Swiss arrest Polanski on US request in sex case

[del]

So the only reason to return Polanski to prison is to prevent the next (unlikely) identical case?

no, the only reason to return him to prison is to punish him for his crimes.

have you suffered a blow to the head?

 

[Liability]

Seems like a waste of energy to me.......

No, it isn't a waste of energy.

If everything goes according to plan the US prison population will jump from 2.200,000 inmates to 5 million by year's end. Eventually 1/2 the US population will be in jail. Welcome to the USSR.

.

LOL!

A "jump" to 5 million translates to "eventually" half of the U.S. population being imprisoned or incarcerated?

On what planet did you get your "math" education?

 

[del]

Seems like a waste of energy to me.......

No, it isn't a waste of energy.

If everything goes according to plan the US prison population will jump from 2.200,000 inmates to 5 million by year's end. Eventually 1/2 the US population will be in jail. Welcome to the USSR.

.

LOL!

A "jump" to 5 million translates to "eventually" half of the U.S. population being imprisoned or incarcerated?

On what planet did you get your "math" education?

why, prison planet, of course.

 

[GHook93]

Seems like a waste of energy to me.......

No, it isn't a waste of energy.

If everything goes according to plan the US prison population will jump from 2.200,000 inmates to 5 million by year's end. Eventually 1/2 the US population will be in jail. Welcome to the USSR.

.

Wow another crazy off the wall conspiracy through by 9/11 truther and holocaust denier, who would have thunk!

 

[GHook93]

Seems like a waste of energy to me.......

No, it isn't a waste of energy.

If everything goes according to plan the US prison population will jump from 2.200,000 inmates to 5 million by year's end. Eventually 1/2 the US population will be in jail. Welcome to the USSR.

.

LOL!

A "jump" to 5 million translates to "eventually" half of the U.S. population being imprisoned or incarcerated?

On what planet did you get your "math" education?

Conts has a big problem with reality!

 

[Liability]

Yeah it was a straight rape charge, not a statutory rape charge. He was found guilty of both drugging and raping the 13 year old girl before he fled.

I'll get my coat....I'd happily go and get the bastard.

i'll go with you, but the charge he pleaded out to was having a sex with a minor- he was originally charged with rape.

Yes. Originally charged with rape (the more fitting charge under the circumstances).

A plea to a lesser charge (one which is far from fitting considering a child is legally incapable of consenting even if she is not drugged by the accused at the time of the incident).

But the operative word is "plea." Roman scumbag Polanski plead guilty in a court of law but fled during the period of psychatric evaluation prior to sentencing. Since then, the scumbag has been a fugitive. He should also be charge with unlawful flight, imho.

There DOES appear to be a problem with the case. It LOOKS like the judge had (maybe?) some improper conversations with a different prosecutor ABOUT the case prior to the scheduled sentencing. It LOOKS like (maybe?) the judge had pre-determined to give the scumbag jail time. More needs to be uncovered about all of that. ( See: Former prosecutor says he lied about Polanski case - Yahoo! News )

But still, the scumbag needs to be brought back to face the consequences. Not a trial. He already pleaded guilty; but some legal proceedings to determine what sentence (if any) he should be required to receive. And MAYBE he should get prosecuted for his failure to return to court, too.

I cannot quite grasp why anybody feels any sympathy for that fucking child-molesting piece of shit.

 

[hjmick]

I'll get my coat....I'd happily go and get the bastard.

i'll go with you, but the charge he pleaded out to was having a sex with a minor- he was originally charged with rape.

Yes. Originally charged with rape (the more fitting charge under the circumstances).

A plea to a lesser charge (one which is far from fitting considering a child is legally incapable of consenting even if she is not drugged by the accused at the time of the incident).

But the operative word is "plea." Roman scumbag Polanski plead guilty in a court of law but fled during the period of psychatric evaluation prior to sentencing. Since then, the scumbag has been a fugitive. He should also be charge with unlawful flight, imho.

