# Bill Cosby charged with sexual assault



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bill Cosby has been charged with sexual assault in relation to a 2004 accusation in Pennsylvania.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/us/bi...ia/index.html0329PMVODtopLink&linkId=19989986


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

Too bad they've never charged Bill Clinton on sexual assault charges. I think all sexual assault charges deserve their day in court, and I don't care who it is.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

scooter said:


> Too bad they've never charged Bill Clinton on sexual assault charges. I think all sexual assault charges deserve their day in court, and I don't care who it is.


If you care so much about the victims of sexual assault why bring up Bill Clinton to muddy the water?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> If you care so much about the victims of sexual assault why bring up Bill Clinton to muddy the water?



Hmmm... one, but not the other. Makes one understand how people and the law really works...

One is OK and even defended, the other - evil.

How come Dennis Hastert got a free pass for so long?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

He needs his day in court..


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Hmmm... one, but not the other. Makes one understand how people and the law really works...
> 
> One is OK and even defended, the other - evil.
> 
> How come Dennis Hastert got a free pass for so long?


Gah. It's not one but not the other, the topic is Bill Cosby being charged with sexual assault. If you'd like to talk about Dennis Hastert and Bill Clinton start another thread. I happen to think Cosby being charged is significant.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Gah. It's not one but not the other, the topic is Bill Cosby being charged with sexual assault. If you'd like to talk about Dennis Hastert and Bill Clinton start another thread. I happen to think Cosby being charged is significant.


Significant? - Yes, 

Telling? - Yes,

Level Playing field? Why is this not the perfect time to identify the UN-level playing field with regards to the common man, Actors and Politicians? why does some give the politicians a free pass?


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> If you care so much about the victims of sexual assault why bring up Bill Clinton to muddy the water?


Bill Clinton is neck-deep in muddy waters! And Bill Clinton has been engaging in this behavior for years, just like Bill Cosby.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

A 12 year statute of limitations is a very long time. SOL is typically in the range of 1 to 6 years.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Actually the title of the crime charged is "indecent assault" but using the term "sexual" is more attention grabbing. 

The radio said the statute of limitations is 12 years, they just barely beat it.

These revelations just add to my general sense of feeling jaded and malaise. He had a great career and body of work, one of the most popular people world-wide at one time, but come to find out he is even more flawed than most people after all.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yeah, for a long time, I thought Bill Cosby was one of the examples to emulate... sigh...


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

If everything is on the table. Why not talk about how Jeffrey Epstein has managed to get away with prostituting underage girls even though the FBI identified 34 victims as being minors? Why not talk about Epstein's relationship with Bill Clinton? Why not talk about Epsteins relationship with.................................................Donald Trump?



> "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' *Trump* told New York Magazine back in 2002. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it &#8212; Jeffrey enjoys his social life."


And now for the back pedal...



> A Trump associate said Tuesday that Trump wasn't aware of any wrongdoing and that he and Epstein were not particularly close. "He was a member of one of Trump's clubs where he would visit with women and business associates, but there was no formal relationship," the source close to Trump said.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...n-jeffrey-epstein-underage-sex-lawsuit-210065
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

As long as we're putting it all out on the table...


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

This thread make me want a pudding pop


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> Actually the title of the crime charged is "indecent assault" but using the term "sexual" is more attention grabbing.
> 
> The radio said the statute of limitations is 12 years, they just barely beat it.
> 
> These revelations just add to my general sense of feeling jaded and malaise. He had a great career and body of work, one of the most popular people world-wide at one time, but come to find out he is even more flawed than most people after all.


Well, if you want to get technical the title of the crime is "aggravated indecent assault". Which in PA is always a _sexual_ assault. 

The man is not "flawed", he's a rapist. He purposely drugged women and raped them while they could not move. 

I hope he loses everything and has done to him in prison what he has done to at least 55 woman. 

3125. Aggravated indecent assault

(a) Offenses defined.--Except as provided in sections 3121 (relating to rape), 3122.1 (relating to statutory sexual assault), 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse) and 3124.1 (relating to sexual assault), a person who engages in penetration, however slight, of the genitals or anus of a complainant with a part of the person's body for any purpose other than good faith medical, hygienic or law enforcement procedures commits aggravated indecent assault if:

(1) the person does so without the complainant's consent;

(2) the person does so by forcible compulsion;

(3) the person does so by threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution;

(4) the complainant is unconscious or the person knows that the complainant is unaware that the penetration is occurring;

(5) the person has substantially impaired the complainant's power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance;

(6) the complainant suffers from a mental disability which renders him or her incapable of consent;

(7) the complainant is less than 13 years of age; or

(8) the complainant is less than 16 years of age and the person is four or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and the person are not married to each other.

(b) Aggravated indecent assault of a child.--A person commits aggravated indecent assault of a child when the person violates subsection (a)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) or (6) and the complainant is less than 13 years of age.

(c) Grading and sentences.--

(1) An offense under subsection (a) is a felony of the second degree.

(2) An offense under subsection (b) is a felony of the first degree.

http://www.womenslaw.org/statutes_detail.php?statute_id=4199#statute-top


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I hope he loses everything and has done to him in prison what he has done to at least 55 woman.
> 
> http://www.womenslaw.org/statutes_detail.php?statute_id=4199#statute-top



There is the matter of actually conducting the trial. We aren't putting people in prison based on Internet outrage. Not yet anyway.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> There is the matter of actually conducting the trial. We aren't putting people in prison based on Internet outrage. Not yet anyway.


You missed the key words, "I hope". Dang, it's my opinion, what I hope happens. I thought that was perfectly clear, not that he should be thrown in jail on my say so, do you really think that could happen?


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

If found guilty, take him to the front of the courthouse and hang him.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Well, if you want to get technical the title of the crime is "aggravated indecent assault". Which in PA is always a _sexual_ assault.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow such a lot of hate. 
If you don't like what he did why would you want it to occur again. ?

Even stranger is the thought that if the charges are true most of the victims didn't know it was happening. So in essence you are hoping he is punished without knowing. 

Why such hate ?


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

I hope when he gets on the stand he testifies in the "fat albert" voice while eating a pudding cup.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

no hate..punishment.

You can lock up a predator, there is no rehabbing them. Once released they are still a predator, and will always continue to be one.

I don't want to, nor do I want anyone in that state to pay for a lifetime of incarceration for a scumbag. I would have said shoot him, but ammunition costs money each time...a rope is reusable.

I'm tired of celebrities getting light sentences, continuing to be celebrities in prison while they are incarcerated, and getting out feeling they are golden.

If he did it, he should be hung...as far as I am concerned, rapists rate right along side pedophiles. 

If found not guilty, he should be released. Seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

M5farm said:


> I hope when he gets on the stand he testifies in the "fat albert" voice while eating a pudding cup.


I'm sure he may be eating a lot of pudding, and speaking in a different voice soon...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Wow such a lot of hate.
> If you don't like what he did why would you want it to occur again. ?
> 
> Even stranger is the thought that if the charges are true most of the victims didn't know it was happening. So in essence you are hoping he is punished without knowing.
> ...


I know how those women feel, and have felt since they were raped.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

_"You missed the key words, "I hope". Dang, it's my opinion, what I hope happens. I thought that was perfectly clear, not that he should be thrown in jail on my say so, do you really think that could happen?  "

_I thought the key words were missing: "If convicted"


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I hope it's a fair trial


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Fair? If Bill Cosby were white billionaire with friends in the Hamptons there wouldn't even be a trial, and reporters would be losing their jobs or burying the story. I just hope it doesn't drag out for too long, because it's already embarrassing enough that our culture is this hypnotized by celebrities that the man can be surrounded 90% of his life and still get away with rape. Makes us all look like idiots, honestly.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> I hope it's a fair trial


Undoubtedly, this is going to be a 'he said - she said' trial, where it's all going to come down to credibility. Of course to most of us the victim's credibility lies in the high number of allegations made by 50 or so victims. But in a court of law unestablished allegations probably aren't admissible. That's going to be a problem for the prosecution.

The problem with older cases like this is that there usually isn't much in the way physical evidence. I suspect that will be true in this trial. This case will depend on how believable the victim is. In truth, a 'he said - she said' trial isn't really fair -- not to the victim or the accused. But this may be the victims' only shot at justice.

It could be that the prosecutor will offer him a plea deal to avoid a trial.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Undoubtedly, this is going to be a 'he said - she said' trial, where it's all going to come down to credibility. Of course to most of us the victim's credibility lies in the high number of allegations made by 50 or so victims. But in a court of law unestablished allegations probably aren't admissible. That's going to be a problem for the prosecution.
> 
> The problem with older cases like this is that there usually isn't much in the way physical evidence. I suspect that will be true in this trial. This case will depend on how believable the victim is. In truth, a 'he said - she said' trial isn't really fair -- not to the victim or the accused. *But this may be the victims' only shot at justice.*
> 
> It could be that the prosecutor will offer him a plea deal to avoid a trial.


You've already found him guilty, and you aren't alone.
The media found him guilty, I'd say his chance at a fair trial is pretty much nonexistent.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> You've already found him guilty, and you aren't alone.
> The media found him guilty, I'd say his chance at a fair trial is pretty much nonexistent.


I'm looking for an explanation for 50 victims coming forward. A scorned woman could do something like that, but I have trouble understanding 50 scorned women.

It won't be a fair trial because the case will come down to who makes a better impression on the jury, not physical evidence. The case should be about proof one way or the other, not who can perform better.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I'm looking for an explanation for 50 victims coming forward. A scorned woman could do something like that, but I have trouble understanding 50 scorned women.
> 
> It won't be a fair trial because the case will come down to who makes a better impression on the jury, not physical evidence. The case should be about proof one way or the other, not who can perform better.


Exactly


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Gah. It's not one but not the other, the topic is Bill Cosby being charged with sexual assault. If you'd like to talk about Dennis Hastert and Bill Clinton start another thread. I happen to think Cosby being charged is significant.



Shhh

Don't you know it's not nice to talk about "America's Dad". 

I never saw I-Spy and other than his great comedy records, I could not stand him.

We'll see if money gets him out of this jamb.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> If you care so much about the victims of sexual assault why bring up Bill Clinton to muddy the water?


Because people are talking about just that, everywhere.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I could not help but notice,_ the circling of the wagons_, in this thread, then I remembered, Bill Cosby is a staunch Conservative. 

The consensus seems that if Clinton got away with it, why are they picking on Bill Cosby?


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

I do not condone sexual assault.

It was covered up for so long that it makes me wonder who wanted to tare him down and plunder his assets. If this was really about sexual assault this would have come to light a long time ago. I do not mean the women. I mean the industry he worked in.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

scooter said:


> Too bad they've never charged Bill Clinton on sexual assault charges. I think all sexual assault charges deserve their day in court, and I don't care who it is.


Why Clinton? Just because Bill and Monica were having sandwiches on the Oval office and Monica dripped some mayo on her dress? Happens all the time.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I heard this today also.
Good.
If he's been doing this all these years, and it seems more likely than not, then he needs to be charged.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

plowjockey said:


> I could not help but notice,_ the circling of the wagons_, in this thread, then I remembered, Bill Cosby is a staunch Conservative.
> 
> The consensus seems that if Clinton got away with it, why are they picking on Bill Cosby?


No...I have always liked Cosby...Huxtables...his humor...a great guy...at first I thought someone with an axe to grind...one or two accusers..ok..we'll see...20..40..50? Nope. You just know. 
B


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Bill is old. He may not live long enough to finish a trial w/ appeals & etc.

Since there is no "real" evidence at this time I must conclude that he is Lilly White.:bowtie:


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Bill and Monica was consensual.

Bill played around but did he ever rape or molest anyone?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

City Bound said:


> Bill and Monica was consensual.
> 
> Bill played around but did he ever rape or molest anyone?


Of course not...he did not have a sexual relationship with that woman.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> Of course not...he did not have a sexual relationship with that woman.


If he did, he was doing it wrong.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Nevada said:


> If he did, he was doing it wrong.


Well...that depended upon what the defination of "is"....is.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> Well...that depended upon what the defination of "is"....is.


But he did it with a cigar tube. Even I know that's not how it's done.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Nevada said:


> But he did it with a cigar tube. Even I know that's not how it's done.


