Tuesday, September 29, 2009

It Wasn't "Rape Rape"?

Whoopi Goldberg joins the chorus of nitwits who attempt to defend Roman Polanski.

Patterico is on the case.

22 Comments:

Blogger steve mcdonald said...

gee, does hollywood play by a different set of rules? If you hide out in Europe for 32 years it makes things ok?

September 29, 2009 at 6:25 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Seems like it. But then Anonymous plays by his own set of rules too.

September 29, 2009 at 11:12 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gil makes up his own rules, then doesn't even play by them.

First he's against the local DA for overly aggressively pursuing a man that a child accused, because Gil thought it shouldn't have gone to court.

Now, he's against a guy that thought he wasn't getting justice, and fled to avoid a raw deal in court.

Is Gil just against liberal film makers accused of sex with minors? But, if it's some truck-driving family man then the kid must obviously be lying.

Gil's hero was acquitted with a not guilty verdict. If Polanski is acquitted or not even brought to trial on the sex charges, will Gil give him the same tag line:
"If a few people in authority in this county had done their jobs a little better, this guy and his family never would have had to."

September 30, 2009 at 1:00 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

If I may...

Gil is against shoddy investigations that lead to innocent people being charged with crimes they did not commit.

Gil is also against ADMITTED child rapists who flee the country to escape punishment and the useful idiots who defend them.

September 30, 2009 at 7:43 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I fail to understand how anyone could be sympathetic to Polanski.

1. He had sex with a 13 year old.
2. He gave that 13 year old Qualudes before having sex with her.
3. Even though a 13 year old cannot consent to sex, the girl told him "no" repeatedly while he raped her vaginally and anally.
4. He's pled guilty and admitted guilt.
5. He "fled to avoid punishment he though was unjust." What? How is that a justification for anything? How many criminals feel their punishment is fair and just?

September 30, 2009 at 9:21 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How many posters here are STILL members of the Catholic Church?

This is an organization that systematically covered up the sexual abuse of young boys for decades. They shuffled troublesome priests to different parishes where the could repeat their behavior.

Conservatives didn't express this much outrage over THOUSANDS of cases of abuse.

In Polanski's case, one of the reasons for the plea agreement, was that the girl refused to testify in open court. Polanski admitted to having sex with a minor: statutory rape. I don't think he admitted to forcing her, which is what Whoopi apparently meant by "rape rape".
The victim even wants Polanski freed and still doesn't want to testify. Her previous grand jury testimony is not sufficient if she doesn't back it up a in trial.

If the victim is not "seeking justice", there is really none to be had by this exercise.

BTW, what's the status of that guy that the crazy judge has kept locked up over some alleged hidden assets in a divorce case?

September 30, 2009 at 11:36 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's somethings to ponder.

1. The legal age of consent in PA is 16. So, if you have sex with a 16 year old minor girl of legal age, but she lies tells you she is only 13, is it still illegal?

2. If your 30 year old wife puts on a cheerleader outfit for you and pretends to be 15, but only when you make sure she's had a few too many drinks, is that illegal?

September 30, 2009 at 9:40 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

anon, just say you support polanski and get it over with. By the way, was he in the right for hiding out in europe for 32 years? Does that make everything ok?

October 1, 2009 at 6:53 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

"The victim even wants Polanski freed and still doesn't want to testify. Her previous grand jury testimony is not sufficient if she doesn't back it up a in trial."

How ignorant can Mr. Anonymous be?

The victim doesn't have to testify. Polanski already PLEADED GUILTY. He was awaiting sentencing when he fled to Europe. My suggestion: Learn the facts of the case if you don't want to sound like a moron.

October 1, 2009 at 7:05 AM 
Anonymous jake said...

Gotta love the anon-diano double-talk.
When a wealthy Bucks County businessman was sentenced to eight years in prison for raping a 13 year-old, anon-diano got all self-righteous about the comparison to ACORN.
"My point is that Gil doesn't seem to take child rape as seriously an issue as some low-level idiots getting fooled on hidden camera."
Amazing how a hypocrite's opinion can flip-flop in just a week.

October 1, 2009 at 10:00 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

we should find out of polansky has been a supporter of the democratic party to find the proper connection...

October 1, 2009 at 3:29 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The facts of the case are that Polanski plead guilty to the LESSER charge of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor", not "rape" which is a completely different charge.

