Forum

He's your problem now...
 
Forum index / Life in general
Goto page: [« Previous] 1, 2, 3 [Next »]
Post reply | Create new thread
Author
Posted on 2006-06-30 17:49:44
Posthuman
laaran wrote:
[I see a problem, a 62 years old men with a young girl.
I don't like that, this is the world of money and power.
Some women like that. The "daughter" was perverted too.
And not more perverted than our world is.


Yes.
I don't know.How can we judge?
But from my point of view that's not healthy..
But how can I know..I've never been there..
Author
Posted on 2006-06-30 18:00:54
LORDHUMONGOUS
laaran wrote:
[b]
And Roman Polanski. France and USA have agreements. What does that mean "he fled to France".


I don't know about any extradition laws the US has with France but Polanski was already found guilty of statutory rape. Before he could be sentenced and serve jail time he flew to France. Essentially, he left the US to avoid going to jail.
Author
Posted on 2006-06-30 18:09:28
laaran
Polanski, the girl was 13.
In 1977 Polański, 43, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old girl Samantha Geimer

Like many countries, France refuses to extradite its own citizens, which is consistent with the extradition treaty between France and the United States. As a consequence, the American extradition request was not granted. The United States government could have requested that Polański be prosecuted on the California charges by the French authorities, but this option was not pursued.
Why was this option cancelled ?
The French State can not send him back to the USA. It is really impossible. Most Westerner countries have these "protections" for the citizens.
The normal way is to open a trial in France. For rape against a 13 years old girld, he will get 12 or 15 years jail (I am not professionnal, just a feeling).

I checked.
In French law, for rape against a child below 15, he will get 20 years jail.
In all cases. The girls don't need to say (and show proofs) : I tried to resist or things like that.
20 years is the official sentence. Most prisoners do only 2/3 or 3/4 of it, thus 12 to 15 years.
Author
Posted on 2006-06-30 18:39:32
Posthuman
"Like many countries, France refuses to extradite its own citizens,
20 years is the official sentence. Most prisoners do only 2/3 or 3/4 of it, thus 12 to 15 years."

And why is that?! For good behaviour,in jail?! He did that BEFORE he got in,so I don't believe in repent after.
Ok,I'll forgive you,but after you serve your punishment!
Author
Posted on 2006-06-30 18:48:31
laaran
In France, all prisoners have this "good behaviour" trick.
It is OK for me.
I don't agree for the maximum of "20 years". It is too short for some cases.
Author
Posted on 2006-06-30 19:21:06
LORDHUMONGOUS
^
It's not just France that has a "good behaviour" loophole, they have it here in the US also.
Author
Posted on 2006-06-30 19:54:30
Realphilip747
Roman Polanski was a friend of the 13yr old girls parents.
He told her to come over one night and said he would help her be a model and to take pictures of her.

He gave her liquir and got her drunk and took nude photos of her, when she wouldnt comply with his request of sex, he then drugged her up with Qualudes. Then he raped her, he then fled the country before his trial.

I love how they gave him an oscar, disgusting.
Madonna said in his defense "We artists are a strange group and have our eccentricities, Glenn Close said "Oh he is such an incredible talent, besides it happened years ago." Oh really Glenn if it as your daughter Im sure you wouldnt feel that way.

Whats worse is when they announced his oscar he received cheers, and teh person announcing the award didnt say oh ROman couldnt be here cause he is a fugitive from the law on charges of rape. Not statutory, since the little 13 yr old girl didnt consent.

With Woody allen he had an affair with Soon-Yi since she was 17 and proceeded to marry her a few years later.

He was with Mia Farrow when soon-yi was adopted. So at the age of ten Allen had known her and was basically a dad to her, during that time Allen adopted a child with Mia and also had a biological child with Mia Farrow.