Huh? They were having sandwiches when there was a leak...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

City Bound said:


> Bill and Monica was consensual.
> 
> Bill played around but did he ever rape or molest anyone?



I guess that depends on who you would believe..........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_misconduct_allegations_against_Bill_Clinton


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> Huh? They were having sandwiches when there was a leak...


Both Bill and Monika's accounts were that they never actually had sex. Just a little presidential cigar play.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Shine said:


> Hmmm... one, but not the other. Makes one understand how people and the law really works...
> 
> One is OK and even defended, the other - evil.
> 
> How come Dennis Hastert got a free pass for so long?


Bill Clinton never drugged anybody in order to get them to have sex with him.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

How in the world can you defend yourself from something that supposedly happened 12 years ago?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

watcher said:


> How in the world can you defend yourself from something that supposedly happened 12 years ago?


It will be pure "he said/she said", with no conviction, followed by a civil suit.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HDRider said:


> It will be pure "he said/she said", with no conviction, followed by a civil suit.


My point was one of the reasons for a statue of limitations is the fact its hard to defend yourself after time goes by. What were you doing on 3 SEP 2002? Got proof? Can you find anyone to testify about it?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Bill Crosbys Attorney said this morning this is all a "political football". Didn't bill cos. say something about how black people should behave? Maybe this is payback for not following with the current racest naritive.
Didn't Brodrick and a few others accuse Bill Clinton of actual rape?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

People seem fixated on the idea he has 50 accusers. But there are about a billion people that know the man. 
If you had 20,000000 (20 million) people that knew you do you think there would be one that would accuse you of something awful ? Particularly AFTER Some one else did ?

In your own relatively small circle of aquaintences has no one ever said some horrible thing about you. ?
I'm from a small town and they most awfull gossip flows each day. 
It's disgusting.


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

*Juanita Broaddrick - Washington Post*

www.washingtonpost.com/.../broaddrick022599.ht...


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Clinton&#8217;s accusers include:

Paula Jones: A former Arkansas state employee, Jones sued Bill Clinton in 1994 for sexual harassment. Jones claims that in 1991 then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton propositioned and exposed himself to her in a Little Rock hotel. Clinton eventually settled with Jones out of court for $850,000, but never admitted to any wrongdoing.

Juanita Broaddrick: Broaddrick, a former nursing home administrator, alleges that Bill Clinton, who was running for Arkansas governor at the time, raped her in an Arkansas hotel room in the spring of 1978.

Kathleen Willey: Willey was a White House volunteer aide who, in March of 1998, alleged on the TV news program 60 Minutes that Bill Clinton had sexually assaulted her during his first term as President.

Eileen Wellstone: Wellstone, an English woman, alleges that Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near Oxford University where Clinton was a student in 1969.

Carolyn Moffet: Moffet was a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. Moffet alleges that she fled the hotel room after Clinton demanded she perform sex acts on him.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen: A Miss Arkansas who would go on to win the Miss America contest in 1982, Gracen alleges that she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won the Miss Arkansas competition.

Becky Brown: Becky Brown was Chelsea Clinton&#8217;s nanny. L.D. Brown, an Arkansas State Trooper and Becky&#8217;s husband, claims that Clinton attempted to seduce her in while the two were in governor&#8217;s mansion.

Helen Dowdy: Dowdy, the wife of one of Hillary&#8217;s cousins, alleges that in 1986 Bill Clinton groped her on the dance floor of a wedding.

Cristy Zercher: Zercher was a flight attendant aboard Clinton&#8217;s campaign jet from 1991-1992. Zercher told the Star magazine that Clinton groped her for over 40 minutes.



Read more: http://www.hannity.com/articles/han...he-long-list-of-women-14233638/#ixzz3vuUGQOSo


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> People seem fixated on the idea he has 50 accusers. But there are about a billion people that know the man.
> If you had 20,000000 (20 million) people that knew you do you think there would be one that would accuse you of something awful ? Particularly AFTER Some one else did ?
> 
> In your own relatively small circle of aquaintences has no one ever said some horrible thing about you. ?
> ...


I find it strange that all these women were arround him. Why? More of those that feel as a celiberaty is a big deal? I'm not insinuateing they deserved rape. But the public needs to stop putting clebs and political servants on a pedestal.

AS, I can Totaly relate to what you are saying. Part of the reason I prefer to stay at home with my gardens and animals.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> People seem fixated on the idea he has 50 accusers. But there are about a billion people that know the man.
> If you had 20,000000 (20 million) people that knew you do you think there would be one that would accuse you of something awful ? Particularly AFTER Some one else did ?
> 
> In your own relatively small circle of aquaintences has no one ever said some horrible thing about you. ?
> ...



Not so much that there are 50, but that they all tell nearly identical stories, in different decades, different places, but the same ending.
Talk about a conspiracy theory.
I could believe if 2 or 3 got together and decided to milk this cash cow. I could even see a dozen if there was enough for everybody. I also can believe that out of all them there are along for the ride to easy street.
But to think that every single one is making it up and called each other to get the stories straight is unbelievable.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> People seem fixated on the idea he has 50 accusers. But there are about a billion people that know the man.
> If you had 20,000000 (20 million) people that knew you do you think there would be one that would accuse you of something awful ? Particularly AFTER Some one else did ?
> 
> In your own relatively small circle of aquaintences has no one ever said some horrible thing about you. ?
> ...


I don't feel that a billion or even 20 million know the man although I would expect that he has a small circle of friends like most of us do and the rest of the world knows a couple well developed television characters.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

plowjockey said:


> I could not help but notice,_ the circling of the wagons_, in this thread, then I remembered, Bill Cosby is a staunch Conservative.
> 
> The consensus seems that if Clinton got away with it, why are they picking on Bill Cosby?


Nah, we know how Clinton got away with it.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

City Bound said:


> Bill and Monica was consensual.
> 
> Bill played around but did he ever rape or molest anyone?


Looks like he was accused plenty
http://www.albertpeia.com/oxfordassault.htm


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Dutchie said:


> Bill Clinton never drugged anybody in order to get them to have sex with him.


That's not the only way sexual assault happens.
It's possible they are both guilty.
One was willing to blackmail, threaten and rumor has it, kill to get out of it.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> Nah, we know how Clinton got away with it.



Since Clinton got away with it, Cosby should also ?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

oneraddad said:


> Since Clinton got away with it, Cosby should also ?


Nope
Since Cosby is being indicted, Clinton should too.
I guess that old "White Privilege" kept Clinton out of hot water?
Or maybe it was something else?


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

Guilty or not, I'm betting Cosby gets off the hook with a slap on the wrist and a bunch of legal expenses. All of the allegations are from years ago.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> Nope
> Since Cosby is being indicted, Clinton should too.
> I guess that old "White Privilege" kept Clinton out of hot water?
> Or maybe it was something else?



I thought Clinton was the first black president ?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

oneraddad said:


> I thought Clinton was the first black president ?


I guess much in the same way Obama is the first female president.:whistlin:


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> I guess much in the same way Obama is the first female president.:whistlin:


He is kinda feminine


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Fishindude said:


> Guilty or not, I'm betting Cosby gets off the hook with a slap on the wrist and a bunch of legal expenses. All of the allegations are from years ago.


A long prison term wouldn't make sense, since he's blind and his health isn't good. I suspect that anything over 5 years is an automatic life sentence for Cosby.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> A long prison term wouldn't make sense, since he's blind and his health isn't good. I suspect that anything over 5 years is an automatic life sentence for Cosby.


 If that be the case, if he is found guilty, give him 6 years.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

oneraddad said:


> Since Clinton got away with it, Cosby should also ?


Well.... You know.... When there's only one gear, that's the one they have to use.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> I don't feel that a billion or even 20 million know the man although I would expect that he has a small circle of friends like most of us do and the rest of the world knows a couple well developed television characters.



Kinda like you have a handful of close friends but many "know" you from here and work ?
And think the tabloids don't even wrote about you !
Perhaps I should have said know OF the man.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> Not so much that there are 50, but that they all tell nearly identical stories, in different decades, different places, but the same ending.
> 
> Talk about a conspiracy theory.
> 
> ...



Getting the stories straight is one of the giveaways that it's false. 
10 witnesses don't tell the same story , ten people that read the same story do. 
They didn't need to get together just read the same tabloids. 
When you talk numbers remember the unimaginably huge number of people that know about this man. 

Not saying he didn't just the numbers shouldn't add credence to the story.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

We all have scant information to discuss this upcoming court case.
So far there have been plenty of comments on this, but without much real facts, I think the comments simply reflect each person's personal biases.

If Cosby put date rape drugs into anyone's drink, shame on him. But, from what the NEWS has shown, he'll be tried for giving a woman Quaaludes and having sex with her.
Lots of people took drugs in that decade. Lots of women want to have sex with anyone famous. An offer of free Quaaludes and sex with a celebrity would not be sexual exploitation. 
That someone regrets, years later, what they did in their youth isn't newsworthy. But just because you regret getting high and naked with a Black comedian, doesn't change it from a memorable night to a crime.

Until someone can prove they were drugged, either unknowingly or against their will, let the womanizing old fool get on with his golden years.

How many women can say that at one point in their life they allowed a man to buy them drinks and later on, while under the influence of alcohol, had sex with that man? I'd guess most have. But it isn't a crime.

While under the influence of alcohol, I have been invited to woman's homes and encouraged to engage in sex. Upon reflection, I regretted the sex and could, perhaps, claim that she took advantage of my alcohol impaired mental condition. But to be honest with myself, if there is blame, I must shoulder it.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> A long prison term wouldn't make sense, since he's blind and his health isn't good. I suspect that anything over 5 years is an automatic life sentence for Cosby.


I'm sure most of them will settle for lots of money.
Hit him where it hurts


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

If he is guilty, to those who have been raped, there is nothing that can be done to him that would make up for such an horrific act.

If he is innocent, my heart goes out to him and his family.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

haypoint said:


> We all have scant information to discuss this upcoming court case.
> So far there have been plenty of comments on this, but without much real facts, I think the comments simply reflect each person's personal biases.
> 
> If Cosby put date rape drugs into anyone's drink, shame on him. But, from what the NEWS has shown, he'll be tried for giving a woman Quaaludes and having sex with her.
> ...



I would say that your opinion of ''MOST WOMEN'' is a lot lower than most people!:shrug:


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

roadless said:


> If he is guilty, to those who have been raped, there is nothing that can be done to him that would make up for such an horrific act.
> 
> If he is innocent, my heart goes out to him and his family.



Horrific ?
Let's see none claim to have been beaten lost parts caught a disease or became pregnant. 
Oh I forgot all sex is horrific.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Horrific ?
> Let's see none claim to have been beaten lost parts caught a disease or became pregnant.
> Oh I forgot all sex is horrific.


You aren't saying that rape isn't horrific, are you?


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

haypoint said:


> If Cosby put date rape drugs into anyone's drink, shame on him. But, from what the NEWS has shown, he'll be tried for giving a woman Quaaludes and having sex with her.
> Lots of people took drugs in that decade.


You make it sound like it was the 1960s or 70s. It was 2004. I haven't heard of many people taking Quaaludes in that decade.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Horrific ?
> Let's see none claim to have been beaten lost parts caught a disease or became pregnant.
> Oh I forgot all sex is horrific.


If the dude that works at the gas station forced sex on you, it would probably be best if you just tried to enjoy it.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

oneraddad said:


> I thought Clinton was the first black president ?


He could be. Obama's only 6.25% "black" so, it sounds reasonable that many people have hidden dna of color in them.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

Remember, what seems to have touched off this indictment was the unsealing of a sworn deposition by Cosby during which his attorneys weren't quick enough to keep him from admitting that he had obtained prescriptions, I think five of them, for 'ludes explicitly to give to women during sexual encounters. Then he was asked if he'd ever given them without a prospect's permission and his mouthpieces shut him up. This was NOT known during all those other early accusations and I imagine it makes a huge difference. Oh, but he now says the victim in this indicted case got benadryl from him, not 'ludes or something similar. Think about this, if a dozen or two partners of his DID discuss taking his dope to help them relax and loosen up, even if they eventually didn't agree and just said bye, *where are THOSE women*??! With some 50 now saying he doped them, where ARE the honest folks over these years if it's not pretty much many of those 50? Wouldn't quite a few now come forward and say, hey, I had a roll in the hay with him, he suggested my loosening up with his pills and I did/did not take him up there, but it was/ would have been with my informed consent, he WAS ethical about what was going on! As far as I can tell, none, nada, and I do NOT believe there wouldn't be quite a few willing to defend him were his actions at all defensible over these years.

