Filmmakers defend Polanski

[ILOVEDNY]

Incredible!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/...anski-petition

Lets excuse the drugging and rape of a 13 year old girl because he produced good films.

Maybe other "stars" should be able to walk away from crimes based on their talent.

Pauly Shore can have an open container in public. But only once.

Tom Selleck can firebomb an animal shelter and shoot the bunnies as they run out.

David Lee Roth: May expose one (1) testicle on a playground.

Jon Voigt can detonate a truck full of xplosives on the set of The View, then violate the corpses.

[HipKat]

Even the victim wants it dropped, so what's the point?

[ILOVEDNY]

Even the victim wants it dropped, so what's the point?

I think DomFem just made the point

[DomesticatedFeminist]

Even the victim wants it dropped, so what's the point?

The point is he's a pedo and should be put in jail for it. The sick creep escaped the law for 30 years. drugging and having sex with 13 years old is wrong and sick!

[Truthdetector]

Even the victim wants it dropped, so what's the point?

The point is that he went to tril, found guilty, and sentenced. Then he skipped the country. Time to pay up.

[DomesticatedFeminist]

he should be castrated. Although at his age i don't know if that matters.

[Truthdetector]

he should be castrated. Although at his age i don't know if that matters.

Just let him sit behind bars, the boys will take care of his pain and suffering.

[Save Us]

If there is an anomaly in the European universe you can bet the French are behind it.

[FisherRd]

Even the victim wants it dropped, so what's the point?

I'm sure if you had the ability to think your statement through for a second, just one second, you'd actually be mortified at the sheer stupidity.

[HipKat]

I'm sure if you had the ability to think your statement through for a second, just one second, you'd actually be mortified at the sheer stupidity.

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.

[Downstate Buffaloian]

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.

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]}

[Downstate Buffaloian]

Actually, 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.
.

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?

[Linda_D]

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.

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.

[PlayingKoi]

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.

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.

[DomesticatedFeminist]

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.

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.