Libtard Finally Admits to Raping A Child...Then Declares The Matter Is OVER...Because He Says So.

[JoeB131]

No- you are sorry that Roman Polanski didn't get away with rape scott free.

Like so many assholes you attack the victim- a 13 year old girl- rather than the 40 year old man who lured her in, fed her drugs and raped her.

Please stay away from women- for their sake.

He did get away Scott Free... from a bullshit charge brought by crooked prosecutors. The rest of us, however, could be subjected to this kind of state abuse at any time,and that's the problem.

It was rape, no matter what fantasy you have to the contrary.

Except even the so called victim doesn't think so. Of course, if Roman is in jail, little Grifter can't extort any more money out of him.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Okay, you have come down on the side of pedophiles. Are you Hispanic?

Now we know.

Wow, so in addition to your sexual hangups, you are also racist.
Figures.

No I just figured you were like this guy.

Illegal immigrant breaks into NJ home, rapes 6-year-old girl, police say

An illegal immigrant in New Jersey is accused of raping a 6-year-old girl then jumping out of a second-floor window after her father walked in during the assault, police said.

Edgar Mendoza, 32, is accused of breaking into a Trenton, N.J. home at about 1:30 a.m. on Sept. 19 and molesting a 6-year-old girl while she was in bed, according to the Trentonian.

Hispanics generally have different ideas about the age at which little girls can have sex and you generally agree with that. Is 6 an acceptable age? It's quite telling that you find someone who objects to sex with minors as having "sexual hangups". In your mind do ALL normal men want to have sex with little girls? That is what Roman Polanski thought. In his mind, the Judge and the jurors want to have sex with little girls and that one statement might be just what convinced the judge that this man is a danger to others. And he is you know. If you think that all men have a desire to have sex with little girls, then you need to be locked up. You're dangerous.

And I say this as a woman who DID take my first lover at 13 year old.

 

[hadit]

No- you are sorry that Roman Polanski didn't get away with rape scott free.

Like so many assholes you attack the victim- a 13 year old girl- rather than the 40 year old man who lured her in, fed her drugs and raped her.

Please stay away from women- for their sake.

He did get away Scott Free... from a bullshit charge brought by crooked prosecutors. The rest of us, however, could be subjected to this kind of state abuse at any time,and that's the problem.

It was rape, no matter what fantasy you have to the contrary.

Except even the so called victim doesn't think so. Of course, if Roman is in jail, little Grifter can't extort any more money out of him.

Polanski pleaded guilty. Did you miss that part? She said no. Did you miss that part? She was 13. Did you miss that part? Seriously, if you can't condemn what he did, there's no more to be said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Syriusly]

No- you are sorry that Roman Polanski didn't get away with rape scott free.

Like so many assholes you attack the victim- a 13 year old girl- rather than the 40 year old man who lured her in, fed her drugs and raped her.

Please stay away from women- for their sake.

He did get away Scott Free... from a bullshit charge brought by crooked prosecutors. The rest of us, however, could be subjected to this kind of state abuse at any time,and that's the problem..

Actually- as long as you;
a) don't give drugs to a 13 year old and
b) don't rape a 13 year old and
c) don't sodomize a 13 year old

You don't have to worry about 'this kind of state abuse'- at any time.

The problem is with assholes like you who treat the victims of rape- as the villains- while the middle age men that rape them- as heroes.

 

[Syriusly]

Except even the so called victim doesn't think so. Of course, if Roman is in jail, little Grifter can't extort any more money out of him.

And by 'extort' you mean suing him for drugging, raping and sodomizing her as an underage minor.

 

[JoeB131]

Hispanics generally have different ideas about the age at which little girls can have sex and you generally agree with that. Is 6 an acceptable age? It's quite telling that you find someone who objects to sex with minors as having "sexual hangups". In your mind do ALL normal men want to have sex with little girls? That is what Roman Polanski thought. In his mind, the Judge and the jurors want to have sex with little girls and that one statement might be just what convinced the judge that this man is a danger to others. And he is you know. If you think that all men have a desire to have sex with little girls, then you need to be locked up. You're dangerous.

And I say this as a woman who DID take my first lover at 13 year old.

so I'm a bit confused... you had your first sexual encounter at 13, but you think this woman was victimized and Hispanics are all evil for some reason.

No, I don't think a guy who wants to have sex with women outside his own age group to be "normal", but I also don't think it's criminal. This is what you don't get, for whatever reason.

Of, for the record, the judge who tried Polanski Case has a girlfriend who as 30 years younger than he was. So maybe Roman had a point. I couldn't see myself dating a woman in her 20's, I have ties older than that.

