jp1 wrote: I just think that they should be clearly stated as opinion and not presented as fact. That was my point.
My only assertion was that if any of the women were telling the truth, he's a rapist. My impression of the situation is that I am inclined to believe such a large number of women who tell similar, seemingly credible tales.
There is a larger issue and that is our reluctance to weigh the accusations of the women equal to Bill Cosby's (oddly subdued, almost non-existent) denial because Bill Cosby has so much to lose. If Bill Cosby were a fry cook at the local greasy spoon diner and 14 women came forward and claimed they were victims of sexual assault by the guy, this would be a completely different situation - and that's wrong.
If Bill Cosby is a rapist, it was his fame and money (the things he stands to lose, but don't worry, he won't) that insulated him to continue attacking women. Because if a woman claims a rich/famous man assaulted her, she must be trying to get something out of it.
Nobody is going to get much media exposure or financial gain from falsely accusing a fry cook. That particular point is valid for both sides of the argument. It is his fame and money that insulate him, as well as make him a possible target. It's only reasonable to accept both situations as plausible.
I did edit in that I missed your earlier assertion that you weren't claiming to know anything as fact. That is my mistake based on the way you first stated your opinion. It seemed as though your conclusion was that it is impossible for him to be innocent.
prfsnl_gmr wrote:it is hard to imagine what sort of physical evidence a defendant or prosecutor could produce to show consent, juries must often determine the issue of consent based on the witnesses' testimony.
This is not a typical rape case accusation though. These women are claiming Bill Cosby drugged them and then raped them. That changes the situation.
If a person claims incapacity as a defense to a charge of rape or similar offense, then such person has the burden to prove the incapacity by a preponderance of the evidence. - http://rape.uslegal.com/evidence-to-est ... Sy69l.dpuf
Is there any hard evidence of the supposed intoxicant? Is there any evidence of rogue Cosby DNA within any of the crime scenes or victims? Is it possible these seemingly unrelated women are coming forth out of the woodwork in joint anticipation of a class action lawsuit?
jp1 wrote:Thanks for clearing it up. I still hate the idea that a person can be convicted on testimony alone though, that is wrong in my opinion.
If it wasn't for that fact, you would never get a conviction.
Police: "What happened?"
Woman: "My husband punched me?"
Witness1: "I saw it. He hit right on the face!"
Witness2: "Me too! He hit her really, really hard and said he was going to kill her!"
Police: "Did any of you videtape it?"
Woman: "Uh...no..."
Police: "Sorry. There is nothing we can do."
The woman's injuries would serve as proof to further substantiate the claim, as well as the husbands wounded hand. I understand that witness testimony needs to be a part of the process, I just don't agree that it should be allowed to be the entire process.
@Jmustang, I'm not trying to shame anyone. What on earth made you draw that conclusion? I must really not be conveying my intention well if that could be read into it.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
EDIT: I agree the court of law, and the court of public opinion are two very different things. But, look at the losses incurred already and the amount of speculation. Public opinion can be very damaging as well, it may not endanger your freedom but it can easily endanger your livelihood and quality of life.
jp1 wrote:I don't believe it is unfair for you to believe anything Flake. I believe it is unfair for you to state it as if it were a fact when it is based in speculation. It may very well be unfair of me to believe those women are lying (I never said I did, but I'll roll with it), those women have far less to lose as well.
There are people in this world who will throw another person's reputation or life under the bus for an opportunity at a $500 appearance fee on a talk show. I'm not willing to forgo all disbelief that it is possible that thirteen people are liars either. I'm also not willing to say they are, but if I did, I could make arguments all day long to speculate why I think it's true. It wouldn't change the fact that none of us know anything.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I just think that it is all too easy to make assumptions when it isn't your own ass on the line. Imagine in the small off chance that Cosby is not a rapist, it is reasoning such as yours that will ruin his life and reputation. I'm not prepared to make that leap on hearsay. It is, of course, up to you to judge what conclusions you draw for yourself. I just think that they should be clearly stated as opinion and not presented as fact. That was my point.
This is pretty much how jurors argue with each other when they are asked to render a verdict. (You two are just doing it on the Racketboy forums.) It also illustrates why our justice system requires a unanimous verdict to convict someone of a crime. If even one of the twelve people sitting on a jury does not think a guilty verdict is warranted, it is likely the accused will go free.
More people need to see Twelve Angry Men.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
Exhuminator wrote:If a person claims incapacity as a defense to a charge of rape or similar offense, then such person has the burden to prove the incapacity by a preponderance of the evidence. - http://rape.uslegal.com/evidence-to-est ... Sy69l.dpuf
You are misreading this quote. It says:
If a person claims incapacity as a defense to a charge of rape or similar offense, then such person has the burden to prove the incapacity by a preponderance of the evidence.
A defendant can allege incapacity as a defense to a rape charge (i.e., "I am too frail to force myself on anyone."; "I was too drunk to get it up."; etc.). With regard to a victim, however, capcity goes to the issue of consent (i.e., "I was under the influence of alcohol/drugs/mental illness/etc. and therefore was incapable of consenting to sex.") Certainly, there can be physical evidence related to the victim's capacity (i.e., a photograph of the victim passed-out drunk, traces of a drug in a victim's blood stream, etc.), but this evidence is very rare.
MrPopo wrote:More people need to see Twelve Angry Men.
Twelve Angry Men is a good movie, I don't understand how that relates to this discussion though. It's been years since I watched it, maybe I'm forgetting something.
jp1 wrote:
@Jmustang, I'm not trying to shame anyone. What on earth made you draw that conclusion? I must really not be conveying my intention well if that could be read into it.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
This is saying shame on you:
"That's disappointing coming from you Flake. I say that as a compliment. Calling a man a rapist with nothing more than speculation is pretty ugly."
Last edited by Jmustang1968 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yes I did misread the quote. This is what happens on Friday after a week of sleep deprivation builds up.
I still do not agree that accusations or probabilities are equivalent to hard evidence in a trial. Even if such things are allowed in courts based on circumstantial instances, I do not agree with it personally. I find it incredibly hard to believe that with this many women claiming Mr. Cosby raped them via intoxication, that there isn't one shred of hard evidence to be found. If there is such a thing, I have not heard of it yet. Rather this situation comes across as a burn the witch character assassination media blitz, with a potential jack pot class act for plaintiffs.
jp1 wrote:
@Jmustang, I'm not trying to shame anyone. What on earth made you draw that conclusion? I must really not be conveying my intention well if that could be read into it.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
.
This is saying shame on you:
"That's disappointing coming from you Flake. I say that as a compliment. Calling a man a rapist with nothing more than speculation is pretty ugly."
No, it isn't. It was saying it was disappointing to me because I respect Flake's opinion. It didn't feel up to par with his usual posts. If it were someone whom I did not respect, and felt entitled to say "shame on you" I wouldn't have clarified the intention, if I had bothered to make the post at all.
I recognized the possibility that condescension would be read into it and specifically addressed it.
