CDZ Guilty until proven innocent. Is that really where we are as a nation?

[Mac1958]

Today, Bill Cosby was arraigned in court on three charges of felony aggravated indecent assault. Various headlines have for a while now been talking about "the fall of an icon." (Note: the content at the link is only the affidavit of the offended woman, that is, what she claims happened. None of it has been proven or disproven.)

Excuse me? The man was charged with a crime, not convicted of one. Isn't it a bit premature to think of the man as fallen? Does Mr. Cosby, along with all person's charged with a crime, not deserve the presumption of innocence until he is proven guilty of the crime he's been charged with? The "court of public opinion," however seems already to have "convicted" Mr. Cosby. A television network cancelled an upcoming show that included Mr. Cosby and the headlines speak of "the fall of an icon." Really? Is that the nation we have become? If so, is that a nation truly worth defending against the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda? How does being that kind of a nation make us any different from the Soviet Union, North Korea, or a host of others having no semblance of human and civil rights?

Right now, the facts as we know them to be so are that women have accused Mr. Cosby of sexually assaulting them. Mr. Cosby has stated that the accusations are untrue.

Why is it that the mere making of an accusation is taken as "proof" that the accusation is true? Is that approach at all the one on which the U.S. was founded? Is that tack the one promised in the Constitution?

Mr. Cosby isn't running for political office, but we do the same thing when politicians or would be politicians make empty and (at the time) unfounded accusations. Basically, if one politicians accuses another before the latter can preempt the accusation, the latter is screwed.

When did we stop saying to people who make accusations, "So you say. Where's the clear and unambiguous proof that you are correct? And absent any, you need to keep your thoughts to yourself!" Do people not realize that by "buying into the 'guilty until proven innocent' model, we, as voters, not only allow ourselves to be manipulated, often to our detriment, but also foster the erosion of our nation?

Just another example of how narcissistic our society has become. At the drop of a hat, we take sides and start throwing stones.

Lefties love this story because they hate Cosby for comments he has made challenging Black Americans to be more responsible.

If a lefty had been accused of this, righties would be jumping on it and assuming his guilt in precisely the same way.

Virtually everything has become politicized now, meaning virtually every issue and story becomes binary, dumbed down and ammo for attacks.

Not sure how this changes.
.

 

[320 Years of History]

So would you be okay with your young adult daughter having Crosby as a mentor for her potential career in acting and entertainment. I'm sure Crosby has a lot of connections that could help her get started.

Are you asking me a question?

 

[rightwinger]

Today, Bill Cosby was arraigned in court on three charges of felony aggravated indecent assault. Various headlines have for a while now been talking about "the fall of an icon." (Note: the content at the link is only the affidavit of the offended woman, that is, what she claims happened. None of it has been proven or disproven.)

Excuse me? The man was charged with a crime, not convicted of one. Isn't it a bit premature to think of the man as fallen? Does Mr. Cosby, along with all person's charged with a crime, not deserve the presumption of innocence until he is proven guilty of the crime he's been charged with? The "court of public opinion," however seems already to have "convicted" Mr. Cosby. A television network cancelled an upcoming show that included Mr. Cosby and the headlines speak of "the fall of an icon." Really? Is that the nation we have become? If so, is that a nation truly worth defending against the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda? How does being that kind of a nation make us any different from the Soviet Union, North Korea, or a host of others having no semblance of human and civil rights?

Right now, the facts as we know them to be so are that women have accused Mr. Cosby of sexually assaulting them. Mr. Cosby has stated that the accusations are untrue.

Why is it that the mere making of an accusation is taken as "proof" that the accusation is true? Is that approach at all the one on which the U.S. was founded? Is that tack the one promised in the Constitution?

Mr. Cosby isn't running for political office, but we do the same thing when politicians or would be politicians make empty and (at the time) unfounded accusations. Basically, if one politicians accuses another before the latter can preempt the accusation, the latter is screwed.

When did we stop saying to people who make accusations, "So you say. Where's the clear and unambiguous proof that you are correct? And absent any, you need to keep your thoughts to yourself!" Do people not realize that by "buying into the 'guilty until proven innocent' model, we, as voters, not only allow ourselves to be manipulated, often to our detriment, but also foster the erosion of our nation?

