Whoopi says its not "rape-rape"

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by spiritwomyn
Someone should get the list and post it so we can let our Hollywood royalties know what we think of them and then boycott their movies.



Might be interesting for one to note that Harrison Ford accepted his award for him at the event he was arrested on his way to it. Where he said that

"It is a criminal conviction of a terrible crime, but it is something that the industry is willing to look the other way on," Belloni said. "If Hollywood really gets to look at itself and judge the personal character of a lot of the artists in the community, there would be a lot of empty seats at the Oscars because a lot of people have personal problems. This sort of is at the extreme level of that."- Harrison Ford

This is so seriously true except I wouldn't call it personal problems - I'd call it criminal behavior and there is a lot of that PLUS personal problems - having lived there for ten years I can attest to this - L.A. is perv central and when the bottom line is the Big $$$$ there isn't much that folk won't excuse...

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by dizzie56

 

There is only one area of your analysis of the case that I see might be a problem....there was a plea bargain....and based on all the elements of that deal he was offered, he plead guilty.

The judge having reneged, begs the question....would he have plead guilty knowing the deal would be foiled?

It could be seen as trickery to get him to make a guilty plea.

Credit for time served is pretty standard. Let's not forget he was punished and has lead a productive life as a law abiding citizen for many years.

People hear are acting like this just happened yesterday and he hasn't been tried yet. He was tried....a deal was reached...he agreed to the deal...he had been incarcerated....he had spent time locked up.....so he was punished. The additional punishment that he was supposed to receive was time in an psychological evaluation center....then an injustice occurred when the judge went back on his promise. So he fled and he didn't spend time in the psychological evaluation center. He was perfectly willing to do the deal....which is why he plead guilty. He didn't get away with anything. He was convicted and accepted his punishment for his guilty plea.

He committed the crime....yes.....but a deal is a deal.

So let's stop arguing about whether he did it or not, or whether it's wrong....we all know it's wrong....I never said it was right....and ask ourselves if he should be dragged back here at tax payer expense after 30 years, only to be made an example of by a glory seeking prosecutor.

Ya don't offer a deal for a guilty plea and then back out on it after the guy lives up to his end and pleads guilty. That is just criminal.


[edit on 1/10/09 by John Matrix]

I read somewheres (i will try to dig it up) that the judge had every right to renig on the plea deal if he so chose, even after he concented to it. Either way, if the judge had the right to do so or not it doesnt mean that it is okay for someone to just skip town when they dont like what they hear in terms of their sentenence. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW to do so. If we let this one go, how do we not set precident for this to happen again in the future?

If the judge was not allowed to renig then that still has to be worked out in the court of law. Their is a process that this country set up for a reason. Everybody gets their time in court and that means crooked judges as well. His lawyer could have brought it up to an ethics committee, the cali bar, court of appeals, etc. But instead, he flead and has not had to face the consequences of fleeing. How is he above the law in that respect? Because the case is old? We bring Catholic priests up on charges of the same types of things all the time no matter how old the incident in question was.

If an everyday joe did this and instead of skipping town to another country but went to another state and created another identity and was caught years later would we be having this argument of whether it is ethical to bring him back to face the music? I know we wouldnt be because that happens all the time in this country as well. Even if said "joe" didnt commit as serious a felony, they still get brought back to jail. If we undermine this process we will be screwed in the long run and create an even bigger aristocracy in this country than there allready is. If we start putting other people above the law, we start to put ourselves in chains.

My favorite thing to hear was someone on CNN I guess from France or Sweden (I heard they are raising a real fuss there) said “it would be a tragedy to jail him after all he has done for the movie industry. So what if he made a little mistake so many years ago”.
*Not exact wording but close enough*

Yep, now you too can say so what if I drugged and raped that 13 year old it was only a little mistake.

People are so fricking stupid. Really, now we have people openly defending pedophiles or more correctly hebephiles (someone who is attracted to those who have reached puberty). I knew the time was coming when people would not care if they roamed the streets but I was hoping it would be a few more years before they got that stupid.

Raist


[edit on 10/1/09 by Raist]

Lets recap this story.

