applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
He assumed wrong.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...
- Thread starter DropGems
- Start date
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Honestly, Polanski's got enough money, lawyers, and fans to delay the process for ages. It wouldn't surprise me if he died of natural causes before ever seeing the inside of a prison.
She ain't got nothing on Huffington contributor Joan Shore, former CBS journalist and self-proclaimed "activist feminist": Polanski's Arrest - Shame on the Swiss
WTF? "Seduced" in scare quotes, as if Polanski didn't even seduce the girl when he drugged, raped, and sodomized her.Joan Shore said:
And even if the girl's mother was complicit (I wouldn't take Shore's word), in what universe does this excuse anything? It's OK because she was pimped by her mother? This is demented thinking.
She's so eager to excuse Polanski that she's making stuff up out of whole cloth.Joan Shore said:
Holy sweet jesus, now she portrays him as a victim.Shore said:
Last edited:
Ms. W... er, I mean, Shore is the is the head of some organization called, "Women overseas for equality". Apparently she thinks it would be a good idea if women oversees were also drugged, raped and sodomized at age 13 by celebrities. Why should American girls have all the fun, after all?
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,224
He packed it in,
And packed it up,
And sneaked away,
And buggered off,
And chickened out,
And pissed off home
Brave Polanski ran away.
(apologies to Monty Python)
Slayhamlet
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 2,423
No, the maximum age of consent is 18 in the U.S., with 16 being the minimum. The plurality of states are still at 16 in fact, but California is 18, which perhaps explains the norm for American movies and TV shows. A few of the states used to be lower, with 14 being the minimum in Hawaii as recently as 2001, for example, but that has all changed recently.
Perhaps you're thinking of legal drinking age, which is abnormally high in the U.S. as compared with most other Western nations. Due to the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 the drinking age is currently fixed at 21 for every U.S. state, although many states used to have drinking ages of 18 or 19. I don't think this is a hold-over from Prohibition period morality so much as a practical measure meant to reduce drunk driving, which is especially prevalent amongst young men. Its effectiveness is debated, of course.
When all else fails, there is always the economic reason why it is a bad omen to punish Roman
“The people of California- we’re broke. What are we going to do? We’re going to prosecute him with IOUs? Let’s figure out some other way to deal with this for the moment.”
John Ridley, former MSNBC co-host and a Huffington Post contributor,
“The people of California- we’re broke. What are we going to do? We’re going to prosecute him with IOUs? Let’s figure out some other way to deal with this for the moment.”
John Ridley, former MSNBC co-host and a Huffington Post contributor,
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
I know this questio has already been addressed (by myself and others), where it was pointed out that Polanski also dated a 15 year old girl, and had been pictured 'hanging out' with some fairly young looking girls at Octoberfest.
Well, apparently, according to Polanski, EVERYONE is into little girls...
From: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/m...anski-everyone-else-fancies-little-girls-too/
“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”
(This quote was apparently from an interview Polanski gave after he fled to Europe in the 70s.)
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
No need to apologize to Terry Gilliam. He signed the petition.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
Last edited:
HeyLeroy
Vegan Cannibal
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Messages
- 5,567
It's not quite true that they had made no attempt:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/Polanski+cancelled+visit+Calgary+over+fears+arrest/2053883/story.html
ETA: Wow! My 5,000th post!
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
Hasta la vista, rosemary's baby!
LostAngeles
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Messages
- 10,109
If that were the case, I wouldn't have to go to the criminal court tomorrow to do my jury service, nor would the investigator from when I was robbed be calling me about victim restitution.
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
Having read through this entire monster thread:
1. I haven't spotted any links or citations showing that Polanski ever confirmed that the girl's statements about what happened on the night in question were true. If such a citation is available I'm happy to take their combined statements as being factual, in which case Polanski belongs in jail for a lengthy list of crimes.
2. Lacking such a citation, I think the position several posters have taken that the girl was telling the truth is insufficiently supported. Lacking such a citation bald claims like "Polanski raped a thirteen year old girl twice" are incorrect, and the posters making those claims should instead be saying "a thirteen year old girl alleges Polanski raped her twice".
Polanksi pled guilty to having sex with her. He did not plead guilty to raping her. It is possible that they had consensual sex and she lied about it later, just as it is possible that Polanski drugged her and raped her.
3. It seems that the likely outcome of Polanski staying in the USA was 48 days in prison followed by deportation. By fleeing the USA, voluntarily deporting himself as it were, he avoided 48 days in prison. Certainly if due process is to be followed he should spend 48 days in a US prison but it's such a small length of time for a crime committed so long ago that I don't find the case for pursuing the matter very compelling.
4. If you happened to have a TARDIS and a video camera in your back yard, and you went back and videotaped the alleged rape, and by doing so you obtained proof beyond reasonable doubt that Polanski raped the girl exactly as she described it, then I would obviously support trying Polanski for rape and giving him an appropriate sentence. If you don't have a TARDIS and Polanski has not confirmed the girl's story then this isn't going to happen.
5. If I've missed the link where Polanski admits to raping her, mea culpa. If I haven't, this thread is an embarrassing display of supposed skeptics leaping to vilify someone based on insufficient evidence and those of you who have been stating as a fact that Polanski is a rapist need to go to remedial skeptic training.