Mr Cosby has been convicted in the court of public opinion that does not have the same rules of evidence as a court of law
It is the same court of public opinion that made him a cultural icon based on what he presented on TV

 

[Disir]

Today, Bill Cosby was arraigned in court on three charges of felony aggravated indecent assault. Various headlines have for a while now been talking about "the fall of an icon." (Note: the content at the link is only the affidavit of the offended woman, that is, what she claims happened. None of it has been proven or disproven.)

Excuse me? The man was charged with a crime, not convicted of one. Isn't it a bit premature to think of the man as fallen? Does Mr. Cosby, along with all person's charged with a crime, not deserve the presumption of innocence until he is proven guilty of the crime he's been charged with? The "court of public opinion," however seems already to have "convicted" Mr. Cosby. A television network cancelled an upcoming show that included Mr. Cosby and the headlines speak of "the fall of an icon." Really? Is that the nation we have become? If so, is that a nation truly worth defending against the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda? How does being that kind of a nation make us any different from the Soviet Union, North Korea, or a host of others having no semblance of human and civil rights?

Right now, the facts as we know them to be so are that women have accused Mr. Cosby of sexually assaulting them. Mr. Cosby has stated that the accusations are untrue.

Why is it that the mere making of an accusation is taken as "proof" that the accusation is true? Is that approach at all the one on which the U.S. was founded? Is that tack the one promised in the Constitution?

Mr. Cosby isn't running for political office, but we do the same thing when politicians or would be politicians make empty and (at the time) unfounded accusations. Basically, if one politicians accuses another before the latter can preempt the accusation, the latter is screwed.

When did we stop saying to people who make accusations, "So you say. Where's the clear and unambiguous proof that you are correct? And absent any, you need to keep your thoughts to yourself!" Do people not realize that by "buying into the 'guilty until proven innocent' model, we, as voters, not only allow ourselves to be manipulated, often to our detriment, but also foster the erosion of our nation?

"We" didn't stop saying it. It's always been present. Once upon a time a man would disappear and someone else would be charged with murder because of a prior beef. That man would hang. Several years later the man that was supposedly murdered would come back to town. He had left for work (usually but not always). This is how the local committees were formed that would send people that were Germans and Italians to our little concentration camps.

Now there is what I call the Nancy Grace effect. She knows how the system works and then does everything within her power to present it as the opposite. There is an entire website devoted to super sleuthing. Reddit had members that were targeting the wrong individual after the Boston Marathon Bombing.

Cosby has seven counter suits. He has the finances to fight back. There are hundreds of cases where the accused can't fight back. Most newspapers have zero problems running the pictures of someone who has been accused but don't run the pictures when someone has been found not guilty.

 

[JoeMoma]

So would you be okay with your young adult daughter having Crosby as a mentor for her potential career in acting and entertainment. I'm sure Crosby has a lot of connections that could help her get started.

Are you asking me a question?

Yes

 

[Disir]

Lefties love this story because they hate Cosby for comments he has made challenging Black Americans to be more responsible.

Nope.

There is a division between those that lived through the civil rights movement and those that didn't. The older ones fought for rights and many of the younger ones don't consider education to be a priority.

Too, there is another argument that has taken place that Cosby has been very vocal about (as have others) and that is the use of the *N* word. There are those that want to take the word and reclaim it so that it is not as damaging. Cosby takes the opposing view of that isn't ever going to happen. This is not an argument that I engage in until we are talking about rewriting Mark Twain. Once we are talking about banning books then I have a huge problem.

 

[320 Years of History]

So would you be okay with your young adult daughter having Crosby as a mentor for her potential career in acting and entertainment. I'm sure Crosby has a lot of connections that could help her get started.

Are you asking me a question?

Yes

You keep trying to make this discussion about Mr. Cosby and not about our collective refusal to uphold the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Why is that? Did you not read the very first paragraph in post #19?

