So what? How exactly is that an excuse for having sex with a 13-year-old who says no?
Director Roman Polanski taken into Swiss custody on 1978 U.S. arrest warrant
- Thread starter alexmst
- Start date
If I remember correctly, the girl originally stated that she continuously said no and asked him to stop.
While he didn't plead to outright rape, that is what it was.
Well, he faced the possibility of 50 years. But the average sentence at the time was 2 years with perhaps a few more years suspended.
Thats exactly right
If PL gets the "wrong" judge he could be looking at one of those 80-year sentences.
American judges been known to do that, and for a lot less crimes
Yes! 2 of them! They are 11 months apart... and we are between birthdays right now... If ANYONE ever did THAT to either one of my girls... god himself could not stop me from seeking justice.
I say lock him up and through away the key!
As I said in this thread: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=254545
But it bares repeating... I have absolutely ZERO tolerance for child molesters... Too bad the rest of our society didn`t feel the same.
Last edited:
Polanski visited Switzerland many times before, even has a house there. What about rendition?
Gyaos Baltar.
Worse. In California, it's rape of a person ("child") under the age of 14. He's done now. His films, after the rape, can be used as evidence of psychological abuse, up to present time. Bye, bye Roman Polanski. Even France will attack Iran before saving his sorry ass because those that are supporting Polanski are Mitterand. Sarkozy is not saying anything. Anyone want to choose the airline over the Atlantic?
Back to Law School!
Gyaos Baltar.
If she did say no. Needless to say I'm not intimately familiar with his court case but there must have been a reason why the D.A.'s Office agreed to a Sentencing Recommendation such as they did.
Given the above, I find it difficult to believe that the evidence had the case gone to trial would have been as clear-cut as some are now stating that it would have been.
That is Statutory Rape Gyaos. i.e. it does not matter whether she gave consent. By statute, if she was under the age of 14 - ipso facto rape.
Like Aardvark says, grand jury testimony just gives 1 side of the picture. The other side? Betcha RP was telling everybody that she was just begging for it and telling him exactly how to do her. And that he thought she was 16 years old and legal.
So the word of a famous - and tragic - movie celebrity against that of a girl whose motive might just possibly to score some quick $$$$$$$$ off a very rich guy. Ohh..... that's why she sued him, right? To get money. Didn't a guy called Michael Jackson win a court case that was somewhat similar?
Betcha there was nothing about "forgiveness" in the civil lawsuit papers that girl's mom filed. And yes, a minor cannot consent to sexual contact with an adult. But the adult has to know - or at least suspect - that the minor is a minor. Or else, he is entitled to rely on the legally invalid consent.
So the DA decides a quick plea bargain for time served is a good way to end the case. Except the judge sees red and decides he is going to jump the joint and hit RP way, way harder than the bargain.
So the word of a famous - and tragic - movie celebrity against that of a girl whose motive might just possibly to score some quick $$$$$$$$ off a very rich guy. Ohh..... that's why she sued him, right? To get money. Didn't a guy called Michael Jackson win a court case that was somewhat similar?
Betcha there was nothing about "forgiveness" in the civil lawsuit papers that girl's mom filed. And yes, a minor cannot consent to sexual contact with an adult. But the adult has to know - or at least suspect - that the minor is a minor. Or else, he is entitled to rely on the legally invalid consent.
So the DA decides a quick plea bargain for time served is a good way to end the case. Except the judge sees red and decides he is going to jump the joint and hit RP way, way harder than the bargain.
Not in Canada. In Canada the criminal code explicitly requires the adult to take "all reasonable steps" to learn the age of the minor. "She looked 16 and she said she was 16" isn't going to cut it with a Canadian judge.
I have no idea what the standard is in California.
From The National Post today:
GENEVA • The French consul general in Zurich said after visiting Roman Polanski in a Swiss prison on Monday that the film-maker was being well treated following his arrest on a US warrant.
"Mr Roman Polanski is being well treated. He thanks the many people who have shown support through the press and public opinion," the consulate said in a brief statement following the visit by Consul General Jean-Luc Faure-Tournaire.
Also visiting Polanski was Poland's ambassador to Switzerland, Jaroslaw Starzyk, who also found him to be "in good condition," Jolanta Chojecka, chief of the consular section at the Polish embassy in Bern, told AFP.
Polanski was able to meet Monday with his wife of 20 years, Emmanuelle Seigner, and his French lawyer, on top of "a direct contact with his Swiss lawyer," she said.
He also "very positively received" news about French and Polish efforts to get him released, the diplomat added.
GENEVA • The French consul general in Zurich said after visiting Roman Polanski in a Swiss prison on Monday that the film-maker was being well treated following his arrest on a US warrant.
"Mr Roman Polanski is being well treated. He thanks the many people who have shown support through the press and public opinion," the consulate said in a brief statement following the visit by Consul General Jean-Luc Faure-Tournaire.
Also visiting Polanski was Poland's ambassador to Switzerland, Jaroslaw Starzyk, who also found him to be "in good condition," Jolanta Chojecka, chief of the consular section at the Polish embassy in Bern, told AFP.
