Mona Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 maybe he should be Manson's new roomy, then? No. Absolutely not. I'm all for Polanski getting some jail time for this, but that would be uncalled for. I know it's a joke, but it's one in very bad taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 That would certainly not be pretty. I would guess that the memory of his wife's murder still haunts him and has much to do with his reluctance to return to Los Angeles. I also think that even though the mental state was not an element of statutory rape, it helps to explain why his level of inhibition lowered. He may still have been in a state of shock from the murder of his wife by Susan Atkins. She murdered not only his wife, a virtual angel, but also his unborn child. If this murder had never happened, it's possible that he would have stayed perfectly happy married to Sharon Tate and never would have committed a rape. This murder arguably caused a disturbance in the force. I doubt that this is just another case of a spoiled Hollywood director expecting favors. The rape event followed an incident involving profound shock and grief. Men in their forties who go through divorces and experience a loss of consortium often seek new mates who make them feel young and carefree again. They sometimes easily overlook a young person's age, not even stopping to think, and allow themselves to get caught up in the hypnotic magic of the moment. They sort of go into their "I see, I take" mode, like that song, I Can't Get Enough of Your Love, which would have been fine if she had been eighteen and agreeable. Fortunately, he was otherwise civilized, except for those penetrating moments that caused a fall from grace. He left her mostly intact in other aspects and amicably settled a suit for civil damages. It was nothing like what happened to the Swedish girls, Jenny and Linda, who were on their way to a party on a recent New Year's Eve when they were assaulted, raped and beaten very badly by four Somali immigrants. Underaged girls need better chaperones in these times. Knowing what beasts men often can be, it's no easy task keeping the conversations limited to only verbal ones and assuring that nothing gets consummated until she's eighteen, but there would be fewer men in prison if that could be accomplished. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=IpGe_sivDX8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planted Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 It was nothing like what happened to the Swedish girls, Jenny and Linda, who were on their way to a party on a recent New Year's Eve when they were assaulted, raped and beaten very badly by four Somali immigrants. gee, was that what Whoopi meant by "rape-rape"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planted Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 No. Absolutely not. I'm all for Polanski getting some jail time for this, but that would be uncalled for. I know it's a joke, but it's one in very bad taste. Some jail time? I'm unacquainted with such a sentence. How about the fullest extent the law allows? Bad taste? Seriously. This guy raped a child, and fled the country to avoid "some" jail time. He ended her life as she knew it. Innocence, stolen from her. 13. Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 It was nothing like what happened to the Swedish girls, Jenny and Linda, who were on their way to a party on a recent New Year's Eve when they were assaulted, raped and beaten very badly by four Somali immigrants. gee, was that what Whoopi meant by "rape-rape"? I would think so. There's a substantial difference in terms of violence. It's not so much the loss of innocence, but the risk to her. If she had become pregnant, for instance, 13 is too young for most women to favorably survive childbirth. So, admittedly the age factor is a concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planted Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I would think so. There's a substantial difference in terms of violence. W O W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 W O W. Those are the facts of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planted Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Those are the facts of life. I'm interested in the facts of this case, and whether a judge has the stones to apply the law. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I'm interested in the facts of this case, and whether a judge has the stones to apply the law. Period. The facts are that he did not murder her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrum Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 gee, was that what Whoopi meant by "rape-rape"? 'Rape-Rape'....Maybe she thinks it's like picking pawpaws. She has to be the stupidest (and fugliest) of the Hollywood elites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Perhaps she differentiated between date rape and violent rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planted Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 The facts are that he did not murder her. Thank you, counsel. No one here accused him of murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Thank you, counsel. No one here accused him of murder. So I hope that no one tries him for murder then. If Sharon Tate had never been killed, I wonder if he would have even committed a rape at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planted Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 So I hope that no one tries him for murder then. nope. He's just your average run of the mill child rapist. And, a Hollywood elitist who will probably get off on a technicality. Terrific. (Or, maybe pardoned by the President?