Roman Polanski

In 1969 Polanski's pregnant wife, actress Sharon Tate, was brutally murdered along with four other people by followers of Charles Manson.

Victim Samantha Geimer, now 45-years-old, has also called for the case to be dismissed and the saga put to an end.

On September 28 2009 21:09 uziasz wrote:
And well its still foolish from California (not sure tho if it wasthat state) that they let out 40.000 prisioners cuz they got too many ppl in prision and still spent their money to catch Polanski.

Victim Samantha Geimer, now 45-years-old, has also called for the case to be dismissed and the saga put to an end.

On September 28 2009 21:19 Hazard wrote:
Interesting.... well he survived Holocaust but people who made Holocaust possible are still judged TODAY and go to prison (those guys are like ~80 years old and they commited crimes when they were like 20 and "face the music" after 60 years). It is important not to put an innocent man in jail but if he is guilty than he will be prosecuted. US law is perfect in a way that it can let the criminal go (if found not guilty) for long years and come back to punish him like ~20 years later (if his guilt gets proven later).

On September 28 2009 21:27 Slow Motion wrote:
You guys shouldn't put too much weight on what the victim wants. The purpose of criminal law isn't to get "justice" for one particular victim, but to protect society through deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. That's why the government, not victims, prosecutes defendants on behalf of the people.

If Polanski had sex with or raped a 13 year old, he should be sentenced accordingly, even if Geimer is ready to move on. It's not about her.

On September 28 2009 21:12 pubbanana wrote:
He was a Holocaust survivor, his wife was murdered by Charles Manson, he had sex with a thirteen year old girl, and he is an award-winning film director. I would be happy to be able to say just one of those things.

On September 28 2009 22:34 BlackJack wrote:


you must hate your wife

On September 28 2009 22:45 Energies wrote:


Probably because she isn't 13.

On September 28 2009 22:15 Not_A_Notion wrote:
Hence
"In May, a Californian judge dismissed Polanski's bid because he failed to appear in court."
What he tried to do was get have his cake and eat it. If his appeal succeeded he could return to the US whenever he wanted, if it failed then he wouldn't do jail time since he wouldn't be in the country, that's a pretty asymmetric outcome. No judge would agree to hear a case in that situation.

On September 28 2009 23:47 Slow Motion wrote:
I wonder what would happen if a poor black guy from South Central did all the things Polanski did. How much sympathy would he get from all these people? Clearly the rule France wants is: if you've contributed artistically to humanity, you can rape 13 year old girls and get away with it. Time to send in my application to Julliard!

On September 28 2009 23:57 Southlight wrote:



Polanski was never accused of nor convicted of "forced sex;" he was accused of and convicted of statutory rape (consentual sex with an underaged), which tends to carry a considerably more lenient punishment (yes, even more lenient than dogfighting, ala Michael Vick). On top of this he pled guilty, only to have the judge back of that (how often does THAT happen?). Obviously he would still have needed to take the... 40 days? That he pled guilty for.

On September 29 2009 00:20 BlackJack wrote:
Here is the victim's grand jury testimony: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib9.html

On September 28 2009 21:19 Hazard wrote:
US law is perfect in a way that it can let the criminal go (if found not guilty) for long years and come back to punish him like ~20 years later (if his guilt gets proven later).

On September 29 2009 00:28 Slow Motion wrote:
From the US perspective, this is not some simple "political" situation.

If there was prosecutorial misconduct, then Polanski should have appealed the judgment to a higher court. Instead, he fled the country.

The US's political purpose here is to try to uphold the integrity of our legal process and to avoid the precedent that you can avoid the judgment of the court, not by appealing, by just by running away to a foreign country. Other countries have to respect the rights of the US and honor our warrants. The US justice system gets to determine if 30 years exile (living like a king and making movies) > 40 days of prison (and I admit they may), not France or the rest of the world.

If France had issued a warrant for George Lucas's arrest for a crime committed in France, I guarantee you the US would have shipped him to the French authorities, as awesome as Star Wars was.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk said late last year he wanted obligatory castration for pedophiles, whom he branded 'degenerates'. Tusk said he did not believe "one can use the term 'human' for such individuals, such creatures."

"Therefore I don't think protection of human rights should refer to these kind of events," Tusk also said.

On September 28 2009 23:47 Slow Motion wrote:
For France's reaction:

The French culture and communications minister, Frederic Mitterrand, said he "learned with astonishment" of Polanski's arrest. He expressed solidarity with Polanski's family and said "he wants to remind everyone that Roman Polanski benefits from great general esteem" and has "exceptional artistic creation and human qualities."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/28/zurich.roman.polanski.arrested/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

I wonder what would happen if a poor black guy from South Central did all the things Polanski did. How much sympathy would he get from all these people? Clearly the rule France wants is: if you've contributed artistically to humanity, you can rape 13 year old girls and get away with it. Time to send in my application to Julliard!

