Bill Cosby Rape Accusations

Then go ahead and explain it to me.

 

You need to re-read it (differently). It was a complete thought.

 

I've read it alright. And my response question to him still stands - is he implying that a quaalude's effect vs a roofie's effect, is very different?..analogizing that quaaludes is weed equivalent, and roofies is crack?
If so then that's absolute bullshit. Both are strong sedatives and serve similar purposes when used nefariously.

 

"Some people obviously don't know the difference between quaaludes and a drug like roofies. No one takes roofies before a party.

On the other hand.....

You still have ignorant ass people saying stuff like "someone who smokes marijuana could kill a cop" Trying to put that on the same level as crack and meth.....yawn."

Maybe it would have helped if he spaced it differently.

This is how I read it:

People took ludes for recreation....on their own. I don't think people took roofies in the same way (I could be wrong. And maybe they do have similar effects - IDK, but one is known to be for malicious intent and the other was a "fun drug" of that time. That's my interpretation).

(next sentence/thought) On the other hand... there are still people saying things like someone smoking pot can kill a cop and equating it to someone on crack or meth. (which simply won't happen....the effects of pot smoking is not the same as someone taking meth or crack)

 

Or perhaps he shouldn't have worded it as "Some people obviously don't know the difference between quaaludes and a drug like roofies. No one takes roofies before a party. "

I'm assuming Beasty wrote that in response to Cosby's deposition. He appears to make the judgement that these women willingly took quaaludes, since "thats what (some) people did before parties".
Forgetting however, that assaults were initiated in restaurants, cars, and homes.

Fact is, both drugs act as a sedative, affecting the central nervous system, and quaaludes can zombify you just like roofies.
Additionally, roofies are sometimes used as a party drug - people use prescription drugs for every occasion not intended.
It's ignorant to suggest quaaludes has no detrimental effect when given to a person unaware of ingesting them.

And even if they were aware, it could have been to zone out, not invite a perv to stick his dick in your mouth because you were comatose.

It makes me sick to think that just because one might indulge in a drug for recreational purposes, it somehow invites sexual activity, or absolves any sexual violations.

 

Maybe he should have, or not. He didn't.

Things don't always get read the way they were written or intended.

As for the rest...that's quite a lot of assumption based on those couple of sentences.

In my opinion, people need to be responsible for their actions. I'm not saying that if you are out partying you are inviting someone attack you...not at all. Nor does someone being drunk/high absolve predators. I do think people need to be aware of what they are doing and their surroundings, don't purposely put yourself in bad situations.

One of the problems I see with these things is that people want to make things concrete and they just aren't. Each case is different.

 

Also, while I am glad that things changed and things such as date rape, etc came out and were taken seriously, the idea that any accusation makes for a guilty predator just doesn't fly with me.

It seems to me that some will blindly believe certain cases and not others. I don't quite get that. But, I've been seeing it all over the place.

 

Here is the actual video clip: https://twitter.com/TheShadeRoom/status/878004545070092288

 

Why though. Ive seen it already.
I posted it in my original post...did you not see it?
http://m.wbrc.com/myfoxal/db_345268/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=9hbQo9FI

You hound me for links and don't even look at them?, lmao. Grrr.

 

Aaand this is exactly why l asked him for clarity - several times. But he got snobby and arrogant (chew my food, FOH), then you stepped in to speak for him, offered up your interpretation after being asked essentially twice to explain.
I asked in order to avoid making assumptions on what he meant. So yes, interpretation will enter as a result.

 

Looks like this story is a spinjob from the MSM & that particular juror. Here is a few notes I took from YouTubers who did their own research:

• The Guardian reported that 2 Cosby trial jurors had spoken to the AP & TV station WXPI. These 2 jurors revealed over the course of the deliberation they took several votes on Cosby's guilt or innocence & that 10-2 split was just 1 of many votes that were taken & the majority of votes were split either 5-7 or 6-6.

• These jurors doubted the accuser's story because she waited so long to do anything about it.

• TV station WTAE spoke to 1 of these jurors & this man said a retrial would be "a waste of money".

