It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Whoopi says its not "rape-rape"

page: 17
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:58 AM
reply to post by Dark Ghost

I was buying liquor and cigarettes when I was sixteen. But that does not excuse the people who SHOULD have been asking for my identification.

Nobody drugged me and made me buy cigarettes and alcohol against my will though.

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 11:08 AM
Apparently when the judge reneged on his promise to Polanski he made it known that he was going to order Polanski be deported. It would appear Polanski fled and saved him the effort.

In another twist on the unusual case, Douglas Dalton, the attorney who represented Polanski in the original case, gave an impassioned argument in which he claimed that Polanski was the victim of "a fugitive Catch-22."

"Judge Rittenband wanted him out of the country and wanted him never to return. And that's what Polanski did," he said. "And now he can't get any relief because he's out of the country. It's the classic Catch-22."


posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:27 PM
reply to post by John Matrix

I have a friend who needed money for drugs and held up a couple and jacked their car. His life had been one of non-stop brutalization of his person by his mother. I remember him as a child, before drugs, and I will never ever stop loving him or holding out hope that he can recapture some of that kid I once knew.

If he needs my help he need only ask.

He is smart enough to say what the psychologists wanted to hear several times to let him out of rehab. Each time he fell back into addiction. He eventually ended up going to court and his childhood, his sobriety, his recalcitrance--all of it was taken into consideration by the judge before he sentenced him to prison.

If you asked me "who" he is my opinion would be decidedly different and more lenient than someone who does not know him. Everyone is lenient towards their friends. Vastly different than what the people who had their car stolen at gunpoint saw of him and/or the prosecuting attorney.

Just as ColdDragon tells me that I cannot disassociate myself from being assualted, do you really think she can disassociate herself from her friend?

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Wow, you have never seen a young teenager who looks like a young adult?

Sure I have...and I do understand your point. However...Walmart's register "dings" when I buy glue or cold pills, and they card you for cigarettes if you are under 40. I don't see why a responsible adult isn't capable of taking the same level of interest or concern with providing drugs, alcohol and having sex with what could be an underage child. I don't think that is asking too much...especially if it means life in prison or life flagged as a pedophile.

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by John Matrix

Mr Matrix,

First, you assume I am without sympathy for Mr Polanski. I am a spiritual person and believe in ultimate redemption for everyone and I believe in forgiveness. I may forgive someone, but I still expect when people break the laws in a country whose very foundations are bedded upon equal justice under the law the justice is equally applied.

Second, the case was tried, when it would have resulted in Geimer taking the stand to describe the rape his own lawyer sought a plea. The plea was not forced upon him and was conditional. You cannot "reneg" upon a conditional plea. In the simplest of terms his working stay was much like probation and he violated that probation, ergo the judge did not "reneg". He rescinded a time served, meaning that Polanski would have only at maximum served an additional 45 days for what was quite possibly a rape of a thirteen year old (she still claims it was forced.

Forty-five days for the anal violation of someone he referred to in 1985 as a "slut".

Let us say that you are right and he did not force it upon her and had no idea she was thirteen. Should he not have learned from that experience?

From his memoir:

One day a German gossip columnist invited me out on a double date with two girls he wante me to meet. Both were young and, in different ways, strikingly beautiful. One of them was rather dowdily dressed. I asked her name. “My friends call me Nasty,” she said. [...] Very late that night, after a long round of discos, the four of us ended up in my suite. Leaving Nasty with the journalist, I took the other girl, a stunning blonde, to bed. By the time I surfaced the journalist had gone. Nasty was half-asleep in an armchair in the sitting room. Taking her by the hand, I led her back into the bedroom.

We never repeated this threesome, though I saw a lot of both girls thereafter. I dated the blonde for several weeks, but it was Nasty who grew on me more and more. [...]

Nastassia introdued me to her mother, who discussed her career with me [...]. That was when I first learned Nastassia’s age. She was only fifteen.

