"Chinatown" Director Roman Polanski

[ghost of delete key]

It's about f*cking time.

Good movies, yes. But a dirtbag all the same.

 

After hiding out in France for the past 30 years, he finally f*cked up (they always do).

 

Read the AP release here at Yahoo.

 

France and US treaties never covered baby rapers for some odd reason, and of course France has always been in-your-face about such things.

 

<edit> The treaty between US and France is such that France refuses to extradite French Citizens. </edit>

 

So apparently France doesn't mind harboring international crooks. Yay.

I guess that's what comes from eating snails and spoiled cheese.

Edited September 27, 2009 by ghost of delete key

[Mike Tequeli]

I find it odd that the Swiss detained him, of all people. Apparently the victim doesn't even care anymore and would have liked this to just be over with all together.

 

I don't really care either way but without a doubt Roman Polanski is a disgusting rapist.

[Guns N R0se]

Who is that?

[Mike Tequeli]

Who is that?

How about you f*cking Google it.

[LanceVanceDance07]

They found Roman Polanski? To be honest, the only thing I remember about him was the murder of his wife, but drugging and f*cking an underage girl is despicable. I hope this guy gets the appropriate sentence.

[ghost of delete key]

 

Who is that?

How about you f*cking Google it.

FFS, Mike, ya beat me to it!

 

I must be getting old.

 

But for all the scientists who can't spell "Google",

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski

 

***

 

This guy sure has been in the middle of a lot of well-known- sh*t in his time.

 

And as far as the settlement and dropping the case, the criminal charges were never dropped, and that has a lot to do with principle...

although it's froot-loopy Cali-f*cking-fornia, even they want to send the message that if you f*ck up and go hide in the Land of Mimes, we aren't simply going to let it slide.

 

He's been living it up, thumbing his nose at the US prosecutors hiding in his loophole, and not going to places that would honor extradition treaties with the US. I can't understand why he went to Switzerland, other than he figured they wouldn't care, or thought he was finally 'through the tunnel'.

 

It just goes to show, if you sh*t bad chickens, they'll always come home to roost.

 

<edit:sp>

[dxk]

Oooh, I've read about him. Nice to hear from him again!

[Fnorg]

Even though he may have drugged and raped a 13-year old girl, his accomplishments outshine that.

[ScratchCard]

Even though he may have drugged and raped a 13-year old girl, his accomplishments outshine that.

Déjà vu.

 

I hope he gets what is coming to him.

[Svip]

Even though he may have drugged and raped a 13-year old girl, his accomplishments outshine that.

And Hitler made a lot of progress to the Olympic Games, by actually making them spectacular. I guess we need to change our minds about the Nazi regime. (And for the record; the Olympic Games was not the only thing Hitler made shine)

 

Your argument makes no sense. If it is even an argument. You seem to assume that because he made decent films (he probably did, never paid much attention, myself), raping 13 year old girls is not so bad.

 

So, what I fail to realise is whether you are supporting the man's works or suggesting that the Swiss should give him up because his works are so much better than the laws he broke?

[Xeon]

Even though he may have drugged and raped a 13-year old girl, his accomplishments outshine that.

And Hitler made a lot of progress to the Olympic Games, by actually making them spectacular. I guess we need to change our minds about the Nazi regime. (And for the record; the Olympic Games was not the only thing Hitler made shine)

 

Your argument makes no sense. If it is even an argument. You seem to assume that because he made decent films (he probably did, never paid much attention, myself), raping 13 year old girls is not so bad.

 

So, what I fail to realise is whether you are supporting the man's works or suggesting that the Swiss should give him up because his works are so much better than the laws he broke?

I'm pretty sure he was being facetious, since a similar comment was made in the Ted Kennedy thread.

[860]

Even though he may have drugged and raped a 13-year old girl, his accomplishments outshine that.

And Hitler made a lot of progress to the Olympic Games, by actually making them spectacular. I guess we need to change our minds about the Nazi regime. (And for the record; the Olympic Games was not the only thing Hitler made shine)

 

Your argument makes no sense. If it is even an argument. You seem to assume that because he made decent films (he probably did, never paid much attention, myself), raping 13 year old girls is not so bad.

 

So, what I fail to realise is whether you are supporting the man's works or suggesting that the Swiss should give him up because his works are so much better than the laws he broke?

I'm pretty sure he was being facetious, since a similar comment was made in the Ted Kennedy thread.

