He's 100% blind. No matter he's out there's not much joy in his future life. As much as I hate all the shit he pulled, I'm glad the over jealous prosecutors where caught.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Let's not forget why they went after him so hard and were determined to shut him up and see him die in prison.

It was this and the many other times he pointed the finger at black people themselves and they could not have that if the victim culture industry was to continue:

Link

+1

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Let's not forget why they went after him so hard and were determined to shut him up and see him die in prison.

It was this and the many other times he pointed the finger at black people themselves and they could not have that if the victim culture industry was to continue:

Link

+1

Stow the conspiracy theories. No powerful people (who would these people be anyway?) ordered Cosby prosecuted to silence his critiques. What is your actual, direct evidence of this. Not "It stands to reason . . . " but actual evidence.

These were overzealous prosecutors (and maybe cops) who wanted to make a name and career for themselves by prosecuting a high profile case. If they hadn't cheated, they would have done that. But they did cheat and deprived a man of his rights. I hope their careers are ruined, but I bet they won't be.

And their blunders or trickery allowed an probably guilty man to escape justice.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jhe888,

quote:

These were overzealous prosecutors (and maybe cops) who wanted to make a name and career for themselves by prosecuting a high profile case. If they hadn't cheated, they would have done that. But they did cheat and deprived a man of his rights. I hope their careers are ruined, but I bet they won't be.

This is the topic that should be the top of the news cycle, government attorneys knowingly violated the constitutional rights of a citizen.

Cosby should be relegated to nothing in the stories other than being the victim, but the real story should be reporters investigating the heck out of this prosecutors cases, the state of PA should suspend his license to practice and fire him and his staff.

Every case he's prosecuted or negotiated a plea on needs to be investigated, PA should pay a big price for having this man on staff.

Nationwide people should be outraged that governments may have been violating rights


But it won't, they just continue to make it about Cosby getting out as the story.

I wonder if he can be prosecuted for molesting and raping the dozens of other women who spoke out about his abuse. Hopefully there are some cases where the statute of limitations hasn't expired.

Just leave him alone

I've NEVER understood why and how prosecutors are allowed to so freely break legal rules and laws governing their work without consequences.

JHE, or someone, how is this so easily done on a regular basis ? I understand unethical and evil behavior, but I don't understand how they so easily get away with it when it is out there for everyone in the legal professions to see and observe in real time.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Just leave him alone

Ditto on that. Maybe those ladies knew what they were doing or not, maybe he is a perv or not, but his wife apparently still loves him, he did the time, and he's 88 years old.

Oftentimes it's best to just leave be.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
I've NEVER understood why and how prosecutors are allowed to so freely break legal rules and laws governing their work without consequences.

Qualified immunity.

had a guy here in S.C. who one night had a drunk belligerent guy who had been threatening him and others start walking toward him at night and reaching inside his coat and shouted I got something for you MFer... the guy, Jason Dickie, drew his pistol aimed and fired killing the guy. It was later determined that the belligerent guy had a bottle of liquor in his coat pocket... Dickie was tried and convicted and sentenced.... we members of S.C. Grassroots donated to his appeal and he got a good lawyer to do this... the S.C. Supreme Court ruled 4-1 that not only should he not have been convicted... it should have not even gone to court and the judge should have thrown it out the first day.... Prosecutor and judge still have their jobs.... and our State Attorney General who appealed the Supreme Courts ruling and caused Dickie to remain in prison for another 30 days still has his job too....

There, its been covered. Crooked lawyers/prosecutors and don't forget judges. It takes lots of rotten apples to ruin our judicial system. Seems like we've got them. Unusually good advice from Para. Just leave him alone.

quote:

Originally posted by Edmond:

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
I've NEVER understood why and how prosecutors are allowed to so freely break legal rules and laws governing their work without consequences.

Qualified immunity.

I don't know that is true for prosecutors that there are many immunities. There are some. It is more true for judges. And the concept of qualified immunity is a criminal concept. The prosecutor's conduct is generally not criminal, unless truly extreme. There is an argument that maybe some conduct that isn't currently criminal ought to be, once it crosses some line.

I think there is a reluctance on the part of state bars (or whatever the body is that governs lawyer discipline in any given state) to go after prosecutors. Private litigants will file grievances against lawyers, and the disciplinary boards will follow up. I think they are more timid with prosecutors. Of course, a lot of complaints are brought by convicted people, so there would be A LOT of bullshit grievances. But even when they are valid, there is a reluctance to discipline prosecutors - i.e. reprimands, suspensions and disbarments.

But also remember, the news reports these things as cut and dried, and sometimes the rules are not as clear and the conduct is more ambiguous than the news report makes it seem. So, there may be cases that seem to be sanctionable, which are a lot closer to the line than they seem at first glance.

Cosby drugged and raped women for decades. When they complained, he paid them off in exchange for silence. But that doesn't excuse misconduct from the prosecution. Too bad they couldn't stay within the lines, but I'd rather let him go than permit his constitutional rights to be infringed. The right to not have to incriminate oneself is one of the biggies.

quote:

Originally posted by Edmond:

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
I've NEVER understood why and how prosecutors are allowed to so freely break legal rules and laws governing their work without consequences.

Qualified immunity.

QI has little to do with it. If an official acts reasonably, acts in good faith, and doesn't violate an established constitutional right, qualified immunity will likely attach. Malfeasance is NEVER protected by qualified immunity doctrines.

Why they do it, and why they get away with it, has much more to do with the electorate tolerating it, and ethics bodies (like the appropriate state bars) not sanctioning it.

And THAT'S what people don't understand about qualified immunity, especially those that think it protects bad cops that commit criminal acts. It doesn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog7972:
And THAT'S what people don't understand about qualified immunity, especially those that think it protects bad cops that commit criminal acts. It doesn't.

The problem with QI for cops is that the standard the courts have developed for determining whether a cop acted reasonably and in good faith measures the cops conduct subjectively from the point of view of the cop and measures it only as of the very instant in time that the cop acts. It almost completely ignores context, or anything that happened before the cop acted.

I understand the appeal of that in these situations as cops do have to make quick decisions. But, as a practical matter, the test has turned out to be an almost impenetrable shield protected all but a very few actions taken by cops. It seems to me that the subjective nature of the test is the main problem, but being able to tell a jury that it must exclude most context and focus on only the moment of action is also a big advantage to cop defendants.

OK, that's been thoroughly covered. Let's move on.