Roman Polanski, Hollywood, and Justice

[JD50]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Death. Polanski should fry.

He should be forced to do a remake of Harold and Maude.

Then he needs to rot in prison for a while.

To the posters trying to paint this is some kind of left/right deal: you're being silly.

I agree with you, however, it is only the liberal posters that try and minimize what the guy did. They're making the other liberals look bad.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Death. Polanski should fry.

He should be forced to do a remake of Harold and Maude.

Then he needs to rot in prison for a while.

To the posters trying to paint this is some kind of left/right deal: you're being silly.

I agree with you, however, it is only the liberal posters that try and minimize what the guy did. They're making the other liberals look bad.

You mean like how Sarah Palin makes all the right wingers look like they;re idiots also?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Patranus
Gotta love the Liberals in Hollywood.

Only a Liberal would think to set a man free who drugged a 13 year old girls, raped her while she was crying and screaming for him to stop, and then fled the country instead of facing justice.

Oh, but it was 30 years ago, and it wasn't that serious of a crime.........right........

Where are all of the womens groups on this one?!?!?

Well to be fair, lots of moron Republican supported Bush murdering thousands of people in an illegal war.

Also, I am more liberal than Hollywood by a country mile so they look like disgusting conservatives to me.

It wasn't murder-murder or illegal-illegal.

Good one :thumbsup:

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Patranus
Only a Liberal would think to set a man free who drugged a 13 year old girls, raped her while she was crying and screaming for him to stop,

There's no excuse for the crime Polanski ACTUALLY committed, but YOU are a lying, pathetic piece of shit. ALL of your posts include your contrary-to-fact embellishments.

Now: Please SHOW us where in the grand jury testimony the girl said she was "crying and screaming for him to stop?" Come on. I dare you.

Answer: She didn't. She was crying PRIVATELY, not in front of Polanski. She wasn't "crying for him to stop." She TOLD him (didn't "scream") "No." And she made up a story that she had asthma to try to get Polanski to stop.

Again, none of this remotely excuses what Polanski did. But YOU are garbage. You don't care about truth. You just care about trying to score points with lies. You are the quintessence of trolldom.

WTF is the difference? Does it make the guy any less of a monster because she didn't scream? Seriously, you're outrage over Patranus exaggerating the girls actions is a little strange.

The "difference" is that meaningful discussion is impossible with pathological liars. People who believe that "anything goes" in order to score debating points have no interest in truth or mutual understanding - they post entirely for their own ego gratification, and their participation in threads is destructive.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Patranus
Only a Liberal would think to set a man free who drugged a 13 year old girls, raped her while she was crying and screaming for him to stop,

There's no excuse for the crime Polanski ACTUALLY committed, but YOU are a lying, pathetic piece of shit. ALL of your posts include your contrary-to-fact embellishments.

Now: Please SHOW us where in the grand jury testimony the girl said she was "crying and screaming for him to stop?" Come on. I dare you.

Answer: She didn't. She was crying PRIVATELY, not in front of Polanski. She wasn't "crying for him to stop." She TOLD him (didn't "scream") "No." And she made up a story that she had asthma to try to get Polanski to stop.

Again, none of this remotely excuses what Polanski did. But YOU are garbage. You don't care about truth. You just care about trying to score points with lies. You are the quintessence of trolldom.

which at the time Polanski did not know it was a ruse. It was not until AFTER that it was determined she told him this to get him just to get him away from her.

So for all Polanski Knew he actually was forcing sex on a 13 year old Asthmatic child...which if you throw out all the "embellishments"...and focus on that one fact...makes Polanksi a much bigger piece of shit than Patranus and you a complete idiot for berating him and labeling him a piece of shit for his stretching the truth when the facts you so clearly pointed out are far worse.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: shira
The "difference" is that meaningful discussion is impossible with pathological liars. People who believe that "anything goes" in order to score debating points have no interest in truth or mutual understanding - they post entirely for their own ego gratification, and their participation in threads is destructive.

Welcome to the internet, hope your stay is a pleasant one

 

[Tom]

I consider myself moderate to liberal. I'm happy to pay taxes so the good people in our government can uphold our laws and administer justice.

Assuming the info I receive from the media is correct, I'm proud my country is working to bring Polanski back to serve his sentence.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Patranus
Only a Liberal would think to set a man free who drugged a 13 year old girls, raped her while she was crying and screaming for him to stop,

There's no excuse for the crime Polanski ACTUALLY committed, but YOU are a lying, pathetic piece of shit. ALL of your posts include your contrary-to-fact embellishments.

