I knew he was innocent! - Bill Cosby Discussion

[–] NGMI (1184) 3 years ago

If Quaaludes are a date rape drug, then everyone in the 60/70s is a rapist. I like how women get to claim no personal responsibility for their actions and then go on to lie and act like he drugged them after they knowingly took shit. Lying vindictive bitches

reply

[–] Bloodworth79 (5687) 3 years ago

So even if they knowingly took it.

The women said when I pass out you can do anything to my body?

Guy must have been so ashamed of himself he has to make sure these women had no recollition of what he was doing to them..

He probably just wanted to try anal

reply

[–] NGMI (1184) 3 years ago

We're talking quaaludes, not friggen chloroform or roofies. People willing took them to have fun and party. There was no mystery behind what it could do. So once they start lying about being "drugged" the well is poisoned and you can assume they were awake when they got Hot Cosby'd.

reply

[–] Bloodworth79 (5687) 3 years ago

So no amount of qualudes will knock someone out, interesting?

I heard of people using xanax to do the same thing. A few of those, pass out, little memory recovery.

But hey, they are prescribed to 10 year olds. Cant be that strong.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Well the problem is they didn't all know they were taking them. And if they are mixed with alcohol they will knock you on your ass. The reality is Cosby was guilty and being kicked free because the prosecution screwed up. Doesn't mean he isn't guilty, only means the prosecution didn't obtain the evidence he provide within the rules.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

Read the actual deposition, there was no rape involved.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/270731388/Bill-Cosby-Deposition-Transcript

The "evidence" was all bullcrap.

reply

[–] NGMI (1184) 3 years ago

Fake news.

reply

[–] Rorikon (17872) 3 years ago

You sure know your date rape meds. Pass some to me bro.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8737) 3 years ago

Yeah, suspiciously too well (lol).

reply

[–] Jinx (3726) 3 years ago

Look kids it’s an INCEL out in the wild!

reply

[–] NGMI (1184) 3 years ago

Look women, it's a Chud trying to win your hearts with gallantry. Perhaps it will finally work.

reply

[–] Jinx (3726) 3 years ago

I’m a woman dumbass.

reply

[–] NGMI (1184) 3 years ago

That explains a lot. You call everyone an Incel who doesnt want you tired dried up roastie ass? Stop deluding yourself. Not even Cosby wants it.

reply

[–] Bloodworth79 (5687) 3 years ago

Your ghettoness is coming out...

reply

[–] Jinx (3726) 3 years ago

Wow, this post doesn’t make you look like an INCEL at. ALL.

reply

[–] NGMI (1184) 3 years ago

Doubling down I see. I guess the well is dry. lol Not much up there to begin with.

reply

[–] kungfulord (957) 3 years ago

Not, you are not. Sir this is the Internet, here men are men, women are men, and little girl are FBI agents

reply

[–] Jinx (3726) 3 years ago

😂

reply

[–] redban (6199) 3 years ago

The court overturned because the prosecutors screwed up with the witnesses, and they made a prior deal with Cosby that should've prevented his conviction. The overturning does not necessarily signify innocence.

Anyways -- even if he is guilty, he's 83 years old, and his alleged crimes were done long time ago. He's not gonna bother anyone in society anymore. Let him go.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I can't wait to turn 80 so I can go out and commit heinous crimes.

reply

[–] TimMC (9143) 3 years ago

Good Times are coming. Just wait.

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21470) 3 years ago

Dynamite!!!!

reply

[–] redban (6199) 3 years ago

Notice the bolded portion in addition to his age —

“He’s 83, and his alleged crimes were done a long time ago. “

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Says the guy who said "even if he's guilty..."

reply

[–] aavfreak (3322) 3 years ago

[–] Sctwins612 (597) 19 hours ago
I can't wait to turn 80 so I can go out and commit heinous crimes.

No, you can go ahead and commit now, just don't get caught and convicted until you're 80, because by then your "crimes were done long time ago" and you're "not gonna bother anyone in society anymore." So you'd be good to go by then.

reply

[–] whoanelly (1586) 3 years ago

the “he’s 83 years old” scenario sets a dangerous precedent.

reply

[–] redban (6199) 3 years ago

Notice the bolded portion in addition to his age —

“He’s 83, and his alleged crimes were done a long time ago. “

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

I don't think the word innocent means what you think.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

in·no·cent
/ˈinəsənt/
adjective
1.not guilty of a crime or offense.