Polanski was able to meet Monday with his wife of 20 years, Emmanuelle Seigner, and his French lawyer, on top of "a direct contact with his Swiss lawyer," she said.
He also "very positively received" news about French and Polish efforts to get him released, the diplomat added.
Gee Gyaos that was years ago.
Sorry that you were so devastatingly clear in what you posted, that I failed to follow it.
Does Fugu have a side effect of grumpiness?
Matt Gurney on Roman Polanski: A rapist, sure, but not a RAPE-rapist
Posted: September 30, 2009, 10:00 AM by Matt Gurney
Full Comment brings you a regular dose of international punditry at its finest. Today, talented journalists -- plus Whoopi Goldberg -- chimed in from around the world on whether or not Roman Polanski is guilty of rape-rape, or merely rape. Apparently, being rich and famous protects you from being arrested for rape, singular. Polanski was pushing it, though, when he committed rape-rape-rape.
Before I get a flood of hate mail accusing me of being flippant with so serious a a subject, let me be clear — I'm as aghast as you are. The absurdity of the argument — yes, he's a rapist, but he's not really a rapist — would be laughable were it not so disgusting. But today, on ABC's The View, Whoopi made that exact argument (Link goes directly to video). Ms. Goldberg, before a global audience of millions of viewers, stated, “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape."
Whoopi? I loved you as Guinan (Star Trek The Next Generation character), but can you please explain to me the difference between rape, and rape-rape? And would rape-rape-rape be worse than rape-rape? Maybe we'd all be better off if we just stuck with the old-fashioned approach, and kept rape as bad from the get-go?
Fortunately, other pundits around the world seem to have a better grip on reality. Writing in The Guardian, Joan Smith utterly destroys-destroys Whoopi Goldberg. (See what I did there? Destroying-destroying is way worse than merely destroying.) The column is so brilliant I must quote it at length. Smith says:
"...plenty of people are willing to excuse a sex attacker because what he did wasn't 'really' rape. According to this line of thinking, it doesn't count if any of the following circumstances apply: the victim knew her attacker, had been drinking or taking drugs, was wearing nice clothes or agreed to go into a house or flat with him. Thanks to Goldberg, we now need a new vocabulary to deal with such cases; they're not 'rape-rape' so we might decide instead to call them something less pejorative, such as 'rape-lite'."
She continues: "...Polanski sent her to a bedroom where he performed cunnilingus on her before putting his penis in her vagina. Drunk and terrified, she protested that she didn't want to have sex, but Polanski took no notice and asked when her last period was. She couldn't remember and he asked if she was on the contraceptive pill. When she said she wasn't, he turned her over and penetrated her anally. He performed further sex acts before the weeping girl got into his car and was driven home. Would that be rape? Or would it be 'rape-rape'?"
Bravo, Ms. Smith!
Similar in tone is a piece by Kate Harding at Salon.com. She takes on exactly the same points as Ms. Smith, but with far more anger: "Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in 'exile' (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never — poor baby — being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention."
Somehow I get the feeling that Ms. Smith and Ms. Harding won't be appearing on The View anytime soon.
Writing in the Washington Post, Thomas J. Reese, S.J., makes an excellent comparison. In an article titled Father Polanski Would Go to Jail, Reese writes, "Imagine if the Knight of Columbus decided to give an award to a pedophile priest who had fled the country to avoid prison. The outcry would be universal. Victim groups would demand the award be withdrawn and that the organization apologize. Religion reporters would be on the case with the encouragement of their editors. Editorial writers and columnist would denounce the knights as another example of the insensitivity of the Catholic Church to sexual abuse. And they would all be correct. And I would join them.
"But why is there not similar outrage directed at the film industry for giving an award to Roman Polanski, who not only confessed to statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl but fled the country prior to sentencing? Why have film critics and the rest of the media ignored this case for 31 years? He even received an Academy award in 2003. Are the high priests of the entertainment industry immune to criticism?"
Fr. Reese nails it. Our celebrity worship has finally reached its logical conclusion. For years, celebrities could beat their partners, go on drug-fueled rampages, drive drunk, and escape serious consequences. We considered that acceptable, so long as they stayed rich, famous, and available for public display. We've watched human beings destroy themselves in real time before our very eyes, and took no action other than driving up network ratings and tabloid sales. In this world of celebrity, everyone now gets one rape for free. Just not rape-rapes.
Michael Cross-Barnet, writing for the Baltimore Sun, would seem to agree, offering these powerful words: "Like a Roman Polanski movie, this is a tale in which there are few good guys. The crime itself was monstrous and can in no way be excused as a byproduct of the tragedies in Polanski's personal life (his mother was killed by the Nazis, and his wife, Sharon Tate, was a victim of the Charles Manson cult)...By all means, enjoy Roman Polanski's movies. But don't for a minute imagine he's some persecuted hero."
National Post
mgurney@nationalpost.com
Matt Gurney is a member of the National Post editorial board.
