Forum: pol
Page 3357
Subject: Roman Polanski

  Posted by: Perm Dude - [438132822] Tue, Sep 29, 2009, 22:35
Will we finally see this guy sentenced?

Kate Harding with a fierce reply to the Polanski apologists. Amy Sullivan piles on.

Been awhile since I could say "F*ck yeah!" as I read an article.
 
1Pancho Villa
      ID: 418233010
      Wed, Sep 30, 2009, 14:07 		Excellent article on HuffPo by Keli Goff.

When Woody Allen is coming to your defense in a case involving alleged sex with a teenager...well, that's a punchline that writes itself.


 
2Boldwin
      ID: 34803016
      Thu, Oct 01, 2009, 04:25 		I had always thot that the girl in question was the actress Nastassja Kinski however he had a 'romance' with her at age 15. I would call that compelling evidence that he was not 'punished enuff'. Not enuff to learn anything from it.
 
3Khahan
      ID: 391582715
      Thu, Oct 01, 2009, 11:51 		Is this something we can all agree on? Get his butt in jail.
 
4Frick
      ID: 4945458
      Thu, Oct 01, 2009, 11:55 		But it happened long ago and he's a genius!

Plus the victim doesn't want him in jail (after receiving a large cash settlement.)

Free Roman!

/sarcasm
 
5Boldwin
      ID: 1693915
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 06:21 		The one troubling note I catch wiffs of in this case is I think that Hollywood prosecutors have spent so much time trying to nail people almost invulnerable from a surfeit of popularity, that they have perfected a craft of ambushing their prey in those rare moments when they have overstepped their protection.

There is a deeper story here and I'd like to see their scorecard.
 
6sarge33rd
      ID: 429827
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 08:08 		A deeper story? The man pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, then fled the country pre-sentencing. He has since taken pains, to ensure he stayed in countries with no extradition treaty. And you want to see a SCORECARD?!?!?!?!?!?!?
 
7Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 08:41 		obviously, there is something more at play here.

Prosecutors should absolutely never prosecute child molesters, especially during those rare moments when they have overstepped their protection.

geez louise.
 
8Pancho Villa
      ID: 4891818
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 08:58 		Hollywood prosecutors

There's no such animal. Hollywood is a section of Los Angeles, just as the Bronx is a section of New York and Wrigleyville is a section of Chicago. Prosecutors in Los Angeles deal with a huge cross-section of society, from those in the entertainment industries to biker gangs.

those rare moments when they have overstepped their protection.

What protection? Wealthy people who can hire top notch attorneys come from every type of industry. Wealthy people in the entertainment industry live all over Southern California, they're not all huddled up in condos on the corner of Sunset and Vine. Malibu has probably 100 times more entertainment residents per capita than Hollywood. Phil Spector was arrested and tried(twice)in Alhambra. Michael Jackson was prosecuted in Santa Maria, a couple hundred miles from Hollywood.

There's no such thing as Hollywood prosecutors and no special protection afforded lawbreakers in that district of Los Angeles.

 
9Perm Dude
      ID: 438132822
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 10:34 		I don't think Baldwin understands anything about this story. There is no "ambush." Polanski pleaded guilty to raping a child, then left the country to avoid getting punished.
 
10tree on the treo
      ID: 287212811
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 10:37 		he's already defended murders, racists, and bigots.

in his large view that the world is out to get him and prosecutors want to break up families, it wouldn't shock me to see Baldwin defending a kid toucher in the process.

roman polanski is just a victim of the system...
 
11Perm Dude
      ID: 438132822
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 10:44 		His paranoia of government goes so deep that he seems willing to suspend judgment on an admitted child rapist because he might have been "ambushed" by "Hollywood prosecutors."

This is a man who doesn't seem to have placed political theory in its proper place IRL. No wonder his religion strongly discourages deep political immersion--one can easily lose one's way and do things like neglect to condemn an admitted child rapist because not doing so strokes an anti-federalist itch.
 
12Mith
      ID: 14822920
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 10:47 		You know the guy says enough crazy things around here that you don't have to misrepresent him for something to satisfy your urge to pick at him.
 
