Roman Polanski = Pedophile

[Parkbandit]

I don't get the outrage over Roman Polanski's apprehension in Europe, after he fled this country 30 years ago for raping a 13 year old girl.

He's a fucking pedophile, ffs..

[Paradii]

I can't understand why people are jumping at the chance to defend this guy. Well, I can understand why Woody Allen did, but everyone else? C'mon, a pedophile is a pedophile.

[Parkbandit]

I can't understand why people are jumping at the chance to defend this guy. Well, I can understand why Woody Allen did, but everyone else? C'mon, a pedophile is a pedophile.

:rofl:

Yea.. I was thinking the same thing when I saw Woody Allen on the list of idiots defending him.

That one makes sense.. since he obviously sees nothing wrong with molesting 13 year olds.

[Geshron]

It could have been consensual, she could have been impressed with his ability to stay up as late as he wants and drive a car, after all.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Don't get me wrong, I loved The Pianist and everything, but I'm glad the fucker was finally caught. I too do not understand how people can defend him.

[Tisket]

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the victim was offered some monetary incentive to encourage her in her current public stance of just wanting to let the whole thing go. If so I hope she really dinged his bank account hard.

Oh and Rosemary's Baby still scares me. Fucking brilliant movie.

[Nieninque]

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the victim was offered some monetary incentive to encourage her in her current public stance of just wanting to let the whole thing go. If so I hope she really dinged his bank account hard.

Oh and Rosemary's Baby still scares me. Fucking brilliant movie.


According to the BBC "The victim at the centre of the case, Samantha Geimer, has previously asked for the charges to be dropped. She has already sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement."

[Back]

Honestly, as a (semi) rational adult I agree that the man committed a crime no matter what she says, what French authorities say, Hollywood, or even what Terry Gilliam says.

And I am really disappointed with Terry. Even moreso than Brothers Grim.

[StrayRogue]

According to the BBC "The victim at the centre of the case, Samantha Geimer, has previously asked for the charges to be dropped. She has already sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement."

This.

[Solkern]

Now the question is,
is this fucker going to be brought to the US, or are the Swiss going to back down, and return him to France or Poland.

[Parkbandit]

It could have been consensual, she could have been impressed with his ability to stay up as late as he wants and drive a car, after all.

You might want to read some more... instead of just guessing about what happened without a clue.

He was convicted, then fled the country.

[Parkbandit]

According to the BBC "The victim at the centre of the case, Samantha Geimer, has previously asked for the charges to be dropped. She has already sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement."

Oh.. so I guess any guy with a good amount of money should be able to go around raping 13 year old girls... as long as he has enough money to pay off the victim.

[AnticorRifling]

You might want to read some more... instead of just guessing about what happened without a clue.

He was convicted, then fled the country.
Woosh. He was being sarcastic old man.

[Nieninque]

Oh.. so I guess any guy with a good amount of money should be able to go around raping 13 year old girls... as long as he has enough money to pay off the victim.

Holy shit, do you have your prickly knickers on today or what?
I simply responded to Tisket's question about a private prosecution.
You should know by now that I dont support perv's claim to any rights whatsoever. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Furthermore, it is not me that lives in a jurisdiction where people are freely able to buy their way out of criminal prosecutions...(although to be fair, when you lot do convict someone for pervery, you sentence them far better than we do here).

[Some Rogue]

http://www.pedobearpics.com/pedobear/pedo_bear9.jpg (http://www.pedobearstore.com/?SectionCode=0101&count=500&pedopics)

[Landrion]

The timeframe - Okay, so the charge is 30 years old. But this isn't a statute of limitations thing. This is someone who fled in before sentencing.

The sentence - Ironically, as I understand the case, he had already served the 40 or so days and had the psych eval he was supposed to. He fled because he was afraid the sentence could have been extended to 10 years.

The victim wants the charges dropped - I have to beleive any reasonable court would take that into consideration. The problem is, much like a suspect fleeing the police in a car chase he's magnified the problem by not following the process of law.

The man's talent and artitistic contributions - Again, something I think any reasonable court would take into consideration. This isn't a gutter dwelling stalker who we are afraid is going to drop by the local elementary school with duct tape in his pocket.

Frankly with the money, status and influence the guy has, he should have been able to clear this up years ago. I don't like seeing a 70 year old guy get tossed in jail either, but he has made his own mess here. And I dont think the French government would be quite so understanding if we were refusing to extradite someone who did the same thing to our courts.

As for his peers defending him, I don't blame them. I'd plead for one of my friends and defend them if they fucked up too. And that's what Polanski did, he fucked up and he let it sit for 30 years instead of clearing it up. And the same bad judgement that made him flee in the first place is haunting him today as he fights extradition.

I hope whatever court this hits is clement with the case and this just goes away. This is a guy with a lot of bad judgement haunting him, but I for one don't see him as a threat to society. Lets hope we don't get someone trying to make an example and this gets put to bed quickly. Its already 30 years older than it needs to be.

[Nieninque]

The man's talent and artitistic contributions - Again, something I think any reasonable court would take into consideration. This isn't a gutter dwelling stalker who we are afraid is going to drop by the local elementary school with duct tape in his pocket.

I have a huge problem with this concept. Because he's rich and famous and has an artistic talent, what the hell, let him go free. Someone in a similar situation who may be a builder or a teacher, bang them up.

His artistic talent has nothing to do with the offence he committed. The law should not be based upon who you are but what you do. If you transgress the law, whether you are Obama or the pikey down the road, you should be dealt with equitably.

Furthermore, most child sex offenders simply do not fit this ridiculous concept that the public hold dear that abusers are dirty old men in flashers macs hanging around outside schools. Most children are abused by someone they know and trust.


I hope whatever court this hits is clement with the case and this just goes away. This is a guy with a lot of bad judgement haunting him, but I for one don't see him as a threat to society.

Based on the fact that when he was in his 40's he was alleged to have raped and buggered a 13 year old girl? Interesting assessment of the situation.

[FNLN]

Well, hey, if they don't let us extradite him I hope they remember that when we have someone they want. Shit works both ways.

[Landrion]

I have a huge problem with this concept. Because he's rich and famous and has an artistic talent, what the hell, let him go free. Someone in a similar situation who may be a builder or a teacher, bang them up.

His artistic talent has nothing to do with the offence he committed. The law should not be based upon who you are but what you do. If you transgress the law, whether you are Obama or the pikey down the road, you should be dealt with equitably.

Furthermore, most child sex offenders simply do not fit this ridiculous concept that the public hold dear that abusers are dirty old men in flashers macs hanging around outside schools. Most children are abused by someone they know and trust.

Based on the fact that when he was in his 40's he was alleged to have raped and buggered a 13 year old girl? Interesting assessment of the situation.

I do think someone's priors and subsequent behavior should have an effect on judgement. I certainly do not think it excuses him.

I certainly do not want to get into defending the guy. I am as disgusted by rape and pedophilia as you would expect any father of a 5 year old to be. The point of the post was not sympathy for him, rather that this mess is of his own creation and that the "controversy" surrounding it is not justified. He should return here and face the music he himself has set the notes for.