Seems pretty spot on to me

reply

[–] strntz (12255) 3 years ago

The conviction wasn't overturned due to any exculpatory evidence, it was overturned due to prosecutor procedural error.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

Regardless, he was found "not guilty of the crime or offense", hence them letting him go, and exactly mirroring the dictionary definition.

reply

[–] strntz (12255) 3 years ago

That's not true - he was not found "not guilty". The vacating of the conviction had nothing to do with evidence, it was vacated because of a previous prosecutor procedural error or misconduct.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

So you just presume he's guilty, even though the prosecutor couldn't legally prove it. Those laws and regulations are in place for a reason. The inability to legally prove your case is absolutely synonymous with finding the opponent innocent.

reply

[–] kungfulord (957) 3 years ago

FFS dude he was release for a technicallity

Is like you murder some one the police know you did it but the only evidence is the gun with your fingerpints but for some reason the weapon was misshandled to the moment of colect the evidence and become inadmisible as evidence and they let you go

You where not find innocet you just are free out of a technicallity, get that?

And not im not saying that is what happen here i just create the most simplistic example of free over a techincallity so you autistic mind could understand

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

I believe you meant "your" autistic mind.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

...and it's "technicality".

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

Also, "You where not find innocet you just are free out of a technicallity, get that?"

I'm not even going to begin to attempt to decipher that.

reply

[–] kungfulord (957) 3 years ago

Im not a native english speaker dumb fuck the day you can write a sentence in another language that day you would have the right to criticize my grammar

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

I wouldn't attempt it for fear of sounding like a fucking retard...case in point.

reply

[–] kungfulord (957) 3 years ago

Just a faggot wouldn't dare to do something for fear of look like a retard

BTW your insisting Cosby was found innocent have already make you look like a retard anyway

And how you know how i sound? you are not listeng to me, you are reading me

¿The psychiatric hospital let you use the computer as a form of therapy? if that is the case is not working

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

Yes, you've definitely proven you have no concern of looking like a retard.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

Also, I'm not sure i believe you. You spelled technicality right the first time, then got it wrong the second time. Are you only part time retarded. Also, you changed it, so you understand how ignorant you look. Another indicator that you are lying.

reply

[–] kungfulord (957) 3 years ago

Is pretty normal when you are learning a new language, you make mistake here and there, but you woulnd't know nothing about it because of your fagness, you need to have balls to dare to do things without fear

You sir are a soft pussy

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

I believe it's "faginess".

reply

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

Burk, you're clearly an idiot or a troll (or both?) but I'd like to thank you for the phrase "part time retarded," which for some reason made me laugh until my stomach hurt. WOW. No idea why that was so funny,

Ok, carry on. . .

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

If this is the guy I am thinking of, he is troll. He says stuff, you prove him wrong, and he responds with little more than, "Doesn't matter." He gets caught lying or being wrong all the time and won't admit it.

reply

[–] kungfulord (957) 3 years ago

WTH are you talking? how is trolling explain a simple fact that is clarified in the media

Cosby wasen't found innocent he was release out of a technicality i explain that, how is that trolling?

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

I didn't call you a troll, I called Burk one.

reply

[–] FFNogoodnik (775) 3 years ago

What you describe is a technicality. What happened in this case IS NOT.

In this case Cosby had an agreement with a DA to give him immunity if he testified at the civil trial.

He did so under the impression that he would not be prosecuted regardless of what he said at the civil trial.

He did say things at the civil trial that made a different DA feel they can try him and use that information against him at the criminal trial.

He was tried (and in my opinion rightfully convicted)
---------------------
The problem comes from the original agreement with that first DA, who represents the state.
As the original DA gave him immunity Cosby felt he did not need to use his 5th amendment rights at the Civil Trial. So Cosby felt he could say whatever he wanted without officially incriminating himself. His understanding, and this is what the PA Supreme court agrees with, is the conviction should be overturned because it never should have happened in the first place.