13tree on the treo
      ID: 287212811
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 10:51 		mith..reread post 5...he's much more concerned about some sort of imagined hollywood prosecutorial conspiracy than he is an admitted child molester got nabbed after 30 years on the lam.

that's a problem.
 
14Mith
      ID: 14822920
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 10:59 		Sorry, but his 'whiff of a troubling note' doesn't trump his pointing out what he believes is "compelling evidence that he was not 'punished enuff'."

Maybe you think the case is such a slam dunk that it's absurd that he might express a "whiff" of reservation, and that's fine. But characterizing his position as "roman polanski is just a victim of the system" is just juvenile. And dishonest. And very annoying.
 
15tree on the treo
      ID: 287212811
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 11:08 		maybe I'm wrong on this, but didn't polanski actually admit guilt?
 
16Perm Dude
      ID: 438132822
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 11:09 		I really don't know what you mean about "you think the case is such a slam dunk"--there is no case. Polanski entered a guilty plea and left the country to avoid the sentencing.

There is no doubt about his guilt, since he admitted it. So what, exactly, is the "reservation" here--that "Hollywood prosecutors" (whatever they are) should refrain from "ambushing" (whatever that is) guilty people who flee prosecution?
 
17Mith
      ID: 14822920
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 11:21 		there is no case

There is a case that some people make, not that I'd defend it or them.

And I'm really not interested in B's reservation. But he doesn't appear to have concluded (or to even be leaning toward the idea) that Polanski is innocent.
 
18Seattle Zen
      ID: 238441010
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 12:38 		CFTS and close, IMO.
 
19biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 13:02 		CFTS?

Crap Finds The Sewer?

Cut F'in Testicles Soon?


Google supplies me with:
The Congregational Foundation For Theological Studies - Nooo...

and...

Chop That Freakin' Sportster

That it? If so, I have no idea what that means either.

 
20sarge33rd
      ID: 429827
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 13:06 		Guilt or innocence; is no longer a question once you have a valid confession. Now I'll be the first to admit that a LOT of innocent people have falsely confessed to crimes they did not commit. Those people generally, are not well educated, personally wealthy, well represented suspects however. Such confessions, tend to come from hours of interrogation in a Police Department and not via a Plea Bargain arranged by competent representation.

Polanskis admission of guilt, removes all doubt, not just "reasonable doubt" as to his guilt or innocence.
 
21Seattle Zen
      ID: 238441010
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 15:18 		Credit for time served.



Before anyone spouts off on this case, they really should see Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. I think a lot of the "String him up!" crowd might reconsider.
 
22Boldwin
      ID: 1794329
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 15:21 		MITH

What are you and I doing among these people who cannot read? Really, I thank you for being the only person who can read what I write without interposing their own subtext and imputing that to me instead.

I didn't remotely call into question Polanski's guilt nor the necessity of long overdue justice. I just pointed out that there was an interesting sidebar to the story that will perhaps drop someday like the other shoe.
 
23Boldwin
      ID: 1794329
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 15:32 		And my choice of the term ambush was appropriate because the multitude of culturally powerful character witnesses and Polanski's own caution made timing and ambush necessary tools of one jurisdictions law enforcement facing unusual obstacles.

Yes, I've been to Hollywood and LA. I know Hollywood is just a district inside LA. Keep your smarmy tourest pointers to yourself, PV.
 
24sarge33rd
      ID: 38957214
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 15:57 		re 21:

I dont necessarily count myself n the "string him up" line of thought, however;

1) He DID confess
2) He WAS represented by competent counsel
3) A plea agreement was reached
4) He fled the country pre-sentencing.

He hasn't served any time and thus I cannot go along with the "time served" notion. He fled the country, and deliberately stayed in countries w/o an extradition treaty. When he did plan to go somewhere, if he caught wind that US authorities had caught wind of his plans, he canceled them and didnt travel. This points to deliberate acts to avoid being arrested, for the committing the crime of fleeing, from the sentencing for the crime to which he pled guilty.

No, "time served" in skiing chalets does not count or constitute "punishment". He has to face the piper, just like the rest of us would/should.
 
25Biliruben movin
      ID: 358252515
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 16:23 		I don't really feel strongly either, though I probably would if I
had a 13 year old daughter.

