OP
This shouldn't have had to go to their Supreme Court. It shouldn't have lasted the first trial. But my understanding is politics got involved and like him or not Cosby got railroaded.
Bill Cosby to be released (conviction overturned)
- Thread starter Apparition
- Start date
Brianj5600
TJ Expert
The shady part for me is that Castor must have known there were other victims or Castor would not have given such a far reaching plea deal.
Brianj5600
TJ Expert
We are having two different conversations. Your talking about law, which I begrudgingly agree with his release.
I'm saying we should not be making jokes about this.
Brianj5600
TJ Expert
Are you saying that if he was acquitted criminally the victim could not file a civil suit?
OP
So Castor made the agreement in order to speed up settlement in a civil suit which was settled in 2006. Then 12 years later it turned into criminal suit. The early 2000's definitely wasn't the #METOO movement either.
"Cosby’s team called Castor as a witness, and Castor claimed there was just such a secret deal in place, despite there having been no mention of it in his news release announcing his decision.
“Mr. Cosby was not getting prosecuted at all — ever — as far as I was concerned,” Castor said. “My belief was that I had the power to make such a statement.”
Castor added: “I made a judgment as the sovereign representing the commonwealth not to prosecute Cosby. I was the only person in Pennsylvania who had the power to make that decision, and I made it.”
Castor explained that he made the decision so that Cosby couldn’t plead the Fifth Amendment in a civil case brought by the woman, Andrea Constand, which was ultimately settled in 2006.
Cosby’s team used the supposed agreement in failed attempts to get the later criminal case dismissed and to argue that Cosby’s deposition in that civil case couldn’t be used at trial."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...or-played-central-role-bill-cosby-going-free/
"Cosby’s team called Castor as a witness, and Castor claimed there was just such a secret deal in place, despite there having been no mention of it in his news release announcing his decision.
“Mr. Cosby was not getting prosecuted at all — ever — as far as I was concerned,” Castor said. “My belief was that I had the power to make such a statement.”
Castor added: “I made a judgment as the sovereign representing the commonwealth not to prosecute Cosby. I was the only person in Pennsylvania who had the power to make that decision, and I made it.”
Castor explained that he made the decision so that Cosby couldn’t plead the Fifth Amendment in a civil case brought by the woman, Andrea Constand, which was ultimately settled in 2006.
Cosby’s team used the supposed agreement in failed attempts to get the later criminal case dismissed and to argue that Cosby’s deposition in that civil case couldn’t be used at trial."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...or-played-central-role-bill-cosby-going-free/
OP
Another asshole who didn't get a fair shake.
Brianj5600
TJ Expert
I am not a fan of police being judge, jury and executioner. Too many people are being killed while handcuffed. The "oops" defense has to end.
Last edited:
OP
I'm not a fan of jurors showing up to a courthouse with military equipment outside in order to contain the protestors. Seems like a tainted approach from the get go. Nor jurors receiving threats.
I'm not saying anything about if Chauvin is guilty or not.
There are far more police being murdered than alleged criminals, it's up 40% this year from last. Nobody seems to care about those numbers though.
I believe two things are true. Chauvin didn't kill Floyd and Floyd would have been alive for some measurable amount of time after that particular interaction with the police were it not for that interaction. That and while Chauvin's sentence was dramatic overkill, he did not deserve to continue as a policeman.
The problem with that is proving intent. While Chauvin is a supreme fucktard, the only intent he had was apathy.
It took no time at all to find the government's constitutional violation. Defense counsel was screaming about it like stuck pigs at both trails.
It is not unusual for a criminal case to take three years to wind its way through a state's intermediate appellate courts to a state's supreme court. It frequently takes longer. Look at the dates of U.S. Supreme Court opinions and how many years earlier the actual incidents occurred. Many of those cases started in state courts and only moved into the federal system years later after all state court remedies were exhausted.
Things are better than they used to be, and far better than the British legal system of the 19th Century, the snail's pace of which is famously characterized in Charles Dickens's Bleak House,
“Jarndyce and Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least, but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises. Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties in Jarndyce and Jarndyce without knowing how or why; whole families have inherited legendary hatreds with the suit. The little plaintiff or defendant who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world. Fair wards of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a long procession of Chancellors has come in and gone out; the legion of bills in the suit have been transformed into mere bills of mortality; there are not three Jarndyces left upon the earth perhaps since old Tom Jarndyce in despair blew his brains out at a coffee-house in Chancery Lane; but Jarndyce and Jarndyce still drags its dreary length before the court, perennially hopeless.”
Last edited:
Brianj5600
TJ Expert
What is the answer to reducing the numbers of police being killed?
Universal background checks?
Ronald Greene is back in the news and that isn't helping the dearh of police.
OP
Universal background checks accomplish nothing.
It's evident that in the last few years criminals have been emboldened with respect to police. It would take societal change to correct these issues and people are unwilling to go that route as government is our only true savior now.
What is the answer to reducing the numbers of police being killed?
Step #1 People stop shooting or stabbing them to death.
Step#2 Repeat
Step #1 People stop shooting or stabbing them to death.
Step#2 Repeat
What exactly is a 'universal background check' and how is it different from the process that starts when one fills out a 4473 at a gun counter?
Yea what does that mean????? perhaps they are implying you must get one for gifting or something. Like grandpa needs to get a Background check on Johnny to make sure he isnt a psycho before he gives him the ole 410?
I have a feeling someone looking to shoot a cop isn't going to worry too much about background checks, universal or otherwise, when they go looking for a gun.
Unless u go to buy one and you cant pass it and your worried about being caught on video which could be used in court. BESIDES THAT ONE. nothing. Crazy is as crazy do
OP
You ever hear of anybody prosecuted for failing a background check?
Rarely hear of anybody doing something they shouldn't with a gun that didn't pass a background check or obtain it illegally to begin with.