Two possibilities should have happened:
1) He is not offered the immunity and therefore when he was called at the Civil trial he just takes the 5th amendment which would prevent the 2nd DA from getting any info to use to get the trial. So in this scenario he would not have been tried much less convicted.
2) He is offered the immunity and takes it (this is what actually happened). He takes the stand in the civil court and says what he said. The new DA says "Hey did you hear that sh**t? We should try him as a
rapist.". Another person says "We, the state, can't he was granted immunity for his Civil Trial Testimony". The new DA says "F&*K and goes on with their day". So in this scenario as well as scenario 1 Cosby does not get tried much less convicted.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

He was and is guilty, nothing changes that. He just got the get out of jail free card due to the prosecutor screwing up. It happens every now and then, but it doesn't mean the person getting out of jail was innocent only that the prosecutors were idiots.

reply

[–] strntz (12255) 3 years ago

So you just presume he's guilty..

I presumed nothing. I didn't follow the case. The only comment I made on whether he might be guilty or not was that I said something to the effect that 60 accusations was a lot - making an awful lot of smoke for there to be no fire. What I did say is that he was NOT found not guilty, the conviction was vacated because of prosecutor error.

The inability to legally prove your case is absolutely synonymous with finding the opponent innocent.

That is absolutely wrong.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

Not in the eyes of the law.

reply

[–] strntz (12255) 3 years ago

You can keep saying it but it won't change anything. "Not guilty" and "innocent" are two different things in the eyes of the law. His conviction was vacated on a technicality. His guilt or innocence had nothing to do with the ruling.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

The prosecutor couldn't legally prove his case. In the eyes of the law, that is innocent. Innocent until PROVEN guilty, means they have to abide by the rules.

reply

[–] strntz (12255) 3 years ago

No, it means that the prosecutor screwed up. We don't know what would have happened in the courtroom if the prosecutor did not make that same error.

If it was exculpatory evidence presented that caused the conviction to be vacated, then you'd be right. There isn't any nor did his own defense team even argue that.

But let's say the prosecutor may not have won his case against Cosby without the procedure error, it still doesn't mean Cosby would be innocent. From the feds themselves:

"While in lay usage the term 'not guilty' is often synonymous with 'innocent,' in American criminal jurisprudence they are not the same. 'Not guilty' is a legal finding by the jury that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof."

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/not-guilty-and-innocent-problem-children-reasonable-doubt

There is a big difference between someone found "not guilty" and actually being innocent. Would you let Casey Anthony baby sit your child?

For purposes of discussion, we know Cosby is free and will remain so. So what we're talking here is not about the legal aspects, but whether or not Cosby is actually innocent or not.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

I get what you are saying, but it's fair to point out that "not guilty", despite being a legal term that I'll admit is probably not a true synonym of innocent, also isn't equivalent to "guilty, but unable to prosecute". I'll always lean towards defending the guilty, rather than persecute the innocent, until a court has it's final say. Also, my kid can be a real handful. He might have a new appreciation for what he has after a couple nights with Casey A.

reply

[–] strntz (12255) 3 years ago

Also, my kid can be a real handful. He might have a new appreciation for what he has after a couple nights with Casey A.

OK, but make sure you rescue him before she duct tapes his mouth shut and heads him towards the trunk of her car!!

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

Lol, yes, beyond that it stops being a learning lesson.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

He was released on a technicality, not because he's innocent:

"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the sexual assault conviction of Bill Cosby on Wednesday and ordered his release from prison after finding that he was denied protection against self-incrimination."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bill-cosby-be-released-after-sexual-assault-conviction-overturned-pennsylvania-n1272748

And he DID incriminate himself when he confessed: https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/us/bill-cosby-quaaludes-sexual-assault-allegations/index.html

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

Regardless, he was found "not guilty of the crime or offense", hence them letting him go, and exactly mirroring the dictionary definition.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

No, not "regardless". He is a serial rapist. He regularly drugged women and rape them while they were unconscious and had sex with them while they were passed out - and he's confessed to it.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

Yes, regardless

reply

[–] strntz (12255) 3 years ago

He was released on a technicality, not because he's innocent

Exactly. There is a difference.

reply

[–] NGMI (1184) 3 years ago

The difference is he was found guilty by unjust and illegal means, thus putting his guilt back into question.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

WRONG.

