Lecherous fugitive director indignant about 30-year-delayed arrest
I wrote about perv director Roman Polanski’s pampered fugitive life six years ago here.
Justice is finally catching up with the admitted seducer of young girls. He was arrested in Zurich this weekend, much to the “great consternation and shock” of his friends in the artistic community.
For a graphic reminder of what Polanski is accused of doing to his 13-year-old alleged victim — and how an L.A. Times sophisticate is pooh-poohing the brutal act — go here.
Bring a strong stomach. And expect more crime-coddling apologists to defend Polanski in 3, 2, 1…
Creeps all.
***
Interesting: AP Accidentally Publishes IM Conversation Speculating That Polanski Arrest Was Related To UBS
More interesting: In Advocating for Roman Polanski, Anne Applebaum Fails to Mention That Her Husband Is a Polish Politician Actively Lobbying for Polanski’s Freedom
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Stop The ACLU
- The Snooper Report
- Rhymes With Right
- THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™
- Vets On The Watch
- Tel-Chai Nation
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Hollyweird
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Democrats shocked -- SHOCKED -- that Republicans won't eat the juicy, tender crap sandwich they crafted all on their own
Green Room
» Miss Me Yet? Bush Billboard Mystery SolvedMudville Gazette
» In this case I'm pro-abortionLegal Insurrection
» Huh? Staying On Course is Not Staying the Course?Redstate
» NY Times IPCC Alibi Falls FlatFounding Bloggers
» Breitbart At National Tea Party Convention: “It’s You That Sucks!”JustOneMinute
» The Ultimate Source GreaserRiehl World View
» Sheriff Arpaio Calls McCain The "L" Word
I personally cannot wait for this peice of human debris to do the perp walk off the plane.
Sweet justice.
Life is about to get real hard for Roman. It is about time!
There is already a backlash to him being arrested. This will be interesting.
The Washington Post and their writer Anne Applebaum apparently find the arrest of a child rapist “outrageous”. What is it with Liberals and their admiration for those that rape children? Acorn will help them get loans (Pimp Daddy O’Keefe). Recent celeb MJ, though unconvicted, most likely was guilty as sin… and honored and revered at his death.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/the_outrageous_arrest_of_roman.html
Indeed. This certainly puts a crimp in the 30-year notion that ass-rape is somehow “cute” when Hollywood-Leftist-Geniuses do it.
Roman Polanski=Euro trash, IMHO.
After reading the girl’s testimony one has to wonder.What ever happened to Quualudes? Haven’t heard of them in a long time.
I hope he gets sentenced for the original crime AND avoiding arrest.
Hollywood libtards call Whitehouse
Whitehouse calls eric holder
eric holder makes a few phone calls
Polanski spend more time sleeping in the Lincon bedroom than in a jail cell.
Weirdness just seems to follow this guy. I heard a French citizen argue that he has suffered enough already, a German death camp escapee, the judge reneging on his plea deal, living in exile for 40 years, the horrible murder of his wife Sharon Tate and so on.
You just have to wonder how bad the things we don’t know might be. I remember speculation many years ago, before the actual victim went public, that the under-aged victim was Natasha Kinski. Could there be more than one victim? This is a dark person.
This perv is lucky I’m not in charge of his fate. He’d be toast.
I just have a problem with a 40 something man raping a 13-year-old. Call me crazy.
I’m sure David Lettermen and Bill Maher are two men who think the arrest is outrageous.
a one , a two, a three, boo freking hoo.
Charlie Chaplin got away with the same BS.
but, They picked from the “community chest” deck and got the “free pass”
Artist no, Crapweasel yes.
CHarlie CHaplin? Really? I never heard of that…
If we are lucky enough to get him back into this country I think his fellow prisoners will change his name to…
Roman Pole-in-the-A$$-ki.
Justice!
Yup, but used to take them over the border to Mexico and marry them so he wouldn’t get busted.
