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

[hadit]

Condemn him for forcing himself on a 13 year old girl after she said no.

There's no evidence she said "no" other than her word.

Quit hiding behind legal technicalities.

Constitutional rights are a legal technicality now?

If you can't do that, you might as well get used to being known as condoning the rape of a child.

Little Grifter was hardly a "child".

She was 13. She was a child.

The window is closing. You can't even bring yourself to condemn child rape, can you? Better get used to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

She was 13. She was a child.

The window is closing. You can't even bring yourself to condemn child rape, can you? Better get used to it.

Guy, I don't give a fuck about your window. This wasn't rape, this was a couple of grifters who tried to pull a fast one and a lot of people lost face.

 

[hadit]

She was 13. She was a child.

The window is closing. You can't even bring yourself to condemn child rape, can you? Better get used to it.

Guy, I don't give a fuck about your window. This wasn't rape, this was a couple of grifters who tried to pull a fast one and a lot of people lost face.

This meets every definition of rape. An underage girl (powerless in the situation), a middle aged man (powerful in the situation), resistance lowering drugs, she said no, he did it anyway. Like I said, if you can't even condemn child rape in generic terms...

Your partisanship had led you into a very bad position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

This meets every definition of rape. An underage girl (powerless in the situation), a middle aged man (powerful in the situation), resistance lowering drugs, she said no, he did it anyway. Like I said, if you can't even condemn child rape in generic terms...

Except, she choose to be there, she choose to get naked with him in the hottub, she chose to take the drugs, and she had had sex before that. Oh yeah, and she shook him down for $600,000.

So we can both selectively quote facts.

But it does a disservice to call this bad judgement on both sides "rape", because it diminishes women who have actually been raped.

Your partisanship had led you into a very bad position.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Either we have constitutional protections or we don't. Either 13 year olds are responsible for their actions or they aren't. (Which means we need to stop prosecuting teens as adults, which we still do when we are horrified enough by their crimes.)

This is a bullshit prosecution over a non-crime. It's the kind of state abuse we should all be outraged about, not because Polanski is a wonderful man (he isn't. He isn't even a good director, IMO).

When the state is pushing a prosecution 40 years later that even the victims doesn't want (because she got her payoff), because some politician (a liberal democrat, no less) looks bad because he bungled the case, that should concern all of us.

 

[Dragonlady]

Condemn him for forcing himself on a 13 year old girl after she said no.

There's no evidence she said "no" other than her word.

Quit hiding behind legal technicalities.

Constitutional rights are a legal technicality now?

If you can't do that, you might as well get used to being known as condoning the rape of a child.

Little Grifter was hardly a "child".

She was 13. She was a child.

The window is closing. You can't even bring yourself to condemn child rape, can you? Better get used to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She was a child whose mother took her to a Hollywood party where bad things happened. Not unlike the parents of those little boys who had sleep overs with Michael Jackson.

 

[ChrisL]

Condemn him for forcing himself on a 13 year old girl after she said no.

There's no evidence she said "no" other than her word.

Quit hiding behind legal technicalities.

Constitutional rights are a legal technicality now?

If you can't do that, you might as well get used to being known as condoning the rape of a child.

Little Grifter was hardly a "child".

She was 13. She was a child.

The window is closing. You can't even bring yourself to condemn child rape, can you? Better get used to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She was a child whose mother took her to a Hollywood party where bad things happened. Not unlike the parents of those little boys who had sleep overs with Michael Jackson.

And? What is your point exactly?

 

[ChrisL]

This meets every definition of rape. An underage girl (powerless in the situation), a middle aged man (powerful in the situation), resistance lowering drugs, she said no, he did it anyway. Like I said, if you can't even condemn child rape in generic terms...

Except, she choose to be there, she choose to get naked with him in the hottub, she chose to take the drugs, and she had had sex before that. Oh yeah, and she shook him down for $600,000.

So we can both selectively quote facts.

But it does a disservice to call this bad judgement on both sides "rape", because it diminishes women who have actually been raped.

Your partisanship had led you into a very bad position.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Either we have constitutional protections or we don't. Either 13 year olds are responsible for their actions or they aren't. (Which means we need to stop prosecuting teens as adults, which we still do when we are horrified enough by their crimes.)

This is a bullshit prosecution over a non-crime. It's the kind of state abuse we should all be outraged about, not because Polanski is a wonderful man (he isn't. He isn't even a good director, IMO).

When the state is pushing a prosecution 40 years later that even the victims doesn't want (because she got her payoff), because some politician (a liberal democrat, no less) looks bad because he bungled the case, that should concern all of us.

You are a disgusting excuse for a man and for a human being. End of story.

 

[JoeB131]

You are a disgusting excuse for a man and for a human being. End of story.

your concession is duly noted. When you have something to argue other than your emotions, let me know.

 

[hadit]

This meets every definition of rape. An underage girl (powerless in the situation), a middle aged man (powerful in the situation), resistance lowering drugs, she said no, he did it anyway. Like I said, if you can't even condemn child rape in generic terms...

Except, she choose to be there, she choose to get naked with him in the hottub, she chose to take the drugs, and she had had sex before that. Oh yeah, and she shook him down for $600,000.

So we can both selectively quote facts.

But it does a disservice to call this bad judgement on both sides "rape", because it diminishes women who have actually been raped.

Your partisanship had led you into a very bad position.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Either we have constitutional protections or we don't. Either 13 year olds are responsible for their actions or they aren't. (Which means we need to stop prosecuting teens as adults, which we still do when we are horrified enough by their crimes.)

This is a bullshit prosecution over a non-crime. It's the kind of state abuse we should all be outraged about, not because Polanski is a wonderful man (he isn't. He isn't even a good director, IMO).

