|
fool of sound posted:If you would prefer to yell about things happening rather than learning and understanding why they happened I suggest you do so in a different subforum. What about learning and yelling at the same time? A compromise.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
silicone thrills posted:What about learning and yelling at the same time? A compromise. I'm not asking people to not be angry. I'm angry about the decision. I want people to not take it out on posters trying to explain why it happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:If you would prefer to yell about things happening rather than learning and understanding why they happened I suggest you do so in a different subforum. Within the systems of power the official story of "why" is often a façade created with the purpose of preserving the system. You don't gotta take it at face value.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
There's basically zero catharsis out there for rape victims. We go to therapy. Sometimes we learn to take out anger in other ways. But nothing ever ever takes away the anger that the justice system is this broken and there's nothing on the horizon that looks like it could fix it. The fact that guy who had 60 accusations against him is now free on a technicality is just such a complete and gut wrenching horror that its difficult to process. - an actual question - is the DA that brought the case in an elected position or appointed and if they were appointed who appointed them? What recourse is there against the fuckup?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:
PA District Attorneys are elected but neither the idiot who gave Cosby the non-prosecution statement or the later DA who got the original conviction are still in office. I don't know if there can be any professional sanctions against Castor at least since as the ruling said, what he did with the press release messed things up and he should have known he wasn't allowed to do that. Fun fact that I can't recall if it came up in the thread before. The first DA, Castor, you may remember from recent events because he was the defense lawyer for the second impeachment trial of one Donald Trump. Dude is an absolutely awful guy. Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jul 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 22:34
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:PA District Attorneys are elected but neither the idiot who gave Cosby the non-prosecution statement or the later DA who got the original conviction are still in office. I don't think that's true. The DA who got the conviction is Kevin Steele, and he's still in office.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 22:55
|
|
|
My understanding is that Castor did not actually grant Cosby immunity, as he would need a court order to formally grant that, but the PA Supreme Court and Cosby pretended he had that for the purposes of this legal argument. Cosby proceeded to incriminate himself in the civil trial, which Castor and others no doubt anticipated. Castor making the absolutely stupid decision to announce that he would never prosecute Cosby is its own thing, however. If you take issue with the Supreme Court's ruling, that would be a topic for an election, as they are all elected positions, but PA SC justices almost never lose elections and are almost never impeached. The larger issues are more systemic, like this entire thing resting on just one of Cosby's 50+ accused rapes because statutes of limitations and lack of evidence makes it almost impossible to prosecute rapes, let alone when the accused is America's Dad. The only good that might come from this is further attention to reforming sex crime laws.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 22:56
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:My understanding is that Castor did not actually grant Cosby immunity, as he would need a court order to formally grant that, but the PA Supreme Court and Cosby pretended he had that for the purposes of this legal argument. Cosby proceeded to incriminate himself in the civil trial, which Castor and others no doubt anticipated. Castor making the absolutely stupid decision to announce that he would never prosecute Cosby is its own thing, however. I've said this before but I really feel there should be more pushing for statutes of limitations reform, sexual assault is usually done by the same people who have the power to silence a person until the timer runs out which is just hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 23:01
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Would you be willing to quote yourself where you suggest that this decision is a regrettable but necessary part of an impartial process or that the court ruling is a necessary evil? My knee jerk response to the Cosby decision was to try to understand the court's reasoning. I hated the decision, but wanted to know what mistakes had been made. After all, I do believe that it's better for several guilty people to go free rather than one innocent person getting punished. I don't regret learning more, especially since it improves my ability to criticize the court's ruling. But I'm of two minds. The above is true, but the excuse for letting off Cosby is just one of an interchangeable and limitless set of excuses available only to the powerful. In that sense, I didn't learn anything new. From that perspective, what are we gaining by understanding the specifics of the court's reasoning? It feels perverse to even entertain their ideas, as if they act in good faith. I'm not slamming other posters, I'm just frustrated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
