This is absolutely disgusting

[Elphaba]

There is a petition in hollywood for him to be released. Amazing who is pushing it. It is not just whoopi.

Here is the CNN report on it: Filmmakers demand Polanski's release - CNN.com

ZURICH, Switzerland (CNN) -- Woody Allen, >snip<

"We are calling every filmmaker we can to help fix this terrible situation," his company told CNN in a statement.

This all baffles me. Do they really think a judge is going to be swayed by their "Come to Polanski" grandstanding?

The man raped and sodomized a child. A brilliant director and thirty years does not change that fact. Apparently it is, however, conveniently forgettable.

Elphaba

[FunkyTown]

It's really disgusting that Hollywood pushes this sort of thing on the young and then says it's nothing bad.

It's not just a modern phenomenon. Sure, you have Polanski and Salva:

Victor Salva - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But this also goes all the way back to Errol Flynn being accused of statutory rape and getting off.

And beyond. A lot of names in cinema are irrevocably linked to their indecency. It's a product of fame and people feeding your ego, making you feel more important than you really are.

[MsQwerty]

I'm not at all suprised by some of the names backing Polanski ~ people who have no moral boundaries when it comes to their sexual behaviour would have no problem with his actions. Woody Allen, for starters, having an affair and then marrying a girl who had been raised in his family since she was 7 or 8 years old, all the while justifying it because he didn't feel 'fatherly' towards his kids anyway. I'm so over these "Hollywood elite" types thinking they are above the law or that they can bully people into submission with their stupid petitions. Remember the petitions against LDS directors and artists who were sacked because of Prop 8? (Sorry is that getting too political?)

Thankfully, what I'm reading today indicates a backlash against those who want to see Polanski elude justice in the US. In France, Poland and the US there is a public outcry against his actions and many Hollywood artists are refusing to sign the petition of support for him.

There is an article published in 2005 where Polanski's rape victim says he's a 'disgusting creep' and yet today she's saying she 'forgives' him and has moved on from what happened. I know it's been four years since she made those statements, but I don't quite understand how she's made the shift from openly slamming to sympathising with him in some ways. She doesn't wish to be labelled as a 'victim' anymore and that's fair enough - but that doesnt' mean he shouldn't face justice for fleeing the country to elude jail time.

His arrest is interesting to me, it means that for 30 years since his crime, someone has been watching and waiting for the right time and place to catch him so he can be extradited. Impressive, really.

[bytor2112]

Whoopi goldberg does not speak for all of hollywood. Whoopi goldberg speaks for whoopi goldberg.

Oh, I think she speaks for a lot of Hollywood. Amazing the things Hollywood types support and get there feathers ruffled over......usually make believe things. But, hey,whoever said you had to be educated or intelligent to have an opinion.

[bytor2112]

I think Polanski is a scumbag, but I think it is time to move on. The victim probably doesn't want to relive the past either.

So, a 13 year old girl (about to be 14).....she doesn't appear to be 13 at all.....meets a young man say 19-20 at a party. They later find themselves in the throws of passion. He later discovers that she is not the 17 or so that maybe thought, but is indeed only 13. She is not innocent, she has been "hooking up" with guys for a while now. Yet, he has broken the law. This kind of stuff happens often......more often that the girl is 15 and boy is 18-20......the young man gets charged with a crime and in Florida has to register as a sex offender. This doesn't trouble me in the way the Polanski thing does. He was 45!!! What a freak. That's predatory. Adolescent males making bad decisions with under age promiscuous girls is not.

So, maybe, I am wrong. Polanski should do some time.

[beefche]

bytor, did you know that this 45 y/o man also gave this 13 y/o girl champagne and Quaalude?

[bytor2112]

bytor, did you know that this 45 y/o man also gave this 13 y/o girl champagne and Quaalude?

Yes. I changed my mind at the end of my post......clearly he is different from the scenario I presented. He is a predator and should be jailed. I bet that wasn't his first time...know what I mean?

[MsQwerty]

Yes. I changed my mind at the end of my post......clearly he is different from the scenario I presented. He is a predator and should be jailed. I bet that wasn't his first time...know what I mean?

You can read the court transcript on thesmokinggun.com (use their search feature). There's no doubt this man was practiced at getting girls and women drunk, drugged and then doing what he wanted when they were too disoriented or frightened to stop him. I believe I've read of him having relationships with other, very young girls, too, but haven't had the time or the stomach to do any more research on him. He's a vile excuse for a man.

[MsQwerty]

I think Polanski is a scumbag, but I think it is time to move on. The victim probably doesn't want to relive the past either.