He admitted to using Qualludes, he did not admit to sexual assault. In fact, the women he courted and gave drugs to ASKED for them. The one woman that the deposition is based around even had her schooling and some room and board paid for by Cosby, and in exchange she slept with him. Her whole story changed when she tried to break into Hollywood, he tried to help her, and it all came crashing down. Her mother didn't want her around Cosby to begin with, so she came up with the whole rape angle, and the media zeitgeist ran with it from there. Here's the actual deposition so you can read it for yourself instead of CNN's Left-wing biased disinformation:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/270731388/Bill-Cosby-Deposition-Transcript

Even if you read through the case there was no evidence tantamount to the lies published by the mainstream media:
https://wiki2.org/en/Andrea_Constand_v._William_H._Cosby,_Jr.

It was all an orchestrated attack. Why? Well Cosby was positioning himself to buy a major television network:
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/29/business/the-media-business-bill-cosby-trying-to-buy-nbc-from-ge.html

He was also all about personal responsibility, black people not acting like thugs, and being more Conservative in their behavior. We all know that kind of thing isn't allowed in today's society because it goes against the Left's narratives that all blacks are victims, them looting, burning, and murdering people is fine, and that blacks taking responsibility for their own actions is a huge no-no on the Democratic slave plantation.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

You might wanna learn to read:

"Bill Cosby has admitted to getting prescription Quaaludes to give to women he wanted to have sex with, newly released documents show."

https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/us/bill-cosby-quaaludes-sexual-assault-allegations/index.html

"It was all an orchestrated attack. Why? Well Cosby was positioning himself to buy a major television network:
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/29/business/the-media-business-bill-cosby-trying-to-buy-nbc-from-ge.html";

Oh, so you are nuts?

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

You might wanna learn to read:

"Bill Cosby has admitted to getting prescription Quaaludes to give to women he wanted to have sex with, newly released documents show."

Actually, that sentence means nothing.

Let's say you're smoking weed with some friends, you get the joint and then pass it to a chick.

Not let's put you in the stand. The lawyer asks «Did you get an illegal drug?». Well, you actually did, so you have to answer «YES».

Next question, «Did you gave the drug to her?». The verb 'to give' has a wide meaning. Giving drugs? It can mean drugging somebody, but it means handling the joint too. So again, you have to answer «YES».

Next question, «Did you want to have sex with her?». Well, unless she was fat, very ugly, or you're gay, you're a dude, and you're in the stand, so you have to answer «YES».

In a nutshell, congrats: you have admitted to get illegal drugs to give to women you wanted to have sex with. You did. All you need is a lawyer that knows how to make the right questions, and newspapers willing to play their role.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

"Actually, that sentence means nothing."

Speaking of meaning nothing, there's this little exercise:

"Let's say you're smoking weed with some friends, you get the joint and then pass it to a chick.

Not let's put you in the stand. The lawyer asks «Did you get an illegal drug?». Well, you actually did, so you have to answer «YES».

Next question, «Did you gave the drug to her?». The verb 'to give' has a wide meaning. Giving drugs? It can mean drugging somebody, but it means handling the joint too. So again, you have to answer «YES».

Next question, «Did you want to have sex with her?». Well, unless she was fat, very ugly, or you're gay, you're a dude, and you're in the stand, so you have to answer «YES»."

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

"Bill Cosby has admitted to getting prescription Quaaludes to give to women he wanted to have sex with, newly released documents show."

Except the deposition -- which I linked to for anyone who can read above 3rd grade -- clearly explains WHY he gave them drugs: they ASKED for them. So yes, he did give drugs to women he wanted to have sex with because MULTIPLE WOMEN ASKED FOR THEM.

READ THE DEPOSITION.

Oh, so you are nuts?

Reading helps:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/1993/08/bill-cosby-nbc

Cosby never stopped trying to reorient the messaging around the black community in America, and had campaigned relentlessly to change the black image in the country by trying to get blacks to take responsibility for themselves, to stop blaming whitey for their poverty, and to start thinking critically about maintaining a nuclear home and being strong and independent away from the drug-ridden welfare state.

The whole point of the Cosby show and the other shows he helped syndicate and produce was to literally CHANGE the image of how blacks were portrayed in media. He even blocked Jaimie Foxx from appearing on the Cosby show after he made the movie Booty Call because he felt it was a poor depiction of blacks and a poor representation of black relationships in America:
https://youtu.be/yTVNZ0yXgK0

So yeah, this was a blatant orchestrated attack because Cosby had been constantly trying to convince blacks to be more Conservative in their behavior.

