[amazing]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Clearly it can be forgiven, as indeed his victim has.

Stockholm syndrome? Clearly the victim can and will come to terms with the crime--but should society pardon it? Society as a whole has to say that certain things cannot be accepted, whereas the victim has to move on.

I've read many articles, many on French websites. I haven't read of any expression of regret on Polanski's part, anywhere. He hasn't produced any public awareness messages against violence against women, hasn't volunteered his time to raise awareness of the problem, hasn't campaigned against such violence to show his remorse. He's had many years to become involved in such causes--and had he become greatly involved in that way, society could well forgive the original crime based on a clear message on Polanski's part publicizing how unacceptable such crimes are.

If there are such instances of remorse, I'd welcome seeing the links posted here...

[amazing]

From the French websites, I can see how certain cultural trends are influencing how this crime is perceived in France.

The main trend is that the Aristocracy/Elite should not be held to the same standards of justice as the petty populace. The reasoning is this: A "Great Man" can surely be forgiven for a crime against the "peasantry" because the Great Man has contributed mightily to the Nation.

This is precisely the same cultural attitude that led to the French Revolution and the guillotine. The French Aristocracy claimed "Divine Right" and this system led to so many injustices and to such cruelty that it directly led to a popular uprising (which had its own cruelties and injustices.) Anyway, this cultural reverence of the Aristocracy still persists in France--especially amongst the politicians and leaders of society. They believe they should be allowed to get away with anything, simply because they are the present-day "Aristos" and should be above the law.

And in case people have forgotten our history: The US was founded as a reaction against this system of Divine Right and Special Privileges for the Wealthy and the Aristocrats.

Justice for all, and for all, justice, does include Hollywood actors and directors.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

Do victims of violent crimes forgive the perp because the perp deserves it?

I'd say, generally not.

No, but they also don't usually advocate for his side either.

Also, I don't believe I said anything about deserving. Somebody said it cannot be forgiven, and I was remarking that I found that ironic, seeing as the one person who has something to forgive here actually has done just that.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by amazing 

Stockholm syndrome? Clearly the victim can and will come to terms with the crime--but should society pardon it? Society as a whole has to say that certain things cannot be accepted, whereas the victim has to move on.

I've read many articles, many on French websites. I haven't read of any expression of regret on Polanski's part, anywhere. He hasn't produced any public awareness messages against violence against women, hasn't volunteered his time to raise awareness of the problem, hasn't campaigned against such violence to show his remorse. He's had many years to become involved in such causes--and had he become greatly involved in that way, society could well forgive the original crime based on a clear message on Polanski's part publicizing how unacceptable such crimes are.

If there are such instances of remorse, I'd welcome seeing the links posted here...

So your problem is that he hasn't made a big show for your benefit to call attention to his grief? The man's a Holocaust survivor whose mother died in Auschwitz and whose wife was later killed by Charles Manson. His first movie dealing with the Holocaust (AFAIK) wasn't until 2002. Maybe his way of dealing with pain is a little bit different from ours.

As Ms. Geimer points out, he has never done it again. Some might say that does more to indicate penitence than any number of self-serving PSAs.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

As Ms. Geimer points out, he has never done it again. .

That we know of. There is no telling what Polanski has done over the last 32 years. The age of consent in France is 15 and perhaps he has learned to cover his tracks.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...or it could be that there's an admitted child rapist out there that has never paid his debt to society and lots of people don't like the fact that he's been thumbing his nose at the law for 30 years.

True, but then, there's probably a few thousand people in LA county alone that fit the same description and far worse. It's just that if 99% of them were brought to justice at whatever expense to track them down, it wouldn't register the slightest blip in public awareness. Whereas this is guaranteed to generate headlines and make it seem the prosecutors office is really going after the bad guys.

I'm certainly not against going after Polanski per se, just I suspect there's an ulterior motive behind it more than just the desire to see justice served.

I still can't comprehend how anyone could think it's a bad idea to get a child rapist who escaped justice due to his money and fame to finally have to pay the penalty for his outrageous and illegal behavior. There simply isn't any justification I can think of that makes any sense.