But maybe the problem was that this judge had some serious hangups if he was dating a woman that much younger than himself.

And by 'extort' you mean suing him for drugging, raping and sodomizing her as an underage minor.

No, I mean exactly what I said. Now, if you want to keep mischaracterizing this encounter, goody for you.

Seriously, does anyone really say "Sodomizing" anymore? Hey,did you hear, the Sodomy Laws were all struck off the books! Lawrence v. Texas, look it up.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually- as long as you;
a) don't give drugs to a 13 year old and
b) don't rape a 13 year old and
c) don't sodomize a 13 year old

You don't have to worry about 'this kind of state abuse'- at any time.

The problem is with assholes like you who treat the victims of rape- as the villains- while the middle age men that rape them- as heroes.

Really? Because the same prosecutor's office that is still hunting Polanski 40 years after the fact is the one that was responsible for the McMartin Day Care Trial. The one where they spent the most money on any case pre- OJ, on the basis of manufactured evidence by overeager therapists.

McMartin preschool trial - Wikipedia

The case included fanciful accounts of Satanic Worship and Animal Sacrifice. All of which turned out to be 100% bullshit.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually- as long as you;
a) don't give drugs to a 13 year old and
b) don't rape a 13 year old and
c) don't sodomize a 13 year old

You don't have to worry about 'this kind of state abuse'- at any time.

The problem is with assholes like you who treat the victims of rape- as the villains- while the middle age men that rape them- as heroes.

Really? Because the same prosecutor's office that is still hunting Polanski 40 years after the fact is the one that was responsible for the McMartin Day Care Trial. The one where they spent the most money on any case pre- OJ, on the basis of manufactured evidence by overeager therapists.

McMartin preschool trial - Wikipedia

The case included fanciful accounts of Satanic Worship and Animal Sacrifice. All of which turned out to be 100% bullshit.

Yep- the McMartin preschool case is a text book account of abuse of power, and abusing children in order to try to get a prosecution.

Of course if it had happened- you would be explaining how those pre-schoolers actually gave consent....

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Hispanics generally have different ideas about the age at which little girls can have sex and you generally agree with that. Is 6 an acceptable age? It's quite telling that you find someone who objects to sex with minors as having "sexual hangups". In your mind do ALL normal men want to have sex with little girls? That is what Roman Polanski thought. In his mind, the Judge and the jurors want to have sex with little girls and that one statement might be just what convinced the judge that this man is a danger to others. And he is you know. If you think that all men have a desire to have sex with little girls, then you need to be locked up. You're dangerous.

And I say this as a woman who DID take my first lover at 13 year old.

so I'm a bit confused... you had your first sexual encounter at 13, but you think this woman was victimized and Hispanics are all evil for some reason.

No, I don't think a guy who wants to have sex with women outside his own age group to be "normal", but I also don't think it's criminal. This is what you don't get, for whatever reason.

Of, for the record, the judge who tried Polanski Case has a girlfriend who as 30 years younger than he was. So maybe Roman had a point. I couldn't see myself dating a woman in her 20's, I have ties older than that.

But maybe the problem was that this judge had some serious hangups if he was dating a woman that much younger than himself.

And by 'extort' you mean suing him for drugging, raping and sodomizing her as an underage minor.

No, I mean exactly what I said. Now, if you want to keep mischaracterizing this encounter, goody for you.

Seriously, does anyone really say "Sodomizing" anymore? Hey,did you hear, the Sodomy Laws were all struck off the books! Lawrence v. Texas, look it up.

No. The Sodomy laws were not struck off the books. Forcible sodomy is still very much on the books. The girl was raped. Drugged and raped. Giving a woman drugs and raping her is a crime to this very day.

A man drugging and raping a 13 year old girl is a predator. A man who thinks having sex with a six year old is dating outside his age group should be executed.

 

[JoeB131]

Polanski pleaded guilty. Did you miss that part? She said no. Did you miss that part? She was 13. Did you miss that part? Seriously, if you can't condemn what he did, there's no more to be said.

He plead guilty to a misdemeanor because it was less trouble than going through a trial. Did you miss that part, or are you just okay with prosecutors running roughshod over the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in order to get the "Evil Doers".

Hey, I'm sure the prosecutors who went after the McMartin Family thought they were getting "evil-doers" too.

Now, here's the thing. He plead guilty in accordance with a plea agreement, and served out the negotiated sentence. This was after he returned to this country when he really didn't have to.