On September 28 2009 19:33 Gryffindor_us wrote:
Well, isn't this way past the statute of limitations? It can't be more than 7 years by a long shot and obviously this happened a long ass time ago. (I forgot that the case has already been prosecuted and it's at the sentencing phase) Plus, the victim herself has said to exonerate him of his charges. I would feel completely different if she was seeking his arrest. He did exacerbate it by not showing up to his court dates though. Oh well, I guess we'll see how this goes.

On September 29 2009 02:46 Southlight wrote:
Bwahahahahahahahahah.

In somewhat related news,

Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE58O4LE20090925?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews



Talk about hypocrisy.

On September 29 2009 04:39 Slow Motion wrote:
An interesting article here about how Europeans and Americans see the Polanski issue differently.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926508,00.html

I'm not sure I buy the author's generalizations about Europeans believing rich and famous people deserve to be treated differently. Anyone from Europe have their own thoughts?

"The French view Polanski as an artist and celebrity and feel he deserves a different kind of treatment than ordinary people, which just isn't an option in the U.S.," says Ted Stanger, an author and longtime resident of France who has written extensively on the differing public views and attitudes across the Atlantic.

On September 29 2009 06:11 phosphorylation wrote:
Artist my ass.
The Pianist is a mediocre piece of work -- typical holocaust sob story.

On September 28 2009 21:12 pubbanana wrote:
He was a Holocaust survivor, his wife was murdered by Charles Manson, he had sex with a thirteen year old girl, and he is an award-winning film director. I would be happy to be able to say just one of those things.

On September 29 2009 06:54 Energies wrote:


I know hey! What's with writers and directors making the holocaust seem so terrible!

On September 29 2009 04:39 Slow Motion wrote:
An interesting article here about how Europeans and Americans see the Polanski issue differently.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926508,00.html

I'm not sure I buy the author's generalizations about Europeans believing rich and famous people deserve to be treated differently. Anyone from Europe have their own thoughts?

On September 29 2009 04:39 Slow Motion wrote:
An interesting article here about how Europeans and Americans see the Polanski issue differently.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926508,00.html

I'm not sure I buy the author's generalizations about Europeans believing rich and famous people deserve to be treated differently. Anyone from Europe have their own thoughts?

On September 29 2009 07:36 phosphorylation wrote:
god the french are turning more ridiculous by the day..

On September 29 2009 06:11 phosphorylation wrote:
Artist my ass.
The Pianist is a mediocre piece of work -- typical holocaust sob story.

On September 29 2009 04:39 Slow Motion wrote:
An interesting article here about how Europeans and Americans see the Polanski issue differently.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926508,00.html

I'm not sure I buy the author's generalizations about Europeans believing rich and famous people deserve to be treated differently. Anyone from Europe have their own thoughts?

On September 29 2009 04:38 travis wrote:
"he went down and he started to perform cuddliness"

- from the testimony


"cuddliness"



anyways the testimony certainly sounds terrible. but it's just one side

On September 29 2009 11:11 Meta wrote:
Haha.. I bet that arrest blind-sided him.

What I find pretty obscure is how he managed to obtain property in Switzerland without being arrested previously. He's been a fugitive for thirty years, why would they arrest him now, out of the blue, when clearly they must have had at least one opportunity in the past (when he bought that property)?

On September 29 2009 05:57 Boblion wrote:



That's wrong. People want him to be released because of the statute of limitations.
Nobody here want a different treatment for famous people lol ( Well maybe Mitterrand, some so-called artists and our midget president but not the average citizen ).

On September 29 2009 11:45 cz wrote:


Statute of limitations does not apply. Running away from the law for a long enough period does not allow you to make it "not count anymore" if you happen to not be caught in awhile. The police / courts have not at all impeded your right to a speedy trial, it was your own choice, not theirs.

Nobody is actually arguing statute of limitations in a real sense. They are just saying that its been so long, can't he it be forgotten? They really have no logical argument, and are just coming up with odd excuses which make no sense in order to get him free. It's like sticking up for your friend even though you know it's wrong, or booing the referee when your team gets called a penalty even though your player did commit it.

On September 29 2009 07:07 evanthebouncy! wrote:

would you?

On September 29 2009 11:15 lazz wrote:


apparently in the past the swiss have tried to arrest him, however he's been able to avoid them by not showing up if he knew that they'd be there or something :/ basically in the past he's only decided to go to Switzerland if it was unannounced and he knew that there would be no one expecting him. if his visit were announced publically then he knew that law officials would be waiting at the airport for him.

oh, and im not sure if obtaining property would necessarily put him in the eye of the law. I don't think the police look over every single acquisition of property in search for fugitives...