The clemency thought being more in mind of the penalties for his fleeing than of the initial offense.

[Parkbandit]

I have a huge problem with this concept. Because he's rich and famous and has an artistic talent, what the hell, let him go free. Someone in a similar situation who may be a builder or a teacher, bang them up.

His artistic talent has nothing to do with the offence he committed. The law should not be based upon who you are but what you do. If you transgress the law, whether you are Obama or the pikey down the road, you should be dealt with equitably.

Furthermore, most child sex offenders simply do not fit this ridiculous concept that the public hold dear that abusers are dirty old men in flashers macs hanging around outside schools. Most children are abused by someone they know and trust.

Based on the fact that when he was in his 40's he was alleged to have raped and buggered a 13 year old girl? Interesting assessment of the situation.

I completely agree. Sorry I was frothing at the mouth earlier.. I read it that you were giving reasons for him not to be arrested.

[Parkbandit]

I do think someone's priors and subsequent behavior should have an effect on judgement. I certainly do not think it excuses him.

I certainly do not want to get into defending the guy. I am as disgusted by rape and pedophilia as you would expect any father of a 5 year old to be. The point of the post was not sympathy for him, rather that this mess is of his own creation and that the "controversy" surrounding it is not justified. He should return here and face the music he himself has set the notes for.

The clemency thought being more in mind of the penalties for his fleeing than of the initial offense.

The guy drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. That's something I can't just nonchalantly excuse. Add to that the guy is a complete pussy for not owning up to his own responsibilities and fled the country to France.

Sorry.. the guy is a complete piece of shit in my book. Personally, he should be thankful I wasn't the father of the kid he was convicted of raping.

[Landrion]

The guy drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. That's something I can't just nonchalantly excuse. Add to that the guy is a complete pussy for not owning up to his own responsibilities and fled the country to France.

Sorry.. the guy is a complete piece of shit in my book. Personally, he should be thankful I wasn't the father of the kid he was convicted of raping.

Thats fine. We're both saying that he should face the music. If you hope the music is harsh I won't argue.

[LMingrone]

Tate's sister is crazy. http://www.tmz.com/2009/09/30/sharon-tate-roman-polanski-debra-tate-today-matt-lauer-arrest-rape-video/#comments

/Yeah it's TMZ, sorry.

[Paradii]

As for his peers defending him, I don't blame them. I'd plead for one of my friends and defend them if they fucked up too. And that's what Polanski did, he fucked up and he let it sit for 30 years instead of clearing it up. And the same bad judgement that made him flee in the first place is haunting him today as he fights extradition.




Defending a friend that fucked up is one thing. Defending a friend that fucked a 13 year old is completely different. I would throw any of my dearest friends under the bus if they pulled that shit. I'd expect the same back.

[Keller]

We should settle the criminal prosecution.

Let us castrate him, he can continue to live in France.

[Tisket]

We should settle the criminal prosecution.

Let us castrate him, he can continue to live in France.

Or we could imprison him in a fully furnished film studio with a dedicated crew, a rotating cast of actors, and an unlimited budget. We can satisfy justice and art at the same time.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

As for his peers defending him, I don't blame them. I'd plead for one of my friends and defend them if they fucked up too. And that's what Polanski did, he fucked up and he let it sit for 30 years instead of clearing it up. And the same bad judgement that made him flee in the first place is haunting him today as he fights extradition.

I hope whatever court this hits is clement with the case and this just goes away. This is a guy with a lot of bad judgement haunting him, but I for one don't see him as a threat to society. Lets hope we don't get someone trying to make an example and this gets put to bed quickly. Its already 30 years older than it needs to be.

You would seriously get up on the stand and defend a friend who plied a 13 year old with drugs and alcohol and then raped her? You are a fucking idiot.

[StrayRogue]

You would seriously get up on the stand and defend a friend who plied a 13 year old with drugs and alcohol and then raped her? You are a fucking idiot.

How is it rape when it's consensual?

[Some Rogue]

Under the age of consent and also under the influence of drugs/alcohol = rape

[StrayRogue]

Better bang me up then.

[TheEschaton]

The victim wants the charges dropped - I have to beleive any reasonable court would take that into consideration. The problem is, much like a suspect fleeing the police in a car chase he's magnified the problem by not following the process of law.

You can't drop charges after a person has been convicted. Waaaay too late for that.

[Nieninque]

Better bang me up then.


You have had sex with a 13 year old as an adult? Or intoxicated someone to the point where they are unable to give informed consent and then assumed they consented regardless?

[Nieninque]

You can't drop charges after a person has been convicted. Waaaay too late for that.

Precisely.

[StrayRogue]

You have had sex with a 13 year old as an adult? Or intoxicated someone to the point where they are unable to give informed consent and then assumed they consented regardless?

I'm saying by Some Rogue's definition, I've "raped" someone.

[Archigeek]

First off, based on what I've read, it wasn't consentual. She said no. So the consentual arguement goes out the window. He gave her booze, then qualudes, then tried to have sex with her and she said no... I guess the drugs eventually kicked in enough for her to stop resisting. I'm pretty sure that's not just statutory rape but hard core rape no matter what the age of the victim.

Add to that, it's already been said that a 13 year old can't really give consent. This is also why I don't really think what she thinks now, after having settled for cash, matters one bit.

Last, I don't think he was convicted guys. He PLED guilty, under a plea agreement. My understanding is that if the plea was rejected by the judge, he would have the opportunity to go to trial. This is the same reason that his justification for fleeing is BS: had the judge not agreed to the plea, he could have still gone to trial and defended himself.

[TheEschaton]

pleading guilty still means you're convicted.

[4a6c1]

Oh yuck. I hope he does time.

[Landrion]

You would seriously get up on the stand and defend a friend who plied a 13 year old with drugs and alcohol and then raped her? You are a fucking idiot.

Maybe, there are some things a friend could do that would make me not consider them a friend anymore. There are others where I would acknowledge that they were wrong and still plead for clemency for them, if I thought it was something they were sorry for, or wouldnt do again.

I understand hostility towards the people who are defending him right now. Im simply acknowledging that we can all be arbitrary about people we care about. Because my own instinct when I first heard people defending him was "screw these hypocrites, they wouldnt be so kind if he had fucked their daughter".

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Better bang me up then.

You've plied someone underage with drugs and alcohol while you yourself were an adult, and then had sex with them even after they told you no?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Maybe, there are some things a friend could do that would make me not consider them a friend anymore. There are others where I would acknowledge that they were wrong and still plead for clemency for them, if I thought it was something they were sorry for, or wouldnt do again.
Yeah, I still think this is stupid. Maybe it makes me a bitch but the only way I'd defend a 'friend' is if I knew for a fact they were innocent-- i.e. a friend picked up for a charge and yet they were with me when the crimes were supposedly committed. If I knew they were guilty, fuck no.

Break the law, do the crime. I don't care how much someone cries about how they know they were wrong and they won't do it again-- maybe they should have realized it was wrong and not done it in the first place.

[Landrion]

You can't drop charges after a person has been convicted. Waaaay too late for that.

