Cant believe howard stern lookn cac got him jammex
Not in Cosby’s case if the women complied to being drugged and giving up sleepy p*ssy. Besides, you need evidence for a rape conviction
She can consent to taking drugs, but she can't consent to having sex when she's passed out
A big thing I think people miss is quaaludes were a party drug back in the day.of course she can. She can consent to both before even showing up.... it’s implied... especially when you let it happen 4 or 10 times
I know it sounds crazy...but putting something in a girls drink wasnt seen as that bad back in the day...
...growing up I would see it all the time in tv shows and movies.
She can consent to taking drugs, but she can't consent to having sex when she's passed out
The problem is homie's in jail. No you can't convict someone on doing something legal just because it's illegal now. That's like convicting someone for holding slaves and or making them play the former slaves and their decendants reparations.Yeah I remember that era, revenge of the nerds type shyt.
Now shall we make a list of all the things that USED to be 'normal' that were dead ass wrong? The fact that Cosby was comfortable enough to do the 'spanish fly' bit, write about his fantasies and even go on Larry King with another geriatric, likely rapist himself and admit his fetish for slipping shyt in girl's drinks so nonchalantly is exactly what makes believe he's a fukking creep. He just comes from a time when that was acceptable, so if good ole, bastion of black morality Dr. Huxtable was outchea drugging bytches who knows what 'lesser' men were up to.
Still, he continued his bullshyt past the point where you could just write that off and not hold him accountable. I seen nikkas be like would you be mad at a caveman for beating a bytch over the head with a club?
Putting his (scumbag) behavior in proper context is one thing, trying to defend it looking back fondly on the 'good ole days' where rape and rape adjacent behavior was more acceptable like you miss it is another.
Please point out the difference. One says when the person engages in "penetration". The other says when the person engages in "sexual intercourse". The subsections that would apply to these allegations, Aggravated Indecent Assault (#5) and Rape (#4) are identical. The only possible difference I can see is that just saying penetration can mean a foreign object like a bottle while sexual intercourse would require a sexual organ. Maybe I'm overlooking it so please point it out.You may want to re read that if you don’t see a difference, and then ask yourself what evidence was there to prove rape