On September 28 2009 21:12 pubbanana wrote:
He was a Holocaust survivor, his wife was murdered by Charles Manson, he had sex with a thirteen year old girl, and he is an award-winning film director. I would be happy to be able to say just one of those things.

On September 29 2009 11:06 lazz wrote:



totally calling cunnilingus cuddliness now

I can't possibly see how there's "just one side." especially considering he pleaded GUILTY to drugging, raping and sodomizing this 13 year old girl.

On September 29 2009 14:52 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
I don't believe in statutory rape laws in the first place. He's technically an ephebophile not a pedophile. He should run free as a bird as far as I'm concerned, he didn't do anything wrong.

On September 29 2009 14:56 InToTheWannaB wrote:

did you even read the statement the victim gave? seemed alot like rape to me.

On September 29 2009 16:20 Slithe wrote:
"Man drugs and rapes 13 year old". I don't see how any of you can say that this guy should not serve time for this. That is unless you think rape and pedophilia aren't particularly severe crimes. Seems like an open and shut case to me.

On September 29 2009 16:28 lazz wrote:


not to the ignorant masses, who see him as a heroic and revered film maker.

On September 29 2009 16:32 benjammin wrote:


a post like this isn't really helping your case

On September 29 2009 16:43 zatic wrote:
When this thread is finished I would love to make a direct comparison of the general consensus with this thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=93135

I predict that torturing and killing 29000 people will be generally accepted over raping one girl.

On September 29 2009 16:49 benjammin wrote:
and your judgment is unclouded?

On September 29 2009 11:45 cz wrote:


Statute of limitations does not apply. Running away from the law for a long enough period does not allow you to make it "not count anymore" if you happen to not be caught in awhile. The police / courts have not at all impeded your right to a speedy trial, it was your own choice, not theirs.

Nobody is actually arguing statute of limitations in a real sense. They are just saying that its been so long, can't he it be forgotten? They really have no logical argument, and are just coming up with odd excuses which make no sense in order to get him free. It's like sticking up for your friend even though you know it's wrong, or booing the referee when your team gets called a penalty even though your player did commit it.

La prescription des peines est le délai après lequel une peine ne peut plus être exécutée.

La prescription n’emporte en aucun cas effacement de la condamnation ; comme pour la prescription des obligations en droit civil, c’est seulement l’exécution qui est paralysée.

Le délai de prescription des peines court à compter de la date à laquelle la condamnation devient définitive.

Sa durée dépend de la gravité de l’infraction :

Les peines prononcées pour un crime se prescrivent par 10 ans (article 133-2 du code pénal - sauf exceptions citées plus loin)

Les peines prononcées pour un délit se prescrivent par 5 ans (article 133-3 du code pénal)

Les peines prononcées pour une contravention se prescrivent par 3 ans (article 133-4 du code pénal contre 2 ans avant le 1er janvier 2003)

Les délais de prescription de l'action publique se différencient des délais applicables aux peines. Les crimes ne peuvent plus être poursuivis par le ministère public après 10 ans. Les délits ne peuvent être poursuivis après 3 ans et les contraventions après 1 an. Pour certaines infractions particulièrement graves, le législateur a prévu un régime dérogatoire. Ainsi les crimes contre l’humanité sont imprescriptibles, le terrorisme et le trafic de stupéfiants se prescrivent par 30 ans pour les crimes et 20 ans pour les délits. De même, le délai de prescription de l'action publique de certains crimes et les délits commis sur un mineur ne commence à courir qu'à compter de leur majorité (articles 7,8 et 9 du code de procédure pénale).

La prescription de la peine est interrompue par tout acte d’exécution forcée (arrestation, saisie…) ou suspendue par l'existence d'un obstacle de fait (force majeure) ou de droit (exécution d'une autre peine).

La prescription de la peine n’emporte aucune conséquence quant à l’exigibilité des dommages-intérêts, qui obéissent aux règles du Code civil.

On September 28 2009 21:12 pubbanana wrote:
He was a Holocaust survivor, his wife was murdered by Charles Manson, he had sex with a thirteen year old girl, and he is an award-winning film director. I would be happy to be able to say just one of those things.

On September 29 2009 17:03 benjammin wrote:
i'm not a judge, so i can't really say. i do know that in a case with this degree of prosecutorial misconduct should probably be dismissed, whether or not that is an adequate degree of justice is up to you.

On September 29 2009 16:56 Pika Chu wrote:
Incredible, such a crime... he had sex with a 13 year old. Imagine the horror of it, he didn't even rape her.

