Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland at U.S. request

[waggy]

Originally posted by: shira
Can it ever be the case that someone's expected future value to society is so great that we should pardon them for having committed a serious crime?

Edit: I'm not necessarily saying that Polanski qualifies.

depends on the crime. rapeing a 13 yr old girl? unless he is on the verge of curing cancer or baldness then no.

i would not list a producer as someone who should get away with any crime for the "benifit" of humanity.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: shira
Can it ever be the case that someone's expected future value to society is so great that we should pardon them for having committed a serious crime?

Edit: I'm not necessarily saying that Polanski qualifies.

in theory? yes.

in this case? no.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira
Can it ever be the case that someone's expected future value to society is so great that we should pardon them for having committed a serious crime?

Edit: I'm not necessarily saying that Polanski qualifies.

For this pardon to come from me I would need to see some kind of hunger to do ones penance for the crime, the full acceptance and measure of responsibility and not a flight from justice. I would want to see real remorse.

 

[OCGuy]

Why is it that the P&N liberals are defending this asshole?

So liberal = soft on pedos?

Doesnt surprise me.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: marincounty
I wish the Swiss and US govts would show the same kind of effort to bust all of the tax cheats using Swiss banks that they do busting a fugitive over a 30 year old rape case.

Your lack of knowledge of current events does not mean that we should not bust a pedo.


http://www.azstarnet.com/altds/pastframe/news/305653

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: DucatiMonster696

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Polanski's confession-it's part of the record.

Can you substantiate this claim? Best I can tell, the only one's claiming anything beyond oral sex are simply those ignorant of the legal definition of sodomy.

He copped a plea so there was no trail. In essence he agreed he was guilty of rape but was hoping to get a lesser sentence with no jail time. Of course the judge decided this was not going to be the case near the end of the case and changed the deal. That is when he fled.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a...ve/polanskicover1.html

I thank you for the link, and see Samantha Geimer's testimony does state that Polanski assaulted her with vaginal and anal intercourse along with orally. That said, is there any substance to Pliablemoose's claim that Polanski confessed to all of that, or was he just spewing bullshit there?

Originally posted by: alchemize
Go find it yourself. He performed oral sex on her, he screwed her vaginally and he screwed her anally.

I'm not the one making declarative statements, if you insist on doing so without being able to back them up, you are just talking out your ass.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: DucatiMonster696

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Polanski's confession-it's part of the record.

Can you substantiate this claim? Best I can tell, the only one's claiming anything beyond oral sex are simply those ignorant of the legal definition of sodomy.

He copped a plea so there was no trail. In essence he agreed he was guilty of rape but was hoping to get a lesser sentence with no jail time. Of course the judge decided this was not going to be the case near the end of the case and changed the deal. That is when he fled.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a...ve/polanskicover1.html

I thank you for the link, and see Samantha Geimer's testimony does state that Polanski assaulted her with vaginal and anal intercourse along with orally. That said, is there any substance to Pliablemoose's claim that Polanski confessed to all of that, or was he just spewing bullshit there?

Originally posted by: alchemize
Go find it yourself. He performed oral sex on her, he screwed her vaginally and he screwed her anally.

I'm not the one making declarative statements, if you insist on doing so without being able to back them up, you are just talking out your ass.

When Polanski took the plea deal he admitted his guilt. That is what happens when the DA offers a plea deal. Furthermore do you seriously not know what Quaaludes were used for at all back in the day? Here is a hint they were big with the date rape crowd at one point in time. Oh and read the Grand jury testimony pages linked on the Smoking Gun website.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

I'm not the one making declarative statements, if you insist on doing so without being able to back them up, you are just talking out your ass.

LOL, are you really that stupid?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Why is it that the P&N liberals are defending this asshole?

So liberal = soft on pedos?

Doesnt surprise me.

OCguy = doesn't know what "pedophile" means.

Doesn't surprise me.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: OCguy
Why is it that the P&N liberals are defending this asshole?

So liberal = soft on pedos?

Doesnt surprise me.

OCguy = doesn't know what "pedophile" means.

