When is rape not a crime?

[Modbert]

when did he leave the country?

I'm not saying he succeeded at it. However, one doesn't really proclaim their innocence by leading the cops on a massive chase.

 

[Terry]

He was initially indicted on six felony counts..

Dive was referring to O.J.

Pay attention a bit closer.

Shut up, it is late!

 

[Modbert]

Shut up, it is late!

Don't blame us young folk.

 

[Terry]

Shut up, it is late!

Don't blame us young folk.

It is your fault! I blame everyone.

 

[DiveCon]

Shut up, it is late!

Don't blame us young folk.

so i'm "young" now

 

[Modbert]

so i'm "young" now

Well it's either that or I have two distinct personalities.

 

[Terry]

Well now I'm really confused so that means bed time. I have an oven to clean in the morning. That oven is seriously ready to catch on fire if used before a good cleaning. LMAO

 

[ba1614]

View attachment 8286

when did he ever plead guilty?

He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy. The director pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse; in exchange, the remaining charges were dropped, and the judge agreed to send Polanski to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. But Polanski was released after 42 days and fled the country on the eve of his Feb. 1, 1978, sentencing after the judge reportedly told lawyers he planned to add more prison time.


Key figure in Polanski documentary says he lied - Yahoo! News

That DA who accepted that plea deal should be strung up by the ballsac as well

 

[ncarolinadixie]

Damn! Just Damn!

The fact anyone is defending Polanski is extremely disturbing IMO. The evidence clearly showed that he was guilty. The evidence clearly shows there was a plea agreement and that the judge had decided to back out of that agreement (His RIGHT by the way) at sentencing. The evidence clearly shows that when it was known that was what the judge was going to do Polanski fled the country to avoid it. The evidence clearly shows that either by some lapse in judgement or just plain stupidity Polanski, a man of considerable means and holder of dual citizenship with the US and another country, was RELEASED pending sentencing giving him the opportunity to flee the country. The evidence also shows that for all these years and years he's been collecting royalties for his movies from right here in the US. That alone should have given the US Federal Marshalls an idea of where he was, yet they chose until now not to go after him.

No where in the Victim's latest statement has she said that she has forgiven Polanski for what he did to her all those years ago. Just that she has been able to put it behind her and move on. She is adamant in her desire to NOT see her family have to go through the media hoopla this is going to bring about. NOTHING about having forgiven him. (at least in nothing I've read, I could have missed where she used the term "forgiven")

For anyone to attempt to justify, explain away, or defend what Polanski did regardless of a supposedly corrupt judge or however else you want to justify, defend, or explain away what he did, is beyond sick! For all intents and purposes he should have never been released in the first place for any reason. Due process be damned. The state of California stupidly gave him the opportunity to flee the country and remain a fugitive all these years. IMHO there should NEVER have been a plea deal struck in the first place! He raped a child. There should be NO bail ever given for people such as that. Yeah Yeah, I know, it's in the constitution, it's the law, and all that happy horse shit. Doesn't matter....to me there are certain crimes that should never have the right to bail be attached to them. Especially by someone that ADMITTED their guilt as Polanski did.

There is one question that continually sticks in my head though........where the hell were this 13 year old girl's parents while she was running around with this much older man? Why the hell was she even allowed to be put in the position to have this happen to her?

But I, in a way, agree with the victim in what she's said about all of this happening NOW. She is going to have to relive the nightmare and her family is going to be thrust into the spotlight once again and she doesn't want that to happen. Maybe she did forgive him at some point. That may have been needed to help her put it behind her. What happened to her will never go away completely I'm sure.

My problem with the whole thing at this point is what the outcome is ultimately going to be. Will he be forced to actually pay for his crimes? Or will all the money be spent to extradite, house until trial, and the trial itself result in a to short sentence or possible release because maybe he's "to sick" to be in jail. Are they actually pushing this to hold him accountable for the crime of rape or is it for some kind of revenge because he "got away" due to their own stupidity of letting him walk free until sentencing? If he's being brought back to face the charge of rape GOOD, but if he's only being brought back to face the charge of "escape/alluding, well then it's IMO a waste of money better spent elsewhere.

 

[Ravi]

Xeno, you should be praising Obama's justice department for finally getting the Swiss to arrest this asshole.

But no, too much to ask.

 

[Terry]

Damn! Just Damn!

The fact anyone is defending Polanski is extremely disturbing IMO. The evidence clearly showed that he was guilty. The evidence clearly shows there was a plea agreement and that the judge had decided to back out of that agreement (His RIGHT by the way) at sentencing. The evidence clearly shows that when it was known that was what the judge was going to do Polanski fled the country to avoid it. The evidence clearly shows that either by some lapse in judgement or just plain stupidity Polanski, a man of considerable means and holder of dual citizenship with the US and another country, was RELEASED pending sentencing giving him the opportunity to flee the country. The evidence also shows that for all these years and years he's been collecting royalties for his movies from right here in the US. That alone should have given the US Federal Marshalls an idea of where he was, yet they chose until now not to go after him.

