polanski

[Hell Kitty]

What good will it do if you put Romanski to jail? It will satisfy only those who would like to see him raped by inmates.

 

You do the crime, you do the time. He didn't want to do the time so he fled the country. Why should he get away with it?

 

What we know for SURE is that he had sex with a 13 year old girl, that is not rape if she wanted that. I do not care if she said different things in her testimony, there were so many cases in Poland when mothers told their children to say they were molested by their fathers so the mothers could get a divorce. I know it is a very sad picture when a child say he she was raped/molested but the thing is chidren lie all the time and there isnt a lot of FACTS to back up miss Geimer.

 

Wow. Some people lie about being raped, so... what? We should assume everyone who makes such an accusation is a liar? Do you have any proof that the events didn't happen as she claims, or is this another one of those cases where you "just know how these things work"?

 

Oh and to everyone who are so lawful, Polanski wasnt trialed for rape and he didnt admit to it so how can you condemn him? Law says that if you havent been judged you are innocent.

 

Innocent? He pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

[Guest PoziomyPion]

I meant innocent of rape, he had a sex with a minor he should answer for that, and as for her being a liar, there are no facts to back her story, only her words, that is not enough. How do you know the events didnt happen like Polanski described them? There is actually a real reason to not to belive BOTH of them, but in the end it is personal bias that makes us shift towards Polanski or Mrs Geimer.

 

What makes me sad in this case is that people judge this whole situation like Polanski raped her when there is no real proof of that. He had sex with her(jailbait or not) he should answer for THAT.

[Lare Kikkeli]

I meant innocent of rape, he had a sex with a minor he should answer for that, and as for her being a liar, there are no facts to back her story, only her words, that is not enough. How do you know the events didnt happen like Polanski described them? There is actually a real reason to not to belive BOTH of them, but in the end it is personal bias that makes us shift towards Polanski or Mrs Geimer.

 

What makes me sad in this case is that people judge this whole situation like Polanski raped her when there is no real proof of that. He had sex with her(jailbait or not) he should answer for THAT.

 

So you're saying we should be more inclined to believe a man who had sex with a minor and fled the country rather than did time? Who has bragged that he "beat the system" by fleeing the US?

 

To be honest I think he should be sentenced for rape, but at the very least sit the time for the crime he admitted he was guilty of (unlawful sex with a minor).

[Guest PoziomyPion]

I am not saying what you should think.

 

I am just pointing out that if we remove our bias and emotions out of this case and leave only facts, there is nothing, no real proof to say what really happened.

 

I am glad you are not a jugde if you want to sentence someone for what they did not do.

 

I wonder why the mother of this girl isn't getting any **** from the media. She agrees to let her 13 year old daughter to do a photoshoot with an older male in Jack's Nicholson's estate. We know that whole Holywood with Jack Nicholson on the front are moral as ****! If she had a brain she would accompany her daughter.

Edited October 2, 2009 by PoziomyPion

[Lare Kikkeli]

I am not saying what you should think.

Yes you are. You're saying we have bias against Polanski. You're saying we should not think he's guilty of what the girl says he did. Thats telling us what to think.

 

I am just pointing out that if we remove our bias and emotions out of this case and leave only facts, there is nothing, no real proof to say what really happened.

There's his word against the girls, and I believe the girl. Why do you belive Polanski? His actions certainly make him look guilty.

 

I am glad you are not a jugde if you want to sentence someone for what they did not do.

You don't know he didn't do it. No one except Polanski and the girl do.

 

I wonder why the mother of this girl isn't getting any **** from the media. She agrees to let her 13 year old daughter to do a photoshoot with an older male in Jack's Nicholson's estate. We know that whole Holywood with Jack Nicholson on the front are moral as ****! If she had a brain she would accompany her daughter.

 

Ah yes, the age old don't wear a short skirt defense. Now the mom was probably careless to let her daughter in that house, but its in no way her or her daughters fault that a horny old man had sex (possibly raped) with a 13-year old girl.

 

Polanski should take responsibility of what he did, or at the least what he pled he's guilty for.

