Bill Cosby

[Gadarene]

Exactly. He would have to prove that they're lying, which he can't, so he won't try. His other option is to speak up for himself. So far, he's chosen not to. If he's innocent (which I don't believe, but it's happened), then it sucks, but such is life. There's really nothing else he can do.

If it's a he-said she-said affair then he might well be innocent and yet still unable to prove it. This is the reason why (in the courts at least) the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation of guilt, rather than the person making the defence against it.

Apparently people are just meant to be ok with the notion that any crowd of idiots can ruin your reputation if they get it into their heads.

 

[Gadarene]

I would get angry about it if I were innocent, but there's nothing I would be able to do about it except retaliate with a statement of my own. I'm not sure what else you want to see happen.

Not giving unproven rumour-mongering so much airtime, for one - and seeing it openly challenged more. That will in turn involve standing up to the usual SJWish tripe.

 

[Cearbhall]

Not giving unproven rumour-mongering so much airtime, for one - and seeing it openly challenged more. That will in turn involve standing up to the usual SJWish tripe.

Ah, so you mean on the part of the media. I agree. No need for it to be the #1 story just because he's famous.

If it's a he-said she-said affair then he might well be innocent and yet still unable to prove it. This is the reason why (in the courts at least) the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation of guilt, rather than the person making the defence against it.

Apparently people are just meant to be ok with the notion that any crowd of idiots can ruin your reputation if they get it into their heads.

Yes, it's called freedom of speech. It's the price we pay. Hopefully, people are able to prove their innocence when this happens, but otherwise, tough. It's up to each side to try to convince the public.

 

[Supreme]

If it's a he-said she-said affair then he might well be innocent and yet still unable to prove it. This is the reason why (in the courts at least) the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation of guilt, rather than the person making the defence against it.

Apparently people are just meant to be ok with the notion that any crowd of idiots can ruin your reputation if they get it into their heads.

Agree with this. Few principles are more important in Western society that the notion that a man who is accused of something is proven guilty in a fair trial. Otherwise, he is assumed to be innocent. I think it's best to assume Cosby innocent, until a court of law determines otherwise.

 

[Gadarene]

Ah, so you mean on the part of the media. I agree. No need for it to be the #1 story just because he's famous.

Well, not just the media - also on twitter (which is today's equivalent of Reuters, it seems) and in the comedy circuit in this case, which is a large part of why these allegations have been revived.

Yes, it's called freedom of speech. It's the price we pay. Hopefully, people are able to prove their innocence when this happens, but otherwise, tough. It's up to each side to try to convince the public.

Then I am quite happy to keep pointing this out as the mob-driven stupidity this is.

I'm curious though why you think it's up to someone accused of something to prove their innocence, but those making accusations don't have to. A smidge inconsistent, to say nothing of dangerous. It's a bit ridiculous to treat a claim as its own evidence.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Agree with this. Few principles are more important in Western society that the notion that a man who is accused of something is proven guilty in a fair trial.

A new victim would have to go to the police right away, get a rape kit down. But since he drugs them first, they might now be able to prove rape. Unless her drug result come positive. Then a star stuck jury probably wont listen to the trial. I really don't believe they test for drugs in the 70's, like they do know.

 

[Cearbhall]

Then I am quite happy to keep pointing this out as the mob-driven stupidity this is.

I'm curious though why you think it's up to someone accused of something to prove their innocence, but those making accusations don't have to. A smidge inconsistent, to say nothing of dangerous. It's a bit ridiculous to treat a claim as its own evidence.

I don't think they have any obligation to prove their innocence. Certainly not in a court of law. I just recognize that members of the public have every right to think them guilty if they don't, and I don't have any problem with people being free to do so, however misguided they may be. These women aren't infringing upon his rights with their claims unless he proves he didn't do it.

 

[ulu]

some of these women have said they don't want any money from the clown, just want it to be known who he is. People don't generally want the public to know if they've been raped, so it wouldn't be a case of wanting 15 minutes fame.

What other motivation would that many women have to make up a story about a tool like cosby?

 

[Gadarene]

some of these women have said they don't want any money from the clown, just want it to be known who he is. People don't generally want the public to know if they've been raped, so it wouldn't be a case of wanting 15 minutes fame.

What other motivation would that many women have to make up a story about a tool like cosby?

I know, right? Just because a few people said it, it must be true!

Isn't this the same standard of "evidence" that would have had a man like Cosby swinging from a tree 80 or 90 years ago?

 

[Gadarene]

I don't think they have any obligation to prove their innocence. Certainly not in a court of law. I just recognize that members of the public have every right to think them guilty if they don't, and I don't have any problem with people being free to do so, however misguided they may be. These women aren't infringing upon his rights with their claims unless he proves he didn't do it.

If it went to a slander/libel case, wouldn't the burden still be on them to prove that he didn't abuse them?

No, there probably shouldn't be any legal obligation on this, it's just a shame that so many people think it prudent to partake in the same idiocy of spreading unsubstantiated claims around.

 

[Smidlee]

I know, right? Just because a few people said it, it must be true!

Of course. That's all that was need in the past for those witch trials and we all know how successful they were at removing witches.

 

[Sistrin]

Of course. That's all that was need in the past for those witch trials and we all know how successful they were at removing witches.

I can think of one they missed.

 

[ulu]

I know, right? Just because a few people said it, it must be true!

So- what might their motivation have been for making up these stories?
If a hundred women made the same claims, would you assume they were all lying?

 

[Gadarene]

So- what might their motivation have been for making up these stories?

Who says they made them up? I am saying that their claims are unproven.

If a hundred women made the same claims, would you assume they were all lying?

I would conclude that the claims were still unproven.