The idea of "innocent until proven guilty," in my mind, applies to the legal system dealing with defendants. I have no problem concluding Cosby is a scumbag predatory rapist and should be permanently separated from normal society as well as from his monetary fortune as long as it goes to his victims and various support organizations. I'll not be surprised, though, if the criminal case results in a hung jury. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a high hurdle with he said/ she said situations especially. OJ acquitted. Really? If there, not impossible here either I fear.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> You aren't saying that rape isn't horrific, are you?



Well yes I am. 

If sex between unmarried people is acceptable. And sex is just a part of life then rape comes down to arguing over who's choice it is.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Wanda said:


> I would say that your opinion of ''MOST WOMEN'' is a lot lower than most people!:shrug:


Agree...as a reformed notorious skirt chasing womanizer..not really...in a bar..drinking..well maybe a given with some but not all..try it in a grocery store...church..many other places..no. Most women..no...but in a bar much more.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Well yes I am.
> 
> If sex between unmarried people is acceptable. And sex is just a part of life then rape comes down to arguing over who's choice it is.


Do you feel the same way if the person arguing about choice happens to be a twelve year old girl, eighty year old woman or perhaps a young hockey player who's coach has a fondness for young men?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> I would say that your opinion of ''MOST WOMEN'' is a lot lower than most people!:shrug:


Sorry, I should have said MOST PEOPLE. Most of the people in my generation have had multiple sex partners and many college students, too. Not all, not every one, but a vast majority.

But if it is most, many or few, doesn't change the rest of it. People go to Bars, people drink, people go home together, people willfully have sex and often times it does not turn into a LTR. People tell one another that they Love them, when they don't. There are regrets. It is common human behavior to rationalize our mistakes. " I was drunk, I didn't know what I was doing." is an easy out.

Paying a prostitute for sex so she can support her drug habit is distasteful for both the paid and the payer. But buying drugs and supplying them to a person with the unspoken agreement that there will be sex is somehow accepted. Buying a dinner and movie in exchange for sex is common and frequently accepted. 

All this is really not the point. If Cosby provided Quaaludes to someone and she willingly took them and she later (or earlier) had willingly had sex then no sex crime was committed. If he slipped a date rape drug into anyone's drink and they blacked out and he raped her, then he should be in prison.

Let's not get our hate towards men or towards sex let you broad brush every sex act as rape.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Well yes I am.
> 
> If sex between unmarried people is acceptable. And sex is just a part of life then rape comes down to arguing over who's choice it is.


That's pretty pathetic


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Well yes I am.
> 
> If sex between unmarried people is acceptable. And sex is just a part of life then rape comes down to arguing over who's choice it is.


You realize in rape there is *no* choice for one of the people, correct? Let's be brutally honest, OK? Imagine that you're minding your own business when a man grabs you and pulls you into a secluded area. He holds you down, maybe with an accomplice, maybe with a weapon, but you are trapped, helpless, and there is no way of escape. He then forces anal sex on you, perhaps once, perhaps multiple times. Now imagine the terror of having no control whatsoever. Imagine thinking about horrific time for the rest of your life. 

Do you really think that rape is just sex, and just a part life?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> You realize in rape there is *no* choice for one of the people, correct? Let's be brutally honest, OK? Imagine that you're minding your own business when a man grabs you and pulls you into a secluded area. He holds you down, maybe with an accomplice, maybe with a weapons, but you are trapped, helpless, and there is no way of escape. He then forces anal sex on you, perhaps once, perhaps multiple times. Now imagine the terror of having no control whatsoever. Imagine thinking about horrific time for the rest of your life.
> 
> Do you really think that rape is just sex, and just a part life?



What if he found that he enjoyed it ? It could be a blessing


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> Do you feel the same way if the person arguing about choice happens to be a twelve year old girl, eighty year old woman or perhaps a young hockey player who's coach has a fondness for young men?



Very different things but for the most part yes. 
Don't get me wrong I think rape is bad but on the level of simple assault not like having your limbs slowly torn from you and your guts pulled out and set on fire.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> You realize in rape there is *no* choice for one of the people, correct? Let's be brutally honest, OK? Imagine that you're minding your own business when a man grabs you and pulls you into a secluded area. He holds you down, maybe with an accomplice, maybe with a weapons, but you are trapped, helpless, and there is no way of escape. He then forces anal sex on you, perhaps once, perhaps multiple times. Now imagine the terror of having no control whatsoever. Imagine thinking about horrific time for the rest of your life.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think that rape is just sex, and just a part life?



So you mean it's pretty much like any assault ? Yep it's bad. No it doesn't rise to horrific. 

Please note you guys keep adding deviant behavior to the rape senerio. 
That's like the difference between getting beat up in a fight and a fight where the loser gets Burned and sodomised .


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> So you mean it's pretty much like any assault ? Yep it's bad. No it doesn't rise to horrific.
> 
> Please note you guys keep adding deviant behavior to the rape senerio.
> That's like the difference between getting best up in a fight and a fight where the loser gets Burned and sodomised .


All rape is horrific simply due to the violation. All rape is violent.

Horrific is reliving something for decades... if that's not horror, what is?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

It's just sex, nothing deviant in that.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> So you mean it's pretty much like any assault ? Yep it's bad. No it doesn't rise to horrific.


I think that we (collective we) can't say rape is not horrific if we (individual we) haven't lived through it.
I've never been through it myself, but in my opinion, rape is the epitome of "horrific"
It's not _just _a physical assault, it affects the victim at a deep emotional level.
Physical hurts heal, not always so with mental/emotional hurts.
Next to being murdered, it's probably the most horrific thing that can happen to a woman.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Very different things but for the most part yes.
> Don't get me wrong I think rape is bad but on the level of simple assault not like having your limbs slowly torn from you and your guts pulled out and set on fire.



But if a man chose to rape you, you would just simply relax and enjoy.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> But if a man chose to rape you, you would just simply relax and enjoy.



No not at all just as in any other assault I would resist to the best of my ability.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> No not at all just as in any other assault I would resist to the best of my ability.


And if you couldn't? Would you just try to enjoy it?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> , rape is the epitome of "horrific"
> 
> It's not _just _a physical assault, it affects the victim at a deep emotional level..



So you are telling me that a physical assault that doesn't include sex doesn't affect the victims on a deep emotional level ?

That seems to be the only difference you are pointing out between assault and rape.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> And if you couldn't? Would you just try to enjoy it?



No. 
Is that just a troll ? 
I've been very clear that I don't consider these to be positive enjoyable incidents.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> So you are telling me that a physical assault that doesn't include sex doesn't affect the victims on a deep emotional level ?
> 
> That seems to be the only difference you are pointing out between assault and rape.



I would say that it depends on the severity and nature of the assault. If someone gets in a bar fight and the altercation results in a few stitches, I wouldn't feel that someone would have a deep emotional impact but if someone it's badly beaten while carrying groceries home from the store, I would think there is a significant emotional impact. 

I just find it odd that you suggest that a rape victim should relax and enjoy something they didn't want. 

The elderly woman I mentioned was raped in her home by an intruder and the young girl was taken from a train station by two males and repeatedly raped over 24 hours. I doubt if either came to believe forced intercourse is a normal act they should relax and enjoy.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

haypoint said:


> All this is really not the point. If Cosby provided Quaaludes to someone and she willingly took them and she later (or earlier) had willingly had sex then no sex crime was committed. If he slipped a date rape drug into anyone's drink and they blacked out and he raped her, then he should be in prison.


Those aren't the only two options. What is alleged in the case he is charged with fits neither of those. In this case, the victim claims she knowingly took pills but did not consent to whatever he did to her and was incapacitated to the point that she could not physically resist. That, if true, is a sexual assault.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> I just find it odd that you suggest that a rape victim should relax and enjoy something they didn't want.
> .



I never suggested that it seems insane to me to think so. 

It appears it's the idea of the following people. 
Sad thoughts but theirs not mine. 





oneraddad said:


> If the dude that works at the gas station forced sex on you, it would probably be best if you just tried to enjoy it.






oneraddad said:


> What if he found that he enjoyed it ? It could be a blessing






Irish Pixie said:


> And if you couldn't? Would you just try to enjoy it?




How ever this points out something I wanted to explore in another thread. 
How when people say something about some one and it gets repeated even good people can accept it as true and act on it.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> So you are telling me that a physical assault that doesn't include sex doesn't affect the victims on a deep emotional level ?
> 
> That seems to be the only difference you are pointing out between assault and rape.


All rape is assault, not all assault is rape.
Rape affects women (and the occasional man) on the most base level, the most personal, the most vulnerable.
It's not just a physical attack, it's humiliating, devastating, life changing.
Rape usually has very little to do with desire.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> I never suggested that it seems insane to me to think so.
> 
> It appears it's the idea of the following people.
> Sad thoughts but theirs not mine.
> ...


Thanks for the clarification. It wasn't something I'd expect from you, which is why I questioned you.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Rape affects women (and the occasional man) on the most base level, the most personal, the most vulnerable.
> 
> It's not just a physical attack, it's humiliating, devastating, life changing.



Are you saying that a physical attack on a male isn't humiliating, devastating and life changing ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Are you saying that a physical attack on a male isn't humiliating, devastating and life changing ?


In most cases it's really not


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Are you saying that a physical attack on a male isn't humiliating, devastating and life changing ?


Rape would be I'd think.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> In most cases it's really not


How many times you have been beat up ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Rape would be I'd think.



Your point ?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Your point ?


You asked, I answered
No need to be snotty


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> How many times you have been beat up ?



Some might find it hard to believe, but I've been beat up a couple times and I'd rather get beat up again then have sex with Rosie O'Donnell


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

oneraddad said:


> Some might find it hard to believe, but I've been beat up a couple times and I'd rather get beat up again then have sex with Rosie O'Donnell



Lol ok fair enough. 

Is there someone going around forcing people to have sex with Rosie ?
What a sadist.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> You asked, I answered
> 
> No need to be snotty



Sorry didn't mean it snotty I just didn't get your point. 
I think you responded to a question where I ment to exclude rape so it confused me.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> And if you couldn't? Would you just try to enjoy it?





AmericanStand said:


> I never suggested that it seems insane to me to think so.
> 
> It appears it's the idea of the following people.
> Sad thoughts but theirs not mine.
> ...


If I have attributed the "just enjoy it" statement to you in error, I'm truly sorry. I thought it was you but a search comes up with nothing. It very well could have been another poster.

Again, I apologize for the assumption.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> How many times you have been beat up ?


Once, about 50 years ago, and it didn't change my life at all.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Once, about 50 years ago, and it didn't change my life at all.


I don't know if that is common or not, but when I've been assaulted, it definitely changed me, at least as far as my habits and precautions are concerned.
I'm not talking about schoolyard fights, but serious adult confrontations.
Of course, learning from a bad experience is NOT a given for all people.:shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I don't know if that is common or not, but when I've been assaulted, it definitely changed me, at least as far as my habits and precautions are concerned.
> I'm not talking about schoolyard fights, but serious adult confrontations.
> Of course, learning from a bad experience is NOT a given for all people.:shrug:


It sounds like you get assaulted more than the average person


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It sounds like you get assaulted more than the average person


To be honest, I don't know what the average number of assaults is in a lifetime.
But then again, I've never been considered "the average person" either.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Once, about 50 years ago, and it didn't change my life at all.



How do you know. ?
How long were you in the hospital ? Perhaps the staff had time to help you work through it ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> *How do you know.* ?
> How long were you in the hospital ? Perhaps the staff had time to help you work through it ?


Yet another unrealistic question


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> To be honest, I don't know what the average number of assaults is in a lifetime.
> But then again, I've never been considered "the average person" either.