Theres no way her word can cause a dismissal. But do you think that her forgiveness would induce clemency from a judge in terms of a sentencing?

[TheEschaton]

She can give a Victim Impact Statement, but a judge is in no way bound to them, and I've never met a judge who had clemency on convicted rapists.

[Parkbandit]

Better bang me up then.

Thanks for once again confirming what kind of person you are.

[StrayRogue]

Thanks for once again confirming what kind of person you are.

She was 16, I was 17. We were both wasted. I don't see the problem. I didn't/don't see it as rape, and I'm 99% positive she feels the same.

Not that I give a shit what some braggart on a forum thinks anyway, but still, lock me up.

[Parkbandit]

She was 16, I was 17. We were both wasted. I don't see the problem. I didn't/don't see it as rape, and I'm 99% positive she feels the same.

Not that I give a shit what some braggart on a forum thinks anyway, but still, lock me up.

Either you didn't understand the definition, or you are backtracking since it dawned on you that people don't look favorably to adults raping kids.

Not that I give a shit what some useless fuck on a forum thinks anyway.

[StrayRogue]

"Under the age of consent and also under the influence of drugs/alcohol = rape".

This is pretty simple to understand. Let me take you through it: If you're under the age of consent (18 right?) and intoxicated, it's rape.

[Some Rogue]

It should have read and/or but either way, he's a rapist.

[Ashliana]

"Under the age of consent and also under the influence of drugs/alcohol = rape".

This is pretty simple to understand. Let me take you through it: If you're under the age of consent (18 right?) and intoxicated, it's rape.

Not always that simple. There's a huge gray area in situations where both people are underage, and where both people were intoxicated; I'm not talking about a 30 year old that gets a 15 year old drunk. But a 16 year old and a 15 year old, both drunk, or high; who do you blame? The male, automatically, because he's presumed the dominant one/initiator? I wouldn't say that's fair. What about two gay teens? Charge them both?

Using a simple formula like: "'at least one parter under age of consent' and 'intoxicated' = rape" is woefully insufficient for a legal standard.

Also, the age of consent varies from state to state. It is not always the same as the age of majority. What about a consenting couple, above the age of consent in one area, traveling to another? Yet more legal gray area. This is why you have the judge inserted into the process; to interpret the laws judiciously.

Anyway, Polanski is a scumbag; he should be afforded ZERO leniency, especially since he actively evaded justice for 30 years.

[StrayRogue]

It should have read and/or but either way, he's a rapist.

My argument was about the vagueness of the laws' interpretation in this case, not whether or not Polanski is a rapist.

I agree Polanski deserves everything that's coming to him. I also feel that the parents should answer for letting their daughter become a target for such an individual, as well as the law enforcement agencies who failed to bring him in in a timely fashion.

[CrystalTears]

"Under the age of consent and also under the influence of drugs/alcohol = rape".

This is pretty simple to understand. Let me take you through it: If you're under the age of consent (18 right?) and intoxicated, it's rape.
I suppose it should have been added, since it was assumed, that the other person who is not under the age of consent is a legal adult.

Some adjustments to the rape laws need to be made, like the age gap. I don't think it's fair that an 18 year old could be convicted for having sex with a 16 year old. Or a 23 year old with a 17 year old.

[StrayRogue]

Not always that simple. There's a huge gray area in situations where both people are underage, and where both people were intoxicated; I'm not talking about a 30 year old that gets a 15 year old drunk. But a 16 year old and a 15 year old, both drunk, or high; who do you blame? The male, automatically, because he's presumed the dominant one/initiator? I wouldn't say that's fair. What about two gay teens? Charge them both?

Using a simple formula like: "'at least one parter under age of consent' and 'intoxicated' = rape" is woefully insufficient for a legal standard.

Also, the age of consent varies from state to state. It is not always the same as the age of majority. What about a consenting couple, above the age of consent in one area, traveling to another? Yet more legal gray area. This is why you have the judge inserted into the process; to interpret the laws judiciously.

Anyway, Polanski is a scumbag; he should be afforded ZERO leniency, especially since he actively evaded justice for 30 years.

This was the point I was trying to make. By that formula's standards I am apparently a rapist. Which is hilariously false.

[Archigeek]

Actually, pleading guilty and being convicted isn't exactly the same thing, at least not at the point where he fled the country. In his case, he had a plea deal on the table that was about to be finalized and he fled. So technically, he wasn't convicted. Had he showed up for his plea hearing and everyone agreed to the terms of the plea, then yes, he would have been convicted. But instead he fled the country because he was afraid the judge wasn't going to back the plea agreement. It's possible that could have happened, but if it HAD happened, he could have withdrawn the plea and gone to trial.

The downside of this, is that it's the only thing that really DOES make what the victim says matter, because if in the unlikely event that it actually did go to trial, her testimony would be required to get a conviction. It's things like this that make me think US law should be changed so that you can't file a civil suit until after any pending criminal charges are resolved. Civil suits give wealthy criminals an opportunity to buy their way out of trouble with a huge payoff.

[Nieninque]

This was the point I was trying to make. By that formula's standards I am apparently a rapist. Which is hilariously false.

Unless you were fucking a boy prior to around 2003, you dont even qualify under SR's definition. Unless of course you were living outside of the UK, the age of consent is 16 (although until around 2003ish it was 18 for homosexual sex).

Interesting either way.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

She was 16, I was 17. We were both wasted. I don't see the problem. I didn't/don't see it as rape, and I'm 99% positive she feels the same.

Not that I give a shit what some braggart on a forum thinks anyway, but still, lock me up.

You were also both underage and both obviously gave consent. Even if you were 18, she was of age to consent.

Were you 30 and she was 16, then yes, that is rape.. but legal, textbook definition? No, what you did wasn't rape.

[Nieninque]

You were also both underage and both obviously gave consent.

They were both over the age of consent (16)


Were you 30 and she was 16, yes, that is rape.

Not unless she was comatose or in a condition where she could not have given informed consent.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Not unless she was comatose or in a condition where she could not have given informed consent.

Hm, I'm pretty sure in the US (or some parts) there's like a 5 year limit until the person becomes legally an adult, but I could be wrong about that.

[Nieninque]

Well Strayrogue lives in the UK where the age of consent is 16, so his sexual encounter, while stupid, was legal.

[StrayRogue]

Unless you were fucking a boy prior to around 2003, you dont even qualify under SR's definition. Unless of course you were living outside of the UK, the age of consent is 16 (although until around 2003ish it was 18 for homosexual sex).

Interesting either way.

I was referring to their laws.

But I suppose the better example would have been being 20 and having a 17 year old girlfriend. In American law, having sex in such a relationship would be illegal. It would be rape.

[StrayRogue]

Well Strayrogue lives in the UK where the age of consent is 16, so his sexual encounter, while stupid, was legal.

Looks like someone lost their virginity in their 20's...

[Nieninque]

Looks like someone lost their virginity in their 20's...

I was referring more to having sex while drunk, but OHNOEZ...SOMEONE DIDNT LOSE THEIR VIRGINITY AT 12!!!!