He is an intelligent man. This "I didn't know her age" thing is rather flimsy considering that he supposedly didn't know Geimer was 13. At what point when you've been hauled before a court for "not knowing" do you start to ask: "How old are you?" before putting your penis in someone.

Now, I am not fond of Polanski because I read the transcripts, have listened to the victims recounting, etc. I believe it was rape from my researched opinion.

For the record, I think others that did the same: Steven Tyler, Mick Jagger, and my beloved Mr Jimmy Page were sick a-holes, too.

I can appreciate their art and still think they should have done jail time because they broke our laws.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 05:13 PM
Amazing. The guy regularly "mistakes" girls for legal age.

Gosh golly gee. That's just bad luck that.

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 05:20 PM
reply to post by John Matrix

Hm. Well, my childhood was much worse than Polanski's.

Which children are you going to sacrifice on my altar?

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 09:08 PM

Originally posted by Aeons
Amazing. The guy regularly "mistakes" girls for legal age.

Gosh golly gee. That's just bad luck that.

NOW just issued a statement slamming not only Polanski but women like Whoopie and Deborah who endorse him.

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Not everyone is defending Polanski. Many are looking at the facts of the case and can see that the Official Version does NOT add up. So many people are letting their emotions override the consideration of facts in this case.

Is it not possible that while Polanski IS guilty of rape, perhaps he was unaware of the victims real age? Does not excuse his actions and he deserves to be punished for the crimes that he committed. The problem is people are focussing on the assumption that he knew full well that she was under age. This forces a biased view over Polaski because you feel more repulsion than you would if the victim were an adult (still repulsion, but not as intense as if it were a child).

I do not believe that Whoopi was saying his actions were acceptable. She was probably more upset that he was being called a paedophile and it was being portrayed that he had a desire to rape little girls. Nevertheless, I will concede that what she said was insensitive and would bet she regrets using the words that she did.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by Dark Ghost]

Well ok, I guess there is a chance he did not know she was under age. I mean hey, I was'nt there right. And he is a great director, The Pianist was a damn good movie lol. =]

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 02:12 AM
Whoopi and the Vue belong together, this is the most brainless discourse I've seen on TV yet, I'd opt for Growing Up Gotti reruns before wasting time with the Vue. Polanski raped, drugged, sodomized and boozed the under aged female, ran away from his crime and now these Idiots want to give him a free pass, if it was my daughter he did this to he would have never made it to his arrest.

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 02:34 AM
reply to post by Boomer1941

The guy deserves to jail.

What kind of message would it to be to send that "Hey pedophiles, hey rapists! If you run long enough, you don't have to go to jail!"

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:38 AM
reply to post by Boomer1941

Here are the arguments from the "Free Polanski" side as I see them:

  1. Polanski didn't know she was thirteen.
  2. Polanski lost his parents and wife to horrific experience and could have had PTSD
  3. Polanski served his time faithfully and the judge reneged
  4. If it was really rape the prosecutor wouldn't have pled down
  5. It's all her parent's fault
  6. It's the girls fault
  7. He's a gifted director

Here are my arguments:

  1. Polanski knew she was young enough to need parental permission to model
  2. Iraqi vets have been through horror and have the means to kill, but we wouldn't excuse a solder for killing someone when he got back
  3. His lawyer negotiated a sentence of less than 90 days and a temporary pass to film a movie. That is special treatment to begin with that Polanski abused by violating terms while abroad
  4. It is common to plead down a rape case--victims do not like to relive the experience in court
  5. Her parents are indeed obscenely negligent
  6. $%&**^#@
  7. And Michael Vick was a great quarterback in his prime when jail time would stall a nascent career and yet... he still served time

However, be forewarned that if you espouse the opinions I have maintained it makes you "worse than a rapist",'re gambling with your ATS rep when you state them.

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 03:34 PM
this totaly boggles the mind on so many levels how this man can be getting away with this

says alot about america

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:29 PM
Nope, it's not "rape-rape".

It's far worse. A 13 yo girl is still basically a kid even if she's physically sexually mature. We aren't dogs!