You spoke in the plural, so I'd say that's more than average


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You spoke in the plural, so I'd say that's more than average


You are correct. I think I can recall a few barroom brawls, all sucker punches, over in moments.
And one genuine 'beatdown' by street thugs out for a night of muggings.
THAT one definitely had residual effects.
Strangers approaching me, seemingly harmless, now receive more attention from me than they used to.
I would remind everyone the difference between "assault" and "battery".
I've encountered a number of assaults over the years and handled them by backing down the aggressors.

While I will concede this sounds "above average" I was unable to confirm any accurate numbers.
Most engine searches take you to rape, assault and domestic violence statistics and the few crime studies I found freely admit over half of all incidents are never reported.
Who knows?:shrug:


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

There is a high probability that These beating are far more under reported than even rape.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yet another unrealistic question



There is nothing unrealistic about it. 
You state that you didn't change after the beating. Wouldn't a self diagnosis be subject to a lack of perspective. ?
My questions about the length of time in the hospital were also to give some idea of the severity of your beating.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> There is nothing unrealistic about it.
> You state that you didn't change after the beating.
> 
> * Wouldn't a self diagnosis be subject to a lack of perspective. ?*
> ...


I'd be the only one who could know


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol now that's a unrealistic answer.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol now that's a unrealistic answer.


Wouldn't the person involved know best? SMH


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Wouldn't the person involved know best? SMH



Of course not. 

Ever been driving and have things slowly fog up to the point you pulled over and got out or turned on the wipers and suddenly things cleared up ?
Ever heard the frog in the pot story. ? 
For something's you need a outside perspective.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Of course not.
> 
> Ever been driving and have things slowly fog up to the point you pulled over and got out or turned on the wipers and suddenly things cleared up ?
> Ever heard the frog in the pot story. ?
> For something's you need a outside perspective.



I agree, sometimes people don't realize they're acting stupid


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You realize in rape there is *no* choice for one of the people, correct? Let's be brutally honest, OK? Imagine that you're minding your own business when a man grabs you and pulls you into a secluded area. He holds you down, maybe with an accomplice, maybe with a weapon, but you are trapped, helpless, and there is no way of escape. He then forces anal sex on you, perhaps once, perhaps multiple times. Now imagine the terror of having no control whatsoever. Imagine thinking about horrific time for the rest of your life.
> 
> Do you really think that rape is just sex, and just a part life?


I think from this description we have a clear understanding of the most violent, humiliating degree of rape. But, just as most assaults, there are varying degrees.

I think we universally agree that the above scenario is rape. But, on the other end of the scale we have situations where a woman invites a man to her house, takes off her clothes, has sex, but later regrets her actions and wants to charge the man with rape because she did not say to him that she wanted to have sex at the time. Some Universities are educating their students to get a signed contract prior to engaging in sex to prevent rape charges that are just sexual remorse. 

Some will call all unwanted touching sexual assault or rape. College teenagers are made aware that every form of physical contact can be a form of unwanted sexual contact. Several universities were criticized because most female students reported, in a survey, that they had experienced at least one incident of unwanted physical contact. Many people interpreted this as either rape or at least unwanted fondling.

Branding some guy a rapist because his hand slipped too low during a slow dance, dilutes the definition of rape, IMHO.

But, back to this thread about Cosby. If a woman flirts with me, indicates she'd like to take some Quaaludes, indicates she'd like to have sex with me, goes to my hotel with me, knowingly takes the pills, has sex, afterwards is miffed that I'm no longer interested in providing her Quaaludes or sex, then waits a decade to legally complain, I find that to be far from what most think of when they talk about rape.

Having worked in a prison for nearly three decades, I have been assaulted more than most, have witnessed more assaults than most and have investigated numerous claims of rape. 

This broad experience has shown me that there are varying degrees of assault and varying degrees of rape. Often people agree to sex and after reflection rationalized that they had been coerced. When an inmate agrees to sex in exchange for material goods and the verbal contract is broken, does consensual sex become rape? 
Sometimes an inmate will agree to sex with another inmate, but afterwards coerce/blackmail his partner by threatening to report the incident as rape. 

As a society, we want to protect everyone from rape and enact quick, heavy punishment on those we suspect of rape. As a result, many innocent people get wrongly accused.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

haypoint said:


> I think from this description we have a clear understanding of the most violent, humiliating degree of rape. But, just as most assaults, there are varying degrees.
> 
> I think we universally agree that the above scenario is rape. But, on the other end of the scale we have situations where a woman invites a man to her house, takes off her clothes, has sex, but later regrets her actions and wants to charge the man with rape because she did not say to him that she wanted to have sex at the time. Some Universities are educating their students to get a signed contract prior to engaging in sex to prevent rape charges that are just sexual remorse.
> 
> ...


Unwanted touching _is_ sexual assault. No means no, if there is penetration or not. There is no justification for rape. Period. 

My scenario was not extreme rape, that would involve sexual/nonsexual torture. 

The women didn't consent to sex, how do they consent when they're drugged? Hint. They can't.

It's not like it was back in the day, women aren't going to keep their mouths shut because it's not acceptable to blame the victim for being raped now. It's a good thing. 

rape
noun
1.
unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.
2.
statutory rape.
3.
an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation:
the rape of the countryside.
4.
Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

"Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape."

http://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Of course not.
> 
> Ever been driving and have things slowly fog up to the point you pulled over and got out or turned on the wipers and suddenly things cleared up ?
> Ever heard the frog in the pot story. ?
> For something's you need a outside perspective.


Because a stranger would know the inner workings of your mind better than you do yourself? Seriously?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Because a stranger would know the inner workings of your mind better than you do yourself? Seriously?



Perhaps they would , it's not impossible but other people might SEE the changes in their behavior.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Unwanted touching _is_ sexual assault. No means no, if there is penetration or not. There is no justification for rape. Period ]



Lol that's plain silly. 
I got a lot of spankings when I was a kid. 
Believe me they were unwanted. 
But they were not rape. 


Pixie everything isn't rape.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

cosby is innocent until proven guilty. hopefully the evidence is clear enough ether way.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

It has taken a few pages of comments, but I think we are beginning to see that what one person sees as rape can be placing your hand on a person's shoulder during a private conversation.

We are also learning that buying a drink at a public bar, sharing a few tokes of pot or smoking some crack or supplying a drug that gets you high is, to some people, the same as slipping a Rufie into their drink when they aren't looking. 

If Cosby were being charged with putting drugs into a person's drink, without their consent or knowledge, then carrying their semi-conscious body to a hotel bed for sex, then I'm with you on the push to prosecute. But that isn't at all what this is.

I hear heroin is popular today. If I met a gal at a bar and she told me that she wanted to score some heroin and that is how she best enjoyed sex, would I be drugging and raping her if I completed her request?

Alcohol is a drug. Should every person that supplied alcohol and had sex be imprisoned?

There are date rape drugs. This case and this discussion isn't about any sort of date rape drug. 

This case and this discussion is about a wealthy, influential, connected, married hound dog and a groupie looking to get high and have sex with a famous person. 

I am surprised at the naivety of some folks. Any idea who gets to go back stage at a rock concert? Are they sober? Do they get drugs? Do they have sex with the Band members and the Roadies that travel with them? Does anyone think they are being raped?

When you elevate the distasteful action of patting a woman's butt as you walk past to sexual assault and rape, you dilute the horrific action of sexual penetration rape.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

In America today it is best to avoid women as much as you can if you are a man. The scales have tipped so far in favor of women that a man is socially guilty of sexism or sexual assault if he even looks at a woman. 

The latest thing going on in colleges is that a woman can charge a man with rape if she drinks too much and has sex with him. If she wakes up and can not recall giving consent then she can claim that she was raped. Somehow the guy, who has most likely been drinking also, is supposed to know if she is too drunk to give proper consent.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie, You are correct, IP did not say all sexual assault is rape. 

She did say, "Unwanted touching _is_ sexual assault. No means no, if there is penetration or not. There is no justification for rape. Period. " 

From the flow from unwanted touching is sexual assault, she insists that penetration isn't a factor, to no justification for rape. It sounds as if those sentences within that paragraph are connected. 

Unwanted touching is unwanted. After a nice dinner in a restaurant, we walk towards the theatre. As we approach the crosswalk, I take your hand to assist as we cross the street. You have every right to yank your hand from my grasp and tell me you don't want to hold hands. To some it was a social blunder. But to others, this unwanted touching clearly is sexual assault. Perhaps rape without penetration? 

For those that don't understand "no means no," the tea video is helpful. But for the rest of the population, I think we are well beyond this dialog.

I offer you some tea. You say you want tea. I brew you some tea. You tell me you like your tea with a shot of Jack Daniels. I open the liquor cabinet and hand you the Jack Daniels. You continue to drink the tea, with a shot of Jack Daniels. You drink a lot of my tea. Eventually, you show signs of being drunk. I stop serving tea and you keep slamming down my Jack Daniels until you pass out. 

When you awake, you cannot recall how much tea you had and might not be too sure if you ever asked for tea. You recall that every time you drink tea and Jack Daniels, you have a hang over. You blame the tea. I stopped serving tea when you looked drunk, but I might have given you tea, per your request for more tea, before I realized you were drunk.

Verbal consent. I ask you if you want tea. You smile, bat your eyes and pull a tea cup from your purse. I ask you again and you thrust the tea cup into my hand. So, I boil water, steep some tea bags. Again, I ask if you want tea. You smile, "Come on, Silly, you know what I'm thirsty for!" So, I set the pot of tea on the table next to your cup.
"Aren't you going to pour it?" you ask. So I pour the tea and you have several cups. 
But the next decade, you tell me you felt pressured to drink tea and I had presented tea and placed it too close that you had to take it, but never said you wanted tea. Also, it was cold outside and you thought I'd make you walk home if you didn't drink the tea. So this was coercion to unwanted tea drinking.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

MDKatie said:


> Here's a very easy to understand analogy comparing tea to rape, for those of you who are slow or may not understand the concept of consent.
> (And for the record, I did not see IP say all sexual assault is rape.)


OK, if you know that this is what happened then it has bearing on the subject at hand, if however, this is what you're trying to get people believe or some other reasoning then it has little to no impact upon this situation. Comprende?


Are you certain that this is what happened? They said yes or no and then someone did or did not honor their wishes?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

City Bound said:


> In America today it is best to avoid women as much as you can if you are a man. The scales have tipped so far in favor of women that a man is socially guilty of sexism or sexual assault if he even looks at a woman.
> 
> The latest thing going on in colleges is that a woman can charge a man with rape if she drinks too much and has sex with him. If she wakes up and can not recall giving consent then she can claim that she was raped. Somehow the guy, who has most likely been drinking also, is supposed to know if she is too drunk to give proper consent.


No means no. Just because a woman gets drunk and invites a guy into a bedroom does not indicate consent. 

However, when a woman gets drunk and leads a 19 year old drunk, first time away from home, hormone charged dude into a bedroom and undresses him, it is unrealistic to expect the most important thing on his mind is her virtue.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

haypoint said:


> No means no. Just because a woman gets drunk and invites a guy into a bedroom does not indicate consent.
> 
> However, when a woman gets drunk and leads a 19 year old drunk, first time away from home, hormone charged dude into a bedroom and undresses him, it is unrealistic to expect the most important thing on his mind is her virtue.


No does mean no, but one drunk person saying yes (and truly meaning it while under the influence) to another drunk and equally consenting adult ( who truly does mean it while under the influence ) does not mean no for ether parties. 

Being invited into a drunk woman's bedroom does not mean consent but if she puts her hands all over you and then drags you into a bedroom and takes your clothes off and instigates sex with you (while you are drunk also) seems like consent to me. Some women get very sexual and very flirty when they have been drinking and if you are all drunk then how can anyone tell who is drunk. Both people are impaired at the time but they both honestly do consent to sexual relations. It might not be the best idea and most often is not but to two drunk horny idiots it seems like a great idea. When they wake up the next day they may feel differently about their choice.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Thank you MDKatie, the video was absolutely perfect. 

If anyone else is still having a problem with what is consensual, I suggest you watch the video over and over until you completely understand the concept. 

No means no whether it's to sex, inappropriate touching or tea. If the other person says no, or can't say no, don't touch them. Easy peasy.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol that's plain silly.
> I got a lot of spankings when I was a kid.
> Believe me they were unwanted.
> But they were not rape.
> ...