There DOES appear to be a problem with the case. It LOOKS like the judge had (maybe?) some improper conversations with a different prosecutor ABOUT the case prior to the scheduled sentencing. It LOOKS like (maybe?) the judge had pre-determined to give the scumbag jail time. More needs to be uncovered about all of that. ( See: Former prosecutor says he lied about Polanski case - Yahoo! News )

But still, the scumbag needs to be brought back to face the consequences. Not a trial. He already pleaded guilty; but some legal proceedings to determine what sentence (if any) he should be required to receive. And MAYBE he should get prosecuted for his failure to return to court, too.

I cannot quite grasp why anybody feels any sympathy for that fucking child-molesting piece of shit.

He was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.

 

[Liability]

i'll go with you, but the charge he pleaded out to was having a sex with a minor- he was originally charged with rape.

Yes. Originally charged with rape (the more fitting charge under the circumstances).

A plea to a lesser charge (one which is far from fitting considering a child is legally incapable of consenting even if she is not drugged by the accused at the time of the incident).

But the operative word is "plea." Roman scumbag Polanski plead guilty in a court of law but fled during the period of psychatric evaluation prior to sentencing. Since then, the scumbag has been a fugitive. He should also be charge with unlawful flight, imho.

There DOES appear to be a problem with the case. It LOOKS like the judge had (maybe?) some improper conversations with a different prosecutor ABOUT the case prior to the scheduled sentencing. It LOOKS like (maybe?) the judge had pre-determined to give the scumbag jail time. More needs to be uncovered about all of that. ( See: Former prosecutor says he lied about Polanski case - Yahoo! News )

But still, the scumbag needs to be brought back to face the consequences. Not a trial. He already pleaded guilty; but some legal proceedings to determine what sentence (if any) he should be required to receive. And MAYBE he should get prosecuted for his failure to return to court, too.

I cannot quite grasp why anybody feels any sympathy for that fucking child-molesting piece of shit.

He was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.

Yes. But he plead to a lesser charge. The more FITTING charge(s) went by the board when the scumbag was permitted to plead to the lesser.

 

[Megan_Fad]

He was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.

Let's not forget that it is not "rape, rape". Thank goodness that we found out what "is, is" before this question came up.

 

[Liability]

He was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.

Let's not forget that it is not "rape, rape". Thank goodness that we found out what "is, is" before this question came up.

Whoopi is sometimes a funny woman. But in discussing this matter, she is simply wrong.

I believe that what she was TRYING to grunt out was that it wasn't "rape" by means of force or threat of force. Perhaps there was no force. But rape does not require force in all cases. Sex with an unconsenting woman is no less a "rape" just because it is obtained by something other than force.

I wonder how many of these moronic liberal Hollywood tools would be as willing to maintain that it wasn't "really" a rape if it was their OWN flesh and blood 13 year old child (God forbid) who had been drugged and seduced by a 40 something year old predator.

A child is not legally ABLE to consent. And even an adult who has been drugged is not able to give a legally valid "consent." And Polanski drugged a 13 year old child. That sick fuck, Roman Polanski, needs to finally get his scumbag ass behind bars.

 

[Contumacious]

So the only reason to return Polanski to prison is to prevent the next (unlikely) identical case?

No sir. The reason to incarcerate him is because he is a filthy rich Jew. But they need a good pretext.

.

 

[Megan_Fad]

He was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.

Let's not forget that it is not "rape, rape". Thank goodness that we found out what "is, is" before this question came up.

Whoopi is sometimes a funny woman. But in discussing this matter, she is simply wrong.

I believe that what she was TRYING to grunt out was that it wasn't "rape" by means of force or threat of force. Perhaps there was no force. But rape does not require force in all cases. Sex with an unconsenting woman is no less a "rape" just because it is obtained by something other than force.

I wonder how many of these moronic liberal Hollywood tools would be as willing to maintain that it wasn't "really" a rape if it was their OWN flesh and blood 13 year old child (God forbid) who had been drugged and seduced by a 40 something year old predator.

A child is not legally ABLE to consent. And even an adult who has been drugged is not able to give a legally valid "consent." And Polanski drugged a 13 year old child. That sick fuck, Roman Polanski, needs to finally get his scumbag ass behind bars.

I understand what she was trying to say, just like I understand that she was trying to say it in some form of defense for Mr. Polanski. That is the part I do not understand. Whoopi stated that Kanye West was bullying a "little girl" (Taylor Swift) who I think is 19 or 20years old, but drugged up sex with a 13 year old she is willing to overlook.