Doesn't surprise me.

Ass raping a 13 year old isn't a pedophile? What is it to you? A hero? A role model? A upstanding member of the community? Please explain.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: OCguy
Why is it that the P&N liberals are defending this asshole?

So liberal = soft on pedos?

Doesnt surprise me.

OCguy = doesn't know what "pedophile" means.

Doesn't surprise me.

so, what... soft on rapists then?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: OCguy
Why is it that the P&N liberals are defending this asshole?

So liberal = soft on pedos?

Doesnt surprise me.

OCguy = doesn't know what "pedophile" means.

Doesn't surprise me.

Ass raping a 13 year old isn't a pedophile? What is it to you? A hero? A role model? A upstanding member of the community? Please explain.

Text

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
*snip*

So what are your feelings on drugging and having anal sex with 13yr old girls? Do you think that you should get a free pass if you live in France long enough, and make movies that the Hollywood elite eat up?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jpeyton
*snip*

So what are your feelings on drugging and having anal sex with 13yr old girls? Do you think that you should get a free pass if you live in France long enough, and make movies that the Hollywood elite eat up?

Would you call me a liberal if if so and you can also read, why make the claim that P & N liberals are defending Polanski?

 

[gingermeggs]

does he play tennis with woody allen?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: DucatiMonster696
When Polanski took the plea deal he admitted his guilt.

He admited to unlawful sexual intercorse, which is a lesser offense than that which people are accusing him of here.

Originally posted by: DucatiMonster696
That is what happens when the DA offers a plea deal.

Which he accepted and honored until it became obvious the judge was planing to imprison Polanski in contradiction to the findings of both of the judge's own ordered psychological evaluations, and against the wishes of the victim and her family.

Originally posted by: DucatiMonster696
Furthermore do you seriously not know what Quaaludes were used for at all back in the day?

I know Quaaludes are a brand of sedative, much like Valium, and many people eat such sedatives like candy, whether they get them prescribed by doctors or otherwise.

Originally posted by: DucatiMonster696
Here is a hint they were big with the date rape crowd at one point in time. Oh and read the Grand jury testimony pages linked on the Smoking Gun website.

I read though it, including parts like these:

Q. Have you been drunk before?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that from drinking alcohol?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever been under the influence of quaalude?

A. No.-?- oh, yeah, that once when I was real little.

Q. Have you ever been under the influence of quaalude and alcohol before March the 10th?

A. Before March 10th?

Q. Yes, of this year.

A. Yes.

Q. When was that?

A. Not both at the same time.
...

Q. Had you had sexual intercourse with anyone before March 10th?

A. Yes.

Q. Approximately how many times?

A. Twice.

So, had you read that? Considering the way many such as yourself are arguing here, I wouldn't have expected to find anything like that in there.

 

[extra]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Time passing has nothing to do with a crime was committed and he never paid for the crime (a pretty heinous one at that). The victims feelings are irrelevant as to prosecution, if she feels strongly about it she can speak at his (re)sentencing.

Yep, I really am not feeling much sympathy for the guy...he fled the country back in the day....

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

So, had you read that? Considering the way many such as yourself are arguing here, I wouldn't have expected to find anything like that in there.

Yeah, I really expected a discussion of her Barbie doll collection during the grand jury testimony. Who in the world would have expected they would ask her anything like that. Also, many times during grand jury testimony, they discuss the way a rainbow has all the colors of a prism, and the consistency of commonly sold salt water taffy back in the 70's. Also they frequently reviewed the plot of the preceding week's A-Team episode, shit that Mr. T, he was so popular, the grand juries just sat there in rapt attention listening to stories of how many gold necklaces he would wear and his fear of flying, god, it was funny, a big, strong black guy and he was afraid to fly....