1) His wife and unborn child were murdered by the Manson gang.
2) He drugged and rapped a 13 year old child. She begged him to stop and he refused.
3) He plea bargained to a lesser charge. After admitting he did all the things she accused him of.
4) He fled the country before his sentencing deal. A warrent is issued for his arrest.
5) Judge renegs on the plea deal because Polansky fled.
6) He lives in France because of his citizenship they will not etradite him.
7) He gives money to the girl and her family years later to buy attonment for his sins.
8) He is always descreat about where he is going so that he can not be picked up for his outstatnding warrent.
9) He publicly brags about a trip he is going to make and how no one would get him because he is going ot get an award.
10) Gov't sees the public statement and picks him up.
11) Hollywood types come out in droves to support him.

Ok first off, the fact he drugged her is in my mind the critical issue. The judge felt sorry about his recent loss and allowed a plea baragin to a lesser offense. He got cocky in his old age and assumed he was untouchable, just as he did when he was originally charged. Lastly Hollywood is full of nuts who think they are above the law.

Originally posted by Raist
My favorite thing to hear was someone on CNN I guess from France or Sweden (I heard they are raising a real fuss there) said “it would be a tragedy to jail him after all he has done for the movie industry. So what if he made a little mistake so many years ago”.
*Not exact wording but close enough*

Yep, now you too can say so what if I drugged and raped that 13 year old it was only a little mistake.

People are so fricking stupid. Really, now we have people openly defending pedophiles or more correctly hebephiles (someone who is attracted to those who have reached puberty). I knew the time was coming when people would not care if they roamed the streets but I was hoping it would be a few more years before they got that stupid.

Raist


[edit on 10/1/09 by Raist]

And let's be serious.

If you NEVER say another movie ever again, would it be a tragedy?

No.

I'd honour Bohr as genius of science. And I'd still be happy to put him in jail for committing a felony rape.

reply to post by SpaceJockey


Funny you should mention that. It does seem these are the types that want the peer to peer people to be fined to death or spend life in jail. But adolescent rapists are okay people to them.

It is so nice to see they have their priorities straight.

I would be more interested in seeing a list of Hollywood folk who want him to go to jail. Better yet let’s hear what Oprah has to say about this, depending on her answer I might actually agree with her which is exceedingly rare. I did not really recognize many names other than Woody Allen, and we know how he feels about having sex with a young girl.

Raist

reply to post by Aeons


I would not be bothered at all really.

I rarely watch movies as is. I spend more time on the channels that show educational stuff.

I have not been to a theater in about 15 years either BTW.

Raist

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

1. Victims have no personal role in plea bargan offers. The prosecution weighs their case by the facts, evidence and by the credibility of their wtnesses, and the willingness of their witnesses to testify.

You forgot to add they will also plea bargain if the victim in a rape or assault case is mentally unable to deal with a lengthy trial. They also plea bargain to prevent a case from going to appeals. They plea bargain for a lot of reasons.

Right, which is why I suggested we wait before passing judgement and condemning the guy.

He was tried, convicted, and sentenced. The court transcripts are available for everyone to look at. I have looked at them. I have also heard her say as an adult that she said "no" and that sex was forced upon her. Polanski didn't even object to that, he made like he was crazy because of what happened to his wife. Terrible though it was, tragedy does not remit you from doing violence to children. Rape of any kind, anal rape especially as your body is not created for that purpose is brutal. Her body showed signs of brutality, btw, you can verify that.

One brutality does not excuse the other. She was a child that deserved to be protected (and I agree that her parents should have been beaten with a rubber hose, too).

Why shouldn't I condemn him again? He had a trial. He pled guilty to a lesser charge so he wouldn't go down for years. Moreover, he has shown no signs of remorse or even denial. He has also been unrepentant, flaunting movies of underage Lolitas cavorting with older men. He's stated that the judge was just jealous because he would have like to < insert explicative> a young girl.

Why don't you tell me how his behavior or art has reflected anything but a man who is guilty of pedophilia and interested in women well below an age of true sexual understanding and/or consent? Did he give money to charity for women of sexual abuse? Did he create any movies that portrayed women as anything other than witches or vehicles for man's sexual desires?

Furthermore, he was not punished. He fled punishment.

You implied it was not rape. You implied it might have been consensual and the facts of the case (read the court documents) do not show that in the least. She said "no". He did not dispute that.

Implying it might be consensual does not translate into implying it's not rape. There were interviews of people close to the case that said it was consensual....that's all I implied.

Who, aside from his friends, said it was consensual? I grew up in a major city. If I robbed a bank I would have friends that said I was with them the entire time. Friends do not count.

The victim, in 2003 I think it was, said she was forced. So now, taking the article at face value, she still says it was forced, but maintains that the trauma caused by the media attention was more harmful to her than the rape.