I've written an answer to your question and I'm willing to share it with you, but not in this thread. I did to some extent in my last post to you out of courtesy, but I'm not going to do so again in this thread. I'll answer your question if you send me a PM, or if you create a thread to discuss Mr. Cosby. It doesn't matter to me which way I share my answer with you, but I don't want the focus of this thread to be Mr. Cosby. I want the focus of discussion here to be, as the thread title states, what folks think about our national failure to adhere to the principle of "guilty until proven innocent."

Mr. Cosby's case is just one such example of that failing, and I chose him as the foil for introducing the topic because he's not a politician. I could easily have chosen any of the candidates for elected office from the past 30 years to make the same point. Hell, there are other celebs I could have used. The thread is about the principle, its application, and its being ignored, not the people who've suffered from our national failure to uphold the principle.

 

[JoeMoma]

So would you be okay with your young adult daughter having Crosby as a mentor for her potential career in acting and entertainment. I'm sure Crosby has a lot of connections that could help her get started.

Are you asking me a question?

Yes

You keep trying to make this discussion about Mr. Cosby and not about our collective refusal to uphold the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Why is that? Did you not read the very first paragraph in post #19?

I've written an answer to your question and I'm willing to share it with you, but not in this thread. I did to some extent in my last post to you out of courtesy, but I'm not going to do so again in this thread. I'll answer your question if you send me a PM, or if you create a thread to discuss Mr. Cosby. It doesn't matter to me which way I share my answer with you, but I don't want the focus of this thread to be Mr. Cosby. I want the focus of discussion here to be, as the thread title states, what folks think about our national failure to adhere to the principle of "guilty until proven innocent."

Mr. Cosby's case is just one such example of that failing, and I chose him as the foil for introducing the topic because he's not a politician. I could easily have chosen any of the candidates for elected office from the past 30 years to make the same point. Hell, there are other celebs I could have used. The thread is about the principle, its application, and its being ignored, not the people who've suffered from our national failure to uphold the principle.

Yes, I have been sticking with the example of Mr. Cosby, which you introduced. That being said, I have not strayed from the topic of innocent until proven guilty. My latest question was a test of that concept. Hypothetically, if you presume that Mr. Cosby is innocent, then you would have no problem with your ( hypothetical ) daughter visiting his house or hotel room as he "mentors" her as she is seeking quality acting gigs. On the other hand, you may be leery of your daughter having any type of relationship with Cosby because of his severely tarnished reputation.

It is easy to say that you presume Cosby innocent until proven guilty when there is nothing on the line.........if you have no associations with him anyway. Can you honestly say that your opinion of Cosby's character has not been tarnished due to news of allegations of the past year?

 

[JoeMoma]

So would you be okay with your young adult daughter having Crosby as a mentor for her potential career in acting and entertainment. I'm sure Crosby has a lot of connections that could help her get started.

Are you asking me a question?

Yes

You keep trying to make this discussion about Mr. Cosby and not about our collective refusal to uphold the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Why is that? Did you not read the very first paragraph in post #19?

I've written an answer to your question and I'm willing to share it with you, but not in this thread. I did to some extent in my last post to you out of courtesy, but I'm not going to do so again in this thread. I'll answer your question if you send me a PM, or if you create a thread to discuss Mr. Cosby. It doesn't matter to me which way I share my answer with you, but I don't want the focus of this thread to be Mr. Cosby. I want the focus of discussion here to be, as the thread title states, what folks think about our national failure to adhere to the principle of "guilty until proven innocent."

Mr. Cosby's case is just one such example of that failing, and I chose him as the foil for introducing the topic because he's not a politician. I could easily have chosen any of the candidates for elected office from the past 30 years to make the same point. Hell, there are other celebs I could have used. The thread is about the principle, its application, and its being ignored, not the people who've suffered from our national failure to uphold the principle.

Yes, I have been sticking with the example of Mr. Cosby, which you introduced. That being said, I have not strayed from the topic of innocent until proven guilty. My latest question was a test of that concept. Hypothetically, if you presume that Mr. Cosby is innocent, then you would have no problem with your ( hypothetical ) daughter visiting his house or hotel room as he "mentors" her as she is seeking quality acting gigs. On the other hand, you may be leery of your daughter having any type of relationship with Cosby because of his severely tarnished reputation.