Were the spankings sexual in nature?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> I offer you some tea. You say you want tea. I brew you some tea. You tell me you like your tea with a shot of Jack Daniels. I open the liquor cabinet and hand you the Jack Daniels. You continue to drink the tea, with a shot of Jack Daniels. You drink a lot of my tea. Eventually, you show signs of being drunk. *I stop serving tea* and you keep slamming down my Jack Daniels until you pass out.


You quit serving the tea. You did not pour tea down her throat while she was passed out. She served her own tea, so you obviously didn't force tea on her.





> "Aren't you going to pour it?" you ask. So I pour the tea and you have several cups.
> But the next decade, you tell me you felt pressured to drink tea and I had presented tea and placed it too close that you had to take it, but never said you wanted tea. Also, it was cold outside and you thought I'd make you walk home if you didn't drink the tea. So this was coercion to unwanted tea drinking.


Again, an active participant. You didn't pour the tea down the girl's throat, she was an active participant.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

City Bound said:


> No does mean no, but one drunk person saying yes (and truly meaning it while under the influence) to another drunk and equally consenting adult ( who truly does mean it while under the influence ) does not mean no for ether parties.
> 
> Being invited into a drunk woman's bedroom does not mean consent but if she puts her hands all over you and then drags you into a bedroom and takes your clothes off and instigates sex with you (while you are drunk also) seems like consent to me. Some women get very sexual and very flirty when they have been drinking and if you are all drunk then how can anyone tell who is drunk. Both people are impaired at the time but they both honestly do consent to sexual relations. It might not be the best idea and most often is not but to two drunk horny idiots it seems like a great idea. When they wake up the next day they may feel differently about their choice.


 I agree with you. But today, college men are being charged with rape in the situations you detailed. Seems in our rabid attempt to protect women from those nasty men, common sense has flown out the window.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

OK, I think we have a general agreement on what no means.

Cosby isn't being charged with having sex against her will, is he?
Part of the case involves him supplying her with Quaaludes. Not exactly a date rape drug by any stretch.

A woman willingly ingested Quaaludes supplied by Cosby. This woman willingly had sex with Cosby. Quaaludes is both a relaxant and increases sexual arousal. It seems to me the only sticking point is "Was she in a lucid state of mind to consent to sex?"

Is it reasonable that this woman, like the scores, perhaps hundreds, of woman before and after her, went to Cosby's room, gobbled up his 'ludes and had no intention to have sex with this millionaire movie star? Really?

Exactly what was her state of consciousness when she undressed, grabbed her ankles and yelled, " Take me now, Bill!"? How is this not his word against hers?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> You quit serving the tea. You did not pour tea down her throat while she was passed out. She served her own tea, so you obviously didn't force tea on her.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Not passed out, but in increasing degrees of intoxication. At some point she couldn't be depended upon to chose for herself due to the effects of the alcohol on her judgment.
I should withhold tea when I saw her judgment was impaired. Passed out is clear, drunk is 50 shades of gray.


But there was tea involved as the alcohol began to increase it's effects upon her. Couldn't she be an active participant but too drunk to know what she really wanted?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

haypoint said:


> I agree with you. But today, college men are being charged with rape in the situations you detailed. Seems in our rabid attempt to protect women from those nasty men, common sense has flown out the window.


If common sense prevailed, parents would remind their sons that there is a much greater chance of paying 18 - 20 years of child support or catching a nasty STD than a questionable trial and to keep their clothes on until the sober up.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

haypoint said:


> OK, I think we have a general agreement on what no means.
> 
> Cosby isn't being charged with having sex against her will, is he?
> Part of the case involves him supplying her with Quaaludes. Not exactly a date rape drug by any stretch.
> ...


I'm not going to argue with you. Things are much different now than back in the day. If a man gets a woman drunk or drugged, and has sex without her consent, there may be rape charges filed. 

Did the women want something from him? Probably. Did they want to be drugged into unconsciousness and raped? No, they did not. Rape cannot be justified. Ever.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Cosby isn't being charged with having sex against her will, is he?


Yes, his charges involve penetration without consent.



> Part of the case involves him supplying her with Quaaludes. Not exactly a date rape drug by any stretch.


I believe you're still confusing this case with older ones. In this case, he supposedly gave the woman Benadryl and wine, not Quaaludes.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> Yes, his charges involve penetration without consent.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you're still confusing this case with older ones. In this case, he supposedly gave the woman Benadryl and wine, not Quaaludes.


"Asked whether investigators believe Cosby used Quaaludes in the 2004 case for which he is being charged, Steele said that pills were provided. "There's inconsistencies on [what pills they were]. There was also wine provided," the prosecutor said. He said the woman has said she was "frozen, paralyzed, unable to move," so she was therefore unable to consent to sexual activity."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/us/bill-cosby-sexual-assault-investigation-pennsylvania/

So, it is only out of the courtroom speculation that he used Benadryl. Earlier reports that I read stated that he supplied Quaaludes and under the influence of this drug was unable to be held responsible for consent. Sort of like sex with a drunk.
Not sure if Quaaludes or Benadryl and wine works like a spinal tap?

I'm not interested in a kangaroo court, but if he gave her drugs and she became paralyzed and he had sex with her, he must go to prison. If she consented to the drugs and the sex, but got her feelings hurt when she discovered she was just one of many, shame on her.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

haypoint said:


> "Asked whether investigators believe Cosby used Quaaludes in the 2004 case for which he is being charged, Steele said that pills were provided. "There's inconsistencies on [what pills they were]. There was also wine provided," the prosecutor said. He said the woman has said she was "frozen, paralyzed, unable to move," so she was therefore unable to consent to sexual activity."
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/us/bill-cosby-sexual-assault-investigation-pennsylvania/
> 
> So, it is only out of the courtroom speculation that he used Benadryl. Earlier reports that I read stated that he supplied Quaaludes and under the influence of this drug was unable to be held responsible for consent. Sort of like sex with a drunk.
> ...


I'm not interested in kangaroo court either but it is interesting to note that this accuser is openly gay and was in a relationship at the time she claims the assault occurred. 

I do feel that if anyone falsely accuses someone of a crime, they should be charged but if even one of these women is telling the truth, it's sad that their story would be suppressed by wealth and clout.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> I'm not interested in kangaroo court either but it is interesting to note that this accuser is openly gay and was in a relationship at the time she claims the assault occurred.
> 
> I do feel that if anyone falsely accuses someone of a crime, they should be charged but if even one of these women is telling the truth, it's sad that their story would be suppressed by wealth and clout.


There goes all the "she really wanted him" theories...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Verdicts from Court are not Guilty or Innocent. Verdicts are Guilty or not Guilty.

Some of the statements will match. Yes she went to his room. She may even admit to willingly taking drugs and drinking wine. 

But beyond that, it is mostly his word against her word. I just don't see how you can prove her statement and dismiss his statement.

A few years back, I was called for jury duty. A couple had broken off their relationship. But they sat together at a Bar and then they left together. Each drove their own car to her house. She invited him in. They got into an argument and he left. She called the police and told them he forced his way into the house and beat her up. There were no marks. He was found not guilty.

A guy was injured at work, after being checked over at the hospital, he went to a Bar. Later his MIL came in and sat down. MIL called his DW. DW came to Bar, sat with her DM. Argument started between guy and his MIL. Then all three got loud. Bartender asked them to leave. Cops were cruising the parking lot. Cops told the guy not to drive. So DW got into the driver's seat and they headed home. It was February and snowing quite hard. Guy thought she was driving too fast and nearly hit a couple cars. He complained about her driving. Finally, she stopped the car and got out. He slid into the driver's seat and waited for her to get in. A car was approaching from the opposite direction. She had stopped the car in the middle of the road. He backed the car up, backing up onto the curb. He waited. She never got in. She has a friend a half block away. So, he headed home. He drove about a mile before he drove off the road and the car was stuck. He walked home and went to bed.
Cops woke him up. He was told that he had backed over his wife and drug her down the road a half mile, grinding off an ear and a breast. She was never able to recall what happened.
Guy was tried and convicted of attempted murder.

My point is that in this Cosby case, we don't have any real information. We have just bits of speculation. Even if we did have all the evidence, the jury can go a different way.

BTW, openly gay women , in a gay relationship, willingly have sex with men. That's a fact.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

He said, she said x50+. Can anyone else see the pattern? :facepalm:


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you MDKatie, the video was absolutely perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Except there are flaws in the tea analogy.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Were the spankings sexual in nature?



No pixe they were not. I think I made that clear but I'm glad to clarify it. 
Like I said before everything isn't rape. 
People sometimes touch people for a madrid of non sexual reasons.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Did the women want something from him? Probably. Did they want to be drugged into unconsciousness and raped? No, they did not. Rape cannot be justified. Ever.



How do you know she didn't want to be drugged into a reduced or unconscious state for sex. 
That's not rape. 
Everything isn't rape.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> How do you know she didn't want to be drugged into a reduced or unconscious state for sex.
> That's not rape.
> Everything isn't rape.


How does anyone know you didn't want spankings when you were a kid? 

ETA: Maybe you secretly liked that sort of thing. Or you were able to get something out of it. Just sayin'.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> He said, she said x50+. Can anyone else see the pattern? :facepalm:



Yes there are a very tiny few willing to lie about a celebrity.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> No pixe they were not. I think I made that clear but I'm glad to clarify it.
> Like I said before everything isn't rape.
> People sometimes touch people for a madrid of non sexual reasons.


Oh, and here I thought since the thread was about rape and sexual assault we were discussing sexual touching. Huh. Anyway, and just to make it perfectly clear, I was talking about *unwanted sexual touching*. I'm soo glad we were able to straighten that out. :facepalm:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> He said, she said x50+. Can anyone else see the pattern? :facepalm:


I grant you that 50 cases makes quite a case, but the courts don't (or shouldn't) try a person based on separate unproven claims. This isn't 50 women making a claim against Cosby. It is one and you taint the case by even a mention of 49 previous unfounded claims.

You believe every one of those women went to his room and willingly took drugs and drank alcohol but had no intention to have sex with him? You believe it was not common knowledge that Cosby had women up to his room for sex?
If I don't want to get wet, I'm not going to the swimming pool.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Yes there are a very tiny few willing to lie about a celebrity.


And I imagine there are a tiny few that like spankings...


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

I'd been dating this girl for about 6 months when one day I smacked her on her behind while she was bent over. She called it abuse, at which point I knew she wasn't the one for me.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Verdicts from Court are not Guilty or Innocent. Verdicts are Guilty or not Guilty.
> 
> Some of the statements will match. Yes she went to his room. She may even admit to willingly taking drugs and drinking wine.
> 
> ...


I agree with your point about false statements and it may be found that an openly gay woman wanted to explore her options but it I would think the term for that would be bisexual. 

I may be misinformed but I would suspect that not too many hetero people people have the inclination to take a walk on the wild side so based on gay women I know, as well as my own observations, that the chances of that happening are fairly slim.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

haypoint said:


> So, it is only out of the courtroom speculation that he used Benadryl. Earlier reports that I read stated that he supplied Quaaludes and under the influence of this drug was unable to be held responsible for consent.


Cosby himself is the one that said it was Benadryl under oath, but at another time he also said it was a prescription. The alleged victim has no knowledge what the pills were, but she claims he told her they were herbal. Nobody involved in the case has claimed the mystery pills were Quaaludes. Reports to that effect were simply wrong, probably based on Cosby's testimony that he gave Quaaludes to at least one woman in the 1970s. It doesn't really matter what pills he used. All that matters is whether she gave consent for him to do what he indisputably did to her. She says she didn't and he says she did.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Verdicts from Court are not Guilty or Innocent. Verdicts are Guilty or not Guilty.


Good point.



> Some of the statements will match. *Yes she went to his room.* She may even admit to willingly taking drugs and drinking wine.


You keep saying that, and it isn't entirely accurate. She went to his home. It wasn't in a hotel room or his bedroom. The alleged assault happened on a couch on the first floor of his house, while his bedroom is upstairs. That changes the picture a little from the way you describe it. She also does not admit to willingly taking drugs. She admits she took pills that he told her were herbal.



> But beyond that, it is mostly his word against her word. I just don't see how you can prove her statement and dismiss his statement.