And the Michael Jackson thread.

[George Brosnan]

Makes Me Sick, A Child Rapist, And Still Stared In Films Less Than 3 Years Old :S, French Lunatics.

 

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000591/

[ghost of delete key]

Even though he may have drugged and raped a 13-year old girl, his accomplishments outshine that.

Even though his accomplishments are many, his drugging and raping a 13-year old girl outshines that.

 

You had some words misplaced, Gronf.

 

Fixed.

[860]

Bitch got trolled.

 

 

860 gives Gronf a highfive

[Saggy]

There's a whole lot of guilty until proven innocent going on.

 

And before someone says, "Doesn't the fact that he's been running prove he's guilty?" put yourself in the shoes he's in. Some girl makes false accusations of rapes against you, and then you fail to receive a fair trial, and in the mean time very few people can hold back their prejudice because of the severity of the alleged crime. I'm pretty sure you'd flee the country too. I mean, sh*t like this is basically akin to the Salem Witchtrials. Some little girl says Roman Polanski's a witch, he can't prove he's not, and everyone already hates witches so much they just want to string him up before he even gets a trial. Only it's a little girl saying Polanski diddled her. I mean, is there even a way to prove this so long after it's happened? It will simply wind up coming down to circumstancial evidence, and with the hysterical way this country's public goes after child molesters, I really doubt there's any way he could get a genuinely fair trial. We ought to just throw his ass in jail if we're going to play along to this farce of a justice system.

 

Since the "victim" says she just wants the whole thing to be over, I don't really see the point in all of this anyway. Do we just need a new public figure to chastise as a child molester now that MJ is dead?

 

I couldn't really care less about Roman Polanski's movies though, I'm just kind of asking myself what the point of this is. Was it ever proven beyond a doubt he touched the girl, and can it be proved now so long afterward? Will he get a fair trial? Does the victim in this case even give a sh*t anymore? I mean, what's the real point of prosecuting a crime that even the victim has moved past?

 

I bet what will happen is that he'll have a long stretched out trial, with not even half the press coverage as MJ's, in which he will not be prosecuted for the actual crime, but for the crimes he committed fleeing the country. Then he'll get a light sentence, parole in six months, and we'll never hear about him again until his next movie comes out.

 

Total waste of time.

[The-King]

The only Polanski film I've actually seen is his rendition of Macbeth, which was absolutely amazing to be honest.

 

I really only care that justice is achieved whether it's through a guilty or a not guilty verdict, hell I wouldn't even mind if the charges were simply thrown out the window. It's bad enough having had your wife killed by the most infamous serial killer in modern memory, but on top of that being pursued and demonized for years on questionable charges is probably one of the most horrible ways to life your life and I honestly feel sorry for the man.

[ghost of delete key]

 

There's a whole lot of guilty until proven innocent going on.

Oh God, please Sag, not you!

 

You have like a 98% hit rate, but you're dead wrong on this one, dude.

 

First of all, the f*cker confessed and plead guilty to a reduced charge.

The bum never has and still today does not contest the fact that the event ocurred!

To this day he maintains his "innocence" by rationalizing in his warped mind that it was OK because she was "experienced" and older than her years, or words to that effect.

Suuuure, yeah, that makes child molestation just peachy. No problem then.

No 'false accusations' are involved at all. He got his fair hearing.

He simply got pissy because the prosecution reneged on the plea bargain, which legally is entirely their prerogative.

 

Secondly, he failed to respond and appear for a criminal proceeding in a court of law, which in itself is a breach of law.

No inferential logic need be applied to that one, breaking the law happens to be illegal.

He served only 42 days of a 90 day evaluation detention, and was to return for a final sentencing hearing.

He knew he was going to prison and said "f*ck that sh*t".

So after his conviction, and fleeing the country to avoid a re-sentencing in a faulty plea agreement, the guy is twice in the sh*tter. (Note: re-sentencing is NOT double jeopardy!)

 

 

Since the "victim" says she just wants the whole thing to be over, I don't really see the point in all of this anyway.

Victims of abuse frequently attempt to avoid the conflict in just such a manner. It is all too common a syndrome. Especially youngsters.

 

 

Do we just need a new public figure to chastise as a child molester now that MJ is dead?

Heh, Polanski's been in that light since MJ himself was a kid. One could posit that we latched on to Whacko Jacko because we lost Polanski. But really, there was yet another abuse victim denying reality and repeating the cycle. Too bad he never got his, for all that creepy sh*t. You simply don't keep others' children in bed with you, no matter how "innocent" you make it out to be.

