It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 8
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
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."


Oh, I definitely agree with this, too! We, as regular citizens, though, tend to "think" with our hearts sometimes. Legally, he committed statutory rape. There's no doubt. But I'm still on the fence as regards what should happen now. I see both sides and simply cannot make the decision. In my opinion, the victim's opinion should be taken into account. She's got kids and she's not crazy about being in the news again after 30 or more years. On the other hand, he committed a crime and did not pay for it.

I think I would have to know more about the case to make the decision, but we can't just say, "never mind" to the law... That's not right, in my opinion... It's a tough call for me.




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by McGinty
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 are displaying some good sense here McGinty.

I can assure you no matter how unpopular my stand is on this issue, I would not be one to use the guilty button from home.
Star for ya.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
The facts seem pretty clear.

She said 'No', she wanted to go home. He didn't stop. That's rape.

This was not a statutory case as that would indicate the girl was willing and compliant but under age of consent. The statutory charge was a plea bargain. I know that's how people are trying to spin it, but I don't believe those to be the facts.

No means no. It's really that simple.

As to what should happen now, it is in the hands of lawyers and judges. And, thankfully, no other, including Whoopi Goldberg. Though I will say that if he did serve time for the lesser charge (as seems to be the case) and another judge decided that wasn't good enough, that is unconstitutional and illegal.

And I'd also like to add that it is sad and frustrating and dangerous in my eyes that most who rail against the so-called TPTB are only angry that they can't effectively wield the same power.

I never wonder why one dictator replaces another.

I often wonder how many who complain of the 'sheeple' not being able to get up from watching Survivor to do anything about our state of affairs think of their own behavior here at ATS. Is any distraction more noble than another in truth?

Anyway, I've gone off topic. My apologies.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
Forced sex is wrong, it's assualt.


This is exactly my problem with all of the libs out there reporting on this.

Let me make it plain for you to understand...

FORCED SEX IS RAPE!!!!!!!!!

Got it now? Start calling it for what it really is and stop trying to lessen the severity of the situation.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Legally, he committed statutory rape. There's no doubt.


If there was solid evidence of any mitigating circumstances, there would have been no plea deal.

There seems to be no doubt that they engaged in sex.

For all we know, that girl could have been a very precocious 13 year old that used her charms to sexual arrouse and seduce Polanski, without him knowing she was a minor.

Anyone surprised that many men are easily sexually arroused and therefore easily seduced by young women? The reality is that many women have that sexual seduction power over men and many know how to use that power to get what they want....some even at a young age.

The bottom line is that Polanski's cranium was preempted by his other .. So in the strinct legal sense, he did have sex with a minor. Whether it was forced or not....I don't know yet.

I still want to know what she has to say about that whole situation today.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix


If there was solid evidence of any mitigating circumstances, there would have been no plea deal.


Oh, really?

Money talks, and b.s. walks.

Somebody got paid off for that plea deal, in my opinion.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by John Matrix
Forced sex is wrong, it's assualt.


This is exactly my problem with all of the libs out there reporting on this.

Let me make it plain for you to understand...

FORCED SEX IS RAPE!!!!!!!!!

Got it now? Start calling it for what it really is and stop trying to lessen the severity of the situation.


I don't disagree with you, so settle down.

I'm just saying we don't have all the facts and we should try to remain calm and impartial.

Things were also much different back in the early 70's and the social climate in Hollywood during the 70's is not exception. He may not have known her age and she may have been very precocious. That still doesn't make it right, but how many men ask for ID even today?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by John Matrix
Forced sex is wrong, it's assualt.


This is exactly my problem with all of the libs out there reporting on this.

Let me make it plain for you to understand...

FORCED SEX IS RAPE!!!!!!!!!

Got it now? Start calling it for what it really is and stop trying to lessen the severity of the situation.


I don't disagree with you, so settle down.

I'm just saying we don't have all the facts and we should try to remain calm and impartial.


We don't have all the facts? There was a trial and he raped her. She said NO and he then proceeded to force her to have anal sex as well. A 13 year old and the facts aren't all in? I say execute the rapist.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Victoria 1
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!!!!!


Here's the thing, some on this thread find the age of the individual to be completely irrelevant, because we believe Statutory Rape is nonsense and "Teenagers" are not "Children".

I don't believe anyone on the thread is advocating that drugging and liquoring someone up before sex for the purposes of sex isn't rape.

Just that all your moral outrage at a 13 year old having sex with a 40 year old is nonsense propogated by a society of Moral Absolutists who refuse to acknowledge that 1) Teenage girls have sex and 2) Whether their partner is 13 or 40 makes no difference to consent.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blanca Rose

Originally posted by John Matrix


If there was solid evidence of any mitigating circumstances, there would have been no plea deal.


Oh, really?

Money talks, and b.s. walks.

Somebody got paid off for that plea deal, in my opinion.


That is a very good possibility.

But it should be proven before believed.

I prefer the facts over speculations.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Apparently, the sex was consensual.

There is more to this case than has been discussed here.
I'm watching CNN right now:
Here is a link to a video on CNN:
polanski.cnn

Sorry, scroll down when the page open's and click on the video: "Polanski's Plea Deal"


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



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
This was not a statutory case as that would indicate the girl was willing and compliant but under age of consent.


That's not true. Statutory rape is sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of consent, whether or not she was willing.

So this is definitely statutory rape. It might also be forced rape. The details on that seem to conflict.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
I don't disagree with you, so settle down.

I'm just saying we don't have all the facts and we should try to remain calm and impartial.

Things were also much different back in the early 70's and the social climate in Hollywood during the 70's is not exception. He may not have known her age and she may have been very precocious. That still doesn't make it right, but how many men ask for ID even today?