She did not say it was more harmful in the interview I saw. She said that she wanted to put it behind her as she did then, but that doesn't mean that this ought to be the case. There is the victim and then there is the right of the public to not have to walk around with criminals. If a man robbed me at gunpoint I might not want to see him in court and I may even forgive him, but he is a danger to society. Polanski was never punished for his crime. He has continued to make movies. Lord knows, how many other young girls were treated to his version of consensual sex.

But the bottom line is, a deal was reached to convince him to accept a plea bargain and give a guilty plea, which he accepted.

The deal was with the prosecutor and was not in open court. Sentencing is (look this up) for and by the will of the people, the judge received a loud and clear voice and decided to remit him the sentence indicative of a lesser crime as opposed to some fluffy six week clinic.

He had already been punished

How? Rape is a crime that typically gets an individual years in jail depending upon the severity. Did he spend years in jail that we know nothing about?

, and agreed to spend time in a psychological evaluation center. He agreed to the terms, entered his guilty plea and got a knife in the back by a judge representing the justice system.

Better than a penis in the bottom, which is what he gave to her at the age of thirteen.

What does anyone hope to gain from dragging him back here and ruining the guy and his entire family?

Equal justice. It simply is not fair that other, poorer criminals go to jail and would do a lengthy jail sentence for what he was ultimately convicted of. It sends a message, true or not, that if you are rich and famous the laws of the country do not apply to you. OJ was one helluva football player but he is still a criminal. Making movies and playing sports does not give you greater than equal value to a society.

It may also prevent this same situation from happening over and over to other young women. I mean...Holy Christ he's got Woody Allen on his side. I think I wanna barf.

BTW, from someone who has had sexual practices forced upon her, this is a big deal. It changes how you view sex, men, and even yourself. At a young age it screws with your head. He should have also been convicted of "theft" as what he did stole her joy in the act for many years to come.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

reply to post by A Fortiori


We know all this stuff already.

Tell us something new.

Do some research or something.

Originally posted by exile1981
Lets recap this story.

1) His wife and unborn child were murdered by the Manson gang.
2) He drugged and rapped a 13 year old child. She begged him to stop and he refused.
3) He plea bargained to a lesser charge. After admitting he did all the things she accused him of.

Wrong! He agreed to plead guilty as his part in a plea bargain deal.

4) He fled the country before his sentencing deal. A warrent is issued for his arrest.

Wrong. After he plead guilty the judge granted a stay so Polanski could finish filming in Europe. Polanski returned to USA for his sentencing and discovered the judge had decided to renneg on the deal....that is when Polanski fled.

5) Judge renegs on the plea deal because Polansky fled.

Wrong! See my response above.

6) He lives in France because of his citizenship they will not extradite him.
7) He gives money to the girl and her family years later to buy attonment for his sins.
8) He is always descreat about where he is going so that he can not be picked up for his outstatnding warrent.
9) He publicly brags about a trip he is going to make and how no one would get him because he is going to get an award.
10) Gov't sees the public statement and picks him up.
11) Hollywood types come out in droves to support him.

Ok first off, the fact he drugged her is in my mind the critical issue. The judge felt sorry about his recent loss and allowed a plea baragin to a lesser offense. He got cocky in his old age and assumed he was untouchable, just as he did when he was originally charged. Lastly Hollywood is full of nuts who think they are above the law.

I don't know what to say about your last paragraph....but I liked your attempt to stick to the facts prior to that last part.

Arnold Schwarzenegger just told Wolf Blitzer he would handle a request for a pardon from Polanski in the same manner as he would for any other person. He said that all the allegations should be looked into, including the allegations of injustice.

My Source was CNN broadcast on television...Wolf Blitzer Interview of Arnold Schwarzenegger 5:30 pm Central USA.

[edit on 1/10/09 by John Matrix]

reply to post by Keyhole

[SARCASM]OOOH, over 100 people in the film industry think he should be released!!! I guess that's enough to throw the laws of our land out the window and let this guy get away with raping a minor![/SARCASM]

I guess you didn't realize that EACH actor's vote is reflected by 1 billion people's votes.... so that petition was actually signed by 100 billion people.

(star for you btw)

*sigh* I hate Hollywood. My mom used to tell me, "Actors are like prostitutes, you pay them for a good time for a few minutes, not to hear their worthless unfounded opinions or political views."
I love you mom.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by resist2012]

I wonder if Toys-R-Us will continue to use the services of Miss Goldberg? Christmas is coming and I believe a boycott will be in order if Goldberg is still representing them.