We absolutely need to put in jail thousands of people because they had sex with "illegals".

And that happened 30 years ago, most crimes even prescribe during that time but this is simply horrible and should be treated such as the nazi killers in auschwitz..

On September 29 2009 16:44 lazz wrote:

that's entirely different case altogether, for many reasons. first, being a guard in a nazi concentration camp,it's somewhat likely that the job was forced onto him, as in, he may not have had the option to refuse work.

also, if it was found that he was a guard at the concentration camp, and it was proved without a doubt that he did commit atrocious acts (which I don't think it'd be possible to do at this point)) then yes he should be tracked down and punished.

Polanski's case is different altogether. drugging and raping a 13 year old is very different from being forced to work as a guard in a nazi concentration camp. there was also a huge amount of evidence in Polanski's case, so much so that he was forced to plead guilty because he knew he wouldn't be able to wriggle himself out of a conviction

On September 28 2009 20:53 uziasz wrote:
Since Polanski made more good things than bad ones in that 30 years he should be free

On September 29 2009 16:56 Pika Chu wrote:
Incredible, such a crime... he had sex with a 13 year old. Imagine the horror of it, he didn't even rape her.

We absolutely need to put in jail thousands of people because they had sex with "illegals".

And that happened 30 years ago, most crimes even prescribe during that time but this is simply horrible and should be treated such as the nazi killers in auschwitz..

On September 29 2009 18:15 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:
he was just to stupid to move some kilometers down south where he could do this legally.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Age_of_Consent-2009-28-04.png

US americans have a very cippled mind when it comes to sex.

On September 29 2009 18:48 Carnac wrote:

except there was no consent

On September 29 2009 20:58 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:


that doesnt make any difference for the age. rape is rape, doesnt matter if you rape a 13y old or a granny.

the consent came from drugs (alcohol and others). so if you bang a drunk chick from the disco saturday night, it would be rape to.

On September 29 2009 20:58 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:


that doesnt make any difference for the age. rape is rape, doesnt matter if you rape a 13y old or a granny.

the consent came from drugs (alcohol and others). so if you bang a drunk chick from the disco saturday night, it would be rape to.

On September 29 2009 20:58 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:


that doesnt make any difference for the age. rape is rape, doesnt matter if you rape a 13y old or a granny.

the consent came from drugs (alcohol and others). so if you bang a drunk chick from the disco saturday night, it would be rape to.

On September 29 2009 21:48 Falcynn wrote:
eh? Sounds like you're agreeing with him...but I'm not sure.

On September 29 2009 21:47 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:
She didn't consent to the sex? She did, but because she was loaded up with drugs. thats why I said you could consider someone fucking a drunk girl he met in a disco and paid some drinks a rapist to.

On September 29 2009 20:58 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:


that doesnt make any difference for the age. rape is rape, doesnt matter if you rape a 13y old or a granny.

the consent came from drugs (alcohol and others). so if you bang a drunk chick from the disco saturday night, it would be rape to.

On September 29 2009 22:43 Hot_Bid wrote:

i dont know why you think this is a good argument for you, because if someone is too drunk or "loaded up" with drugs to give consent, that is rape. they don't actually have to say "no." they just have to NOT say "yes." rape is sex without consent, if someone is too intoxicated to give consent, thats rape.

in fact, you can actually get convicted of rape if the person you have sex with says YES as long as its obvious they are too drunk to actually consent. so if someone is so drugged up and/or drunk and says "have sex with me now, YES" you can still be convicted of rape after.

do you actually think consent can come from drugs or alcohol? thats a ridiculous argument that i cant even begin to address.

On September 29 2009 23:02 BlackJack wrote:
Where exactly are you getting your facts that the victim consented at all? Or are you just making them up as you go?

On September 29 2009 21:41 BlackJack wrote:


"the consent came from drugs" lol

On September 29 2009 23:22/32 Slow Motion wrote:
The law of consent in rape cases where there is incapacity (drugs or alcohol) seems to vary pretty widely from state to state in the U.S. Several state statutes provide that intoxication (even when voluntary) can negate consent.

I'm not sure what the law in CA is, and I'm too lazy to read a bunch of cases. I'm just trying to point out that WhuazGoodJaggah's assertion that "I know women who slept with guys because of alcohol and they regret that hard, but at that night they wanted to fuck whyever" is not based on any legal knowledge that he has.

You don't get to decide what consent is by your social experiences, it's a matter of law for the courts of whatever jurisdiction to decide.

