Cosby is innocent because no charges vs. Darren Wilson is innocent because no charges

[Greenstrings]

In court but not in the media

Itwas in the courts and reported nationally but he settled out.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-cosby-settles-lawsuit/
The fact that major news sources pick up a story does not ensure that it will gain traction and become a huge talking point.

 

[Elle Driver]

Well, by law, he is presumed innocent in the absence of any changes against him. Hell, he's technically presumed innocent until he's convicted.

My personal reason for not believing that he's guilty of rape is simply down to the fact that many of the witnesses are not credible. Moreover, some of the witnesses are repeat accusers. Furthermore, many of the witnesses are claiming that he raped them repeatedly over a 10-20 year period. From hearing their statements and utilizin common sense, the accusations just don't hold up when brought to light. Of course, more information can always come up.

What I don't get is why so many f*ckboi posters swear dude is a rapist. These would be the same people who would've condemned Emmitt Till.

And the statute of limitations is up. So why come forward now when no criminal charges (even if true) can be made? I'm just reluctant in believing white women accusing a prolific black man of rape, given the historical context, the same way that I am weary of ever taking a cop's side.

 

[KinksandCoils]

Its amazing what power and money can help you can get away with.

Its a lot of successful black men out there the majority of whom aren't half as adored and revered as Bill Cosby, so why have none of them ever been implicated accusations on this scale? Bill Cosby done had his career and in the eyes of most his legacy is already set in stone, so why would they risk being hated and disbelieved by the millions of people that Love Cosby if it weren't true? This ain't the first time we're hearing about this, its cropped up time and again, but quickly been shut down by lawyers, so do we really think that multiple women held onto the same lie for 30 years? There's a lot of things I don't know for sure. I don't know for sure if OJ killed his wife but I can't ignore what the facts suggest.

All I can say is idk. But he is owed at least people doubting whether he did it , instead of assuming he did. because it hasn't been proven that he did it.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

And the statute of limitations is up. So why come forward now when no criminal charges (even if true) can be made?

Book/movie deals can be very lucrative.

People get paid to do talk shows/interviews/news articles.

​

 

[sun raw]

a good reason to come forward is so that bill cosby, beloved entertainer and activist, is recognized as a[n alleged] rapist

if he did it, it's not something that needs to be forgotten or suppressed

 

[Higher Tech]

Guilty or not, I think the bigger issue is that in the US, we've been treated so bad that even after 13 accusations we still think he could be getting set up.
Do you know how strong our mistrust of our system has to be?
I personally think he has some guilt, and I also believe there are some leechers out there trying to take him down, but if our system was built on truth, this problem would have been dealt with when the first accusation came up. But there were 12 more. And still no criminal cases. So by now it's time to let whatever happened just be.

 

[LV Koopa]

What a dumbass thing to say. If you know your innocent you have reason to hide. After all the statute of limatations has expired on this allegations anyway. If your innocent just come out and say your innocent. You don't need a lawyer to do that for you


So court of law deemed george z not a killer, oj certainly kill Nicole brown and officer Wilson was just defending himself against mike brown






People....

Actually you have every reason to keep your mouth shut. Innocent people can get caught up explaining their stories to too many people and next thing you know they make contradictory statements. Even people with the best memories can make mistakes with small details. All it takes is one slip up and the court of public opinion will deem you a liar and hence feel you are guilty.

Lawyers tell their clients to stfu regardless of guilt/innocence because it's a matter of burden of proof, not whether you did it or not.

 

[ECA]

People defending Bill Cosby for the sake of being pro-black yet Cosby doesn't give a fukk about black life.

 

[Greenstrings]

No, I'm comparing first-hand accounts vs. first-hand accounts. If you're stating that '15 women accused him of rape' = he raped them, then 500 people stating that Jesus was "resurrected" = he was resurrected.

You can't pick and choose when your own logic defeats your conclusion. You have the nerve to challenge me when I'll bury you.

You've already lost with your assertion that one series of accounts is 'fifth-hand'.

