Whoopi says its not "rape-rape"

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Wimbly

 

I can't believe people didnt start shouting at Whoopi. He co-hosts went way too easy on her.

Imagine if Glenn Beck had been on that day and tried to pull the "it's not rape-rape" line? The whole building would have burned to the ground.

Hopefully, Beck would have been in it when that happened. Seriously, how much do you get paid to be his apologist? Beck has been pulling his nonsense for a long time over at Fox and his job seems secure regardless. Rather than arguing a double standard, consider the possibility that both he and Whoopi are permitted to make so many inflammatory remarks without punishment by their employer corporations.

Glenn Beck has defined himself as a martyr. I can call myself the King of England - it doesn't make it true.

wtf is whoopie on???? how is this not "rape-rape"??? A grown man taking advantage of a 13 year old child ... its just beyond belief that a guilty man can go on and have a successful career in the movie industry when he is a self admitted paedophile!!!!

"His victim, Samantha Gailey, told a grand jury that the director had plied her with champagne and drugs and taken nude pictures of her in a hot tub during a fashion shoot. Polanski then had sexual intercourse with her despite her resistance and requests to be taken home, she said. "

I just read the list of signatories and with a couple of exceptions all I can say is who are these people?

Looks to me like a bunch of has beens and wannabes.

Whoopi couldn't sell me a steak if I hadn't eaten in a month or, in other words, who gives a damn what Whoopi thinks?

Polanski is a scumbag and got a slap on the hand. Not willing to sit one day in jail for what he did he fled the country. Well, the worm has sure turned for him. Finally, California gets to put some butt wipe in prison who really deserves to go.

Mr. Polanski, may your cellmate be hung like a horse.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Anyone confused by the distinction, here is a definition of both courtesy of Dictionary.reference.com:

Rape
–noun
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
[...]

Statutory Rape
–noun U.S. Law.
sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of consent, which age varies in different states.

Thanks for posting this. So, it seems that he did rape her. And legally, because she was underage, it's called statutory rape. If she's underage, it doesn't matter if she consented or not, as she is under the legal age of consent. SO in this case, both "rape" and "statutory rape" apply, is that correct?

I don't know what Whoopi meant. There is no listing for "rape-rape". She probably meant "violent rape". I don't know. And I don't know why what she says matters. But in any case, it was rape because she said "no" and because of the girl's age, it was legally statutory rape.

reply to post by andrewh7


How is that "being an apologist?" Dont you remember all that "he lied!!" nonsense that sprung from when he was on their show and they began talking about what table they sat at on the train or some similar nonsense? Should a lightning rod for that much hate start talking about what is "rape-rape" the people who called for his throat to be slit over the "who sat where" would surely head off to march in the streets and torch half of whatever city it is the View is taped from.

Lets say I have no idea who Beck is or what he pretends to stand for. All I know of him is these women ran him up and down and countless threads popped up here on ATS berating him for messing up a simple 'who sat where.'

Isnt that enough to assume that if this man had said what Whoopi had said he would most likely be strung up by his toes and flogged?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Thanks for posting this.

So, it seems that he did rape her. And legally, because she was underage, it's called statutory rape. If she's underage, it doesn't matter if she consented or not, as she is under the legal age of consent. SO in this case, both "rape" and "statutory rape" apply, is that correct?

I don't know what Whoopi meant. There is no listing for "rape-rape". She probably meant "violent rape". I don't know. And I don't know why what she says matters. But in any case, it was rape because she said "no" and because of the girl's age, it was legally statutory rape.

I appreciate your applause, but do you not see what is wrong in both of these examples? Do you see something strange? I agree that Whoopi's comments were insensitive, but I think they were taken completely the wrong way. I agree she was probably meaning to say "violent rape" too.

P.S. I know I've said this before and other posters have as well, but your dog in the avatar rules!

[edit on 1/10/2009 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Dark GhostI agree she was probably meaning to say "violent rape" too.

So if the victim is so doped up or unconscious it's not 'violent' rape. So it isnt rape-rape?

Nice to know rapists can expect a lesser charge if they just dope up their victims first.

Suddenly thousands of college boys are cheering and stocking up on GHB.

Also, unless I'm mistaken, statutory rape tends to carry less weight as far as sentencing goes. So if rapists just stick to children rather than women they should be alright. But remember kids, dope them up real good first.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by thisguyrighthere]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Dark GhostI agree she was probably meaning to say "violent rape" too.

So if the victim is so doped up or unconscious it's not 'violent' rape. So it isnt rape-rape?

Nice to know rapists can expect a lesser charge if they just dope up their victims first.

Suddenly thousands of college boys are cheering and stocking up on GHB.

You are getting caught up with emotion in the issue. Violent does not mean "worse" or "this makes it negative". "Violent Rape" would mean that he used force which physically harmed her in order to be in a position to rape her. Not excusing his behaviour, just calling an orange an orange...

