@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:What do you suggest, Robert?
I suggest that you understand that mere disagreement with you doesn't mean that they condone drugging and raping kids. I suggest that you consider the wide range of possibilities in between. I suggest that you consider that they may be telling the truth when they explicitly tell you that they don't condone such things before you accuse them of it (which is exactly what happened with Francis).
For example, most people are just not familiar with the facts of the case (and your "******* kids" stuff might just be your usual hyperbole in these matters to them). You have already seen one person you did this to say as much, that they just didn't know what you knew about it.
You might start by outlining the case dispassionately, so that they don't write it off as your inordinate zeal. I happen to agree with you in that he should face justice for his crime, but saying people who don't share your passion for the case are ok with raping children isn't a fair argument.
Before I read up on it I had thought that the crime was less severe than it apparently was. It wasn't even clear based on some media reports if the crime were just related to photographing the model nude or if it actually involved rape.
So you might do something like bring evidence, instead of invective, to the table. Here's a good link:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
Quote:The teenager's troubling--and contemporaneous--account of her abuse at Polanski's hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, "Take off your underwear" and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn't wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey's testimony, wrapped his hands around the child's waist.
The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."
The special circumstances people speak of might include that the child reportedly (according to Jack Nicholson's girlfriend) could have passed for 25, that a miscarriage of justice appeared to be underway, and that the victim has sought not only to end the prosecution but much more, such as allowing him to accept awards in the US. Some may feel that this is because of remorse for exaggerated or false accusations. Of course it could also be because of the civil settlement. But it's all just speculation, and just doesn't mean that people are ok with raping minors if they don't feel exactly the same way as you about this. It just means there is a lot of conflicting information out there.
I don't think any of it changes the core of the case myself, but many people just aren't familiar with the basic case, and may just be familiar with the surrounding circumstances. Hell they may just not share the righteous indignation you favor for such crimes.
None of that means they condone the crimes.
