eternal light Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 I have a viewpoint that is different from yours. Sorry if you mistake that for a lack of intelligence. Let me give you a clue. When you encounter an ambiguous situation with someone who does not do or say everything that you want her to do or say, lighten up on the attack mode, kind sir. I only seem to be your puppet, but in real life I can think for myself. He's going to need a good lawyer. He requires a zealous defense because we are not at liberty to conduct a kangaroo court in his case. Swiss minister promises quick Polanski decision (AFP) 4 hours ago ZURICH Switzerland's justice minister on Sunday promised a quick court decision on whether detained film director Roman Polanski, who faces child sex charges in the United States, should be freed. "I expect the federal criminal court to have its priorities and to decide quickly on his action," Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said in an interview with the Sonntags-Zeitung newspaper. google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hNqoXdU-KUWihNLODFA4U4de92kg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Hi all, One question: would you want or put your 13 year old daughter in this situation? Do you have one,or don't you remember being 13??? Now Lori M,that,my mild barbarians was not rape,... KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I would excise that last portion of your post. That topic is verboten, as the admin pointed out to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Hi all, I would excise that last portion of your post. That topic is verboten, as the admin pointed out to me. Can I clean your broom? KB (so,..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 No, I would not put my daughter in that situation. Daughters need chaperones until they reach eighteen so that they can pursue their careers during photo shoots for Vogue, as they should. She can date the photographer later when she gets a little older and she has established her career. There is no big hurry at age thirteen. She should take her time getting to know him slowly and verbally, and the rest should come later. Thirteen, fourteen and fifteen are too young to be getting pregnant and giving birth. Not that they can't, but their hips have not widened that much yet, and childbirth is more difficult at that age. You don't want your fifteen year old to be getting a Caesarean section, but sometimes you have no choice. It's better to slow the process. Ideally, you should re-direct the traffic away from your thirteen year old toward the eighteen year and over group for awhile. But temptation is strong sometimes between people, and you should have a plan B ready for the times when people are compromised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepBlackZeppelin Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Wow, I can't believe some of the things said in this thread. How ridiculous the rape of a 13 year old child being reduced down to a "little mistake" But many people have defended the victim well. First off, rape is not a violent crime? This isn't a matter of statutory rape, it sure as hell seems like cut-and-dry rape to me, as described in the testimony. Rape is defined as a violent crime. You can commit violence without having to kill anybody. Well if she was 18, would you feel the same way? Of course I would! I am 18 right now and I sure as hell do not want to be in the situation that she was in. And I would definitely prosecute if I was in the same situation as her, 18 or not. If the night follows exactly as detailed in the testimony, I am just going to say......I cannot believe how some people are excusing it as "oh a mistake" The murder of his wife was so horrible. Of course it was, Sharon Tate absolutely didn't deserve that. But that, in no way, gives ANYONE the excuse to rape a child. If he is "mentally disturbed" by the murder, he still needs to be punished. Most rapists and serial killers claim to be "mentally disturbed," they still go through trial and receive some sort of sentence [like for example how Andrea Yates did] Leave Sharon Tate out of this, she wouldn't be too happy that a 13 year old was raped. He didn't commit rape again. Yeah, but he did commit it once, and he should be punished for that crime, whether it was 30 years ago or not. And if it happened exactly the way it was described in the testimony, then it seems like a lot more than statutory rape. If the truth isn't being told, that's a different story. Maybe there are loopholes in the justice system and I can't control that, 2 years taken off for this, 2 years for that, but he still deserves to be punished. I am not saying throw him in the cell with Charles Manson or anything cruel, but it's ridiculous to think he shouldn't pay some time for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 It is statutory because she is under the age of consent, so the law does not allow her to consent. Consent is not an element to the statutory rape law and does not need to be proven. This was not a violent crime in the sense that the victim had broken bones, bleeding, or a need for reconstructive surgery, as some rapes are. Of course his wife's murder does not excuse him to rape anyone. But I often wonder if he would have raped anyone if Sharon Tate were still a part of his life, as they appeared to be in a state of wedded bliss. Perhaps he would have been less tempted. We will never know. I found the following information on the website of a criminal defense attorney in California. It looks like the maximum penalty is no longer 20 years prison time, so Roman Polanski may get a break in that regard, although he could possibly receive up to a 4 year prison sentence. Statutory Rape Penal Code § 261.5. (a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor. For the purposes of this section, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person who is at least 18 years of age. ( b ) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor. ( c ) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison. (d) Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years. (e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an adult who engages in an act of sexual intercourse with a