What do you make of the fact she supported his case for dismissal after the payment but not before?
And you were wrong.
None of those people advocated kidnapping Polanski and storing him in their basement. Calling for a life sentence, if that sentence is going to be meted out and administered by the justice system, is NOT vigilantism, by definition. No-one has called for Polanski to be dragged from the courthouse by a mob. No-one has suggested he be shot, Jack Ruby-style, as he exits his car. People have simply been arguing that what he did deserves a life sentence.
Now, it could be that California law doesn’t allow for a life sentence in his case. But that still doesn’t make someone who calls for a life sentence a vigilante. If i argue that a drunk driver who kills a pedestrian should get life, but the law in my state doesn’t allow for a life sentence for that crime, it doesn’t make me a vigilante; just someone who doesn’t agree with the sentencing laws.
I’m sure this won’t be good enough but this was the only one I could find with a quick search that included any numbers.
Those quotes from Polanski sure make it seem like he’s remorseful about the whole drugging and raping and sodomizing of a 13 year old thing. :rolleyes:
This is The Pit so I think getting offended by some obscenity is a little silly. You did of course come in here pretty ignorant of the actual incident.
If you would like to get up to speed feel free to red the victims deposition over at The Smoking Gun.
He gave a 13 year old champagne and part of a quaalude. Started kissing. Then when she said no and asked him to stop proceed to rape and sodomize her. With her saying no and asking him to stop the entire time.
To me that deserves the harshest sentence possible.
If that is the case, then I would be much more comfortable using the term pay off.
Speaking of horrible childhoods, won’t someone think of poor Charles Manson? Born to an unmarried 16-year-old alcoholic who once traded him to a childless waitress for a pitcher of beer. Raised in a series of run-down hotel rooms until his mother sent him to a foster home. Sexually brutalized and physically abused at age 13.
How can we continue to hold poor Charles Manson in prison? Hasn’t he suffered enough? (And besides… he’s an artist!)
Did you actually read what I wrote? I have NEVER DEFENDED CHILD RAPE, I am saying that Polanski’s background- from Auschwitz to Manson- very possibly left him with severe mental problems and drug addled, but I have specifically said that in and of itself this is no excuse. I HAVE NEVER DEFENDED HIS ACTIONS, I HAVE NEVER DENIED HIS GUILT, AND I HAVE NEVER BLAMED THE VICTIM. I am saying that his past plus the fact that he has not had any other reported instances of this imply, to me, a psychotic breakdown.
For you to basically say I’m a champion of pedophilia makes me think that concentration camps weren’t the worst experience your father endured in his life. The loss of his family in the holocaust must have been but a warmup in horror to seeing them replaced with a child of his making who is but a reactionary imbecile disgracing their memory and corroding their gene pool and likely sucking his financial resources until the day he died.
ETA: The personal attack above is a return-fire. I don’t intend to get personal with others who have different- and perfectly understandable and well argued- differing opinions, and I would appreciate the same courtesy even in the Pit.
PS- Let me also add that if Samantha Geimer wanted him prosecuted, I would have no problem in the world with his extradition and would support it fully (for what difference it makes). To me this case is about her, not Roman Polansky.
I wonder to what extent they could extradite & try Polanski for his flight from justice & not involve her at all. If they could leave her alone, then I have no problem throwing the book and all its spin-offs at him.
I am pissed at all the good directors & actors who are making me wish I could boycott them except that they’ve made & will make too many good movies I want to see.
I get the sense that any hesitancy Samantha Geimer might experience today wrt the prospect of Polanski’s incarceration is not because she felt the 48 days he’s served were sufficient but instead due to the fact that she’s understandably averse to having to again endure the public examination of lurid details about the incident. She’s married and has children. It’s Polanski’s fault though that she’s in this predicament. Had he not violated the law and fled it wouldn’t be an issue today. For him to realize some benefit from that is wrong and, therefore, should not sway the decision on extradition in his favor.
You may be surprised to learn that I agree. My objections are not at all based on feelings of unfairness to Polanski but unfairness to his victim. BUT realistically there is no way whatever they can not involve her in the trial- as mentioned Nancy Grace has already begun feeding and it’s only going to get worse when the trial starts (and there will be a trial- as mentioned in this or some other thread on the topic, you know that Polanski’s lawyers will find 315 different ways to tie this up and appeal and everything else and it’s not even a definite he’ll be sentenced).