And also if you read the transcript for this case, you can see why we have the age of consent that we do in the U.S. I don't mind two 13 year olds fucking, but we're trying to prevent just this situation where an older person, with more experience and power, completely dominates a young victim who doesn't have the maturity or willpower to fight him off.

We just don't want our kids to get taken advantage of, that's all.

On September 29 2009 23:20 Hot_Bid wrote:
no, consent can't come from drugs or alcohol, i don't know why you're insisting on this, its not a matter of opinion.

On September 30 2009 00:09 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:


The fact that many women get fucked when they are drunk and that very little ammount of men doing this are convicted of rape comes from social expirience and not from legal knowledge. I dont know how you call this, we call this the "dark figure".

In Switzerland (this is where RP is sitting and where im from) rape is considered an "official delict" (dunno the english word) so the victim can not decide weather the rapist should go to jail or not. According to this legal situation, someone who fucks a loaded guy/girl should go to jail no matter wether the counterpart "went to the cops" or not. But these cases are like non existant here, but the fucking loaded girls/guys is happening every weekend. Grown ups can just take such failures on them self (if I fuck with a fugly girl, I consider this my own fault not her fault to load me up). Younger ppl have a different view on such stuff, but especially their parents have a different view.

You think a 20y old virgin has more expiriance than a 15y old nymphomaniac? I fought verbally with my teachers when I was 9. I made up my own decision since I was very young, but I also had to stand for them and suffered because I made a lot of very stupid decisions. Age is a very bad indicator to use as a hard line to decide expirience and power. Thats why the us american system is very stupid with limiting the power to make such decisions up to 18/17/16 (sex) or alcohol/casino(21). Such decision are very individual and should not be bound by a general age limit.


besides that, I couldnt care less about this idiot fucking a 13 year old girl like 30 years ago. I just think its funny that those ppl wanting to fuck so young girls dont go to the place where its actually legal to do it. Just like ppl going to Netherland to smoke weed and eat shrooms.




yes it can! If I use that translation I posted it is perfectly possible, if there is a Problem its the language aka not the exact correct word. but if you want to still rid on this dickword we can argue in german/swiss german and then you will be on the weak language part can you can fight with such bullshit.

On September 30 2009 00:09 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:


The fact that many women get fucked when they are drunk and that very little ammount of men doing this are convicted of rape comes from social expirience and not from legal knowledge. I dont know how you call this, we call this the "dark figure".

In Switzerland (this is where RP is sitting and where im from) rape is considered an "official delict" (dunno the english word) so the victim can not decide weather the rapist should go to jail or not. According to this legal situation, someone who fucks a loaded guy/girl should go to jail no matter wether the counterpart "went to the cops" or not. But these cases are like non existant here, but the fucking loaded girls/guys is happening every weekend. Grown ups can just take such failures on them self (if I fuck with a fugly girl, I consider this my own fault not her fault to load me up). Younger ppl have a different view on such stuff, but especially their parents have a different view.

You think a 20y old virgin has more expiriance than a 15y old nymphomaniac? I fought verbally with my teachers when I was 9. I made up my own decision since I was very young, but I also had to stand for them and suffered because I made a lot of very stupid decisions. Age is a very bad indicator to use as a hard line to decide expirience and power. Thats why the us american system is very stupid with limiting the power to make such decisions up to 18/17/16 (sex) or alcohol/casino(21). Such decision are very individual and should not be bound by a general age limit.


besides that, I couldnt care less about this idiot fucking a 13 year old girl like 30 years ago. I just think its funny that those ppl wanting to fuck so young girls dont go to the place where its actually legal to do it. Just like ppl going to Netherland to smoke weed and eat shrooms.




yes it can! If I use that translation I posted it is perfectly possible, if there is a Problem its the language aka not the exact correct word. but if you want to still rid on this dickword we can argue in german/swiss german and then you will be on the weak language part can you can fight with such bullshit.

On September 30 2009 00:24 Hot_Bid wrote:
i don't know why he's bringing up all these completely irrelevant points

On September 30 2009 00:37 CrimsonLotus wrote:
The guy sodomized a 13 year old, pleaded guilty and wasn't sentenced.

/Thread

On September 28 2009 21:12 pubbanana wrote:
He was a Holocaust survivor, his wife was murdered by Charles Manson, he had sex with a thirteen year old girl, and he is an award-winning film director. I would be happy to be able to say just one of those things.

On September 30 2009 07:26 sukila wrote:
hmmm i heard all this happened in jack nicholsons villa....first question coming to my mind....wtf is a 13year old girl doin in nicholson's house?

On September 30 2009 08:25 Sadistx wrote:


Have you even seen Nicholson? If that's not a hardcore pedo smile, I don't know what is.

