire appeal is debating though, whether it was an agreement or not. If there was no agreement, then the initial prosecutor intentionally mislead him and violated his 5th amendment rights. No matter the avenue of that lie, he stated he did it for the express purpose of removing the 5th amendment protections since there would be no risk of incrimination. Cosby believed such and was advised such.

But there literally was no actual agreement in writing - which is why we saw the trial happen. The issue whether the discussion surrounding the civil trial testimony constituted an agreement, because an actual one didn't exist. I know I'm splitting hairs here, and apologies if that's a little irritating, but the minutiae here is important. The initial prosecutor didn't mislead or lie to him - the DA simply said there wasn't enough evidence to support charges at the time. Period. No agreement not to press charges later, and no grant of immunity directly or implied to Cosby.

I understand that the case that was plead to the PA SCOTUS, and is not under cert request for US SCOTUS, is whether those discussions constituted an agreement. To me, this whole thing is fascinating on a couple of different levels. The rights of the accused, the definition of an agreement pertaining to the 5th and immunity, and then the overlapping racial injustice.

As I said, if they decide that a prosecutor can lead you to believe that you will not be prosecuted in order for you to testify and incriminate yourself, then go "ha ha, just kidding, lock him up", it does erode some protections that would apply for people less well off than Cosby. I suppose it could formalize into a standard of everything in writing in some kind of Miranda-style ruling, but I would think it would still remove the testimony from evidence that Cosby never would have given otherwise.

I think you're right here on the issues in play - does that discussion of "not going to press charges right" equate to an implied immunity agreement and/or a 5th amendment protection.

[cubby]

@cubby what if the DA pinky swore Cosby was cool?


This story is still making my brain hurt long after we first heard about it. The idea that he could be sent back after being given a “furlough” is crazy to me. Reading what’s being reported makes it look like that’s a possibility though. If I’m reading this right they made a public announcement that they wouldn’t be bringing charges at that time… and that’s it. Maybe someone got behind the scenes assurances that it was squashed, but unless that’s in writing it feels weird to bind the state to the aforementioned statement or some agreement over drinks and a donation.

Exactly. And yeah, the case is complicated on a number of fronts. What's leading the charge is the 5th amendment, and the idea that we have an absolute right to not self incriminate. The DA's announcement and statement that they would not be bringing charges back in 2000's spurred Cosby's willingness to testify. The issue is whether that announcement constituted an implied grant of immunity, or more specifically, that no charges would ever be brought - hence leaving Cosby free to testify essentially against himself in the civil trial (again back in the 2000's - this is for anyone else reading, I know you know this).

The crazy thing is that Cosby is absolutely guilty - he is a criminal sex offender. Period. Even if the conviction is ultimately set aside by SCOTUS, the issue of his guilt is clear.

And then we have the historical racial issues of so many black men being convicted of crimes they did not commit because of shenanigans by shitty/cruel/evil prosecutors.

[Daymanmb]

So many people gonna be out of jail when they show the person questioning them saying they’re not in any trouble… “If I thought I was I wouldn’t have told you where my drugs were!”

Hmm thats an interesting thought, but Im not sure it applies. If youre read your miranda rights and you waive them, you can confess, thats not self incriminating in a way that protected constitutionally, I dont think..

[Shadowferal]

@cubby what if the DA pinky swore Cosby was cool?

I think that only works if it's the judge's pinky.