Don't really love his work, and feel like we as a society pay
entirely too much attention to the clown guild. Maybe I'm just
not an art lover. Dunno.

I do know I hope he is treated like some schmo would be,
both directions.
 
26Seattle Zen
      ID: 238441010
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 16:43 		He hasn't served any time and thus I cannot go along with the "time served" notion

That's not true and until you know more about the case, your opinions are pure conjecture. Don't be a Glen Beck, sarge, go watch the movie.
 
27walk
      ID: 147451314
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 17:13 		I dunno. I think the reservation is that it happened 30+ years ago and no one is really asking for this, including the plaintiff Geimer. He fled pre-sentencing after serving part of his 90 days to undergo court ordered psychiatric counseling (which was changed from 90 to 42 back to 90 back to "waive your rights to deportation" which resulted in him saying: "I'm outta here"). He pleaded to "unlawful sex with a minor." The trial apparently was a circus and the judge may have made several procedural errors. I don't think we know a whole lot, but a lot are saying: "He drugged and raped a child." Is that what really happened? Accordingt to testimony, yes, he drugged her, she said no, and he continued to have sex with her. Maybe it's the plea that folks have a hard time with...the fact that we did not and do not do a good job with punishing rapists (like the way we do drug users), and in this case, it appears that a celebrity got away with something really bad. 30+ years later though. This is not as black and white as I think some see it.
 
28Perm Dude
      ID: 438132822
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 17:29 		The facts of the case really haven't changed. It wasn't like he plead not guilty, was found guilty, and now procedural errors and judicial hubris has cast doubt on his guilt.

He fled after being spooked as a result of sudden procedural changes.

The girl (who is now, like, 46) doesn't want any more publicity, which is understandable. But once found guilty, we don't give up because the victim understandably doesn't want any more publicity. We don't give up because to do so isn't just.
 
29biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 17:38 		I read some details of how the case went down at the time a few years ago. If I remember right, he got some promises of a light sentence if he plead guilty via connections, but after he plead, they through the book at him.

I made you mildly sympathetic, but only mildly. He almost certainly didn't get treated how you or I would have in the same situation. We probably wouldn't have gotten the promises, but we also probably wouldn't have gotten the over-the-top sentencing. But who knows.

In the end, all I can do is shrug. What he gets he gets, and I frankly don't really care very much. Chinatown was great, the Pianist was good, Rosemary's baby was just twisted. In any case, I don't think he's got another Chinatown in him, so if he's incarcerated until he dies, no huge loss.
 
30Seattle Zen
      ID: 238441010
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 18:12 		so if he's incarcerated until he dies, no huge loss.

At worst, he's looking at 1-3 months on his original charges. And since when did you start determining the justice of a sentence upon how much you like the defendant's artistic output?
 
31biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 18:13 		I don't see where I did. I was judging how much I gave a shit, and leaving the justice to the justices.
 
32biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 18:23 		At worst, he's looking at 1-3 months on his original charges.

But he hadn't been sentenced for the crime yet. He got whiff that he was looking at 30 years, and fled, right?
 
33Perm Dude
      ID: 438132822
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 18:52 		He's no longer looking at just those original charges, however.
 
34biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 19:10 		Actually, what I am really interested in is what the heck the Swiss motivation is. They could have nabbed him any time. He's been in and out of Switzerland for years and years.

We better not be trading some rich secret-bank account tax dollars for the rapist. Bad trade.

Take the billions, let them keep the rapist.
 
35sarge33rd
      ID: 7947218
      Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 19:47 		OK, he served a very little time. But nothing of what the sentencing would have been.

Read a good rebuttal argument the other day re those who cry "mercy" in this case and I have to agree. He led Guilty. THAT is the bottom line.

He had sex with a minor. That isnt something our society condones, and to do so because this guy is rich, or did it a long time ago and then fled the country, is no excuse to toss our social laws, norms and mores out the window.
 
36sarge33rd
      ID: 3892239
      Sat, Oct 03, 2009, 10:22 		Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child

The rebuttal I spoke of above.
 
