Home News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia
The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 113

Thread: Defending the indefensible

  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,272
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Quote Originally Posted by Petey
    Kirstie Alley on Roman Polanski: Don't Celebrate or Defend Him, Hollywood!
    Josh Grossberg, eonline
    7 hours ago

    UPDATE: Alley is apparently none too pleased with our report. In the comments section below, she posted this response.

    Kirstie: "1st Josh, could you have found an uglier shot of me? 2nd When U wrote "for the record,Polanski copped to unlawful intercourse with a minor (as opposed to rape)..." did u mean we should think that it's LESSER than RAPE? sorta like asking Jeffrey Daumer if he MURDERED his victims or was just trying to make ZOMBIES out of them as he "copped" to doing..let's see..43 year old Director Roman Polanski put his ***** in a 13 year old girls ****** and then her ANUS after he gave her drugs and alcohol, while she was telling him to STOP..hmmm that's a tough one.."as (opposed to rape).." Have we really gotten so STUPID and TWISTED that we care what the CRIMINAL says he was doing? and do we REALLY think a 45 day stay in jail makes up for RAPING a child? Polanski was afraid he wouldn't get a FAIR TRIAL? hmmm ISN'T THAT WHAT ALL CRIMINALS SAY? I'm going to go bang my head on the floor..makes more sense than defending a RAPIST."

    And she couldn't help tweeting her displeasure with the writer.

    " Mr. Josh is just another little snippy bitch who wouldn't talk against RP because he might lose his snippy bitch job..lol."

    LOL . . .go Kirstie!

  2. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    706
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Quote Originally Posted by Off The River
    Just look at the case of that sick bastard in California.
    Umm: which one?

  3. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,509
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Gunter
    Umm: which one?
    Hey, I was exonerated OK?!

    *LOL*

    Actually, that was a good one Dan.

    There ARE a lotta sick people out here.

  4. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,444
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Quote Originally Posted by Petey
    Kirstie Alley on Roman Polanski: Don't Celebrate or Defend Him, Hollywood!
    Josh Grossberg, eonline
    7 hours ago

    UPDATE: Alley is apparently none too pleased with our report. In the comments section below, she posted this response.

    Kirstie: "1st Josh, could you have found an uglier shot of me? 2nd When U wrote "for the record,Polanski copped to unlawful intercourse with a minor (as opposed to rape)..." did u mean we should think that it's LESSER than RAPE? sorta like asking Jeffrey Daumer if he MURDERED his victims or was just trying to make ZOMBIES out of them as he "copped" to doing..let's see..43 year old Director Roman Polanski put his ***** in a 13 year old girls ****** and then her ANUS after he gave her drugs and alcohol, while she was telling him to STOP..hmmm that's a tough one.."as (opposed to rape).." Have we really gotten so STUPID and TWISTED that we care what the CRIMINAL says he was doing? and do we REALLY think a 45 day stay in jail makes up for RAPING a child? Polanski was afraid he wouldn't get a FAIR TRIAL? hmmm ISN'T THAT WHAT ALL CRIMINALS SAY? I'm going to go bang my head on the floor..makes more sense than defending a RAPIST."

    And she couldn't help tweeting her displeasure with the writer.

    " Mr. Josh is just another little snippy bitch who wouldn't talk against RP because he might lose his snippy bitch job..lol."
    I've seen Kirstie's ass recently and if we really want to punish Polanski he should be forced to sodomize her with the lights on.

  5. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    900
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Quote Originally Posted by 10-8
    I've seen Kirstie's ass recently and if we really want to punish Polanski he should be forced to sodomize her with the lights on.
    Thanks alot Bill,
    you had to bring up Kirstie's Alley


    so much for late lunch now.........

  6. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    900
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Maybe rape isn't so great a thing after all n'est pas........

    The quote that bugs me the most is from "Jillian", basically saying if both parties are okay with it now why should we care, which belies the fact that he was found guilty and ran and assumes this was his only time.......
    which I believe is a big stretch.


    http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/10/0...ef=mpstoryview

  7. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,444
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    I said this a couple of days ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by 10-8
    I wonder how Hollywood's "It was 30 years ago" attitude would apply to Nazi war criminals being brought to justice many years later. Just a guess that their position would deviate, especially if they ever want to work again in that town.
    Here's what Sherri Shepherd said, "...45-year-old man plies a 13-yr-old w/drugs & Liquor and anally & orally penetrates her w/o her consent is a RAPIST. We hunt down 75-year-old Nazis. We must protect our children."