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 nope. He's just your average run of the mill child rapist. And, a Hollywood elitist who will probably get off on a technicality. Terrific. (Or, maybe pardoned by the President?) I doubt that he is run of the mill anything. He hasn't been in Hollywood for years, mainly because of the rape that he committed, but I think also because the memory of his murdered wife and baby haunts him. I don't know what technicality would make any difference, but I believe that whatever puts this case to rest most truly and least controversially will perhaps be the soundest judgement. So, it's unlikely that a Presidential pardon will take place, because that would creat huge controversy. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=F5ItmqKxPRk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I read today a statement taken from Angelica Huston at the time of the trial, and she said the girl "fit the age of anyone up to 25..and in no way appeared frightened of the situation." I think what rightfully disgusts people is the fact he drugged her and then raped her, as opposed to having consensual sex. That being said, I'm in no way advocating or defending Polanski. But, this could be argued as a semi-common, very underground thing during the 1970s (celebrities having sex with underage girls). I think the girl, (now woman's) testimony today has merit, but the courts will do what they want..like always. I've seen interviews from a couple of people, one of whom was Debra Tate (Sharon's sister of all people) along with Huston, who both said something to the effect of Geimer not being your average thirteen year old, meaning experienced and knowing what happened in these circles. As much as most of society frowns upon it, such encounters did happen, and from the sounds of things, it wasn't that unusual. STILL, even if Geimer consented (which she didn't) that's why there are laws that protect people from themselves. Adults cannot use consent from underage teens as an excuse. Plain and simple. There seems to be a pendulum swing - first of support for Polanski, now a backlash against him. As much as I think he's a great artist, he should not be given a pass for it. Nor should he because of the times that has passed. That said, I have to agree with EL. No one will ever know the rift in a person's soul when they've endured such unimaginable horror in their lives. They do not know the extent to which that changes a person on the most fundamental level for a very long time. Again, that does not excuse his actions in any way, he is guilty, but he also has a right to a fair trial, and a right to not be condemned with the same broad brushes that include Manson or other psychopaths. He committed a terrible act; when he was evaluated, he was not deemed a pedophile or a danger to society; he spent time in jail (and Del was right, it was originally to be 90 days, but ended up being 42) and expected to be released based on an agreement reached by the lawyers of both sides; presiding judge Rittenband was going to not abide by the deal and bellowed to all and sundry that he was going to leave Polanski in jail; I don't know if that was legal or not, regardless, there were enough judicial misconducts committed by this point that made Polanski decide to run; he should not have run but felt he could not get a fair judgment. Now here we are 30+ years later. He has the issues of sentencing and running to deal with. Had Rittenband only done his job right, Polanski would have been a free citizen, and this would have been a bygone issue. No doubt it still would have left a permanent stain on his reputation, but not like the one that keeps bleeding, and painting him as a monster who should be castrated and fed his own balls. Like it or not, people who serve their time (the lawyers from both sides feel he had; the L.A. legal eagles say not quite because he fled, so OK assuming when all this is over and he HAS paid the sentence) have a right to continue to live their lives as best they can. Hi Patrycja, i wondered about that pic myself. After seeing her on tv tonight, i knew it was her. I don't understand the context of her being there. Does seem odd. I found out why Geimer was at the premiere of the Polanski documentary: she was it in, as was her lawyer from the case in '78. Both basically said the judge did not give Polanski a fair trial, did not give her a fair trial, and it was a grave injustice because the judge used her to fluff up his own public image with the case. Wow. Just WOW. Talk about compounding a problem. Can't say both sides (L.A. prosecutors & Polanski's legal team) do not have legitimate grievances. I really do not get the timing of the arrest, though. Something feels fishy, because Polanski has a summer home in