Bluelight

Thread: Bill Cosby: Guilty

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 30 of 30
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #26
    Moderator
    Sober Living
    aihfl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    El Pueblo Loco
    Posts
    2,363
    If anyone had any doubt about Cosby's true character it went out the window when he ranted in court at the prosecutor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain.Heroin
    People are innocent until proven guilty here.

    Seriously? Just about everyone who's been arrested in the USA knows that cops assume you're
    guilty and unless you can prove yourself innocent, you're going to the slammer. I got called to be on a jury in an armed robbery case where the evidence was contradictory. The prosecution's case rested on surveillance video and discarded clothes nearby. The video was too grainy to make out a face and the clothes worn by the perp in the video did not match the discarded clothes. I was the only one that had a problem with this and I had 11 other people getting hostile and belligerent with me because I did. And while I did ultimately go along with the guilty verdict, I was vindicated when the judge came in and told us we did the right thing despite the shoddy police work. I have zero faith in US law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Involving cops, even when you're the one who needs helps, makes things worse instead of better IME.
    Last edited by aihfl; 28-04-2018 at 19:36. Reason: punctuation
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #27
    Moderator
    Current Events & Politics

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,451
    Soooo... You had a problem with the evidence, but you caved under peer pressure. Then you were vindicated when the judge, agreed with everyone else instead of you?

    How is this you being vindicated? What am I missing here? Did I misread this or you miswrite it? Cause from what you describe you being vindicated would have been the judge setting aside your verdict, or you standing by your position and the judge agreeing with it. Not you caving and the judge siding with everyone else.

    But yes, the jury system does suffer from the fact that people suck. And most people are fairly spineless under peer pressure. But I'm not seeing how that means any other system would be better. Having crappy juries of 12 is still better than having a couple judges decide everything. In many countries your fellow citizens, stupid and spineless as they are, have no say whatsoever. If the judges are corrupt, you're done. Not even any chance that you might get 1 jury member with a brain and a spine to stand against it. I'd rather live in our system.

    And you know, if you have no faith in the jury, you can always request a bench trial.

    Sorry man, but it's a little hard to take your side here when you admit you didn't approve of the evidence, but caved to peer pressure and let a potentially innocent person be found guilty all so you didn't have to stand up for what you believed in. I understand it's easier said than done. And I understand people always go on about "what they would have done" when they've never really been put to the test. So I don't want to make it sound like you did anything different to what most people probably would have done. Cause in truth, most people would have caved. But it's still frustrating.

    Theres a reason it only takes 1 jury member to prevent a guilty verdict. It's supposed to be you're guilty when 12 agree. Not 11 agree with the 12th just going along with the 11.

    The system is far from perfect and I never claimed otherwise. But it's very easy to point to all the problems while not having any alternative and act like things would be better if we just did "something else" never defining what that something else is. I still think the systems about as good as it gets. But because people suck most people can't comprehend such complexity and assume if I don't hate the system I must be it's biggest fan.

    Oh and also. Your story doesn't disprove innocent until proven guilty. We have a whole system of appeals for fixing convictions where the jury was stupid. And besides. None of this suggests that there's a better system we could have.
    Last edited by JessFR; 28-04-2018 at 20:03.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #28
    Moderator
    Sober Living
    aihfl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    El Pueblo Loco
    Posts
    2,363
    ^ God you are a waste of space. You weren't there and don't know the full story. We were allowed to consider the defendants criminal prior history. This dude had a history of violent crimes over a very long period of time. I actually had no problems believing this defendant committed this armed robbery, what I had a problem with was the shitty police work. Rather than actually building an airtight case against this guy by the book, the cops clearly did a sloppy job and the cops and prosecutors obviously hoped to get a jury that didn't give a shit and keep them from having to do their jobs. You can say all the nasty shit you want to about me but I did the right thing and got a dangerous thug off the streets of my community. I can say I think I did the right thing and still have a problem with the process that put him there, but you so often exhibit two dimensional thinking so I don't expect you to understand that. Maybe you'd think of it as an interesting lifestyle experiment to live in proximity to people like that but I don't. Oh, and the judge? I have friends who were ADAs that hated that judge because he was perceived to be too lenient on defendants. So it's not a case of me compromising my principles against some hardass judge a la The Honorable Bob Gibbs in the Elmore Leonard novel Maximum Bob. I would suggest you get the whole story in the future before passing judgment but I fully expect that you'll keep posting your same old BS showing us all that you're incapable of abstract thinking.
    Last edited by aihfl; 29-04-2018 at 04:05.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #29
    Senior Moderator
    Recovery Support
    Drug Studies
    herbavore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    in a dream
    Posts
    14,654
    Quote Originally Posted by White_Rose View Post
    It was the fact that in the 60's he was an Icon for Family Entertainment and then he went and and threw it all away.