Apparently, we do disagree. You call it assault, and I call is what it really is...RAPE. All of your posts on the matter come from the basis of getting all of the "facts". The facts are plain; Polanski raped a minor. He has run from the law and he's finally going to pay for his crime.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by John Matrix
I don't disagree with you, so settle down.

I'm just saying we don't have all the facts and we should try to remain calm and impartial.

Things were also much different back in the early 70's and the social climate in Hollywood during the 70's is not exception. He may not have known her age and she may have been very precocious. That still doesn't make it right, but how many men ask for ID even today?


Apparently, we do disagree. You call it assault, and I call is what it really is...RAPE. All of your posts on the matter come from the basis of getting all of the "facts". The facts are plain; Polanski raped a minor. He has run from the law and he's finally going to pay for his crime.


I'm researching this. If you check my last post above and watch that video on CNN called Polanski's Plea Deal you will find the judge broke a promise he made to Polanski. Check it out.

Don't condemn me for being cautious. I've seen too many people in my life rush to judgement based on nothing more than speculation and their own emotional response. Don't get caught in the wild west lynch mod mentality. We are supposed to be awakening here.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I stand somewhat corrected, thank you. I would have worded it better by saying that it was not only statutory rape.

As to the details being murky... well, that's pretty common isn't it? Each side having its own story is why we have trials in the first place.



[edit on 1/10/09 by TravelerintheDark]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by nepafogo
c'mon people if MJ can get away with it why not Polanski? Seriously though Whoopi and the other Hollywood tards that think that this is not "rape-rape" should experience what this 13 year old did and then tell us how they feel. I suggest maybe one night in general population at a max security. Since when does a 13 year old girl understand actions and the consequences of those actions? My god their brains are still developing at 13 years old, yet some of them think they know everything about anything and that nothing can happen to them. The guy is a perv (pedophile comes to mind) and should be charged with at minimum statutory rape and providing alcohol and drugs to a minor .

Hollywood and the rest of the "elite" are so *snip* in the . it is
sickening. I agree boycott the entire propoganda of Hollywood and TV as it is truly nothing more than a huge "time vampire". I find ATS more interesting and mind opening than either of them combined. There is a wealth of knowledge out there you just need to wade through a bit of garbage to find it.

 

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 1-10-2009 by GAOTU789]


Actually 13 year olds aren't as naive as you think. I knew of sex at that age, in fact I know of many who were active at that age and even in this day in age. Thirteen year old girls are actually more developed brain wise and hormonally since a girl begins her period between 9-11 years of age. Plus there was also a time where it was common for girls even younger than this one to carry children and in some cultures this remains so. I'm not saying what he did was right, I just wanted to point out the flaw in your argument as far as development of a 13 year old.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Those "mitigating" circumstances, that when the Judge say them he say red and realized the deal was a deal with the devil?

Right.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by Aeons
 


I don't care what you think of me, you are the kind of people I hate; so wrapped up in your own self righteous life and a belief that there is such a thing as "ABSOLUTE" Morals.

You haven't pity for people who have no control over their attractions, people born outside of what society considers to be "NORMAL".

Me? I am normal. Society agrees with my particular attractions, or else why the hundreds of websites counting down the days for the Olsen Twins? For Natalie Portman? Christina Ricci? Any number of other female stars?

Males, in general, lust after pubescent girls. Deny it all you like, maybe you're one of the rare percentage of people who have the particular attraction only to "Age Appropriate" people; that would be ABnormal, just as ABnormal as Paedophiles are.

You may be one end of the bellcurve, but I'm on neither.


Darn, I'm hated by a guy who thinks there is a moral way to have a six year old be convinced that love is putting someone's penis in their mouth, and "loving' anal sex.

I'm CRUSHED.

Mental development of young teen and preteens and younger children is not the equivalent of an adults.

That you think taking advantage of this is okay is a sickness.

Everyone knows that children and preteens and young teens are suspectible to adults, and that their very survival instincts program them to be swayed by adult interventions. Their emotional and psychological development is far less nuanced. Their ability to logically or physical defend themselves is limited. Their LITERAL physical brain development doesn't allow for the sort of thinking that could EVER lead to a consensual relationship that is sexual.

Anyone who has ever dealt with young teens and adults knows this. It is apparent.

You expect complicated consequential understanding from children. People who are still trying to figure out how to control the fine motor movements, and have to be reminded that cartoons aren't real.

Moral absolutes? No.

Absolute intentional cruelty to satisfy yourself on the body of someone whose mind cannot defend themselves against you? That's absolutely wrong - no matter how much you try to make it okay.

[edit on 2009/10/1 by Aeons]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I found this article:
ac360.blogs.cnn.com...

Make sure you read all of it.
The victin says she has no hard feelings and the media attention during the trial was more traumatic then the sex acts.

I Note also that she says it was forced sex, which conflicts with other news stories i've heard on CNN today.

Also note that Polanski served time in custody, and she says the judge backed out of a deal made with Polanski, which included crediting Polanski for time served. The judge had even granted a stay so Polanski could finish filming in Europe. Polanski returned to the US to hear the judge had turned on his promise. Polanski believed the judge would put him away for 50 years. That's why Polanski fled. There was clearly some shady injustice going on behind the scenes.

The purpose of punishment is deterrence and rehabilitation. There is no indication Polanski repeated his conduct, and plenty of evidence for his rehabilitation. Some people, like hardened criminals are not easily deterred, and some people only need one brush with the law to snap them into shape. Polanski is not a hardened criminal. He appears to be completely rehabilitated, and a productive citizen. It serves no purpose to carry on with this 30 yr old case at tax payer expense.

If Polanski was a mechanic or a plumber, this case would likely have long been abandoned, but someone is looking to grandstand from it, and it isn't Polanski.




top topics



 
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join