His story (true or false) is that she consented. If she doesn't testify, then legally the worst they got him on is sex with a minor. They can go after him for fleeing. But NO jury is going to hear his story about imprisonment in a Nazi concentration camp, and about how his wife was murdered by Charlie Manson, and his character witnesses, and then send him to prison.

Since his original plea was part of a plea bargain, he could probably withdraw it in light of the questions surrounding the original judge. If he asks for a trial, he would win it without her testimony.
Furthermore, even if he couldn't withdraw his plea, he'd still get it overturned on appeal because of judicial misconduct.
Arnold should just pardon Polanski and save the taxpayers from another circus.

Steve-
I really couldn't give a rat's ass about whether Polanski is guilty or innocent. The alleged victim doesn't want this. If she were out there screaming for justice, it would be different. But she's not. She wants him freed.

So, what this REALLY is about is conservatives not liking a liberal Hollywood filmmaker and looking to score some points. You act like he personally raped you.

Get over it and be glad there is no law against forcing yourself on an inflatable woman.

October 2, 2009 at 2:11 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Steve,

In the deep and silly hole that he has dug for himself, you would think that our Anonymous friend would quit digging. But then, if he did, he wouldn't be the jackass we have all come to know and love.

He continues to be ignorant of (or misunderstand) the facts of the case. He is obvioulsy no lawyer. (He sounds a lot more like some angry nerd of a computer programmer.)

What Polanski pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" IS RAPE! It's called Statutory Rape. A 13-year-old girl can't legally give consent to have intercourse with an adult. But according to her testimony at the time, Polanski gave her champagne and a lude and proceeded to vaginally and anally rape her while she said "No." That is RAPE RAPE. So who to believe?

Well, the matter never went to a jury because Polanski decided to plead guilty to the LESSER charge of RAPE. And then he skipped the country and went on the lam for 32 years to avoid punishment.

Anon's advice to the governor of California for a pardon is typically brilliant and can be dismissed out of hand, as the Guv already has.

Of course, President Obama has the power to grant Polanski clemency. Wouldn't that be a great way to stick it to conservatives? Except that even millions of liberals would be appalled. Even they understand that an admitted child rapist shouldn't be allowed skip out on his punishment even if he is a famous and liberal Hollywood filmmaker.

For some reason these bleeding hearts do give "a rat's ass" about justice.

As for the victim, it is easy to feel sorry for her. And her feelings are noteworthy. But they cannot and are not determinitive when it comes to seeing justice done. Some victims of rape would like to see their attackers put to death. We understand their feelings but we, as a society, don't allow that. The same is true for victims who would like to see their assailants go unpunished or escape justice. It is not her call. And it shouldn't be.

So Mr. Anonymous is now or record, (that is, if you can go on record as "Anonymous") as not giving a damn about Polanski's guilt or innocence or justice. What he is about is not giving "conservatives" what he perceives to be a political victory. How craven and morally obtuse can one person get? Throw in the adolescent and lame insults and the answer is: pretty craven.

October 2, 2009 at 8:31 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

is anon-iano telling us that the murder of his wife made sex with a 13 year old ok? I know it was a traumatic event, but now you're bordering the ridiculous. Please don't tell me you're using your regular assortment of talking points here.

So, what this REALLY is about is conservatives not liking a liberal Hollywood filmmaker and looking to score some points. You act like he personally raped you. You're off your rocker, son. It's about justice in a serious crime against the people. Jail this SOB, tag him with the megan's list as we would with any other offendor regardless of political views.

Get over it and be glad there is no law against forcing yourself on an inflatable woman. I'll give you credit for trying, but that one's a little old, let's say about Early-90s old. Feel free to try a better insult, but consult a recent joke book or listen to the stylings of Jim Norton if you get a chance. Does the DNC have insult talking points??? Also, insults just doesn't carry the weight when they come from an 'anonymous' poster. Stop being a schmuck and REVEAL THYSELF!!!

What is especially bothersome is that anon-iano is backing up my theory about Polanski - he must be a longtime DNC contributor.

October 2, 2009 at 11:10 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gil-
You are devoting all this time to Polanski, but none to Elizabeth Smart who was held captive and repeatedly raped. Why are you going so easy on her attacker?

