The point is that even if he doesn't go to jail he will be registered as a sex offender. That will allow police to keep an eye on him.Originally Posted by HipKat
You have to remember that this wasn't just some youthful indiscretion. He was 43 years old at the time he committed the crime. You also have to remember the way he committed the crime (by drugging) . This wasn't the case of slightly mismatched consensual romance between let's say a 21 year old and a 17 year old, but clearly a rape of a young teenager by a man clearly old enough to be her father.
I know a lot of wild stuff happened in the 70's, but this clearly goes over the line of criminality.
Actually, I did and I'm not.
There are too many instances of people having sex with minors that are over looked.
I know a guy from Missouri that was married to a 16 yr old when he was 20. Of course, there, it's a way of life.
Not that I'm abdicating the Polanski thing but still, there are statutes of limitations for other crimes, and this was a pretty heinous one, for sure, but still, if the victim, as an adult has decided that it needs to be dropped, then drop it.
Let me articulate this for you:
"I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me!!"
HipKat's Blog
This was not a borderline case by any means. The guy is a predator! He was already charged for the crime back in 1978 before he fled, so the statue of limitations doesn't apply. Check out this section on him from Wikipedia:
Sex crime conviction
In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer). It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[33][34]
According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot."[34]
Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this".[35]
Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes,[36] a sedative drug, and "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her",[37][38][39] each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.[40][41][42][43][34]
Last edited by Downstate Buffaloian; September 30th, 2009 at 11:25 AM.
That wouldn't be a crime because they are both under 21 and within 4 years of age of each other, plus they are married. This is not about teenaged couples having sex, this is about the rape of a 13 year old by a much older man! Can you imagine how scared that girl must have been?
The statue of limitations didn't run out because he was convicted and skipped out before he was sentenced. There's not going to be a new trial. Just sentence hearing.
Say this three times fast : Whoopi is a waste -Whoopi is a waste - Whoopi is a waste. Why does anyone listen to her she is a joke. And a bad actress to boot.
He fleed the country and didn't do the time. This isn't the same as a 16 and a 20 year old. There is a 30 year age difference and she was barely even a teen yet.
I'm sure she was paid well so of course she's gonna say drop it.
“Two percent of the people think; three percent of the people think they think; and ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than think.”
Your ignorance and lack of moral fiber has no bounds.
See how much we have in common, goodie?
Let me articulate this for you:
"I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me!!"
HipKat's Blog
Correct. He was already tried and found guilty. Then he skipped out. The sentance will have to be exactly as it would have been in 1978: 90 day mental evaluation in a crimianl metal institution, plus the evading justice.
Earlier this year a new judge stated that he would consider dropping all the charges again Polanski if he would just show up.
The victim here has no say any longer. there is no way she can 'drop the charges", even though she took a settlement from Polanski. The primary charge is evading justice.
Fish,,,,you NEVER disappoint
I'm glad you don't post more...my cheeks hurt from laughing. ...sstttoppp!
Once you plead guilty, there are not statutes of limitations. The victim was paid off, and regardless of her input, there are repurcussions for raping 13 year olds and then fleeing the country to avoid paying the piper.
Couldn't you just envision some highly aggitated Southerner with a firearm or farm implement getting a hold of a rapist like that ...or hell how about a group of em.
Give me one Ted Nugent.
You mean kinda like this??
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...#ixzz0S9fttjB0
"I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "
Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!
no worse.
And while were at it... how about that caning... spare the rod.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote