Roman Polanski

DogOnPorch · October 3, 2009

I'm sure the world will be a much better place with Mr Polanski thrown in with the Brothers @ Chino. If he gets shanked as is quite likely seeing what he's charged with/pled guilty to, will justice have been served?

Edited October 3, 2009 by DogOnPorch

blueblood · October 3, 2009

I'm sure the world will be a much better place with Mr Polanski thrown in with the Brothers @ Chino. If he gets shanked as is quite likely seeing what he's charged with/pled guilty to, will justice have been served?

Justice has been served in that he has been arrested and will be serving out his sentance. If he gets shanked, that's up to chance. Maybe he should have thought about getting shanked before he raped that 13 yr. old kid. I and other Americans could care less what happens to him while he's paying his debt to society.

DogOnPorch · October 3, 2009

Justice has been served in that he has been arrested and will be serving out his sentance. If he gets shanked, that's up to chance. Maybe he should have thought about getting shanked before he raped that 13 yr. old kid. I and other Americans could care less what happens to him while he's paying his debt to society.

Do you not have the courage and will to drive a knife into his liver yourself? Let someone else do the dirty vigilante work, eh? Morally you're not much better, if at all, than Mr Polanski or

...who will be happy to carry out the deed for you.

blueblood · October 3, 2009

Do you not have the courage and will to drive a knife into his liver yourself? Let someone else do the dirty vigilante work, eh? Morally you're not much better, if at all, than Mr Polanski or
...who will be happy to carry out the deed for you.

I am not a criminal, I don't rape kids or murder people. I am happy that the justice system in the US is chugging along and that justice is being served. What happens to him in jail is none of my concern or business. If he gets shanked, he gets shanked; should have thought about that when he did his deed.

What I find funny is that there is a huge double standard you are projecting, it's all right for Polanski to commit crimes and shouldn't have to face the justice system and all of it's affects, while you at the same time lead the charge to condemn other evil doers around the world (Iran et. al).

There is a difference between not caring and wanting something. I don't want Polanski killed, but if he dies he dies, life goes on.

DogOnPorch · October 3, 2009

Meh...someone has to be the devil's advocate around here or it starts looking like Babble.ca. Fire away.

kimmy · October 3, 2009

He committed a horrible crime. Then he fled rather than serve his sentence. I see no reason as to why he deserves our sympathy.

I did not see the original context of her remarks and am not sure if this flies. If she was providing a factual correction, then ok. If she was trying to minimize the crimes with which Polanski was convicted, then no, dickering over the specifics of what he was charged with is not going to buy him any sympathy and her comments are not excused.

Having now read the full comments, thanks to Roland Martin's editorial, I believe that Whoopi Goldberg is a reprehensible human being. Clearly she is trying to minimize his crime and to rationalize his flight from his sentence, and she can go do a backflip into an empty pool.

As for the question of Hollywood people not paying attention to what their fans values are - why should they have to ? Are we saying that they should compromise their values in order to make sure that they will continue to be popular with their fans ? What kind of message is that?

If these *are* their values, then these are truly disgusting people. If they really do think Polanski should be treated differently because he directed acclaimed movies, they can join Whoopi in the bottom of the pool, as far as I'm concerned.

However, I don't believe these are really their values. I don't believe they would really stand up for a child rapist and protest the unfairness of his treatment, not unless he were their buddy and their professional peer and likely a guy who still has powerful friends in their industry.

As far as the Polanski goes, his friends who are speaking on his behalf now should have spared a moment to think about the victim. Perhaps then they would have urged him to face the charges long ago.

I endorse both of these remarks. Perhaps it is an indicator of the narcissism August mentioned that these people act as though Polanski is the victim. And, he has had 32 years to face up to his crime. I would think that someone who felt any remorse would have at some point chosen to face his sentence.

-k

Edited October 3, 2009 by kimmy

Wilber · October 3, 2009

Polanski was given a very generous plea bargain yet he still ran. If he had stayed this would be ancient history. A good many on this forum would had never heard of it and Polanski would have spent the last thirty years making movies in the US. Who gives a crap about what a 13 year old may or may not have thought she wanted that night. It's not a child's responsibility to think and act like an adult, it's the adult's. He may be very talented in some respects but accepting responsibility for his actions is not one of them. Long past time to man up.

DogOnPorch · October 3, 2009

He committed a horrible crime. Then he fled rather than serve his sentence. I see no reason as to why he deserves our sympathy.

Yes and no...no because he pled guilty...yes because the only folks that apparently care about this are everyone but those actually involved. Depending what prison Mr Polanski ends up in, this could very well be a death sentence. Cocoran or Chino or Pelican are probably instant death while others such as Folsom or San Quentin and several other smaller prisons offer a better chance of survival for a criminal such as him. As you might have guessed, California has some very tough prisons compared to those found in Canada. I'm not sure the actual procedure for where an inmate ends-up, but Cocoran has a history of sexual offenders getting 'offed' by the prison population...so any place is probably as good a guess as any other. No guarantees.