Completely true. I'm assuming the case is based more on Cosby's own deposition in the civil case than on the alleged victim's testimony. There was no case before that deposition was unsealed. Whether it's enough to get a conviction is anyone's guess.



> My point is that in this Cosby case, we don't have any real information. We have just bits of speculation. Even if we did have all the evidence, the jury can go a different way.


Again, not entirely true. We don't have all the information, but we do have a lot of real information beyond speculation. The criminal complaint summarizes the case quite well, including real information out of Cosby's own mouth. It looks like a weak case to me, but like you say the jury can go any which way on this one. If I were his attorney, I'd probably advise him to go with a judge instead of a jury.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

haypoint said:


> You believe every one of those women went to his room and willingly took drugs and drank alcohol but had no intention to have sex with him?


The claims of many of the women are that they were drugged without their knowledge, so no, I don't believe every one of them willingly took drugs.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> The claims of many of the women are that they were drugged without their knowledge, so no, I don't believe every one of them willingly took drugs.


Are you saying or do you agree with the notion that, scores of women went to his room, were unknowingly drugged then raped, yet no one spoke out for several decades?

Are the claims of many women provable? Are the claims of any of these women provable? Since there were about 50 women that came forward, wouldn't it be safe to assume this "hotel, drinks, drugs, sex" scenario happened a hundred times, perhaps hundreds of times?

What are the stats on Wilt Chamberlain? (reported to have had sex with 20,000 women. Some perhaps more than once)

How many groupies drank, took drugs and had sex with Mick Jagger over the past half century? (4,000 women. He states that to him sex is like taking a beer out of the refrigerator).


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Are you saying or do you agree with the notion that, scores of women went to his room, were unknowingly drugged then raped, yet no one spoke out for several decades?


No. I do believe some probably were drugged against their will and then raped. I couldn't guess how many. Not all of the alleged victims claim they were drugged against their will and not all of them claim they were raped. There are many different scenarios alleged among the 50 or so women. They're not all the same story. I see no relevance to the discussion in the rest of your post, so I will ignore it.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> No. I do believe some probably were drugged against their will and then raped. I couldn't guess how many. Not all of the alleged victims claim they were drugged against their will and not all of them claim they were raped. There are many different scenarios alleged among the 50 or so women. They're not all the same story. I see no relevance to the discussion in the rest of your post, so I will ignore it.


"I do believe some probably"?
This guy is going to trial for the final years of his life and as you side with the accuser, all you have is "believe" and "probably"?:nono:

I assume that most people do not experience the "perks" that come with fame. I was just offering a couple examples of the sex traffic generated by the groupies and hangers on that typically follow stars. Luring them to his room and rendering them comatose seems a bit unnecessary. Sort of like going door to door in a Halloween costume to get candy, when you live in a candy store. :shrug:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

haypoint said:


> "I do believe some probably"?
> This guy is going to trial for the final years of his life and as you side with the accuser, all you have is "believe" and "probably"?:nono:
> 
> I assume that most people do not experience the "perks" that come with fame. I was just offering a couple examples of the sex traffic generated by the groupies and hangers on that typically follow stars. Luring them to his room and rendering them comatose seems a bit unnecessary. Sort of like going door to door in a Halloween costume to get candy, when you live in a candy store. :shrug:


I suggest you research somnophilia. Here is a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnophilia

Rape is rarely, if ever, about sex. It's about power and control. It doesn't matter if it's some ******* good ol boy or a celebrity.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Rape is rarely, if ever, about sex. It's about power and control.



If that IS true bill must be innocent. 
At the time he already had plenty of power and control to achieve sex.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> If that IS true bill must be innocent.
> At the time he already had plenty of power and control to achieve sex.


Or because these women didn't recognize and acquiesce to his power and control he had to use other means to exert it making the allegations true.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Or because these women didn't recognize and acquiesce to his power and control he had to use other means to exert it making the allegations true.


Perhaps the women that didn't want to have sex with Cosby should have simply stepped out of the line of women wanting to use his Quaaludes and have sex with him.

Rape, sex and power are complex individually and when blended in differing ways becomes unimaginably complex.

Unwanted sex faces power becomes rape. When one person doesn't want sex, but the other person does but lacks power, there is no rape. When both people want sex, there is no rape. But there are all sorts of gray areas between those very different situations. You can not want sex, but agree to it for a variety of reasons. Unwanted sex that you agree to is still unwanted sex, right? So, not all unwanted sex is rape?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Perhaps the women that didn't want to have sex with Cosby should have simply stepped out of the line of women wanting to use his Quaaludes and have sex with him.
> 
> Rape, sex and power are complex individually and when blended in differing ways becomes unimaginably complex.
> 
> Unwanted sex faces power becomes rape. When one person doesn't want sex, but the other person does but lacks power, there is no rape. When both people want sex, there is no rape. But there are all sorts of gray areas between those very different situations. You can not want sex, but agree to it for a variety of reasons. Unwanted sex that you agree to is still unwanted sex, right? So, not all unwanted sex is rape?


I never said it was. The point is once the women were administered drugs without their knowledge of their true nature their free will to say no was compromised. Power was exerted. Rape did occur. All speculation on my part and I have no doubt some of these stories don't qualify as rape. I also have little doubt some do. Whether the one he is being prosecuted for was or wasn't I'll leave to a jury to decide.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I never said it was. The point is once the women were administered drugs without their knowledge of their true nature their free will to say no was compromised. Power was exerted. Rape did occur. All speculation on my part and I have no doubt some of these stories don't qualify as rape. I also have little doubt some do. Whether the one he is being prosecuted for was or wasn't I'll leave to a jury to decide.


I was all set to "Like" your comment, when the word "administered" hit me. 

That has an interesting connotation. Medications are generally administered IV, IM, or orally. People take drugs, doctors administer drugs. There is a perceptual difference there. Interesting that you assume the drugs were without their knowledge.

Let's dismiss the perhaps hundreds of other women that came to his room for sex and instead focus on the case before the courts.

Did Cosby engage in sex without her consent? Did Cosby secretly add some drug to her drink? Did she willingly ingest drugs with her alcohol to enhance her sexual experience? What proof can be supplied that lifts this case above a "he said/she said"?:lookout:

As I roll the consent issue around in my head, I revert to long past personal experiences. I guess I have violated and been violated. 
Numerous times I have engaged in carnal pleasures while my partner was drunk. There might have been a time or two when I questioned if she may have died or passed out during sex. Thankfully, she was just bored.:shrug:

Clearly, if I could recall their names, I might have rights to redress the issue of consent. Women that knew I was drunk, took me to their beds and had their way with me. While Jim Beam had undermined my reasoning, it hadn't paralyzed me.:icecream:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> I was all set to "Like" your comment, when the word "administered" hit me.
> 
> That has an interesting connotation. Medications are generally administered IV, IM, or orally. People take drugs, doctors administer drugs. There is a perceptual difference there. Interesting that you assume the drugs were without their knowledge.
> 
> ...


I used the word administered for a specific reason. Many of the allegations center around the claim that the women were drugged without their knowledge or willingly took a drug thinking it was something it was not. In these cases the term administered does, to me, apply appropriately. It differentiates those case from the cases in which women willingly took quaaludes or some other substance. In those cases they administered the drugs to themselves and the consequences of those actions are a bit more ambiguous.


I'm not really interested in your sexual history.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I used the word administered for a specific reason. Many of the allegations center around the claim that the women were drugged without their knowledge or willingly took a drug thinking it was something it was not. In these cases the term administered does, to me, apply appropriately. It differentiates those case from the cases in which women willingly took quaaludes or some other substance. In those cases they administered the drugs to themselves and the consequences of those actions are a bit more ambiguous.
> 
> 
> I'm not really interested in your sexual history.


Well, it is clear that what happened isn't clear. I'm sure we'll get both sides once the trial begins.:shrug:

Hey, where's the sympathy? Don't be so harsh, I'm apparently a rape victim.:whistlin:
I think, out there in the real world, there are rapes and there are regrets from consensual sex. I'd hate for our zeal to stone rapists that we falsely accuse anyone, no matter our biases.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

It is extremely difficult to rape the "willing", even if the willing party is also a "Gold Digger". 

Bill's net worth is "unknown". The best that can be found out about that is an estimate. A few tens of thousands of dollars is pretty much chump change to him. This is the attraction Money.

Most everybody who came to visit him got what they came for. Some want more.:icecream:


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

haypoint said:


> Clearly, if I could recall their names, I might have rights to redress the issue of consent. Women that knew I was drunk, took me to their beds and had their way with me. While Jim Beam had undermined my reasoning, it hadn't paralyzed me.:icecream:



Sorry but you you wouldn't have much luck even if you remembered their names. 
The courts have held men that are drunk enough not to be responceable cannot physically have sex.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The courts have held men that are drunk enough not to be responceable cannot physically have sex.


I'd like to see any such rulings


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'd like to see any such rulings



Look in the state of Illinois.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

OK, all you Cosby haters, all you man haters. Put down your "All sex is Rape" posters, Tear up your " Cosby is a Rapist" banners.

While we were speculating what went on behind closed doors, a Judge has reviewed the actual information presented in this matter and determined that both women do not have a case. Oh, yes, there were two women, naked with Bill in different decades, that he might have had to face in Court. So, there will not be a trial and Bill goes home, again.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

haypoint said:


> "I do believe some probably"?
> This guy is going to trial for the final years of his life and as you side with the accuser, all you have is "believe" and "probably"?:nono:


Whoa there, buddy! Slow down! You're going off the rails! First, he's only going to trial for ONE case, and my belief that he probably did some less than honorable things back in the 70s or whenever has nothing to do with the one case he's charged with. You asked so I answered. All those accusations from back then are beyond the statute of limitations anyway. In regards to the current case, I even posted earlier in the thread that I don't think they have a very strong case against him, so how do you get the idea that I have sided with the accuser?

You might notice this is a discussion forum, not a jury deliberation. Nothing we say here will put Cosby in jail. We don't have to presume him innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

haypoint said:


> OK, all you Cosby haters, all you man haters. Put down your "All sex is Rape" posters, Tear up your " Cosby is a Rapist" banners.
> 
> While we were speculating what went on behind closed doors, a Judge has reviewed the actual information presented in this matter and determined that both women do not have a case. Oh, yes, there were two women, naked with Bill in different decades, that he might have had to face in Court. So, there will not be a trial and Bill goes home, again.


Well, I'm not a Cosby hater or any of the other things you said, but I'm sorry to inform you that you're confused again. No judge has thrown any charges out. A Los Angeles prosecutor has declined to charge him for two cases that allegedly happened there, one from 1965 (statute of limitations) and one from 2008 (lack of sufficient evidence). Cosby still faces the charges in Pennsylvania for the 2004 case.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

haypoint said:


> OK, all you Cosby haters, all you man haters. Put down your "All sex is Rape" posters, Tear up your " Cosby is a Rapist" banners.
> 
> While we were speculating what went on behind closed doors, a Judge has reviewed the actual information presented in this matter and determined that both women do not have a case. Oh, yes, there were two women, naked with Bill in different decades, that he might have had to face in Court. So, there will not be a trial and Bill goes home, again.


That has nothing to do with his case before the court now...that has not been dismissed.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> That has nothing to do with his case before the court now...that has not been dismissed.


My mistake. I heard it on the news on my way home. I thought the only one pending was this one. Sorry.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

haypoint said:


> OK, all you Cosby haters, all you man haters. Put down your "All sex is Rape" posters, Tear up your " Cosby is a Rapist" banners.
> 
> While we were speculating what went on behind closed doors, a Judge has reviewed the actual information presented in this matter and determined that both women do not have a case. Oh, yes, there were two women, naked with Bill in different decades, that he might have had to face in Court. So, there will not be a trial and Bill goes home, again.



The whole thing is confusing but you are partially correct. 

A judge did rule that two cases would not proceed because of the statute of limitations, which isn't proof of guilt or innocence. 

The one being discussed is still proceeding but I don't think anyone hates the man or at least I don't. 

I don't know the man at all so I can't say if I like him or dislike him but I do feel the best place to resolve these things is in a courtroom.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> And I imagine there are a tiny few that like spankings...