The Court’s account of the record suggests that Castor was working with the victim’s attorneys when he issued the “immunity” because there was no path forward for a criminal conviction. No amount of statute of limitations reform would have changed the outcome of this case. It all came down to the Fifth Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 23:56
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:I don't think that's true. The DA who got the conviction is Kevin Steele, and he's still in office. Yeah looking into it you're right. The prior DA, Rita Ferman was the one who filed the charges but Steele was in office when the trial happened. So I guess there's potentially some recourse against Steele for loving it up?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
Steele won a conviction and then got it overturned based on something that happened like a decade ago. There is nothing he could have done differently here unless his office really hosed up the briefing. Not a good message to send to DAs if he gets voted out for this. The closest elected official to this whole fuckup would be the trial judge in the civil case (if they are even still on the bench). Hard to blame that judge though, because they were likely trying to hurt Cosby by finding immunity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Steele won a conviction and then got it overturned based on something that happened like a decade ago. There is nothing he could have done differently here unless his office really hosed up the briefing. Not a good message to send to DAs if he gets voted out for this. I mean, he could have. He could have not introduced Cosby's forced inculpatory testimony in the civil case. That was the reversible error,
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 00:54
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:I mean, he could have. He could have not introduced Cosby's forced inculpatory testimony in the civil case. That was the reversible error, No it wasn’t. The reversible error was bringing criminal charges against Cosby after he “relied on” (read: was ordered to testify based on) the unexecuted immunity deal in the civil trial. The Court treated its ruling like a Order for specific performance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 01:18
|
|
|
Leaving aside all the legal technicalities and so on, the real reason Cosby got off is that the legal system hates being forced to punish rapists, especially rich ones, and if compelled to do so will take every opportunity to reverse it. Establishing a precedent that will let rich rapists get away with it easier in the future is just icing on the cake for them
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 01:43
|
|
|
I hope he gets out of jail and then a week later just falls down a flight of stairs and loving dies (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:I hope he gets out of jail and then a week later just falls down a flight of stairs and loving dies Makes it three steps out the door before getting hot by a driverless Tesla. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
I'm normally a very "it's better to let 10 guilty men free than send one innocent man to jail" person but this is not that. While the courts are writing special snowflake opinions that you can do crimes scot-free if your million dollar legal team doesn't understand the law, which are conveniently narrowly tailored to only affect Cosby and people of his class, a few blocks away cops are beating false confessions out of poor people and the courts are like "well if the cops ignored your 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights, the phrasing you used to assert them must have been somehow defective in an esoteric way we just made up, next time you want rights you'd better bring the case law version of the future sports almanac from Back To The Future II so you can predict how we'll rule on anything you say" What happened here was Cosby paid enough money to the legal system to purchase the customary indulgences, everything else is just a fig leaf to let people rationalize away what happened. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Jul 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 15:37
|
|
|
"well if Cosby thought he had a deal then he can't be charged" happened in the same country as "just because you have a right to remain silent doesn't mean the cops can't interrogate you until you break if you try to remain silent" and "saying 'I want a lawyer, dog' invalidates your constitutional rights because there's no such thing as a lawyer-dog" E: also the same country that coerces false confessions out of people too poor to afford bail by just holding them in pretrial detention indefinitely until it finally makes sense to plead out in exchange for time served. Not a 5th amendment violation if you "voluntarily" confess after being in jail for longer than the sentence you'd get anyway, and while you do have a right to a speedy trial we won't define what that means, in cosmological time a year is nothing and you have no recourse anyway! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Jul 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 15:40