 

 

...what's the real point of prosecuting a crime that even the victim has moved past?

The point is, a serious crime was committed. Not to serve justice to the guilty not only demeans the concept of justice, but makes a mockery of the victims as well. It sends the message to the criminal element that "it's ok, if you can stay away long enough." That's why rape and murder have no statutes of limitation.

Neither do open warrants of any kind. See 1 & 2 above.

 

 

I bet what will happen is that he'll have a long stretched out trial, with not even half the press coverage as MJ's, in which he will not be prosecuted for the actual crime, but for the crimes he committed fleeing the country.  Then he'll get a light sentence, parole in six months, and we'll never hear about him again until his next movie comes out.

I pretty much agree. But it'll be fairly quick.

You know, if he hadn't dodged around all these years, and when his attorney requested the charges be dismissed, gone back to California for the hearing as is required by local law, the original charge likely would have been dropped to clear the register, and he probably would have only had to deal with absconding, which is rather light.

But prosecutors and judges NEVER appreciate being dodged and made fools of, so now he gets to deal with whatever dog and pony show they have lined up for his wise ass, and deserves everything he gets, whatever he gets.

 

Sorry, I know you tend to champion the underdog as a general rule, but you drank the Kool-Aid on this one, my friend.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the movies. Couldn't possibly give less of a sh*t.

 

 

@ 860: Yer not so swift, are ya there, spammy?

Edited September 28, 2009 by ghost of delete key

[sofa_king]

Just a few days after Susan Atkins dies this guys in the news, somewhat ironic.

 

[arsenal_fan]

I'm surprised he went to Swizerland to get a crappy lifetime achievement award, he should have received it in the mail like when he won Best Director Oscar for The Pianist

[Jay]

I don't envy him. His life has been one horrible occurrence after another.

[Suction Testicle Man]

 

Not to serve justice to the guilty not only demeans the concept of justice, but makes a mockery of the victims as well.

Absolutely, it's impossible for a victim, after experiencing a crime first-hand, to not be completely delusional. There's no such thing as forgiveness, just people too scared to face their demons - and that's something that can be applied to any and all situations. Context and circumstance were invented by the Russians to confuse us and destroy television. Justice isn't here for the good of the people, it's here for the ratings; and you can't have good ratings without viewer satisfaction. Interpretation is just procrastination within a liberal agenda - a plague be upon he that soils the concept of Justice with such inconsistent musings. Let no criminal's heart rest easy when his eyes full upon 100 million glorious armchairs lining the horizon; their vest-clad riders armed with beverage and keyboard, ready to wish harm upon all those that remain judgement-free. BURN THE WITCH. BURN THE WITCH

[TEoS]

Hopefully they light him on fire on live TV.

[SWEETSAPRIK]

Assuming the accusations are true, I don't even give a sh*t if she cares anymore. You can't give consent to being drugged, raped, and sodomized by a 40 year old when you were 13, much less consent retroactively 30 years later.

 

As for a new trial, why? He pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13 year old, unless they shoot for and are granted an appeal, there shouldn't be a trial on that. I'm not sure why they'd want a new trial anyway, since that would mean they'd be able to charge him with all the other crimes that were dropped as per the plea bargain. If there were to be a trial at all I assume it would be on the charges stemming from leaving the country and escaping punishment for 30 years.

 

I agree with the "presumption of innocence until proven guilty" thing, but pleading guilty and then being found guilty kind of put and end to the need to presume anything. As for fleeing, he's obviously guilty of that regardless. At this point I'd almost like to see them drop the re-sentencing and just charge him with whatever you get for fleeing.

[Mister Pink]

Even though he may have drugged and raped a 13-year old girl, his accomplishments outshine that.

And Hitler made a lot of progress to the Olympic Games, by actually making them spectacular. I guess we need to change our minds about the Nazi regime. (And for the record; the Olympic Games was not the only thing Hitler made shine)

 

Your argument makes no sense. If it is even an argument. You seem to assume that because he made decent films (he probably did, never paid much attention, myself), raping 13 year old girls is not so bad.

 

So, what I fail to realise is whether you are supporting the man's works or suggesting that the Swiss should give him up because his works are so much better than the laws he broke?

Whoah man. Don't take things so seriously. I think what the chap is saying is that he may have commited a sh*tty crime but he still has has respect for the man due to his contribution to cinema.

