dave32 Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 Polanski was convicted of unlawful sex with a minor, not rape. It falls into the he said/she said grey area (and don't get me wrong, he may well be guilty as hell, but that is not known here). But the righteous yells for his indictment are a bit dramatic given that that the woman is saying: can you please leave the guy alone now. Also, there are attempts to portray him like a schoolyard pedophile picking up innocent children and drugging them. What is known - both he and Samantha were active in the party scene. She was both sexually active and experienced with drinking/drugs. As to what actually happened, he may be an evil son of a bitch, but I'm a little skeptical. I don't think any of our righteous here really know, but hey it sure feels good to yell out for his blood huh? Like I said before, painting him out to be some evil pedophile doesn't ring true -- and it trivializes those sick fucks out there that really are doing evil shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 Sex with a 13 year old girl IS "rape"...it's called statuatory rape. Further, I don't see any "rightousness" on the part of anybody here. I feel there is a sense of justice denied. The fact that Polanski pleaded guilty makes it moot as to whether anybody on the board was present at the scene to witness the goings-on. Lack of virginity, prior drug use by the child, going to parties...I've never read about that. Do you have a RELIABLE citation? Nevermind, that is irrelevant. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 As I understand it, Polanski was charged with forcible rape. He agreed to plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor. Does it really matter if a 13 year old girl was "into the party scene"? If you or I shagged an underaged girl, we'd be thrown in the slammer so fast it would make our head swim. When I was a university student, it was even in the news about johns being charged with statutory after police raided an LA brothel and a couple of the hookers turned out to be underage. They'd paid for sex in a whorehouse and still were charged. I think part of the outrage is that Polanski appears to have got away with something the rest of us would not simply because he is rich and famous. As to her being "sexually active" and into drugs, from what I've read that is what the defence tried to claim. However, I've seen nothing to back it up. But even if true, it is still irrelevant. A woman has the right to say NO! Just ask Mike Tyson. p.s. Why are there no defenders for Gary Glitter? Isn't he rich and famous enough to count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 Yeah, basically, he drugged and raped her, pleaded it down and still ran off...I want him nailed because 1) he messed with a child and 2) I hate rich and famous people getting away with shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave32 Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 If you want to go after celebrities that slept with teens in the 70s, it's a long list. Start with Jimmy Page and Lori Maddox who didn't bother to hide it. It's a far cry between a teenager and an eight year old. But hey, saying 'raped a child' sounds pretty fucking macho as you make your case. Where exactly do you draw the line? And btw HH, I read the transcripts (released portions) and several accounts from all sides. What's your source? A physically forced rape was never demonstrated and they're not even attempting to make that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 dude, 13 is a child as is an 8 year old, i can see you're trying to walk a rational line, kudos to you, but this fucking asshole deserves some serious time in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave32 Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 Note: I think taking advantage of a 13 year old was wrong. And the shame and punishment levied were a good thing. But I also don't equate him with a child rapist. By putting Polanski on that level, it lessens the meaning of something that is pretty fucking horrible. I also think you guys are lynch mob dipshits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 well, 360 is a place to express our beliefs and opinions, and as dirty harry said, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 Nobody said "physically forced". One more time: sex with a 13 year old girl statutory rape. OMG! In California, a 13 year old is legally deemed incapable of giving consent. Got it? :content: The fucker pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse"; 261.5 CAPC This section is called "statutory rape". Entiende usted? He skipped the country before being sentenced. He was a fucking fugitive. No matter how many pages of transcripts asserting stuff, it doesn't change the basic facts outlined above. Maybe you've been too proximate to Hollyweird to grasp this shit. HH Over and Out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TroyinEwa/Perv Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 I want to be a dipshit too!! Taking advantage of a 13 year old? Is that what it's called? My goodness, he plead guilty to raping her, no matter what the nice term being flashed around is. Unlawful sex with a minor under 14. Then he ran away. I know I'm echoing alot of what's already been said but wow, how can you not understand that 13 y/o is a child that was incapable of protecting herself against a 43 y/o man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.