It is easy to say that you presume Cosby innocent until proven guilty when there is nothing on the line.........if you have no associations with him anyway. Can you honestly say that your opinion of Cosby's character has not been tarnished due to news of allegations of the past year?

Also, do you really expect to have a good discussion of your topic without fully exploring specific examples that you yourself bring up?

 

[320 Years of History]

So would you be okay with your young adult daughter having Crosby as a mentor for her potential career in acting and entertainment. I'm sure Crosby has a lot of connections that could help her get started.

Are you asking me a question?

Yes

You keep trying to make this discussion about Mr. Cosby and not about our collective refusal to uphold the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Why is that? Did you not read the very first paragraph in post #19?

I've written an answer to your question and I'm willing to share it with you, but not in this thread. I did to some extent in my last post to you out of courtesy, but I'm not going to do so again in this thread. I'll answer your question if you send me a PM, or if you create a thread to discuss Mr. Cosby. It doesn't matter to me which way I share my answer with you, but I don't want the focus of this thread to be Mr. Cosby. I want the focus of discussion here to be, as the thread title states, what folks think about our national failure to adhere to the principle of "guilty until proven innocent."

Mr. Cosby's case is just one such example of that failing, and I chose him as the foil for introducing the topic because he's not a politician. I could easily have chosen any of the candidates for elected office from the past 30 years to make the same point. Hell, there are other celebs I could have used. The thread is about the principle, its application, and its being ignored, not the people who've suffered from our national failure to uphold the principle.

Yes, I have been sticking with the example of Mr. Cosby, which you introduced. That being said, I have not strayed from the topic of innocent until proven guilty. My latest question was a test of that concept. Hypothetically, if you presume that Mr. Cosby is innocent, then you would have no problem with your ( hypothetical ) daughter visiting his house or hotel room as he "mentors" her as she is seeking quality acting gigs. On the other hand, you may be leery of your daughter having any type of relationship with Cosby because of his severely tarnished reputation.

It is easy to say that you presume Cosby innocent until proven guilty when there is nothing on the line.........if you have no associations with him anyway. Can you honestly say that your opinion of Cosby's character has not been tarnished due to news of allegations of the past year?

Also, do you really expect to have a good discussion of your topic without fully exploring specific examples that you yourself bring up?

When Plato included the "Allegory of the Cave" in the Republic, I'm sure that he had good discussions about it, just not with people who insisted on talking specifically about shadows.

 

[baileyn45]

As far as being guilty until proven innocent, it certainly seems to be the case for police officers. Many seem to be guilty after proving innocence.

 

[JoeMoma]

Are you asking me a question?

Yes

You keep trying to make this discussion about Mr. Cosby and not about our collective refusal to uphold the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Why is that? Did you not read the very first paragraph in post #19?

I've written an answer to your question and I'm willing to share it with you, but not in this thread. I did to some extent in my last post to you out of courtesy, but I'm not going to do so again in this thread. I'll answer your question if you send me a PM, or if you create a thread to discuss Mr. Cosby. It doesn't matter to me which way I share my answer with you, but I don't want the focus of this thread to be Mr. Cosby. I want the focus of discussion here to be, as the thread title states, what folks think about our national failure to adhere to the principle of "guilty until proven innocent."

Mr. Cosby's case is just one such example of that failing, and I chose him as the foil for introducing the topic because he's not a politician. I could easily have chosen any of the candidates for elected office from the past 30 years to make the same point. Hell, there are other celebs I could have used. The thread is about the principle, its application, and its being ignored, not the people who've suffered from our national failure to uphold the principle.

Yes, I have been sticking with the example of Mr. Cosby, which you introduced. That being said, I have not strayed from the topic of innocent until proven guilty. My latest question was a test of that concept. Hypothetically, if you presume that Mr. Cosby is innocent, then you would have no problem with your ( hypothetical ) daughter visiting his house or hotel room as he "mentors" her as she is seeking quality acting gigs. On the other hand, you may be leery of your daughter having any type of relationship with Cosby because of his severely tarnished reputation.

It is easy to say that you presume Cosby innocent until proven guilty when there is nothing on the line.........if you have no associations with him anyway. Can you honestly say that your opinion of Cosby's character has not been tarnished due to news of allegations of the past year?