[Guest PoziomyPion]

QUOTE (PoziomyPion @ Oct 2 2009, 02:21 PM)

I am not saying what you should think.

Yes you are. You're saying we have bias against Polanski. You're saying we should not think he's guilty of what the girl says he did. Thats telling us what to think.

 

QUOTE (PoziomyPion @ Oct 2 2009, 02:21 PM)

I am just pointing out that if we remove our bias and emotions out of this case and leave only facts, there is nothing, no real proof to say what really happened.

There's his word against the girls, and I believe the girl. Why do you belive Polanski? His actions certainly make him look guilty.

 

I am saying all of us are biased in this case, me, you, all of us who judge, analyze and fill in the blanks with our presumptions. Im stating my opinion, I am not treating it as a FACT because this is what this case apparently lacks.

 

With the second sentence you just proved what I wrote about in my previous post. Why believe Polanski? Why should I believe this girl when there is no solid proof behind her accusations(of RAPE )?. I am not defending Polanski of having sex with a minor, I even think he should be trialed for that, I just cannot judge him like he raped her, when there is no real proof of that.

 

EDIT

Oh and that

QUOTE (PoziomyPion @ Oct 2 2009, 02:21 PM)

I am glad you are not a jugde if you want to sentence someone for what they did not do.

You don't know he didn't do it. No one except Polanski and the girl do.

 

He wasnt trialed and sentenced for RAPE, so according to law he did not do it.

Edited October 2, 2009 by PoziomyPion

[213374U]

Yeah, guys! You need to let go of your bias and focus on the facts!

We know that whole Holywood with Jack Nicholson on the front are moral as ****!

[Walsingham]

I have to say that this argument is pleasing on one level. I mean if we can't agree that drugging and forcing sex on a kid is bad then it's not surprising we seem incapable of agreeing on anything more complex like healthcare or terrorism or marxism.

 

Speaking of which, where is LoF? Surely there must be a marxist spin on this.

[Guest PoziomyPion]

Let me clarify, I am aware of my own bias on this matter, I wrote that sentence to illustrate what I think of mothers behaviour in that case.

 

My freakin point is that we may think what we think but we aren't really the ones to judge both of them(woman and Polanski) and state that as a FACT, cause when we leave only facts and take away our own emotions from that case, I find out I wouldnt be able to officialy judge any of the party involved like a proffessional judge.

 

What I present here is my own opinion I base on what I know and my assumptions. I am merely trying to approach this case from as many perspectives as I can, mostly thanks to posts in this thread.

 

I am not trying to have a fight, just hoped for some discussion and wanted to point out that this case doesn't have to be like OMG HE RAPED HER PUT HIS ASS IN JAIL WHERE THEY CAN RAPE HIM OMIGOSH that media are trying to do now.

 

@ Walsingham, from what I know there is no evidence she was raped, thats why I cannot condem him for rape, I only know he had sex with her and he should take responsibility for that. Is it so hard to understand I am not for drugging teens and raping them to be legalized? How many times do I have to write that?

Edited October 2, 2009 by PoziomyPion

[213374U]

@ Walsingham, from what I know there is no evidence she was raped, thats why I cannot condem him for rape, I only know he had sex with her and he should take responsibility for that. Is it so hard to understand I am not for drugging teens and raping them to be legalized? How many times do I have to write that?

Not forensic evidence, perhaps. But I think the idea that she really wanted him to stick it in is rather indefensible. Ergo, rape.

 

I agree about the mediatic judgement thing, though.

[Hurlshort]

I don't know if it was pointed out, but when two underage people have sex, it is nearly impossible to put one of them on trial unless the other is claiming rape. Statutory rape is really only used against people over 18 in the US. As a minor, you are pretty well protected.

 

I'd be happy to hear any evidence otherwise, but personally I'm not going to do a search on underage sex and statutory rape.

[Humodour]

Walsingham, from what I know there is no evidence she was raped

 

You mean besides the fact that she was drugged and forced to have sex against her will? Yeah, I guess we don't really havy anyws evidwnce she was raped.