minor in violation of this section may be liable for civil penalties in the following amounts: (A) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor less than two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000). ( B ) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at least two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000). ( C ) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at least three years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000). (D) An adult over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). July 25, 2005 Statutory Rape Sorting Out the California Unlawful Sexual Intercourse Law By Vince Imhoff, Esq., and Dan Rhoads Age Aint Nothing but a Number: The title of Aaliyahs first album was a not-so-subtle justification of her relationship with R. Kelly. When she was 15 and he was 25, the two were married secretly; but her parents annulled the marriage when they found out about it. Years later, R. Kelly was arrested when a videotape that allegedly featured a sexual encounter between him and a young teenage girl surfaced. This arrest came after Kelly settled a suit with a woman who claimed that Kelly impregnated her when she was 16. Like R. Kelly, Roman Polanski has enjoyed celebrity long after being charged for statutory rape. Polanksi plied a 13-year-old girl with alcohol and Quaaludes before having sex with her at Jack Nicholsons house. Out on bail, Polanski fled to France and has never returned to the United States to face his sentence. Penal Code, Section 261.5(a) Because Polanskis victim was under 14, his crime against her was actually lewd or lascivious acts committed with a child. In California statutory rape, or unlawful sexual intercourse, is: an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor. . . . [A] minor is a person under the age of 18 years. Cal. Pen. Code 261.5(a). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 This was not a violent crime in the sense that the victim had broken bones, bleeding, or a need for reconstructive surgery, as some rapes are. Broken bones and bleeding are not the only definition of violence. Unlawful FORCE upon the victim against their will is in fact an act of violence. A thief who grabs a woman's purse and tears it from her arms has commited an act of "violence" upon the victim even if there is no injury. When a robber points a loaded gun in the face of a victim -- even without pulling the trigger--- that is still an act of violence! It is the exertion of unlawful physical force, OR THREAT OR FEAR OF FORCE, intended to violate or abuse another that is violence. What you probably meant to say is that 'in your opinion' Polanski did not cause his victim serious violent injury. However, I would probably disagree with that entirely. Forced rape; oral copulation and sodomy is a violent act no matter how you would choose to characterize the extent of the injuries. Please stop attempting to act as if you know someting about the law, because you continually get it wrong. I have a viewpoint that is different from yours. Sorry if you mistake that for a lack of intelligence. Let me give you a clue. When you encounter an ambiguous situation with someone who does not do or say everything that you want her to do or say, lighten up on the attack mode, kind sir. I only seem to be your puppet, but in real life I can think for myself. Spewing false comments and opinions which have no basis in either fact or the law is not intelligence. Your opinions on this issue lack both clarity and reason. ... even a chimpanzie in some sense can "think for themself." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzldoc Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Broken bones and bleeding are not the only definition of violence. Unlawful FORCE upon the victim against their will is in fact an act of violence. A thief who grabs a woman's purse and tears it from her arms has commited an act of "violence" upon the victim even if there is no injury. When a robber points a loaded gun in the face of a victim -- even without pulling the trigger--- that is still an act of violence! It is the exertion of unlawful physical force, OR THREAT OR FEAR OF FORCE, intended to violate or abuse another that is violence. What you probably meant to say is that 'in your opinion' Polanski did not cause his victim serious violent injury. However, I would probably disagree with that entirely. Forced rape; oral copulation and sodomy is a violent act no matter how you would choose to characterize the extent of the injuries. Please stop attempting to act as if you know someting about the law, because you continually get it wrong. Maybe if he rode in on a "Loud Motorcycle" she would consider it a violent act! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Maybe if he rode in on a "Loud Motorcycle" she would consider it a violent act! Having to endure Eternal Dimness' posts is a violent act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 This was not a violent crime in the sense that the victim had broken bones, bleeding, or a need for reconstructive surgery, as some rapes are. No offense, but this is the damn dumbest thing I've read from you yet. Of course rape is violent! Have you ever heard of a person being raped peaceably? It doesn't matter that Polanski didn't break any bones or perforate her colon or cause her to bleed heavily.....although I'm sure forcing himself in her anus didn't exactly feel like a pile of cotton candy. Rape is on its face a violent crime, whether the victim suffers injury from the act or not. Are you intentionally playing devil's advocate here or do you honestly believe this malarkey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bong-Man Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Polanski has been an accomplished film director and to all accounts has never had a similar incident... Not true. He was having a sexual relationship with Nastassja Kinski when she was 13 or 15 years old, and that was almost immediately after he fled the country. I always liked "Cat People". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 It actually does matter if someone suffers broken bones, bleeds or requires reconstructive surgery. On a violence scale of 1-10, 1 being the least impact and 10 the worst, this crime rates closer to 1 than 10. There are much worse rapes being committed today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planted Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 ^ yeah, you're right. They should all suck it up, huh? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 No, but I would count my blessings that it was not as bad as some of the rapes are today. Your cup is either half empty or half full. Forgiving allows you to heal. I would be more concerned about what destroys the soul rather than what violates the body. He can take away her innocence, but her soul remains intact. He can't touch that as long as she is not consumed with a desire for revenge. Forgiving him allowed the victim to heal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 No, but I would count my blessings that it was not as bad as some of the rapes are today. Yes you could. Your cup is either half empty or half full. Yes it is, depends whether you are filling it or drinking from it, doesnt it, so what? Forgiving allows you to heal. Revenge allows you to Kill. I would be more concerned about what destroys the soul rather than what violates the body. Revenge allows you to Kill. He can take away her innocence, but her soul remains intact. Revenge allows you to Kill. He can't touch that as long as she is not consumed with a desire for revenge. Revenge allows you to Kill. Forgiving him allowed the victim to heal. Revenge allows you to Kill. Where are the Knights of the Temple when you want one? (Templars) Grand Master, "Where are you going my Son" Templar, "I'm just going to Rip Mr Polanski a New Arsehole, i'll be back in Time for Vespers" Regards, Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Danny, have you been watching too many war movies lately? That reminds me, there was a young victim of rape in California who took revenge on her attackers, and she was sentenced to prison for killing them. Her first name started with a Y, but I can't remember her last name, which was Hispanic. It was about 3 days after she was gang-raped that she took a shotgun and hunted them down. It happened sometime during the 1970s. Ms. Magazine published a story about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Danny, have you been watching too many war movies lately? And Reading Books E-T, Regards, Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~tangerine~ Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 No, but I would count my blessings that it was not as bad as some of the rapes are today. You need to stop making rape sound like no big deal. While this victim in this case forgave her attacker, that does not mean she accepts what happened as something she deserved. That does not mean she doesn't wish it never happened. Rape is not a crime that somehow allows a woman to "grow" or "learn from it". There is no "blessing" in the act of someone you don't want putting their private parts into your body doing it anyway. The fact that he drugged her first is even more revolting. He gave her less opportunity to fight him off. Had she been well, maybe she could have gotten away from him. Along with physical injuries, rape brings with it psychological injuries to the victim. You don't know what she has suffered from this. There is no blessing in being raped. As a side note, interesting about the relationship between Natsha Kinski and Roman Polanski. Maybe that can be added to his charges. How do you defend this EL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Obviously it is a big deal. She never deserved what happened. The blessing is in the fact that he did not leave her in a bloody mess for the 911 respondents to sort through in the ER or the morgue, which is what happens to some victims these days. Obviously there is no blessing in being drugged and raped. I don't know what she suffered, although I can imagine that it was a nightmare for her, but I do know that she has forgiven him, healed and moved on with her life, as she has stated. Why are you asking me to defend the relationship between the other two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Hi all, Obviously it is a big deal. She never deserved what happened. The blessing is in the fact that he did not leave her in a bloody mess for the 911 respondents to sort through in the ER or the morgue, which is what happens to some victims these days. Obviously there is no blessing in being drugged and raped. I don't know what she suffered, although I can imagine that it was a nightmare for her, but I do know that she has forgiven him, healed and moved on with her life, as she has stated. The sad thing is that your serious,.. KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babs Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Obviously it is a big deal. She never deserved what happened. The blessing is in the fact that he did not leave her in a bloody mess for the 911 respondents to sort through in the ER or the morgue, which is what happens to some victims these days. Obviously there is no blessing in being drugged and raped. I don't know what she suffered, although I can imagine that it was a nightmare for her, but I do know that she has forgiven him, healed and moved on with her life, as she has stated. Why are you asking me to defend the relationship between the other two? Oh, I see what you are saying..... Rapists were kinder and gentler in the 'Good Old Days'.Not like them new fangled rapists we have today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 No, let me explain it another way. When a man rapes you, the first thing you need to do is get away from him. Because, chances are that the next thing he is going to do is murder you to destroy the witness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Hi all, No, let me explain it another way. When a man rapes you, the first thing you need to do is get away from him. Because, chances are that the next thing he is going to do is murder you to destroy the witness. Explain it?!? KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Rape is a dangerous crime. You don't know what your attacker will do next. That's why it is important to remain as calm as you possibly can and get away to safety immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.