On September 29 2009 06:11 phosphorylation wrote:
**Artist my ass.**
The Pianist is a mediocre piece of work -- typical holocaust sob story.

On October 01 2009 03:22 Lucktar wrote:
The issue I'm seeing is this: Polanski pled guilty to STATUATORY rape, as part of a plea bargain in which the charges of drugging the girl and regular rape (I know there's a term for it, but I don't know what it is) were dropped. Now, the fact that he was offered that plea bargain in the first place tells me that the prosecutor didn't believe he could get a rape charge to stick. So while I agree that the girl's testimony is rather damning, it's a bit hasty to take it at face value and assume that it's true.

Polanski was never CONVICTED of any crime. He pled guilty to a lesser charge, in return for the greater charges being dropped. Perhaps it's just me, but in my mind, that's not enough to allow an assumption of guilt, especially on the drugging and rape charges, which seems to be what most of the people in this thread are doing.

On October 01 2009 02:29 cyronc wrote:
the only problem in this case is that in california EVERY intercourse with a 13-years-old girl (if she wants or not) counts as rape before the law (the motive is quite OK, to protect underage ppl, but considering EVERY (and thus even willingly) sexual intercourse rape is imho just plain wrong...

(read the 3rd post in thread, even the 'victim' thinks this is an obsolete case)

Then he should be brought back to the US to continue his case. He can legally challenge the previous trial, I believe.

On October 01 2009 03:51 Hot_Bid wrote:

are you saying that sex when a 13yo says "sure have sex with me" is fine?

and the victim only wants it dismissed because she wants to move on with her life and not have to keep dealing with it, not because it didn't happen

On October 01 2009 04:16 Kaniol wrote:

Still she had sex 2 times before as she confessed, so if she decided she is "mature" then it's her choice...

I agree, but screaming that he's a fugitive pedophile who's fleeing justice, like some people are, seems a bit extreme to me.

Still she had sex 2 times before as she confessed, so if she decided she is "mature" then it's her choice...

On September 29 2009 20:10 closed wrote:
Polanski is not Polish (nor French for that matter). He is a Jew. There are no ethnically Polish people with such a name (it would be pretty counterintuitive). Jews can sodomize 13 year old girls because there was the holocaust.
I dont understand how can americans want to put him in guantanamo. You cannot do anything to a Jewish person in Europe because you are labeled anti-semitic.

All you americans are racist bastards.
In fact, have you ever heard of a bad Jewish person? Like in a movie, or something?

+ Show Spoiler +

Last name origin: Polish (Polański)
Last name meaning: ethnic name for a Pole, or more specifically for a descendant of the Polanie, one of the original Polish tribes.

On October 01 2009 03:53 Lucktar wrote:


I agree, but screaming that he's a fugitive pedophile who's fleeing justice, like some people are, seems a bit extreme to me.

Polanski shouldn't get preferential treatment because of his film career, and he should be pursued just as seriously as any other person. But, on the other hand, what are the odds of a man being extradited from Switzerland to California, of all places, on a 30-year-old statuatory rape conviction? Unless his name happens to be Roman Polanski, I'm betting they're pretty low. The celebrity argument works both ways.

On October 01 2009 03:51 Hot_Bid wrote:

are you saying that sex when a 13yo says "sure have sex with me" is fine?

and the victim only wants it dismissed because she wants to move on with her life and not have to keep dealing with it, not because it didn't happen

On October 01 2009 19:19 ejac wrote:
Atleast 2 girls come to mind who at age 15/16 willingly had sex with 35-40 year old guys, a 13 year old having sex with a 45 year old ain't out of the realm of possibility and frankly, as long as its consensual and non-manipulative, I don't give a damn.

I didn't read the article, so this may be completely irrelevant, but just saying what I believe.

On October 02 2009 01:54 Slithe wrote:


Your reiteration of the statements that multiple other people have made is much appreciated, especially considering the fact that it's a moot point in this context.

He gave her drugs, and she said no multiple times. That's non-consensual and manipulative.

On September 28 2009 21:10 Velr wrote:
He was quite often in Switzerland (he has a chalet here, he came often to Ski)... But as it seems this time the US justice department knew where and when he would come and asked the Swiss police/justice department to take him.

There wasn't a legal alternative, not taking him would have been against the contract/law between Switzerland and the USA.

On October 02 2009 04:40 s_side wrote:

I think the Swiss are also trying to court some favor (which is smart) during this whole UBS private banking scandal.

It's a win-win, really. Help Swiss-American relations and put a scumbag behind the bars he should have been behind 30 years ago.

Cheers to you and your countrymen!

EDIT: Oh, and are their any online Swiss food shops that sell Laeckerle (sp??)? We have a family friend who lives in Zurich and brings them every time she comes, but they never last more than a day.