[Saggy]

There's a whole lot of guilty until proven innocent going

The bum never has and still today does not contest the fact that the event ocurred!

To this day he maintains his "innocence" by rationalizing in his warped mind that it was OK because she was "experienced" and older than her years, or words to that effect.

Suuuure, yeah, that makes child molestation just peachy. No problem then.

No 'false accusations' are involved at all. He got his fair hearing.

He simply got pissy because the prosecution reneged on the plea bargain, which legally is entirely their prerogative.

That would have been nice to know before I shoved my foot in my mouth. I thought the article said that he fled in the middle of his trial because of the prosecution taking a plea deal off the table; not that he had already admitted his guilt in court, at his trial, and then fled because the prosecution reneged. That's pretty different.

 

Good to know he already admitted his guilt though, beacuse what I couldn't figure out was how they would even investigate that claim this long after the deed. That would have just made an even more pathetically useless trial. I do agree with Sweets though, if he has already admitted his guilt, why are they even talking about another trial?

 

The one thing sticks out though. If the prosecution reneged on their deal, then couldn't that be considered in a grounds for appeal? Really I think that if he had already admitted to his guilt, under whatever pretexts, it doesn't change anything and they should just take him to go serve the sentence that he was supposed to do in the first place.

 

 

However as far as the U.S. justice system goes, I think that this is the last thing that's going to tarnish its reputation or make the American lose its faith ( whatever is left ) in it. If the victim has already expressed that they do not seek any more justice, has already been rewarded some kind of compensation, then what is the real point of this? To make a point, to make sure that the man serves his time, or to make some kind of example? I think that we're probably much obligated by the law to uphold our own laws so we don't really have a choice, but I still think this would probably be better without having been brought up at all. I mean, what was even the point? Did someone need some press coverage somewhere or something?

 

Don't get me wrong, if we were to throw him into some jail cell, in with the other people guilty of the same crimes, then I would totally agree that justice had been served, and that it would be proper and right because he eluded it all this time. However, the man is 70-something years old, and a celebrity, it's going to be worked out to where this guy will not even see the protective block of an actual maximum security prison, and is going to wind up going to some kind of prison hospital for the elderly, a minimum security joint, or like I said before maybe even house arrest. I mean, if the dude is too old to serve the kind of justice that he ran from, what is the point of hunting him down to serve some cushier gig? The guy will probably be dead before his sentence is served anyway.

[Svip]

 

Even though he may have drugged and raped a 13-year old girl, his accomplishments outshine that.

And Hitler made a lot of progress to the Olympic Games, by actually making them spectacular. I guess we need to change our minds about the Nazi regime. (And for the record; the Olympic Games was not the only thing Hitler made shine)

 

Your argument makes no sense. If it is even an argument. You seem to assume that because he made decent films (he probably did, never paid much attention, myself), raping 13 year old girls is not so bad.

 

So, what I fail to realise is whether you are supporting the man's works or suggesting that the Swiss should give him up because his works are so much better than the laws he broke?

Whoah man. Don't take things so seriously. I think what the chap is saying is that he may have commited a sh*tty crime but he still has has respect for the man due to his contribution to cinema.

You made the mistake you accuse me of.

 

Never ever take anything I say seriously.

[ghost of delete key]

 

...Never ever take anything I say seriously.

 

Hell, never take ANYTHING seriously, whether Svip said it or not.

 

(and he's the closest thing you'll ever get like the Truth around these parts. )

 

 

@ Sag: Hey, np. Easy enough oversight.

 

But as for all the hubbub about California seeking justice on Polanski...

It's all about showing backbone in front of the world.

I mean, we got Obama in office. Someone has to be strong...

[Typhus]

You know, he'll probably kill himself. The guy's not an idiot, he probably realises what the prisoners will do to child molestors. And he's a runner, he wasn't someone tired of fleeing, he was a man determined to escape from the ramifications of his actions. Mark my words, one day soon they'll find him swinging in his cell.

Irresponsible types often cheat the justice system.

[arsenal_fan]

Didn't he plead guilty and only got like 90 days of phyciatric care as his punishment? Maybe he pleaded guilty to avoid a 25 year sentence and probably a horrible death like Thyphus said, child molestors/child porn prisoners get absolutely f*cked up in prison.

 

 

Would you plead guilty to escape something like that? Even though it will tarnsih your repuation forever?