[StrayRogue]

I was referring more to having sex while drunk, but OHNOEZ...SOMEONE DIDNT LOSE THEIR VIRGINITY AT 12!!!!

You've never had drunk sex?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I was referring to their laws.

But I suppose the better example would have been being 20 and having a 17 year old girlfriend. In American law, having sex in such a relationship would be illegal. It would be rape.

Again, depends on the state.

[StrayRogue]

Again, depends on the state.

It raises the point though of "who is right". Consider that the legal age in the UK was 12 hundreds of years ago. It's 9 or something in Mexico today. Like has been previously said, it's a fuzzy grey area.

[Nieninque]

You've never had drunk sex?

Yes and it was equally as stupid.

It was an observation rather than a value judgement.
Dont be so defensive.

[Warriorbird]

I'm still sort of puzzled as to how Michael Vick has already been to and out of prison but R. Kelly and Roman Polanski have not.

[TheEschaton]

Yes and it was equally as stupid.

It was an observation rather than a value judgement.
Dont be so defensive.

You said you weren't gonna tell anyone!

[Nieninque]

You said you weren't gonna tell anyone!

Stupid, not depraved.

[AnticorRifling]

It raises the point though of "who is right". Consider that the legal age in the UK was 12 hundreds of years ago. It's 9 or something in Mexico today. Like has been previously said, it's a fuzzy grey area. If the area is fuzzy and grey then there is no crime duh.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

It raises the point though of "who is right". Consider that the legal age in the UK was 12 hundreds of years ago. It's 9 or something in Mexico today. Like has been previously said, it's a fuzzy grey area.

As this is not 12th century England, what Polanski did does not fall into a 'fuzzy grey area'.

[Parkbandit]

I'm still sort of puzzled as to how Michael Vick has already been to and out of prison but R. Kelly and Roman Polanski have not.

Roman Polanski fled the country and R. Kelly was found not guilty.

[4a6c1]

I'm still sort of puzzled as to how Michael Vick has already been to and out of prison but R. Kelly and Roman Polanski have not.

Because yappy dogs in mini skirts are cute and deserve to have rights but (unwanted?) human offspring will eventually want to have a conversation with us and hold us accountable for our actions and thereofore deserve to be terminated in the worst possible way. The world is overpopulated anyways. And children stink and act all needy and stuff. They arent people and dont get rights. Duh.

[Keller]

It raises the point though of "who is right". Consider that the legal age in the UK was 12 hundreds of years ago. It's 9 or something in Mexico today. Like has been previously said, it's a fuzzy grey area.

How is it grey?

If you are 18, then you consent to sexual intercourse.

If you are not 18, then you cannot consent (within the legal definition) to sexual intercourse.

In the past I've used illegal drugs. Does that mean that I can say I didn't break the law because other jurisdictions wouldn't consider the use of those substances a crime?

What if I said, "In international waters, there are no laws so I should be able to murder people! It's a grey area where the laws are inconsistent."

Absurd.

[Ravenstorm]

Can't argue with this. (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2009/09/father_polanski_would_go_to_jail.html)

[CrystalTears]

Can't argue with this. (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2009/09/father_polanski_would_go_to_jail.html)
So because he's a pedophile, suddenly his movies are crap? What does his ability to do movies have to do with his retarded personal life?

Maybe I'm just heartless and can separate the man from the movie icon. What Tom Cruise and John Travolta spout about their life doesn't interest me, but I still love their movies. I'm not seeing what one has to do with the other.

[Ravenstorm]

The point was less about his movies and more about the double standard. "Father Polanski" would receive no sympathy and everyone would be calling for his head on a platter. Just because he's an award winning director doesn't mean he's deserving of special consideration.

[CrystalTears]

The point was less about his movies and more about the double standard. "Father Polanski" would receive no sympathy and everyone would be calling for his head on a platter. Just because he's an award winning director doesn't mean he's deserving of special consideration.
Because priests shouldn't be touching anyone sexually, especially not little mulahs.

What Polanski did was wrong, but there was talk of "how could he even get an award" when that achievement has nothing to do with his irresponsible personal life.

[Parkbandit]

Because priests shouldn't be touching anyone sexually, especially not little mulahs.

What Polanski did was wrong, but there was talk of "how could he even get an award" when that achievement has nothing to do with his irresponsible personal life.

So, if a pedophile priest was receiving an award for something religious related, you would be fine with that?

There are many people who would be outraged that he would get any recognition whatsoever. Of course, many of those who would be outraged by a priest getting such an award are the same ones that are signing petitions to have Polanski released from prison.. thus the double standard.

[CrystalTears]

So, if a pedophile priest was receiving an award for something religious related, you would be fine with that?

There are many people who would be outraged that he would get any recognition whatsoever. Of course, many of those who would be outraged by a priest getting such an award are the same ones that are signing petitions to have Polanski released from prison.. thus the double standard.
Point taken. However I don't think that someone should be judged on their work for what they did in their personal life. They're not mutually exclusive all the time.

It's like saying that your job performance as a customer support agent should be judged based on how you beat your wife at home. What you do at home is your business, as fucked up as it may be. As long as you're performing your duties, why should your personal life be influenced like that? Unless you were a bank teller and your crime was stealing from banks, then they would be associated with each other.

The problem I see with this comparison is that a priest is a priest ALL the time. He is never not a priest. Just because he walks away from the church doesn't mean he stops being a priest. He represents his faith at all times. So when he is doing something illegal, he is doing it as a man AND a priest. The two cannot be separated.

So unless Polanski was getting a humanitarian award, I don't see a problem with it. He still needs to get his nuts pummeled, but he can go on making movies. I think it's ridiculous to cry out that he's innocent of these crimes, or say that what he did 30+ years ago is not a big deal, but a movie award? Meh, don't care.

[Nieninque]

It raises the point though of "who is right". Consider that the legal age in the UK was 12 hundreds of years ago.

It was set at 12 for 14 years in the 1800s when it was raised to 13. 22 years later it was raised to 16.


It's 9 or something in Mexico today.

13


Like has been previously said, it's a fuzzy grey area.

It's made out to be fuzzy by people who try to intellectualise a sexual attraction towards children. It's pretty straight forward otherwise.

[Keller]

It's made out to be fuzzy by people who try to intellectualise a sexual attraction towards children. It's pretty straight forward otherwise.

I think it has more to do with intelectualizing the age at which a human being may give legal consent to have sexual intercourse.

Sure, a super mature 13 year old may (i) have the intellectual capacity and maturity to understand the consequences of his/her actions and (ii) the self-esteem (not the best word, but all that I could come up with in short-order) to resist the undue influence of an adult.

And a less mature 22 year old will not have those same qualities.

But each society must determine a universal age at which a human being may give legal consent.

That is an objective standard and, as many people have pointed out, is not at all grey. It is written in black and white.

[StrayRogue]

That is an objective standard and, as many people have pointed out, is not at all grey. It is written in black and white.

If it's black and white why does it differ from country to country or even state to state.

The only "standard" at present is that there should be an age of consent. The problem is there is no single all-defining catch-all age.