Also, do you really expect to have a good discussion of your topic without fully exploring specific examples that you yourself bring up?

When Plato included the "Allegory of the Cave" in the Republic, I'm sure that he had good discussions about it, just not with people who insisted on talking specifically about shadows.

I am also sure that Mr. Plato did not avoid discussing the shadows in depth as they relate to reality in "Allegory of the Cave".

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno...................if I heard that Mr. Cosby had been charged with the crimes he's been charged, I'd have second thoughts about letting my daughter go over to his house for some "tutelage".

And.........................if I was a an African American, I'd still be leery of letting my child (male or female) visit the home of some white policeman.

Just sayin.................and I'm a white male.

 

[rightwinger]

We are a message board..we can presume anything we want

 

[320 Years of History]

Yes

You keep trying to make this discussion about Mr. Cosby and not about our collective refusal to uphold the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Why is that? Did you not read the very first paragraph in post #19?

I've written an answer to your question and I'm willing to share it with you, but not in this thread. I did to some extent in my last post to you out of courtesy, but I'm not going to do so again in this thread. I'll answer your question if you send me a PM, or if you create a thread to discuss Mr. Cosby. It doesn't matter to me which way I share my answer with you, but I don't want the focus of this thread to be Mr. Cosby. I want the focus of discussion here to be, as the thread title states, what folks think about our national failure to adhere to the principle of "guilty until proven innocent."

Mr. Cosby's case is just one such example of that failing, and I chose him as the foil for introducing the topic because he's not a politician. I could easily have chosen any of the candidates for elected office from the past 30 years to make the same point. Hell, there are other celebs I could have used. The thread is about the principle, its application, and its being ignored, not the people who've suffered from our national failure to uphold the principle.

Yes, I have been sticking with the example of Mr. Cosby, which you introduced. That being said, I have not strayed from the topic of innocent until proven guilty. My latest question was a test of that concept. Hypothetically, if you presume that Mr. Cosby is innocent, then you would have no problem with your ( hypothetical ) daughter visiting his house or hotel room as he "mentors" her as she is seeking quality acting gigs. On the other hand, you may be leery of your daughter having any type of relationship with Cosby because of his severely tarnished reputation.

It is easy to say that you presume Cosby innocent until proven guilty when there is nothing on the line.........if you have no associations with him anyway. Can you honestly say that your opinion of Cosby's character has not been tarnished due to news of allegations of the past year?

Also, do you really expect to have a good discussion of your topic without fully exploring specific examples that you yourself bring up?

When Plato included the "Allegory of the Cave" in the Republic, I'm sure that he had good discussions about it, just not with people who insisted on talking specifically about shadows.

I am also sure that Mr. Plato did not avoid discussing the shadows in depth as they relate to reality in "Allegory of the Cave".

There's nothing to say about the shadows just as there is nothing, in the context of this thread's topic, to say about Mr. Cosby. The shadows and Mr. Cosby are just vehicles to the discussion, not the topic of the conversation.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Today, Bill Cosby was arraigned in court on three charges of felony aggravated indecent assault. Various headlines have for a while now been talking about "the fall of an icon." (Note: the content at the link is only the affidavit of the offended woman, that is, what she claims happened. None of it has been proven or disproven.)

Excuse me? The man was charged with a crime, not convicted of one. Isn't it a bit premature to think of the man as fallen? Does Mr. Cosby, along with all person's charged with a crime, not deserve the presumption of innocence until he is proven guilty of the crime he's been charged with? The "court of public opinion," however seems already to have "convicted" Mr. Cosby. A television network cancelled an upcoming show that included Mr. Cosby and the headlines speak of "the fall of an icon." Really? Is that the nation we have become? If so, is that a nation truly worth defending against the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda? How does being that kind of a nation make us any different from the Soviet Union, North Korea, or a host of others having no semblance of human and civil rights?

Right now, the facts as we know them to be so are that women have accused Mr. Cosby of sexually assaulting them. Mr. Cosby has stated that the accusations are untrue.

Why is it that the mere making of an accusation is taken as "proof" that the accusation is true? Is that approach at all the one on which the U.S. was founded? Is that tack the one promised in the Constitution?