That just has me scratching my head...

 

[Liability]

So the only reason to return Polanski to prison is to prevent the next (unlikely) identical case?

No sir. The reason to incarcerate him is because he is a filthy rich Jew. But they need a good pretext.

.

No.

The "reason" to get him BACK here and to incarcerate him is because he pled guilty; and child molesting pieces of shit like him need to get punished -- and the operation of the rule of law should not be set-aside just because a bunch of stupid libs find his case to be the next urgent "social justice" issue du jour.

Most people probably didn't even know (or give any thought to whether or not) Polanski is allegedly a Jew. That notion of yours is dumber than most of the crap you tend to spew.

.

 

[Contumacious]

He was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.

Let's not forget that it is not "rape, rape". Thank goodness that we found out what "is, is" before this question came up.

The way it works is like this. She could have screwed the whole football team. No Problem there.

But a 50 y/o penis....problem.


.

 

[Liability]

He was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.

Let's not forget that it is not "rape, rape". Thank goodness that we found out what "is, is" before this question came up.

The way it works is like this. She could have screwed the whole football team. No Problem there.

But a 50 y/o penis....problem.


.

Yeah. The NERVE of that crazy California electorate, legislature and Governor to have a law that says that children should not be the sex toys of adults.

Are you fucking stupid or just certifiably crazy?

 

[Megan_Fad]

He was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.

Let's not forget that it is not "rape, rape". Thank goodness that we found out what "is, is" before this question came up.

The way it works is like this. She could have screwed the whole football team. No Problem there.

But a 50 y/o penis....problem.


.

Nope, it works more like this:

She could have screwed the whole football team, her own age and of the same mentallity by consent or she could have been drugged and taken advantage of by an adult who should have known better and should have been willing to make the right decision.

Not that it is "ok" for her to be a skank, but 13 year old boys will act like 13 year old boys are expected to. 45 year old men should act like 45 year old men are expected to.

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you fucking stupid or just certifiably crazy?

Why do you think it is an either/or proposition?

 

[Contumacious]

So the only reason to return Polanski to prison is to prevent the next (unlikely) identical case?

No sir. The reason to incarcerate him is because he is a filthy rich Jew. But they need a good pretext.

.

No.

The "reason" to get him BACK here and to incarcerate him is because he pled guilty; and child molesting pieces of shit like him need to get punished -- and the operation of the rule of law should not be set-aside just because a bunch of stupid libs find his case to be the next urgent "social justice" issue du jour.

Most people probably didn't even know (or give any thought to whether or not) Polanski is allegedly a Jew. That notion of yours is dumber than most of the crap you tend to spew.

.

And you are the "Conservative Role Model"? So what is the difference nowadays between "conservatism" and a theocratic regime.

You fuckers are always looking for pretexts to set aside due process of law in favor of legal lynching, in the name of god, of course..


.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nope, it works more like this:

She could have screwed the whole football team, her own age and of the same mentallity by consent or she could have been drugged and taken advantage of by an adult who should have known better and should have been willing to make the right decision.

Not that it is "ok" for her to be a skank, but 13 year old boys will act like 13 year old boys are expected to. 45 year old men should act like 45 year old men are expected to.

That's one of the most puzzling statements you've made. And that's saying something.
I'd ask you about it but you seem unable or unwilling to defend your beliefs.

 

[Megan_Fad]

Nope, it works more like this:

She could have screwed the whole football team, her own age and of the same mentallity by consent or she could have been drugged and taken advantage of by an adult who should have known better and should have been willing to make the right decision.

Not that it is "ok" for her to be a skank, but 13 year old boys will act like 13 year old boys are expected to. 45 year old men should act like 45 year old men are expected to.

That's one of the most puzzling statements you've made. And that's saying something.
I'd ask you about it but you seem unable or unwilling to defend your beliefs.

Thats ok, you seem unwilling or unable to apply some common sense to your beleifs. I guess that makes us even.

So...let us break this down is it the 13 year old bys acting immature and impulsive that confuses you or the 45 year old knowing better that confuses you?