[Keller]

If it's black and white why does it differ from country to country or even state to state.

The only "standard" at present is that there should be an age of consent. The problem is there is no single all-defining catch-all age.

Because it is written down in a book of laws.

Is the speed limit "grey" because it is different on the same highway between different states?

No. It is clearly posted in a conspicuous location. It is black and white.

"Speeding" is the exceeding the speed limit in a specific location. It is an objective standard.

Similarly, "statutory rape" is having sexual intercourse with an individual below the age of legal consent in a specific location. It is an objective standard.

[EasternBrand]

That is an objective standard and, as many people have pointed out, is not at all grey. It is written in black and white.

This is exactly why we should remember that the actual charge (or, one charge of several) against Polanski was not rape, it was "Unlawful sexual intercourse."

Here's the statute as written now:


(a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual
intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the
perpetrator, if the person is a minor. For the purposes of this
section, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an
"adult" is a person who is at least 18 years of age.



I don't know if it was different in 1977, when Polanski was indicted, but my guess -- based on the text of the indictment -- is that the definition of the crime has likely not been materially changed.

The only questions a judge or jury needs to answer are: (1) Was there an act of sexual intercourse between the victim and the accused? (2) Were they spouses? (3) Was the victim under the age of 18?

If your answers are yes, no, yes, then you have a conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse. Period. The accused's intent, the victim's consent, and the sexual attitudes and mores of different cultures at different times ARE NOT AT ISSUE.

I understand StrayRogue to be making a normative argument that the age of consent should NOT NECESSARILY be 18, but the fact is that in California in 1977 and now, IT IS. While in California, Polanski (1) engaged in an act of sexual intercourse, (2) with a female not his spouse, (3) who was under 18 at the time, and a judge or jury so found. He should have spent time in jail.

How are we still arguing about this?

[Parkbandit]

The grand jury transcripts of the sex abuse case paint a far more damaging picture of the events that allegedly unfolded between the director and a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson's home in 1977.

Q: Did you resist at that time?

A: A little bit, but not really because . . .

Q: Because what?

A: Because I was afraid of him.

That's Roman Polanski's 13-year-old victim testifying before a grand jury about how the famous director forced himself on her at Jack Nicholson's Mulholland Drive home in March of 1977.

I'm reading this in the district attorney's office at the Los Angeles County Criminal Courts Building, digging through the Polanski file to refresh my memory of the infamous case, and my blood pressure is rising.

Is it because I'm the parent of a girl?

Maybe that's part of it.

But I wish the renowned legal scholars Harvey Weinstein and Debra Winger, to name just two of Polanski's defenders, were here with me now. I'd like to invite Martin Scorsese, as well, along with David Lynch, who have put their names on a petition calling for Polanski to be freed immediately.

What, because he won an Oscar? Would they speak up for a sex offender who hadn't?

To hear these people tell it, you'd think Polanski was the victim rather than the teenager.

And then there's Woody Allen, who has signed the petition too.

Woody Allen?

You'd think that after marrying his longtime girlfriend's adopted daughter, he'd have the good sense to remain silent. But at least Soon-Yi Previn was a consenting adult.

I'd like to show all these great luminaries the testimony from Polanski's underage victim, as well as Polanski's admission of guilt. Then I'd like to ask whether, if the victim were their daughter, they'd be so cavalier about a crime that was originally charged as sodomy and rape before Polanski agreed to a plea bargain. Would they still support Polanski's wish to remain on the lam living the life of a king, despite the fact that he skipped the U.S. in 1977 before he was sentenced?

The Zurich Film Festival has been "unfairly exploited" by Polanski's arrest, Winger said. Thanks, Deb. And so sorry the film festival was inconvenienced by the arrest of a man who left the United States to avoid sentencing for forcing himself on a child.

Weinstein, meanwhile, issued an open letter urging "every U.S. filmmaker to lobby against any move to bring Polanski back to the U.S.," arguing that "whatever you think of the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time."

So-called crime?

Let's get back to the grand jury testimony.

Polanski has taken the girl to Nicholson's house to photograph her, ostensibly for a French magazine. The girl's mother, it's clear to me, should have had her head examined for allowing this to happen, but that's another matter.

The girl says Polanski, who was in his 40s at the time, opened a bottle of champagne and shared it with her and with an adult woman who later left for work. That's when Polanski allegedly began taking pictures of the 13-year-old and suggested that she remove her blouse.

Quoting again from the grand jury transcript, with the girl being questioned by a prosecutor:

Q: Did you take your shirt off or did Mr. Polanski?

A: No, I did.

Q: Was that at his request or did you volunteer to do that?

A: That was at his request.

She said Polanski later went into the bathroom and took part of a Quaalude pill and offered her some, as well, and she accepted.

Q: Why did you take it?

A: I don't know. I think I must have been pretty drunk or else I wouldn't have.

So here she is, at 13, washing down a Quaalude with champagne, and then Polanski suggested they move out to the Jacuzzi.

Q: When you got in the Jacuzzi, what were you wearing?

A: I was going to wear my underwear, but he said for me to take them off.

She says Polanski went back in the house and returned in the nude and got into the Jacuzzi with her. When he told her to move closer to him, she resisted, saying, "No. No, I got to get out."

He insisted, she testified, and so she moved closer and he put his hands around her waist. She told him she had asthma and wanted to get out, and she did. She said he followed her into the bathroom, where she told him, "I have to go home now."

Q: What did Mr. Polanski say?

A: He told me to go in the other room and lie down.

She testified that she was afraid and sat on the couch in the bedroom.

Q: What were you afraid of?

A: Him.

She testified that Polanski sat down next to her and said she'd feel better. She repeated that she had to go home.

Q: What happened then?

A: He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, "No," you know, "Keep away." But I was kind of afraid of him because there was no one else there.

She testified that he put his mouth on her vagina.

"I was ready to cry," she said. "I was kind of -- I was going, 'No. Come on. Stop it.' But I was afraid."

She said he then pulled off her panties.

Q: What happened after that?

A: He started to have intercourse with me.

At this point, she testified, Polanski became concerned about the consequences and asked if she was on the pill.

No, she told him.

Polanski had a solution, according to her.

"He goes, 'Would you want me to go in through your back?' And I went, 'No.' "

According to her, that didn't stop Polanski, who began having anal sex with her.

This was when the victim was asked by the prosecutor if she resisted and she said, "Not really," because "I was afraid of him." She testified that when the ordeal had ended, Polanski told her, "Oh, don't tell your mother about this."

He added: "This is our secret."

But it wasn't a secret for long. When the victim got home and told her story, her mother called the police.

Now granted, we only have the girl's side of things. But an LAPD criminalist testified before the grand jury that tests of the girl's panties "strongly indicate semen." And a police officer who searched Polanski's hotel room found a Quaalude and photos of the girl.

Two weeks after the encounter on Mulholland Drive, Polanski was indicted for furnishing a controlled substance to a minor, committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child under 14, unlawful sexual intercourse, rape by use of drugs, perversion (oral copulation) and sodomy.