And then the prosecutor and the judge decided, Meh, fuck it, and did a lot of unethical things in order to get an "Evil Doer".

So I guess we can just dispense with those pesky constitutional rights when we feel we are getting the Evil Doers, right? I'm sure that never ends up badly.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Lets just admit that both the left and right has members that do disgusting shit. Hell, you voted for a man that has been accused dozens of times of raping and abusing women. Who the fuck are you?

 

[JoeB131]

No. The Sodomy laws were not struck off the books. Forcible sodomy is still very much on the books. The girl was raped. Drugged and raped. Giving a woman drugs and raping her is a crime to this very day.

A man drugging and raping a 13 year old girl is a predator. A man who thinks having sex with a six year old is dating outside his age group should be executed.

Too bad nobody made that argument here. I think if you need to change the discussion, you are really incapable of arguing the point.

here's the thing... if the prosecutors really thought that they had a good case, they shouldn't have plead him down.

They clearly didn't think they did. Probably because Little Grifter was a bit shaky when she and Mama Grifter realized they couldn't squeeze any money out of Polanski if he actually went to prison.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Actually- as long as you;
a) don't give drugs to a 13 year old and
b) don't rape a 13 year old and
c) don't sodomize a 13 year old

You don't have to worry about 'this kind of state abuse'- at any time.

The problem is with assholes like you who treat the victims of rape- as the villains- while the middle age men that rape them- as heroes.

Really? Because the same prosecutor's office that is still hunting Polanski 40 years after the fact is the one that was responsible for the McMartin Day Care Trial. The one where they spent the most money on any case pre- OJ, on the basis of manufactured evidence by overeager therapists.

McMartin preschool trial - Wikipedia

The case included fanciful accounts of Satanic Worship and Animal Sacrifice. All of which turned out to be 100% bullshit.

Yep- the McMartin preschool case is a text book account of abuse of power, and abusing children in order to try to get a prosecution.

Of course if it had happened- you would be explaining how those pre-schoolers actually gave consent....

The McMartin case was my case. I worked with the investigator on that case, Paul Bynum. What was done to those people, and those children was a crime. The reason was all political. Completely. From Day one.

 

[Syriusly]

[

And by 'extort' you mean suing him for drugging, raping and sodomizing her as an underage minor.

No, I mean exactly what I said. Now, if you want to keep mischaracterizing this encounter, goody for you.

Seriously, does anyone really say "Sodomizing" anymore? Hey,did you hear, the Sodomy Laws were all struck off the books! Lawrence v. Texas, look it up.

The only 'extortion' that happened- was that there was a completely lawful lawsuit filed against Polansky- which means it was not 'extortion'.

And yes- people do say 'sodomize' still- when it comes to sexual assault.

Lawrence v. Texas said private consensual sex between adults was not the governments business.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives.

 

[JoeB131]

The only 'extortion' that happened- was that there was a completely lawful lawsuit filed against Polansky- which means it was not 'extortion'.

And yes- people do say 'sodomize' still- when it comes to sexual assault.

Yeah, but it's still one of those quaint little words that people with sexual hangups use.

And sorry, when you drop your 13 year old daughter off at a party, and then don't testify about it in a criminal trial, but you make sure to file a lawsuit... yeah, I think extortion was always the plan here.

 

[JoeB131]

The McMartin case was my case. I worked with the investigator on that case, Paul Bynum. What was done to those people, and those children was a crime. The reason was all political. Completely. From Day one.

So how is that any different than going after Polanski for political reasons?

 

[Syriusly]

[
They clearly didn't think they did. Probably because Little Grifter was a bit shaky when she and Mama Grifter realized they couldn't squeeze any money out of Polanski if he actually went to prison.

When did you decide to become a liar to support Roman Polansky?

There is absolutely no evidence that the victim- or her mother- had any intention of 'extorting' money out of Polansky when he lured the victim in.

Nor is there any evidence that the mother ever looked for any cash.

The victim- like the families of O.J.'s victims- sued the attacker- and he settled.

Why did he settle? Because Polansky didn't think he would win in a trial and didn't want to take the risk.

Why do assholes like you attack the victims of rape?

Please stay away from women- for their sake.

 

[JoeB131]

Yep- the McMartin preschool case is a text book account of abuse of power, and abusing children in order to try to get a prosecution.

Of course if it had happened- you would be explaining how those pre-schoolers actually gave consent....

Well, if their parents drove them over to the Satanic Ritual, and gave them cats to sacrifice, maybe.

Of course, there's a difference between preschoolers and teenagers, even in the law..