Now: Please SHOW us where in the grand jury testimony the girl said she was "crying and screaming for him to stop?" Come on. I dare you.

Answer: She didn't. She was crying PRIVATELY, not in front of Polanski. She wasn't "crying for him to stop." She TOLD him (didn't "scream") "No." And she made up a story that she had asthma to try to get Polanski to stop.

Again, none of this remotely excuses what Polanski did. But YOU are garbage. You don't care about truth. You just care about trying to score points with lies. You are the quintessence of trolldom.

which at the time Polanski did not know it was a ruse. It was not until AFTER that it was determined she told him this to get him just to get him away from her.

So for all Polanski Knew he actually was forcing sex on a 13 year old Asthmatic child...which if you throw out all the "embellishments"...and focus on that one fact...makes Polanksi a much bigger piece of shit than Patranus and you a complete idiot for berating him and labeling him a piece of shit for his stretching the truth when the facts you so clearly pointed out are far worse.

:thumbsup:


Remember that Polanski pleaded guilty to a lesser charge (sex with a minor) which was offered by the prosecution to avoid forcing the girl to take the stand. He fled only after he believed that his plea deal would collapse and the judge would put him in prison.

He now will be charged with Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution, which carries a sentence of up to five years and/or fines on top of any previously pending charges.

 

[alchemize]

There's really only two reasons to defend Polanksi:

a) You're in the very small minority of fucked up lefties who defend just about anything of "one of their own"
b) You're into child rape (real or fantasized) and would hate to see yourself in his shoes.

(and I think there are a couple that fall into a + b). Go back and read pedophile defending threads (namely the liberal SF radio host). You'll see the same posters in there.

 

[dguy6789]

Polanski and the victim settled out of court and the victim received an undisclosed amount of cash. The victim has also publicly called for the case to be dropped. Not that I agree with anything he did, but apparently he paid a price that satisfied the victim(Morally, that is all that ever need be done in a criminal case). Why punish him further?

 

[between]

...

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Polanski and the victim settled out of court and the victim received an undisclosed amount of cash. The victim has also publicly called for the case to be dropped. Not that I agree with anything he did, but apparently he paid a price that satisfied the victim(Morally, that is all that ever need be done in a criminal case). Why punish him further?

Uhh, he raped a 13 year old girl and then fled the country to avoid the consequences of his actions. How are you possibly defending this man?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Death. Polanski should fry.

He should be forced to do a remake of Harold and Maude.

Then he needs to rot in prison for a while.

To the posters trying to paint this is some kind of left/right deal: you're being silly.

I agree with you, however, it is only the liberal posters that try and minimize what the guy did. They're making the other liberals look bad.

You mean like how Sarah Palin makes all the right wingers look like they;re idiots also?

Yep, pretty much.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: between
Polanksi didn't admit to rape. He said he had a consensual sexual encounter with what turned out to be a 13 year old. I'd recommend people take a look at Roman Polanksi: Wanted & Desired. A great documentary in its own right, and it portrays a very sympathetic portrait of Polanksi. I came away from the documentary thinking he made the right decision to leave America. In a sense, it was what the judge was trying to force him to do. The judge was using an illegal manoeuvre - putting Polanksi under psychiatric observation for 90 days - because he knew he couldn't make a 90 day jail sentence stick. (It would have been lost on appeal - no-one seriously thought Polanski would get much if any jail time). Even the girl, and her parents, specifically requested in the courts that he not get jail time. It seemed like the judge was placing Polanski in an impossible legal position, in order to force him to leave the country (problem solved, and the judge doesn't have to suffer criticism in the media for handing out a light sentence or handing out a sentence that was easily appealed).

The documentary has a few shots of the girl from that time - she displays obvious secondary sexual characteristics - developing breasts, widened hips - she looks about 16. So it's not factually correct to call Polanski a pedophile. Polanksi acknowledges he's always had a thing for young-ish girls/ women. He was also in a relationship with Nastassja Kinski when she was 15. That relationship led to her becoming a huge star. It also didn't really attract much condemnation at the time. (There's obviously a disconnect between comptemporary American attitudes towards sex with teens, and the attitudes held by Europeans in the 1970s, as indicated by the calls for blood by morons in this thread.) So being a young girl, and getting fucked by Polanksi, was potentially an excellent career move. Perhaps that's why the mother dropped Samantha off with Polanksi, knowing full well his penchant for young women, and the kind of wild/ crazy life he led.