On October 02 2009 05:31 jetpower wrote:

I think the word scumbag is a bit over the top. Unless you're joking, one shouldn't judge a man based on one action. You know, he has a family, kids. He avoided scandals. Many people in the movie industry who he worked with actually defend him now. Doesn't anybody think his life must have sucked in many ways all this time because of what he did 30 years ago? I am amazed how he could continue a successful career after that.

On October 02 2009 05:31 jetpower wrote:

I think the word scumbag is a bit over the top. Unless you're joking, one shouldn't judge a man based on one action. You know, he has a family, kids. He avoided scandals. Many people in the movie industry who he worked with actually defend him now. Doesn't anybody think his life must have sucked in many ways all this time because of what he did 30 years ago? I am amazed how he could continue a successful career after that.

On October 02 2009 06:01 jetpower wrote:
Well, people who actually KNOW him tend to defend him. The victim doesn't want him prosecuted also. That's some hint i guess.

On October 02 2009 06:45 s_side wrote:


I, like many others, could care less about what his Hollywood buddies think. His artistic talents are obvious and brilliant, but before the law, he should be held just as accountable as any old schlub.

This is about society and the laws of society. Laws do not exist solely for avenging victims. Society deems rape of minors a serious offense and one which is punishable by incarceration. He plead guilty to this crime and then fled to avoid serving his sentence. That is the issue at hand. Not his admittedly tragic past nor his impressive work in film.

Few things in life are simple, shades of grey and whatnot, but this couldn't be any more cut and dried. The audacity of prominent entertainment figures to think that he should be treated differently because of his work is extraordinarily offensive and serves as a great reminder of just how disconnected Hollywood is from reality and how little credence their views on topics other than hip night clubs, tiny dogs and red carpet "fashion" should be given.

On October 02 2009 07:43 jetpower wrote:


I mostly disagree about calling Mr. Polanski 'a scumbag' and similar by people who obviously know shit about him. (His 'hollywood buddies' were maybe there in the 70s. Now he's definitely an European director with little connection to the US. So no, no night club parties with chihuahuas and Paris Hilton lol)
I think there's misunderstanding - nobody is saying it's because he has done nice movies he should be free or his talents make him above the law. The thing is, if he was, say, a construction worker that wouldn't affect his life much BUT since he was a famous guy EVERYONE got to know what he did. His co-workers, family, friends, the lady in grocery store etc and of course the general public. This is A punishment, no one can deny.
There's still issue for me if he should be put in jail now and for how long exactly.

On October 02 2009 07:43 jetpower wrote:


I mostly disagree about calling Mr. Polanski 'a scumbag' and similar by people who obviously know shit about him. (His 'hollywood buddies' were maybe there in the 70s. Now he's definitely an European director with little connection to the US. So no, no night club parties with chihuahuas and Paris Hilton lol)
I think there's misunderstanding - nobody is saying it's because he has done nice movies he should be free or his talents make him above the law. The thing is, if he was, say, a construction worker that wouldn't affect his life much BUT since he was a famous guy EVERYONE got to know what he did. His co-workers, family, friends, the lady in grocery store etc and of course the general public. This is A punishment, no one can deny.
There's still issue for me if he should be put in jail now and for how long exactly.

On October 02 2009 07:43 jetpower wrote:


I mostly disagree about calling Mr. Polanski 'a scumbag' and similar by people who obviously know shit about him. (His 'hollywood buddies' were maybe there in the 70s. Now he's definitely an European director with little connection to the US. So no, no night club parties with chihuahuas and Paris Hilton lol)
I think there's misunderstanding - nobody is saying it's because he has done nice movies he should be free or his talents make him above the law. The thing is, if he was, say, a construction worker that wouldn't affect his life much BUT since he was a famous guy EVERYONE got to know what he did. His co-workers, family, friends, the lady in grocery store etc and of course the general public. This is A punishment, no one can deny.
There's still issue for me if he should be put in jail now and for how long exactly.

On October 02 2009 09:15 s_side wrote:


You disagree with the nomenclature? Again, he drugged and raped a child. If anything, scumbag isn't a strong enough word.

Furthermore, if he was just some regular Joe who was convicted of this crime yesterday, not only would Joe Q. Average be serving more than ten times the sentence that Polankski fled from, but he would be a registered sex offender and everyone in his neighborhood would most certainly know.

One could argue, had he done the time, that he had served his debt to society and no one should make anymore stink about it. It's not an argument I would make, because I find sexual predation of children to be particularly heinous crime. Most lawmakers in the US agree with me, and therefore sex offenders are registered in public databases and prohibited from living in certain areas and working in certain jobs.

