Every time something is pushed on news is because of ratings. Kind of obvious by now.
I won't argue with that :) But usually there are some ethical guidelines, which the CNN producer didn't seem to take very seriously based on his comments in the video.
If you aren't guilty, you are innocent. There is no "guilty"/"not guilty" limbo. Cosby isn't being held in a cell somewhere in "limbo". He is free to do what he pleases, because he's currently seen as innocent in the eyes of the law.
And what has that got to do with anything?
You think everybody is guilty until handed a "not guilty" verdict.
Anyone who has lived in America for a day knows the law doesn't work that way lol.
You're taking a simple concept and complicating it because...?
Like I said, read what is being said before commenting. I said he wasn't given a non-guilty verdict. Which is a fact. Then some fools started saying "b-but innocent until proven guilty!"which I then pointed out is irrelevant since not having a not guilty verdict does not mean you're guilty. And then you come in and say the exact same fucking thing the other two people said. Do you honestly expect me to believe that you actually read the post you responded to? I refuse to believe that someone could read something so simple yet still not understand it.
You obviously came into this thread expecting people to be saying "Bill Cosby must hang!" and when you didn't see it you decided to post what you were going to say anyway.
Frankly you're a very sad little man.
You're getting very worked up merely arguing semantics. I'm just saying that your point of whether or not he received the technical verdict of "not guilty" is irrelevant. A mistrial is not a guilty verdict. That's the point that the user made. But for some reason you appear to be fixated on the semantics of what a user said instead of focusing on what he obviously meant.
Also, isn't there a rule against personal attacks on this board? Where are the mods?
Sounds like he's still innocent until he's proving guilty. The part where he is retrialed and potentially proven guilty, is when he loses his innocence. Not a moment before that.
And what has that got to do with anything anyone has said?
He did not get a not guilty verdict. What part of that don't you understand? I swear you people are coming into this thread just to post this rubbish regardless if it makes any sense within the context or not.
If you aren't guilty, you are innocent. There is no "guilty"/"not guilty" limbo. Cosby isn't being held in a cell somewhere in "limbo". He is free to do what he pleases, because he's currently seen as innocent in the eyes of the law.
And what has that got to do with anything?
You think everybody is guilty until handed a "not guilty" verdict.
Anyone who has lived in America for a day knows the law doesn't work that way lol.
You're taking a simple concept and complicating it because...?
He didn't get a not guilty verdict. It was a mistrial.
You clearly are not in tune with the american legal system.
You are INNOCENT until proven guilty so since there was not a guilty verdict, it means he is innocent.
Mistrials c an be retried. As for innocence...yeah that's a nice saying meaning you haven't been convicted but court decisions are guilty or not guilty....which does not mean innocent in any case. Just means they didn't have the evidence to find the individual guilty. They don't say they were innocent.
Sounds like he's still innocent until he's proving guilty. The part where he is retrialed and potentially proven guilty, is when he loses his innocence. Not a moment before that.
And what has that got to do with anything anyone has said?
He did not get a not guilty verdict. What part of that don't you understand? I swear you people are coming into this thread just to post this rubbish regardless if it makes any sense within the context or not.
If you aren't guilty, you are innocent. There is no "guilty"/"not guilty" limbo. Cosby isn't being held in a cell somewhere in "limbo". He is free to do what he pleases, because he's currently seen as innocent in the eyes of the law.
While he may have gotten a not guilty verdict I'm very doubtful of his innocence.
He didn't get a not guilty verdict. It was a mistrial.
You clearly are not in tune with the american legal system.
You are INNOCENT until proven guilty so since there was not a guilty verdict, it means he is innocent.
Mistrials c an be retried. As for innocence...yeah that's a nice saying meaning you haven't been convicted but court decisions are guilty or not guilty....which does not mean innocent in any case. Just means they didn't have the evidence to find the individual guilty. They don't say they were innocent.
Sounds like he's still innocent until he's proving guilty. The part where he is retrialed and potentially proven guilty, is when he loses his innocence. Not a moment before that.
[QUOTE="Findacity33"]First of all...the first Exorcist scared me to death. I couldn't sleep for days and I promised never to watch it again...now I hear about this Exorcism of Emily Rose and finally pushed myself to watch it.
Holy crap...sooooo freaky! Does anyone know if this is based ona true story? Anyone see it?
fat_rob
Me, I always found the Exorcist movies kind of funny so hopefully the new one will be hilarious
Who are you trying to impress? There's something wrong with you if you found The Exorcist('73) funny...... Not really:|, the scene with her stabbing herself with the cross screaming "Jesus **** Me" was hillarious, and the random insluts like "Your mother sucks cocks in Hell" were funny too. I really don't know how people find that movie scary....:|
"Based On a True Story" doesn't mean 100% of the content found in the movie is true. It is HARDLYbased on a true story. I am speaking 5%. Maybe the name of the girl, and they *believed* she was possessed by a demon. It is like thinking "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was really based on a true story. There are no cannibals in texas that cannibalized or slaughtered stoners passing through.
Log in to comment