He's a criminal who should die in prison. A bully and a fraud, an ugly person. Fuck him.

Couldn't agree more!!! on you Bill Cosby!

we are so lost

full truth, especially about giving consent.

They do not vilify the accusers, why are you permitted to vilify the accused?

And for the record: Fuck Bill Cosby and the horse he rode in on.

So why not consider the statue of limitations to be the same as the commission of suicide to avoid prosecution, but each result in the same thing: victims enable to pursue charges.

His mask has been taken off. He's a predictor. Accept it.

Or maybe you're on the side that thinks women deserve what they get?

But no one could really believe, with so many women coming forward, that he is innocent & these women are just saying it for the fun of it.

Includes link to snopes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=625391&mesg_id=625420

Remember Fat Albert? Look at how those kids are dressed...

Hypocrite (Cosby, not you).

I just learned a whole other meaning for that word:

Predictor. noun. synonym: sexual offender.

1.) One who demonstrates a predilection for predation.

Predator

Understood and forgiven! (Even before you asked so nicely).

I should thank you: You gave us something to chuckle about regarding an otherwise very unfunny topic.

and yet he lied us into a war, and shot a man in the face.

not only that, juries and judges have been known to both convict innocent people and acquit guilty people; the law should not be given the status of absolute truth. Of course, functioning societies must create this type of assessment of guilt or innocence, but it is not, absolute/perfect.

based on the credibility of the MANY women who have come forward.

On that basis, I think he should be vilified. That's a very mild consequence for a man who probably should have gone to jail.

Horse who was forced to carry him in?

She had 13 other victims lined up to testify against him:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/11/18/bill_cosby_rape_allegations_cosby_can_t_be_prosecuted_or_jailed_but_he_should.html

He is an adroit predator who uses his wealth and status to feed a very sick habit. That he hasn't been charged with a crime doesn't make him any less of a criminal.

Someone who commits a crime but is never convicted - cannot be a criminal?!

SMH.

Guilty" means....unless you are found guilty by court of law....you are presumed innocent of the crime. Its the American way..

against him out of court, and who will never be tried. (And has had other accusations from women who never brought legal charges.)

Then it is up to members of the public to determine whether they think he is guilty or not. We'll never know for sure, but it is hard at this point to believe he is innocent.

I'm curious. Do you still presume George Zimmerman to be innocent? Or did the testimony at trial convince you, as a member of the public, that the jury made a mistake?

This right is so important in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

In the 1988 Brazilian constitution, article 5, section LVII states that "no one shall be considered guilty before the issuing of a final and unappealable penal sentence".

In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".

In the Colombian constitution, Title II, Chapter 1, Article 29 states that "Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law".

In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789, which has force as constitutional law, begins: "Any man being presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty ...". The Code of Criminal Procedure states in its preliminary article that "any person suspected or prosecuted is presumed innocent for as long as their guilt has not been established"[15] and the jurors' oath repeats this assertion (article 304).[27]

In Iran, Article 37 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran states: "Innocence is to be presumed, and no one is to be held guilty of a charge unless his or her guilt has been established by a competent court".

In Italy, the second paragraph of Article 27 of the Constitution states: "A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed."[28]

The Constitution of Russia, in article 49, states that "Everyone charged with a crime shall be considered not guilty until his or her guilt has been proven in conformity with the federal law and has been established by the valid sentence of a court of law". It also states that "The defendant shall not be obliged to prove his or her innocence" and "Any reasonable doubt shall be interpreted in favor of the defendant".

In the South African Constitution, section 35(3)(h) of the Bill of Rights states: "Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings."

Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship.

and due to statutes of limitations...that will never be the case. Its one of the hazards of living in this Democracy...

But it doesn't apply to ordinary public opinion in cases that will never be adjudicated in court. There is no jury pool to contaminate. He's long past the possibility of being tried.

and cannot come up with a coherent response.

amazing.

"Golden Thread" of criminal law, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? According to the admissible evidence? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as instant judgment via the media! Really?

Due process? Rule of law? These have so little meaning to ordinary folks, playing ordinary folks ordinary public opinion games, I know, but at DU, far too many.

And because the statue of limitations is over, which is another law folks fail to understand, then the curt of public opinion has jurisdiction. Really?

Fascists will love you, liberal you are not.

This reminds me of the Ebola fear mongering, even folks at DU were on the side of.....get this....Cruz and Palin.

Sad.

This is all so enter stowing for armchair commentators, but a man is being ruinined by rumour and innuedo and liberals cheer...unreal.

By the way the criminal law does not recognize quantity of charges as proving any of the charges, again you will need to go to law school specializing in criminal law and procedure, sexual offences specialization, to pick that up.

Or you could go to Kangaroo Law School and set up your Kangaroo Court rules of evidence and standard of proof.......for entertainment purposes only, please.

And yes, fucking is not guilty in the eyes of the law. Innocence is another matter, innocence is not a legal ruling. Not guilty just means not proven, it does not mean innocence. Again, Criminal Law 101.

maybe you will misidentify the stranger who punched you, maybe the person was being forced by another person under threat to steal from you....criminal law is far more complex than you seem to be aware of.
But fuck Cosby and fuck the law, right! Much easier than having to acknowledge the rule of law.

