That’s correct. Even if he said “yes I did it and I can’t believe the jury was stupid enough to acquit me,” he still can't be prosecuted for the same criminal act

That’s....not really accurate. Firstly, there was no “ruling” that he was not guilty; he was acquitted by a jury. Secondly, the evidence of the prior sexual history didn’t mean that he COULDN’T have raped her. The point of presenting the evidence was to argue that it was more likely that she consented to the sex…

His reply is really half-assed. On one hand, he seems to be trying to say that he didn’t realize then that what he was doing was rape, but that the evolving discussion of consent has shown him that it was. On the other hand, he still claims the sex was consensual, which seems to undercut any “learning” he might have…

He follows the recommendations of the probation officers. How the hell is he “incapable of objectively sentencing?”

I bet all of the black young men who get ridiculously harsh sentences because the judge is afraid of being pilloried in the press will really appreciate this victory.

“The 1st Amendment grants you the right to speak freely without prosecution.” Yes, that’s right. And what happens if you violate this law? You’re prosecuted. These laws might be constitutional as a reasonable time/place/manner restriction, but to act like there is no legitimate First Amendment issue raised by banning…

I’m really confused by this article. Did he get probation in exchange for a dismissal of the charges? Because it doesn’t look like there was a trial, but the article isn’t clear

There’s no chance the Court hears it then. Before a case gets to the Supreme Court, they have to have a trial in the district court. Then, the case will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit. Only after the Fifth Circuit makes its decision will the supremes hear it, assuming that 1) they grant cert and 2) the case doesn’t…

Ahhh gotcha. And yup, this guy seems like a giant piece of shit

So he says that he had consensual sex with 2 of the 3 women. Awesome, good for you. What about the third woman? Did he forget to give an alibi for her?

1) The judge doesn’t determine what happened

So everyone has already pointed out the blatant hypocrisy of telling women what to wear in the name of “feminism” better than I could. So can we talk about the fact that France has decided to ban the burkini EVEN THOUGH NOBODY ACTUALLY KNOWS WHAT A BURKINI IS.

Let's hope not, cause what you described sounds awfully close to being mentally unfit to stand trial

To be fair, I don’t think the quote was really about the fact that Cosby and his accusers aren’t friendly, but rather about the fact that communication and cordiality have apparently broken down between the prosecution and Cosby’s defense lawyers

Per the update: the DA denies saying that it was an issue that he was too drunk to know she wasn’t consenting, which is good because that’s completely wrong.

I took a look at the Iowa criminal code, and from what I can gather, he would have faced no more than 10 years if convicted of the original charge (it’s a Class C felony). Of course, as a first-time offender I suspect there’s a decent chance he wouldn’t get the full 10 years if convicted.

Well assuming they were able to gather enough evidence to create a good case (it takes more than sheer effort), it just seems weird to be angry that a plea bargain was offered considering that no matter how bad a crime is, a plea bargain will be offered

Defendant takes a plea deal, like 97% of all cases. Seriously, this isn't some patriarchal exception. Plea deals resolve almost every case

Part of me wants to think that he’s saying that Obama’s actions in Syria have led to the rise of ISIS. But no, he's probably just being an idiot

“the alleged assault described by Jane Doe No. 6 started with Cosby asking, ‘Do you like back rubs or belly rubs?’”