NightFox
Wildling
You don’t care what the law is? What do you prefer to the law? we just take the accused’s word for it and skip due process? Does that victim have any rights in your world?No.He wasn’t convicted of rape, he was convicted of SEXUAL ASSAULT meaning (in this case) inflicting sexual contact on a person that is incapable of giving consent, you know like a person that has been DRUGGED.OIC, blame the victims, that’s the ticket, never mind the fact that he was convicted by a jury of his peers.He was sued by Constand in 2005 and that’s where this all started because that’s when he made his confessions under oath.Are you really that stupid?Sure. It just happened to happen only AFTER he spoke out and became the enemy of the Left.
Cosby made that speech in 2004
He was arrested in 2017
13 years and some 35 accusers later…… apparently the forces of the left decided it was time to really get serious about persecuting him, really?
I have to laugh at the role reversal going on here, it’s normally conservatives complaining about left wingers excusing the misdeeds of criminals because the system is “unfair to them”, here we have conservatives engaging in the same exact nonsense in defense of a confessed SEXUAL PREDATOR no less, who’d of thunk that?
I'm just telling the truth. He was a sexual HARASSER, not a rapist.
He gave drugs to women, for them to take, either for their personal enjoyment or to make their act of prostitution easier to deal with.
The cases I looked at, the women knew what they were getting into, and took the drugs willing, whether just as a standard, "get high and screw" move, or to help with the act of prostitution they were doing.
Bill Cosby was a sexual harasser, in hollywood using his power to exchange favors for sex, from willing want a be actresses.
That is very sleazy and yes, predatory. It is not rape.
The women would have cases for sexual harassment suits against him, and/or the studios, imo.
BUt the rape charge is based on a lie, ie misrepresenting his words, of "giving drugs" to mean "drugging".
The 60 or so women that have accused him are uniformly saying that he initiated sexual contact after he had drugged them at which point they’re legally incapable of giving consent.
What you’re attempting to claim is that all 60 consented to being drugged and sexually assaulted, which is functionally the same thing as claiming it’s consensual if a severely mentally handicapped person that doesn’t understand what’s going on consents to sexual contact, in both cases it’s illegal sexual contact.
I don't care what the law is. The law can even say it is sexual assault, but it isn't.
If a woman is partying with someone, KNOWING full well sex is highly likely to occur, STAYS THERE..and then gets inebriated and is either drunk or high - she doesn't get to come back and say she was assaulted because she can't remember if, at the moment, she gave consent or not.
There have been FAAAAAR too many innocent men arrested due to a vindictive female getting him back for some unrelated occurence by claiming this.
FFS - 3/4 of the population of men are technically sexual predators if this were true.
Granted laws are just opinions on a piece of paper, however in this case the law is clearly designed to protect people with diminished capacity from sexual predation and I can only think of one group that would disagree with such laws, namely SEXUAL PREDATORS.