• 1 of the jurors said they were concerned with how blatantly political this entire prosecution was. "I think they created this whole thing, a case that was settled in 2005 & we had to bring it up again in 2017 without no new evidence"

• The MSM talking to an alternate juror seems like a desperation move because not enough of the actual jurors are saying what they wanted to hear.

• The alternate juror NEVER said he would've convicted. He said he would've probably convicted. Keyword "Probably", which shows he had doubt.

• The headlines about 2 holdout jurors definitely gotta be a dog whistle to demonize the 2 black jurors even though we know the votes were mostly split 6-6.

• The Judge's wife is a Rape Counselor at 1 of the PA colleges. She runs a Rape center facility. This is conflict of interest because She's likely part of 1 of these feminist groups. Historically feminist groups have always used Black Men as boogeymen to get funding, resources, & facilities (especially in the 1970's during integration when black folks were moving into the city & in the 1990's with O.J. Simpson as their Boogeymen). The Judge's wife would've definitely benefited from a Cosby conviction.

 

Read that on the daily mail yesterday. ( not the last two paragraphs though)
And here was the discussion - To those jurors who doubted her story because she waited a year to come forward, remember the following day she called her mother hysterical and told her what happened. Her mother confronted Bill, demanded to know what he gave her, and recorded the second phone call since Bill attempted to convince her mom that her daughter even had an orgasm. "Come on Mom, she loooved it"

Going to the police a year later does not constitute "doubt".
I promise you, again, there are people- females and males - in your life that have been sexually violated in extreme fashions who have never gone to the police and some have never even breathed a word of it.
Police reports don't validate a sexual assault's occurance nor does a lack of one invalidate it.

 

geeze

aaaaaaaaaaaand he answered you.

I simply said that I understood what he said, and then YOU asked me to explain it...so I gave my take on it. Which still may or may not be correct

What's the point in going out of your way to be difficult and stir shit.

 

Bull. You actually replied.."re-read it" as if it was clear as day. Finally, then you offered your interpretation once l began offering mine..

Don't accuse me of "stirring shit" when he made the initial shit-stirring comment, and l merely asked for clarity out of respect.Your repeated dismissiveness of opposing opinions is palpable when it comes to jumping in to speak for him, which you do often.
Don't also tell me "aaaaaaaaaaand he answered you"
when his "answer" was:
"Yeah. Everything causes affect. Maybe I'm somewhat addicted to caffeine. I guess that puts me in the category of a meth smoking bath salts zombie. Lol."

That, to you, is clarity on quualudes vs roofies? Geeeze, spare me.

 

why do you get so upset about such stupid shit?

 

Stupid shit? You do that a lot, K. No matter the topic, if people are having spirited debates or conversations or difference of opinions, you always inevitably post, "who cares" "why do you care" "why are we discussing this?" and now it's "stupid shit".

How about if YOU don't care, don't comment. Simple. This is a forum. You have no problem writing passionately for paragraphs about things YOU care about but you constantly dismiss and gaslight others when you have no interest. Stop it.

 

Here's some more to add..

• Juror said he found it hard to believe alleged victim Andrea Constand given she willingly went to Bill Cosby's home when the alleged sexual assault occurred in 2014
• The juror said: 'She was well-coached. Let's face it: She went up to his house with a bare midriff and incense and bath salts. What the heck?'

SMH.

 

Amusing....you seem to really think you have some sort of control over how people write things and what they want to reply to. How about you stop trying to control what and how people say things. BTW my comment regarding "stupid shit" was just that - you want to tell someone how to say things and what to say such as with Beasty and with me.

In regards to me....no, when I have no interest I don't comment. You may be surprised to learn that often times I don't comment on things I very much care about because it's really not going to make any difference.

Don't worry, I know you have to have the last word and you will.

 

They need to give this crap up. Bill won't be found guilty in my opinion. All you need is one person to say not guilty......

 

More patronizing from you. I ask Beasty for clarity out of respect, he dodges it, you stick your nose in and try to take control and take over, and you can't even see it. You're a piece of work. F.O.