Think of what mind games that Allens other two kids have now, Their dad and sister up and got married. Really screws with your head no?
Author
Posted on 2006-07-02 07:13:11
Kv2.0
it's terrible what Woody did to Mia, the man's got no self-control. Roman on the other hand, I'm not sure of Philip's account ^.
Roman would have been a young man himself and I thought the sex they had was at a typical Hollywood party in the late 1960's and it was a case of "statutory rape" meaning not forced as a criminal rapist is brought to mind. Through coersion, using his cunning abilities as an older individual to convince the young girl to participate in sexual activities. He fled and remains in France unable PERMANENTLY to return to the USA. I understand that he made a criminal error of judgement, and in all probability commited a crime. There are those in Hollywood that have forgiven him for that and in recognition of his artistic abilities have decided now to stand up at awards ceremonies and applaud him for his works. That takes courage. He hasn't spent any time in a US jail but he was made to leave his home. I see this isn't going anywhere.
Paying a price.
There must be other examples of shunned celebrities that make good.
Know any?
As for Michael Jackson, I'm afraid to say that in my humble opinion, that if it looks like a snake it is one. The man lived in bedroom adorned with photos of male child actors. He has a fixation. He adores young boys. He in all probability has engaged, and desires younger males as partners. Poor fellow was born too late, he would have been at home 2000 years ago in Greece.
Author
Posted on 2006-07-02 14:59:22
Posthuman
Kv2.0 wrote:
There are those in Hollywood that have forgiven him for that and in recognition of his artistic abilities have decided now to stand up at awards ceremonies and applaud him for his works. That takes courage. He hasn't spent any time in a US jail but he was made to leave his home. I see this isn't going anywhere.
Paying a price.
There must be other examples of shunned celebrities that make good.
Know any?


And who are they to be asked?Have THEY forgiven him?
He did nothing wrong to them.As you said,he gave them a nice movies to watch.
For such a thing it doesn't take any courage.



[/quote] Poor fellow was born too late, he would have been at home 2000 years ago in Greece.[/quote]

Author
Posted on 2006-07-02 15:01:16
Realphilip747
Standing up and clapping for a child moelstor takes coourage?
It was not stautory rape, it was rape outright, do a little research and you will find the story about his drugging and boozing up this 13 yr old which is the 6th grade mind you. HE WAS $# yrs old not a young man.
It wouldnt matter if he was 18, rape is rape the girl was 13 for crying out loud

http://www.vachss.com/mission/...ski.html

LOS ANGELES, March 12, 1977 — Polish film director Roman Polanski, widower of murdered actress Sharon Tate, was free on bond today on charges of luring a 13-year-old girl to the home of Jack Nicholson under the pretext of photographing her, then drugging and raping her.

Polanski, 43, was arrested by police to Beverly Wilshire Hotel Friday night following the incident Thursday night at Nicholson's Bel Air home.

In addition to the rape charges, Polanski also was booked on suspicion of sodomy, child molestation and furnishing dangerous drugs to a minor. He was released on $2,500 bond pending his arraignment March 18.


I shudder with your seemingly sympathetic views of jackson and polanski.
Author
Posted on 2006-07-02 15:31:32
Small-Talker
Well, yeah, the rape thing ... whatever ... blah blah blah ... hasn't affected either me or Philip so I don't know why he's having a warbler over it ... and I'm sure the 42 year old woman is well over it by now ... but what the hell is up with charging someone with sodomy? How the hell can you be charged with sodomy?

Ha ha ha ... stoopid poopie law.

"TIME FOR CAKE AND SODOMY!!!"
Author
Posted on 2006-07-02 15:41:39
xxkellyxx
kelly
There isn't any evidence that Polanski raped the girl. It would be considered statutory rape due to her age, but she claimed it was consensual so where did this stuff about him drugging her come from???

Michael Jackson was found innocent by a judge and jury who know far more than we do about the situation and circumstances, so what right do we have to contest that? Or are you suggesting the US justice system is, well, unjust?

I wouldn't lose any sleep over Michael Jackson even if he moved into my neighbourhood. He possibly needs therapy, and lots of it, but I highly doubt he is a risk to children.
Author
Posted on 2006-07-02 16:00:12
Realphilip747
Kelly why not read the link
if you read the interviews with the woman she said he raped her.
If there was no evidence then why did polanski fly the coop? So Kelly are u saying that there should be no age of consent laws? That as long as someone says okay then it shouldnt be considered rape.

Statutory rape is such crap to say, just like Date rape.

Gee whiz Kelly would you let michael babysit your kids?
He is an absolute risk to kids. He gave beer to 11 and 12 yr olds, slept in the same bed, showed pornt ot the kids, exposed himself to them

Smalls you say rape doesnt affect me or you, so why am i discussing it?
It experience was the caveat for being allowed to discuss or debate anything then most people would have to be silent.

People dont get over rape, how can one get over it? They get counseling to deal with what happened but no one gets over it. It changes their life forever. Thats really offensive to say.