You're saying his punishment is undeniably tougher on him because he's famous? Bullshit. Average people don't have the means to go live like kings in Europe while on the lam from child rape charges. Furthermore, while his conviction was big news, an overwhelming number of his colleagues supported and continue to support him! Do you think that would happen with Joe the construction worker? Would his fellow bricklayers be signing petitions and writing op-eds decrying his unfair treatment? Of course not.

On October 02 2009 09:20 Cloud wrote:


If he was just Joe Q then only the people in his neighbourhood would care. Yet everyone that cares to watch the news or is in any way remotely plugged to the tv or internet knows about the great asshole that this Polanski guy really is. Yes its a pretty bad crime but, as you have said, an award winning director goes a long way in giving back to society dont you think? And isnt that the point of judicial punishment? The lady doesnt want to press charges either it seems. So lets just leave it up to her and stop all the bickering with something that doesnt even concern us.

On October 02 2009 11:16 motbob wrote:
Why are we focusing on Polanski so much with all of the rumors and allegations that Glenn Beck RAPED AND KILLED A GIRL IN 1990?

On October 02 2009 11:56 BalliSLife wrote:


Lol from reddit?

On October 02 2009 12:00 motbob wrote:Why are we focusing on Polanski so much with all of the rumors and allegations that Glenn Beck RAPED AND KILLED A GIRL IN 1990?

On October 02 2009 12:00 motbob wrote:
I don't know why you're laughing. Allegations of RAPE AND MURDER should never be taken lightly.

On October 02 2009 12:00 motbob wrote:

I don't know why you're laughing. Allegations of RAPE AND MURDER should never be taken lightly.

On October 02 2009 09:20 Cloud wrote:


If he was just Joe Q then only the people in his neighbourhood would care. Yet everyone that cares to watch the news or is in any way remotely plugged to the tv or internet knows about the great asshole that this Polanski guy really is. Yes its a pretty bad crime but, as you have said, an award winning director goes a long way in giving back to society dont you think? And isnt that the point of judicial punishment? The lady doesnt want to press charges either it seems. So lets just leave it up to her and stop all the bickering with something that doesnt even concern us.

On October 10 2009 07:39 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'd even go so far as to say that if it was consensual it'd be kinda sorta okay-ish (yea, that's right. for most of history 10 yo is already an adult. in some places it's still true).

but coercion sealed it. jail the perv.

On October 10 2009 08:25 .risingdragoon wrote:
you're talking condescendingly to 13 year olds

look, if you expose a person to sex early on that person will be a more sexual person. if you expose a person to racism that person will be a hard person. you can't dictate what a 13 year old is suppose to be like, not everyone gets the idyllic suburban childhood that seems to be some kind of socio norm advertised by television. it doesn't exist and has never existed (like the hallmark cards with the white christmas).

but coercion is always wrong. it's the difference between sex and rape. the polanski case made it abundantly clear that she was afraid of him, not in love with him.

On July 14 2010 05:33 domane wrote:
Let's update this thread: "Switzerland rejects Polanski extradition"

Swiss authorities have decided not to hand over Roman Polanski to U.S. prosecutors. He is now a free man.

On July 14 2010 05:40 eXigent. wrote:


So does this mean he will no longer be allowed into the US? Im not sure how these things work, but I would imagine upon entering the US he would be considered wanted?

On July 14 2010 08:54 Kashmir wrote:Logic dictates that if you do the crime you do the time.

On July 14 2010 09:07 Kashmir wrote:
Fair enough but why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume he gets a lengthy prison sentance for raping a little girl then? Ninety days seems way too lenient. Was that the usual sentance for child at the time? If so then I see why he would have fled.

On July 14 2010 09:10 RoyW wrote:
"Victim Samantha Geimer, now 45-years-old, has also called for the case to be dismissed"

On July 14 2010 09:30 PanN wrote:
All Sweden's ruling does is tell everyone it's ok to commit crime, hide for an extended period of time, then move to their country.

On September 28 2009 22:15 Not_A_Notion wrote:


Excellent point.

If he felt that the judge illegally changed the plea bargain then he should have gone about trying to get it quashed without fleeing the state,

Hence
"In May, a Californian judge dismissed Polanski's bid because he failed to appear in court."
What he tried to do was get have his cake and eat it. If his appeal succeeded he could return to the US whenever he wanted, if it failed then he wouldn't do jail time since he wouldn't be in the country, that's a pretty asymmetric outcome. No judge would agree to hear a case in that situation.

On September 29 2009 16:43 zatic wrote:
When this thread is finished I would love to make a direct comparison of the general consensus with this thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=93135

I predict that torturing and killing 29000 people will be generally accepted over raping one girl.