When the state is pushing a prosecution 40 years later that even the victims doesn't want (because she got her payoff), because some politician (a liberal democrat, no less) looks bad because he bungled the case, that should concern all of us.

She was 13 and said no. That's rape. Tell you what, take a college freshman (voluntarily at a party and voluntarily drunk) up to your room and ask her for sex, then sodomize her after she says no. That's rape.

The state's reaction is a completely separate issue. You won't even condemn child rape.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hadit]

Condemn him for forcing himself on a 13 year old girl after she said no.

There's no evidence she said "no" other than her word.

Quit hiding behind legal technicalities.

Constitutional rights are a legal technicality now?

If you can't do that, you might as well get used to being known as condoning the rape of a child.

Little Grifter was hardly a "child".

She was 13. She was a child.

The window is closing. You can't even bring yourself to condemn child rape, can you? Better get used to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She was a child whose mother took her to a Hollywood party where bad things happened. Not unlike the parents of those little boys who had sleep overs with Michael Jackson.

The sad thing is, her mother didn't protect her from a sexual predator, which doesn't excuse the predator.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

She was 13 and said no. That's rape. Tell you what, take a college freshman (voluntarily at a party and voluntarily drunk) up to your room and ask her for sex, then sodomize her after she says no. That's rape.

The state's reaction is a completely separate issue. You won't even condemn child rape.

The problem was that we only have her word that she said no. Nor do I consider consensual sex by a girl who is already sexually active to be "rape".

Whether or not I find her credible or not, the fact is the prosecutor didn't find her terribly credible and didn't want to put her on the stand. Which is why he tried to pull this end run around, you know, the Constitution.

Oh, yeah, and then she shook him down for $600,000.

The sad thing is, her mother didn't protect her from a sexual predator, which doesn't excuse the predator.

Or she was a willing participant in a scam.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You are a disgusting excuse for a man and for a human being. End of story.

Nothing that hasn't been quite obvious about him since long before this discussion.

 

[hadit]

She was 13 and said no. That's rape. Tell you what, take a college freshman (voluntarily at a party and voluntarily drunk) up to your room and ask her for sex, then sodomize her after she says no. That's rape.

The state's reaction is a completely separate issue. You won't even condemn child rape.

The problem was that we only have her word that she said no. Nor do I consider consensual sex by a girl who is already sexually active to be "rape".

Whether or not I find her credible or not, the fact is the prosecutor didn't find her terribly credible and didn't want to put her on the stand. Which is why he tried to pull this end run around, you know, the Constitution.

Oh, yeah, and then she shook him down for $600,000.

The sad thing is, her mother didn't protect her from a sexual predator, which doesn't excuse the predator.

Or she was a willing participant in a scam.

She was 13. He was old enough to know better. Stop making up crap to excuse him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

She was 13. He was old enough to know better. Stop making up crap to excuse him.

again, the prosecutor didn't think they had enough to go to court... but I'm supposed to accept his guilt because Little Grifter says so? At least this week, because Little Grifter has never told a consistant story.

 

[JoeB131]

Nothing that hasn't been quite obvious about him since long before this discussion.

Again, I don't particularly want to live with the LIve Action Version of "A Handmaid's Tale" you religious nutters want to inflict on this country.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Well, any concession Polanski was thinking about getting is gone with Harvey Weinstein.

Joe. I am not going to come out and make any accusations. Most people know which way your wind is blowing already.

 

[hadit]

She was 13. He was old enough to know better. Stop making up crap to excuse him.

again, the prosecutor didn't think they had enough to go to court... but I'm supposed to accept his guilt because Little Grifter says so? At least this week, because Little Grifter has never told a consistant story.

He pled guilty and fled the country. Again, reach way down deep inside and see if you can find sent condemnation of child rape.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EvilCat Breath]

She was 13. He was old enough to know better. Stop making up crap to excuse him.

again, the prosecutor didn't think they had enough to go to court... but I'm supposed to accept his guilt because Little Grifter says so? At least this week, because Little Grifter has never told a consistant story.

He pled guilty and fled the country. Again, reach way down deep inside and see if you can find sent condemnation of child rape.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He can't. Mentally and emotionally this is the way predators think. It's her fault. She was trying to trap him.

There is no help for these individuals.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, any concession Polanski was thinking about getting is gone with Harvey Weinstein.

Joe. I am not going to come out and make any accusations. Most people know which way your wind is blowing already.

Right. Because clearly your sexual obsessions and hangups are my problem.

In a week, no one is going to care about Weinstein.

 

[JoeB131]

He pled guilty and fled the country. Again, reach way down deep inside and see if you can find sent condemnation of child rape.

Nope. Can't get worked up about a promiscuous teen doing something she had done before.

He plead to a misdemeanor because the prosecutors realized they had a shit case. Which is fine. Prosecutors do that all the time. and a lot of the time, they actually let REAL rapists off with a slap on the wrist.

As we said in the College Rape discussion, only 3% of rapists see the inside of a jail cell. So you guys already had Polanski in a jail cell for 42 days. That is better than most do.

He can't. Mentally and emotionally this is the way predators think. It's her fault. She was trying to trap him.

There is no help for these individuals.

again, can't get worked up about your hangups where you went to court because some lesbians asked you to paint a picture. If your Avis are an example of your painting, they kind of suck.

My point- which you guys miss- is that I believe in the rule of law.

It is better for 100 guilty men to go free than one innocent man to go to prison.

Here you had a case where the prosecutors didn't think hard time was warranted. The doctors didn't think it was. The so-called "victim" didn't think it was because then she wouldn't get any money. But a judge wanted to get him a celebrity scalp.