This is not to defend any of the activities that Mr. Polanski is alleged to have committed but the judge in the case (now deceased) was known as a terrible judge, a blatant publicity hound who was using the Polanski case to gain publicity and glory for himself. Polanski’s lawyers asked for a judge who would make rulings based on law and evidence, not on a desire to gain glory and attention for himself and it was totally wrong that the judge (who had quite a scandalous past himself, well known to California lawyers) would not recuse himself from the case. The trial that this judge was going to give Polanski was a Soviet style show trial in which the result was preordained. It is possible that Polanski was guilty of the accusations against him. But that does not mean that a judge who had his own personal reasons for ensuring a conviction of Polanski should have been allowed to preside over the case. Believe me, this judge was nuttier than a fruit cake.
When I heard the news today all I could think was FINALLY! JUSTICE! What a cockroach! He typifies the Hollywood crowd, immmoral and unbelievably arrogant. It’s about time!!!
This is almost certainly due to the Swiss wanting to throw a bone to the United States to help take some of the heat off of the UBS investigation.
Regrettably, Mr. Polanski will almost certainly not see jail time (if we truly lived in a civilized society, however, he would wind up facing the gallows).
Poland has voted to castrate pedophiles – that’s long overdue…
Castration is the wrong solution. We need to start hanging pedophiles. Preferably the good, old-fashioned American way: off the back of a horse.
Hey, you can’t say it better than that.
lonecanoeist said:
After reading the girl’s testimony one has to wonder.What ever happened to Quualudes? Haven’t heard of them in a long time.
Back in the 80’s a young woman in New Jersey went into a coma and I believed eventually died from taking Qualudes and alchohol at the same time. It was a recurring problem and after that incident the Gov’t told the drug companies to stop producing Qualudes. One of the companies (maybe the only one) that made them was Hoffman-LaRoche out on Route 3 in New Jersey.
Then he would have had grounds for appeal. Being Hollywood Royalty he wouldn’t have spent more than a few hours in jail unless eventually convicted.
I question the timing.
After 30 years, he goes somewhere that he knows will execute the warrant, and extradite him back to the US.
With Bam-Bam’s AG Holder responsible for “enforcing” the law?
Bet on a dismissal of charges on “humanitarian” grounds.
The anointed one will give him a pass.
No way the Precedent pardons Polanski. It would be his and the Dem’s Willie Horton moment for 2010 and 2012.
Then again, his arrogance and conceit know no bounds so it might just happen.
Reading the news this morning, and this story is all over it. I’m repulsed by the tone of the coverage!
Apparently he is a liberal, because if a conservative had done this horrible thing there’s no way they’d be unanimously clamoring for anything less than the death penalty.
Uh, that’s what happens when defendants plead guilty. (Well, except for the trial part.)
Apparently Polanski thought a psych evaluation was punishment enough and fled the country to avoid real prison time.
Perpetrators don’t usually get to pick their own sentences, and fleeing to avoid sentencing is a crime in itself.
The War on Drugs proved highly successful where quaaludes were concerned. Some years back (and it had to be a lot of years for me to still be in a position to have any personal interest) there was a news report that authorities had busted a world-wide distribution network for quaaludes, and that it should end the availability of quaaludes on the street. I took it with a grain of salt, as I knew how unsuccessful most efforts to disrupt the supply of illegal drugs were. In this case the authorities weren’t just talking trash. Quaaludes disappeared from the streets and I never saw them come back.
As to the topic, society has very strict laws in place to protect young females from sexual appetites of older men. The older I get, the more I understand the reasons for and the wisdom behind such laws. Polanski is about to pay the price for not conforming himself to society’s expectations in that regard.
The Lech admitted to the charge and plead guilty. The charge and conviction stands in California and is not a federal crime so PBHO can not pardon him-although I suppose he and Eric Holder could screw up the extradition.
But this case does high light the true sickness of Hollyweird and the glitterati–because the man is an “artist” the laws do not apply to him. Man-Child sex is not new but the proponents of it are getting bolder.