37Boldwin
      ID: 1794329
      Mon, Oct 05, 2009, 08:34 		He had sex with a minor. That isnt something our society condones - Sarge33'd degree non-mason

You would think, and yet Obama's czar of public schools Kevin Jennings said..."One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay...[founder of NAMBLA]"

So you have to worry about what direction 'our society' is taking.
 
38Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Oct 05, 2009, 08:42 		Sigh.

Harry Hay is not the founder of NAMBLA.
 
39Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Mon, Oct 05, 2009, 08:48 		."One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay...[founder of NAMBLA]"

while we're again in danger of letting Baldwin derail another thread, i can't sit idly bye and watch him lie yet again.

Hay was not a founder of NAMBLA. he wasn't even a member of the group.

he did, however, advocate that NAMBLA be allowed to march in various gay pride parades.

while i disagree with him strongly, you probably would have been just fine with your argument (which i disagree with as well) if you had named him as a supporter of NAMBLA, as opposed to lying and calling him a founder.
 
40Boldwin
      ID: 1794329
      Mon, Oct 05, 2009, 09:26 		Ok, reading the source more carefully, Founder of The Mattachine Society and NACHO, who while speaking at NAMBLA, said,
""I also would like to say at this point that it seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need."
...so said the man who inspires our current school czar, Kevin Jennings. Jennings also advocates teaching our kids 'fisting' as part of his 'safe schools' drive.

In case Tree thinks a closer look at Hays or Jennings makes them look better.
 
41Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Mon, Oct 05, 2009, 10:18 		just saying, you need to be more honest in how you describe someone, or at least do even a minimal amount of research before labeling someone.

i know if i came across something that said someone was the founder of a group like NAMBLA, i'd get confirmation of that fact - then again, facts and truth matter to me.

you couldn't care at all about either of those things.
 
42Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Mon, Oct 05, 2009, 14:09 		He is the founder of several groups very much like NAMBLA.
 
43Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Mon, Oct 05, 2009, 15:27 		He is the founder of several groups very much like NAMBLA.

...which is not the same thing as being a founder of NAMBLA.

look, you got caught in a lie again, we're used to it.

you're also guilty here of either misrepresenting someone, or, not doing your research, two other things which have become modus operandi for you.

the first group Hay founded, The Mattachine Society, was simply a gay activist group. it's primary goal was to get laws forbidding homosexuality off the books - there was nothing at all in the group's charter or history related to sex between men and boys.

the second was the Radical Faeries, which were similar to the Mattachine Society, only with an element of nature and preservation mixed in. Again, nothing in the group related to sex between men and boys.

your arguments would be better served if you'd stop lying and stop misrepresenting people.

as i said earlier, if you'd done some research and instead relied on the truth, simply showing the man's support for NAMBLA inclusion in Pride parades would have been enough to at least make your point. but, you chose to lie about it.

you could also have discussed the Mattachine Society's founding Marxist activist principles, since that plays into one of your pet causes.

but, you'd rather lie and not worry about pesky things than research, because the truth and knowing what you are talking about require effort, and it's been pretty clear to nearly anyone who has read these forums in the last 18 months that you could care less about effort as well.
 
44Perm Dude
      ID: 438132822
      Mon, Oct 05, 2009, 15:31 		There is no difference, in Baldwin's mind, between being gay and being a pedophile. The distinctions you are making, tree, aren't important to him.
 
45sarge33rd
      ID: 36939514
      Mon, Oct 05, 2009, 15:39 		re 37: and just what does your post have to do with the Polanski case? Oh thats right...NOTHING. Just another opportunity for you to make sh*t up and try to pass it off as fact.

And you DARE to call ANYONE else a "troll"?
 
46Perm Dude
      ID: 438132822
      Tue, Oct 06, 2009, 09:25 		Swiss reject Polanski's request to be released on bail.

I think this is a "fool me once..." situation.
 
47sarge33rd
      ID: 3394177
      Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 08:58 		Agree entirely PD. Rather difficult I would think for his lawyers to argue that he ISN'T a flight risk, when he has spent the past 3 decades, "in flight".
 
48Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jul 14, 2010, 23:21 		Swiss refuse extradiction of Polanski to the US.