|
|
|
Exactly. The legal system is not in any way a logically coherent one. It does not receive inputs and dispense objective justice according to some magical formula. From the highest court to the lowest beat cop, the legal system is owned and controlled by individuals who abuse it to achieve whatever end they personally desire, or benefits them, or (sometimes) what they consider to be just. When we attempt to understand a particular excuse invented to free a rich person from the consequences of their crimes, or by trying to argue the merits of it, or the logical consistency, we have already lost. This is an implicit acceptance of the lie that any of this is being decided by actors who proceed logically, according to the law, until they reach an outcome. The truth is that they begin with the outcome and find whatever crooked path through the lawbooks brings them to that outcome. Would any of you really pretend that Scalia or Alito, who supposedly should (have) be(en) some of the keenest judicial minds in the entire country—in the history of the world—, were really deciding cases based on anything other than their own individual ideology? Do you really think Clarence Thomas, whose wife is a rich, conservative acivist ghoul, is some neutral arbiter of justice? Why would lesser courts be any better? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
I'm normally a very "it's better to let 10 guilty men free than send one innocent man to jail" person unless I disagree with the Court’s decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I'm normally a very "it's better to let 10 guilty men free than send one innocent man to jail" person unless I disagree with the Court’s decision. I mean yeah? Courts can make wrong decisions, I also think the court that let George Zimmerman off was wrong. I also think the court that let off Tamir Rice's killers was wrong. The whole point of the principle is that protecting the rights of the accused is worth it even if guilty people get off sometimes because it protects innocent people too. Letting Cosby off on some bullshit because he's rich doesn't protect any innocent people. Letting Zimmerman off because shooting black kids is widely assumed to be justified unless there's actual video and sometimes not even then doesn't protect any innocent people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2021 02:12
|
|
|
It is better to let ten guilty rich men go free than send one innocent rich man to jail. Don't worry, it's still better to send one innocent poor person to jail than let ten innocent poor people to jail, we aren't changing that at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2021 07:49
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:My understanding is that Castor did not actually grant Cosby immunity, as he would need a court order to formally grant that, but the PA Supreme Court and Cosby pretended he had that for the purposes of this legal argument. Cosby proceeded to incriminate himself in the civil trial, which Castor and others no doubt anticipated. Castor making the absolutely stupid decision to announce that he would never prosecute Cosby is its own thing, however. More or less. (Kind of long, apologies in advance.) Binding immunity agreements are generally transactional - I give you cooperation, you give me immunity. I give you a guilty plea to Counts 1 & 2, you agree not to prosecute me for crimes X and Y. Courts treat these as contracts and hold that the State* should be held to its promises. Trouble is, none of the typical situations apply here. In a use-immunity situation like you mentioned, there's a statute where the prosecutor petitions for immunity and the Court grants it; but that's typically used to force someone to provide information about someone else. In a plea agreement situation there's a written deal and minor judicial oversight, and courts often won't touch those even if it leads to awful results (like Epstein's non-prosecution deal with the feds in Florida); but Cosby isn't pleading guilty to anything. Prosecutorial discretion, on the other hand, doesn't require any oversight but isn't binding. Castor can decide not to file charges and write all the press releases he wants to about it, and if he remains in office while the statute of limitations runs, then Cosby is effectively immune from prosecution. But if not, a new D.A. can reverse that decision because new evidence is available, or because new crimes are being investigated, or just because she thinks the last guy got it wrong. This is where the dissent lands - there was no agreement and the press releases were just Castor announcing his decision and explaining his reasoning, and the new D.A. gets to decide differently. Castor's trying to claim a middle road that doesn't really exist - that he decided charges should not be filed and intended, by publicly announcing his decision in very strong terms, that decision to be made final and binding forever. (He didn't say it, he declared it.) He told the lower court that there was no exchange