Give him a fair trial, and then a first-rate hangin’
Send him to prison and let Big Bad Bubba give him a taste of his own medicine.
Pedophiles oren’t treated well in prison.
He’s 76 and if he gets put away at all, he’ll be sent to a minimum security facility. So no ‘he’ll get his’ fantasies apply.
BTW, every time anyone in this society laughs about how some miscreant is sure to get raped in prison it shows just how sick and deserving of the wrath of God we have become. It is the weak who get preyed upon in prison.
In the spirit of compromise, how about hanging by the nethers?
As I understand it, “tryin’ him on” is prison lingo for, ahem, “getting to know” another prisoner in the manner that Polanski inflicted on that child.
As a poster on another blog commented, maybe his prison nickname will be, “Pole-up-the-a**-ski!
And in hot tubs in Jack Nicholson’s house, apparently. I guess in your mind that doesn’t count, huh?
Hollywood sickens me. From Polanski…… to Susan Sarandumb kissing up to Hugo Chavez this past week…. who but the ignorant has ANY respect for these people?
You miss my point. Whether or not Polanski deserves it, the fact of what can be counted on to happen in our prisons is an abomination.
I’m not talking about pedophiles. The weak are preyed upon. They are the very ones most likely to be innocent or who just did their crime the one time and regret it or who might have been actually been rehabilitated.
That we allow this to go on is a black mark against all of us. Do not be surprised at what comes out of our prisons. Do not be surprised how much death and horror is going to come as a consequence of this kind of thing.
Where do you think Islam is doing its most effective recruiting of Americans?
What routinely happens in our prisons is infinitely worse than anything that happened at Gitmo. Only it won’t happen to the terrorists. It happens to the weak.
Any conservative who does not find this situation appalling is no conservative.
And it won’t happen to Polanski.
I hear that Michael Jackson’s former lawyer team is looking for clients.
Would it be too much to ask that the plane be in flight when he walks off?
Then he should have gone to Scotland and lied about having terminal cancer.
I agree.
If we as a society think that being raped is a suitable punishment for some crimes then we should repeal the 8th Amendment and add it to the sentencing options. Be honest and above-board about it.
If we’re not willing to do that then to condone or even applaud the practice of strong inmates victimizing weaker ones is appalling. When someone is in the custody of the state they’re entitled to some measure of protection, and safeguarding them from sexual assault is the very least we should be able to do.
And bear in mind that what I just said is a principled position rooted in basic notions of fairness and justice. It doesn’t make Polanski any less evil and it doesn’t mean I don’t want to see him spend the rest of his life in a cell.
I fail to see how the fact that the State of California failed to execute Charles Manson and his followers for the death of Sharon Tate absolves Roman Polanski of his crime.
What kind of deviants are these people excusing and defending Polanski?
Here’s a compromise. Let Polanski watch the execution of Manson from the comfort of a California jail cell as he servers the rest of his life there. That seems fair to me.
Either that or we could sentence Polanski to help OJ find the killer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Or would that be cruel and unusual punishment?
I am curious about why he went to Switzerland in the first place. He must have known he was going to be in a place where he could be arrested. After all these years of living in a “safe place”, did he think he was now immune? It just seems strange that he would do that after all this time.
When will he be on Letterman?
LOL cicerokid.
Letterman will beat him to the jokes about sodomy & underage girls.
Embassy of France
info@ambafrance-us.org
Ambassador Pierre Vimont
Embassy of France
4101 Reservoir Road, N.W.
Washington DC 20007
Referring to the Embassy as “Child Sex Central” is not allowed-ACORN owns the copyright.
WOW I already got a response from the Embassy of France!
***
About time. Possibly he could get some suitable “payback” in general prison population so he can appreciate what the victim felt.
***
John Bibb
***
WARSAW (Reuters) – Poland on Friday approved a law making chemical castration mandatory for pedophiles in some cases, sparking criticism from human rights groups.