It's not like I'd lose sleep if he served out whatever sentence- just I'd wonder how many others should probably be more deserving of the same effort expended to catch them. But then, we'd likely never hear about some other non-celebrities finally brought to justice, so what good does it do for a 'tough on crime' elected official (IE: the Los Angeles DA)?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Are your thoughts predicated on what you would do in the same scenario?

No, they're predicated on a healthy distrust of anything to do with the corrupt bunch of clowns otherwise known as California politicians.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

That we know of. There is no telling what Polanski has done over the last 32 years. The age of consent in France is 15 and perhaps he has learned to cover his tracks.

...or waited until his victims where knocked out to do as he pleased so there are no "witnesses". Generally, perverts like Polanski don't stop engaging in perversion without force.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

True, but then, there's probably a few thousand people in LA county alone that fit the same description and far worse. It's just that if 99% of them were brought to justice at whatever expense to track them down, it wouldn't register the slightest blip in public awareness. Whereas this is guaranteed to generate headlines and make it seem the prosecutors office is really going after the bad guys.

They knew who Polanski was, what he did, and where he was going to be exactly.

I'm pretty sure that with the same concrete information, they'd do what was necessary to arrest that 99% who fall into that category.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So your problem is that he hasn't made a big show for your benefit to call attention to his grief?

*snip*
Maybe his way of dealing with pain is a little bit different from ours.

That's some pretty strange twisting of what amazing said.

I'd wager he was talking about Polanski showing remorse for committing a serious crime against a child, and maybe encouraging others not to do the same... not anything to do with him dealing with whatever the hell pain he feels about anything. His own crappy bio has nothing to do with any of that.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They knew who Polanski was, what he did, and where he was going to be exactly.

True. I just find it impossible to believe the same scenario wasn't the case at any time during the last 30 years, unless he's literally never stepped foot out of France.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

That's some pretty strange twisting of what amazing said.

I'd wager he was talking about Polanski showing remorse for committing a serious crime against a child, and maybe encouraging others not to do the same... not anything to do with him dealing with whatever the hell pain he feels about anything. His own crappy bio has nothing to do with any of that.

No twisting. You just mentioned the same emotion I was talking about. Remorse = pain over something you've done

[amazing]

What's astonishing is to watch the twisted logic defending Polanski: for example, because of his past suffering and pain (holocaust survivor and Manson murders) he's entitled to moral lapses?

Shouldn't he be even more adamant in protecting the powerless?

Here's another, from Debra Wenger: "Debra Winger, has dismissed his conviction for statutory rape as "a three-decades-old case that is dead but for minor technicalities". She is furious, not just on behalf of Polanski himself but for the Zurich film festival, where he was due to receive a lifetime achievement award, and indeed the entire art world. "We stand by him and await his release and his next masterpiece," she declared,"
Wake up, this was no rape-lite | Joan Smith | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Producing masterpieces and receiving lifetime awards certainly excuses rape, n'est-ce pas?

Then there's Whoopi Goldberg's twisted logic--was she even listening to herself when she said this?

"(Whoopi) said: "I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and and when they let him out he was like, 'You know what, this guy's going to give me a hundred years in jail. I'm not staying.' So that's why he left."
Polanski was not guilty of 'rape-rape', says Whoopi Goldberg | Film | guardian.co.uk

Reaction was pretty swift:

"On the Jezebel celebrity website , Lindsay wrote: "We learned about Whoopi's strange and fascinating moral universe, which includes the concept of "rape-rape."

" On The Frisky Amelia McDonnell-Parry wrote: "Whoopi Goldberg, who I never expected to be a rape apologist, coins a term I've never heard before – 'rape-rape' ."

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by amazing 

What's astonishing is to watch the twisted logic defending Polanski: for example, because of his past suffering and pain (holocaust survivor and Manson murders) he's entitled to moral lapses?

Shouldn't he be even more adamant in protecting the powerless?

Well, obviously he should. People should be able to bounce back from anything and come out more and more awesome, but that's not our world. We do hold the insane to a different moral standard than those of sound mind, and it is generally acknowledged that traumatic experiences are not good for our mental health. I think maybe that's what some people are getting at.

My purpose in bringing it up was different, though. I wasn't trying to excuse anything he's done. I was merely suggesting that a man who's been through all that might not express sorrow the same way as everybody else.

[amazing]

Here's a good, exceptionally well-reasoned summary:

Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child - Broadsheet - Salon.com

with the conclusion:

"The reporting on Polanski's arrest has been every bit as "bizarrely skewed," if not more so. Roman Polanski may be a great director, an old man, a husband, a father, a friend to many powerful people, and even the target of some questionable legal shenanigans. He may very well be no threat to society at this point. He may even be a good person on balance, whatever that means. But none of that changes the basic, undisputed fact: Roman Polanski raped a child. And rushing past that point to focus on the reasons why we should forgive him, pity him, respect him, admire him, support him, whatever, is absolutely twisted. "

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No twisting. You just mentioned the same emotion I was talking about. Remorse = pain over something you've done

..for your VICTIM and other potential victims of the same, not for yourself because you got caught or had a crappy life.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by amazing 

Then there's Whoopi Goldberg's twisted logic--was she even listening to herself when she said this?

"(Whoopi) said: "I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and and when they let him out he was like, 'You know what, this guy's going to give me a hundred years in jail. I'm not staying.' So that's why he left."
Polanski was not guilty of 'rape-rape', says Whoopi Goldberg | Film | guardian.co.uk

Wow. Amazing. Just when you thought the Hollyweird Left couldn't get much lower, they surprise you.

Either Whoopie is clueless of what actually happened and for some reason decided it was a good idea to just assume the best because this guy is lauded by people who should know better (stupid), or Whoopie lacks any kind of morals {evil).

It WAS "rape-rape". Nothing concerning what he did was legal in any way.

He drugged the girl.

He made advances.

She said "no".

Even if she said "yes", she wasn't old enough to give any kind of consent because she was a child.

He did things to that child that many sexually experienced adult women would refuse to give consent to.

I guess in Whoopie's world, if it doesn't happen during a break-in or in a trailer park, and the person doing it is talented, then it's not "rape-rape".

Sickening.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Whoopi is typical of most of Hollywood on just about ANY given issue: Never in her life bothered to research or look up a SINGLE fact about a given issue... but more than willing to spout off publicly the 'tow the line' position as an absolute authority on the subject.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

..for your VICTIM and other potential victims of the same, not for yourself because you got caught or had a crappy life.

OK. Then we agree.

[Shaddim]

He sodomized a 13 y/o girl against her will and while she was drugged. It's in the same league as going to a middle school, luring a child into your car, and then slipping them a roofie.

I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes (or even in public if they're discreet or in a place for that kind of thing), but this kid had barely hit puberty. Compound this with the use of drugs to lower the girl's defenses and I can't see how this monster was ever allowed to breath free air again. IMO, he should be bunking with Bubba in Folsom, and praying for one of his adoring fans to send him another soap-on-a-rope.

[The Final Dakar]

After reading this thread and some of the awful arguments some people on both sides have put out, I really have to say I don't care what happens to the guy, either way. All I know is if I ever have kids, they'll be chaperoned in such exotic situations, and some more mundane related ones as well.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by amazing 

Here's a good, exceptionally well-reasoned summary:

Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child - Broadsheet - Salon.com

with the conclusion:

"The reporting on Polanski's arrest has been every bit as "bizarrely skewed," if not more so. Roman Polanski may be a great director, an old man, a husband, a father, a friend to many powerful people, and even the target of some questionable legal shenanigans. He may very well be no threat to society at this point. He may even be a good person on balance, whatever that means. But none of that changes the basic, undisputed fact: Roman Polanski raped a child. And rushing past that point to focus on the reasons why we should forgive him, pity him, respect him, admire him, support him, whatever, is absolutely twisted. "

Thanks for the link.

However, I think that Polanski is not the only one to blame here: why did it take so many years to arrest him? Polanski wasn't exactly hiding and I'm sure there have been opportunities to arrest him earlier. Why did it take until 2005 to issue an international arrest warrant? Did they find the file after cleaning up the attic?

[amazing]

US officials have tried to arrest Roman Polanski around the world since 1978 - Times Online

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Thanks for the link.