I defend the rule of law because so many fail to understand what it is.

From m-w.com:

criminal (noun): a person who has committed a crime or who has been proved to be guilty of a crime by a court.

So just committing a crime is enough to get you the label.

Have you been exposed to green algae by any chance?

http://www.newsweek.com/american-researchers-discover-stupidity-virus-283319

I'm not trying to argue that the guy is in fact a criminal. Don't know enough to say that he is or isn't. Just saying you can't say he's *not* a criminal just because he hasn't been convicted. Someone who has committed a crime is a criminal.

BTW, what dictionary is the source of *your* definition?

I didn't understand until now that you are completely uninformed about crime, and once informed of your misinformation, you have no concept of how to say you have learned something. Once one human does something criminal against another human, a crime has been committed. Police, courts, etc. do not stop the inhuman act from being a crime. Oh, it is also true that crimes are committed against other animals, but this thread is about Cosby. If one allegation is true, he has committed a crime, whether you think so or not.

you lack all understanding. No one needs law school to understand when a crime has been committed. Remember Hobbes: Why waste time learning when ignorance is instantaneous? Perhaps you live by that rule.

"Fuck those lying women."

That's guilty until proven innocent.

And we know which 'people' that means.

hearing about this when they first came out...

These are his ardent fans, they won't see it. His career will end in disgrace, I'm sure of it.

Last edited Sat Nov 22, 2014, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)

I think most of the accusations are probably true, but it's also true that he hasn't been charged with anything. Don't know if that can change at this point.

I've heard the name.

Innocent until proven guilty is an actual "thing"...its what our system of Justice is predicated on.

so it's not as simple as 'innocent until proven guilty' for how society reacts to him. Justice is about whether he gets locked up for it, or has a criminal record; the OP is about people applauding him.

As fas as Savile goes, absolutely everyone accepts he was a serial rapist and assaulter, and its a huge scandal how he got away with it. This has led to major inquiries, and trials of his associates and other media figures from the time for whom victims have now come forward. To say Savile is 'innocent' because he never came to trial would be like saying Hitler is 'innocent until proven guilty' of war crimes.

You are not considered guilty of a crime in this country UNTIL you have gone before a judge. There is a statute of limitations in play here and this will never be resolved.

conclusions based on what these women are saying? don't like that? too bad. that's the way it is.

he is considered innocent until proven guilty....that is the American WAY! Isn't that what Democrats are SUPPOSED to defend?

As I pointed out, people consider Hitler guilty of war crimes.

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. In many nations, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.

The fundamental right[edit]
This right is so important in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
In the 1988 Brazilian constitution, article 5, section LVII states that "no one shall be considered guilty before the issuing of a final and unappealable penal sentence".
In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".
In the Colombian constitution, Title II, Chapter 1, Article 29 states that "Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law".
In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789, which has force as constitutional law, begins: "Any man being presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty ...". The Code of Criminal Procedure states in its preliminary article that "any person suspected or prosecuted is presumed innocent for as long as their guilt has not been established"[15] and the jurors' oath repeats this assertion (article 304).[27]
In Iran, Article 37 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran states: "Innocence is to be presumed, and no one is to be held guilty of a charge unless his or her guilt has been established by a competent court".
In Italy, the second paragraph of Article 27 of the Constitution states: "A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed."[28]
The Constitution of Russia, in article 49, states that "Everyone charged with a crime shall be considered not guilty until his or her guilt has been proven in conformity with the federal law and has been established by the valid sentence of a court of law". It also states that "The defendant shall not be obliged to prove his or her innocence" and "Any reasonable doubt shall be interpreted in favor of the defendant".
In the South African Constitution, section 35(3)(h) of the Bill of Rights states: "Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings."
Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

It's a wikipedia entry about how court systems work.

I really think you need to talk to some real people about how they come to conclusions. It doesn't all happen from court decisions. For instance, you can ask DUers about whether Bush fairly won the 2000 election. The courts are clear that he did. We're not so clear.

The fundamental right
This right is so important in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".

"Everyone charged with a penal offence", not "everyone with a comedy gig in a Florida theater". You are conflating whether someone is deprived of liberty with whether people consider him a good man.

informing DU about Jimmy Savile??? If it's the word 'guilty' you object to, then find someone who was using it about Cosby.

opportunity to defend himself...he lost and was found guilty. In this case there will never be a trail....he will never get the chance to defend himself.

Perhaps we should just go back to stockades and branding!

He chose to settle out of court instead.

Lots of settlements are made out of court....legal defenses are expensive.

Lets just put him in the stockade and throw rotten eggs at him....will that help?

informing DU about Jimmy Savile??? If it's the word 'guilty' you object to, then find someone who was using it about Cosby.

Yes, I have just repeated post #90, because you don't seem to have bothered reading it or thinking about it before replying to me.