Actually more than you think...in the dating world now spanking and hair pulling seems to be normal...not sure what happened to people.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

elevenpoint said:


> Actually more than you think...in the dating world now spanking and hair pulling seems to be normal...not sure what happened to people.


???

With the current on goings of this world, I find these things to be exceedingly possible along with predictable. In the '60s it was "Do it if it feels good" and downhill from there...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Look in the state of Illinois.


I'm not chasing down proof of your claims


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> OK, all you Cosby haters, all you man haters. Put down your "All sex is Rape" posters, Tear up your " Cosby is a Rapist" banners.


This is the problem with many in our society. People hear someone is being accused of rape, and automatically talk about how she is probably lying, probably wanted it, probably wants attention, probably wore the wrong clothes/said the wrong thing/was in the wrong place. 

Ridiculous. You don't hear someone's house was broken into and automatically think the homeowner is lying, or the homeowners asked for it, or the homeowner secretly wanted to be violated. Why is it different with rape? 

It's disgusting, absolutely disgusting, how many here are making jokes about this. It's shameful.

All many of us want is a fair trial for Cosby. We're not standing outside his house with torches and pitchforks. We just want him to be treated like any other regular (meaning non-rich and famous) man charged with the same crimes. That does NOT make us Cosby haters or man haters.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MDKatie said:


> This is the problem with many in our society. People hear someone is being accused of rape, and automatically talk about how she is probably lying, probably wanted it, probably wants attention, probably wore the wrong clothes/said the wrong thing/was in the wrong place.
> 
> Ridiculous. You don't hear someone's house was broken into and automatically think the homeowner is lying, or the homeowners asked for it, or the homeowner secretly wanted to be violated. Why is it different with rape?
> 
> ...


Thank you. Your post is perfect. :bow:


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

elevenpoint said:


> Actually more than you think...in the dating world now spanking and hair pulling seems to be normal...not sure what happened to people.


 porn happened to people. Mass amounts of internet porn are digested by both men and women of all ages and it influences their sex lives.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

MDKatie said:


> You don't hear someone's house was broken into and automatically think the homeowner is lying, or the homeowners asked for it, or the homeowner secretly wanted to be violated. Why is it different with rape?
> 
> .



Perhaps because most homeowners don't wait 12 years to file charges ?
Perhaps because they don't insist they knew who did it all along and wait years to file charges ?
Perhaps because they won't become wealthy by filing charges ?
Perhaps because they won't become famous from filing charges ?

On the other hand you do hear speculation of this sort when a failing business claims to have been broken into. 
Or when it burns down.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

elevenpoint said:


> Actually more than you think...in the dating world now spanking and hair pulling seems to be normal...not sure what happened to people.



I think it's two things. 
People feel free to explore more now. 
And people are more insulated now and want to actually feel more or perhaps more accurately more intensely.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

AmericanStand said:


> I think it's two things.
> People feel free to explore more now.
> And people are more insulated now and want to actually feel more or perhaps more accurately more intensely.


 that makes me think of how mentally ill patients in asylums use to bang there heads on the wall just to feel stimulated and alive.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Perhaps because most homeowners don't wait 12 years to file charges ?
> Perhaps because they don't insist they knew who did it all along and wait years to file charges ?
> Perhaps because they won't become wealthy by filing charges ?
> Perhaps because they won't become famous from filing charges ?
> ...


Quite a few of the women didn't went to police promptly and the same is true of this particular woman. She did file a report 12 years ago and was told there was insufficient evidence to proceed. She has carried on for those 12 years living a quiet life at her home in Toronto and never given an interview, even now with a crush or reporters outside her home. 

With a number as large as 50, I would suggest that there may be some who's motives are questionable but I believe all would be a reach. 

Do you also feel this principle applies to all celebrities?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I feel like in this context 50 is a tiny number. Practically infinitesimal


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> I feel like in this context 50 is a tiny number. Practically infinitesimal


Would you feel the same if you or a family member were one of the raped?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> I feel like in this context 50 is a tiny number. Practically infinitesimal


You're likely to agree that those who accused Michael Jackson were looking for celebrity and money as well?

I know a couple big name celebrities (one actor and one musician) and they feel that their policy is to make sure that they don't orchestrate meetings in private and opt to have at least two other people from their management team present, even for print media interviews. 

The musician has been in the industry for over 40 and in those 40 years, he tells me that he's always met reporters and up and coming musicians in restaurants or other public places. It protects him and if tabloid reporters are within proximity, it gives and up and comer a bit of credibility to be seen meeting with a big star. 

My daughter works for a fairly well known musician as well and while he isn't Cosby wealthy, a lot of his fan base is young teens and he wouldn't be caught dead alone with one of his fans and part of her job is to be in attendance for those 'private meet the celebrity' promotional events. 

All of them indicate that this has been standard practice within the entertainment industry for a great many years. Perhaps Cosby is guilty of nothing more than being a fool but I'm very sure his management team would have advised him of the same.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Has not Cosby been married for over 50 years? Bad enough as is but his wife knowing she is married to a man that has no respect for her? Wow. Stand by your man even if he has no value for his wife. Incredible.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

elevenpoint said:


> Has not Cosby been married for over 50 years? Bad enough as is but his wife knowing she is married to a man that has no respect for her? Wow. Stand by your man even if he has no value for his wife. Incredible.


It must work for her at some level because she's not bothered by publicly stating that he's a philanderer.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Would you feel the same if you or a family member were one of the raped?



Have you quit beating your wife. 

Your question is the same type of setup. 
Yes I'd feel the same no matter what , No I don't think anyone was raped.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

wr said:


> It must work for her at some level because she's not bothered by publicly stating that he's a philanderer.


Oh...ok..didnt know that...sounds like her and Hillary would get along fine.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Have you quit beating your wife.
> 
> Your question is the same type of setup.
> Yes I'd feel the same no matter what , No I don't think anyone was raped.


I don't have a wife. 

And thank you for your answer. It's enlightening.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Have you quit beating your wife.
> 
> Your question is the same type of setup.
> Yes I'd feel the same no matter what , No I don't think anyone was raped.


Not thinking anyone was raped is your right. The logic you use to come to that conclusion is suspect but that's also your right. The woman in question also has the right for her case to be heard based on the evidence presented. That's a right that should be taken seriously by everyone, no matter how infinitesimal you may think the probability is.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Not thinking anyone was raped is your right. The logic you use to come to that conclusion is suspect but that's also your right. The woman in question also has the right for her case to be heard based on the evidence presented. That's a right that should be taken seriously by everyone, no matter how infinitesimal you may think the probability is.



I totally agree with you but there is a problem. 
Bills accusers don't have to pay the expenses of legal and court fees. 
Bill does. 
Could you afford to defend yourself well 50 times. ? How about 20 , 10 or even once ?
Is it right to win through bankrupting the accused ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> I totally agree with you but there is a problem.
> Bills accusers don't have to pay the expenses of legal and court fees.
> Bill does.
> Could you afford to defend yourself well 50 times. ? How about 20 , 10 or even once ?
> Is it right to win through bankrupting the accused ?


So, only those who can afford it should be able to accuse another and bring the issue to trial. In civil proceedings it is often the case that the losing party must pay some or all the costs of the legal proceedings. These accusations have been vetted by the prosecutor and found to have validity. A judge will further rule whether enough evidence of a crime exists to proceed further. Mr Cosby is entitled to a vigorous defense, just as you or I are. He can likely afford a better one than I. 

Your question is the same ilk as that objected to earlier but I'll answer anyway. If fifty of my acquaintances accused me of a crime, any crime, I would expect the authorities to investigate and bring charges if they feel neccessary. If I were truly innocent of wrongdoing I'd be more than willing to take my chances in front of a jury of my peers. We're a nation of laws and agree or disagree , good or bad, we must all live by them. If Mr Cosby can prove that any of these women made false claims or gave false testimony he has legal recourse. He should demand that charges be brought against any who swore to falsehoods. He should bring civil proceeding to any who falsely defamed him. The legal system shouldn't be built around his much one has to lose, but whether one did wrong.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I can agree with that mostly. 
But at the same time the legal system shouldn't be able to be used as a bludgeon. . 
The one side has a unlimited budget and resources , shouldn't both ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> If fifty of my acquaintances accused me of a crime, any crime, I would expect the authorities to investigate and bring charges if they feel neccessary. If I were truly innocent of wrongdoing I'd be more than willing to take my chances in front of a jury of my peers. .



Remember 50 of Bills acquaintances is the equivalent of One of yours having a pinky toe with doubts about you. 

As far as that jury of your peers good luck with that. 
Will bill get a jury of 12 megastars ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> I can agree with that mostly.
> But at the same time the legal system shouldn't be able to be used as a bludgeon. .
> The one side has a unlimited budget and resources , shouldn't both ?


In this case Mr Cosby's resources and budget likely far outstrip those of the prosecutor's office which can only use a portion of their budget and resources in any single case. In my case, I'd be willing to spend whatever it took to clear my name. If I ran out of resources to defend myself I'd avail myself of the free legal aid that same government of unlimited resources must provide me. Upon the clearing of my name I'd attempt to recoup my losses from those who swore false oath and demand those same resources used against me to be brought against them.

You seem to want some perfect system where only the truly guilty get accused and charged. I live in a real world of real people with human faults. Our system isn't perfect but it's the best I've seen. Tell me your solution for a perfect system. Remember, imperfect people must administer it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Remember 50 of Bills acquaintances is the equivalent of One of yours having a pinky toe with doubts about you.
> 
> As far as that jury of your peers good luck with that.
> Will bill get a jury of 12 megastars ?


I've met a lot of people. I even know some who've met, and dined with , Mr Cosby. If even one of the allegations is true doesn't it deserve justice? As for a jury of his peers. Maybe twelve rapists wou&#322;d be more appropriate.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Ok, something to keep in mind for the future. When charging someone with a crime such as assault, ask for their financial records to make sure they can afford going to trial. Gotcha.


:doh:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

The counter point to the feeling that the system shouldn't be used as a bludgeon is that fame, money, power or community standing shouldn't make one immune to the same scrutiny and consequence for one's actions.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> You seem to want some perfect system where only the truly guilty get accused and charged. I live in a real world of real people with human faults. Our system isn't perfect but it's the best I've seen. Tell me your solution for a perfect system. Remember, imperfect people must administer it.



Of course I want a perfect system. 
Don't you ?
Like you I live in real world that isn't perfect , but I think it's worth working toward a better system. 
Part of that is forums where imperfections are discussed and solutions offered. 
In this case i suggest in criminal prosecutions the defendant be able to select any lawyer at the states expense.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Of course I want a perfect system.
> Don't you ?
> Like you I live in real world that isn't perfect , but I think it's worth working toward a better system.
> Part of that is forums where imperfections are discussed and solutions offered.
> In this case i suggest in criminal prosecutions the defendant be able to select any lawyer at the states expense.


Almost any lawyer willling to take the low reimbursements the govt provides is eligible to become a public defender. They just have to ask to be included. I assume you mean even the petty thief would be above to avail himself of the white shoe law firm at their going rate at the state's expense. I'm sure law school graduates would applaud your plan. I always think we should strive for better. Your plan gets us no closer.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> I've met a lot of people. I even know some who've met, and dined with , Mr Cosby. If even one of the allegations is true doesn't it deserve justice? As for a jury of his peers. Maybe twelve rapists wou&#322;d be more appropriate.



Yes one deserves justice be that one the one alleging or the one alleged. 
However bill hasnt Been convicted yet so to infer him a rapist by alleging his peers are rapists is wrong.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Almost any lawyer willling to take the low reimbursements the govt provides is eligible to become a public defender. They just have to ask to be included. I assume you mean even the petty thief would be above to avail himself of the white shoe law firm at their going rate at the state's expense. I'm sure law school graduates would applaud your plan. I always think we should strive for better. Your plan gets us no closer.



Why wouldn't my plan get us closer to better justice ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Why wouldn't my plan get us closer to better justice ?