[Humodour]

IT is the nature of being drunk that oncqe sentence is flawless while the next is GARBAGES.

[213374U]

 

Your Honor, he has ho proof!

[Lare Kikkeli]

First of all, way to cherry pick quotes PoziomyPion.

 

Let me clarify, I am aware of my own bias on this matter, I wrote that sentence to illustrate what I think of mothers behaviour in that case.

 

My freakin point is that we may think what we think but we aren't really the ones to judge both of them(woman and Polanski) and state that as a FACT, cause when we leave only facts and take away our own emotions from that case, I find out I wouldnt be able to officialy judge any of the party involved like a proffessional judge.

Who's stating facts here? We're all expressing our opinions on the matter. I believe the girl because she was 13. An over 40-year old man saying a 13-year old girl seduced him? REALLY?

 

Then there's also the fact that not only did Polanski not take it like a man and face the consequences of his immoral actions (with or without the rape), he fled. He ****ing fled the country and was not only not remorseful of what happened, he BRAGGED about it on national television. In light of these facts I believe the girl.

 

Now the only thing you have to say in defense of Polanski is that we have no real evidence. He admitted they had sex, and the girl says she was forced into it. Are you saying most statutory rape cases, or pedophilia for that matter isn't punishable unless there's a video of it? A tape with the victim saying no? How much evidence would you need to put away a man who admits to having sex with a 13-year old but says the child seduced him?

 

 

 

What I present here is my own opinion I base on what I know and my assumptions. I am merely trying to approach this case from as many perspectives as I can, mostly thanks to posts in this thread.

 

I am not trying to have a fight, just hoped for some discussion and wanted to point out that this case doesn't have to be like OMG HE RAPED HER PUT HIS ASS IN JAIL WHERE THEY CAN RAPE HIM OMIGOSH that media are trying to do now.

Most people in this thread believe he should take responsibility for his actions. Some also believe that in reality he did rape him, but sadly only was convicted of unlawful sex with a minor. I certainly didn't say he deserves to get raped, I only said that he deserves to do the time for his crime, be it rape or unlawful sex with a minor. What are you arguing against again?

 

@ Walsingham, from what I know there is no evidence she was raped, thats why I cannot condem him for rape, I only know he had sex with her and he should take responsibility for that. Is it so hard to understand I am not for drugging teens and raping them to be legalized? How many times do I have to write that?

 

You sure sound like it, with your talk about no physical evicence. The girl was 13. I repeat, SHE WAS 13.

[Guest PoziomyPion]

Oh my god you enjoy drama dont you?

 

Then there's also the fact that not only did Polanski not take it like a man and face the consequences of his immoral actions (with or without the rape), he fled. He ****ing fled the country and was not only not remorseful of what happened, he BRAGGED about it on national television. In light of these facts I believe the girl.

 

That's true, but for me that doesnt mean the girl is right, there were many errors in how the case was handled and I am not going to repeat them, see my other posts(why he fled the country, the judge wanting to get popular, her later admitting she was willing, then not etc.).

 

Now the only thing you have to say in defense of Polanski is that we have no real evidence. He admitted they had sex, and the girl says she was forced into it. Are you saying most statutory rape cases, or pedophilia for that matter isn't punishable unless there's a video of it? A tape with the victim saying no? How much evidence would you need to put away a man who admits to having sex with a 13-year old but says the child seduced him?

 

I want Psychologists and or Psychiatrists evaluation. Thats all. It would be hard to reproduce all that for someone but if they can do this and it will turn out Roman Polanski raped her then I will accept that no problemo! But until now I shall restrain myself from judging him( I mean THE RAPE(if it happenned) , I am not trying to say that him sleeping with a minor was okay - thats what he did for sure - and he should face the consequences.

 

What are you arguing against again?