Interestingly, the victim, Samantha Geimer, makes the point that the aftermath of the abuse - the insensitive questioning by police, the botching of the trial by the judge, and the media attention - caused more damage than the abuse itself.

Overall, I am sympathetic to Polanksi, and I hope the Swiss come to their senses. He doesn't deserve jail time. People who refer to him as a pedophile are morons, and can be ignored.

I'll go with option B.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: between
Polanksi didn't admit to rape. He said he had a consensual sexual encounter with what turned out to be a 13 year old.

And the other party stated under grand jury testimony that he went down her without her consent and vaginally and anally penetrated her without her consent.

I'd recommend people take a look at Roman Polanksi: Wanted & Desired. A great documentary in its own right, and it portrays a very sympathetic portrait of Polanksi.

I'd recommend you do a little more digging and come to understand that the documentary is based off of several lies and gross exaggerations.

Even the girl, and her parents, specifically requested in the courts that he not get jail time. It seemed like the judge was placing Polanski in an impossible legal position, in order to force him to leave the country (problem solved, and the judge doesn't have to suffer criticism in the media for handing out a light sentence or handing out a sentence that was easily appealed).

Victims of rape often are so emotionally disturbed by the act that they do not what they're doing or side with their attacker.

The documentary has a few shots of the girl from that time - she displays obvious secondary sexual characteristics - developing breasts, widened hips - she looks about 16. So it's not factually correct to call Polanski a pedophile. Polanksi acknowledges he's always had a thing for young-ish girls/ women. He was also in a relationship with Nastassja Kinski when she was 15. That relationship led to her becoming a huge star. It also didn't really attract much condemnation at the time. (There's obviously a disconnect between comptemporary American attitudes towards sex with teens, and the attitudes held by Europeans in the 1970s, as indicated by the calls for blood by morons in this thread.) So being a young girl, and getting fucked by Polanksi, was potentially an excellent career move. Perhaps that's why the mother dropped Samantha off with Polanksi, knowing full well his penchant for young women, and the kind of wild/ crazy life he led.

She was taking photos with him, not agreeing to be his fuck buddy. As for your bolded part, the crime was committed in LA County in the United States of America, not in England, France, Russia, Italy, or Germany. Regardless of his countrymen's penchant for screwing young women and regardless of whether that sort of behavior is tolerated in those countries it is a crime here.

If it was such an excellent career move, why did she testify in front of a grand jury about the incident? If she was looking for career advancement through sex then she wouldn't suddenly come out and try and destroy Polanksi.

Interestingly, the victim, Samantha Geimer, makes the point that the aftermath of the abuse - the insensitive questioning by police, the botching of the trial by the judge, and the media attention - caused more damage than the abuse itself.

Overall, I am sympathetic to Polanksi, and I hope the Swiss come to their senses. He doesn't deserve jail time. People who refer to him as a pedophile are morons, and can be ignored.

The man fled the country to avoid sentencing. He plead guilty to a lesser crime. He is a fugitive from justice. Don't let your love of his movies or any other such nonsense blind you to the fact that the man has been a fugitive from justice for 30 years.

Did you stick up for the last Catholic Priest that fucked 12 year old altar boys? Why not? It's the same thing.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Polanski and the victim settled out of court and the victim received an undisclosed amount of cash. The victim has also publicly called for the case to be dropped. Not that I agree with anything he did, but apparently he paid a price that satisfied the victim(Morally, that is all that ever need be done in a criminal case). Why punish him further?

So basically as long as someone can afford to pay off the victim anything goes. Great.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Polanski and the victim settled out of court and the victim received an undisclosed amount of cash. The victim has also publicly called for the case to be dropped. Not that I agree with anything he did, but apparently he paid a price that satisfied the victim(Morally, that is all that ever need be done in a criminal case). Why punish him further?

So basically as long as someone can afford to pay off the victim anything goes. Great.

Polanski wronged a person. He made it up to the victim to the point where the victim is satisfied with the end result. Do you have a problem with this? No one is more important than the victim when it comes to justice. If the victim feels that justice has been served, then that is all that matters.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Polanski and the victim settled out of court and the victim received an undisclosed amount of cash. The victim has also publicly called for the case to be dropped. Not that I agree with anything he did, but apparently he paid a price that satisfied the victim(Morally, that is all that ever need be done in a criminal case). Why punish him further?

So basically as long as someone can afford to pay off the victim anything goes. Great.

Polanski wronged a person. He made it up to the victim to the point where the victim is satisfied with the end result. Do you have a problem with this?