Kelly Mcgillis from top gun just attended the trial of her rapist, she was raped back in 1982, he was released after only serving 7 yrs and he went on to rape again. This time he was on trial for another rape, which is one reason why rapists and molestors should never be paroled or released, they just do it over and over again. She says it remains with her, it changed her fundamentally and will never forget it, and this is 24 yrs later.
Author
Posted on 2006-07-02 16:03:52
Posthuman
Small-Talker wrote:
and I'm sure the 42 year old woman is well over it by now ...



Author
Posted on 2006-07-02 16:14:18
Posthuman
Realphilip747 wrote:


Kelly Mcgillis from top gun just attended the trial of her rapist, she was raped back in 1982, he was released after only serving 7 yrs and he went on to rape again. This time he was on trial for another rape, which is one reason why rapists and molestors should never be paroled or released, they just do it over and over again.


Yes,because it's a mental disorder..like a murder,they do it over and over again..it's in their brain..they have to be medically treated.Of course,in jail.
Author
Posted on 2006-07-02 16:35:17
Small-Talker
Posthuman wrote:
Small-Talker wrote:
and I'm sure the 42 year old woman is well over it by now ...


Pfft ... just as bad as Philip.

So you know the woman then? So ... what? After 30-something years this woman would still be a festering pot of absolute rage? Get over it. Why did she want herself to be photographed in the first place.

And I love what you did - putting the lol smily right after that line, despite it being all the way down at the end of the paragraph.

Realphilip747 wrote:
Smalls you say rape doesnt affect me or you, so why am i discussing it? It experience was the caveat for being allowed to discuss or debate anything then most people would have to be silent.

The thing is ... you don't "discuss". You warble on and give all sorts of generalisations and stereotypes and baseless pre-judgements and then attach them to "yes, they're guilty. they should be locked up forever!" That is not the way mature people discuss things and the very thought of you having any form of power anywhere freightens the bloody shite out of me.
Author
Posted on 2006-07-02 16:45:06
Posthuman
Small-Talker wrote:

Pfft ... just as bad as Philip.


Hey,don't compare me to anyone.

"Why did she want herself to be photographed in the first place."
True.She was part of it too.But,if you look at her age back then..

[/quote]And I love what you did - putting the lol smily right after that line, despite it being all the way down at the end of the paragraph.[/quote]
Ok,that smiley was there by accident..

Author
Posted on 2006-07-02 21:28:15
xxkellyxx
kelly
Realphilip747 wrote:
Kelly why not read the link
if you read the interviews with the woman she said he raped her.
If there was no evidence then why did polanski fly the coop? So Kelly are u saying that there should be no age of consent laws? That as long as someone says okay then it shouldnt be considered rape.


I didn't say anything of the sort. However, he "flew the coop" as you put it, because he could have been arrested for statutory rape. It's odd that suddenly the woman is changing her story. I don't judge people without all the facts, though. Simple as that.

Quote:
Statutory rape is such crap to say, just like Date rape.


It isn't necessarily the same as date rape. Date rape IS rape, whichever way you look at it. Statutory rape covers a broad spectrum. A 16 year old who has sex with a 15 year year old could technically be charged with statutory rape. Is that the same as a 40 year old who maniplates a 15 year old into bed?

Quote:
Gee whiz Kelly would you let michael babysit your kids?


No. I wouldn't let anyone I don't know babysit my kids, so not sure how that is relevant to th debate.

Quote:
He is an absolute risk to kids. He gave beer to 11 and 12 yr olds, slept in the same bed, showed pornt ot the kids, exposed himself to them


It might be wise to use the word "allegedly" in there somewhere....


Quote:
People dont get over rape, how can one get over it? They get counseling to deal with what happened but no one gets over it. It changes their life forever.


I agree, they don't. However, the point is that Michael Jackson has notbeen charged with rape or sexual abuse so your comments regarding him are speculative, as are your comments regarding Roman Polanski. There is a chance that both men HAVE abused minors. There is also a chance that neither did, and as neither have been charged in a court of law, who are we to judge?
Author
Posted on 2006-07-02 21:58:43
Emilianino
Could be also our problem now... But at least is better that it's not anymore a problem in a country that has an evident...problem with nudities.

