But we must find a balance, trust but verify as they say, we cannot take accusations at face value because of all the cases which have been proven as false over the years, Tawana, Kern County, McMartin, Duke State, the Rolling Stone case.
I did state otherwise https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/.../bill-cosby...accusers/555144002/
Unfair although a ring of truth to it, we need to be someone between Olivia Benson and Johnny Cochrane.
But all this is still conjecture, all they say is they were drinking, felt unwell/blacked out and then had sex. One even claims she was repeatedly drug raped, as though she kept going back for more?
13 women accused him, and he admitted on tape that as a celebrity he would grab women by the "pu**y". https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript
If drunken consent is still consent, then child consent is still consent. This I agree partly with. However, the evidence to prosecute is less than that to convict. So proceeding with a trial, especially if you might be able to get the attacker to slip and admit what they did (note I am not assigning any specific gender to the two roles) is not a bad thing. We just need to make the convicting evidence be held to the same standard as any other trial.
They didn't stop him, but that means nothing. "And they let me". Who are you kidding? Guarantee you that none of them liked that, celebrity or house painter or the man in the moon. Shock was more like it, and you Trump supporters just keep twisting and turning.
Mate you sound like a right paedophile, i wouldn't let my kids anywhere near you. People shouldn't be considering having sex with children and doing so is illegal. Its sick and so are you for comparing it too ****ing kids if they consent. The whole thread is about if an adult is intoxicated they are still accountable for their actions. An adult being drunk and wanting/having to have sex with someone is not the same as ****ing a child because they said "ok". You disgust me if you think an intoxicated adult consenting is the same as a child consenting. You sick ****
No because a child/mentally ill/mentally handicapped person can never consent. If a person takes alcohol and drugs and then has sex they would not have had without their affects that is not rape, it's only rape if they've taken so much they are incapable of consenting. The rub of course is if the other person has also taken drugs and alcohol we still expect them to be fully aware of the other person's capability to consent. You also cannot have prosecutions in the hope the other person will slip up, that's 'SVU logic', especially when trials are so expensive, the police are overwhelmed with cases (a 2% conviction rate!) and even a trial where the accused is found innocent can ruin their life.
You don't know that, look at Karen McDougal, this gorgeous Playboy model who had consensual sex with Trump. If she did, why not others? No one has made credible allegations against Trump (or Bill) so they must be considered innocent until proven guilty. I think we can put his 'grab them by the kitty' remark as either just locker room boasting/bull, that they consented or he was just making a cruder version of Kissinger's 'power is an aphrodisiac' remark. If he had actually assaulted anyone I'm sure they would have come forward by now.
She had an affair with Trump. There are credible allegations and they can't be proven. 13 women? I guess that Cosby is also innocent.
If they can't be proven then they're not credible plus as POTUS Trump is a lightning rod for such accusations much as Kavanuagh was. Plus if a fox like McDougal consented to have sex with Trump why not other women? I mean look at Melania? As for Cosby, yes, very possibly, given the behaviour of the trial judge I fully expect him to be cleared on appeal.