That's why the media misconstrued everything from the deposition and you have no refutations for that.

You linked to defamatory statements published by CNN without even understanding the context, either because you lack the intelligence or the reading comprehension skills. I'll let you take your pick.

reply

[–] BensGirl (590) 3 years ago

That really made me laugh.. thanks for the smile and laugh xo

reply

[–] TriumphReq (1857) 3 years ago

They think he was guilty because he was black and male.

reply

[–] TimMC (9143) 3 years ago

Best reasoning that I've ever heard!

reply

[–] ADBruno1985 (3487) 3 years ago

Did you read at all how this happened? He's not innocent. It happened because of a legal loophole. He's admitted to enough of his crimes. He's not innocent. The law is not always just and right. I wish he hadn't done these things either, but wanting him to be innocent doesn't make him so.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

What did he admit to, since you seem to consider yourself an authority.

reply

[–] ADBruno1985 (3487) 3 years ago

I'm not an authority, I guess you're just ill-informed. He admitted to drugging multiple women.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

No he didn't, which shows exactly how ill-informed YOU are. He admitted to providing drugs for women upon their request, nothing more. Since you are suggesting I don't know what I'm talking about, I'll leave the burden of proof to you to show me otherwise. If you can't, I'll assume you are conceding your mistake. If you can, I'll admit mine.

reply

[–] ADBruno1985 (3487) 3 years ago

Okay fair, but again like what seems the trend with this case, only legal technicalities. Sounds like plenty of women accused him but his lawyer wouldn't allow him to answer if he ever gave it unknowingly. Pretty big tell to me but aight.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 3 years ago

They told him he wouldn't serve any jail time if he admitted that detail in the civil trial. I think anyone concerned about a long prison sentence would say anything they wanted to eliminate the risk of prison. To lie and use it against him later is pure entrapment, and way more than a technicality.

reply

[–] Kowalski (75537) 3 years ago

"He has been accused by approximately 60 women of rape, drug-facilitated sexual assault, sexual battery, child sexual abuse, and sexual misconduct."

INNOCENCE PERSONIFIED.

reply

[–] Jason46 (337) 3 years ago

I can firmly believe women stick together and fabricate lies. It's a mob mentality thing with them. Not to mention, many of them consented. It was a big Hollywood thing back in the 70s and 80s to take party drugs like Qualuudes and have sex with rich, powerful men to obtain roles & greater exposure. It was the "in" thing.

reply

[–] Kowalski (75537) 3 years ago

I can firmly believe women stick together and fabricate lies. It's a mob mentality thing with them.

NO OFFENSE...BUT...FUCK YOU.🙂

reply

[–] Jason46 (337) 3 years ago

You are naive if you don't think women stick together. Like a Bee-hive. How many times have you heard of the "mean girls" clique in high school ganging up on their prey?

reply

[–] Kowalski (75537) 3 years ago

SEXIST AND STUPID...I WILL GIVE YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT...MAYBE YOU'RE JUST ON YOUR PERIOD TODAY OR SOMETHING.🤔

reply

[–] Jason46 (337) 3 years ago

Is it sexist???

reply

[–] Kowalski (75537) 3 years ago

YOU ARE SPEAKING TO THE FATHER OF A DAUGHTER...A DAUGHTER I CONSIDER TO BE MY BEST FRIEND AND GREATEST HUMAN BEING I HAVE EVER KNOWN...YOU LUMPING ALL FEMALE KIND INTO ONE CATCH ALL PUTDOWN AND EQUATING SAID CATCH ALL PUTDOWN TO MEAN 60 PLUS WOMEN ARE GUILTY AND BILL COSBY IS INNOCENT IS SEXIST AND STUPID.

reply

[–] Jinx (3726) 3 years ago

You are awesome. Thank you.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56747) 3 years ago

We're talking 60 women in different states. One was even Canadian. You really think they all conspired and concocted a plan to take down a man? If that was the case, wouldn't it make more sense to do it to a celebrity who would be more guilty like Charlie Sheen?

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Nobody said they conspired. Religious mass hysteria explains it. People with highly religious attitude, added to the extremely high religious social pressure in modern western world, that's likely to cause episodes of religious mass hysteria.

It explains the current wave of gender dysphoria way above the natural occurrence too.

reply

[–] Kowalski (75537) 3 years ago

YIKES.

reply