Again you may be surprised that I agree completely.
So fuck her. The silly bitch will understand this is all for her own good and it sends a powerful message: child rape is wrong. (Most child rapes occur because people don’t know that, and it’s about time all these bigshot millionaire directors quit coming over here and raping our teens and then going into luxurious exile the day before sentencing so this will finally send a message.)
Nice try, kiddie-diddler defender.
It’s clear that your sob-sister defense of Polanski, and the whole pathetic “Your daddy doesn’t love you” rebuttal just shows how morally bankrupt you are. Whatsamatter Sampi? Accusations hit a little too close to home? Feeling some sympathy for your comrade in arms Roman?
Seriously dude–I’ve seen you here for years and this is way out of character–what the fuck is different about this case? Who the fuck cares that Wahh-Polanski had bad things happen to him? Every single person alive has had bad shit in their past. I’m not gonna get sucked into a “Who’s pain is worse” debate because it’s irrelevant to the fact that this fucking deviant premeditatively lured a little girl somewhere, tried to rape her, when she resisted, he drugged here and then DID rape her, multiple times. Then, he fled from the police and his jail term. I honest-to-god don’t get how the fuck you think that saying “Golly! But bad stuff happened to him and his mommy means we should feel all sorry for him and just let him go 'cause he’s suffered enough.”
Cool…so your idea of ‘justice’ is that if someone’s rich enough to bribe a victim or mean enough to terrorize a victim, or famous enough to get enough press to make a victim’s life a living hell, it’s cool to let them go, their crimes unpunished?
I specifically said that his past DOES NOT exonerate him. I mentioned it because I think he was a very fucked up individual due to his past and thus his actions were atypical.
The rest of your post and your accusations do not deserve rebuttal other than to say you are a very sad and pathetic person and your statements border on and possibly qualify legally as libel, especially the one emphasized. I request that you apologize for the insinuation bolded, for this is a heated discussion and I will understand and accept the apology and not refer to it again. If you do not, I will pursue this further.
Thanks Fenris. That is exactly what I was trying to say.
Would you please put yourself in the victim’s shoes: to us this is a sideshow, an excuse to make accusations on message boards. For her it’s her LIFE. Currently she has closure.
If he comes here one of two things happen:
1- He’ll be on TV constantly and will ultimately get released or a slap on the wrist thanks to skilled legal maneuvering, and there will be no closure
2- He’ll be on TV constantly and get sentenced and she’ll be continually referenced and anybody in America who doesn’t know “that’s the girl who was anally raped by that guy I’ve never heard of who was famous for something once” will know her as such, and there will be no closure
She was the one victimized, not society. The money that will be spent on this can be employed to find and prosecute hundreds of fugitive criminals right here at home.
Some say that this case is about an artist getting away with rape. Here in America there are hundreds of fugitive rapists and criminals on the loose as I write who could be tracked down with the money that will be spent on this one trial that the victim wants dropped. Why is Polanski so important that we dedicate millions in resources to him? Is it because he’s an artist?
And frankly to answer Fenris, yes, this DOES hit close at home to me, but not for the reasons you think. There’s a reason that I keep coming back to Samantha Geimer’s wishes, and I’ll leave it at that.
Then I think it’s fair to say your bias is showing and you’re not looking at this in a reasonable manner.
Because I don’t want to see you banned here for legal threats (which tend to be an insta-ban, regardless of who they’re directed at) and as we’ve gotten along in the past (and because I also agree that this discussion has gotten remarkably heated) I’ll apologize for and retract the bolded part you quoted.
This is what I came in here to say. If anything, he commited two crimes against her…the actual crime, and the crime of dragging her into the public spotlight repeatedly over the last 30 years, due to his flight. If he had just served his sentence, no one would remember her name right now, and we sure wouldn’t be talking about her. If anything, he deserves more punishment for this, not to get off scot-free.
I don’t see how it’s defending anything by pointing out the kind of life Polanski had before his self imposed exile. Especially when Sampiro explicitly stated that none of that excuses what Polanski did.
Except Sampiro isn’t excusing the behavior only speculating on possible reasons.