Under the law, sponsored by Poland’s center-right government, pedophiles convicted of raping children under the age of 15 years or a close relative would have to undergo chemical therapy on their release from prison.
I’m not expecting a tough sentence, unfortunately for either raping the girl or fleeing the country. But I’m glad they cuffed the smug SOB.
As for France, it sheltered Ira Einhorn for several years after he murdered his girlfriend and stuffed her in a trunk, then fled the country with the help of rich leftist friends and a sleazy defense lawyer named “Arlen Spector.” It took many years to get the POS extradited and that was only after American authorities promised not to drop the death penalty.
Oops, meant “American authorities promised to drop the death penalty.”
Don’t get too excited. A Babel Fish translation roughly shows it’s a thanks for your inquiry, we’ll get back to you, meanwhile check out our FAQs and website auto-response type message.
Translation below:
Two skeevy pervs swapping 8×10 glossies, riveting television!
No because he likes … oh wait – you meant the show…
Roland wrote:
James Felix wrote:
See, here’s the problem: that’s the only real punishment any scumbag faces these days. If Obama keeps raping the economy, a lot of us will be begging to have a roof over our heads and three meals a day, not to speak of free medical treatment, library, and weightroom time.
So excuse me while I cry nuanced, principled tears for any rapist in prison who gets raped themselves. Boo. Hoo.
I’m all for cleaning up prisons and stopping prison rape. That means returning to prisons as a system of punishment and giving up the stupid liberal idea of prisons as a therapeutic, rehabilitative system. If you can’t learn anything from just being imprisoned, then you don’t deserve to steal everybody else’s oxygen. If we have no qualms in blenderizing fetuses for being unwanted, then we shouldn’t bat an eyelash when an unwanted repeat criminal gets slabbed and possibly diced up for spare parts.
From what I read on this subject, it’s not even as clear cut as the outrage here seems to be. He did spend 43 days in jail, and he did plead guilty… but as part of a plea-bargain. He did the plea, but the judge reneged on the bargain. Just as in the Craig foot-tapping case, the assumption was that a quick guilty verdict for which no actual crime may have been committed (not stating that as a fact in Roman’s case) would be less painful and public than a long drawn out celebrity show trial. Of course, once you enter a guilty plea, you can’t appeal your own plea if the judge decides to screw you. Also, the girl the alleged incident occurred with later “changed her mind” about the charges… which had 0 affect on the plea.
So, the assumptions of guilt here are a bit premature. Should be interesting to follow in the coming weeks.
AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA!
Thirty years premature. That’s a gut-buster.
When did this place turn into “concerned Republican” Moby Troll Central?
That’s where you are still missing the point. The rape of the weak is entertainment for the most thuggish, and it encourages the rise of even greater criminality by both the victims and the victimizers, since it once more viciously affirms our society has completely lost touch with any concept of justice and the rule of law.
I have no problem loathing what happens in our prisons while simultaneously loathing other things our society is doing.
Finally, to be clear, if it was up to me, considering the level of crime in our cities I would change the penalties for violent crimes so that most of the people currently occupying our maximum security prisons would have been put to death.
Rules should matter. Or they will not matter. Work harder to grasp that conservative concept. If we think rape is the appropriate punishment, we should change the rules.
Maybe look at someone’s posting history before you accuse them of “concern trolling”
Here, let me google that for you.
For the sake of argument let’s accept your idea that it’s punishment. If that’s the case you should be even more appalled. The people whom you would probably deem most deserving of being raped (ie violent repeat offenders) aren’t generally the victims. They’re the perpetrators. So allowing this to go on rewards the very worst inmates at the expense of the less bad, less threatening ones.
You want to say that prisons aren’t punitive enough? You think giving felons priviliges that many law-abiding people can’t afford is wrong? Those are fine, defensible arguments. But turning a blind eye to inmates assaulting each other is no way to solve that.
.