Which is why there is "Child Molestation" and "Statutory Rape" being two different things

But never mind, let's conflate Little Grifter with a preschooler, that's a strong argument.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Polanski pleaded guilty. Did you miss that part? She said no. Did you miss that part? She was 13. Did you miss that part? Seriously, if you can't condemn what he did, there's no more to be said.

He plead guilty to a misdemeanor because it was less trouble than going through a trial. Did you miss that part, or are you just okay with prosecutors running roughshod over the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in order to get the "Evil Doers".

Hey, I'm sure the prosecutors who went after the McMartin Family thought they were getting "evil-doers" too.

Now, here's the thing. He plead guilty in accordance with a plea agreement, and served out the negotiated sentence. This was after he returned to this country when he really didn't have to.

And then the prosecutor and the judge decided, Meh, fuck it, and did a lot of unethical things in order to get an "Evil Doer".

So I guess we can just dispense with those pesky constitutional rights when we feel we are getting the Evil Doers, right? I'm sure that never ends up badly.

Polanski never served a negotiated sentence. He was enrolled in an inhouse psychiatric facility for an evaluation. That wasn't part of his sentence.

 

[Syriusly]

The only 'extortion' that happened- was that there was a completely lawful lawsuit filed against Polansky- which means it was not 'extortion'.

And yes- people do say 'sodomize' still- when it comes to sexual assault.

Yeah, but it's still one of those quaint little words that people with sexual hangups use.

And sorry, when you drop your 13 year old daughter off at a party, and then don't testify about it in a criminal trial, but you make sure to file a lawsuit... yeah, I think extortion was always the plan here.

yeah- when you post over and over again in support of Polansky, clearly you are being paid by Polansky to fluff up his image- yeah- that is the only possibility.

The victim was so 'money hungry' that she didn't file her lawsuit for 11 years.....you know that is how 'grifter's' work.
And of course the mother never did.

Please stay far away from women.

Timeline:

On March 10, 1977, the then 43-year-old Polanski (whose wife, actress Sharon Tate, was murdered by the Manson Family in 1969) picked up Gailey from her mother's house in Los Angeles for a photo shoot. Polanski had first photographed the 13-year-old several weeks prior: He told the aspiring model that the pictures would appear in French Vogue, and she posed topless upon his request.

According to Gailey's April 4, 1977 grand-jury testimony, Polanski drove her to Jack Nicholson's house. The actor wasn't home, but his ex-girlfriend Anjelica Huston was there when they arrived. Polanski poured Gailey champagne and they took more photographs. After they shared a quaalude, he instructed her to strip and enter a Jacuzzi, where—despite her protests—he soon joined her, after removing his own clothes. She lied about having asthma as an excuse to leave the hot tub. Although Gailey repeatedly told him "no" and asked him to drive her home, he proceeded to perform oral, vaginal, and anal sex on her inside the house. Gailey told the grand jury she was reluctant to resist because she was "afraid" of Polanski.

Polanski was arrested at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel on March 11, the next day, after Samantha's mother called the police. On the 24th of that month, he was indicted on six felony counts, among them "furnishing a controlled substance to a minor" and "rape by use of drugs."

Polanski initially plead not guilty to all charges, but eventually accepted a plea bargain—which Gailey's attorney encouraged in the hopes of protecting his young client from the scrutiny of a public trial—in which five charges were dropped, leaving only the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse (statutory rape), the least serious of the original six.

Polanski's was a so-called "open plea," one that allowed the judge to decide his sentence. The plea agreement required Polanski to report for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison, but first, Judge Laurence J. Rittenband permitted the director to complete a film. During this stay, Polanski incurred the judge's wrath when he was photographed at a beer hall in Munich, where it appeared that—according to Polanski, who complained that the image was misleading—he was "surrounded by a bunch of bimbos." He served 42 days in Chino before he was released. The Probation Department and Gailey both recommended against jail time.

But before the sentencing took place, Judge Rittenband privately discussed his intention to renege on the agreement and send Polanski to prison for 48 more days, followed by voluntary deportation, with the defendant's attorney. In a panic over the possibility of this harsher-than-expected sentence, the director fled the United States on February 1, 1978, the very day he would have appeared for his sentencing. He headed to London, then Paris, where he was shielded from extradition as a French citizen.

Samantha Gailey (now married and going by Samantha Geimer) filed a civil lawsuit against the director in 1988, and the terms of their settlement required Polanski to pay her $500,000 with interest. He was slow to pay this debt off and it's unclear how much he may still owe her.