Why would it? That $50/ hr legal aide lawyer isn't going to be a better lawyer because they're now paid ten times as much. Top lawyers will still pick and choose clients. Their pool of clients may get bigger but they won't be able to take every case. The facts of most cases won't change. Evidence will remain the same. Witnesses will remain the same. There would be less incentive for lawyers to plea cases out as they stand to make more money from inflated fees and hours. It will certainly make lawyers richer, taxpayers poorer and slow down the entire system. More trials means more judges, courtrooms, and all that goes with it. To what end? The guilty will still go to prison. If you can show me massive numbers of people wrongly convicted of crimes or evidence that the current criminal courts system is being used to bludgeon ( your word) innocent civilians we can discuss the impact of real changes. 

Changes to laws, enforcement practices and sentencing will change things for the better. Paying lawyers more seldom does.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> If you can show me massive numbers of people wrongly convicted of crimes or evidence that the current criminal courts system is being used to bludgeon ( your word) innocent civilians we can discuss the impact of real changes.
> 
> Changes to laws, enforcement practices and sentencing will change things for the better. Paying lawyers more seldom does.



It's not a matter of paying lawyers more it's a matter of getting better lawyers and lawyers that do doing a better job. 

What percent of wrong full convictions would you consider "massive"?
Would half be massive, you know the point at which a coin toss would be more accurate ?

In Il the governor once commuted all the death sentences to life after it was shown over 50% of the convictions were wrongful. 
The supreme court of IL ordered changes made in the way those cases were handled, which were already the best handled in the state !
But the rest ? They still get the same old system.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

elevenpoint said:


> Has not Cosby been married for over 50 years? Bad enough as is but his wife knowing she is married to a man that has no respect for her? Wow. Stand by your man even if he has no value for his wife. Incredible.


Maybe it's that whole _"for better or worse"_ thing, everybody fights for.

FWIW, maybe he was good to his wife, otherwise.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

elevenpoint said:


> Has not Cosby been married for over 50 years? Bad enough as is but his wife knowing she is married to a man that has no respect for her? Wow. Stand by your man even if he has no value for his wife. Incredible.


Is she standing by her man, or standing by his money?

You really think she'd stick around if he wasn't worth hundreds of millions?

Most divorces are by women, and most are over money. The divorces I've seen among relatives are by women who wanted more money.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

DJ in WA said:


> Is she standing by her man, or standing by his money?
> 
> You really think she'd stick around if he wasn't worth hundreds of millions?
> 
> Most divorces are by women, and most are over money. The divorces I've seen among relatives are by women who wanted more money.


I doubt if they signed a prenup so I'm guessing that if she chose to divorce, she'd be a fairly wealthy woman in her own right. 

You may be correct in your assumption but it may also be that the relationship works fine for her and adultery may not be a deal breaker for her.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

wr said:


> I doubt if they signed a prenup so I'm guessing that if she chose to divorce, she'd be a fairly wealthy woman in her own right.
> 
> You may be correct in your assumption but it may also be that the relationship works fine for her and adultery may not be a deal breaker for her.


Good point. I suppose it is possible she's devoted to her husband. I've seen a few marriages where that was the case.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

DJ in WA said:


> Good point. I suppose it is possible she's devoted to her husband. I've seen a few marriages where that was the case.


Hillary and Bill Clinton.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> It's not a matter of paying lawyers more it's a matter of getting better lawyers and lawyers that do doing a better job.
> 
> What percent of wrong full convictions would you consider "massive"?
> Would half be massive, you know the point at which a coin toss would be more accurate ?
> ...


But better paid lawyers doesn't necessarily mean better lawyers. You might attract some lawyers to criminal defense who would otherwise have gone into other areas like contracts. But unless you force the lawyer chosen to accept all clients who chose him you still can't guarantee better representation, only higher paid representation. 

Not all legal aide lawyers are bad lawyers. Not all of those overturned convictions were because of bad lawyers. Some were. But many more were overturned because it was found confessions were coerced. The best lawyer has trouble fighting his own client's words. What can combat that type of misconduct is those cameras in place in every interview room. Now both sides get heard. Now interrogations are able to be scrutinized not just the interrogated.

New evidence such as DNA played a role in many of the appellate court decisions. Often the technology to examine this evidence didn't exist at the time of the trials. It matters not what a lawyer is paid if the technology hasn't yet caught up with the evidence. 

Witnesses recant or new witnesses come forward. Someone else confesses or brags years later. No lawyer can change this, no matter his paycheck.

What all those overturned convictions show is that the system eventually works. That's actually good news. It may not always work as efficiently or as quickly we'd like. There's no guarantee that the lawyer in it for a bigger paycheck will be any more dedicated to doing a good job than the idealistic young lawyer. 

I'd love to never again hear of a wrongful conviction. The changes made to things like the transparency of interrogation and policing practices, advances in science like DNA analysis, and yes, disbarring and punishing bad lawyers have already gotten us closer to that and continuing improvements and science will get us even closer.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Ever notice that private pay criminal defense lawyers brag about their win percentages ?
Ever heard a public defender do the same ?

Most of the cases overturned in IL were errors and omissions of the defence team and others were actions of the States attorney that were illegal. 

So yes better and better paid would have made a difference. 

Mostly though any lawyer is way better than no lawyer.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Ever notice that private pay criminal defense lawyers brag about their win percentages ?
> Ever heard a public defender do the same ?
> 
> Most of the cases overturned in IL were errors and omissions of the defence team and others were actions of the States attorney that were illegal.
> ...


But why are they able to brag about such figures? Because they take every case that crosses their path? That they take all those they choose to accept to trial? Or do they do as prosecutors often do? They get the best plea agreement they can? You can't lose a trial that never happens. It works for both sides. 

If better pay equals better outcomes why not just advocate for paying public defenders more? Wouldn't you attract and retain better lawyers if they were paid more? They have to accept the accused asigned to them. Private lawyers do not. The best would still choose their cases to ensure their best winning percentage under your plan. Sort of a self fulfilling prophecy. Just because you choose the best &#322;awyer doesn't require him to choose you. 

I'll agree that better might have hastened the better outcomes. I'll disagree that better paid equates to better. If someone else pays the bill no matter the outcome the incentive to be better gets diminished. Even bad lawyers will be able to charge exorbitant fees because there will never be a shortage of people to defend.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/061200death-penalty.html

It's a bit dated but here's some commentary and a breakdown of the study done in 2000 that analyses the cause of death penalty cases being overturned. 37% are because of lawyer error or misconduct. But in 93% of death penalty convictions overturned the defendant was later found or plead guilty to the same or lesser charges. The same error rate doesn't seem to exist in other types of cases or in some states. Maybe some states just do it better and their model should be followed. Or maybe we just need to rethink the death penalty.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

You might have a point about lawyers juggling their cases and not taking the hard one. 
So shall we require they take a percentage on a assignment basis from the courts ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> You might have a point about lawyers juggling their cases and not taking the hard one.
> So shall we require they take a percentage on a assignment basis from the courts ?


An interesting concept but how much effort is going to be put forth by a lawyer forced to take a case as compared to one who chooses to. Some bar associations recommend a certain amount of pro bono work but the only requirements I can find are NY's requirement that new lawyers do 50 hours of pro bono work before admittance to the bar. 

It also brings up the question of what government could require other of other professionals. Should doctors have to do free surgeries? Dentists free cleanings? Mechanics free oil changes?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> You might have a point about lawyers juggling their cases and not taking the hard one.
> So shall we require they take a* percentage on a assignment basis* from the courts ?


Most criminal lawyers are already required to do so many "pro-bono" cases per year


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Most criminal lawyers are already required to do so many "pro-bono" cases per year


Maybe you could provide some evidence of that claim. Here's the closest I can come, from the Florida Bar. http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/BF60AF4C185D99D085256BBC00533761 Even this is more of a suggestion than a requirement and can be fulfilled by donating $350 to a legal aid group each year. Quite the burden for a profession that often charges more than that per hour.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Bearfootfarm said:
> 
> 
> > Most criminal lawyers are already required to do so many "pro-bono" cases per year
> ...


It's a bar requirement, but it varies by state. Some states require bar members to report pro bono work each year, some states have voluntary reporting, while others have no reporting requirement at all. Some states, Florida for example, will accept a financial donation to a legal aid organization as pro bono work. Look up your state here.

https://apps.americanbar.org/legalservices/probono/reporting/pbreporting.html

Nevada has a reporting requirement, but the fine for not reporting is only $100. I'll guess that a lot of them just mail a check for $100.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nevada said:


> It's a bar requirement, but it varies by state. Some states require bar members to report pro bono work each year, some states have voluntary reporting, while others have no reporting requirement at all. Some states, Florida for example, will accept a financial donation to a legal aid organization as pro bono work. Look up your state here.
> 
> https://apps.americanbar.org/legalservices/probono/reporting/pbreporting.html
> 
> Nevada has a reporting requirement, but the fine for not reporting is only $100. I'll guess that a lot of them just mail a check for $100.


They have a reporting requirement not a requirement to do any actual pro bono work. They describe the requirement as "aspirational." Florida does the same. It's nice if they do, but there's no real penalty if they don't.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> They have a reporting requirement not a requirement to do any actual pro bono work. They describe the requirement as "aspirational." Florida does the same. It's nice if they do, but there's no real penalty if they don't.


That's true, but CLE (continuing legal education) is required in some states. To encourage pro bono work some states offer CLE credit, so it helps meet the continuing ed requirement. For that reason it's considered a requirement by a lot of lawyers.

Here are the states that offer CLE credit for pro bono work.

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/probono_public_service/policy/cle_rules.html


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nevada said:


> That's true, but CLE (continuing legal education) is required in some states. To encourage pro bono work some states offer CLE credit, so it helps meet the continuing ed requirement. For that reason it's considered a requirement by a lot of lawyers.
> 
> Here are the states that offer CLE credit for pro bono work.
> 
> http://www.americanbar.org/groups/probono_public_service/policy/cle_rules.html


And still, there is no requirement that lawyers do a certain amount or any pro bono cases per year as claimed previously.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I don't think a hour or two of pro bono will fix the system.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> I don't think a hour or two of pro bono will fix the system.


Most of the "requirements" seem to center around 20 hours. Still not a lot in the grand scheme of things. I agree that more pro bono work won't fix the problems in the justice system but we probably disagree about what the problem is. I do think we've come a long way in my lifetime. A lot of abuses and back room justice has been dispensed with. Blind trust in authority by those not directly adversly affected seems less. Some still cling to it but in case after case that trust is being proven to be misplaced. Transparency brought about by technology makes many more people watchers of the watchers and I think that's a good thing. There's no magic bullet. Progress seldom happens as fast as it should. But at least its progress.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The more I think of it the less I like the idea of probono requirements. 
But I have no problem with lawyers being required to take a client the court appoints them to.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And still, there is no requirement that lawyers do a certain amount or any pro bono cases per year as claimed previously.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/n...to-be-required-to-do-some-work-free.html?_r=0



> Top Judge Makes Free Legal Work Mandatory for Joining State Bar


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/n...to-be-required-to-do-some-work-free.html?_r=0


Hard to see how a requirement that new lawyers who just passed the bar must do 50 hours of pro bono work to hone their skills and train them to be better &#322;awyers is the same as your claim that criminal lawyers must do a certain number of cases pro bono per year. Aside from the requirement being a one time thing and not a yearly thing as you claimed, the pro bono work required by the new bar hopefuls would include much more than trial work. In fact, since they're not yet full members of the bar it's unlikely they would be allowed to participate in any criminal proceedings before the bar. Care to try again to prove your claim?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Hard to see how a requirement that new lawyers who just passed the bar must do 50 hours of pro bono work to hone their skills and train them to be better &#322;awyers is the same as your claim that criminal lawyers must do a certain number of cases pro bono per year. Aside from the requirement being a one time thing and not a yearly thing as you claimed, the pro bono work required by the new bar hopefuls would include much more than trial work. In fact, since they're not yet full members of the bar it's unlikely they would be allowed to participate in any criminal proceedings before the bar. Care to try again to prove your claim?


Just thought I'd check back to see if the claim has been proven yet. Guess not. I'll check again .


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Huge news.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/15/us/bill-cosby-email-sexual-assault-charges-pennsylvania/index.html

Evidently the former DA made a deal with Cosby that he would not prosecute in exchange for Cosby giving up his 5th Amendment right to not testify. If the deal stands the criminal case might have to be dropped.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

I doubt the deal is binding but Cosby's self-incriminating testimony probably won't be allowed. Without that, the case is much weaker than it already was.


----------