 

[kylebisme]

How much do any of you know about the conditions under which Polanski fled? Having just watched this documentry, I've now seen the victim, the prosecution and defense attorneys, along with various other witness; all describe a judge drunk with media attention playing to a lynch mob mentality to persecute Polanski beyond what any of them believed he deserved under our laws. I also found out that the judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, was a man:

Who broke his word to attorneys on both sides. Who staged a fake courtroom session in which Gunson and Geimer were to go through the motions of making their arguments before the judge read an opinion he had already prepared. Who tried to stage such a "sham" (Gunson's term) a second time. Who juggled possible sentences in discussions with outsiders, once calling a Santa Monica reporter, David L. Jonta, into his chambers to ask him, "What the hell should I do with Polanski?" Who discussed the case with the guy at the next urinal at his country club. Who held a press conference while the case was still alive. Who was removed from the case on a motion by both prosecution and defense.

The prosecuting attorney even went so far as to say "I'm not surprised he left under those circumstances", and that attorney is a Mormon.

So, can anyone here provide a decent argument as to why our tax money is be spent on dragging Polanski back to the US and putting him on trial again now?Left to guess, I figure it has something to do with what is mentioned here. Amirite?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Yeah, I really expected a discussion...

Does that mean you hadn't actually read the transcript? From your arguments I had expected her to have said he slipped sedatives into her koolaid to knock her out before robbing her of her virginity, so I was rather surprised to see a very different picture of the situation in her testimony. Am I take your rambling reply to suggest you are unwilling to discuss the situation as she presented it?

 

[alchemize]

kylebisme will take just about anything anybody says about 9/11 conspiracy as "truth", but he wants hardcore, irrefutable, multiple linked evidence (that he won't even both to look up himself) when it comes to an already convicted fugitive child rapist. Hmm..

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: alchemize
kylebisme will take just about anything anybody says about 9/11 conspiracy as "truth".....

I don't do anything of the sort. Granted, I don't take the official 9/11 conspiracy theory as truth either, just like six of the ten members of our government's 9/11 commission don't. Unfortunately, most of you are apparently conditioned to ignore that along with all the other absurdities and impossibilities in the official story, but you are only deluding yourself by trying to turn this on me.

Originally posted by: alchemize
...but he wants hardcore, irrefutable, multiple linked evidence (that he won't even both to look up himself) when it comes to an already convicted fugitive child rapist. Hmm..

He wasn't convicted of rape, but rather of unlawful sexual intercourse, which is a lesser charge. Unlike you, I can link evidence to back my arguments, because I'm not one of the people talking out his ass here.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Lock him up.

Originally posted by: shira
Can it ever be the case that someone's expected future value to society is so great that we should pardon them for having committed a serious crime?

Well, I had a relative that was an engineer working on a certain government project while convicted of a federal crime (white collar, financial crime not related to the project). They delayed his jail-time until he finished working on the project. He still had to serve, but not before he finished serving Uncle Sam!

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
How much do any of you know about the conditions under which Polanski fled? Having just watched this documentry, I've now seen the victim, the prosecution and defense attorneys, along with various other witness; all describe a judge drunk with media attention playing to a lynch mob mentality to persecute Polanski beyond what any of them believed he deserved under our laws. I also found out that the judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, was a man:

Who broke his word to attorneys on both sides. Who staged a fake courtroom session in which Gunson and Geimer were to go through the motions of making their arguments before the judge read an opinion he had already prepared. Who tried to stage such a "sham" (Gunson's term) a second time. Who juggled possible sentences in discussions with outsiders, once calling a Santa Monica reporter, David L. Jonta, into his chambers to ask him, "What the hell should I do with Polanski?" Who discussed the case with the guy at the next urinal at his country club. Who held a press conference while the case was still alive. Who was removed from the case on a motion by both prosecution and defense.

The prosecuting attorney even went so far as to say "I'm not surprised he left under those circumstances", and that attorney is a Mormon.

So, can anyone here provide a decent argument as to why our tax money is be spent on dragging Polanski back to the US and putting him on trial again now?Left to guess, I figure it has something to do with what is mentioned here. Amirite?

the facts of the original trial are really a moot point.

he was found guilty and fled justice.

had he stuck around, he'd have faced like 90 days in prison, but he chose to become a fugitive.

 

[KMFJD]

Why after having visited Switzerland numerous times, was he now picked up?