A spokesman for Toys-R-US condoning child rape? Not very good for business.





[edit on 1-10-2009 by RRconservative]

reply to post by resist2012

I guess you didn't realize that EACH actor's vote is reflected by 1 billion people's votes.... so that petition was actually signed by 100 billion people.

And there was me thinking there was only 6 billion people on earth

Originally posted by RRconservative
I wonder if Toys-R-Us will continue to use the services of Miss Goldberg? Christmas is coming and I believe a boycott will be in order if Godlberg is still representing them.

A spokesman for Toys-R-US condoning child rape? Not very good for business.



[edit on 1-10-2009 by RRconservative]

Excellent. Now that's talking!

Doesn't she also do something with Seasame Street?

I think I'm getting creeped out now.

On a good note, Kristie Alley came out swinging about Polanski. I think I like her more now.

[edit on 2009/10/1 by Aeons]

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by resist2012

 

I guess you didn't realize that EACH actor's vote is reflected by 1 billion people's votes.... so that petition was actually signed by 100 billion people.

And there was me thinking there was only 6 billion people on earth

Seven Billion. I know...six....seven...whose counting.....

John Landis and Guillmero Del Toro have done quite a few films I've seen. Anyone know of some good product or commercial interests they have?

I am VERY disappointed in Harrison Ford. Does he have any current commercial interests?



[edit on 2009/10/1 by Aeons]

Look I know this will sound callas but....

Ever since I was little I've heard stories about how sex goes hand in hand with getting work AKA "The Casting Couch" not just in the movie biz but modeling and beauty pageants as well...

How quick you all were to forget that little murdered girl JonBenét Ramsey? the media described her as "a painted baby, a sexualized toddler beauty queen." and guess what the medical examiner found she wasn't a virgin but did not have sex that night, there were old seaman stains on her undies but none fresh...

then we have all the stories about Mickel Jackson for years there were reports something fishy was going on but parents still brought their little boys to his place so he could sleep with them...

This whole biz is ripe with abuse and I would never let any of my kids spend one second alone with these people.... with that said any rational adult who places their child in that kind of environment might as well just say "Have fun at your raping honey and try not to stain your blue dress"!

SO was it rape or casting? Who's at fault the Man the girl the mother? I say it was everyone including her parents who pushed her into that situation... Of course Whoopi would say it wasn't rape... it was business as usual

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by exile1981
Lets recap this story.

1) His wife and unborn child were murdered by the Manson gang.
2) He drugged and rapped a 13 year old child. She begged him to stop and he refused.
3) He plea bargained to a lesser charge. After admitting he did all the things she accused him of.

Wrong! He agreed to plead guilty as his part in a plea bargain deal.

How can you say "wrong"?

From CNN...

Polanski was charged with six felonies, including sodomy and rape, but pleaded guilty to a single count of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under a plea bargain. The director, his lawyer and the prosecutor handling the case believed they'd reached a deal that would spare the young victim a public trial and Polanski jail time, according to court records.

The plea bargain was for the purpose of sparing the girl a public trial and to prevent jail time for Polanski, not because of a weak case.

Moreover judges are allowed to throw out the plea bargain of a prosecutor. Usually they accept, but some times they do not if they feel that the defendant is unworthy of the deal. Plea bargains are never a sure thing. The prosecutor did his part by entering the deal, the judge rescinded.

4) He fled the country before his sentencing deal. A warrent is issued for his arrest.


Wrong. After he plead guilty the judge granted a stay so Polanski could finish filming in Europe. Polanski returned to USA for his sentencing and discovered the judge had decided to renneg on the deal....that is when Polanski fled.

The deal was not between the judge and Polanski. It was between the prosecutor and Polanski. The judge did not "reneg" on anything. He rescinded based upon his conduct. Polanski was able to go and film a movie versus submit to the facility immediately. Instead of acting with propriety he immediately allows himself to be photographed with young women and alcohol.

If you have just been convicted of racketeering and had the sentence suspended you do not go hang out at the racetrack.

reply to post by Aeons


How about you stop putting words in my mouth. Nowhere have I at any point said I am in favor, a proponent of or supportive of people raping six year olds.

What you need is to stop demonstrating your complete lack of cognitive thinking skills and develop your ability to understand what words mean.

You need to learn to read.