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:35 AM
Polanski defenders - do any of you have souls?

The man raped a child!
He sexually molested a child!
Ever hear of "no means no?"

This wasn't a woman, but a child, I don't give a good damn how old she looked, how mature she appeared to be.


Because he was exiled - by choice - by raping a child - which he drugged of his own volition. He made his choices, he made his bed.
And now we have to hear about how THE JUSTICE SYSTEM FAILED HIM?

When the hell did society go from protecting kids to protecting a grown man who forced himself on a child? And to put out the word to let it go, that justice is served because poor, poor Polanski has been humiliated and alienated - THROUGH HIS CHOICES AND DECISIONS - and it should be enough????

What about that 13 year old girl? What about her? No, she's no longer a child, but she was. Where the hell is the heartache and defense and justice for this girl for 30 + years of torment? Who's crying for her?

I am.

Because this kid couldn't run away from the trauma and abuse she endured; never, I don't care how old she gets. At night, she likely had countless nightmares, reliving the rape over and over.

I doubt you Polanski defenders have the vaguest idea as to what that kind of trauma does to a child's mind. Polanski had to run to retain his freedom after he STOLE not just a little girl's innocence, but changed her forever. I promise you, having sat through many women's rape counseling groups, she didn't come out of it unscathed, and would never be the same person she was, or could ever have been.

Justice? Who gets justice here? Polanski, because he was treated unfairly, or the real victim? And # rehabilitation. Prison isn't rehab. Rehab is rehab. Prison is prison, and the time he served overseas cannot equal punishment. Since he didn't turn tail and truck his monsterous ass back to America to serve his time, I'm betting his time overseas wasn't relateable to a prison sentence behind bars.

Buy his way out, pay off the victim? Talk about being above the law. One more bit of proof certain numbskulls believe the wealthy are above the law, and it doesn't apply to the rich and fortunate.

I don't care how much time has passed or how much he has shelled out to wash his hands clean and right his wrong - quite frankly, it won't ever be enough!

And Hollywood rushing to his defense just proves how shallow and soulless those stars really are. These are the same people that will give money to animal shelters, speak out against animal cruelty and protest wearing fur or driving a car that isn't electric or a hybrid. ----- And so easy do they write off a child molester and rush to his aid.

I guess it's clear how distorted their perceptions are, and for the world to see.

One more thing - to defend Polanski is to defend every damn child molester in the world. No splitting hairs. If it's right for one, it's right for all. OH, and we can't forget the rapists of the world, either. As long as they have good attorneys, a community standing behind them, and money to shell out to their victims, well, then we should just look the other way and tell the real victims of such crimes to move past the moments that shattered their life.

Polanski will get his, as an old man, he'll suffer. Just like his little victim suffered, and will - through his choice that he made - he has found himself stuck in a situation he can't control, is finally made to feel small and powerless. He made the decision, and it's coming round to bite him in the ass.
Karma. I love it.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:43 AM

Originally posted by KDM_Souljah
this totaly boggles the mind on so many levels how this man can be getting away with this

says alot about america

He waas actually convicted in America. He would probably never have been charged in France or Poland.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:54 AM
I wonder why anyone cares really what Whoppie says? Cause she's on tv all the time she's cool I guess. And she does look good most of the time. I don't care that she's over weight. Her opinion matters as much as anyone's.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:32 AM
reply to post by DevilJin

I agree that the rape charge should be dropped, only because the victim wishes it so. BUT...when he fled the country, that made him a fugitive of justice and it is for that, that he must be tried. He admittedly did the crime, then ran from judgment, like any civilian who did such, he has to be punished for it.

Though I understand the victim's desire to be finished with this immediately, I do wish she would consider the message it would send for this man to get away with raping a child. That is the important thing at this point, just because he hid away for years before being caught, shouldn't mean he gets away with it. Parents work hard to protect their children (the good ones do) and to have such an "out" for rapists is a very bad thing.

As for the actors supporting him, all I can say is: "Suck ups!!"