 

I don't want to argue I want to share my opinion and read yours so I can look at the case a bit deeper. I feel kind of offended you would think I think it is ok to rape children which you do(you stated that in your last statement) so let me say that again as you clearly did not read all of my posts:

 

What I say is: THEY had SEX - that was wrong, punish Roman for that

HE probably RAPED HER - that is wrong, IF that happened punish Roman for that, BUT there is no enough evidence for that, not only forensic but I also mean psychologists and psychiatrists evaluation.

 

THATS IT. If you are going to say again Im pro child abuse, well, you are wrong and see ya in court!

 

@Krezack If you want to argue with me, well I wont fall into your trap. Read my posts to know why I cannot fully believe she actually was raped. Thats the central topic for me around this case. If Polanski will be officially sentenced for rape (psychologists evaluatin I wrote about will be needed) this is when I will truly believe that. For now I can only condemn him for having sex with a minor and he didn't have to rape her to have sex with her(believe that or not).

Edited October 2, 2009 by PoziomyPion

[Gromnir]

Quick quiz: does anyone here with experience of trying to help victims of child abuse feel the age of consent is too high? Is it just me who feel you chaps are being rather blase?

 

Child abuse is child abuse. Changing the age of consent won't change that.

 

If the victim doesn't give consent, or was coerced, that's extremely illegal under the law, regardless of the age.

 

...

 

am thinking that you is misreading or missing point. "age of consent". consent cannot be given by persons younger than age of consent. if you have sex with somebody who did not give consent...

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

You missed the point actually Grom - Wals was talking about (in response to me bringing it up) variations in the age of consent across different countries and what he thought was proper, not what the legal definition of consent in America is.

 

I'm fully aware that a 13 year old cannot legally give consent in America.

 

 

am fully aware what wals were talking 'bout. age of consent is age that children is legal deemed too young to consent to sex. is meant for protection o' children. am not quite sure where you misunderstand. adults is fully aware that if they have sex with a child, they can go to prison. has a deterrent effect. is age o' consent ultimately an arbitrary line drawn in sand? sure it is, but so is speed limits and dollar amounts for grand larceny and a thousand other examples. society decides that to protect children from abuse, age o' consent laws is useful. am hopeful you ain't gonna try the slippery slope relativism o' other posters, 'cause it just not hold muster.

 

"Child abuse is child abuse. Changing the age of consent won't change that."

 

actually, it does change. perhaps sadly, child abuse is also gots legal implications and definitions. age of consent changes behavior of people having sex with partners who is young. protects those youngsters from possible "abuse." "child abuse is child abuse" doesn't mean anything... but even if it did it wouldn't mean what you thinks it means... confusing, no.

 

to hiro:

 

"You're the one that's suggested the AGE of the person with this 13 year old girl by dismissing it as two minors having sex. I never said anything about age in the FIRST place and later suggested it may have been an adult? an uncle? WHO KNOWS? Maybe it was an uncle and the family didn't want to make this worse than it already is. You're the one that's suggesting she had sex with a minor and dismissing it as such. What a callous and insensitive thing to say. The most obvious reason? Unbelievable."

 

you asked why the other rapists ain't being brought to justice. a simple and obvious possible reason is that previous 2 sexual encounters were with non-adults. am not quite certain where your disconnect is on this. you is trying to imply some kinda silly conspiracy or lack o' diligence on the part of the DA? HA!

 

and again, you gots logic issues. anybody wanna give hiro a basic primer on logic... explain about how impossible it is to disprove something that ain't been proved. prove that God doesn't exist. prove that the previous two sex acts were not with adults. is no need for Gromnir to prove age of the victim's previous partner(s)... is up to You to prove that they was adults. for there to be felony, the partner(s) must be adults... so prove that previous partner(s) was adult.

 

bah.

 

and you still ain't explained how you could be More disturbed by fact that the victim weren't a virgin than you was by the evidence of drugging and rape by a middle-aged man.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps to pozi:

 

admissions is always admissible as evidence o' a crime. what you want or would like is not what the courts need or want. is typical very hard to convict w/o the willing cooperation o' victim, but given polanski's subsequent admission's regarding the incident, am thinking that it would be insane for him to abandon the celebrity-grade plea agreement he worked out so many decades ago... gives DA an opportunity to tack on the rape and sodomy charges.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Gromnir

[Lare Kikkeli]

rolling with the punches, eh? need i remind you of this post from the last page:

 

I wanna ask this question.