However, I think that Polanski is not the only one to blame here: why did it take so many years to arrest him? Polanski wasn't exactly hiding and I'm sure there have been opportunities to arrest him earlier. Why did it take until 2005 to issue an international arrest warrant? Did they find the file after cleaning up the attic?

From what I've been reading, it was an issue of having notice that he is in a country where an extradition warrant could be served. Some articles have stated attempts have been made in several countries over the years where they have just flat out missed him or logistical issues kept the local police from being able to serve the warrant before he returned to France. This issue has never been dropped, not since he first fled.

The difference this time was Polanski's appearance at the Zurich Film Festival was well publicized, allowing time for the warrant to be issued and arraignments to be made prior to his arrival in Switzerland. For the first time, they have had advanced knowledge of his arrival in a country will to serve the warrant and extradite.

I was getting coffee this morning, and there were two women ranting about how unfair this is to Polanski. I asked one of them "So you'd be okay with someone drugging and butt ****ing your thirteen year old, as long as he's famous?". She told me "You can't look at things that way. That would be a different situation". I guess it's okay to rape other people's kids, as long as they leave yours alone.

[olePigeon]

Regardless of age, he drugged and raped her. The fact that she was 13 just makes it worse. The guy needs to go to prison.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Kind of hard to convict criminally when most all his victims were paid off to keep quiet.

This isn't true. Michael Jackson settled with the family in the original case, and in that case, the boy could not conclusively identify Jackson's genitalia (after Jackson agreed to let the police photograph him - why would a supposedly guilty child molester agree to that?). There were no other "payoffs", as you put it. There is no evidence to prove that the original or subsequent charges were true, and the criminal trial, in which Jackson was acquitted of all charges, further proved this. Conclusively.

You can have your opinion. But the legal facts do not match your opinion.

But the difference is that Polanski did actually admit what he did while Jackson did not.

The difference is that you personally believe Jackson was guilty, even though this belief of yours was never proven even after 2 trials. Your personal opinion is not a substitute for the justice system.

Polanski was tried and convicted for his crime. There is a world of difference here.

[amazing]

"Film industry leaders like Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, Martin Scorsese and Costa Gavras signed a petition with about 100 names that expressed “stupefaction” with the arrest of Mr. Polanski at the Zurich airport. But support was not universal; Luc Besson, a prominent French film director and producer, was not on the list, though he describes himself as a Polanski friend.

“This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit,” Mr. Besson said in a radio interview with RTL Soir. “Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen.” He added, , “I don’t have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/mo...ef=global-home

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

OK. Then we agree.

You listed his grief. (Who cares? He visited grief on someone else- his grief... first of all, what grief?)
His way of dealing with pain. (Who the f cares?)
And the negative parts of his bio. (Again, who cares?)

You really have a job that requires effective communication skills?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You listed his grief. (Who cares? He visited grief on someone else- his grief... first of all, what grief?)

I already answered this. Remember how we were talking about him feeling remorse? That grief. Do you think somebody else is supposed to feel his remorse for him?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You really have a job that requires effective communication skills?

It doesn't matter how much skill you have — you can't communicate with someone who won't listen. You are more interested in insulting people than in having a conversation.

[Gee-Man]

I think part of the reason why some people are defending him is that they cannot separate his art from his personal criminal activity. Human beings are complex, but we have a tendency to simplify people and their actions to better put it into a box. So as a result, Roman Polanski is either a talented director who made some of the greatest films of all time, OR he's a child rapist - but he can't be both, because that wouldn't be reductive enough. So some people use all kinds of excuses to justify whatever opinion they already hold. People who believe he is a great director and cannot stomach the opinion that he's also a child rapist try to gloss over what he did to that girl, while people who see him exclusively as a child rapist downplay his artistic talent, with statements like "he's a overrated director anyway".

With Polanski, as with many complicated human beings, the truth is that he is both a great director, AND a slimeball who raped a 13 year old girl. One does not negate the other, they both represent the truth. You can watch a film like "Chinatown" and recognize its greatness, and yet still be repulsed by Polanski's actions.

[amazing]

The irony is that Marc Rich (famously pardoned by Clinton in the expiring minutes of his presidency) is still living quite legally in Switzerland. Tax evasion isn't considered a crime, and evading the Iran sanctions wasn't a crime in Switzerland--whereas child rape is considered a crime that is what has made arresting Polanski justifiable.