Damn, and here I thought they liked me
Polanski wrongly assumed himself guilty, Khyris?
Khyris wrote:
Roland wrote:
James Felix wrote:
Like I care what some pedophile sympathizers say.
Smoke more drugs so you can complain about prison rape.
Angryoldfatman is a leftwing radical just trying to stir up trouble. No conservative would be so completely clueless about the importance of the rule of law.
Good points, Roland. A timid, small and otherwise honest guy who slips up, writes a bad check and ends up doing time is the prime target for prison rape; much, much moreso than the gangsta-type copkiller doing life (who is more likely to commit prison rape.)
Those who would approve of criminal activity behind prison walls have no credibility if they also call for law and order outside of prison walls.
No, he wrongly PLEAD guilty (according to case history). That was my point… I’m not saying he’s not guilty. Very well could be guilty as sin.
Sen Craig tapped his foot. Very different than if the cop had walked in on him doing something with another man in his stall. He plead guilty to the latter even though the former is not a crime. Why? Not necessarily because he assumed himself guilty, but because it made practical sense to do in our screwed up legal system.
The converse is also true… that people will plead guilty to lesser crimes when greater crimes have been committed. That could also be the case with Roman, but doesn’t seem to square with the victim’s wish to drop charges.
There’s a lot we don’t know yet, like why pedophile stories hit so close to home with angryoldfatman… but even some obvious conclusions just aren’t worth the effort of leaping.
Hey Roman, you should have joined the Black Panthers.
“Polanski wrongly assumed himself guilty, Khyris?”
There’s no “wrongly plead guilty” option, Khyris. One pleads either “guilty” or “not guilty” to a charge. A person can change his/her plea – before adjudication – if they believe their first plea to be wrong, but Polanski didn’t do that.
Sorry, but I really don’t know what you mean there.
He’s some inmate’s future b**ch.
Khyris, I looked up correct usage of “pled” vs “pleaded”. It appears that “pleaded” is correct, but “pled” is gaining ground. I was curious after I readed your post.
Sorry about the thread hijack but this is about hollyweird’s way – I came across this while looking up some of the polanski stories:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113204260
I’d say avoiding Stones films is also required….
I have visited inside several prisons and jails, here and abroad. If people think the guards control everything that happens everywhere in every prison people are mistaken.
But, contrary to lore, I do not think that the supposed “code” or hierarchy of crimes in prison works exactly like some people here suggest. There is brutal violence in prison. Rape is frequent but not exactly as systematized as a few people here conclude.
I do not think there is a “star chamber” composed of inmates in any given facility appointing a “special reception committee” for Polanski. Besides, he would likely do time in a minimum security facility. Polanski, if he ever does time for his crime probably isn’t going to Folsom State Prison. The “tough guys” in Polanski’s prison are likely to be accountants and CEOs who were too stupid to evade punishment for their crimes and not gang bangers from “the hood” in East LA.
What Polanski deserved was to do his time when he was convicted. He managed to avoid his sentencing through flight. Justice delayed is justice denied but it is possible, though not certain, that Polanski will finally do his time for this crime.
Nottaproblem for me, wayiwalk, never been a Oli Stone aficionado. But I’m a film buff and I do think Polanski is an excellent filmmaker, though he does need to face justice in this matter.
I don’t see a lot of films and people like Stone and Polanski are a big part of the reason I don’t spend my hard-earned money supporting Marxists and perverts.
Hollywood can hate America as loudly and as frequently as they wish. But, I don’t have to support their agitprop and perversions…
If he is extradited, WarEagle, and if he is held to his guilty plea, I don’t expect he will do much time – if any. Especially if the arrangements of that original plea agreement are kept. In that agreement the punishment was set as the time he had already served while under psychiatric evaluation at Chino (42 days). Of course, his flight might have affected that plea agreement.
But all things considered, if there is a sentencing, I expect to be light – especially if the allegations of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct are found to be valid.