No where in the Victim's latest statement has she said that she has forgiven Polanski for what he did to her all those years ago. Just that she has been able to put it behind her and move on. She is adamant in her desire to NOT see her family have to go through the media hoopla this is going to bring about. NOTHING about having forgiven him. (at least in nothing I've read, I could have missed where she used the term "forgiven")

For anyone to attempt to justify, explain away, or defend what Polanski did regardless of a supposedly corrupt judge or however else you want to justify, defend, or explain away what he did, is beyond sick! For all intents and purposes he should have never been released in the first place for any reason. Due process be damned. The state of California stupidly gave him the opportunity to flee the country and remain a fugitive all these years. IMHO there should NEVER have been a plea deal struck in the first place! He raped a child. There should be NO bail ever given for people such as that. Yeah Yeah, I know, it's in the constitution, it's the law, and all that happy horse shit. Doesn't matter....to me there are certain crimes that should never have the right to bail be attached to them. Especially by someone that ADMITTED their guilt as Polanski did.

There is one question that continually sticks in my head though........where the hell were this 13 year old girl's parents while she was running around with this much older man? Why the hell was she even allowed to be put in the position to have this happen to her?

But I, in a way, agree with the victim in what she's said about all of this happening NOW. She is going to have to relive the nightmare and her family is going to be thrust into the spotlight once again and she doesn't want that to happen. Maybe she did forgive him at some point. That may have been needed to help her put it behind her. What happened to her will never go away completely I'm sure.

My problem with the whole thing at this point is what the outcome is ultimately going to be. Will he be forced to actually pay for his crimes? Or will all the money be spent to extradite, house until trial, and the trial itself result in a to short sentence or possible release because maybe he's "to sick" to be in jail. Are they actually pushing this to hold him accountable for the crime of rape or is it for some kind of revenge because he "got away" due to their own stupidity of letting him walk free until sentencing? If he's being brought back to face the charge of rape GOOD, but if he's only being brought back to face the charge of "escape/alluding, well then it's IMO a waste of money better spent elsewhere.

I will call what I think will happen and I in no way agree with it but I see the writing on the wall.

Polanski will be sentenced to serve out his remainder of his sentence according to that plea agreement which will be 20 more days or so in a halfway house or mental hospital. He will be fined (state of California needs the money) and then he will be free to stay in the United States once again.

If anyone that defends this guy hasn't read the victims original testimony needs to read it!

SICK FUCK he is.

 

[ncarolinadixie]

Terry.....EXACTLY!! That is where I see the biggest problem. The amount of money going to be spent to bring him back and face whatever charges they use is not going to be worth what the ultimate "punishment" will be.

Have a good day. I've got to get mine started.

 

[Justin Case]

Nice to know that Whoopi and the other leading Hollywood libs don't consider anally boning a 13 year old whom the rapist drugged as anything wrong or criminal. The only thing missing from Goldberg's comments was anything reminiscent of /b/ on 4chan....."Well at least Polanski didn't put a Sharpie in her pooper!"

 

[Contumacious]

No defense here libs. There is no way you can justify this evil bullshit. But i'm quite sure you sick bastards will try!

So, from your standpoint, who has a right to due process of law?


.

 

[Contumacious]

Polanski liked little girls. Just as he liked 13 year old Samantha Gailey, he also liked (and was involved with) 15 year old Nastassja Kinski.

8. In 1979 it's reported that Roman started a relationship with actress Nastassja Kinski when she was 15. She appeared in his Oscar nominated film Tess.

He was only 41 at the time..

LINK


Absolutely no telling what else that worm has done. I hope he spends the rest of his life behind bars. as someone's butt buddy.

From your standpoint , when does a woman ceases to be a little girl, 67?

.

 

[Contumacious]

A plea deal is worked out between the defense and prosecutors, the Defense and prosecutors knows full well going into this that the Judge can reject or accept it. .

True, but not typically. If plea agreements are not honored defendants will demand trial and the system will become hopelessly bogged down.

.

 

[rightwinger]

As a Liberal, I am ashamed that anyone would defend a creep like Polanski. This is not a case of a 17 yr old girl who looks 21. Its an 8th grade girl! 13 years old and he has anal sex with her??

These people are so enamoured with his "art" that they ignore the horrible crime he did and the fact that he fled the country after admitting to it

 

[Ame®icano]

Hey Contumacious,

If you have a daughter age 13 to 16, we could arrange photo shoot.

You don't have to worry about anything.

... I'll bring champagne and drugs.

 

[Ravi]

As a Liberal, I am ashamed that anyone would defend a creep like Polanski. This is not a case of a 17 yr old girl who looks 21. Its an 8th grade girl! 13 years old and he has anal sex with her??

These people are so enamoured with his "art" that they ignore the horrible crime he did and the fact that he fled the country after admitting to it

I didn't read the entire thread but I only saw a "conservative" defending him.

 

[JW Frogen]

Rape is not a crime when ever the law has not forbidden a particular sexual act whether one might see it as forced or nonconsensual sex or not.

The criminal and the moral are not always synonymous terms, quite often justice does not follow the relativist whims of our morality.