Also, in seeking to have his sentence voided last year, it turns out that Polanski's lawyers taunted the prosecutors by saying they had stopped looking to arrest him. I'm sure that spurred them to greater diligence in pursuing him...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

I think part of the reason why some people are defending him is that they cannot separate his art from his personal criminal activity. Human beings are complex, but we have a tendency to simplify people and their actions to better put it into a box. So as a result, Roman Polanski is either a talented director who made some of the greatest films of all time, OR he's a child rapist - but he can't be both, because that wouldn't be reductive enough. So some people use all kinds of excuses to justify whatever opinion they already hold. People who believe he is a great director and cannot stomach the opinion that he's also a child rapist try to gloss over what he did to that girl, while people who see him exclusively as a child rapist downplay his artistic talent, with statements like "he's a overrated director anyway".

With Polanski, as with many complicated human beings, the truth is that he is both a great director, AND a slimeball who raped a 13 year old girl. One does not negate the other, they both represent the truth. You can watch a film like "Chinatown" and recognize its greatness, and yet still be repulsed by Polanski's actions.

I vote best post of the thread.

[- - e r i k - -]

Seconded.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I already answered this. Remember how we were talking about him feeling remorse? That grief. Do you think somebody else is supposed to feel his remorse for him?

Someone needs to get you a dictionary.

Grief is the multi-faceted response to loss, particularly to the loss of someone or something to which we have formed a bond of attachment.

Remorse is an emotional expression of personal regret felt by a person after he or she has committed an act which they deem to be shameful, hurtful, or violent.


They aren't the same thing. A victim or person who loses someone grieves. Remorse (certainly in this case) is being sorry for what you've done to someone else, not for yourself. Everything you listed was self-centered on Polaski's part, which is of course, nothing to do with what you were responding to. And sorry, your listing of things he supposedly should get sympathy for makes it pretty clear you actually knew this.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Someone needs to get you a dictionary.

I have one. Here's what it says for grief: "Deep sorrow". That is the sense in which I was using it. Given the context in which I used the word (a discussion of Polanski expressing remorse), I thought it would be obvious what I meant.

If it wasn't clear, all you needed to do was ask for a clarification. Instead you laid into me. I offered a clarification anyway, and you ignored it and continued to attack me.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

They aren't the same thing. A victim or person who loses someone grieves. Remorse (certainly in this case) is being sorry for what you've done to someone else, not for yourself. Everything you listed was self-centered on Polaski's part, which is of course, nothing to do with what you were responding to. And sorry, your listing of things he supposedly should get sympathy for makes it pretty clear you actually knew this.

As I said, you appear just to be looking for little snippets (even single words) that you can badger and insult me over. Until you're willing to properly read my posts and have a civil conversation, I am finished discussing this with you.

[placebo1969]

I can't believe anyone is defending this guy.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

This isn't true. Michael Jackson settled with the family in the original case, and in that case, the boy could not conclusively identify Jackson's genitalia (after Jackson agreed to let the police photograph him - why would a supposedly guilty child molester agree to that?). There were no other "payoffs", as you put it.

Yeah, there were.

Michael Jackson Admits Other Payoffs

I believe the last I read that there were at least 4 families that have been reported who got BIG DOLLAR payoffs from Jackson in order to keep them from going to the authorities to report him.

Jackson was just luckier than Polanski, never admitted what he did, and spent a lot more money than Polanski in order to keep things from going to court in the first place.

[Monique]

Originally Posted by amazing 

Stockholm syndrome? Clearly the victim can and will come to terms with the crime--but should society pardon it? Society as a whole has to say that certain things cannot be accepted, whereas the victim has to move on.

I've read many articles, many on French websites. I haven't read of any expression of regret on Polanski's part, anywhere. He hasn't produced any public awareness messages against violence against women, hasn't volunteered his time to raise awareness of the problem, hasn't campaigned against such violence to show his remorse. He's had many years to become involved in such causes--and had he become greatly involved in that way, society could well forgive the original crime based on a clear message on Polanski's part publicizing how unacceptable such crimes are.