UNREPENTANT, foul, wretched piece of trash… RP thinks he’s above the law. We’ll see… but he is not beyond judgment.
The cold hard truth is that Polanski gave a 13 year-old champagne and qualludes then raped and sodomized her. He pled guilty, then spent a few weeks in jail. While out on bail, he was concerned the plea would not be honored and there would be a circus trial, so he fled.
Even if his concerns were valid, he’s still a rapist and the penalty must be still paid.
Maybe Kevin Jennings will be on the Jury…
I find the apologists for Roman Polanski almost as apalling as his crime (since he pleaded guilty I will not use the word “alleged”). Whining about his hard early life, his tragic loss when the Manson “family” murdered his wife and unborn child to excuse his heinous crime, using the victim’s “forgiveness” years later, and (in the NYT article’s comments section) talking about “mores have changed” cannot change the fact that Roman Polanski drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl. A 13 year old girl could not then, and cannot now, consent to having any kind of sex, nor can she not press charges because the charges aren’t hers.
The conditions inside our prisons are no excuse for not imprisoning child rapists.
The questions none of them will answer are:
1. What would you want the justice system to do if it was your 13 year old child that Roman Polanski drugged and raped?
2. Would you consider living “in exile” in the lap of luxury in Europe for 31 years “punishment enough for his crimes?”
3. What other child rapists would you like to excuse due to their fame, their fortures, or their political leanings?
Hope is not a plan; not all change is good. WE are the civilian national security force! Fugitive child rapists need to be hunted down and serve their appropriate sentences. The resistance is here; the resistance is now! RESIST!!!!!!
ECS
Not before ajudication no. But if the judge agrees to let you off with time served if you plead guilty to a given time… but then once your plea is immutably locked in indicates you will be given the maximum sentence… knowing that the judge would renege might have changed how you plead depending on your reasons for pleading in the first place.
Some people have a very sophomoric view of law: pleading guilty doesn’t MAKE you ACTUALLY guilty any more than pleading NOT-guilty makes you ACTUALLY not-guilty. In short, a plea is not proof, but a hypothesis in-lieu of proof. Entering a guilty plea is very different from making a confession, which is something Polanski didn’t do, afaik. According to the case history (meaning, from the history of this case’s legal proceedings, affadavits, public statements by the victim, etc) there is a lot of alleged judicial malfeasance which clouds the certainty of the conviction.
And people making the false dichotomy that we must assume guilt or be an apologist for pedophilia are just using typical liberal tactics. It’s the same as “agree with Obama, or else you’re a racist” nonsense, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
It doesn’t hurt to wait for the facts… if he’s guilty he’ll get his.
I see, Khyris. The previous reference to “case” had no meaning, since the term has legal meaning to me. The legal proceeding and the circumstances about the proceeding are two different animals. It’s somewhat like the difference between saying “The sun is the center of our solar system” (material fact) and saying “Man, the sun is hot today!” (opinion).
Being a big film buff I’m pretty well-versed on both the material fact and the opinions in this. You can scroll up a few comments to see where I’ve brought up the misconduct allegations, which so far fall into the “opinions” category. I’m also somewhat knowledgable on the legal issues involved here.
But the bottom line is that it does mean that to the court. In a guilty plea, you skip trial and go on to the sentencing phase. Where Polanksi made a major mistake – in the legal realm – was in taking off. You just don’t have the legal option of splitting because you don’t like the sentence you may receive.
Had Polanksi stayed and made a legal case of the allegations of misconduct, he may have prevailed. His atty tried to make it a legal issue as recently as Jan 2009. The judge (Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza) sent a signal, to my thinking, that the courts may be sympathetic: “It’s hard to contest some of the behavior in the documentary was misconduct,” Espinoza said in court.
(He was referring to a documentary on the Polanski case.)
But any legal proceedings on the question can’t occur without his presence in court:
“In this matter, there is an outstanding arrest warrant that requires the defendant’s presence in court”
(Both quotes from the judge from 1/2009 CNN article.)
