DVD Talk Forum
Page 17 of 19
« First
7
15
16
17
18
19
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Movie Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk-17/)
-   -   Roman Polanski arrested (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/562167-roman-polanski-arrested.html)

dhmac 10-09-09 10:51 AM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by superdeluxe (Post 9762205)
Statutory Rape is Still Rape.
Legally speaking, it's not.

Deftones 10-09-09 11:01 AM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by dhmac (Post 9762222)
Legally speaking, it's not.
:lol:

yeah, apparently it's not rape, despite the fact it has rape in the term.

Deftones 10-09-09 11:02 AM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by dhmac (Post 9762209)
He admitted to consensual sex with her, but what if he thought she was 18-years-old? Almost everyone seems to think she looked 18 back then. And it's a common defense for defendants to say that he thought she was 18 - so if this had gone to an actual jury trial, he probably would have said the same thing.
do you understand that it doesn't matter if she said she was 13, 18 or 65? her actual age is what matters in this case. please tell me you understand that?

superdeluxe 10-09-09 11:05 AM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by dhmac (Post 9762222)
Legally speaking, it's not.

Statutory Rape is not legally speaking, Rape?

superdeluxe 10-09-09 11:05 AM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Even if she consented, when he had sex with her, it was rape the moment he did.

dhmac 10-09-09 11:30 AM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
For the people who think Polanski should be thrown in prison, what about the girl's then 17-year-old boyfriend? He had sex with her before she even met Polanski. Where was his arrest for committing the same crime?

Deftones 10-09-09 11:46 AM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by dhmac (Post 9762320)
For the people who think Polanski should be thrown in prison, what about the girl's then 17-year-old boyfriend? He had sex with her before she even met Polanski. Where was his arrest for committing the same crime?
Answer the questions at hand, dhmac, esquire. this current question is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

RocShemp 10-09-09 12:19 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
If her boyfriend was 17, wouldn't he count as a minor as well?

Besides, as Deftones said, it's irrelevant. Or are we now using the "well he got away with it so why shouldn't I" defense?

al_bundy 10-09-09 12:26 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by dhmac (Post 9762209)
He admitted to consensual sex with her, but what if he thought she was 18-years-old? Almost everyone seems to think she looked 18 back then. And it's a common defense for defendants to say that he thought she was 18 - so if this had gone to an actual jury trial, he probably would have said the same thing.
her parents were a few rooms down. and they signed papers to photograph here. did they lie as well?

wlmowery 10-09-09 12:32 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by dhmac (Post 9762209)
He admitted to consensual sex with her, but what if he thought she was 18-years-old? Almost everyone seems to think she looked 18 back then. And it's a common defense for defendants to say that he thought she was 18 - so if this had gone to an actual jury trial, he probably would have said the same thing.
It's a common attempted defense. In most cases, it is not a valid defense. Statutory rape is typically a strict liability criminal act. Intent does not matter. So he could raise it, but the court would need to instruct that his belief is irrelevant to the proof of criminal conduct.

In legal parlance, there are only three elements of the specific crime that need to be proven. 1st - that sexual intercourse occurred. 2nd - that one party was a minor under age 16. And 3rd, that defendant was over 21 years of age.

wlmowery 10-09-09 12:35 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by dhmac (Post 9762320)
For the people who think Polanski should be thrown in prison, what about the girl's then 17-year-old boyfriend? He had sex with her before she even met Polanski. Where was his arrest for committing the same crime?
Who knows if he was arrested? I don't. And if he was arrested, it would likely only be a misdemeanor. Here is the language that applies to the situation in CA as of today: "(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison."

So, 4 years difference and CONSENSUAL likely means misdemeanor.

In comparison, here is the language that applies to Mr. Polanski: "(d) Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years."

So, 30+ years difference and allegedly NON-CONSENSUAL = FELONY

Finally, as others have mentioned, the fact that the victim was sexually active is irrelevant to the crime.

dhmac 10-09-09 12:38 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by Deftones (Post 9762352)
Answer the questions at hand, dhmac, esquire. this current question is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Actually, it's not. He's guilty of the same crime and, unlike Polanski, is walking the streets freely in the U.S. So the pitchfork-and-torches people should get the mob together and hunt him down!

Or is it OK for him to go free and not Polanski? Now that's a double-standard!

(And he was 4 years older than her, so the legal "less than three years older than the minor" thing does not apply to him).

BravesMG 10-09-09 12:40 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by dhmac (Post 9762320)
For the people who think Polanski should be thrown in prison, what about the girl's then 17-year-old boyfriend? He had sex with her before she even met Polanski. Where was his arrest for committing the same crime?
It is disgusting the lengths you will go to try and rationalize the behavior and treatment of an admitted child rapist.

Deftones 10-09-09 12:54 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by dhmac (Post 9762489)
Actually, it's not. He's guilty of the same crime and, unlike Polanski, is walking the streets freely in the U.S. So the pitchfork-and-torches people should get the mob together and hunt him down!

Or is it OK for him to go free and not Polanski? Now that's a double-standard!

(And he was 4 years older than her, so the legal "less than three years older than the minor" thing does not apply to him).
jesus fucking christ. i've seen some stupid shit around here in my day, but this is bordering on taking the cake.

the fact that you are trying to justify this situation as OK tells me pretty much everything we need to know about you.

wlmowery 10-09-09 01:06 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
WOW. What a mess both legally and morally.

Originally Posted by dhmac (Post 9761008)

Here's some things I gleaned from reading both sides of this case...

Did you know... that in her grand jury testimony the alleged victim admitted that "I can barely remember anything that happened."
As previously stated, this is a common side-effect of drug and alcohol consumption. However, as there is corroborating physical evidence that sexual intercourse occurred, her recollections will be given due weight. The defendant, had he elected to stand trial, would be more than within his right to cross-examine the validity of her statements.

Did you know... that the medical exam done on her that very night found no indication whatsoever of anal intercourse having occurring. It also found no evidence of semen inside her body whatsoever. Polanski's claim that he "withdrew before climax" without performing anal intercourse matches this evidence, the alleged victim's claim that he "climaxed in her anus" does not match it at all.
The exam results showed no evidence of tearing of the sphincter or or surrounding tissues. However, this does not mean anal sex did not occur. Given the physical state of the victim, a relaxed sphicter is highly probable. Plus, we do not have any data on the size of Mr. Polanski's penis (which would be relevant to the issue of whether damage would occur).

Did you know... that the medical exam also found no evidence of forced vaginal intercourse, which more closely matches Polanski's long-standing claim that it was consensual sex instead of the alleged victim's claim that sex was forced against her will. And perhaps her claims of repeating saying "No" found in the infamous grand jury testimony were all coached and not actually vocalized by her at the time. There's at least enough doubt that she said anything or resisted in any way that it's doubtful that it would have stood up in an actual jury trial, had one occurred.
Not sure how the logic flows from sentence 1 to encompass sentences 2 and 3. Just because A may or may not be true, does not mean that logically B and C must be true. In fact, again the data only shows no physical signs of forced entry. Not that forced entry did not occur. Don't confuse the two, as one does not equal the other. However, the victim's statements are very clear that she never physically resisted (which is not necessary). She verbally resisted. Further, as with the anal sex issue above, the victim was in a toxilogically induced relaxed state in which signs of forced penetration may not result from non-consensual sex. Finally, again, perhaps Mr. Polanski's size is not conducive to leaving signs of forced entry.

Did you know... that Polanski drove her home alone afterwards. Given that she could have easily called her mother back to pick her up if she was really "afraid of him" as claimed in her grand jury testimony, why did she let this allegedly scary man drive her home alone? This casts serious doubt on her grand jury claim that she was "afraid of him."
People who have been assualted sexually act in irrational ways. I do not find it hard to believe that a 13 y/o toxologically impaired female who just was raped by an man 30 years older than her would ride home with her assailant, or think rationally enough to call home or a cab.

Did you know... that Polanski stayed at her family's home for a little while after driving her home and showed her mother the pictures he had taken at their first photo session. Not at all the behavior of a predatory pedophile as he is being portrayed by a lot of people.
I've never said he was a predatory pedophile. But his is a pedophile and has other history of pedophilic type behaviors. Finally, I find his actions in keeping with his belief that his status would keep this from being a problem.

Did you know... that the alleged victim did not call the police when she got home and had absolutely no intentions of doing so. Instead, she told her boyfriend about it, her older sister overheard that conversation and told their mother. And that's when the police were called by her mother. And the alleged victim still to this day wishes her mother had never called the police.
This is entirely consistent with conduct of many rape sufferers.

Did you know... that Polanski has always said it was consensual and he blames the arrest and rape charge on the alleged victim's mother and has expressed nothing but sympathy for the alleged victim.
And he has the best reason for lying in the world.... But remember, consenual is largely irrelevant given the age of the victim. Moreover, his expressions of sympathy ring rather hollow to me.

Did you know... that the alleged victim bragged to Polanski about liking champagne, about having taken Quaaludes before, and about having already had sex in the car ride over for the photo session. They also talked about birth control pills in this same car ride too.
Again, according to Polanski. The victim admitted providing this information at the request of Mr. Polanski. I simply find her statements more reliable in a legal sense.