A 32 year old statutory rape case that the girl doesn't want prosecuted is low on the priority scale. The original judge regularly engaged in ex-parte communications with prosecutors, not just this case. Polanski will walk away with an acquittal.

The time and money California will spend on this dog of a case could be used to help victims of more serious crimes.
But, then, you conservatives wouldn't be getting your liberal pound of flesh.

October 2, 2009 at 11:52 AM 
Anonymous frank said...

i've been watching this from the sidelines. gil and steve have a personal grudge against some anonymous poster who they appear to know. they also seem to making this political because steve's first post was about hollywood and europe and jake brings up acorn. the mention of the catholic church scandal doesn't even get a response, even though it was literally thousands of times worse.
if the judge and prosecutor really did abuse the system, polanski is going to go free. this could free other people convicted by this same judge and prosecutor by giving them grounds for appeal.
by trying to bring this to trial, you guys are going to be helping a lot of convicted offenders get mistrials. it's a dumb move.

October 2, 2009 at 1:32 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

"You are devoting all this time to Polanski, but none to Elizabeth Smart who was held captive and repeatedly raped. Why are you going so easy on her attacker?"

Excuse me, has Elizabeth Smart's attacker escaped to Europe to avoid prosecution and jail time? If so, let me go on record as saying I'm for having him apprehended and returned to this country immediately.

But a sensible answer to this stupid question is: There is NO international controversy concerning Elizabeth's attacker. So far as I know, no one is claiming he shouldn't be prosecuted. Woody Allen, Martin Scorcese and the rest of the Hollywood/European "community" of artists are not demanding his release.

But if our anonymous crackpot friend wants to get a petition going, he should have at it.

Once again, he suggests this is partisan political issue, even when dozens of liberal commentators have weighed in against Polanski and his silly supporters. What a moroon.

October 2, 2009 at 1:48 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Polanski pleaded guilty, now he needs to serve his penalty. Obama can't pardon him or grant him clemency since Polanski pleaded guilty to a state crime, not a federal crime. All I care about is the poor suffering polar bear, and those cute little minnow things - what about them?

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

October 3, 2009 at 9:33 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Chris rock is my hero


http://cs85.clearspring.com/u/4727a250e66f9723/4ac7598b9c4ce27b

October 3, 2009 at 10:03 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pro-
He's already served over 40 days. So, it's not like he hasn't been punished. The girl had said it was more than enough punishment. So, sentence him to 40 days, with time served. Bang the gavel and be done with it.

I agree it's pretty stupid of Spencer to suggest Obama. It shows how political he's being about this. Thanks for pointing out how clueless he is on these legal matters and calling him out on it.

With all the budget crisis facing California, Arnold could decide that a costly show-trial is not in the public's interest. It's not like Polanski is a threat to society.

Also, Spencer's such a phony talking about ignoring the victim's wishes. When it's a death penalty case, he's all for bringing in the families to tug at the heartstrings of the jury to pick execution over life imprisonment.
But now that the victim already got her justice with Polanski's previous imprisonment, the state really has no pressing motivation to pursue this.

Even a low rent, local attorney from Media, PA could win this case.

October 3, 2009 at 1:44 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott - You and I agree on something. But why are you bringing Obama into this? To my knowledge, Obama hasn't even commented on Polanski, and I'm sure he has no interest in pardoning him. Why did you bring Obama into this?

October 4, 2009 at 2:24 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Bob,
Scott didn't bring Obama into this, I did, in response to the mornic suggestion that Gov. Arnold pardon Polanski.

Of course, Scott is right. The president can only pardon people who have committed crimes "against the United States."
Polanski's crimes, while felonies, fall beyond the president's pardoning power.

The governor is already on record as saying Polanski should be returned to the U.S. to face punishment.

Once again, Mr. Anonymous is wrong. Polanski has not served his "punishment." He spent 42 days in prison for psychological evaluation. It was supposed to be 90 but some headshrinker illegally decided to let him out early.

Polanski skipped the country before he could ever be formally sentenced for the crime he pleaded guilty to; statutory rape. The crimes he actually committed, as we all know, were much worse than that.

As I recall, Bob, you are not one of Polanski's defenders or excusers. Mr. Anonymous is. Would you like to take the opportunity to explain anything to him?

October 4, 2009 at 5:43 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home