Well, these things bring out strong feelings in folks. Kinda falls into into the “everybody has an opinion” category to me – it doesn’t affect anything either way so it’s not a big deal. Even good people very often disagree.
But as I mentioned in a comment above, I’d be surprised if Polanski receives any kind of a sentence on this.
In fact, he may well never end up in a US courtroom since he has never been a US citizen, but rather shares French-Polish citizenship status. That can be important, if Switzerland follow the precedent set by the Yevgeny Adamov case where, instead of the Swiss honoring a US extradition request, they handed Adamov over to the Russian courts due his status as a Russian citizen:
Yevgeny Adamov – Wikipedia.
So there’s a possibility that if Polanksi is extradited, it could be to France or Poland instead of the US. I don’t think he’d need to be overly worried about running into a “hangin’ judge” or facing a hostile court in either of those two countries.
At any rate, he could have resolved the matter legally, either way, in the US 30 years ago. But you can’t just takeoff because the outcome may not be to your liking. That just compounds the problem.
Someone who accuses me of sympathizing with pedophilia because I defend the rule of law is not “good people.”
Unless they apologize. And that has not happened here.
That kind of insult is fighting words, purplepeep. Ignoring that kind of offense doesn’t make you ‘impartial.’ It makes you an enabler.
CRUCIFY HIM !
I’m unaware of where I made a claim of being “impartial”, Roland. In fact, I just did a page check and the only time the term pops up in highlight is in your comment.
I realize I shouldn’t have put that in quotes right after I posted it, even though that was obviously the implication you were going for.
I’m sorry. Really. I shouldn’t have done that.
See, I can say that because I’m not a clueless enabling like you who still doesn’t get the point. Instead you target the way I said it while ignoring the point, just like a leftwing ******* would do.
I am disappointed in you.
You likely don’t see the irony in the above and your complaint that someone called you an enabler-apologist-sympathizer-whatever because they misinterpreted what you’ve said.
I’ve been on the interwebs ever since Algore invented it. There’s an old saying amongst old computer vets: “it’s all ones and zeros”. If you don’t have a thick skin your feelings are going to get hurt a lot, Roland.
If you think someone has misrepresented what you’ve said, call them out on it. If they can’t respond or respond with even more jackassery, ya gotta learn to just blow them off.
Good people will honestly disagree and sometimes get carried away. It happens to all of us at one time or another. It goes with the territory. I’ve lost count of the heated exchanges I’ve had over the years with people for whom I have great respect. And we strongly agree more than we strongly disagree. That’s life.
There are the lefty trolls who seek to stir up trouble – such I just mock and laugh at as long as they aren’t disrupting the comments with nastiness.
Also, there are the manners-deprived who are very desperately looking for attention of any kind, who will spout all manner of absurdities. When that happens, you point out the jackassery. If it’s an ongoing, disruptive problem to boardies you bring it to the attention of the host/hostess.
Likewise, if someone is attacking you personally with crazed accusations that’s also something you’d bring to Michelle’s attention – she doesn’t brook such behavior. I’ve seen commenters booted for abusing fellow boardies.
But your run-of-the mill flame wars usually don’t cause much trauma. You learn what to sweat and what not to sweat. One of those “if I had a penny for every time…” things.
If you scroll up you’ll see where I lent you an amen on prison rape being as wrong and criminal as any rape “on the outside”. Someone may read that as being “soft on criminals”. But unless they can provide a rational legal reasoning that validates their assumption, it’s their problem, not mine. Macht nichts to me.
I have also been on the internet a very long time. I have a very thick skin, believe it or not.
An accusation of being sympathetic to pedophilia is a grave insult. Pistols at dawn grave. “Good people” do not make that kind of insult. Or, if they do in the heat of the moment, they withdraw it.
Feelings had nothing to do with it. They are fighting words.
However, I have a thick skin. I considered the source: Internet scum.
