I'm glad Roman Polanski finally got caught!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I was wondering that as well, but couldn't get a response out without flying into TYPING FINGERS OF RAGE.
 
Unfortunately, the allegations against Jackson are not based on innuendo and hearsay. They are based on victims' testimony which was either withdrawn or altered because Jacko paid off his victims, pure and simple.

I accept that we can't exhume a dead man to retrial him in actuality, but in the court of the conscience, frankly, we should be able to.

Testimony is hearsay. There was no solid evidence that a crime had been committed and thus, no conviction.
 
I'm hoping this was a slip on your part, and you meant she had experimented with sex, not rape. If it's a slip it's a doozy. If it's not a slip... :ohmy:

I'm working on a longer response for the thread, but the bit I quoted just keeps bugging the hell out of me. I mean if it isn't a slip, I REALLY want to know just what the fuck lazarus meant by "experimented with rape".

Did you not see the pictures of the tunnel?
 
Since when?

Sorry, you're right. What i meant was that there was no actual physical evidence. Just an allegation of an event that could conveniently result in a big payday for the 'victim'. But honestly, its not even relevant to this discussion. It just gets under my skin when people treat the man as guilty until proven innocent as if they are privy to some information that the rest of us dont know about (in reference to MJ)
 
I'd also like to know what brought you to this conclusion......



part of my distaste with this whole thing is that the typical conservative jihadists -- like Michelle Malkin and diamond -- are trying to use this single incident as proof that everyone in Hollywood (or France) are either, 1) ok with child rape, because sex is natural, man, so just pop a 'lude and relax because if it feels good, do it, and God Is Dead so why should you worry, and yeah, man, relax, and you know these people all secretly support NAMBLA; or, 2) the man is an artist! and therefore he's allowed to do whatever he wants for the name of art.

so, that's where my discomfort with some of the anger surrounding this event comes from. it's been politicized by many on the right as an even that "proves" the moral depravity of Hollywood/France/artists.

i also don't think it's out of bounds to point out that Polanski was a Holocaust survivor, did come from a different culture and time period, even in the 1960s 13 and 14 year olds could be married (see Loretta Lynn, Jerry Lee Lewis), he is a great artist, his first wife was Sharon Tate who was brutally murdered by the Manson people and had their child literally cut out of her womb, and that Polanski has lived a productive life with absolutely no further issues. it's clear that Polanksi isn't a monster trolling the playgrounds in a white van with a mattress in the back.

however, he did do a very bad thing, and there's no getting around that fact. a serious crime was committed, and he fled the country. he has now been caught. and something should happen.
 
I don't think he's a monster. I think he should serve his time for the crime he committed. (But I see Irvine's point.)

If he doesn't, it sends a message that that while Roman Polanski is a great director and above the law, the thirteen year old girl he raped is expendable.

A stretch? They're holding up the man over his crime and therefore stating his importance over the victim's. So no. Not so much of a stretch.
 
I don't think he's a monster. I think he should serve his time for the crime he committed. (But I see Irvine's point.)

If he doesn't, it sends a message that that while Roman Polanski is a great director and above the law, the thirteen year old girl he raped is expendable.

A stretch? They're holding up the man over his crime and therefore stating his importance over the victim's. So no. Not so much of a stretch.



agreed on all points.
 
What kind of sentence is apt in this case though? Do they revert back to the original deal, which was a couple of weeks in jail, if I remember correctly, or have him serve out a new line of sentencing?

I'm not trying to imply what he did wasn't awful, but what do you do at this point, 30+ years after the fact?
 
It's no coincidence that Hillary Clinton's State Department has made it a top priority to tackle, and bring attention to, the overlapping issues of sex trafficking, abuse of women and girls, and women's rights, and that Polanski is going to be extradited to the U.S. Good for her, I say.
 
What kind of sentence is apt in this case though? Do they revert back to the original deal, which was a couple of weeks in jail, if I remember correctly, or have him serve out a new line of sentencing?

I'm not trying to imply what he did wasn't awful, but what do you do at this point, 30+ years after the fact?

No idea, and I'm glad that's not my job to decide. Definitely don't think that should be a reason for him not to be extradited (not that I think you're implying that, LMP).

Would there be an additional sentence for fleeing the country on top of for the rape sentence?
 
He pled guilty and was released after a 40 something day psychiatric evaluation. Who knows, maybe that would have been it.