 

What good will it do if you put Romanski to jail? It will satisfy only those who would like to see him raped by inmates.

 

To defend Polanski, he had a harsh life, he's a great artis, he never ever again did what he did with miss Geimer, Geimer admitted she wanted to have sex back then, the judge that died and wanted to put Romanski in jail wanted to do so to gain popularity, the case had lots of errors(Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).

 

What we know for SURE is that he had sex with a 13 year old girl, that is not rape if she wanted that. I do not care if she said different things in her testimony, there were so many cases in Poland when mothers told their children to say they were molested by their fathers so the mothers could get a divorce. I know it is a very sad picture when a child say he she was raped/molested but the thing is chidren lie all the time and there isnt a lot of FACTS to back up miss Geimer.

 

Just trial Polanski and make him pay a lot of money to some organization that helps victims who were assaulted sexually ,it will achieve more than putting old man in jail.

 

here you're saying because he had some pretty bad things happen, because he's directed a few movies and because in some other cases women have yelled rape after having sex we should let polanski walk.

[Guest PoziomyPion]

rolling with the punches, eh? need i remind you of this post from the last page:

 

I wanna ask this question.

 

What good will it do if you put Romanski to jail? It will satisfy only those who would like to see him raped by inmates.

 

To defend Polanski, he had a harsh life, he's a great artis, he never ever again did what he did with miss Geimer, Geimer admitted she wanted to have sex back then, the judge that died and wanted to put Romanski in jail wanted to do so to gain popularity, the case had lots of errors(Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).

 

What we know for SURE is that he had sex with a 13 year old girl, that is not rape if she wanted that. I do not care if she said different things in her testimony, there were so many cases in Poland when mothers told their children to say they were molested by their fathers so the mothers could get a divorce. I know it is a very sad picture when a child say he she was raped/molested but the thing is chidren lie all the time and there isnt a lot of FACTS to back up miss Geimer.

 

Just trial Polanski and make him pay a lot of money to some organization that helps victims who were assaulted sexually ,it will achieve more than putting old man in jail.

 

here you're saying because he had some pretty bad things happen, because he's directed a few movies and because in some other cases women have yelled rape after having sex we should let polanski walk.

 

And you completely ignore my post that was a response to your, where you accuse me of being pro child abuse!

When I respond and make my point, proving you were wrong about me you totally ignore me.

 

 

And yes, I said what I said but the thing is you agree in 100% , without a doubt that a rape was involved. What I think what might happen is that she was a jailbait and when everything came out public she said she was raped. That is a classic example of such cases, it does happen quite a lot, I read a nice article about it but in Polsih and I don;t know if I have good enough skills to translate it.

 

The problem with this case is, that the base on which we should be able to form our opinions has too many holes and divides people, bacuse everyone fills them with a material they see fit.

 

I think she might have been a jailbait, but if she wasnt I will be the first one to say I was wrong, there is no shame in that, because I have to form opinions on some lousy work done ages ago.

Edited October 2, 2009 by PoziomyPion

[Lare Kikkeli]

what im calling you out for is that on the last page you said that polanski should walk even if he did have sex with a minor and you also said that the victims mother or maybe the victim herself is as much to blame for this as polanski is. WRONG! she was 13. a child. do you talk with kids a lot? have you forgotten how naive 13-year olds usually are? obviously you have...otherwise you wouldnt be defending a middle-aged man who had sex with a 13-year old.

[Guest PoziomyPion]

Well I had a lot of experience with kids not to mention when I was 13 years old a lot of girls in my school were cruising in a mall, having sex for money with older man. They always pretended they were at least 15(legal age of consent in Poland ) to put the guys at ease after they flashed their breast in front of them in a tiolet stall. So no, I do not believe all 13 year olds are naive and innocent, lots of them are doing wrong things on purpose, cause it is fun.