So, a 13 year old girl (about to be 14).....she doesn't appear to be 13 at all.....meets a young man say 19-20 at a party. They later find themselves in the throws of passion. He later discovers that she is not the 17 or so that maybe thought, but is indeed only 13. She is not innocent, she has been "hooking up" with guys for a while now. Yet, he has broken the law. This kind of stuff happens often......more often that the girl is 15 and boy is 18-20......the young man gets charged with a crime and in Florida has to register as a sex offender. This doesn't trouble me in the way the Polanski thing does. He was 45!!! What a freak. That's predatory. Adolescent males making bad decisions with under age promiscuous girls is not.

So, maybe, I am wrong. Polanski should do some time.

Here is a picture of Samantha Geimer when she was 13 - not that it should make any difference, but she did indeed look her age at the time. EXCLUSIVE: POLANSKI RAPED ME WHEN I WAS 13 .. HE IS A CREEP - mirror.co.uk

[john doe]

I don't understand why people are defending this guy. These are the same people who said Michael Jackson was normal.

[bytor2112]

Here is a picture of Samantha Geimer when she was 13 - not that it should make any difference, but she did indeed look her age at the time. EXCLUSIVE: POLANSKI RAPED ME WHEN I WAS 13 .. HE IS A CREEP - mirror.co.uk

That's pretty sad. Even if she did look older than 13 ( which he definitely did not)....the guy was 45!!!

Edited September 30, 2009 by bytor2112

[talisyn]

He raped a 13 year-old girl. He admitted to it. Consensual or not, in the eyes of the courts a girl of 13 cannot consent to sex, even if she said yes and seduced him. It doesn't matter how long ago it happened, except for the statute of limitations, which does not apply since he was convicted for it before that ran out. I wonder how many people out there defending him would allow their young daughters to go through the same thing just because the perpetrator is famous?

How does a 13 yr old seduce an adult?

[bytor2112]

How does a 13 yr old seduce an adult?

I presented a scenario regarding 13 year old and a young adolescent male 18-20...bad decision and definitely they could be seduced. But a 45 year old man.....predator and pervert.....IMHO.

Sidenote: In New Hampshire a girl can marry at 13 with parental consent:eek:

Edited September 30, 2009 by bytor2112

[talisyn]

I presented a scenario regarding 13 year old and a young adolescent male 18-20...bad decision and definitely they could be seduced. But a 45 year old man.....predator and pervert.....IMHO.

Sidenote: In New Hampshire a girl can marry at 13 with parental consent:eek:

Indeed, I can see your scenario. Scientists have recently discovered the brain centers for impulse control do not fully mature until in the 20s, I believe. But I would like to point out that 13 yr old girls mimic what they see around them. They are so precious! All children that age are. I wish people could see just how much God loves His children, especially the young ones. I fear it will take a lot more than a petition from Hollywood's 'elite' to get this pedo off from real justice.

[beefche]

I struggle with not wanting to support these perverts (including the idiots who are defending him), but that means I would never watch any movies, listen to any music, watch any TV, etc.

[Vort]

Having said that, I see a huge difference between a man forcibly penetrating a woman who doesn't want him or who is incapacitated and a man having sex with a physically adult woman who is not legally allowed to give consent. They are two different crimes that (in English) happen to share the common legal name of "rape". I have little sympathy for Polanski and his apologists, but I believe the muddy thinking on this issue is not all on one side.

Vort, I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Can you explain the bolded portion?

What I mean is this: In our society, we have developed an idea of sexual consent and defined it to mean that a person gives permission for sexual activity when that person is legally capable of giving such permission. If the "age of consent" is 16, for example, then a girl who is 15 years 364.99 days old cannot legally consent to sex -- yet she can 15 minutes later. This makes no sense in either a biological or a common-sense way. I have known several 13-year-old girls who could pass for 25. If one of these consents to sex with a 22-year-old man who assumes she is his same age, should he really be convicted of rape? What sense does that make?

To clarify: If Roman Polanski were put away for the rest of his life, I would not object. The guy is scum, and the fact that the likes of Woody Allen and Whoopi Goldberg rush to his defense only proves the point. After reading many of the links others have supplied in this thread, I have not the least shred of sympathy for Polanski. He is a child rapist in any realistic sense. My comment highlighted above does not apply to him.

[Blackrockshooter]

What impacts me the most is the fact he got away with it for so many years...and all these celebrities defending him.

Very saddening.

[Just_A_Guy]

This all baffles me. Do they really think a judge is going to be swayed by their "Come to Polanski" grandstanding?