If there are such instances of remorse, I'd welcome seeing the links posted here...

To suffer with the Stockholm syndrome you have to be a victim for many many years and in worst conditions.

Now, as for the alleged rape what makes you say she did not lied the first pushed in the back by her parents who later tries to extort money.

Why should he spend his every waking moment taking care of a cause that you care about?

She said nothing happened and obviously she was not marked since she was able to get married and have children; she seems to be just fine.

I just question Polanski's needs at the time to be with very young woman.

She was not a child but a teenager. Only in today's world do parents try to keep their children as babies for the rest of their lives.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Monique 

To suffer with the Stockholm syndrome you have to be a victim for many many years and in worst conditions.

No you don't.

[The Final Dakar]

...and now the thread is complete.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by Monique 

She said nothing happened and obviously she was not marked since she was able to get married and have children; she seems to be just fine.

No, she didn't say nothing happened. I posted what she said happened on the previous page. You might want to go to page one and read what the victim said. He went down on her, and had both vaginal and anal intercourse with her, all while she repeatedly told him to stop. And I have no idea how having a marriage and children means she suffered no harm from being raped.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, but they also don't usually advocate for his side either.

Also, I don't believe I said anything about deserving. Somebody said it cannot be forgiven, and I was remarking that I found that ironic, seeing as the one person who has something to forgive here actually has done just that.

My mistake. I assumed you were bringing up the victim's opinion as a (or part of a) metric for determining mercy. I'd argue whether one deserves forgiveness or not is certainly relevant to that.

[- - e r i k - -]

Anyone else see a similarity between this case and that of Michael Vicks?

Except dead dogs can't forgive of course.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Anyone else see a similarity between this case and that of Michael Vicks?

He was sentenced, but before it could be carried out he skipped the country, and lived in Europe for 30 years before finally being arrested?

Seriously, what's the similarity?

[- - e r i k - -]

The public's willingness to overlook past crimes based on talent.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

With Polanski, as with many complicated human beings, the truth is that he is both a great director, AND a slimeball who raped a 13 year old girl. One does not negate the other, they both represent the truth. You can watch a film like "Chinatown" and recognize its greatness, and yet still be repulsed by Polanski's actions.

True, but what does one thing really have to do with the other?

I think you boil things down a little to far. Those that want to see him pay for the crime he committed simply don't care one way or another about his directing career having anything to do with the crime.

For example, I like the production on Harrison's All Things Must Pass and Lennon's Imagine more or less the same as the next guy, but I don't see it as having a thing to do with Lana Clarkson being shot in the mouth.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

The public's willingness to overlook past crimes based on talent.

People love animals way more than 13 year old girls.

I actually believe that's true. A person can do all sorts of hideous things to human beings, and even wind up celebrated and toasted for it or in spite of it. But harm an animal and get caught? Brrrr....

[- - e r i k - -]

Speak for yourself

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Heh. I'm really not into animals or children. Call me old fashioned, I guess.

[Snow-i]

So, it would take polanski raping an animal to get hollywood to turn on him?

Where is PETA when you need it? Oh, right, it was just a little girl.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

The public's willingness to overlook past crimes based on talent.

I think that had Polanski shown true remorse, not have fled the country and served his sentence (as Vick did - and Vick did a longer period of time than Polanski probably would have had if he hadn't fled, for a lesser crime)), the argument could be made that he "did his time" regardless of what kind of hideous things he did.

Polanski never did any of that. He engaged in illegal, immoral behavior in drugging, taking nude photographs and raping a child, didn't "do his time", suggested that he shouldn't have to have ANY additional punishment and a large contingency of left-wing Hollywood idiots want us to overlook his hideous behavior.

They've suggested that little girls can consent to anal sex, drug use and having naked pictures taken of themselves - even when the little girls are drugged and say they told the adult in question to stop doing what they were doing.

...and they wonder why their support for Democrats doesn't do much to help them out in "flyover country".

Really..I'm amazed. The support of these people going out on a limb to defend Polanski WILL effect my entertainment choices in the future. I can't help keep fueling these idiots ability to have a "voice" regarding these issues by continually giving them my money and buying into whatever they are selling.