 

I guess thats why I am inclined to doubt MRs Geimers story.

 

EDIT

 

Oh and I explained why he should walk off in my opinion:

- he is old

- he never did that again

- putting him in jail wont achieve much, you will have to pay for him(if you pay taxes and are America that is)

- he should pay lots of money for some organization that helps people who were abused sexually instead of going in jail and doing nothing.

- and the case is really old

Edited October 2, 2009 by PoziomyPion

[Gromnir]

"- putting him in jail wont achieve much,"

 

disagree.

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,"

 

too often we see celebrities and wealthy people getting special treatment, seeming in violation o' the principle that all men is created equal. to the average citizen it appears that not only did polanski get a special deal from prosecutor 'cause the director were a famous person, but when he found out that he were gonna have spend a measly 48 additional days in prison, he fled the country.

 

let us alter facts. imagine if numbers guy or pozi or Gromnir were accused of having sex with a famous 13 year old actress... same transcript and evidence... same flight from justice. everything same 'cept that the victim were the famous person, and nobodies like us were the defendant. you thinks hollywood and the french government would come to pozi's defense? HA!

 

famous people gets different treatment, but Americans don't believe that celebrities should get special handling.

 

so yeah... sending polanski back to prison would achieve something. sees that famous people can't simply pay their way out of their mistakes has value. 'course if you not think polanski made a mistake...

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorgon]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,"

 

 

Written during slavery, which makes it utterly hypocritical. Necessary at the time, but completely false.

[Gromnir]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,"

 

 

Written during slavery, which makes it utterly hypocritical. Necessary at the time, but completely false.

 

am not certain why you think the principle is invalidated 'cause o' the hypocrisy of the author. a father who never brushes his teeth teaches his children to brush twice a day and floss regular. is the dad's message false? how 'bout michael vick doing humane society commercials 'bout treatment o' pets? is false that dogs should be treated humanely? hypocrisy of the messenger does not invalidate the message.

 

the fact that principles espoused in the declaration is more valid now than it were when written makes principles false?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," sounds better than, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all white men are created equal". just doesn't roll off the tongue as well.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Gromnir

[Volourn]

"Oh and I explained why he should walk off in my opinion:"

 

 

- he is old: I guess the US shouldn't puruse Bin Laden because he's oldddddddddddddddddddd........

 

- he never did that again: Proof? There's definiotely been evidence that he's done that sort of thing afterwards including pictures with him being a little too cozy with young girls. I have very little doubt he *has* done it again.

 

 

- putting him in jail wont achieve much, you will have to pay for him(if you pay taxes and are America that is): It will show that just because you are famous, you won't get away with raping teenage girls

 

- he should pay lots of money for some organization that helps people who were abused sexually instead of going in jail and doing nothing.: No. He should do no such thing. Money doesn't fix the problem.

 

- and the case is really old: Irreleavnt. The fact he ran, and managed to escape justice for 30 eyars don't change the fact he broke the law, and did something immoral. Again, you are suggesting all charges should be dropped if the CONVICTED confict manages to hide. btw, This is akin to a criminal escaping prison and fleeing. I guess the law should stop pursusing him.

 

- It should also be pointed out that a grand jury made the judgement that there was enough evidence to take him to trial over the rape charges. THAT'S when he did his plea bargain. So, there WAS evidence. He likely pleaded because he knew there was a good chance he'd be found guilty of the worst crimes.

 

Bottom line is this scumbag raped a a young girl by using drugs, alcohol, and an extreme abuse of position of authority. Disgusting. Also, immoral, and illegal.

 

The guy got away with it mostl;y too, and that wans't good enough for him so he fled like a coward. The hilarious thing if he had just faced his punishment (a couple of months at most), this would be long over. The thing is he's facing a longer inprisonment just waiting to see what will happen now then if he just went to prison then. Even now, he's probably just going to end ip with probation and an absolute maximum of 2 years. The guy is an idiot.

 

But, most importantly, a rapist.

 

P.S. Believing a biased documentary made by his friends is 100% fact is a very scary thing to do.