Roman Polanski free

@aidan,

What?

None of this matters. A person who is thirteen lacks adult judgement, and thus is without informed consent.

I could posit that people of 22 lack adult judgement, but so far no good. Or that people of 57 d0. But thirteen, there is much data on that. No matter if she was a molded fox. A pliable thirteen is, to me, a victim, no matter if she just gets along.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

People were just as outraged in 1977 by what Polanski did as they are by the facts of the crime today. Morality hasn't changed

So you keep saying, yet I have documented my claim that is has re child sex abuse, and frankly you claiming not to know about this change over time even after it is pointed out to you makes it impossible to take you seriously. There is zero support for your claim.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
LAWRENCE SILVER, SAMANTHA GEIMER'S ATTORNEY: I was.

KING: Were you part of the plea bargaining?

SILVER: Larry, today you see Samantha and she's fine, robust, healthy woman. But at age 13, and this was before O.J., there was just the intense publicity. This was -- this courthouse, with cross examination about these sort of delicate events was not the place for a recovering young girl.

KING: So, she never appeared in court?

SILVER: No. Well before the grand jury but never in court. And, you know, the Santa Monica courthouse has five entrances and most news channel had one camera crew at each entrance to try to get a picture.

KING: It would have been a circus?

SILVER: It was a circus. It was a circus.

My job, I thought, was to try to keep her out of the courtroom, try to keep her to getting back to her life.

KING: You did that?

SILVER: And -- yes, I think we did.

KING: Were you shocked what the judge did?

What did the judge do, tell us?

SILVER: Well, what the judge did was frankly outrageous. We had agreed to a plea bargain. It wasn't what the prosecution wanted, it certainly wasn't what Polanski wanted, but it was what we wanted. We were the victim and this is the way in which Samantha would not be in trial. Samantha would be -- her name would not be exposed at the time. And she would be allowed to recover
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/24/lkl.00.html

Idiot Bill, wrong as usuall....

Silver had no standing whatsoever. Only at the D.A.'s discretion did the victim (let alone her self-important attorney)'s opinion carry any weight at all. They most certainly were not in any position to allow or disallow any plea deal. You continue to speak from authority on subjects you know nothing about.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

How come you're so silent, how come you've always been absolutely silent when it comes to foreign children, Bill?

But you're the first one to trip over the soapbox to show just how caring you are.

I ignore you when you go on off-topic benders. I've expressed my opinions on foreign children's hardships on a multitude of threads. I won't assist you in derailing this one with your obsession.

0 Replies

Agreeing to a plea bargain (the victim and her family) is not making the decision to allow the criminal to accept a plea bargain. DAs more often than not will discuss with the victims the plea bargain being offered and how they feel about it. It doesn't mean the DA has to or will change the plea bargain because of the victim's feelings.

Where is Debra_Law? I am sure she could shed some light on this whole topic as far as the laws themselves are concerned.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Just in case anyone is curious who the idiot in this conversation is; here's California case law directly from a credible source:

Higher court Judges in California have consistently wrote:

It is well settled that the prosecuting authorities, exercising executive functions, ordinarily have the sole discretion to determine whom to charge with public offenses and what charges to bring.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Um, never doubted ya a bit OB!

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

firefly Quote:
People were just as outraged in 1977 by what Polanski did as they are by the facts of the crime today. Morality hasn't changed.

Hawkeye10 Quote:
So you keep saying, yet I have documented my claim that is has re child sex abuse, and frankly you claiming not to know about this change over time even after it is pointed out to you makes it impossible to take you seriously. There is zero support for your claim.

So where is the support for your claim? Where is your documentation?

Polanski was charged with 6 felonies. Do you think he would be charged differently today? Would he have broken more laws in 2010 than he did in 1977, given the same crime? What has changed?

He faced something like up to 50 years in prison on those felony charges. And we'll never know how that judge might have sentenced him, although deportation had been talked about in addition to a sentence. The rumor was that the judge was going to throw the book at him because the judge had been shown some newspaper photos of Polanski with some other underage girls and he became incensed and felt Polanski belonged in state prison. That same judge issued the arrest warrant after Polanski fled and he once vowed to remain on the bench until Polanski was behind bars.

Polanski faced some possible heavy duty jail time in 1977, just as he would in 2010. He could have had a trial. He didn't want to risk a trial. He didn't even want to risk showing up for sentencing. That's because the possible penalties for what he did were very harsh then, just as they would be today.

2 Replies

Even I, no fan of rape, trust me, wonder what Polanski would face on extradition to LA with Cooley all avid.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

That same judge issued the arrest warrant after Polanski fled and he once vowed to remain on the bench until Polanski was behind bars.