Three months later, a plea bargain was worked out. Court records indicate that the victim and her family had asked the district attorney's office to spare the victim the trauma of testifying at a criminal trial.

"A stigma would attach to her for a lifetime," the family's attorney argued.

So Polanski pleaded guilty to just one count -- unlawful sexual intercourse. The other charges were dropped.

Polanski spent 42 days in prison for pre-sentencing diagnostic tests. After his release, but before his sentencing in 1978, he skipped, boarding a plane for Europe because he feared he would be ordered to serve more time in prison. A warrant for his arrest has been in effect ever since, and Polanski was arrested this week in Switzerland.

He is fighting extradition, but I hope he loses that fight, gets hustled back to California and finally gets a sentence that fits his crime.

There's little question that this case was mishandled in many ways. According to a recent documentary, the now-deceased judge inappropriately discussed sentencing with a prosecutor who wasn't working the case. And Polanski's lawyers allege that the director fled only because he believed the judge would cave under public pressure and renege on a promise that he would serve no more time.

Regardless of whether there was such a deal, Polanski had not yet been sentenced, and under state law at the time, he could have been sent away for many years. Does anyone really believe 42 days was an appropriate penalty given the nature of the case?

Yes, Polanski has known great tragedy, having survived the Holocaust and having lost his wife, Sharon Tate and their unborn son, to the insanity of the Charles Manson cult.

But that has no bearing on the crime in question.

His victim, who settled a civil case against Polanski for an unspecified amount, said she does not want the man who forced himself on her to serve additional time.

That's big-hearted of her but also irrelevant, and so is the fact that the victim had admitted to having sex with a boyfriend before meeting Polanski.

Polanski stood in a Santa Monica courtroom on Aug. 8, 1977, admitted to having his way with a girl three decades his junior and told a judge that indeed, he knew she was only 13.

There may well have been judicial misconduct.

But no misconduct was greater than allowing Polanski to cop a plea to the least of his charges. His crime was graphic, manipulative and heinous, and he got a pass. It's unbelievable, really, that his soft-headed apologists are rooting for him to get another one.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez30-2009sep30,0,1671827,full.column

[Keller]

Wait, he had vaginal and anal sex with a 13 year old?

The things I'd like to do to him . . .

[AnticorRifling]

Wait, he had vaginal and anal sex with a 13 year old?

The things I'd like to do to him . . .
Taken out of context that is actually a hilarious post.

Or a typical internet response could be:

High five.

Shake his hand.

Ask him how.

Borrow his van.

Etc. etc. etc.

[AnticorRifling]

Polanski I know you made good movies and all and I'm gonna let you finish but I just had to say that Beyonce would have been the best 13yr old lay of all time.


I laugh and feel dirty at the same time.

[StrayRogue]

Because it is written down in a book of laws.

Is the speed limit "grey" because it is different on the same highway between different states?

No. It is clearly posted in a conspicuous location. It is black and white.

"Speeding" is the exceeding the speed limit in a specific location. It is an objective standard.

Similarly, "statutory rape" is having sexual intercourse with an individual below the age of legal consent in a specific location. It is an objective standard.

I'm not arguing if Polanski is innocent/guilty. I think he should suffer for what he did.

I think it is grey because it is not a universally defined law outside of this case. I was talking on a bigger scale.

[Parkbandit]

Wait, he had vaginal and anal sex with a 13 year old?

The things I'd like to do to him . . .

And oral.

Yea... if kharma is real, that fuck would get raped in jail until his intestines fell out of his ass.. and he dies tripping over them and falling down a huge flight of stairs.

[AnticorRifling]

And oral.

Yea... if kharma is real, that fuck would get raped in jail until his intestines fell out of his ass.. and he dies tripping over them and falling down a huge flight of stairs.
On to a pile of dildos.

[Keller]

On to a pile of dildos.

Let's all write a screen play together:


[Setting: A team of special investigators for the LAPD arrive at the home of a world famous director that has admitted to raping a 13 year old. He is dead at the bottom of a set of stairs with his intestines hanging out of his ass in a pile of dildos.]

[AnticorRifling]

It will require many witty one liners.

Cop A: "Well, I guess he got what he deserved in the end."

[TheEschaton]

Keller is a legal positivist! I knew it! Because it's written down in a book of laws, it's the absolute standard! It gains its authority from the paper it's written on!

[Parkbandit]

It will require many witty one liners.

Cop A: "Well, I guess he got what he deserved in the end."

Cop B: "I am NOT cleaning up the shit on the stairs"

[Back]

I’m gone for less than 22 hours and the thread has devolved into guys talking about disemboweled corpses in dildo piles?

Eww.

[Tisket]

I’m gone for less than 22 hours and the thread has devolved into guys talking about disemboweled corpses in dildo piles?

Why don't you go away for a few months and let's see where it goes. Call it an experiment. Bye bye.

And on topic, I saw Whoopi and her cohorts on the View discussing this case and by god that woman should have her mouth sewn shut. I've always thought she had a very naive political outlook but jesus she is just plain fucking stupid:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/roman-polanski/6245219/Roman-Polanski-backlash-as-Whoopi-Goldberg-says-director-didnt-commit-rape-rape.html

And for those who consider themeselves friends of the pedophile and use that as an excuse to defend indefensible actions by him, I wish more of them would use Luc Besson's approach:


The French director Luc Besson refused to sign the petition calling for Polanski's release.

He said: "I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much but nobody should be above the law. I don't know the details of this case, but I think that when you don't show up for trial, you are taking a risk."

I hope signing the petition for Polanski's release puts a nail in some celebrity careers. Probably won't but one can hope.

[Parkbandit]

Why don't you go away for a few months and let's see where it goes. Call it an experiment. Bye bye.

And on topic, I saw Whoopi and her cohorts on the View discussing this case and by god that woman should have her mouth sewn shut. I've always thought she had a very naive political outlook but jesus she is just plain fucking stupid:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/roman-polanski/6245219/Roman-Polanski-backlash-as-Whoopi-Goldberg-says-director-didnt-commit-rape-rape.html

And for those who consider themeselves friends of the pedophile and use that as an excuse to defend indefensible actions by him, I wish more of them would use Luc Besson's approach:



I hope signing the petition for Polanski's release puts a nail in some celebrity careers. Probably won't but one can hope.

It wasn't rape-rape.. it was a 44 year old, drugging and getting a 13 year old drunk.. then having oral sex, regular sex and anal sex with her.

In his defense though.. he's a liberal director and he's probably sorry he did it.

[Tisket]

She claimed yesterday that what she was trying to do was clarify what Polanski had been charged with and wasn't actually commenting on what he had actually done to the victim but she is full of shit.

[Fallen]

The French director Luc Besson refused to sign the petition calling for Polanski's release.

He said: "I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much but nobody should be above the law. I don't know the details of this case, but I think that when you don't show up for trial, you are taking a risk."

Luc Besson is the man. 5th Element rocked.

[Parkbandit]

I hope signing the petition for Polanski's release puts a nail in some celebrity careers. Probably won't but one can hope.

To be honest.. I knew of only a handful of the "celebrities" that signed the petition. Most were a bunch of unknowns to me.

