Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That’s actually not that the law said in this case. The conviction was not overturned because of new evidence of Cosby’s innocence, it was because of improper actions by the prosecutor and what the law said was that they had to honor their previous deal with Cosby which stated he would not be prosecuted.
Regardless of how one spins it, the law does hold Cosby to be innocent. This is so because you are presumed to be innocent absent a criminal conviction against you. Cosby no longer has a criminal conviction against him, so his presumption of legal innocence has reattached. It’s the same thing I tell people who argue that a verdict of not guilty is not the same as innocent; except, in the eyes of the law it actually is. You and I know that Cosby is a dirt bag based on his own statements, but he is innocent in the eyes of the law. The initial conviction should have never been allowed under the Constitution. As a matter of law, it’s as of it never existed.
He admitted to partying with the women and giving them drugs, not drugging them. Big difference.
He admitted that the drug in question made you “high” and stated that he didn’t take the drug ever as it was similar to other drugs that had an impact on the nervous system. You can’t consent to sex if you’re high. Whether he admitted to drugging then is irrelevant as their state of mind meant they couldn’t consent.
The law has spoken. And the law says that Mr. Cosby is innocent.
Um, no, that is not what the court said.
Might I suggest you avail yourself of the Evelyn Wood Speed Reading and Comprehension Course.
Show us an actual quote from the text of the PA Supreme Court decision that says Cosby is innocent.
Oh, that's right, you can't, because what the Court actually said was, "For these reasons, Cosby’s convictions and judgment of sentence are vacated, and he is discharged."
Also, contrary to what you might believe, a "not-guilty" verdict does not mean one is innocent. It merely means one was found not-guilty.
Might I suggest you avail yourself of the Evelyn Wood Speed Reading and Comprehension Course.
Show us an actual quote from the text of the PA Supreme Court decision that says Cosby is innocent.
Oh, that's right, you can't, because what the Court actually said was, "For these reasons, Cosby’s convictions and judgment of sentence are vacated, and he is discharged."
Also, contrary to what you might believe, a "not-guilty" verdict does not mean one is innocent. It merely means one was found not-guilty.
While true, it isn't necessary for the court to find someone "innocent" as the legal presumption is that of innocence. Being found "not guilty" merely maintains (or, in this case, restores) that presumption. There is no need for a court to deem someone innocent as one is innocent in the eyes of the law unless one has a conviction attached.
He admitted that the drug in question made you “high” and stated that he didn’t take the drug ever as it was similar to other drugs that had an impact on the nervous system. You can’t consent to sex if you’re high. Whether he admitted to drugging then is irrelevant as their state of mind meant they couldn’t consent.
The law doesn't say you can't consent when 'high' only when you are incapacitated or incapable of saying no. I knew people who took Quaaludes and didn't get incapacitated.
Here's a recent case:
Quote:
Minnesota is among a majority of states that treat intoxication as a barrier to consent only if victims became drunk against their will. As of 2016, intoxication provisions in 40 states did not include situations in which someone chose to consume drugs or alcohol, according to Brooklyn Law Review.
The law doesn't say you can't consent when 'high' only when you are incapacitated or incapable of saying no. I knew people who took Quaaludes and didn't get incapacitated.
The law allows a lot of leeway to argue under what circumstances you can/cannot consent. If you are "high," the implication and argument is that you cannot consent as your whereabouts and ability to process and form proper permission, etc. are distorted.
Bill Cosby was initially convicted under the following code:
A person who engages in penetration, however slight, of the genitals or anus of a victim 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:
(a) (1)The person does so without the victim’s consent;
(a) (2)The person does so by forcible compulsion;
(a) (3)The person does so by threat of forcible compulsion;
(a) (4)The victim is unconscious;
(a) (5)By administering or employing drugs, intoxicants or other means;
(a) (6)The victim suffers from a mental disability;
(a) (7)The victim is less than 13 years of age; or
(a) (8)The victim is less than 16 years of age and the person is four or more years older than the victim and the victim and the person are not married to each other.
All of the categories under (a) (1) tough on the inability of one to consent to sexual conduct. I argue that being high falls under being able to consent generally.
As I have seen these laws work, the argument is (and I believe this is exactly the argument made by the prosecution in the Cosby trial) was that the complainant couldn't consent as she was under the influence of the quaaludes. Bill Cosby knew that quaaludes made women high and altered the mind. This is exactly why he didn't take them himself. I don't doubt that some people who take quaaludes don't become high and are perfectly able to consent. But Bill Cosby admitted that he knew/expected/thought that quaaludes caused women to become high and that similar drugs impacted the nervous system.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 07-04-2021 at 07:14 PM..
If you go with those definitions I think you make the majority of men in the US into aggravated indecent assaulters.,
You think there are a lot of men around who never bought a lady a drink?
I see your point, but as mentioned, those categories all get at the issue of consent. Buying a woman a drink wouldn't cut it if said woman isn't intoxicated, etc., and still has her whereabouts. Also, there would likely be another issue if both parties were intoxicated. And then you have the issue of there needing to be a willing complainant for an arrest, etc., to take place. But sexual assault cases are hard to prove and the overwhelming majority of cases are not even prosecuted due to the difficulty with compiling sufficient evidence, etc.
As mentioned, those definitions all get at the issue of consent. Buying a woman a drink wouldn't cut it if said woman isn't intoxicated, etc. Also, there would likely be another issue if both parties were intoxicated. And then you have the issue of there needing to be a willing complainant for an arrest, etc., to take place. But sexual assault cases are hard to prove and the overwhelming majority of cases are not even prosecuted due to the difficulty with compiling sufficient evidence, etc.
I know one lady who was smashed on a single Margareta. And she would always have two. I would not let her drive home. But she was more than consensual...she was aggressive after two.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