Yes, because Polanski engaged in Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution. That's a crime in and of itself.

 

[dguy6789]

The fleeing is another crime entirely. I'm talking about his previous crime. Surely someone shouldn't be sentenced to death or life in prison for the crime of fleeing? Most people here are advocating punishing/torturing him for a crime that the victim already forgave him for.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
The fleeing is another crime entirely. I'm talking about his previous crime. Surely someone shouldn't be sentenced to death or life in prison for the crime of fleeing? Most people here are advocating punishing/torturing him for a crime that the victim already forgave him for.

Dude, he plead guilty to having sex with a minor and then fled the country. He's never paid any of his debt to society for his crime. Plus, the only reason the LA County prosecutor didn't go after him for rape was because he wanted to avoid putting the victim on the stand.

He was never sentenced for his previous crime, so to make it right he needs to be brought back here, charged with unlawful flight and then be sentenced for the original crime.

I don't see how being famous gets him a pass on any of these things.

 

[dguy6789]

I'm not saying he's innocent and I'm not saying he should get off because he's famous. I'm saying he harmed one person and him and that one person privately settled the issue to the point where both parties are satisfied and just want to drop the subject and move on with their lives. Yes he fled the country before being sentenced and should be punished for that, but IMO he already paid for his original crime so all he needs to pay for now is fleeing and nothing else. Whether the court formally sentenced him or not shouldn't matter because he did pay for his crime in one way or another(Being informal doesn't make it any less meaningful) and the victim is satisfied with the outcome.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: between
snip

Um, the details of the case were kept under wraps for along time, so many people were unaware of the circumstances and facts of the case. And prosecutor David Wells, admitted he had fabricated his detailed on-camera account of coaching a judge in the original case.

The documentary everyone has based their opinions is a fraud.

Shame on you for falling for it, and shame on you for being so damn ignorant about the age of consent in the various countries in Europe.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Polanski and the victim settled out of court and the victim received an undisclosed amount of cash. The victim has also publicly called for the case to be dropped. Not that I agree with anything he did, but apparently he paid a price that satisfied the victim(Morally, that is all that ever need be done in a criminal case). Why punish him further?

So basically as long as someone can afford to pay off the victim anything goes. Great.

Polanski wronged a person. He made it up to the victim to the point where the victim is satisfied with the end result. Do you have a problem with this? No one is more important than the victim when it comes to justice. If the victim feels that justice has been served, then that is all that matters.

Yes, I have a problem with this. You're basically saying that rich people can do whatever they want without any consequences as long as they pay a fine.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Polanski and the victim settled out of court and the victim received an undisclosed amount of cash. The victim has also publicly called for the case to be dropped. Not that I agree with anything he did, but apparently he paid a price that satisfied the victim(Morally, that is all that ever need be done in a criminal case). Why punish him further?

So basically as long as someone can afford to pay off the victim anything goes. Great.

Polanski wronged a person. He made it up to the victim to the point where the victim is satisfied with the end result. Do you have a problem with this? No one is more important than the victim when it comes to justice. If the victim feels that justice has been served, then that is all that matters.

Yes, I have a problem with this. You're basically saying that rich people can do whatever they want without any consequences as long as they pay a fine.

If the victim is okay with it, then why not? If the one and only victim of the crime is now content, then there is no longer a problem. If the victim decides that he has paid the price for the crime, then all is well. Everything else is just superfluous legal junk. I will argue that the victim feeling that justice is served is definitely more important than just punishing the criminal and ignoring the victim's feelings on the matter. A fine is definitely a valid form of punishment as well so it's not like he didn't lose anything.

Does the victim get to keep her money if he gets punished formally for the crime? Should he have to pay for one crime twice?

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Polanski and the victim settled out of court and the victim received an undisclosed amount of cash. The victim has also publicly called for the case to be dropped. Not that I agree with anything he did, but apparently he paid a price that satisfied the victim(Morally, that is all that ever need be done in a criminal case). Why punish him further?

So basically as long as someone can afford to pay off the victim anything goes. Great.

Polanski wronged a person. He made it up to the victim to the point where the victim is satisfied with the end result. Do you have a problem with this? No one is more important than the victim when it comes to justice. If the victim feels that justice has been served, then that is all that matters.

I have an enormous problem with that. What if my daughter is the next child he decides to fuck? There is no defending his actions, a grown man fucked a little girl and anyone that attempts to defend that is no better than he is. He's a pedophile, he needs to be locked away where he can't harm anymore kids.