I will not state my opinion on Polanski. It's nuanced, complex and not a sound byte

[Taverner]

So it would be of no use here :P

[Sal Minella]

1. If it contains any nuance at all, you will be promptly beat to a pulp. n/t

[cali]

2. yep. no nuance allowed.

[Zix]

55. nuance rape, huh?

Another flavour. They just keep coming and coming!

[CBGLuthier]

3. superiority vanity post

IS the smugness settling in well?

[Taverner]

4. Very well. VERY VERY well.

IN fact, may I rest my feet on your back? :P

[jakefrep]

5. RAPE APOLOGIST !!!11!!!11!!1!

NT.

[Taverner]

8. SOSHULEST!!!111!!11!! OMG CODE BROWNE!!!!!

[Zix]

62. SHOUTY PSEUDO-SATIRE!!! 1! 1! CONTENT-FREE!! 1!!

[rd_kent]

6. Good, but it didnt save us from ANOTHER polanski thread......

Thanks for your input.

[Taverner]

7. damn, I think All of DU should be nothing but Polanski threads

They should rename it to Polanski Underground!

[rd_kent]

9. Thats what it has turned into!!!!

[Taverner]

13. Awesome! I see my work here is done....

Commence Stage two: the brainwashing has begun!

[Ikonoklast]

42. 'P. U.' Sounds about right, and probably smells the same.

It would be just as smelly and creepy a place as its namesake.

Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski Polanski .

[guitar man]

10. oh no

not another Polanski thread lol :D

I have an idea, maybe we should combine Palin and Polanski threads into Palinsky threads to cut down the clutter? :rofl:

[CoffeeCat]

11. I wouldn't start a Polanski thread...

...but I sure as hell wouldn't start a snarky thread over the issue
and yuck it up about some controversy in which a man admitted to
having sex with a 13-year old girl.

How you can start a snark thread over that subject is gross.

[Taverner]

15. Because, if you read between the lines of my snark, I am saying something

Something that, if you could read nuance, you would get

That is the Polanski case is not an open and shut, bad or good, guilty or not guilty kind of thing.

You can't treat it in a binary way - there are many complexities to the case that need to be understood.

Instead, all of the Polanski posts are all "FREE ROMAN" or "LOCK THE RAPIST AWAY"

[CoffeeCat]

20. I can fucking TOO, "treat it in a binary way'!!!!

Polanski, a 44-year old man, had sex with a 13-year old child.

That's pretty cut and dry---illegal.

What the hell is wrong with you??????

[redqueen]

71. That's a very good question. (nt)

[spiritual_gunfighter]

I guess I didnt realize that defending child rapists was a nuanced subject

thank you for clearing that up. I feel so enlightened now.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

70. Using the blunt language of the other poster.

Pleading guilty to raping a 13 year old in the ass is obviously not open or shut, bad or good, guilty or not guilty kind of thing. But I guess you want to tie your wagon to that sort of thing. Congratulations.

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. Here's nuance: Polanski used booze and drugs to fuck a 13 year old girl in the ass.

Nuance that.

[CoffeeCat]

14. Yeah, no kidding...

...why is a sex crime against a child so funny?

I'm not getting the depravity.

I'm not getting all of the subsequent knee-slapping posts.

It's sick.

[Taverner]

17. Then don't read them

I don't read a single post about American Idol - as a result my life is a lot better than it could be

No one is making you read our posts

And let me garble an excellent Russian Proverb: If you can laugh at something, it no longer has power over you.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sal Minella]

23. Nobody is saying (or insinuating) that it's funny.

Nobody is knee-slapping.

You are venturing on some phantasmal voyage of your own invention. If you're happy there, that's good. Just don't expect normal people to go with you.

(note: "nuance" does not mean "amusing.")

[Taverner]

30. Yeah, but CC is so full of him/herself that to question them means you are sick

So I guess we are both sick, huh?

Its always sad when I see the same kind of ad-hominem, hyperbolic attacks that you would see on, say, a WWE Raw site.

[CoffeeCat]

38. There is no "questioning" when it comes to sex crime against kids...

Child sex crimes are wrong. Period. Polanski admitted it.

What's there left to question?

[H2O Man]

45. Right.

By no coincidence, the person who accuses those who are advocating that a sex offender be held legally responsible of sounding like they are "posting on another web site" doesn't get how he has exposed himself.

[redqueen]

48. +1

[Taverner]

50. Excuse me, what the fuck are you talking about?

And why are you putting words in my mouth?

I suggest that this case is a little more than just "kill em" and you think I'm siding with Polanski

With that you sound exactly like "Either With us or against us" Bush

Excuse me if I don't buy your pathetic attempt to attack me and claim I'm some kind of freeper.

Or wait - Oh Am I A South Basher? Or is it a WWE basher?

Some of you Southerners always make me laugh...

You claim that you're openminded, and then when I ask you to be openminded, you pull out the torches and pitchforks. Just because you think you are open minded doesn't always make it so.

That goes for you to RQ

You guys are an insult to reason

Trust me, you don't win the argument by saying "well fuuuuuuuuck you!" That's not how it works

You have to present reason, not hyperbole.

You also have to read. You know, words and stuff?

I think Polanski should be in prison too - I'm just not some guy swinging a noose around saying "git 'em"

[H2O Man]

51. Nope.

I wasn't suggesting that you are a "freeper." Look in the mirror.

[Taverner]

52. I look in the mirror and I see a pretty awesome guy - what am I looking for?

That I'm not a torch-bearing angry mob type who thinks nuance is for sissies? That sounds cool too...

Look - just because you are not smart enough to understand words and stuff, doesn't mean you have to act like you do. You can always pretend you actually think instead of reacting viscerally to anything you don't like.

Oh, but suggesting you need to wise up is SOUTH BASHING isn't it?

[H2O Man]

54. Sad.

Really sad.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[H2O Man]

73. I haven't placed any words

in your mouth. You've come out with more errors in thinking than I could possibly have attributed to you. And, yes, while we aren't friends, I do feel sad for you. Very sad. You have exposed yourself in a way that makes me feel ill.

I've never said a word about "vigilante justice." I do think that adults who drug and rape children should be held accountable. In fact, as I noted on an OP I posted today, I used to work in that field. Thus, in terms of the concept of "responsibility" (which can be done by incarcerating and/or treatment), I know to look for the way offenders attempt to justify not only their actions, but their thinking.

For example, an offender who claims the situation was complex or nuanced, is not taking responsibility. They are blaming the victim. Often, they come out with bullshit, such as, "they were asking for it," or "they led me on." Adults are responsible -- 100% -- for their interactions with kids. It doesn't matter if they want to believe (hence, blame) that a 13-year old "led them on." An even more dangerous form of an error in thinking would be, "but, she only said 'no' a couple times, then she went along with it." Catch on yet?

[Taverner]

74. I will repost this:

Do you think the victim should have any say in the sentence?

How long should Polanski's sentence be?

Does any party in this case (incl. The State) have a right to punitive damages?

What exactly should the penalty clause be?

Should Roman Polanski be retried or not?

If so what evidence should be admitted and what shouldn't?

That, my friend are the nuances

[H2O Man]

75. I understand

your need to attempt to distract the focus.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[H2O Man]

79. And I understand

why you are directing your anger towards me. Common, that.

[Taverner]

82. I'm directing my anger at you because you took my words out of context

Put words in my mouth and then pointed at me and said "see! He supports Baby-rapers!"

Just like Republicans do

[H2O Man]

83. Nope.

But I understand why you feel like you are on the hot seat. I really do.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[H2O Man]

114. Nope.

I do see your posts on this (and another) thread in a light that I think is different than you were hoping to cast, though. But, no problem -- you can feel free to bark your little yelps in my direction. No problem. I understand.

[Hannah Bell]

124. why don't you just come out & state what you're insinuating?

pretty disgusting use of smear tactics.

c'mon, tough guy, put up or shut up.

[H2O Man]

125. Silly.

[Hannah Bell]

126. own what you're implying or shut up.

[H2O Man]

127. Ha!

You are a clown. No one else has any trouble understanding what I wrote. Maybe it's just you?

Go ahead. Make me "shut up." I dare ya! I double-dare ya! Nah-nah-na-nah-nah.

[Hannah Bell]

130. I understand, really I do. Exactly what you're accusing the poster of, but

not, of course, directly enough to get called on it. And if someone calls it straight, you can pretend it's not what you meant.



H2O Man (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-29-09 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #38
45.
By no coincidence, the person who accuses those who are advocating that a sex offender be held legally responsible of sounding like they are "posting on another web site" doesn't get how he has exposed himself.


H2O Man (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-29-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. Nope. I wasn't suggesting that you are a "freeper." Look in the mirror.


H2O Man (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-29-09 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #66
73. I haven't placed any words in your mouth. You've come out with more errors in thinking than I could possibly have attributed to you. And, yes, while we aren't friends, I do feel sad for you. Very sad. You have exposed yourself in a way that makes me feel ill.

I've never said a word about "vigilante justice." I do think that adults who drug and rape children should be held accountable. In fact, as I noted on an OP I posted today, I used to work in that field. Thus, in terms of the concept of "responsibility" (which can be done by incarcerating and/or treatment), I know to look for the way offenders attempt to justify not only their actions, but their thinking. For example, an offender who claims the situation was complex or nuanced, is not taking responsibility...


H2O Man (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-29-09 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. I understand your need to attempt to distract the focus.


H2O Man (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-29-09 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. And I understand why you are directing your anger towards me. Common, that.


H2O Man (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-29-09 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. Nope. But I understand why you feel like you are on the hot seat. I really do.


H2O Man (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-29-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #86
114. Nope. I do see your posts on this (and another) thread in a light that I think is different than you were hoping to cast, though. But, no problem -- you can feel free to bark your little yelps in my direction. No problem. I understand.



Yeah, I understand, too. Really I do. Who *you* are, I mean.

[H2O Man]

131. Good.

[CoffeeCat]

35. Oh, so the little smiley with the tongue sticking out...

...in the original post---is some kind of serious social statement?

The subsequent posts that make fun of people---those are part of a serious discourse?

You're just as warped as the OP.

The Roman Polanski situation centers around child sex abuse. I think we can all agree that discussing
the topic, even debating--is fine and healthy. We aren't always going to agree. However, laughing and
snickering about the topic in general is warped and it minimizes child rape.

I'm sorry you can't see that. I'm sorry you have to try to discredit me--so you can make joking about
child rape--party of a comedy routine.

[redqueen]

76. How unsurprising to see this got no response. (nt)

[Taverner]

84. Maybe not everyone fancies themselves a lyncher, Missy...

[redqueen]

87. Not everyone 'fancies themselves' as someone who'd make jokes about child rape,

either.

":P"

You stay classy now, ya hear?

[Taverner]

89. Yeah, I'm just sitting here making jokes about Child rape

JOke after joke...right...


No I'm making jokes about closed minded people like YOU who want to string him up by piano wire.


You got a pretty thin skin there missy...

[redqueen]

92. Pathetic. I think he should be held accountable, that's it.

As for your bullshit flamebait, and your insults... sad. Just sad.

Possibly revealing, too. Not many could make jokes, or try to 'nuance' raping a 13-year-old.

You're in some high-class company there, partner. Be proud.

[Taverner]

94. I'm sorry, but even the most "closed and open" case has nuances

I am so glad you are not a lawyer

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sal Minella]

97. He WAS held accountable. He plead guilty as charged.

Then the judge reneged on his agreement to hand down a three-year sentence in exchange for the guilty plea. It's really not that hard to understand what happaned.

[redqueen]

102. Yes, there's the nuance. You think that 90 days is a suitable sentence for his crime.

Good for you.

[Sal Minella]

109. Where are you getting 90 days?

THE JUDGE thought three years was a suitable sentence, okay?

It was the judge in the case who decided a sentence of three years was appropriate.

What I think is irrelevant.

[redqueen]

111. That's what some other apologists were claiming.

Sorry, got you mixed up with another apologist. Mea culpa.

[Hannah Bell]

123. hey, in 1997 the victim thought 48 days was excessive.

3rd paragraph:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928092geimer1.html

[redqueen]

128. And what do you think? Do you think 48 days was excessive? (nt)

[Hannah Bell]

132. we're not talking about what *i* think. The victim said *she* thinks 48 days was "excessive,"

for what posters here say is a man who drugged her, raped her over her protestations, & then forcibly anally raped her.

if i'd been forcibly anally raped at 13, i might say many things 20 years later, i might want to put it all behind me, i might want to give the rapist a pass out of forgiveness, or unwillingness to go through it again, or because i thought he'd reformed.

but i don't believe i'd ever write a formal letter, taking some thought, that 48 days had been an excessive sentence.

[redqueen]

135. Are you trying to imply that she lied about being drugged & raped? (nt)

[Hannah Bell]

137. i'm asking why, in 1997 when she was 33, she wrote that 48 days was excessive sentencing

for forcible anal rape. do you know?

[redqueen]

138. Do you think I'm psychic, or that I know her personally? *eyeroll*

Now answer the question, as you pesetered H2O man to do earlier....

Do you think she was lying?

[Hannah Bell]

140. hey, you know all about what happened during the rape, i figured you were her twin or something.

waterman was implying another poster was a child molestor or perv of some kind.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6654515&mesg_id=6664008

see, i wouldn't do that.

even though it's a well-known phenomenon that the witch-hunters often have the same proclivities as the witches they rail against. as with the pubs who rant about gay sex & are subsequently outed.

but since you ask; i think the witch-hunters here at DU misrepresent what she said in her grand jury testimony.

i also think the witch-hunters misrepresent the words of anyone who wishes to discuss the crime, or who disagrees with any portion of the witchhunters' opinions about the crime.

i also think the witch-hunters use straw men & ad hom to an excessive degree.

[redqueen]

141. I know what she said in her testimony. My, but you do make a habit of disingenuousness.

I didn't ask you what you thought about others' characterizations of her testimony.

I asked you if you think she was lying... if you think she made it up. That's pretty clearly what you're insinuating.

It's just too deliciously ironic, you see... your pestering someone for something so obvious, and acting so put off that you'd go hunting for links... ... but here you are doing the thing you claimed to find so outrageous and indefensible.

Just answer the question, will you? Do you think she was lying in her testimony? Do you think she lied about being raped?

[Hannah Bell]

142. i told you what i think. i think the witch-hunters at DU *misrepresent* what she said in her

testimony.

if i thought you could discuss the testimony calmly without slinging straw men & ad hom & accusing me of being a rape apologist & nambla member, i'd go to the specifics, but you've already demonstrated you can't.

[redqueen]

143. NAMBLA member? Excuse me? What the fuck does THAT mean?

And no, you didn't tell me.

Do you think she was lying in her testimony? Do you think she lied about being raped?

It's a yes or no question. You talking about what you think about what others are saying could be called side-stepping or deflecting... but it is in no way, shape or form answering the question.

[Hannah Bell]

145. i answered your question. you don't want to acknowledge the answer

because then you'd have to deal with what she actually *said* v. your version.

[redqueen]

147. Please direct me to the post where you answered it. And explain that NAMBLA shit. (nt)

[Hannah Bell]

148. I answered it in this thread, multiple times. I don't take issue with what she said, I take

issue with DU posters' *version* of what she said, how many times do I have to tell you?

I, & every poster who dared question the witch-hunters' version of reality, have been labeled rape apologist or worse, including & up to nambla member & child molestor, as in waterman's post which i linked.

I know you literally can't hear me, though.

[redqueen]

150. It's a yes or no question. The fact that you can't link to an answer says it all.

if i'd been forcibly anally raped at 13, i might say many things 20 years later, i might want to put it all behind me, i might want to give the rapist a pass out of forgiveness, or unwillingness to go through it again, or because i thought he'd reformed.

but i don't believe i'd ever write a formal letter, taking some thought, that 48 days had been an excessive sentence.

Thanks for demonstrating your hypocrisy so clearly. It's been a real pleasure.

[Hannah Bell]

152. i told you, i'd examine the testimony with you if i thought you could hear.

but you're screaming so loud you can't, as you've just demonstrated yet again.

ad hom? yes. straw men? check.

[NashVegas]

133. Look Around You

How many of the apologists do you see making that argument? See, that's the thing. Many of us are familiar with the specific circumstance you outline. But that's not even one of the lines of thinking that the other 99% of the writers going "but ... but ...." are posting. The nuances they're talking about, most of them, aren't legal, but sexual. Roman Polanski raped a scared, 13 year old kid, and they're making excuses for him.

[redqueen]

153. Isn't it sad how stubbornly some want to avoid that fact?

IMO it's more telling than sad.

[Sal Minella]

103. There's simply no point in trying to respond to someone

who is so busy shrieking and turning blue.

She's having such a good time with her false accusations, I really don't want to interrupt, yanno? (and no that's not a joke about child rape, there)

[redqueen]

105. Oh bullshit.

You claimed he wasn't joking. She called out the :P bullshit.

You then proceeded to STFU.

It speaks for itself.

[Sal Minella]

113. Well, you and "it" can have a conversation, then! n/t

[H2O Man]

18. Best response possible.

Thanks.

[Taverner]

19. That sounds an awful lot like the knee-jerk response we see on other boards

Nuance? BAD

Hit with stick? GOOD

[H2O Man]

21. Your OP sure does.

No matter how you try to twist it.

[Taverner]

28. What, are you Pee Wee Herman? "That's what you are but what am I??"

No my point, although just as I predicted, was that you cavemen here are stuck inside a binary mindset that lets you only judge things as "bad" or "good."

Yes, Roman Polanski fed drugs to a 13 year old girl. This was after she asked for them. Her mom had prepped her to do so. Her mom was trying to get her daughter into modeling and basically told her "do whatever he says." Gailey's mother knew Polanski would want to have sex with her - and the casting couch was (and is) pretty standard in those days. Gailey was also no stranger to drugs at the time. At the time, she was a user of Quaaludes and alcohol.

Now here's the acid test of the whole case: she said "no" before every act. Therefore its rape. He raped her three times, and each time she said no before the act.

There's nuance here - but the result is the same. It was rape.

If you took a moment to actually read and think, you'd realize that I might just be on your side, but without all of the knee-jerk hyperbole.

[H2O Man]

34. Anyone who attempts

to pretend that raping a 13-year old is anything other than an absolute crime is bound to react as you are now that you are being called on it.

You are in no way -- absolutely none -- on my side. Not even close.

[CoffeeCat]

44. None of the nuance matters though...

Roman Polanski, a legal adult, committed a sex act with a minor child.

There is no nuance that matters. There is no nuance that is relevant.

Nuance is an attempt to mak excuses for or rationalize sex crimes against children.

So, his actions are--only BAD.

I am astounded that you are suggesting that the details of a sex crime against a child--can
somehow make this crime not such a bad thing?

Do you know that this is what pedophiles do to excuse their crimes? The crime doesn't
matter to them. It's all about the nuance. They drone on and on about nuance for days--
in an attempt to explain away why having sex with 8-year olds, and ten year olds and 14-year
olds is just fine and dandy.

That's what is so repugnant.

This IS cut and dry. Polanski had sex with a minor. The discussion ends there. And if it
doesn't end there for you---then you are sympathetic to those who commit child sex crimes.

And since you started this thread, you will be called out. Rightfully so.

[NashVegas]

134. Raping A Scared 13 Year Old Kid Is Never Good

Just can't quite wrap your head around it, can you?

[Zix]

68. Some nuances are, in fact, not worth paying any attention to.

[Zix]

63. Indeed, the only response that's actually MEANINGFUL.

Any other responses are just stupid and insane.

[jakefrep]

119. What's stupid and insane is the amount of coverage this gets

It's nothing more than bread and circus celebrity jurisprudence, for a celebrity who isn't relevant to anybody younger than 55. It's not the least bit interesting. All of the attention paid to this case just makes it harder to find the important news.

[Taverner]

22. I'll bet you think I'm part of the "Free Polanski" brigade, don't you?

You would be wrong

[cherokeeprogressive]

24. I can't see you as part of either camp.

Your post was too nuanced.

He stuck his dick in a 13 year old's ass after taking her to what he considered to be a "safe" place, and plying her with alcohol and Quaaludes. Then he pled guilty to it. Then he fled the country to avoid the consequences of his guilty plea.

I don't see the nuance there. But then, I'm not as intelligent and worldly as most.

[tammywammy]

36. +1 n/t

[Dr.Phool]

40. Ohhh, I thought it was FREE POLAND!

Never mind.

[Morning Dew]

25. That's essentially it, isn't it?

I'm getting sick of the newsreaders and the newspapers referring to him "having sex" with a 13 year old.

He raped her.

[anonymous171]

26. But I can identify with him so I don't want him punished!

If he were a poor homeless man, I would totally support his sentencing.

[redqueen]

47. Oh, I have absolutely no doubt that some here can do exactly that.

It's very disturbing.

[Zix]

57. the subtlety ESCAPES you, cherokee.

And me too, I'm afraid.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

58. Exactly right n/t

[grantcart]

93. besides omitting that it was in Jack Nicholson's home you have the basic

facts, oh yea it wasn't consensual either.

[Echo In Light]

16. "Flag on the moon."

[TreasonousBastard]

29. Jeez, all I did was state a few facts about it and I got...

trashed for being next best thing to a rapist myself.

You admit you have a nuanced opinion?

Guns are cocked and nooses are tied.

You may run, but you can't hide.

[Taverner]

31. Closed-minded people are fun, aren't they?

[Echo In Light]

32. Easy to rile up and piss off, anyway

[TreasonousBastard]

41. Only when they're in cages so you can poke at them with sticks.

[subcomhd]

33. So how hot is eidie sedgwick in that picture?

oh, yeah - Polansky

[Dr.Phool]

37. Me either!

[Nye Bevan]

39. Ah, the sophisticated, European, approach. How refreshing.

Way too many people seem to think this is just about a 43 year old man plying a 13 year old girl with champagne and Quaaludes and anally raping her. It is *much* more nuanced than that. Complex, even. All those puritanical vengeance-seekers need to take some lessons from the French.

[Zix]

60. OI!!!

Don't tar my entire continent with that crap, please. I'm European and I find the whole thing disgusting.

[redqueen]

108. That's a very good point.

Thanks.

[JonQ]

43. I have a feeling that if it were your daughter

little sister, cousin, niece, whatever, the issue wouldn't be nearly as complex or nuanced.

[redqueen]

49. Funny how that works, isn't it? (nt)

[Taverner]

56. Do you even read words RQ?

Or do you just jump on the hootin' and holleran' wagon and go yee haw - string 'em up!

[redqueen]

61. Yes I do. Very well.

As for your little dig there... yeah, you stay classy.

[Taverner]

64. Well Yippie Kay Ay!

[redqueen]

69. Sad. (nt)

[Taverner]

53. Yes but that's why you don't put victims on the jury

Remember that whole impartial jury of peers concept?

The funny thing is although I think we need nuance, I think Polanski should be locked up.

But its not so simple as "him bad - kill him"

[JonQ]

59. No they don't put victims in the jury

but they also generally weed out those who don't really think the alleged crime was a big deal.

For instance if you don't see any issue with child rape in general you wouldn't likely make this jury.

[Taverner]

65. When did I say this was no big deal?

Stop putting words in my mouth

I never said that

I think Polanski is guilty

I just am not some stupid hick with a gun in one hand, and a noose in another

[JonQ]

67. So what exactly is nuanced about it?

He used drugs and alcohol to rape and underage girl, yes or no?

Raping an underage girl ought to be a crime, yes or no?

Committing a crime ought to be punished in some way, yes or no?

He has not been punished for this crime (if you accept it as a crime), yes or no?

I know it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside to claim to be so much more sophisticated than everyone else. But sometimes it really is that cut and dried.

[Taverner]

72. Do you think the victim should have any say in the sentence?

How long should Polanski's sentence be?

Does any party in this case (incl. The State) have a right to punitive damages?

What exactly should the penalty clause be?

Should Roman Polanski be retried or not?

If so what evidence should be admitted and what shouldn't?

That, my friend are the nuances

[JonQ]

77. No

Whatever the law prescribes for such a crime plus penalties for fleeing (he shouldn't be let off the hook, or made an example of, treat him the same as anyone else).

Anyone could sue him in civil court, that's up to the individual and the judge.

Penalty clause for what? It is unclear what you are asking here.

No I don't think a retrial is warranted, he plead guilty and the evidence was pretty overwhelming. Of course if the case is deemed insufficient then yes a retrial may be deemed necessary.

All relevent evidence collected lawfully should be admitted.

Nothing really nuanced there, pretty straight forward questions that could be asked about any case.

For instance, I threaten to run over you dog, later you watch me run over your dog, I come over to your house and admit that I ran over your dog, pretty cut and dried right? Wrong, nuanced.

Can you really prove that was your dog? If it was in fact the dog you believed it to be how do you decide ownership of a living being? Perhaps I acted in self-defense. If it is your dog and you in fact owned it, what should the penalty be? Should I be allowed to cite all the dogs I didn't run over in my defense? A good lawyer could keep this going forever.

No, that's not really nuance, just being argumentative.

[Taverner]

80. Penalty clause as in should Polanksi have to pay the state or victims

All relevent evidence collected lawfully should be admitted.

Question - should the movie "Tess" be admitted as evidence. You may laugh but there are those who think it should.

Per your dog scenario. What if all of the above happened, but the night before my dog ate all of your cats.

As for nuance in the case - here's one right away. Did Roman Polanski at the time know what he was doing. I say yes, but there is an argument to be made that he didn't. If I were a lawyer, I'd look down this road.

[tammywammy]

85. When he pled guilty he said he knew she was 13. n/t

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea10.html

And the movie would be inadmissible since it wasn't even made when the rape occurred.

[Taverner]

88. So you have no need for a retrial?

There's no chance that that might have been coerced out of him?

Many people sign confessions to acts they didn't commit.

And look, I'm not saying IT WAS coerced, but if you don't give the idea some thought, then you cannot say you are open minded.

[tammywammy]

90. Well, if you read the link I kindly provided

He says he wasn't coerced to plead guilty. He's asked repeatedly if he understand his right and what he's doing. He has his lawyer there in court when he pled guilty.

And sure I'm open minded, but when I read sworn testimony where someone's asked quite a few times what happened and if they understand their right and understand what could happen to them, then I think that Polanski had plenty of knowledge of what he was doing at the time. And at no point that I know of did Polanski say he didn't have sex with her.


Also, sure he can ask for a retrial that's what the court system is for.

[Taverner]

91. then a retrial should be perfectly fine then

After all, he'll admit to it again, right?

[tammywammy]

95. Well one would hope he wouldn't be so stupid as go the road of saying he didn't do it

Since, again as far as I know, he's never tried to say he didn't do it, only that it was consensual. And we know a 13 year old couldn't consent to sex anyways. And there's his sworn testimony that he did it and he knowingly had sex with a 13 year old.


If it's decided that he gets a new trial, which isn't up to me, then that's what happens.

[Taverner]

98. The next question that comes up, if he gets a retrial

Is should the information from the previous case be used as evidence, or should it be stricken from the court...

[tammywammy]

107. I'm not a lawyer and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night

I would think that unless they can prove duress when Polanski pled guilty while sworn under oath it would be admitted. But then I don't know the reasons the defense would give as to why it shouldn't be admitted.

Again, this is all hinging on if he got a new trial which isn't a forgone conclusion.

[redqueen]

96. Your taking this 'discussion' serriously is admirable.

The OP was pure flamebaity 'see how great I am' snark. Tiresome.

[Taverner]

100. No I think you guys were the ones who got your panties in a wad

This was the whole point from the beginning.

You folks were the ones who were running around like Witchhunters in Salem, looking for evil around every corner.

Ah, but you guys don't read anything anymore. Wouldn't be 'Christian' I guess.

[redqueen]

104. Ah, a sexist dig. How very fitting. (nt)

[Taverner]

110. Wha - you're going to tell me guys don't wear panties?????

Sexism from nowhere....damn you are thin skinned!

You should do something about all that anger. Light up a joint or something. Seriously.

[redqueen]

112. Yes, I really should. You and musicman have the answer. We should all be joking about this!

It's only the rape of a 13-year-old!

HA HA HA! I get it now! It's totally uproarious, dude! Righteous!

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

116. LOL

"my work here is done"

[JonQ]

117. No he shouldn't have to pay the state or the victims

that's not a usual punishment in a rape trial.

The movie should not be admitted. Should the gettysburg address be admitted as evidence? You may laugh but there are those who think it should.


"Per your dog scenario. What if all of the above happened, but the night before my dog ate all of your cats. "

Ah but now you're adding things to the case that didn't happen, that's not nuance, that's invention. What if the girl he raped weren't actually drugged, or underage?

[redqueen]

118. "that's not nuance, that's invention"

There's another word for it, isn't there?

Hmmmm... what is it... I can't quite put my finger on it...

[juno jones]

46. I love your new sig.

I loved your last one too.


And yes, message boards aren't much for nuance. I think that's why I avoid twitter. Unless everyone becomes a zen haiku master all sorts of context and background are tossed out the window.

There is more to this story than meets the eye. I can only rely on the reminiscence of friends and published authors to inform me of the social climate of 1970's LA/hollywood, but I have a feeling that it is not so cut and dried. I also suspect that the timing of the arrest is telling, in light of the US demands for the Swiss to hand over the UBS info.

[suzie]

81. Like H20, I also worked in this field at one time.

The likelihood of the timing of the arrest?

My guess would be that Polanski hit on the wrong person's granddaughter in Switzerland and the Swiss didn't find it so amusing or nuanced as some on DU.

[Hannah Bell]

122. sure, he waited until he was 76 to "hit on the wrong person".

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

101. Nuanced? So it's French, right?

:)

[madmusic]

106. Some people obviously have not obvserved court proceedings much

During trials, even very gruesome murder trials, there is often banter and even humor in the courtroom when the jury is not present or the court is not addressing formal proceedings (like motions). The decorum changes when the court reporter is recording every word.

A judge and others would likely go insane if other qualities that makes him/her human were forbidden and abandoned all together. Gallows humor is also common in hospitals for the same reason.

[Forkboy]

120. Jesus, people, be nice to Taverner.

Otherwise there will be a bunch of posts by him in the Lounge talking about how no one likes him and how he's an asshole. Be nice...you'll be doing the Lounge a favor.

[Hannah Bell]

121. nambla apologist!!!

[SIMPLYB1980]

149. LoL!

:spray:

[Thickasabrick]

151. LOL...with all the references to Nambla lately, I finally broke down

and looked up what it means - I'm kinda wishing I didn't know now.

[TexasObserver]

129. Nuance. Yeah, nuance. That doesn't come up on the DU spell check.

God damn it! Everything is black and white, and there's a correct opinion on every topic.

[RetroLounge]

136. "he fucked a 13 year old girl in the ass"

I think the Polanski haters are really enjoying typing this (or variations of this) phrase over and over in thread after thread...

I wonder if google will pick it up as a link to DU now?

(I don't hate him, or anyone, and if he's extradited, tried and convicted, then double-plus good. If not, then I think I'll live.)

RL

p.s. "he fucked a 13 year old girl in the ass"

[redqueen]

139. No one enjoys typing that except sickos.

Possibly sickos of the type who would defend someone who'd do such a thing.

Perhaps the reason it's repeated is because it's so absolutely disgusting that people are somehow *still* trying to tapdance around that very basic fact in order to defend this guy.

As a result of that consistent defending, many might just have the impression that those doing the defending must have missed it.

[RetroLounge]

154. The only ones typing it are the ones yelling "Apologist"

While I am probably on your side of the thought process about his guilt and need for justice, I think there are a few folks here who have let their own personal anger spew all over and onto every thread and have allowed themselve to look like bloodthirsty seekers of vengeance and don't appear to be seeking justice under the law.

It really makes both sides look pretty silly...

YMMV

RL

[Hannah Bell]

144. i think so too. witch-hunters often turn out to be witches themselves, you know.

for example, pastor ted haggard.

[conscious evolution]

146. I'll state my opinion

Bread and circus.
Two minute hate.
bright shiny thing.
"FISH ON!!!!"