If he didn't flee he would have been out and free a long time ago and might not have served much of a sentence anyway. I don't care what the mores were at that time, a child is always a child. Her past at that time is also completely irrelevant, morally and legally.
 
First, Dance Of The Vampires is one of my favorite movies which I watch every winter.

Second, can't we just put Polanski and Manson in a Saw type situation, film it, give the proceeds to all the victims, and let the survivor walk. That way at least one of these assholes gets tortured/executed making the conservative in me happy.
 
part of my distaste with this whole thing is that the typical conservative jihadists -- like Michelle Malkin and diamond ....
. .......he has now been caught. and something should happen.

Well after that drivel, we're glad you reached the proper conclusion.

<>
 
I'd also like to know what brought you to this conclusion......


Said in jest, for the defenders and sympathizers of Polanski here.

Often child rapists and predators take photos of their victims, and sickly claim the photos are "art". And it wouldn't be too far of a logical leap for some Polanski sympathizers to claim the same.



According to Geimer's testimony, Polanski first met Geimer at her home Feb. 13, 1977. Geimer said the director asked her mother if he could photograph her for French Vogue. She said her mother agreed to a private photo shoot, which Geimer told ABC's "Good Morning America" in 2003 that she believed would help further her acting career.


The director returned nearly a week later to take Geimer for the photo shoot about a block from her home. Geimer said that at the top of a hill, Polanski asked her to change shirts, which she did in front of him.

Then, she said, he asked her to pose topless, which she also did, though she said she felt uncomfortable.

Something tells me Bono will never come out while singing Bad and say "Bad, Roman I don't think you're bad"..



<>
 
Strawman for the win!

Said in jest, for the defenders and sympathizers of Polanski here.

Often child rapists and predators take photos of their victims, and sickly claim the photos are "art". And it wouldn't be too far of a logical leap for some Polanski sympathizers to claim the same.

Who here is defending Polanski's actions?
 
No one here has apologized for his actions. A few have attempted to provide some context, but absolutely no one here has said that what he did was ok and that he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions.
 
No one here has apologized for his actions. A few have attempted to provide some context,
but absolutely no one here has said that what he did was ok and that he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions
.

but absolutely no one here has said that what he did was ok and that he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions

I wasn't arguing that point.

Maybe we're not reading the same thread or understand the meaning of the word apologize differently:


To make excuse for or regretful acknowledgment of a fault or offense.

Apology means more than being sorrowful, there are multiple meanings of the word.

<>
 
I can definitely see how one poster's "context" came across in the way that diamond is suggesting.

But the bit about the pictures and "art" was unnecessary and added nothing to the conversation other than a chance to get in a jab.
 
No one here has apologized for his actions. A few have attempted to provide some context, but absolutely no one here has said that what he did was ok and that he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions.

Well, laz did blame the girl and to be honest, I find excuse making for rapists appalling.
 
I can definitely see how one poster's "context" came across in the way that diamond is suggesting.

But the bit about the pictures and "art" was unnecessary and added nothing to the conversation other than a chance to get in a jab.

Not necessarily, try this scenario:

If Polanski had been interrupted and been caught with new nude photographs of the victim only and never raped her, because he was interrupted, I do believe some here would claim the photos would be "art" only.

What's sad is the Angelica Hutson could have stopped it all when he was in the middle of a raping her. She being a girl friend of Polanski's arrived at Jack Nicholson's house and was shooed away by Polanski. Polanski went on to raping her more.

So not only is Polanski a rapist and wanted felon he is also a child pornographer.

And, child pornography is not art.

<>
 
I don't think the pictures are either here or there. They're not what he was convicted of, and an aside to the fact that he raped her, so I don't see the point of getting into a circular debate about them.
 
I do believe some here would claim the photos would be "art" only.

I'd love to hear you explain why you would think some people here would be ok with a 43 year old man taking nude pictures of a 13 year old girl who he'd previously plied up with champagne.

Because on face value that certainly seems like nothing more than an unjustifiable and over-the-top insult.

And, child pornography is not art.

Pardon my french, but: no shit, Sherlock.
 
I don't think the pictures are either here or there. They're not what he was convicted of, and an aside to the fact that he raped her, so I don't see the point of getting into a circular debate about them.

The photographs show the path and intent of Polanski, a predatory pedophile-rapist is all.

<>
 
Back
Top Bottom