If any of that is true, that should be more than enough to impeach/disbar the judge. A judge has no business whatsoever saying things of that nature. That's why they're called judges.

I'm still mightily puzzled by your sense of justice, Firefly. It seems terribly, how can I say this, one-sided, skewed, jaundiced, unbalanced, home teamish, ... well you get my drift.

2 Replies

I wonder how many of the folks here, if placed in a similar situation, say a murder or a rape [similar in nature to this situation] committed in a foreign land and then after fleeing to the US would return to that foreign country to face justice.

1 Reply

@JTT,

I do wonder about the numbers of men that think rape is ok.

Yes, I've been raped. No, I didn't go to the police. That was when that was useless. I did go to a doctor, who was very negative to me. I remember her name, McKenna. Worst ever exam I've been through. This was possibly a bitch with an agenda, that I didn't guess about from the phone book. What a poor choice on my part, an md in La Jolla in 1964. This still enrages me.

No actually does mean no.

It means no at thirteen and in later years.

I hope Hawk gets foisted on his petard.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Why does it not suprise me that he didn't immediately and directly address the very clear points you made? I think he's just laying low until he can find a way either to obfuscate or divert how you dismantled his "claim".

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

Quote:

I hope Hawk gets foisted on his petard.

You seem to be very confused.....my position is that Polanski was guilty of a crime, and that he should have been punished if the girls parents desired it, which they did. The agreed upon plea bargain was signed off on by everyone and sounds about right for the time and considering the facts of the case as we know them.

If you are going to criticized me please at least be adult enough to go off of what I have maintained as my position all along. This wide eye claim that I approve of rape and adults having sex with 13 years old can not be documented with my words.

2 Replies

@snood,

Hey, snood, we are not all hawkeye.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

I think, though I have no way of knowing, that that number is pretty high, Osso. Yup, no means no be it male or female who expresses it.

Hawkeye is right about one thing. Rape was NOT seen to be as serious an issue all that long ago, as you yourself have noted. The female was often viewed, by police and society as being at least partly responsible.

2 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

Why does it not surprise me that he didn't immediately and directly address the very clear points you made? I think he's just laying low until he can find a way either to obfuscate or divert how you dismantled his "claim".

No, I am tired of saying the same thing over and over again, and having the facts ignored...this thread is no longer productive.

As you will recall we did this all once before too, and no ones position has changed much, although the personal hostility and moral bullying has scared some of the pro Polanski position side away.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Rape was NOT seen to be as serious an issue all that long ago, as you yourself have noted

if you would expand that to adults having sex with teens we would be getting somewhere..That was a serious no-no in the eyes of Americans only in some places, not in Hollywood.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Quote:

None of this matters. A person who is thirteen lacks adult judgement, and thus is without informed consent. I could posit that people of 22 lack adult judgement, but so far no good. Or that people of 57 d0. But thirteen, there is much data on that. No matter if she was a molded fox. A pliable thirteen is, to me, a victim, no matter if she just gets along.

Oh my god Osso - you think I was agreeing with Hawkeye that this girl was the seductress?! No, please let me explain my post so that absolutely NO ONE ever mistakes me for someone who thinks a thirteen year old CHILD could ever be responsible for leading an adult man on...

I was asking Hawkeye - WHY, if he believed this LITTLE GIRL was the initiator, agressor, seductress in the situation - would Polanski have to drug the girl? Because if she were indeed cooperative and in fact eager - no drugging would have been necessary.
I think Polanski is a rapist. And I do not think this little girl initiated their encounter or its subsequent result. A thirteen year old CANNOT be responsible for actions that an adult takes against them.

And furthermore - I do not believe that any woman of any age can be responsible for 'ASKING FOR' rape- by what she wears, what she does, etc.- unless she says, 'Hey, I want you to rape me.'
Now I bet Hawkeye will tell me how common that is...

And anyone who calls rape perpetrated on a thirteen year old girl by an adult male 'a May/December' romance or relationship, has a major problem.

If Polanski had done this to my EIGHTEEN year old daughter - I'd have killed him myself, if I'd had the chance.

Just to be perfectly clear.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I'm not confused. I was at first on reading your posts. Yes, I'm an adult, not at all wide eyed.

I'm not interested in chasing your many hundreds of posts but I remember your takes. I remember vascillating on what you could mean. I'm over that. Go ahead and take the negs as my solid impression, however non legal or not.

Trust me, I'm not going to chase around for your words. I remember their import.

0 Replies

Roman Polanski free

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know