[edit on 1/10/2009 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Dark GhostViolent does not mean "worse" or "this makes it negative". "Violent Rape" would mean that he used force which physically harmed her in order to be in a position to rape her.

[edit on 1/10/2009 by Dark Ghost]

Which is exactly what I said. Get them doped up and there's less resistance. Get them unconscious and there's no resistance. No violence needed.

There's a difference, subtle as it may be, between rape (non-consensual) and consensual sex with a minor. He should be tried for the correct one. As very wrong as knowingly having sex with a minor may be, it isn't the same thing as forcing someone against their will. It's a very fine and debatable line, but a line none the less.

Did he 'get away with it' because he's a celeb, or did he flee because he was afraid of unfair treatment because he's a celeb?

How on earth can any of us sitting at home getting this story via the net, tv, press, really know what the hell happened? We all like to condemn the TPTB for their misuse of power, but i sense that many here would misuse it just as callously if there was a button you could press at home that said 'GUILTY', despite not really having a clue about facts.

I'm sure a smart ass will now list the facts for me, or a least what they've accepted as fact, despite their media sources. The people here who are throwing judgments around while not possibly knowing ALL of the facts just seem to love a good witch hunt and they only go to give his decision to flee the USA more credence.

Please don't get me wrong, i'm not defending rape or sex with a minor, i'm defending justice and a fair trial. After the awful s@@t that's happened to Polanski it's pretty dark to try burning the guy simply on journalistic hearsay.


[edited for grammer/spelling]




[edit on 1-10-2009 by McGinty]

I don't know what to do, but these hollywood morons are just that. The guy was 44 yrs old. He admitted in court that he had sex with this 13 YEAROLD!!!!!! And also admitted to giving her drugs, then on top of that he fled the country before sentancing. Just for doing that he should go away for life. These jerks are sticking up for him because he won an academy, big deal. They are just a discusting as he is. I wonder what they would say if that was their child. Well, I guess that doesn't say much considering Woody Allen is sticking up for the guy and he married his girlfriends adopted daughter. I guess that shows, these people are just as sick as the loser that is on trial. I hope he rots in hell along with the rest of them. Ohhh and by the way, when he goes to jail, the males in there, should I say, "mess" with the pediphiles so he will get his!

Originally posted by McGinty
There's a difference, subtle as it may be, between rape (non-consensual) and consensual sex with a minor. He should be tried for the correct one. As very wrong as knowingly having sex with a minor may be, it isn't the same thing as forcing someone against their will. It's a very fine and debatable line, but a line none the less.

I'm sure a smart ass will now list the facts for me, or a least what they've accepted as fact, despite their media sources.

Ok, I'll be one of the first SA's to answer you. If you have read the whole thread, you will see the where the victim testified to the court about what happened. She went on to tell about being given drugs.......She was forced against her will, of which she had little to none because of the drugs. She told Polanski, NO!

What about that don't you get? She was forced by being given drugs!

Roman Polanski plead guilty in court! He is guilty, just like anybody else in the world who is not famous and who would have comitted the same crime.

reply to post by McGinty


to answer your question, the court transcripts are available. He admitted to giving this CHILD drugs and having sex with her front and back. You are a sick person to say that is not as bad. the girl was 13... HELLLLLO!!!!!

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I appreciate your applause, but do you not see what is wrong in both of these examples? Do you see something strange?

I don't see what you're talking about. Please elaborate. I didn't see anything that I consider "strange".

P.S. I know I've said this before and other posters have as well, but your dog in the avatar rules!

Thanks. He's pretty great.

He got caught once.

How many have there been that he hasn't been caught?

Throw him in prison with "Child Molester" tattooed on his rear.

I read this on Drudge and knew it would show up here soon. I would have started a thread but my emotions probably would have caused me to receive a warning!

In ANY other circumstance if Polanski was not a Hollywood elitist nor a liberal, then I venture to say that this same Whoppi would have crucified this man for his actions no matter how long ago they took place.

And many liberal news sites report this as "forced sex" and for whatever reason are terrified of actually using the word RAPE to describe what he did.

This is a great example of why entertainers should keep their mouths shut on things like this. Whoppi's comment reminds me of Clinton's gaffe when he uttered, "It depends of what the meaning of the words 'is' is."

So Whoppi, what is the real definition of RAPE. After all, you're in the spotlight and we're all just dying to know what you think.

reply to post by McGinty


This is more than hearsay. He pled guilty and then fled the country to carry on his great "art" elsewhere. It's time to pay the piper for raping a child and now for fleeing, also. He's led a life of luxury for 30 years, protected by countries who must condone child rape while supporting a confessed child rapist.
He did the crime and should do the time.

justice is like a cobweb. strong enough to restrain the weak, but not the strong.

not a one liner.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
Here is the link to the video clip

View Video Clip

Here is the article, note at the bottom of the page is the transcript of the grand jury testimony, by the victim.