How Michael Jackson could be rightly judged in a place where if her sister has a breast out she's supposed to say "sorry" to the whole country??
Meanwhile, lots of porn websites called "Fathers with Daughers" are birthing happily and films with litres of blood are always more than welcome in Hollywood...
Watching a breast, in the end, is natural... Watching litres of blood is quite mental.
Gosh, I hope you got a bit of my little point.

Uhm??
Author
Posted on 2006-07-04 05:41:05
Realphilip747
Roman polanski was charged with rape, not statutory, a drugged up and drunk person cannot give consent, much less 13 yr old child. Statutory rap eis a crime, but in her case it was not, it was outright rape. a 43 yr olf man raping a 13 yr old child. There are laws put in place to protect children of her age.

Michael didnt allegedly give alcohol dubbed "Jesus Juice", show porn or expose himself. The boy's allegations were investigated and they found michael's secret room of porn like the boy said he would, found certain straight and gay porn magazines that he said existed, he gave a description of michaels privates, including a birthmark like the boy said. What the outcome was that the people didnt believe beyond a resonable doubt that michael raped/molested/sodomized him, which is not the same as saying he wasnt guilty. It was that there was some doubt. No doubt some or all the jurors were star struck as is the case with many celebrities on trial.

By the way f Polanski did no wrong, then why fly the coop, wouldnt he be proven innocent if it were true.

The women who was raped when she was 13, said she has forgiven Polanski, but maintains she was raped.

Kelly going by your wording then Hitler himself might be inncoent of exterminating over 7 million people in camps since he was not put on trial, since it seems someone can only be guilty in your eyes is if they are found to be guilty in a court of law.
Author
Posted on 2006-07-04 09:56:36
-berlin-
i wish i had the time to really join the discussion, but since i can't i just wanna comment on what i feel hasn't really been argued before:

Posthuman wrote:


"Why did she want herself to be photographed in the first place."
True.She was part of it too.But,if you look at her age back then..



i can't agree with that, because the way i see it this sounds like blaming her. like 'oh, she should not have agreed to having pics of herself taken.' does that necessarily also mean 'you can have sex wi5th me, if i want it or not! ?
no, it doesn't! it's like saying ' no wonder women get raped because they wear short skirts' - whats that gonna lead you to? women having to cover up? women locking themselves inside their house? women not daring to speak to man at all? you can see im exaggerating here, but i hope you get my point that it's unfair discussing a womans guilt when she was the victim!
Author
Posted on 2006-07-04 21:34:10
xxkellyxx
kelly
Realphilip747 wrote:
Roman polanski was charged with rape, not statutory, a drugged up and drunk person cannot give consent, much less 13 yr old child. Statutory rap eis a crime, but in her case it was not, it was outright rape.


Philip, he was CHARGED with statutory rape. You are entitled to your opinion, but the actual charge was statutory. The original charges of rape by drugs were dismissed, and as we don't KNOW what happened, it is speculative.

Quote:
Michael didnt allegedly give alcohol dubbed "Jesus Juice", show porn or expose himself. The boy's allegations were investigated and they found michael's secret room of porn like the boy said he would, found certain straight and gay porn magazines that he said existed, he gave a description of michaels privates, including a birthmark like the boy said. What the outcome was that the people didnt believe beyond a resonable doubt that michael raped/molested/sodomized him, which is not the same as saying he wasnt guilty.


He was found not guilty. That is a fact. It is entirely possible that he was guily of abusive behaviour, but it has not been proven, so once again...it IS speculative. Stating he is a child abuser as fact is actually libellous!

Quote:
By the way f Polanski did no wrong, then why fly the coop, wouldnt he be proven innocent if it were true.


Because he WAS going to prison for statutory rape, that's why! That doesn't prove he drugged the girl and raped her, it proves he did have sex with her. I don't find a middle-aged man having sex with a minor very pleasant either, and in the circumstances, I think a jail sentence may well have been warranted, but my point is...we don't KNOW what happened. You can't just presume things, there isn't any evidence.

Quote:
Kelly going by your wording then Hitler himself might be inncoent of exterminating over 7 million people in camps since he was not put on trial, since it seems someone can only be guilty in your eyes is if they are found to be guilty in a court of law.


I think that's ludicrous really, you are well aware that a) there is copious proof that Hitler committed crimes and gave direct orders for crimes to be committed, and b) Had he not killed himself, he would undoubtedly still be imprisoned now. I don't know why you find it so hard to understand that it's unwise to accuse unconvicted people of things without evidence. Why bother having courts then? Shall we bring back lynching?
Author
Posted on 2006-07-04 23:27:32
Realphilip747
kelly only you can sympathize and put a positive spin or explain away a rapist or molestor, its almost as if you want to be the opposite of any opinion.

I do hope this is the case or else if u truly feel this way then i am quite shocked. Where did u actually read any of this about polanski?

Polanski Indicted on Drug, Rape Charges
The Washington Post - March 26, 1977

A grand jury has indicted Roman Polanski, director of "Rosemary's Baby" and other macabre movies, on six counts of drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl at actor Jack Nicholson's home.

Conviction on the charges lodged Thursday could send Polanski to prison for up to 50 years. Polanski, 43, remained free on $2,000 bail and was given until Tuesday to surrender in Superior Court. Prosecutors said Polanski's attorney told them he would appear before then.

The grand jury indictment superseded charges brought March 11 when the director was arrested in the lobby of the Beverly Wilshire Hotel where he was staying.

The grand jury charged Polanski with giving a drug to a minor, committing a lewd act upon a person less than 14, rape of a minor, rape by use of a drug, oral copulation and sodomy. All the charges are felonies.

Personalities Column
by Stephanie A. Lewis

The Washington Post - August 10, 1977


Movie director Roman Polanski was ordered to undergo examination by two court-appointed psychiatrists in Los Angeles to determine if he should be institutionalized as a "mentally disordered sex offender" for allegedly having sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl.

Polanski, 43, pleaded guilty to one of six charges facing him, thereby avoiding a trial.

The movie director was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at the request of the girl's mother, who wanted to protect her daughter from the publicity expected to accompany such a trial.

The prosecution agreed to dismiss five other charges, including two more serious counts—furnishing drugs to a minor and rape by use of drugs.

The results of the psychiatric examinations will help determined whether Polanski will be deported as an undesirable alien.


The charges were dismissed, because of his plea deal, strange how you see things through rose colored glasses.


When someone has charges dropped doesnt mean they are innocent, its just there is reasonable doubt. Lke the OJ simpson case, there was reasonable doubt to the jurors, but in civil court he was tried and lost big time.

But anyway none of the polanski stories showed charges of statutory rape, he drugged and liquored her up, why do you feel the need to defend rapists and molestors and why cant you believe that he did?

Strange that you as a mother, would be so sympathetic towards this deviant stalker of children. But in Paris he indulged in his love of young girls. He started dating his current wife, when she was 16 or so and storied of his daliances with underage models in europe.

And Michael jackson is still poncing around with children in europe and the middle east.
Author
Posted on 2006-07-06 15:21:33
LORDHUMONGOUS
-berlin- wrote:
i wish i had the time to really join the discussion, but since i can't i just wanna comment on what i feel hasn't really been argued before:

Posthuman wrote:


"Why did she want herself to be photographed in the first place."
True.She was part of it too.But,if you look at her age back then..



i can't agree with that, because the way i see it this sounds like blaming her. like 'oh, she should not have agreed to having pics of herself taken.' does that necessarily also mean 'you can have sex wi5th me, if i want it or not! ?
no, it doesn't! it's like saying ' no wonder women get raped because they wear short skirts' - whats that gonna lead you to? women having to cover up? women locking themselves inside their house? women not daring to speak to man at all? you can see im exaggerating here, but i hope you get my point that it's unfair discussing a womans guilt when she was the victim!


I was gonna bring up this subject. It reminds me of the William Kennedy rape trial. He was accused of raping a woman and later acquitted. I remember during the trial her attire was in question by the defense. She was wearing a tight mini skirt. They made her sound like she was some tramp looking for sex. Basically, she was asking for what she got. At the time I thought that was the craziest thing I have ever heard. If you got it, it's up to you whether or not to flaunt it. Just be aware that this society can be intolerant and sick at times.
Author
Posted on 2006-07-14 17:14:53
Posthuman
I didn't mean that she was guilty for the way she dressed,or that she wanted that (subconsciously),just that he took those photos of her.She could have chosen about that.Or she couldn't?
But that's not important.
I think too that you can't blame the victim.
Goto page: [« Previous] 1, 2, 3 [Next »]
Moderators: Antoine, Assaf, Oleg, daniel_o
 
 
Betatest: Forum search engine
 
Forum jump