Last I checked, NONE of the women's claims were verified: No 'rape kits', no witnesses, and they were 'paid'.

​

I tried to skirt past your insistence on clinging this nonsense but seriously, are you dense? Do you not understand what a "first hand account" is?
You are told in Corinthians that 500 people saw Jesus after he resurrected, you do not see accounts written by those 500 people, which would would be first hand. If I tell you that somebody else saw something that is not a first hand account. We have no way of verifying who exactly claims to have seen the resurrection, whereas it is possible to come up with first hand accounts of multiple women claiming that Cosby sexually assaulted them. Find a better anecdote.

Lets pretend you ain't using the exact same rhetoric people the world over use to dismiss rape and act like its a conspiracy but even then, how often is it that you find witnesses to a rape? (I mean that is among the dumbest thing I've read this week) and the only woman that got paid off of all this was the one that he settled with so what point are you making here?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I tried to skirt past your insistence on clinging this nonsense but seriously, are you dense? Do you not understand what a "first hand account" is?
You are told in Corinthians that 500 people saw Jesus after he resurrected, you do not see accounts written by those 500 people, which would would be first hand.

Now you're done. Those were first-hand accounts and here's how: Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians in 48 CE. He quoted the Book of Luke. Luke quoted Matthew and Mark. This means ALL those books were written prior to 48 CE. Jesus was executed in 33 CE, 15 years prior to 1 Thessalonians. This means...........ALL (or most) OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE STILL ALIVE. The culture at that time preferred oral testimonies to written since they could cross-examine those giving statements. There was no need to have 500 separate statements since each of them could be questioned in-person.

The Synoptic Gospels are all first-hand accounts as well.

I'm in no way 'dense'.

I DO know what I'm talking about.

Now, YOU know what a 'first-hand' account is.

500 >>> 15



​

 

[MVike28]

If you heard his Pound Cake speech and still for him then you're the c00n.
Dumb thread.

 

[Greenstrings]

Now you're done. Those were first-hand accounts and here's how: Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians in 48 CE. He quoted the Book of Luke. Luke quoted Matthew and Mark. This means ALL those books were written prior to 48 CE. Jesus was executed in 33 CE, 15 years prior to 1 Thessalonians. This means...........ALL OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE STILL ALIVE to refute any falsehoods. The culture at that time preferred oral testimonies to written since they could cross-examine those giving statements. There was no need to have 500 separate statements since each of them could be questioned in-person.



​

What kind of convoluted nonsense is this? A first hand account is not an account written about something witnessed by other people but not refuted by those people and the fact that you find yourself having to argue such means you need to find a better anecdote. The idea of a first hand account is not complicated

I'll do you a favor and ignore the fact that none of those 500 people were named so the idea that they could be questioned and examined is laughably dumb. I'll throw in a freebie and ignore how Paul does not state whether or not he himself actually witnessed these 500 people seeing the resurrected Jesus and gives no indication as to how he cam to know this. In turn do yourself a favor and find a better anecdote.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

A first hand account is not an account written about something witnessed by other people but not refuted by those people

A first-hand account is a statement or statements by eyewitnesses to an event. That's what the Synoptics and the 500 are.

It isn't complicated. You trying to pick and choose what qualifies by going against your own logic is tripping you up.


​

 

[Greenstrings]

A first-hand account is a statement or statements by eyewitnesses to an event. That's what the Synoptics and the 500 are.

It isn't complicated. You trying to pick and choose what qualifies by going against your own logic is tripping you up.


​

Statements by eyewitnesses to an event... Please provide 500 individual, verifiable, eyewitness statements describing the resurrection.

You're dumb as shyt stop wasting my time.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Statements by eyewitnesses to an event... Please provide 500 individual, verifiable, eyewitness statements describing the resurrection.

Please provide evidence that Bill Cosby raped/sexually molested those 15 women.

We KNOW that those who witnessed Jesus' "resurrection" were willing to risk death rather than say it was all made up.

These women are risking NOTHING.

Your 'logic' is extremely dumb.

​