Did you know... that everyone back then described the alleged victim as looking much older than her actual age, with most thinking she was around 18-years-old:

And the pictures from that time back up that she looked like she was at least 16-years-old or older. So given that she looked older, what if Polanski did not actually know she was 13-years-old? Besides not looking 13, she didn't act like she was "just 13" around him. And his question in the car about if she was on the pill seems odd if he thought she was 13, but not odd at all if he thought she was 16 or older. Aside from what he had to say as a part of his plea bargain, I have never seen anything where Polanski said he knew she was just 13-years-old.
All irrelevant. And frankly rather shocking you would even bring this up as a potential defense. There is no WAY Mr. Polanski thought she was older than 18. I highly doubt he thought she was older than 16. And, there is at least some suggestion that he should have know that she was well under 16.

Did you know... that Polanski found the bottle of champagne in the fridge (and even asked the caretaker if it was OK to open it) and that he also found the Quaalude in the bathroom, so neither were brought along by him in some sort of "predatory trap" as claimed by some. (He even asked the alleged victim if the pill in the box that he found was a Quaalude. Why did he ask her? Because in the car, she had told him that she had taken them before so he already knew that she knew what they looked like.)
Again according to Mr. Polanski. There has been some significant suggestion that he brought the Quaalude with him (as he had a medical prescription for the same). This would be a factual issue for the jury (had it gone to trial). Again, given the positions of the two witnesses, I find Mr. Polanski's version as less reliable.

Did you know... that Polanski was completely surprised when the police arrested him. (That sounds like the behavior of someone who thinks he has not done anything wrong or illegal, not some "evil pedophile" worried about the police catching him one day.)
And so. John Dillanger was surprised when he was arrested too....

Did you know... that this was the first time Polanski was ever arrested for anything in his life.
Again so? There are any number of criminals who are never arrested for their crimes. We do know that Mr. Polanski has a history of dating/hanging around/sexual relationships with very young women (including some allegations of inappropriate conduct with other underage women). Those other allegations were retracted, again after an undisclosed financial settlement I believe.

Did you know... Polanski's guilty plea specifically was that he "had sexual intercourse with a female person not [his] wife, under the age of 18." And that's the only thing he has ever claimed happened.
Yes, because he fled before having to making any statement of record as part of his plea bargin and guilty plea.

Did you know... that Polanski served 42 days in Chino prison for the above crime he plead guilt to, which is longer than most people typically serve in California for the exact same crime.
Bullcrap. He served a 42 day psychiatric committment for evaluative purposes. Much different than a general prison term sentence. I would guess that most 44 y/o child rapists (with a 13 y/o victim) would be sentenced to a minimum of 2-4 years per the CA statute today. Parol in 18 months - 2 years. THAT is the sentence I think Mr. Polanski deserves (plus a consecutive sentence for flight).

Chas Speed 10-09-09 03:08 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
It was mentioned in Polanski's book that the victim's mother's live-in boyfriend, who was on the editorial staff of a magazine called "Marijuana Monthly" was seen by a member of the Depuy's DA's staff making out with the victim in a waiting room outside the DA's office. The staff member was so shocked that they mentioned it to the Judge. He didn't seem interested. This doesn't excuse Polanski. Polanksi came across a troubled girl and made her life even worse, but it does prove that the state of California was less interested in prosecuting non-celebrities for this crime.

dhmac 10-09-09 03:23 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by Deftones (Post 9762530)
jesus fucking christ. i've seen some stupid shit around here in my day, but this is bordering on taking the cake.

the fact that you are trying to justify this situation as OK tells me pretty much everything we need to know about you.
The fact that you have a double standard on this particular crime says a lot about you.

This girl was a wild child who was sexually active and experimenting with drugs and alcohol long before she ever met Polanski. He didn't corrupt her, others are guilty of doing that.

Deftones 10-09-09 03:25 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by Chas Speed (Post 9762821)
It was mentioned in Polanski's book that the victim's mother's live-in boyfriend, who was on the editorial staff of a magazine called "Marijuana Monthly" was seen by a member of the Depuy's DA's staff making out with the victim in a waiting room outside the DA's office. The staff member was so shocked that they mentioned it to the Judge. He didn't seem interested. This doesn't excuse Polanski. Polanksi came across a troubled girl and made her life even worse, but it does prove that the state of California was less interested in prosecuting non-celebrities for this crime.
that doesn't prove shit. making out with an underage girl is not statutory rape. sticking your penis in her vagina and ass is.

dhmac 10-09-09 03:31 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by Chas Speed (Post 9762821)
It was mentioned in Polanski's book that the victim's mother's live-in boyfriend, who was on the editorial staff of a magazine called "Marijuana Monthly" was seen by a member of the Deputy's DA's staff making out with the victim in a waiting room outside the DA's office. The staff member was so shocked that they mentioned it to the Judge. He didn't seem interested. This doesn't excuse Polanski. Polanski came across a troubled girl and made her life even worse, but it does prove that the state of California was less interested in prosecuting non-celebrities for this crime.
I think if Polanski was not a celebrity and was instead just an unknown photographer who was struggling to get by, all charges would have been dropped (if even brought up at all) and he would not have spent a single day in prison.

