Why Did Roman Polanski Run Away?

@engineer,

I did and it seems like everything was accepted with certain expectations on the sentence. The judge was not bound by those expectations. What is your interpretation? Do you expect this to go before a jury for some reason?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First as far as I can see the plea deal of the 70s is dead and that is the starting point however a large amount of lawyer power will be place on this case so who know where it will end.

He might in fact end up servicing a few years in prison as the lawyers have fun in the courts addressing these questions.

Second I also can not see why the crime of running away would not in itself end up in a trial.

All and all he should not have run from a slap on the old wrist for raping a child.

0 Replies

The Ugly Truth About The Roman Polanksi Affair
http://tinyurl.com/yzun77z

2 Replies

@thegoodbadandugly,

I disagree slightly with the argument, however there is a good case that the collective has no basis to claim that Polanski must be punished irregardless of the victims wish that the state stop pursuit. Polanski is an old man, he has never in all these years been said to rape another women, so there is no reason to think that Polanski is a threat to anyone. He appears to be reformed, which back when we were a more civilized people was one of the major goals of the justice system.

We should declare victory and move on, for a variety of reasons.

1 Reply

@thegoodbadandugly,

There is reason to suspect that you are a regular a2k member who has decided to adopt a new identity for the purposes of posting this opinion piece. Are you thus? If so why do you not post this using your "true" identity?

We are beginning to see across the society that unpopular opinions and facts can not be openly discussed. That those who give voice to the unpopular are in danger from mob actions, and increasingly the law. We are truly living through some dark times.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

I disagree slightly with the argument, however there is a good case that the collective has no basis to claim that Polanski must be punished irregardless of the victims wish that the state stop pursuit. Polanski is an old man, he has never in all these years been said to rape another women, so there is no reason to think that Polanski is a threat to anyone. He appears to be reformed, which back when we were a more civilized people was one of the major goals of the justice system.

We should declare victory and move on, for a variety of reasons.

"irregardless" is not a word.
What do u think it means: the opposite of regardless ?

Anyway, I see no reason to be so perniciously vindictive toward an old man because of ancient history,
UNLESS the victim actually demanded to be avenged.

She does not.
She says the opposite. The whole thing shoud be forgotten.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : regardless

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : regardless

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

From this post, it is not clear whether u r defending or conceding.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

what is not clear? You said it is not a word, I proved that it is a word.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

what is not clear? You said it is not a word, I proved that it is a word.

As a general rule, Hawkeye does NOT present himself
to the forum as allegedly being stupid.

It seems odd that Hawkeye has opted to adopt language usage
of stupid Americans whose analytical abilities were not sufficiently skilled
as to enable them to know what thay were doing
as thay fumble & stumble & bungle & blunder in speaking,
presumably resulting from a combination of ignorance and poor mental aptitude.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

what is really odd is David giving lessons on acceptable speech, the very same David who continues to use unconventional language even after oft repeated requests that he conform to standards.

Do you really think it wise to throw those stones of yours David?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:

what is really odd is David giving lessons on acceptable speech,
the very same David who continues to use unconventional
language even after oft repeated requests that he conform to standards.

Those standards r bad; unworthy of conformity.
I am in a state of revolution against bad standards.
I am endeavoring to overthrow those standards by showing better ones.
It is not "really odd" to try to IMPROVE.
If our species had failed to do that, we 'd still be using the very most primitive arrowheads
and we 'd not be at the top of the food chain.

We rose to the top of the food chain by use of competent, accurate logic.
Use of (alleged) words like "irregardless" is illogical; anti-logical.

Come over from the dark side, Hawkeye, and champion good logic.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:

Do you really think it wise to throw those stones of yours David?

I do. My liberal deviations r to demonstrate better, faster and easier ways of self-expression.
Thay r intended to compensate for the negligent failure
of our forefathers to have been more logical and efficient.
Its better late than never.

I have never pledged allegiance to stupid uses of the spoken word.

David

0 Replies

Roman Polanski was granted bail for around $4.5 mill and wearing an
electronic monitoring device. He probably will make more than that on his
next movie, and think again, if he wouldn't make a run for the (French) border
immediately.

This is probably the first time that someone was granted bail while supposed
to be extradited to another country.

It looks like that Polanski is above the law and will get away with a crime
for the second time.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/34148226/

2 Replies

@CalamityJane,

I wonder how difficult it (flight) would be. I don't know that much about these places.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Probably very easy, edgar.

0 Replies

CJ wrote:

This is probably the first time that someone was granted bail while supposed to be extradited to another country.

I don't think so, CJ.

It's only that Swiss law doesn't allow people staying this long in prison while waiting extradition.

Meanwhile, Polanski lawyers are appealing to LA court..

1 Reply

@Francis,

Well Francis, they could have sped up the extradition, and knowing that
he fled once should have been a deterrent to grant him bail.

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

The speed of the extradition depends upon the diligence of the US authorities.

The Swiss seem not having all the necessary documents yet..

And again, they cannot maintain him in jail that long, by law, as he is not indicted in Switzerland..

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

Roman Polanski was granted bail for around $4.5 mill and wearing an
electronic monitoring device. He probably will make more than that on his
next movie, and think again, if he wouldn't make a run for the (French) border
immediately.

This is probably the first time that someone was granted bail while supposed
to be extradited to another country.

It looks like that Polanski is above the law and will get away with a crime
for the second time.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/34148226/

Well, when you look at what and how the the Federal Criminal Court of Switzerland had decided: it's fully in agreement with all Swiss law.
(And actually,, it's not uncommon in Switzerland to grant bail for people who could be extradited - like in other countries, e.g. Germany, too.)

0 Replies

@Francis,

Not quite, Francis.

Quote:

"We will decide quickly on whether to order his release or file an appeal with the Federal Tribunal," justice ministry spokesman Folco Galli said. Authorities had 10 days to refer the matter to the tribunal, Switzerland's highest court, but Galli said they would make their decision before that.

The Federal Tribunal said it had yet to receive an appeal.

They could appeal and he would remain in jail.

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

As far as I've read, the Swiss Federal justice ministry doesn't want to appeal, because "they can't see reasons for an appeal" (translated quote, made by Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, fedral Swiss minster for justice). They've ten days to do so, though.

He wouldn't remain in jail - until it is decided differebtly.
Besides that, the Bundesstrafgericht has noted in its decision that he still would have to go to prison if there's the slightest notice of leaving his chalet.

1 Reply

Why Did Roman Polanski Run Away?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know