All I did was explain to Renew Deal, and anyone else interested, who Savile was.

I'm putting you on 'ignore', since you aren't making an attempt to read my posts.

that is pretty damning evidence...but he STILL got a trial....


There will never be a trial in THIS case...there is no choice but to accept that fact. I am not discounting these women's stories...but it will always be their words against his..because there won't be a trial.

Cosby will have all the justice money can buy, just like other rich sick fucks.

statute of limitations ran out.

So do continue with your irrelevant defense of this twisted sick manipulative shithead.

as statutes of limitations have run out.....he will have the perception of being guilty...but he will not be found so..

Everyone even Jeffrey Dahmer was entitled to a fair trial and he had heads in the fridge...in this case there will never be a trial.

and I say this as someone who herself was brutally raped years ago...who couldn't bring the person up on charges for personal reasons....who also has the statute of limitations run out....that person will never be found guilty of what he did to me....its just a fact.

he is therefore considered innocent in the eyes of the law...it sucks but it is the way it is...and I don't want to live in a country that doesn't observe that fundamental right....

that which transpires outside it. Many would argue that it's far less a part of 'real life'.

And no, it's not the American Way or you're vision of what dems stand for. No one is suggesting imprisoning him or doing anything extrajudicial to him. Democrats are supposed to stand for 1st amendment rights.

The fundamental right
This right is so important in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".

it's called the 1st amendment, hon.

I know imitation is the sincerest blah, blah, blah, but it's still lame.

Do you think we should make him wear the red letter R on his chest? Maybe we should put him in the stockade and let the court of public opinion throw stones and rotten vegetables at him!

You always try this stupid tactic and it never works....


"but but but you said...."

I know, I know. It's a bit much for you to retain a name, 'nils.

and man, I'll match my intelligence against your mental capacity any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Now, nilly, do tell, have you chastised people in those threads about their calling Wilson a murderer? After all, nilly, he hasn't been found guilty in court of law.

the Grand Jury hasn't come back yet....do I think it is fair that Ferguson has an almost all White police force? Nope...Do I think the grand jury will be fair...nope...but there is no statute of limitations on this one....and there are still Federal Investigations to come.

of being found guilty of a felony in a court of law (i.e. fine or imprisonment imposed by the government). If individual people (not the government) have formed their own personal opinions about the likelihood of his guilt as a result of publicly available information, that's not the same thing, and no Constitution gives someone the right not to have that happen. The government is constitutionally required to consider him innocent until proven guilty, not private individuals. The right of private individuals to form and express their opinions is also what Democrats are supposed to defend.

but I still believe in Human Rights....like the right to a fair trial. The guy who beat and raped me will never experience what Cosby will because the "court of public "OPINION" has not deemed him already guilty...WITHOUT due process...like a lawyer to defend himself....just like Jeffery Dahmer had....who happened to have HEADS in his refridge. Its what makes US different...its called civilization.

In fact, the available evidence indicates that he's taken significant steps to ensure that no jury ever hears any of the allegations against him. And he's had plenty of help on that (and in the "court of public opinion) from his lawyer (the right to which he has also not been denied in any way).

To repeat, no constitution and no declaration of human rights guarantees the right for a public figure to be free of negative public opinion, and for good reason. Sorry.

No one has "deprived" Bill Cosby of anything in that respect, except Bill Cosby.

Despite your continuing to harp on this, you can't point to anyone, either government official or private citizen, who has violated the law here.

it doesn't apply outside of a court room. and boo fucking hoo: he's lost a couple of gigs. and that you think the U.S. is some pinnacle of civilization, says it all. Educate yourself. Oh, never mind. It's you.

COURT of LAW....its the Law of the land...

but you are welcome to just throw him into the stockade and brand a letter R on his face!

Grab a clue, 'nils: 1st amendment. It's the law of the land.

No one is suggesting anyone do anything extrajudicial to the rapist fuckwad.

I will take rule of law versus Mobocracy any day....

what does being an American have to do with forming an opinion. NO IS SUGGESTING THAT ANYONE DO ANYTHING TO HIM.

Forming an opinion based on the information we have, is not, as you seem to confusedly believe, "UnAmerican".

Why not brand him with an R? What difference does it make...he is now wearing the proverbial R on his face one...because "Americans" like you want to convict him in the "court of public opinion".....I say we have to stay neutral because there WILL be NO resolution in this case....we will never know the truth....because there will never be a court to decide that..


OOOOH I know...lets stretch him on the rack until he admits he did it! Or we could pull out his fingernails...that should do the trick!

I don't know why you are talking to me about a court of law.

It is true that all the states concerned have a statute of limitations for rape that have definitely run out for all the accusations, by the way? eg "In New York, there is no statute of limitations for first-degree rape or some types of sexual assault."

I stated some facts about Savile, and you start wittering on about 'the American way'.

It DOES mean that some guilty will walk...

that's the only place the presumption of innocence is required. Not on DU, nilly.

Presumption of Climate Change...or evidence of it? Presumption of Gravity...or the Theory of Gravity?