Switzerland. How hard could it have been to notice that he was vacationing there, you know, throughout a summer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mona Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Some jail time? I'm unacquainted with such a sentence. How about the fullest extent the law allows? Bad taste? Seriously. This guy raped a child, and fled the country to avoid "some" jail time. He ended her life as she knew it. Innocence, stolen from her. 13. Think about it. He didn't kill the girl. Rape is bad, but murder is worse. Rape might have taken her innocence, but it could have been worse. He could have taken her life. I'm not saying rape is a trivial thing - it's not. But I personally think that murdering someone is the worst thing you could EVER do to another person, because you rob them of their LIFE. It was in bad taste to suggest he become cell mates with Manson. Polanski isn't a murder, for one, so that would be odd. Second, it would be outright cruel, since Manson was the one who had his wife murdered. It's disgusting to say that, even in jest. Polanski deserves to be punished. However, NO ONE deserves to be locked in a cell with the person who murdered their wife, no matter what crime they might be guilty of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 He didn't kill the girl. Rape is bad, but murder is worse. Rape might have taken her innocence, but it could have been worse. He could have taken her life. I'm not saying rape is a trivial thing - it's not. But I personally think that murdering someone is the worst thing you could EVER do to another person, because you rob them of their LIFE. It was in bad taste to suggest he become cell mates with Manson. Polanski isn't a murder, for one, so that would be odd. Second, it would be outright cruel, since Manson was the one who had his wife murdered. It's disgusting to say that, even in jest. Polanski deserves to be punished. However, NO ONE deserves to be locked in a cell with the person who murdered their wife, no matter what crime they might be guilty of. I don't really give a rat's patoot if rape is less worse than murder or if Charles Manson had Sharon Tate killed or not. Roman Polanski drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl, after she begged him not to do it and take her home. I'll repeat that - HE ANALLY RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL WHOM HE DRUGGED AHEAD OF TIME. As far as I'm concerned, he should have his nuts cut off and shoved down his throat. If they put him in the same cell as Charles Manson, I won't shed two tears for either of them because they're both the scum of the fucking earth and they deserve each other. I have no compassion for either of them. Polanski needs to be taken down a few pegs - he got to live the high life and win some Oscars the last 30 years, all the while thumbing his sick little nose at the US justice system. Fuck him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I don't really give a rat's patoot if rape is less worse than murder or if Charles Manson had Sharon Tate killed or not. Roman Polanski drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl, after she begged him not to do it and take her home. I'll repeat that - HE ANALLY RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL WHOM HE DRUGGED AHEAD OF TIME. As far as I'm concerned, he should have his nuts cut off and shoved down his throat. If they put him in the same cell as Charles Manson, I won't shed two tears for either of them because they're both the scum of the fucking earth and they deserve each other. I have no compassion for either of them. Polanski needs to be taken down a few pegs - he got to live the high life and win some Oscars the last 30 years, all the while thumbing his sick little nose at the US justice system. Fuck him. Yep, very heated issue. Lucky for most criminals they don't get the punishment that the public cries out for. Unlucky for those who happen to come upon an unjust judge. I get the sentiment, I really do, but justice is blind, no matter how much that pisses people off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Hi all, [quote ] He didn't kill the girl. Rape is bad, but murder is worse. Rape might have taken her innocence, but it could have been worse. He could have taken her life. I'm not saying rape is a trivial thing - it's not. But I personally think that murdering someone is the worst thing you could EVER do to another person, because you rob them of their LIFE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Maybe the court will just re-instate the 90 days and allow him credit for the 42 days served. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mona Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 How little you know,... Manson was never convicted of murder. KB What? You think rape is worse than murder? How so? What makes you right, and me wrong? Tell me, I'm interested to know. No, he wasn't. But that doesn't mean he was innocent of it. The fact that he didn't stab them to death himself doesn't mean that they didn't kill him in his name and under his orders. Hitler didn't kill anyone himself, either. But we don't have a problem recognizing that he was responsible for the deaths of millions, despite the fact he didn't turn on the gas chambers with his own hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mona Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I don't really give a rat's patoot if rape is less worse than murder or if Charles Manson had Sharon Tate killed or not. Roman Polanski drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl, after she begged him not to do it and take her home. I'll repeat that - HE ANALLY RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL WHOM HE DRUGGED AHEAD OF TIME. As far as I'm concerned, he should have his nuts cut off and shoved down his throat. If they put him in the same cell as Charles Manson, I won't shed two tears for either of them because they're both the scum of the fucking earth and they deserve each other. I have no compassion for either of them. Polanski needs to be taken down a few pegs - he got to live the high life and win some Oscars the last 30 years, all the while thumbing his sick little nose at the US justice system. Fuck him. I know what he did, and I think he should be punished accordingly. I've said that. But I don't believe Polanski is a complete monster the way Manson is. He made a mistake and did something stupid. He should face the consequences, but making mistakes doesn't make someone "the scum of the earth." As far as we know, it was an isolated incident. If it was a pattern of behavior, I would agree with you. But, in my view of the world, things aren't always so black and white, so absolute. There are shades of gray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I've said that. But I don't believe Polanski is a complete monster the way Manson is. You don't think a man who drugs and anally rapes a 13 year old girl isa complete monster? Interesting definition you have there. Where I come from, people who force their penises into the asses of little girls are monsters. I don't care if they do it only once or do it for 20 years. He made a mistake and did something stupid. This is incorrect. Drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl is not a mistake or "something stupid". Accidentally sending an email to your boss that you intended for a friend is a mistake and "something stupid". Leaving your car keys locked in your car is a mistake and "something stupid". The idea that rape can be classified as just "something stupid" is an insult to rape victims. But, in my view of theworld, things aren't always so black and white, so absolute. There areshades of gray. There are no shades of gray when it comes to rape. Rape is rape. Roman Polanski anally raped a 13 year old girl. There is no gray there. I actually find it disturbing that you're quasi-defending this fucking animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 You don't think a man who drugs and anally rapes a 13 year old girl isa complete monster? Interesting definition you have there. Where I come from, people who force their penises into the asses of little girls are monsters. I don't care if they do it only once or do it for 20 years. This is incorrect. Drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl is not a mistake or "something stupid". Accidentally sending an email to your boss that you intended for a friend is a mistake and "something stupid". Leaving your car keys locked in your car is a mistake and "something stupid". The idea that rape can be classified as just "something stupid" is an insult to rape victims. There are no shades of gray when it comes to rape. Rape is rape. Roman Polanski anally raped a 13 year old girl. There is no gray there. I actually find it disturbing that you're quasi-defending this fucking animal. Hi Electrophile, I must say i'm in complete agreement with you on this. As someone who never had a problem with getting willing women as a young man, i cant believe that Mr Pervert Polanski, a Hollywood Star for Christ's Sake, would have had any trouble getting anything he wanted from a Willing Woman, and i say anything, so why the Fcuk has anybody got any sympathy for this "Evil Son of a Bitch" is a mystery and beyond my comprehension. Electrophile you put it so more eloquently than i ever could in your rant, i too am outraged that people are coming down on "His" side, i dont care about anything anyone says about it not being "Violent" (give me a Fcuking Break, when a man enters you anally, male or female, it must "Sting like Buggery" as my old Mother in Law would say) unless you are used to Anal Intercourse that is. This says so much about Hollywood, the Super Rich and Celebrity, that their Morals are as low as a Human Beings could get in my opinion, its a Mystery to me why more Manson type Murders have not been commited by People that the Hollywood Elite have Vilified, Raped, and shown Contempt for so often, they all need to be shown the same level of Compassion that they show us, and thats "None". This is about a "Male Predator" having NonConsensual Sex with a Minor, thats all that matters, she was a "Minor", and thats the fact of it under the Law. And for that alone he should face the Death Penalty, if not the he should get Life Imprisonment without Parole, and he should get AssFcuked every day for the Rest of his God-dammed Life. Now thats what i would call "Justice". Regards, Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.