Woody Allen signing the thing though absolutely cracked me up.

[Tisket]

I haven't seen a complete list yet.

[Sean]

I haven't seen a complete list yet.

I signed the petition as Tisket LovesNeff in your honor.

[Tisket]

I signed the petition as Tisket LovesNeff in your honor.

Fucker. haha

[Cephalopod]

Luc Besson is the man. 5th Element rocked.

Indeed. Also, The Professional / Leon. (I even like The Transporter franchise, but don't hold it against me.)

One of my favorite directors -- moreso for not being a douche regarding Polanski.

[Archigeek]

Lets see: have a 13 year old over for a "photo shoot" then get her naked, in spite of her objections, get her drunk and drugged up, make her cry, force yourself on her... but oh, he's a nice guy because he went down on her first, and then raped her analy so she wouldn't get pregnant. What a stand up guy! Then, rather than face what was probably going to be the lightest sentance ever for such a crime, flee the country.

I think it's finally, after 30 years of waiting, Mr Polanski's turn to be on the receiving end of anal rape, and I'm sure there are a few people in the California prison system who will be happy to introduce him to a bit of his own medicine.

[Mabus]

It wasn't rape-rape.. it was a 44 year old, drugging and getting a 13 year old drunk.. then having oral sex, regular sex and anal sex with her.

In his defense though.. he's a liberal director and he's probably sorry he did it.
And for people that do not know Quaaludes, let me just say, "A Quaalude is a hell of a drug.". We used to call them "gorilla biscuits", "disco biscuits" and "whore pills".

They were the GHB ( the date rape drug) of their day. Adding alcohol increased the affects.

So we have a man giving alcohol and date rape drugs to a 13 year old girl, and then having sex with her. Once caught he admits to it, and then flees the country to avoid sentencing.

I say he gets 1-5, but deserves at least 5-10. He is just lucky it wasn't a child of mine.

[Keller]

He is just lucky it wasn't a child of mine.

I was always under the impression that you hadn't spawned.

God I hope that's true.

[Allereli]

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d26/vankrasn/backpolanski.jpg

New suspect!

[TheEschaton]

Who still uses AOL?

[Apotheosis]

it's probably already been posted, but according to whoopi goldberg he didn't commit "rape-rape", so i guess that's as good of an excuse as any..

[Archigeek]

And Whoopi Goldberg is always the first legal authority I turn to when debating just how rapey a rape rape is, as opposed to you know, butt rape.

It must take a "no, please, I want to go home" in order for it to be "rape rape." Oh wait...

[Atlanteax]

http://cagle.com/working/090930/jones.gif
http://cagle.com/working/090929/lester.jpg

[Back]

You guys are still talking about this shit? There was an earthquake and tsunami yesterday and the Philippines are flooded...

[CrystalTears]

You guys are still talking about this shit? There was an earthquake and tsunami yesterday and the Philippines are flooded...
Make a thread about it, if it interests you enough to talk about it.

My coworker is from the Philippines and has been talking about it since it happened, and showing me pictures. I think that's all I can handle as far as discussing it.

[Back]

Hey now...

A white male artist rapes a 13 year old girl, flees the country, then gets caught in Switzerland.

A bunch of brown people die.

[CrystalTears]

Hey now...

A white male artist rapes a 13 year old girl, flees the country, then gets caught in Switzerland.

A bunch of brown people die.
WTF. Philippines=brown??

[Tisket]

Another thread idea that hasn't materialized yet would be "Backlash, the Anthropomorphic Hemorrhoid".

[Back]

I can only imagine...

Hemorrhoid: Hey!

Back: What?

Hemorrhoid: You’re sitting on me!

Back: Well thats my spot. Go away.

[Parkbandit]

Another thread idea that hasn't materialized yet would be "Backlash, the Anthropomorphic Hemorrhoid".

That's not entirely true:

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=46458

[Nieninque]

Man jailed over historic sex abuse

September 29, 2009
A PENSIONER who sexually abused two little girls more than 30 years ago has been jailed.

Keith Jackson, 69, molested the children when they visited his Stretford flat in the 1970s.

He was only brought to justice when an anonymous letter was sent to police three decades after the abuse took place.

Jackson, of Hatro Court, Stretford Road, Urmston, was sentenced to 18 months in prison at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court.

Who has been sent to prison this month? Pictures gallery and sentences. (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1135725_locked_up_in_september_09)

He was ordered to sign the Sex Offender's Register for 10 years and was disqualified from working with children and vulnerable adults.

Det Con Nicola Graham, based at the child abuse investigation unit at Altrincham police station, said: "These little girls should have been able to trust Jackson to look after them while they were with him but he abused them for his own sick gratification.

"I am pleased to see that justice has been done and he got what he deserved despite his age. I hope this gives his victims some peace of mind and gives other victims of historic sex abuse the confidence to come forward. No matter how many years have passed, we take all reports of this nature extremely seriously."

He was found guilty of four counts of sexual assault on girls under the age of 13 and one count of gross indecency following an eight-day trial in August.

What, no celebrity outrage?

[Kuyuk]

Just curious, but after thirty years or whatever, if someone anonymously sends a letter to the police accusing things, is it automatically quantified as true?

Shit, if someone disliked someone and wrote shit like that, it would ruin someones life, should it be false.

Not saying he didnt do it, or did, just wondering about the believed truth vs the actual truth vs making shit up - after thirty years of thinking about an event.

Sucks for all parties involved I'm sure.

[CrystalTears]

I didn't realize that sexual offenses had no statute of limitations.

[ElvenFury]

Just curious, but after thirty years or whatever, if someone anonymously sends a letter to the police accusing things, is it automatically quantified as true?

I can't imagine that the letter was the only evidence, if that's what you're implying. I'm sure it sparked an investigation, which then accumulated enough evidence to quantify the allegations as true. I'm too lazy to search for more news stories on it though.

[Nieninque]

Just curious, but after thirty years or whatever, if someone anonymously sends a letter to the police accusing things, is it automatically quantified as true?

Of course it isn't.
It's a damn sight easier presenting as a credible witness when you are 38 than when you are 8, however.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I didn't realize that sexual offenses had no statute of limitations.>>

That's 100% up to the governing district. In this case it happened in the UK.

[Parkbandit]

ZURICH (Reuters) – Director Roman Polanski is feeling depressed two weeks after his arrest in Switzerland to face U.S. extradition for a 1977 case involving the rape of a 13-year-old girl, his lawyer was quoted as saying on Sunday.

"I found him to be tired and depressed," Herve Temime told the Sonntag newspaper, one of two newspapers he talked to after visiting the Oscar-winning director in a Zurich prison.

"Roman Polanski, who is 76, seemed very dejected when I visited him," Temime told another newspaper, NZZ am Sonntag.

"Polanski was in an unsettled state of mind."

Polanski pleaded guilty in Los Angeles to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977 and spent 42 days in prison undergoing psychiatric tests.

However, he fled before the case was concluded because he believed a judge would sentence him to up to 50 years behind bars despite a plea agreement for time already served.