Mr. Cosby isn't running for political office, but we do the same thing when politicians or would be politicians make empty and (at the time) unfounded accusations. Basically, if one politicians accuses another before the latter can preempt the accusation, the latter is screwed.

When did we stop saying to people who make accusations, "So you say. Where's the clear and unambiguous proof that you are correct? And absent any, you need to keep your thoughts to yourself!" Do people not realize that by "buying into the 'guilty until proven innocent' model, we, as voters, not only allow ourselves to be manipulated, often to our detriment, but also foster the erosion of our nation?

yeah sadly it is

you would be surprised at the number of folks just on this board

that seem to be ok with eliminating due process

 

[320 Years of History]

yeah sadly it is

you would be surprised at the number of folks just on this board

that seem to be ok with eliminating due process

TY for your comment!! I mean that in total sincerity. I am relieved to see that, along with one or two others, you realize the topic at hand is the state of and extent to which we, as a nation, embrace the principle of due process, not Mr. Cosby, not the woman he's alleged to have assaulted, and not any other individual in particular. You and I may or may not agree on anything else for all I know, but at least from the remark above I know that if/when you read my remarks, you fully understood what you read.

 

[JoeMoma]

You keep trying to make this discussion about Mr. Cosby and not about our collective refusal to uphold the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Why is that? Did you not read the very first paragraph in post #19?

I've written an answer to your question and I'm willing to share it with you, but not in this thread. I did to some extent in my last post to you out of courtesy, but I'm not going to do so again in this thread. I'll answer your question if you send me a PM, or if you create a thread to discuss Mr. Cosby. It doesn't matter to me which way I share my answer with you, but I don't want the focus of this thread to be Mr. Cosby. I want the focus of discussion here to be, as the thread title states, what folks think about our national failure to adhere to the principle of "guilty until proven innocent."

Mr. Cosby's case is just one such example of that failing, and I chose him as the foil for introducing the topic because he's not a politician. I could easily have chosen any of the candidates for elected office from the past 30 years to make the same point. Hell, there are other celebs I could have used. The thread is about the principle, its application, and its being ignored, not the people who've suffered from our national failure to uphold the principle.

Yes, I have been sticking with the example of Mr. Cosby, which you introduced. That being said, I have not strayed from the topic of innocent until proven guilty. My latest question was a test of that concept. Hypothetically, if you presume that Mr. Cosby is innocent, then you would have no problem with your ( hypothetical ) daughter visiting his house or hotel room as he "mentors" her as she is seeking quality acting gigs. On the other hand, you may be leery of your daughter having any type of relationship with Cosby because of his severely tarnished reputation.

It is easy to say that you presume Cosby innocent until proven guilty when there is nothing on the line.........if you have no associations with him anyway. Can you honestly say that your opinion of Cosby's character has not been tarnished due to news of allegations of the past year?

Also, do you really expect to have a good discussion of your topic without fully exploring specific examples that you yourself bring up?

When Plato included the "Allegory of the Cave" in the Republic, I'm sure that he had good discussions about it, just not with people who insisted on talking specifically about shadows.

I am also sure that Mr. Plato did not avoid discussing the shadows in depth as they relate to reality in "Allegory of the Cave".

There's nothing to say about the shadows just as there is nothing, in the context of this thread's topic, to say about Mr. Cosby. The shadows and Mr. Cosby are just vehicles to the discussion, not the topic of the conversation.

Good luck with that.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I don't think Mr. Cosby has been deprived of his right to due process. In fact, given the number of accusers who have stepped forth, I would guess Mr. Cosby has been singularly fortunate that all but one of these circumstances will avoid the scrutiny of a public criminal trial.

This upcoming criminal trial will be the tragicomic farce of the new century. Public opinion will be played for all that it's worth, but I don't think it'll be worth that much. His law team will be the best he can buy.

The court of public opinion has no rules. Either we like you or we don't. It's silly, capricious and superficial. In this case though, it's a little hard to argue with. I've never known an instance of so many people piling onto an accusation. Even if you see them as Playboy mansion era, drug fueled quid pro quos, rather than rapes, they're not good for the brand.