1. Remember, it will not be an American judge but a Swiss judge who decides the issue of extradition. The issue right now isn't whether or not Polanski is innocent. The issue is whether he can get fair treatment in the American judicial system. If Hollywood can convince the Swiss judge that our judges are a bunch of barbarians--mission accomplished. (And Whoopi has a lot of insight regarding fairness. She played a nun in two movies, for heaven's sake; and even Jean-Luc Picard looks to her for moral guidance. And besides that, she can hear dead people!)

2. The entity trying to get Polanski extradited is the Los Angeles District Attorney--which is elected by vote of the people. If Hollywood has enough electoral clout in LA that it can convince the DA that he will lose his job if he keeps pushing for extradition--again, mission accomplished.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[pam]

1. Remember, it will not be an American judge but a Swiss judge who decides the issue of extradition. The issue right now isn't whether or not Polanski is innocent. The issue is whether he can get fair treatment in the American judicial system. If Hollywood can convince the Swiss judge that our judges are a bunch of barbarians--mission accomplished. (And Whoopi has a lot of insight regarding fairness. She played a nun in two movies, for heaven's sake; and even Jean-Luc Picard looks to her for moral guidance. And besides that, she can hear dead people!)

2. The entity trying to get Polanski extradited is the Los Angeles District Attorney--which is elected by vote of the people. If Hollywood has enough electoral clout in LA that it can convince the DA that he will lose his job if he keeps pushing for extradition--again, mission accomplished.

I can't decide whether I should give you a thanks or a laugh. Because it was both.

[Elphaba]

1. Remember, it will not be an American judge but a Swiss judge who decides the issue of extradition. The issue right now isn't whether or not Polanski is innocent. The issue is whether he can get fair treatment in the American judicial system. If Hollywood can convince the Swiss judge that our judges are a bunch of barbarians--mission accomplished.

I didn't know this, and am glad to have your clarification.

(And Whoopi has a lot of insight regarding fairness. She played a nun in two movies, for heaven's sake; and even Jean-Luc Picard looks to her for moral guidance. And besides that, she can hear dead people!)

So is she wrong when she said that Polanski had not been convicted of rape or sodomy, and therefore could not serve time for either? If she is accurate, I think that is an important distinction when looking at the legal aspects of the case.

BTW, Whoopi did not say Polanski was innocent.

2. The entity trying to get Polanski extradited is the Los Angeles District Attorney--which is elected by vote of the people. If Hollywood has enough electoral clout in LA that it can convince the DA that he will lose his job if he keeps pushing for extradition--again, mission accomplished.

I didn't know this either. Well, I did know the district attorney is an elected official, but I didn't connect it with this groundswell of support for Polanski.

You are so good at this stuff. Thanks for putting it all in perspective.

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

So is she wrong when she said that Polanski had not been convicted of rape or sodomy, and therefore could not serve time for either? If she is accurate, I think that is an important distinction when looking at the legal aspects of the case.

BTW, Whoopi did not say Polanski was innocent.

You're right, in that my slaps at Whoopi were probably a little gratuitous.

Right now, Polanski can't serve time for either charge because (AFAIK) he was never convicted of them. HOWEVER--a major contributory reason that he was not convicted of those charges was because the prosecutor (again, AFAIK) chose to drop them. That decision was one term of a contract--a contract that Polanski presumably breached by skipping the country.

Polanski did (apparently) plead guilty to sex-with-a-minor, and that (seems to be) the grounds on which the DA is trying to extradite him. But I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the DA move to dismiss that conviction once Polanski is back in the country (for double jeopardy concerns) and instead press the more serious charges of rape and forcible sodomy.

Again--I am not licensed in California. Take this for what you paid for it.

[Maxel]

Satan is alive and well in the entertainment industry...

Thanks everyone for your insights.

[MarginOfError]

Oh, I think she speaks for a lot of Hollywood. Amazing the things Hollywood types support and get there feathers ruffled over......usually make believe things. But, hey,whoever said you had to be educated or intelligent to have an opinion.

Now where did I put my old avatar?

[bytor2112]

Now where did I put my old avatar?

Of course educated and intelligent can be an oxymoron!

[Moksha]

How does a 13 yr old seduce an adult?

By fishing (and using illegal jail bait). Girls that age can dress and behave very seductively. Perhaps in imitation of their favorite music stars.

It is still the adults responsibility to keep his distance. When I read the link above, I suspected that this seduction on Polanski's part had been used before on other aspiring models and actresses.