or formal agreement involved, but based on conversations with Cosby's attorneys he meant it as - and everyone understood it to be - an immunity agreement. The awkward undercurrent to all of this is that there's a decent chance Castor's just making up the reason he did it after the fact, since the history of the case is absolutely bonkers: - Castor claims he talked with Cosby's criminal attorney (Philips), who relayed the agreement to Cosby's civil attorney (Schmitt). Schmitt tells the lower court he allowed Cosby to sit for civil depositions because of this agreement, that was not in writing, that he only heard about second-hand. (Phillips was dead by the time of the court hearing and couldn't testify.) Not only does nobody think it's important that this be put in writing, there doesn't seem to be any mention of an agreement until ten years later. You'd expect an email or two discussing the terms of the agreement, or the parties hashing out the logistics of things, or some communication with staff about it, or a note in a case file about the State agreeing to never ever ever prosecute him, or...something. The first written mention of any agreement in the record isn't until 2015 when, as the State points out in its brief, Castor's in the middle of a D.A. election and probably trying to talk his successor out of filing charges because that would make him look bad. - Castor never tells the victim's attorneys about any of this, and they're not aware of any agreement because the Fifth never comes up during the depositions. (There's some confusion on this upthread because at one point Cosby refuses to answer questions and the victim's attorneys file a motion to compel and such, but the refusal wasn't based on self-incrimination. They were fighting over something else, though it's not clear what.) The victim's attorneys point out that not only did they never discuss an immunity agreement to force Cosby to answer questions, they didn't need one. They could've beaten a fifth amendment claim on their own because Cosby gave a voluntary statement to police; and even if Cosby won on that and didn't have to testify, then the victim's story would be the only one put in front of the jury, and she'd get an adverse-inference instruction to boot. Cosby invoking actually would have made their case better. - Cosby claims that he only answered questions at his deposition because the prosecutor tricked him and he thought he was immune, but a) he also answered questions about other victims that would never have been covered by this agreement, and b) he asked the victim for (and got, it seems) an agreement that she would not initiate a criminal complaint against him. Strange thing to do if you think you're already immune from prosecution; and it wouldn't have been effective anyway, because prosecutors try sex crimes with reluctant or unwilling victims every day. So the whole thing is just bizarre. The concurrence wonders out loud if Castor was making a corrupt deal; the dissent cites the part of the State's brief about Castor being in the middle of an election when he goes, "Yes, this was totally my plan all along, I swear." The majority decides there's a lot of ambiguity as to whether a valid agreement ever existed, but borrows from contract law - Castor made a statement intended to force Cosby to testify, and Cosby reasonably relied on it to his detriment, and his rights were violated. The concurrence is more direct that Castor never had the power to make such an agreement and wants the Court to say so, but agrees that this looks like a bait-and-switch and the conviction should be vacated. They disagree on when the violation happens and what the remedy should be; to the majority, the violation occurs once Cosby sits for the deposition and incriminates himself. The government can't undo that harm, so the remedy is to hold them to the agreement everyone claims they thought was in place. The concurrence thinks the harm happens once the improperly-obtained evidence is used against Cosby at trial, and the remedy is to re-try him without that evidence. (Unfortunately there might not be a ton of practical difference. If Castor was right that the case was unwinnable before the deposition happened, then barring Cosby's statements and any evidence derived from them leaves the State with an unwinnable case. But that's academic now.) * I know, Commonwealth. Whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2021 15:23
|
|
|
zzyzx posted:
Ok, that is fascinating. I thought the majority suggested Castor was conspiring with the victim’s attorneys? Where are you finding these details about the civil case? Especially the bit about the substance of the court’s order to compel?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
Aw yeah there it isHeck Yes! Loam! posted:It likely took less than a day for this verdict to lead to additional terrible people thinking they too deserve to not face legal consequences. Free all the wealthy rapists and child traffickers bay-bee
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2021 23:42
|
|
|
I would love to read her reliance claim.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2021 02:01
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I would love to read her reliance claim. "Cosby's a rich celebrity and I supply to rich celebrities."