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...sure-but-not-a-rape-rapist.aspx#ixzz0SdwW16Bj
Posted: September 30, 2009, 10:00 AM by Matt Gurney
Full Comment brings you a regular dose of international punditry at its finest. Today, talented journalists -- plus Whoopi Goldberg -- chimed in from around the world on whether or not Roman Polanski is guilty of rape-rape, or merely rape. Apparently, being rich and famous protects you from being arrested for rape, singular. Polanski was pushing it, though, when he committed rape-rape-rape.
Before I get a flood of hate mail accusing me of being flippant with so serious a a subject, let me be clear — I'm as aghast as you are. The absurdity of the argument — yes, he's a rapist, but he's not really a rapist — would be laughable were it not so disgusting. But today, on ABC's The View, Whoopi made that exact argument (Link goes directly to video). Ms. Goldberg, before a global audience of millions of viewers, stated, “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape."
Whoopi? I loved you as Guinan (Star Trek The Next Generation character), but can you please explain to me the difference between rape, and rape-rape? And would rape-rape-rape be worse than rape-rape? Maybe we'd all be better off if we just stuck with the old-fashioned approach, and kept rape as bad from the get-go?
Fortunately, other pundits around the world seem to have a better grip on reality. Writing in The Guardian, Joan Smith utterly destroys-destroys Whoopi Goldberg. (See what I did there? Destroying-destroying is way worse than merely destroying.) The column is so brilliant I must quote it at length. Smith says:
"...plenty of people are willing to excuse a sex attacker because what he did wasn't 'really' rape. According to this line of thinking, it doesn't count if any of the following circumstances apply: the victim knew her attacker, had been drinking or taking drugs, was wearing nice clothes or agreed to go into a house or flat with him. Thanks to Goldberg, we now need a new vocabulary to deal with such cases; they're not 'rape-rape' so we might decide instead to call them something less pejorative, such as 'rape-lite'."
She continues: "...Polanski sent her to a bedroom where he performed cunnilingus on her before putting his penis in her vagina. Drunk and terrified, she protested that she didn't want to have sex, but Polanski took no notice and asked when her last period was. She couldn't remember and he asked if she was on the contraceptive pill. When she said she wasn't, he turned her over and penetrated her anally. He performed further sex acts before the weeping girl got into his car and was driven home. Would that be rape? Or would it be 'rape-rape'?"
Bravo, Ms. Smith!
Similar in tone is a piece by Kate Harding at Salon.com. She takes on exactly the same points as Ms. Smith, but with far more anger: "Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in 'exile' (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never — poor baby — being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention."
Somehow I get the feeling that Ms. Smith and Ms. Harding won't be appearing on The View anytime soon.
Writing in the Washington Post, Thomas J. Reese, S.J., makes an excellent comparison. In an article titled Father Polanski Would Go to Jail, Reese writes, "Imagine if the Knight of Columbus decided to give an award to a pedophile priest who had fled the country to avoid prison. The outcry would be universal. Victim groups would demand the award be withdrawn and that the organization apologize. Religion reporters would be on the case with the encouragement of their editors. Editorial writers and columnist would denounce the knights as another example of the insensitivity of the Catholic Church to sexual abuse. And they would all be correct. And I would join them.
"But why is there not similar outrage directed at the film industry for giving an award to Roman Polanski, who not only confessed to statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl but fled the country prior to sentencing? Why have film critics and the rest of the media ignored this case for 31 years? He even received an Academy award in 2003. Are the high priests of the entertainment industry immune to criticism?"
Fr. Reese nails it. Our celebrity worship has finally reached its logical conclusion. For years, celebrities could beat their partners, go on drug-fueled rampages, drive drunk, and escape serious consequences. We considered that acceptable, so long as they stayed rich, famous, and available for public display. We've watched human beings destroy themselves in real time before our very eyes, and took no action other than driving up network ratings and tabloid sales. In this world of celebrity, everyone now gets one rape for free. Just not rape-rapes.
Michael Cross-Barnet, writing for the Baltimore Sun, would seem to agree, offering these powerful words: "Like a Roman Polanski movie, this is a tale in which there are few good guys. The crime itself was monstrous and can in no way be excused as a byproduct of the tragedies in Polanski's personal life (his mother was killed by the Nazis, and his wife, Sharon Tate, was a victim of the Charles Manson cult)...By all means, enjoy Roman Polanski's movies. But don't for a minute imagine he's some persecuted hero."
National Post
mgurney@nationalpost.com
Matt Gurney is a member of the National Post editorial board.
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...sure-but-not-a-rape-rapist.aspx#ixzz0SdwW16Bj
Yeah sure, Whoopi. And Chris Brown didn't hit-hit Rihanna. Sure he hit Rihanna but he didn't hit-hit Rihanna. Besides Chris Brown is younger than Rihanna so it is ok to hit her since she is an adult. Welcome to the theatre of the absurd.
We should shine a light on what a fucking bastard this Roman Polanski is. The bastard didn't even wear a condom.
. And Chris Brown didn't hit-hit Rihanna. Sure he hit Rihanna but he didn't hit-hit Rihanna. Besides Chris Brown is younger than Rihanna so it is ok to hit her since she is an adult. Welcome to the theatre of the absurd.We should shine a light on what a fucking bastard this Roman Polanski is. The bastard didn't even wear a condom.
