Bill Cosby Sentenced 3-10 Years In Prison

deadeye said:
Watching CBS morning show earlier today, and they're still trying to discredit him.


Anthony Mason tried to be slick by implying something was wrong when he asked Jericha Duncan if she talked to him in his bedroom.


Credit to the sister for shutting that down and saying he was resting.............and that his publicist was present during her conversation with him.


Fucking devils.


Also, this bullshit about him being set free......."on a technicality."


That's not the whole truth.


It's what me and others have been saying all along for the past few years.


Which is that they should've never been allowed to use a sealed case that was settled out of court to bring charges against him.


That's not something you can dismiss as just a "technicality."


The truth of the matter is, if that's the only thing they could use to bring him down.....................THEN THERE MUST NOT BE ANY EVIDENCE ANYWHERE ELSE TO CONVICT HIM OF ANYTHING.


If there's no other sufficient evidence to bring him to trial, then there's no tangible proof that he did anything wrong.


If there's no tangible proof that he did anything wrong, he should be treated as an innocent man who was wrongly charged, convicted, and imprisoned.


CASE CLOSED.


Literally..................and figuratively.
Click to expand...

You realize the contents of the evidence wasn't what was in question just the fact that an agreement was in place that his own admission of giving women these drugs was to not be used against him right?
So when you say "if the only evidence they have is him admitting to the crime then they have no case" you're either exposing you don't know what you're talking about or you're just so caught up in trying to latch onto anything that gets him free you're willing to ignore common sense. Cosby is free...he's not innocent. That's a huge difference as there's plenty of guilty people walking free because of prosecutor's mistakes.
 
deadeye said:
That's not something you can dismiss as just a "technicality."
Click to expand...
That man’s civil rights were violated. Cosby took the deal because the prosecutor wanted her to have the ability to sue Cosby in a civil trial in exchange for him giving up his ability to use the 5th amendment. So they agreed that they won’t prosecute him. So it’s not a technicality.
 
Hellczar said:
Im not putting nothing on your name. You just be having some goofy ads takes about serious shit. Because you don’t take it serious and then be in other threads complaining about the gender divide. It’s a divide because y’all are ok with rapists
Click to expand...
Wrong wrong wrong

just because I’m on the opposing side doesn’t mean I’m ok with a rapist. And this shit is serious.....

I made my point clear earlier.....if you missed it ehhhhh

you loud and wrong as usual
 
BlackRain said:
You realize the contents of the evidence wasn't what was in question just the fact that an agreement was in place that his own admission of giving women these drugs was to not be used against him right?
So when you say "if the only evidence they have is him admitting to the crime then they have no case" you're either exposing you don't know what you're talking about or you're just so caught up in trying to latch onto anything that gets him free you're willing to ignore common sense. Cosby is free...he's not innocent. That's a huge difference as there's plenty of guilty people walking free because of prosecutor's mistakes.
Click to expand...


Strawman argument.


It's just like @DOS_patos said earlier.


What he said was the equivalent of bringing weed and liquor.


Also, I don't think you understand what this really means.


It's not just about him being set free on a sealed case.


It's the fact that the sealed case was the only thing they could use to charge him with anything.


Meaning, if that was the only thing they could use to charge him..........and it was overturned...........then where is all the tangible evidence from his multiple accusers?


There's not anything from any of those multiple accusers that can be used to charge him?


Nothing???


You said that just because he's free..........it doesn't mean he's innocent.


Well, you need to keep that same energy because that statement also implies that he's not guilty either.


Especially since, well, he was set free........and the judge ruled that he should've never been charged to begin with.
 
1625146770177.png
 
deadeye said:
Strawman argument.


It's just like @DOS_patos said earlier.


What he said was the equivalent of bringing weed and liquor.


Also, I don't think you understand what this really means.


It's not just about him being set free on a sealed case.


It's the fact that the sealed case was the only thing they could use to charge him with anything.


Meaning, if that was the only thing they could use to charge him..........and it was overturned...........then where is all the tangible evidence from his multiple accusers?


There's not anything from any of those multiple accusers that can be used to charge him?


Nothing???


You said that just because he's free..........it doesn't mean he's innocent.


Well, you need to keep that same energy because that statement also implies that he's not guilty either.


Especially since, well, he was set free........and the judge ruled that he should've never been charged to begin with.
Click to expand...

Do you know what a strawman is? Also you have changed your statement. Saying they had no evidence vs saying the evidence they used was not supposed to be used are two very different statements.

I understand what this means and also why the case was overturned. What many of yall seem to be missing is that an overturned case doesn't mean he's innocent. Especially when he admits that he got the drugs for the sole purpose or giving them to women while not taking any himself because he was well aware of the affects of it.

You also seem to be intentionally glossing over the fact that just because a person isn't in prison for a crime doesn't mean they're innocent of it. His own words say he's guilty he just got a deal that allowed him to admit it free of consequences.
 
If he raped them he should be in jail.

The “evidence” has me more leaning to he didn’t. But he probably did.
 
Race still wacking post wack ass

Go eat some Jello
BlackRain said:
Do you know what a strawman is? Also you have changed your statement. Saying they had no evidence vs saying the evidence they used was not supposed to be used are two very different statements.

I understand what this means and also why the case was overturned. What many of yall seem to be missing is that an overturned case doesn't mean he's innocent. Especially when he admits that he got the drugs for the sole purpose or giving them to women while not taking any himself because he was well aware of the affects of it.

You also seem to be intentionally glossing over the fact that just because a person isn't in prison for a crime doesn't mean they're innocent of it. His own words say he's guilty he just got a deal that allowed him to admit it free of consequences.
Click to expand...

And you seem to not understand, just because a person goes to prison is that they automatically guilty

His own words says that he's raped women? I asked the other poster to post anything Bill saying that he raped these women, now I am asking you since you are in here posting that he admitted to raping these women
 
BlackRain said:
Do you know what a strawman is? Also you have changed your statement. Saying they had no evidence vs saying the evidence they used was not supposed to be used are two very different statements.

I understand what this means and also why the case was overturned. What many of yall seem to be missing is that an overturned case doesn't mean he's innocent. Especially when he admits that he got the drugs for the sole purpose or giving them to women while not taking any himself because he was well aware of the affects of it.

You also seem to be intentionally glossing over the fact that just because a person isn't in prison for a crime doesn't mean they're innocent of it. His own words say he's guilty he just got a deal that allowed him to admit it free of consequences.
Click to expand...


You're literally grasping at straws bruh.


Look, how many accusers does Cosby have?


50, 60, 100, 200???


If there isn't anything in these women's accusations that a prosecutor/DA's office can use to arrest, charge, convict, and sentence Bill Cosby................then he has to be:


"Presumed innocent.............UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY."


And, like I said earlier, just like an overturned case doesn't make someone innocent................it doesn't make them guilty either.


Since nothing has been presented to charge him with anything, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's innocent.


Which is the only logical conclusion to come to considering the circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Dwayne said:
If he raped them he should be in jail.

The “evidence” has me more leaning to he didn’t. But he probably did.
Click to expand...

Bruh. Come on.

I dont wanna engage. But i will...

Its all bout what you define as "rape".

If you are well known in hollywood circles for begging, coercing women to take a pill. Then sleep with them.

Its a open secret. Yet women STILL go to your house. You then do what you are rumored to, persuade a female to take a pill that will "relax her". Then he proceeds to smash.

Once the broad is passed out you take away her ability to say "no". Ppl define that as rape.

Even IF the female had a general idea of what might happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top