Swiss authorities rejected an appeal on Tuesday to release Polanski and also urged a Swiss court dealing with his extradition warrant to reject another appeal by Polanski's lawyers to have him freed, and to refuse bail.

Swiss officials have said they believe there is a very high risk of Polanski fleeing if he is released on bail.

Temime told the Sonntag newspaper the Swiss Federal Penal Court should decide "very soon" on his bid for release on bail.

"He would fulfill all the conditions and stay in Switzerland until the extradition proceeding are decided," he said.

The director, who holds dual French and Polish citizenship, was arrested at the request of the United States when he flew into Switzerland on September 26 to receive a life-time achievement prize at a film festival.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091011/people_nm/us_polanski


NOOOOO!O!!!!!!!! He's depressed!!!!!1111on11on1

I hope he's not in solitary confinement.. because that wouldn't allow Bubba to treat him like a 13 year old girl... which would make me very sad indeed.

[Paradii]

Well, I think he has learned his lesson and should be allowed back into society with open arms.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Well, I think he has learned his lesson and should be allowed back into society with open arms.

Good call, Solomon.

[Ashliana]

I didn't realize that sexual offenses had no statute of limitations.

The statute of limitations only applies if it's the time between the crime happening and the government filing charges. The charges were filed, the case was in the process of being litigated, and he fled--they'll be around indefinitely. The same thing would happen if you skipped bail before sentencing on a drunk driving charge.

Now, if he'd statutorily raped her and she hadn't come forward until she turned 23 (I believe, in most states, it's 18+5), or they hadn't filed the charges until then because they were gathering evidence, they wouldn't be able to do anything.

[Celephais]

Ashliana... context, geez. CT was refering to the article about the nobody who did exactly the same thing, except it wasn't brought up until 30 years later. And it's already been answered, different limits, different places.

[Ashliana]

That's what I get for not reading the whole thread. :X Anyway, right: different states with different rules. Some have exceptions to the statute of limitations, especially for sexual abuse (e.g., repressed memories).

[Tisket]

Ashliana... context, geez. CT was refering to the article about the nobody who did exactly the same thing, except it wasn't brought up until 30 years later. And it's already been answered, different limits, different places.

Are you lobbying for moderator or something?

[Nieninque]

Are you lobbying for moderator or something?

lobbying your mum

[Tisket]

My mom would chew him up, spit him out and turn him into a throw rug. She loves crafts.

[Paradii]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif Roman Polanski =... (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=1007912#post1007912) 10-12-2009 10:59 AM You're deluding yourself.. what makes you think his pedophilia just VANISHED in the 30 years since he actively fled justice?

Uh Duh. I refuse to use italics.

[Celephais]

Are you lobbying for moderator or something?
Moderator of boobs, specifically. (At least when your mom chews it's just gummin, so it feels kinda nice).

[Tisket]

The gumming might be enjoyable but just wait until she whips out her glue gun and glitter.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Or tries to bedazzle it...

[Parkbandit]

That's what I get for not reading the whole thread. :X Anyway, right: different states with different rules. Some have exceptions to the statute of limitations, especially for sexual abuse (e.g., repressed memories).

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/Assliana.jpg

[Ashliana]

Asinine JPEG

Andddd cue..

http://www.ultimategoatfansite.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/stuffed_goat.jpg

[diethx]

The pic PB posted isn't asinine. What's asinine is the fact that you had to make an alt handle in order to get someone to agree with you.

[Parkbandit]

Andddd cue..

http://www.ultimategoatfansite.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/stuffed_goat.jpg

Is that your current "significant other"? What's it like to be with a guy less hairy and smarter than yourself?

[Parkbandit]

Never one to mince words, Star Jones is coming out against those who are lending support to jailed director Roman Polanski, saying that if a black director admitted to having sex with a minor, he or she wouldn't have been allowed to camp out in France for 30+ years. "He's white, he's rich ... I didn't stutter. I think it's a class and a privilege thing," Jones said during a discussion on 'The Insider.'

During an appearance on 'The Insider,' Jones let loose on Polanski, who was recently arrested after fleeing America to dodge charges he admitted to more than 30 years ago. Jones took little time to get right into her thoughts, saying that she has "no sympathy for him. He's in jail, three hots and a cot, that's what you're supposed to get."

And she was just getting started.

Jones went on to say: "Something tells me Spike Lee would not have been allowed to chill in France for the last three decades had he admitted to having sex with a 13-year-old." She continued, questioning why Polanski, despite his admission of the crime, has the support of many in Hollywood.

"The point is, Roman Polanski is very much loved by the Hollywood industry, community, and they are out there putting petitions together."

When questioned by a fellow panel member as to whether she thinks it's just race involved, Jones clarified her stance by saying: "Not just because he's white, because he's white, he's rich ... I didn't stutter. I think it's a class and a privilege thing."

Polanski is currently in a Swiss jail as he awaits possible extradition to the U.S.

http://www.popeater.com/2009/10/13/star-jones-roman-polanski-the-insider/

Man.. I want to have a race card I can use to explain anything. It's like a religion.

It's less about a black and white thing and more about Polanski being a rich artsifartsi liberal.

[ElvenFury]

Someone please pass her a glass of OJ.

[Methais]

When questioned by a fellow panel member as to whether she thinks it's just race involved, Jones clarified her stance by saying: "Not just because he's white, because he's white, he's rich ... I didn't stutter. I think it's a class and a privilege thing."

Does that mean Whoopi Goldberg has stockholm syndrome?

[Ashliana]

Is that your current "significant other"? What's it like to be with a guy less hairy and smarter than yourself?

There you go.. can't decide what insults to use, and don't understand the ones you do. I suppose your brain being addlepated is a result of the aging process, or just your inate stupidity. Twinks=not typically hairy. Not understanding words for the win! Sort of like you "goating" someone. Idiot.

[Parkbandit]

There you go.. can't decide what insults to use, and don't understand the ones you do. I suppose your brain being addlepated is a result of the aging process, or just your inate stupidity. Twinks=not typically hairy. Not understanding words for the win! Sort of like you "goating" someone. Idiot.

Sorry, I'm not up on the fag scene terminology. I feel so ashamed now.

Really.. I do.

[Ashliana]

Sorry, I'm not up on the fag scene terminology. I feel so ashamed now.

Really.. I do.

Except that you've gone out of your way to try and use it? I'd already told you you were using the word incorrectly.. and you kept using it, despite not knowing what it meant. Willful ignorance is hilarious--totally typical of your neoconservative side. It's the best part of what makes your arguments trainwrecks.

[Parkbandit]

Except that you've gone out of your way to try and use it? I'd already told you you were using the word incorrectly.. and you kept using it, despite not knowing what it meant. Willful ignorance is hilarious--totally typical of your neoconservative side. It's the best part of what makes your arguments trainwrecks.

I should have used italics..

It's supposed to be a joke.. since other than being a flaming homo, you are the furthest thing from being a slim or hairless.

[4a6c1]

I'm not sure what's going on in here, but I like it.

[Androidpk]

Does that mean Whoopi Goldberg has stockholm syndrome?

No, she's just an idiot.