Roman Polanski Arrested

[creekster]

This is what happens when you don't believe in evil.

For one thing, so far as I know, Polanski was a one time offender, whereas Sandusky was a serial predator. Equating the two is ridiculous.

Polanski was alleged to have done this same sort of thing prior to the incident to which he admitted. It was in the Slate article as I recall.

[wuapinmon]

This is what happens when you don't believe in evil.

For one thing, so far as I know, Polanski was a one time offender, whereas Sandusky was a serial predator. Equating the two is ridiculous.

Polanski was alleged to have done this same sort of thing prior to the incident to which he admitted. It was in the Slate article as I recall.

This is where I'm coming from. I don't believe Polanski's behavior was a one-time aberration. If it was, then I can see your point. But, I remain unconvinced.

[SeattleUte]

Polanski was alleged to have done this same sort of thing prior to the incident to which he admitted. It was in the Slate article as I recall.

I don't know about that. He was prosecuted once. If he molested a bunch of little girls over decades he'd be just as bad as Sandusky. If that's wuap's point, there are better ways to make it.

Wuap gets the award for generating the most appalling threads here. Yes, Hollywood directors and coaches should be similalry punished for like crimes, and molesting young girls and boys is equally reprehensible. OF COURSE.

But so far as I know, and apparently the evidence shows, he's not as evil as some LDS icons.

Here is what the one known victim has said.

During a television interview on 10 March 2011, Geimer blamed the media, reporters, the court, and the judge for causing "way more damage to [her] and her family than anything Roman Polanski has ever done," and stated that the judge was using her and a noted celebrity for his own personal gain from the media exposure. -- Wikipedia

For what it's worth he pled guilty to the one crime for which he was prosecuted, admitted what he did, and was planning to fulfill his deal with the prosecutor and fled after he heard the judge would reject the deal. It doesn't excuse his sex crime or flouting of the rule of law, but from a cosmic perspective, it is some mitigation.

[SeattleUte]

This is where I'm coming from. I don't believe Polanski's behavior was a one-time aberration. If it was, then I can see your point. But, I remain unconvinced.

If that's your point then your point is worse than I thought. On the one hand you have innuendo against Polansky, and on the other you have a convinction in a criminal court for 10 discrete instances of child molestation. It's not the same thing. Who could argue otherwise?

[Omaha 680]

For what it's worth he pled guilty to the one crime for which he was prosecuted, admitted what he did, and was planning to fulfill his deal with the prosecutor and fled after he heard the judge would reject the deal. It doesn't excuse his sex crime or flouting of the rule of law, but from a cosmic perspective, it is some mitigation.

Not really.

[creekster]

I don't know about that.

Don't know about what? That it was alleged? It was. read the article. That it was in the article? It might not be slate, and I am too lazy to look it up, but it was in the article that was linked here at some point in the past. Just google a little; it doesn't take much to find it. Or do you mean that it hasn't been proved to you? Probably not. But if this is the distinction you are hanging your hat on, it is very, very thin with respect to Polanski.

He was prosecuted once. If he molested a bunch of little girls over decades he'd be just as bad as Sandusky. If that's wuap's point, there are better ways to make it.

What if it was a bunch of little girls within five days? What if it was only two? Or three? I don't think it makes much difference.

Wuap gets the award for generating the most appalling threads here. Yes, Hollywood directors and coaches should be similalry punished for like crimes, and molesting young girls and boys is equally reprehensible. OF COURSE.

Then what is your point?

But so far as I know, and apparently the evidence shows, he's not as evil as some LDS icons.

Nice touch. Even when you are leaving alone your inability to leave it alone you can't leave it alone.

Here is what the one known victim has said.

So what? This is only true because he has avoided sentencing and lived a high profile life for DECADES and so dredging it up now is painful for her. Should he benefit from it? Is her feeling the only concern? Several of Sandusky's victims were reluctant, too, should we have avoided pursuing him for those crimes? And what of the crime of flight itself? You are urging us to believe that two wrongs (rape and flight) make a forgiving right (welcome home Roman! Nice film!). And all of this because he was afraid that a judge might renege on a plea deal and punish for the full extent of his crime? Doesn't this completely undercut your claim that his admission should be a mitigating factor? Apparently he was only willing to face his punishment on his own terms, which doesn't show much remorse or acceptance of responsibility.

For what it's worth he pled guilty to the one crime for which he was prosecuted, admitted what he did, and was planning to fulfill his deal with the prosecutor and fled after he heard the judge would reject the deal. It doesn't excuse his sex crime or flouting of the rule of law, but from a cosmic perspective, it is some mitigation.

I think your entire approach here has to be viewed from some sort of cosmic perspective to make any sense at all.

[SeattleUte]

Don't know about what? That it was alleged? It was. read the article. That it was in the article? It might not be slate, and I am too lazy to look it up, but it was in the article that was linked here at some point in the past. Just google a little; it doesn't take much to find it. Or do you mean that it hasn't been proved to you? Probably not. But if this is the distinction you are hanging your hat on, it is very, very thin with respect to Polanski.




What if it was a bunch of little girls within five days? What if it was only two? Or three? I don't think it makes much difference.





Then what is your point?



Nice touch. Even when you are leaving alone your inability to leave it alone you can't leave it alone.







So what? This is only true because he has avoided sentencing and lived a high profile life for DECADES and so dredging it up now is painful for her. Should he benefit from it? Is her feeling the only concern? Several of Sandusky's victims were reluctant, too, should we have avoided pursuing him for those crimes? And what of the crime of flight itself? You are urging us to believe that two wrongs (rape and flight) make a forgiving right (welcome home Roman! Nice film!). And all of this because he was afraid that a judge might renege on a plea deal and punish for the full extent of his crime? Doesn't this completely undercut your claim that his admission should be a mitigating factor? Apparently he was only willing to face his punishment on his own terms, which doesn't show much remorse or acceptance of responsibility.



I think your entire approach here has to be viewed from some sort of cosmic perspective to make any sense at all.

TROLL.

[creekster]

TROLL.

???

[wuapinmon]

I don't know about that. He was prosecuted once. If he molested a bunch of little girls over decades he'd be just as bad as Sandusky. If that's wuap's point, there are better ways to make it.

Wuap gets the award for generating the most appalling threads here. Yes, Hollywood directors and coaches should be similalry punished for like crimes, and molesting young girls and boys is equally reprehensible. OF COURSE.

.

Good God, man. Appalling threads? Seriously? Are you going to faint?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/ro...nscript?page=0

My viscera reacted the same way to that file as it did to the Sandusky grand jury report. Both men are guilty of the same thing. Polanski's co-conspirators can't be fired the way Sandusky's were, but the acts are the same. Both men raped children.

If that's your point then your point is worse than I thought. On the one hand you have innuendo against Polansky, and on the other you have a convinction in a criminal court for 10 discrete instances of child molestation. It's not the same thing. Who could argue otherwise?

Anyone who looks down upon attempts at construction of a moral hierarchy around these cases.

[wuapinmon]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...journed-787514

O

n Thursday, a court in the Polish city of Krakow adjourned until May 22 on a hearing to decide whether to extradite

Roman Polanski to the U.S. to face sentencing for raping a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

[Green Monstah]

Dude got away with statutory rape for 40 years. I have no problem if he spends what little time he has left behind bards, but I do feel bad for the victim, who has previously stated that she wants the whole thing to go away and will have the burden of the spotlight if he's extradited.

[wuapinmon]

Dude got away with statutory rape for 40 years. I have no problem if he spends what little time he has left behind bards, but I do feel bad for the victim, who has previously stated that she wants the whole thing to go away and will have the burden of the spotlight if he's extradited.

Well, he's no Shakespeare, no matter how much he might have bragged to her.

[Katy Lied]

Polanski will never be extradited to the US.

[Pelado]

Polanski will never be extradited to the US.

On what do you base your assertion?

[Katy Lied]

Cause they havent done so already sometime in the past 35 years. They just delay and delay. The man is 81 now-- soon they will be denying extradition for humanitarian purposes- the man is too old to be forced to sit through a trial.