Wilber · October 3, 2009

You speak in the present tense. This was 35 years ago.

DogOnPorch · October 3, 2009

Polanski was given a very generous plea bargain yet he still ran. If he had stayed this would be ancient history. A good many on this forum would had never heard of it and Polanski would have spent the last thirty years making movies in the US. Who gives a crap about what a 13 year old may or may not have thought she wanted that night. It's not a child's responsibility to think and act like an adult, it's the adult's. He may be very talented in some respects but accepting responsibility for his actions is not one of them. Long past time to man up.

Actually...the LA District Attorney at the time and the Judge had the (I agree) generous plea bargin removed and was looking for hard time...which is why Polanski fled.

DogOnPorch · October 3, 2009

You speak in the present tense. This was 35 years ago.

...and remember it, too...and the Manson murders. What's your point?

Edited October 3, 2009 by DogOnPorch

Wilber · October 3, 2009

...and remember it, too...and the Manson murders. What's your point?

Manson is still alive and well and his cronies are dying of natural causes. What's your point?

Wilber · October 3, 2009

Actually...the LA District Attorney at the time and the Judge had the (I agree) generous plea bargin removed and was looking for hard time...which is why Polanski fled.

Do you feel it is OK for someone to run if they don't think they might like the verdict. Would kind of make the concept of bail obsolete don't you think?

DogOnPorch · October 3, 2009

Manson is still alive and well and his cronies are dying of natural causes. What's your point?

Like you...I'm going 1977? That be a while ago and nobody really cares. Except suddenly it rears its ugly head again...are we getting the whole story here? I appreciate the 'spirit' of the younger posters here who weren't around for these two events (Tate/Labianca + Mr Polanski's child molesting) who passionately wish for justice...but I'm just wondering why now? Did Roman Polanski just screw-up and get off at the wrong airport gate? Also...there are some posters that state: "What about the girl??" I say "what about the girl, indeed." She wants the whole thing dropped as she'd have to have this all dredged-up again...and no doubt have to reveal her end of the bargain...which was no doubt large and green.

Edited October 3, 2009 by DogOnPorch

DogOnPorch · October 3, 2009

Do you feel it is OK for someone to run if they don't think they might like the verdict. Would kind of make the concept of bail obsolete don't you think?

Do you still beat your wife? Please...I like you. Spare me this stuff.

blueblood · October 3, 2009

Do you still beat your wife? Please...I like you. Spare me this stuff.

Your the one throwing a pity party for this dirtbag, spare us.

DogOnPorch · October 3, 2009

Your the one throwing a pity party for this dirtbag, spare us.

For those who didn't understand what I posted there, the phrase 'Do you still beat your wife?' means you're treating me like a 'hostile witness'. That means a forced 'yes or no' answer. An old Groucho Marx gag...or need I explain who he is too?

Wilber · October 3, 2009

Do you still beat your wife? Please...I like you. Spare me this stuff.

Spare you what?

DogOnPorch · October 3, 2009

Spare you what?

The hostile witness treatment. Of course it was wrong to flee.

DogOnPorch · October 3, 2009

btw...in your sig...don't you mean SWC?

(or is that your only 'vice'?)

Edited October 3, 2009 by DogOnPorch

Wilber · October 3, 2009

btw...in your sig...don't you mean SWC?

(or is that your only 'vice'?)

SWC?

DogOnPorch · October 3, 2009

Sir Winston...otherwise wouldn't it be WLSC?

Wilber · October 3, 2009

Sir Winston...otherwise wouldn't it be WLSC?

Yes it would be WLSC but for some reason the Leonard is usually left out.

DogOnPorch · October 3, 2009

Well we're both fans.

kimmy · October 3, 2009

Like you...I'm going 1977? That be a while ago and nobody really cares. Except suddenly it rears its ugly head again...are we getting the whole story here? I appreciate the 'spirit' of the younger posters here who weren't around for these two events (Tate/Labianca + Mr Polanski's child molesting) who passionately wish for justice...but I'm just wondering why now? Did Roman Polanski just screw-up and get off at the wrong airport gate? Also...there are some posters that state: "What about the girl??" I say "what about the girl, indeed." She wants the whole thing dropped as she'd have to have this all dredged-up again...and no doubt have to reveal her end of the bargain...which was no doubt large and green.

Well, he agreed to pay her $500,000 to settle a civil suit, and I guess it shouldn't be very surprising that he won't pay up...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009...al-assault.html

Even if she does want the whole thing dropped, that's not really up to her. The law is supposed to provide not just restitution, but also retribution and deterrence. Many people object to the notion that you can commit a crime, then jump on a plane if you don't like the sentence. Many people object to the fact that he drugged and raped a child and fled the country to avoid being punished for it.

So why now? Apparently because he went to a country that didn't feel like shielding him from extradition to the US. From what I have read, it appears that the US has made numerous attempts to have him extradited over the years, so I don't think the suggestion that there is some ulterior motive or that this is from out of the blue is credible. They've been trying to get him back for some time, and yeah, sounds like he should have stayed in France.

-k