dan30oly 10-09-09 03:31 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by Chas Speed (Post 9762821)
It was mentioned in Polanski's book that the victim's mother's live-in boyfriend, who was on the editorial staff of a magazine called "Marijuana Monthly" was seen by a member of the Depuy's DA's staff making out with the victim in a waiting room outside the DA's office. The staff member was so shocked that they mentioned it to the Judge. He didn't seem interested. This doesn't excuse Polanski. Polanksi came across a troubled girl and made her life even worse, but it does prove that the state of California was less interested in prosecuting non-celebrities for this crime.
:rolleyes:

#1 The above is absolutely incredible. And, by that I mean incredibly unbelievable.

*2 In regards to what Polanski did it doesn't matter if the victim made out with or screwed the entire Oakland f*cking Raiders team (including the punter).

~3 Even if it did happen, I would think that a staff member mentioning the above behavior to a Judge would be highly inappropriate. Wouldn't he have to not be interested in the behavior unless it was brought to him by an attorney for either side, or while in session?

^4 Polanski raped a 13 year old girl. Why do the apologists not understand this?

Originally Posted by dhmac (Post 9762855)
This girl was a wild child who was sexually active and experimenting with drugs and alcohol long before she ever met Polanski. He didn't corrupt her, others are guilty of doing that.
Maybe he isn't responsible for her initial "corruption" but he is responsible for raping her.

Originally Posted by dhmac (Post 9762870)
I think if Polanski was not a celebrity and was instead just an unknown photographer who was struggling to get by, all charges would have been dropped (if even brought up at all) and he would not have spent a single day in prison.
This is like talking to a brick wall.

Polanski has yet to spend a single day in prison! He was never sentenced for RAPING A 13-YEAR OLD GIRL

wlmowery 10-09-09 03:34 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by dhmac (Post 9762870)
I think if Polanski was not a celebrity and was instead just an unknown photographer who was struggling to get by, all charges would have been dropped (if even brought up at all) and he would not have spent a single day in prison.

Actually, I am pretty sure that the exact opposite is true. Had this been some random photog, jail time would have been assured.

wlmowery 10-09-09 03:37 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by Deftones (Post 9762859)
that doesn't prove shit. making out with an underage girl is not statutory rape. sticking your penis in her vagina and ass is.
Not to mention, again, why should I trust Polanski's statements. Of everyone involved here, he has the greatest incentive to lie. So, is this statement corroborated by a statement by the staffer, a note in a file, a reference on the record. I will assume the answer to be no, no and no. Therefore, it is not something I would be willing to take at fact value.

And, ultimately, it is immaterial to whether or not Polanski butt raped a 13 year old.

RocShemp 10-09-09 03:39 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by dhmac (Post 9762855)
This girl was a wild child who was sexually active and experimenting with drugs and alcohol long before she ever met Polanski. He didn't corrupt her, others are guilty of doing that.
He wasn't arrested for "corrupting a minor" he was arrested for fucking a minor. He could have been in a gang bang with her and the only culprit that was caught and it wouldn't change the fact that he fucked a minor. Just cos someone else may have got off the hook, doesn't mean he should too.

People get away with murder all the time. Does that mean all murderers should know be set free? Of course not. So why should a kiddie-fucker get away with fucking a 13-year-old girl because someone else may have also gotten away with the same crime?

Originally Posted by dhmac
I think if Polanski was not a celebrity and was instead just an unknown photographer who was struggling to get by, all charges would have been dropped (if even brought up at all) and he would not have spent a single day in prison.
Other way around. If he was such a nowbody he would have been arrested ages ago and no one would be going out of their way to defend him.

Groucho 10-09-09 03:40 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
The details of the case are irrelevant at this point. Polanski is still a fugitive from justice.

Chas Speed 10-09-09 03:52 PM
Re: Roman Polanski arrested
 
Originally Posted by wlmowery (Post 9762877)
Actually, I am pretty sure that the exact opposite is true. Had this been some random photog, jail time would have been assured.
I think since it was his first offense and he had no criminal record and the victim said she didn't want him to go to jail that he would have got off pretty easy (if he was not a celebrity). When I say first offense, of course, I mean the first time he got caught. It's impossibe to know how many times Polanski did this. He does mention one other time with a 15 year old in his book, but my guess is he did it a lot more then twice.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:47 PM.
Page 17 of 19
« First
7
15
16
17
18
19
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.