The source was not “good people,” purplepeep. We are not morally equivalent, that accuser and those of us who were smeared.
I am tired of this subject/thread. I have other things to do. I’ll give you the last word, if you want it.
Thanks. You just got into a spitting contest with someone who was only looking to rattle your cage. You are wise if you let it go; it should be the worse thing that anyone has to deal with in life, Roland.
Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t make it meaningless.
Wrong. Or at best a distinction without a difference. Just ask Mike Nifong. If a proceeding is surrounded by circumstances which are misconductive, they color the proceedings. This is known as “bad faith”. Neither is dismissable as “opinion,” which is a nonsensical argument.
Yes, this is what “in-lieu” means as I already stated. It means as far as the court is concerned, not in as far as magically altering history for the entire world. This is the sophomoric understanding I mentioned.
I don’t think you’re being facetious, at least, I hope not, but you seem to be ignoring the allegories laid out for you and rehashing points already explained. See the example of Craig above. Pleas are merely mechanisms of the court, not lynchpins of fact. Blind acceptance of the latter seems to be the only reason there’s disagreement on this board. Anything you might add beyond that about your relatively limited legal experience just doesn’t affect anything either way so it’s not a big deal.
Yes, people do disagree, and that act itself is difficult enough to resolve without the pacifist inclination to squelch disareement without resolution, so the tautolgies from left field are really counterproductive.
This is a simple disagreement over unfounded accusations of mala fides, and anything beyond that is merely muddying the waters.
“The legal proceeding and the circumstances about the proceeding are two different animals”
You’ll have to pick that bone with the courts, Khyris, since they had Polanski arrested for some odd reason. They likely haven’t heard that his guilty plea has some very arcane, unheard-of definition which means he didn’t really plead guilty.
“But the bottom line is that it does mean that to the court.”
I’d say “as far as the court is concerned” is all that matters when one choses to plead guilty to a crime. “Altering history” (or revising history) would be to say Polanksi did not plead guilty. To claim that a guilty plea means nothing or is ambiguous to a court would be to be out of touch with reality. Ask Bernie Madoff if his guilty plea was some other-worldly concept devoid of substance, meaning or consequence.
That being said, though I think Polanski should have settled this in the US some thirty years back, I would surprised if he were extradited to the US that the sentence would be anything of consequence.
You’d have to pick that bone with the courts; Mike Nifong was disbarred because of circumstances surrounding proceedings, which you claim are unimportant.
Wtf are you even talking about? That’s a very nice strawman for something that was never said. For the 4th time, this disagreement is NOT about the court’s definition of the plea, it’s about certain commenters who can’t seem to wrap their mind around the fact that a plea is not the same as a confession as a clear statement of the actual facts of what occured.
That would be your opinion. Most reasonable people prefer to know the truth, which may not always agree with a plea, because a plea is a legal device that can be made for any number of reasons. It has been known to occur that people plead guilty to crimes they haven’t committed… which sometimes allows the actual perp to go free… which according to you would never matter? And before you twist that, no, I’m not saying he’s innocent, just that a real world exists outside a court of law.
Well gee, I’d agree with that … too bad no-one claimed that or we could laugh at them. You show a gross ignorance of what a plea DEAL is and how it works… and how it can screw you if the deal is reneged upon.
We completely agree that he should have settled this some thrity years back, but I don’t know why you can’t understand that’s NOT the source of disagreement:
I don’t know how to make this simpler for you. There are only 2 people that know what actually happened 30 years ago. No-one commenting here, including me, including you, is one of them. Knowing what the plea was does not make you omniscient as to the facts of events 30 years ago, nor of the reasons that pleading was entered. Compelling evidence has been given that the plea was entered under questionable circumstances, even as far as duress.
This is not the USSR, and so long as reasonable legal questions remain, it is reasonable for everyday people outside the court to maintain healthy skepticism of the pleadings. And maintaining skepticism as to the pleading is not the same as proselytizing for pedophilia.