[edit on 5-10-2009 by SheaWolf]

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:46 AM
reply to post by orderedchaos

Firstly, you are mistaking some of the people in the thread as "Polanski Defenders", when some of us are not defending Polanski as much as ridiculing society's take on certain things tangentially related to the Polanski situation.

Those who are "Defending" Polanski are those who are questioning the understanding of what went down.

There seem to be two groups of people, the people who think a thirteen year old is a child and the people who don't. For the people that do, there is no amount of persuasion, facts or reality that is able to dissuade them. This is not even an issue with Polanski, it is an issue about Age of Legal Consent.

So you have some who defend Polanski because they think that the situation itself was not as cut and dry as some here like to think. From a rationalist standpoint, ignoring what culture and society thinks is black and white, every human being deserved equal treatment from the justice system.

This doesn't necessarily happen, but it is something that should happen. The problem is that large sections of the populace do not want equal justice for certain types of crime, such as anything to do with harming a child.

It is worse to have consensual sex with an underage girl than it is to murder an underage girl to most in society. Murder carries a lighter sentence, you are not stigmatized for murder and you do not end up on a government watch list with half of society barred from your presence. So, the moral is, if you're going to rape a child then murder them too because your sentence is not going to get worse. This creates some of the situations from recent years where children are both raped and murdered, because hey, if you can't suffer a worse punishment than child rape, you might as well throw in murder as well.

Even more disturbing, Rape means basically anything nowadays... rather than forceful, coercive sex against an unwilling partipicant and generally with violence involved, it can be any consenting individual who is of an age disparity with the accused or whom is below the states legal age of consent.

So in this thread, some people defend Polanski because they think that while he did it and don't deny that he did, they think the situation may have warranted some reconsideration. Some have argued that the victim should have final say in the punishment, and she only desired to put it behind her and move on with her life.

In which case, is not Society the worse of the two Rapists, for forcing victims to relive their rapes again and again, and for situations such as this forcing someone into such a limelight as to be one of the "Memorable Court Cases of the Year", meaning that their rape won't ever be forgotten. "Hey, aren't you that girl who got raped by Polanski? So how was that?"

People can and do move on to productive lives, putting such things into the past. Who is ANYONE to say that they are not living healthy lives by not facing their rapists and demanding retribution and penance? Are you saying that people are not allowed to forgive criminals unless the law and society has already had their shot at punishing the individual?

So then we come to if a crime involves a child, objectivity, logic and reason no longer matter, it becomes an EMOTIONAL issue... and that is alright? It is alright to forsake the foundations of thought and reason for the desire to punish and perpetuate a deep seated societal hatred for individuals that have been branded as human trash?

And not only that, you feel it is fine to ridicule and associate people who defend individuals with an aberrant sexual proclivity with whom they defend, demonstrating a lack of dissemination between the defender and the item they are defending? Some have even threatened such people in other threads, only for voicing their dissenting opinions which defend Paedophiles, Hebephiles and Ephebephiles. Is your mind incapable of fathoming the differences, or are you just unwilling to recognize that you might have more to learn about the world than you think? Or maybe you just don't care to understand?

I'm not certain which one is worse. Now, some in here have voiced their opinions, heavily shaded by their emotions and previous life experiences, yet have done so in a much less threatening manner... with stoic and often quite vocal disagreement, but always with some measure of politeness and a willingness to try and reason. Some have been victims of such brutality in the past, yet they still manage to find some modicum of self respect to treat even those whose opinions they hate with some measure of civility.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:52 AM

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Mr Matrix,

First, you assume I am without sympathy for Mr Polanski. I am a spiritual person and believe in ultimate redemption for everyone and I believe in forgiveness. I may forgive someone, but I still expect when people break the laws in a country whose very foundations are bedded upon equal justice under the law the justice is equally applied.

Wait, where is this mythical land of wonderment and magic where equal justice is applied under a just system of jurisprudence?

Aside from that comment (Because we have no such system), I think the equivalent of what you are saying is "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."

A pragmatic way of looking at it, certainly.

<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in