6. How to put this politely... from what I've read in Dan Savage's column (NSFW) over the years I would expect an anal rape that took place as described in the transcript at The Smoking Gun to leave detectable injuries that would have been documented by the police and presented at Polanski's trial as evidence of forcible rape. I'm not calling her a liar but if that exact sequence of events was presented in a sex scene in a work of fiction I think it would be seen as implausible. People's bits just don't work that way.
Possibly they just had no clue about aspects of forensic procedure we take for granted today in the seventies but a medical examination for evidence of injuries isn't exactly rocket science.
That oddity doesn't incline me to a conclusion either way but it does strike me as rather curious.
1. I haven't spotted any links or citations showing that Polanski ever confirmed that the girl's statements about what happened on the night in question were true. If such a citation is available I'm happy to take their combined statements as being factual, in which case Polanski belongs in jail for a lengthy list of crimes.
2. Lacking such a citation, I think the position several posters have taken that the girl was telling the truth is insufficiently supported. Lacking such a citation bald claims like "Polanski raped a thirteen year old girl twice" are incorrect, and the posters making those claims should instead be saying "a thirteen year old girl alleges Polanski raped her twice".
Polanksi pled guilty to having sex with her. He did not plead guilty to raping her. It is possible that they had consensual sex and she lied about it later, just as it is possible that Polanski drugged her and raped her.
3. It seems that the likely outcome of Polanski staying in the USA was 48 days in prison followed by deportation. By fleeing the USA, voluntarily deporting himself as it were, he avoided 48 days in prison. Certainly if due process is to be followed he should spend 48 days in a US prison but it's such a small length of time for a crime committed so long ago that I don't find the case for pursuing the matter very compelling.
4. If you happened to have a TARDIS and a video camera in your back yard, and you went back and videotaped the alleged rape, and by doing so you obtained proof beyond reasonable doubt that Polanski raped the girl exactly as she described it, then I would obviously support trying Polanski for rape and giving him an appropriate sentence. If you don't have a TARDIS and Polanski has not confirmed the girl's story then this isn't going to happen.
5. If I've missed the link where Polanski admits to raping her, mea culpa. If I haven't, this thread is an embarrassing display of supposed skeptics leaping to vilify someone based on insufficient evidence and those of you who have been stating as a fact that Polanski is a rapist need to go to remedial skeptic training.
6. How to put this politely... from what I've read in Dan Savage's column (NSFW) over the years I would expect an anal rape that took place as described in the transcript at The Smoking Gun to leave detectable injuries that would have been documented by the police and presented at Polanski's trial as evidence of forcible rape. I'm not calling her a liar but if that exact sequence of events was presented in a sex scene in a work of fiction I think it would be seen as implausible. People's bits just don't work that way.
Possibly they just had no clue about aspects of forensic procedure we take for granted today in the seventies but a medical examination for evidence of injuries isn't exactly rocket science.
That oddity doesn't incline me to a conclusion either way but it does strike me as rather curious.
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
It doesn't matter if she was lying. Even if you throw out the drugs & alcohol (which would have been a crime to provide to a minor, anyway), "just" having sex with her was rape. She was 13. She was not old enough to legally consent.
Which, if true, shows how messed up in the head he was. 30+ years of evading justice, just to avoid a mere 48 days in prison?
An additional 48 days for rape is absurd on it's face. But, now he has the added crime of evading justice.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
Polanski admitted to having sex with a 13 year-old girl. Under the law then and now, that is statutory rape. Consent, nor the veracity of the girl's version of events, does not factor in. No matter how you slice it, spin it, or distort it: Roman Polanski is a rapist.
The 48 additional days he was supposedly meant to serve were part of a plea agreement that could be set aside by the judge sentencing him. I believe the maximum penalty at the time for his crime was up to 20 years in prison. It was certainly more than 90 days, and could very easily, and quite legally, have been imposed upon Polanski. That is why he fled.
When a 44-year old man has sex with a 13-year old girl, that's rape. Polanski admitted he had sex with a 13 year-old girl, therefore he committed rape. No TARDIS required.
Your incredulity about the details of 13 year-old rape victim's recollection of her rape notwithstanding, Roman Polanski is a rapist. This is a matter of record.
Last edited:
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,829
While I am not aware anywhere that Polanski has confirmed her statements, I am not aware that he has denied her account, either.
As has been described in this thread, the reason for the plea down likely doesn't have to do with him denying her version, but more to the fact that her version, even if accepted as true, would have been difficult to get a rape conviction in 1979, when sexual assault was far more tolerated and crap like "she was asking for it" was acceptable. From a modern perspective, her story is a clear-cut case of rape. However, back then, it wouldn't have been so easy. I mean, she undressed on her own! She had had sex previously! Obviously she was asking for it. Or so the argument would go.
You have no idea what 'due process' means in this case and you are also conveniently ignoring the fact that 'due process' would have to take into account the fact that he fled from justice.
For the rest of your post, your not calling her a liar you are just saying you don't believe her story and you think she might have had consensual sex and is now lying about it.
Right.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
And to put to rest once and for all this ridiculous notion that Polanski was somehow the victim of a reneged plea agreement, here's the testimony from his plea transcript:
Last edited: