Extradite or not. I say yes. There is no “consensual” sex with a 13 year old. If you plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, and then skip out on your sentencing, then there should be some sort of expectation that eventually the United States will catch up with you. The protest among the Hollywood folks is amazing to me. How can a rational person defend a man forcing oral, anal, and vaginal sex on a 13 year old girl?
whats worse is that theres a petition going through hollywood asking for his release.
I 100% agree. I do have to ask the question though, “why now?”. I mean, he owns a house in Switzerland, and this happened in the 70s, and he’s worked in the same country several times. He’s been back numerous times and I would have thought that he’d have shown up on their radar long before now.
I think if I was in his position: I had worked out a plea deal with the prosecutor and then learned that the judge planned to ignore it and throw the book at me, I was a citizen of another country, and I had the means, I would leave too. Not condoning what he did with the girl, that’s just wrong. I’m just saying I don’t blame him a bit for bailing under the circumstances.
But I agree: Why now?
[quote]erik206 wrote:
whats worse is that theres a petition going through hollywood asking for his release.[/quote]
I saw an article by some feminist of the “all men accused of rape are guilty until proven innocent” variety actually condemning Switzerland for extradicting Polanski. So if you’re just accused of rape by some girl who regrets having sex with you the next day, you should spend the rest of your life in jail. If you actually do rape a 13 year old girl, you should go free, if you’re famous enough.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
Extradite or not. I say yes. There is no “consensual” sex with a 13 year old. If you plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, and then skip out on your sentencing, then there should be some sort of expectation that eventually the United States will catch up with you. The protest among the Hollywood folks is amazing to me. How can a rational person defend a man forcing oral, anal, and vaginal sex on a 13 year old girl? [/quote]
the guy directed the pianist. you can get away with anything if you can do that.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I 100% agree. I do have to ask the question though, “why now?”. I mean, he owns a house in Switzerland, and this happened in the 70s, and he’s worked in the same country several times. He’s been back numerous times and I would have thought that he’d have shown up on their radar long before now.[/quote]
I don’t believe he’s ever set foot back on U.S. soil. And if you read the victims testimony it will make you really see what a piece of shit this guy is, and the souless fucks that are standing up for him.
Not only did he rape her, but also anally, and he fed her alcohol and drugs before and during the whole process.
Polanski Victim Testimony, need one say anything more.....
These are the same people that were defending Tookie Williams after he killed, point blank, three convenience store workers then bragged about it to cell mates.
I swear I will never set foot inside a theater again unless it’s a Jon Voight movie or the like.
Here’s a copy of the article. The dumb bitch who wrote it actually thinks the age of consent in California “was 14 years old, and is probably 13 by now!”
As I understand the story, he fled to France which does not extradite its citizens and he’s been very careful with his travels since that time, especially to countries where there is extradition. As I understand it, he was never off the US radar but probably wasn’t a top priority. I’m assuming they had some intelligence he would be somewhere and they acted on it.
I think the question, “why now” is a bit misplaced. The man was a FUGITIVE. There is no “why now” when it comes to a fugitive. It can be 50 years later. He has to answer for what he did. And although I understand why he fled (claimaing the judge wasn’t going to honor the deal - which by the way is within his judicial discretion), he was still guilty of drugging and having sex with a 13 year old girl - and that is indefensible.
I think it’s terribly disappointing that the hollywood types want to give this monster a pass. I knew the average person was blinded by celebrity, but their own peers? I think their conduct in this affair is horrific and very troubling. What message does this send? That if you’re talented you can rape 13 year old girls? That if enough time has passed while you were a fugitive from the law that all is forgiven for raping a 13 year old girl? I mean really, where is the logic behind defending this man? How do you defend raping a 13 year old girl?
He needs to be sentenced for his crime and for fleeing and he needs to serve his time. Period.
Wasn’t he already sentenced or something?
Anyway, guy should do some jail time. Actions like that should have consequences…even if one is capable of directing The Pianist.
I don’t know how jail solves any problems for the victim; not only that but we innocent taxpayers have to pay for it. Why not just take all of his money from him, give it to the victim, and pay all the legal fees with it?
Then he can go back to living a broke existence with the kiddie raper sympathizers where he belongs.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
So if you’re just accused of rape by some girl who regrets having sex with you the next day, you should spend the rest of your life in jail. If you actually do rape a 13 year old girl, you should go free, if you’re famous enough. [/quote]
I don’t think it’s a question of simply being famous, but of being considered by the left a famous liberal leader, an icon.
A famous person of no known political activity, or most certainly of course a famous conservative, would not see the left demanding a free pass for him on such a charge, as personal opinion.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
So if you’re just accused of rape by some girl who regrets having sex with you the next day, you should spend the rest of your life in jail. If you actually do rape a 13 year old girl, you should go free, if you’re famous enough.
I don’t think it’s a question of simply being famous, but of being considered by the left a famous liberal leader, an icon.
A famous person of no known political activity, or most certainly of course a famous conservative, would not see the left demanding a free pass for him on such a charge, as personal opinion.[/quote]
I don’t think the Left is defending him.
I think certain Hollywood Leftists with last names like Allen, Weinstein, etc are defending him and expecting everyone else to get on board.
I did not say the entire left was defending him.
Rather those that are defending him are not doing so merely from his fame, but from the combination of his fame and his status as a liberal icon. I doubt they would be defending (nor should they) for example a famous conservative that did the same thing. E.g., if it were discovered that Mel Gibson had committed such a crime the same number of years ago, they would not be defending him.
It is not just Polanski’s fame, it is his fame plus his politics.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I did not say the entire left was defending him.
Rather those that are defending him are not doing so merely from his fame, but from the combination of his fame and his status as a liberal icon. I doubt they would be defending (nor should they) for example a famous conservative that did the same thing. E.g., if it were discovered that Mel Gibson had committed such a crime the same number of years ago, they would not be defending him.
It is not just Polanski’s fame, it is his fame plus his politics.[/quote]
He’s not famous. He’s famous to a select few people on the west coast who’ve heard of him. Is he an influential political figure? Mel Gibson is also not a conservative, but he is conspicuously Roman Catholic.
I think there’s an obvious ethnic angle your missing here. Of the Americans defending him, we have names like Weinstein, Allen, Goldberg, Aronofsky, (Anne) Applebaum, (Debra) Winger.
Then there are a bunch of French and Italian people defending him who nobody’s heard of, except from Bernard Henri Levy.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t know how jail solves any problems for the victim; not only that but we innocent taxpayers have to pay for it. Why not just take all of his money from him, give it to the victim, and pay all the legal fees with it?
Then he can go back to living a broke existence with the kiddie raper sympathizers where he belongs.[/quote]
He already settled with her out of court and she doesn’t back him being locked up.
That said, he raped a 13 year old girl.
If he’s not famous, then why does everyone know his name? Perhaps you have an unusual definition of “famous.”
And yes, he has long been considered a liberal icon.
Well, that is, everyone except you. Unless you count y9ourself among the “select few people on the west coast.”
I don’t think it’s as much about his politics as it is that the hollywood elite see him as “one of us,” those beautiful, creative, intellectual people who shouldn’t have to play by the same rules as us dirty proles.
Sure, if he was an outspoken conservative, they would throw him to the lions, but he wouldn’t have to be liberal to be protected, just one of them.