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2021 10:43
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Ok, that is fascinating. I thought the majority suggested Castor was conspiring with the victim’s attorneys? Where are you finding these details about the civil case? Especially the bit about the substance of the court’s order to compel? The opinions and briefs can be found here. Some relevant bits: majority opinion, p.13 posted:From the perspective of Cosby’s attorneys, the district attorney’s decision legally deprived Cosby of any right or ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, not once duringthe four depositions did Cosby invoke the Fifth Amendment or even mention it. During one deposition, Attorney Schmitt advised Cosby not to answer certain questions pertaining to Constand, but he did not specifically invoke the Fifth Amendment. majority opinion, p.24 posted:As noted, Ms. Constand’s civil attorneys also testified at the hearing. Dolores Troiani, Esq. testified that during the 2005 investigation, she had no contact with the District Attorney’s office and limited contact with the Cheltenham Police Department. Bebe Kivitz, Esq. testified that during the 2005 investigation she had limited contact with then-First Assistant District Attorney Ferman. The possibility of a civil suit was never discussed with anyone from the Commonwealth or anyone representing [Cosby] during the criminal investigation. At no time did anyone from Cheltenham Police, or the District Attorney’s Office, convey to Ms. Troiani, or Ms. Kivitz, that [Cosby] would never be prosecuted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2021 14:29
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:I hope he gets out of jail and then a week later just falls down a flight of stairs and loving dies What kind of dipshit decorum rule makes this post a moddable offense
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 04:40
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:What kind of dipshit decorum rule makes this post a moddable offense can't have the ladies getting too angry about another rapist going free in the metoo thread of all places, definitely needed some guy to stop by and remind me that's not allowed
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 07:23
|
|
|
Look you just can't say you hope a guy who raped 60 women dies in a tragic piano accident. It's just uncouth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 07:49
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:Look you just can't say you hope a guy who raped 60 women dies in a tragic piano accident. It's just uncouth. Ralph sees me post "I hope a safe falls on bill cosby making all his teeth pop out like piano keys and play a tune" and his monocle pops out and his top hat flaps open like a chimney so a bunch of steam can shoot out
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 08:00
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:What kind of dipshit decorum rule makes this post a moddable offense silicone thrills posted:Look you just can't say you hope a guy who raped 60 women dies in a tragic piano accident. It's just uncouth. I think it's more that this isn't meant to be a low-effort chat thread, and "shitposts" like the one that got probated are probatable. Maybe don't try to make a mountain out of every loving molehill?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 08:11
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I think it's more that this isn't meant to be a low-effort chat thread, and "shitposts" like the one that got probated are probatable. Seems like a lot of survivors in this thread have indicated what they wanted it to be and it's been ignored. But that's pretty par for the course with this whole subject, eh? Edit: I don't know a single survivor who wants to write a loving dissertation to back up every opinion they hold that amounts to "rape bad, stop raping, powerful people get away with rape, it needs to change" silicone thrills fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Jul 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 08:17
|
|
|
Hey so, can I talk about the drug-laden sexual violence I and my friends experienced in the Hollywod Hills in the early 2010s
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 08:27
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:Seems like a lot of survivors in this thread have indicated what they wanted it to be and it's been ignored. But that's pretty par for the course with this whole subject, eh? I understand your frustration. As someone who has contributed to this thread a fair amount, I say this with a great amount goodwill: I think there are probably more options than "shitpost" and "write a loving dissertation." At the end of the day, a thread like this is intended to be educational and therefore benefits from a high signal to noise ratio. People might come here to read and learn about rape culture and share and discuss latest developments with regards to powerful figures getting away with sexual harassment and assault, or even share their own experiences. Posting "I hope [rapist] falls down a flight of stairs and dies!" may be satisfying but it also doesn't add much value, which is why it got probated. It's not even a useful conversation starter because probably everyone here agrees with it!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 08:55
|
|
|
Okay so. Firstly: you're not a mod, so coming in here and explaining their decisions and then dictating to a couple of survivors how they should talk in the metoo thread is extremely condescending at best. I mean do you think I don't know it's not going to start a conversation or "add value"? Of course I loving do! I don't need yet another man to explain it to me as if I'm posting completely by accident! But this is where we talk about this awful, grueling poo poo that we all live with every day, and sometimes it's nice to just cut loose and say exactly what I mean in a thread that's nominally about it! wonder what I'll get for this one. 3 days maybe some plague rats fucked around with this message at 09:51 on Jul 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 09:37
|
|
|
I dunno if you can have more than one of each thread on the forums (it's possible on xenoforo, just saying...) but if so then you could have different styles of threads so everyone could talk like they wanted in one of them
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 11:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I understand your frustration. As someone who has contributed to this thread a fair amount, I say this with a great amount goodwill: I think there are probably more options than "shitpost" and "write a loving dissertation." Thank god someone is here to remind survivors how to express themselves appropriately so they add value to the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 13:40
|
|