Cosby
No deep thoughts, but if pattern of allegations is true then the guy was a serial predator for decades. (Innocent until proven guilty under our legal system. The court of public opinion is not our legal system.)
Oh come on, Duncan, make an effort, have a deep thought about something other than the parking in Philly.
Apparently some of his commentators still don't get the whole presumption of innocence, cross examination, establishment of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (I assume that's the standard the prosecution will have to meet) and jury system. One of them has the current demand that
Well, if you want to not appear stupid, then it's best to begin by not assuming that someone making an accusation is stating the facts as they happened BEFORE ANYONE HAS A CHANCE TO EVEN HEAR THEIR ACCOUNT NEVER MIND TEST IT UNDER QUESTIONING. As it is you've already rendered a summary judgement by assuming that there is a victim of a crime without that having been established in court. The misconception that makes the victim of a cad a victim of a crime abounds in online discourse. They aren't necessarily the same thing, victims of crimes may be victims of cads but not all victims of cads are victims of crimes.
It's amazing that these people who believe themselves to be the enlightened cream of American society don't get the most basic of principles under which any kind of fair legal system works.
As a number of us said when the campaign to get Cosby started in those most lofty of precincts, statements by stand up comedians and on web-loids like Salon, if there's enough evidence to bring an indictment and put him on trial, let's hear it. If there is enough evidence to convict him of an actual crime, an actual crime on the books in the locations they are alleged to have happened, not the ad hoc expressions of rage and, frankly, racism, that have proliferated online and in tabloids, then the place to convict him of that is in a court of law, not of online rumor and salacious scandal.
Really, for a group of people who are, no doubt, going to flock to see the movie, Trumbo, if they haven't already, who are such ardent haters of McCarthyism, they've come to comprise something not anything unlike Red Channels and the other organs of extra-judicial accusation, conviction and punishment.
I think Duncan, considering the content you've supported on your blog, you really owe us more than your terse, twitter style non-comment.
Update: Simps, if you're not going to read something and comment on what was said instead of what you, in your stupidity, would like to have been said, I'm not going to post the comment.
These are words,
You have to read all of them to know what they say.
They don't work if you don't work.
Update: Simps, if you're not going to read something and comment on what was said instead of what you, in your stupidity, would like to have been said, I'm not going to post the comment.
These are words,
You have to read all of them to know what they say.
They don't work if you don't work.
I can be skeptical of the "victim" without blaming them. Whether or not they are even a victim requires evidence, not just allegations.
ReplyDeleteAnd the evidence against Cosby needs to see a courtroom; I have no problem with that. Apparently the key evidence (emphasis on "apparently," since this is from a news report) is Cosby's testimony in Constand's civil suit. Whether that can be used in the criminal case is open to debate. I'm not up on PA criminal evidence rules, so I can't say. But without it, I don't think they have a case.
With it, I think they probably do. Again, based on news reports. And that's the issue with all of these accusations: evidence. Most weren't brought to trial because there was no evidence, unless we want to criminalize everytime a man and a woman are alone together. We actually did that, so some degree (remember "house detectives" in those '40's movies, the guys employed by the hotel to be sure "Mr." and "Mrs." were married to each other?). Then we decided it was a bad idea.
Now we have to presume every encounter in private is both sexual and nonconsensual, or we're "blaming the victim." One extreme, then the other; back and forth it goes.
It remains the biggest shock of encountering the unfiltered thinking of thousands of people online how incredibly stupid so many people with degrees and a belief in their intellectual superiority are. How entirely easy it is for the alleged champions of civil liberties and the rule of law to present the same kind of thinking of the worst of the law 'n order, Dirty Harry type. And, you know, I'll bet at least one of them will be mad at me for mocking that paragon of Hollywood dotage again. He got really steamed over me dissing Clint a while back.
DeleteYeah, the internet turned over an international rock and proved that people everywhere who have the time to read and write on the internet include a fair portion of nincompoops who can't reason they're way out of a paper bag. Honestly, I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean:
Delete"I think one should always believe the victim not blame them. If they are all lying we look stupid...."
Maybe in context it sorta made sense, but as it stands it's self-contradictory (we should believe the allegations but if the allegations are lies, we look stupid? Isn't that why you don't believe the allegations, but investigate them?).
These things that pass for knowledge I don't understand.....