    A loss of a formerly positive cultural icon is worse than someone not held in this cultural significance. It diminishes our entire culture by association and affects society at large, beyond the obvious affect to the direct victims.
    I grew up listening to Fat Albert and the other kids Bill Cosby created on his comedy records. My parents had all his recordings and I loved him for all those characters he brought to life through hilarious voices and sound effects. It cannot be understated what an icon he also was for the black community, what his success meant and also the person he seemed to be. That is what makes this so sad--people thought he was the persona he portrayed. I am also glad that the women finally got their "day in court". What they went through was terrible and to have the perpetrator be someone the whole country loved had to be endless salt in the wound. A person that could do that once, let alone over and over again, is a pretty damaged human being. It is a tragedy for everyone involved.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #30
    Moderator
    Current Events & Politics

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,451
    Quote Originally Posted by aihfl View Post
    ^ God you are a waste of space. You weren't there and don't know the full story. We were allowed to consider the defendants criminal prior history. This dude had a history of violent crimes over a very long period of time. I actually had no problems believing this defendant committed this armed robbery, what I had a problem with was the shitty police work. Rather than actually building an airtight case against this guy by the book, the cops clearly did a sloppy job and the cops and prosecutors obviously hoped to get a jury that didn't give a shit and keep them from having to do their jobs. You can say all the nasty shit you want to about me but I did the right thing and got a dangerous thug off the streets of my community. I can say I think I did the right thing and still have a problem with the process that put him there, but you so often exhibit two dimensional thinking so I don't expect you to understand that. Maybe you'd think of it as an interesting lifestyle experiment to live in proximity to people like that but I don't. Oh, and the judge? I have friends who were ADAs that hated that judge because he was perceived to be too lenient on defendants. So it's not a case of me compromising my principles against some hardass judge a la The Honorable Bob Gibbs in the Elmore Leonard novel Maximum Bob. I would suggest you get the whole story in the future before passing judgment but I fully expect that you'll keep posting your same old BS showing us all that you're incapable of abstract thinking.
    I gave my opinion on the story as you explained it.

    I asked you what I might be missing. That was your opportunity to set the record straight if I didn't have the whole story. But apparently that is the whole story. You thought the evidence was bad, and you voted guilty anyway. You straight up said you argued with your fellow jurers. You didn't say they convinced you. You said you voted guilty regardless.

    The only other way I can see your intended point here, is that the problem is that the prosecutor presented such a bad case at all. And indeed they probably shouldn't have went ahead with such a bad case just because they thought the guy was clearly guilty and that a jury wouldn't care about the lack of evidence. But that doesn't change the additional problem that by your own account they were right to think the jury wouldn't care.

    My problem is you admit that you did care, and voted guilty anyway. I think that's spineless. The job of the jury is to determine if the evidence meets the standard set. You seem to suggest you felt they didn't but voted guilty anyway. And if you feel that the problem is that the case was presented at all but that the jury was still right to convict the guy because he had a long record. That's even worse than spineless. That means it was your free choice to not care that he might have been innocent and condemn him for past offenses. That's even worse than seeing that it's wrong but going along with it anyway.

    Fortunately this is why appeals exist.

    I'm making that evaluation, forming that opinion based on your account of events. I gave you the opportunity to give the whole story if you'd misspoke or id misunderstood. Your reply doesn't seem to change anything. In fact it makes it worse. It shows no regret and it tries to defend itself by arguing that this guy had a long record and so you were right to out him away with bad evidence. A position i greatly disagree with.

    I won't apologize for my honest opinion of the events you describe. Best I can do is tell you that understand that it's easier to say you should have done something else when you weren't yourself there. But it sounds like you don't regret that choice. Or tell yourself you don't. Best I can do is offer to drop this. I'm happy not to make future posts on this subject here or elsewhere.
    Last edited by JessFR; 29-04-2018 at 07:51.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •