Even though Bill Cosby was found guilty on three counts of Sexual Assault, there are four major holes in the case that I want to see filled or at least acknowledged:
- The presumption of Cosby’s guilt through society’s feminist lens BEFORE the trial (a tainted jury)
- The assumption that Bill Cosby wasn’t intoxicated himself
- The acknowledgement that a Feminist definition of ‘Consent’ is being used in court
- There was no actual physical proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that Cosby had intent of raping anyone
THE PRESUMPTION OF GUILT
Feminist society has been pushing for a rule that all accusers of rape should be automatically believed. This not only goes against a person’s right to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty, but creates a sure path to being found guilty (even if innocent). It creates an opening for mob-mentality and swift fact-less judgements. I believe Bill Cosby was a victim of this and was falsely found guilty based on the words of alleged victims. When anyone who makes an accusation is believed, it distorts a jury’s outlook on the entire case from the beginning. Causing them to assume anyone accusing an alleged perpetrator as telling the truth. In the past it has led women to their deaths, and black men to being lynched. The presumption of guilt in the accused leads to injustice all around.
ASSUMING HE WAS SOBER HIMSELF
Bill Cosby acknowledges that he gave drugs to his alleged victims. However, if we were to find out that he also took intoxicants along with these women, it could change the entire case. Why? Because this is all based upon the accuser’s consent. If he were just as intoxicated as the women making the accusations, why is he to be held account for his actions and she not? If this is the case, standards are completely biased. It could possibly be the accuser’s undoing.
FEMINIST VERSION OF CONSENT
Consent to feminists is different from what normal people would consider consent. Saying ‘yes’ while intoxicated isn’t considered consent, that is if you’re a female it’s not. Even if a woman with informed consent takes a pill that intoxicates her (like in Cosby’s case) then gets undressed by herself, and willingly hops on his dick.. she technically didn’t consent to the penetration because she was intoxicated. Even though that intoxication was consented to. The funny thing about Feminists’ version of consent, is that even if both parties are intoxicated, they still consider the man a perpetrator. Even if a person does consent, Feminists believe that if a woman regrets her actions, they could consider it rape.
NO PROOF BESIDES TESTIMONY
There is no proof, besides the testimony of these women. The assumption that all these women are telling the truth is part of feminist culture. People will ask, “What’s their motivation to lie?”. The reality is, what is their motive to lie? We don’t know the backgrounds of these people. There are plenty of motivations to lie, whether it’s for the attention they get when people feel sympathy for them, they didn’t like him, they thought he was guilty and wanted to shut him down, or tried to get money out of him by not talking. Just because testimony takes place under oath, doesn’t make it true. Just because there are tears shed, doesn’t mean they aren’t faked. And with the jury largely being tainted to the presumption of guilt, it created a bias as to whose story to believe. It was word against word.
I know for a fact that feminist women will fake stories, having been a radical feminist from 2008-2012 and literally HEARING women conspire against some men. Sometimes to make others mutually angry at the same person, getting attention, or trying to get money out of a famous person. It’s not unusual for radical women to do this. This is why radical feminism HURTS women! Is it possible that Cosby is a predator? Yes, absolutely, but is it JUST as possible that he is nothing more than an innocent man caught up in radical feminist culture? TOTALLY!