Article

She Said NO!
That's RAPE, plain and simple.

Something caused the plea deal in which the charge was reduced. Plea deals only happen when the prosecution sees difficulties in their case.

Things are not always what they appear to be.

From what I read in the article of the girl's testimony, she sounds coached.
Psychologists have been known to actually cause false memory syndrome.

Pleaase Read This Article my fellow ATS'ers:
www.ipt-forensics.com...

It happened in mass at the McMartin trials in the 1980's. The results devastaded an entire family unjustly.

I agree with Woopi when she says: "I don't like it when we're passionate about something and we don't have all the facts."

I'm not prepared to rush to judgement. I've been around far too long and seen too many false witnesses and false accusations ruin people's lives.

I care more what the women has to say today than she did in the past at that trial.

You people who rush to judgement cannot claim to be awakening. If you were awake, your radar would go up, but you would not rush to vent your bitterness, disgust, etc. without knowing the big picture.

Polanski is not an animal, he is a human being with a wife and family.

We view 13 and 14 year olds differently than they do in other parts of the world. In Canada it is legal for adults to have consensual sex with 14 year olds.

Forced sex is wrong, it's assualt. Violating one's atonomy and liberty is wrong....it's called forced confinement or some other similar crime. Why was he not facing charges with forced confinement? This is another que that tells me the prosecution saw some problems with their case. If Polanski really held this girl against her will, they would have rammed that charge down his throat....believe me.

Things are not always what they appear to be. Wait and see before you condemn anyone.

Originally posted by McGinty
There's a difference, subtle as it may be, between rape (non-consensual) and consensual sex with a minor. He should be tried for the correct one. As very wrong as knowingly having sex with a minor may be, it isn't the same thing as forcing someone against their will. It's a very fine and debatable line, but a line none the less.

Has the world gone mad? He should be flogged.

I saw an interview with the victim. She said she wants it to "go away" because she's tired of having to talk about it, but at no point did she say that it was consensual. She in fact stated that she said "no" in the interview that I saw. So..."no" means that it is a forcible rape and underage means it is also "statutory rape"...so that is, in a way, rape-rape as it is a double violation.

Now, if you saw an interview with her where she said otherwise, that she consented to anything other than having her picture taken and drinking champagne please describe the interview or post it.

Did he 'get away with it' because he's a celeb, or did he flee because he was afraid of unfair treatment because he's a celeb?

He didn't "get away with it" he was convicted in a court of law. He was able to flee because he was a celebrity. I'm sure other rapists would love to have had that ability but sadly did not. *rolls eyes*

How on earth can any of us sitting at home getting this story via the net, tv, press, really know what the hell happened?

So what is the point of a criminal justice system if after each lawyer presents their case and it is decided on an individual can just decide "unfair" and flee the country? I think I'll rob a bank then. It's fifty-fifty that I'll be guilty and if I am I can just prepare my escape ahead of time.

No one, not even Polanski and his lawyer, disputed the facts of how she was lured to the house, plied with alcohol and drugs, etc. If Dick Cheney did this instead of Polanski--OMG! That would have been "rape-rape" guaranteed.

We all like to condemn the TPTB for their misuse of power, but i sense that many here would misuse it just as callously if there was a button you could press at home that said 'GUILTY', despite not really having a clue about facts.

You can read the transcripts here:

www.thesmokinggun.com...

I'm sure a smart ass will now list the facts for me, or a least what they've accepted as fact, despite their media sources.

I please guilty to "smartass". Court transcripts are available. They contain the facts of the case, both sides.

The people here who are throwing judgments around while not possibly knowing ALL of the facts just seem to love a good witch hunt and they only go to give his decision to flee the USA more credence.

Witch hunt implies not having any evidence and leaping to a conclusion. He was tried in a court of law with the type of legal counsel only a rich man could afford, in fact his justice was more "just" than what you or I would get.

Please don't get me wrong, i'm not defending rape or sex with a minor,

Yes, in fact you are. Neither he nor his lawyer disputed that he lured a thirteen year old on false pretenses, plied her with drugs and had sex with her. This is non-consensual as she was not in her right mind. The only "dispute" is that she said she said "no" and his lawyer implied that this was not the case.

Thirteen. Under the influence. Lied to about where she would be going and what she was doing. Yes, that's not "rape". Noooo, that's the type of model behavior we want to see wandering around the countryside.

i'm defending justice and a fair trial. After the awful s@@t that's happened to Polanski it's pretty dark to try burning the guy simply on journalistic hearsay.

Journalistic hearsay is also what you are resting your lack of "fair trial" upon. Read the court transcripts. The man got better than a fair trial, considering the time this happened in. Had it not been a rich guy he would have gone to jail.

Tell me, if he were a black man from Detroit doing this to a white girl in the seventies that he would not now be in jail.