    What are the chances Sherri reads CBZ?

    OK probably not.

  8. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,295
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    He should go to prison for the maximum because 1. he RAPED a 13 year old girl, and 2. He fled justice.

    Just because you elude the law for many years does not mean you get a slap on the wrist. If anything, running should be an aggravating factor.

    I like Polanski's films just like the next guy. I thought The Pianist was fantastic. But just because you do something well in life does not give you a free pass to commit heinous crimes and not accept responsibility.

  9. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    706
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    I think that "Chinatown" is one of the best movies ever. It's probably in my top 10; I know that, when I think of great movies, I think of "Chinatown" pretty soon.

    With that said, some time ago I read some of the grand jury testimony by Polanski's victim:

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...skicover1.html

    I have no sympathy for Polanski. Let him be returned and sentenced.

  10. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Quote Originally Posted by apollack
    .

    Just because you elude the law for many years does not mean you get a slap on the wrist. If anything, running should be an aggravating factor.
    Absolutely.

  11. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    900
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Gunter
    I think that "Chinatown" is one of the best movies ever. It's probably in my top 10; I know that, when I think of great movies, I think of "Chinatown" pretty soon.

    With that said, some time ago I read some of the grand jury testimony by Polanski's victim:

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...skicover1.html

    I have no sympathy for Polanski. Let him be returned and sentenced.
    Interesting, the girl testified she was no virgin to sex drugs and alcohol at 13 years old, but rape is rape whether a virgin or a prostitute........

  12. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,295
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...skicover1.html

    I have no sympathy for Polanski. Let him be returned and sentenced.[/QUOTE]


    Thanks for that grand jury testimony Dan. Based on my review of it, it sounds to me like this gal's mother should have been up on charges too. Age 13 and already had sex twice before, drunk before, and had a qualude once before. Then her mother allows her to go off alone with some director to take photos of her. He takes nude photos of a 13 year old girl. He gives her champagne. He gives her part of a qualude. He takes fully nude photos. He performs oral sex. He has vaginal sex with her. He has anal sex with her. During all of this she made several mild protestations and several times asked to be taken home, but the combination of alcohol and qualude obviously left her in a weakened state, she was afraid, and he simply ignored her and did his thing. He knew that he could just impose himself. It is absolutely obvious that he was using the alcohol and qualude combo to reduce her inhibitions, and that along with persistance towards a young gal, allowed him to get what he wanted. But she was only 13 years old!!!!!
    Last edited by apollack; 10-02-2009 at 02:01 PM.

  13. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    706
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    There was certainly a question as to the mother's fitness. But her lack of fitness is irrelevant to Polanski's culpability. Similarly, the victim's prior experiences are irrelevant to Polanski's culpability.

  14. #44
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,358
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Polanski had pled guilty and was to be sentenced to "time served" -- 42 days.

    He fled before sentencing.

  15. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    706
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Apparently, there was some question as to whether the judge might impose a longer sentence on Polanski.

    Given that Polanski fled the jurisdiction, I suspect that the state may be able to take the plea bargain off the table. And there may be charges relating to the flight.

  16. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,295
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    I think that is incorrect. I think the state has to still recommend what it agreed to recommend. If it does not, then Polanski is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea. Of course, if he does that, there will be a trial and he'll be found guilty anyway, and he'll get even more embarrassed, because based on that transcript, I'd say that gal's testimony will be enough to do him in. It is entirely credible. Basically, whatever judge handles this will know what the deal is, what the crime is, and how Polanski fled. I'm sure whatever judge ultimately sentences him will have a pretty good idea what he or she is going to do before he gets on the bench. I just hope Polanski really gets reamed up the butt the way he did to that girl.

  17. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    706
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Plea bargains are generally interpreted according to principles of contract law. I think that the DA could well argue that Polanski breached the agreement by fleeing the jurisdiction.

    And the court does not have to accept the plea agreement--which is why Polanski fled in the first place.

  18. #48
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,295
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Absolutely, the prosecutor doesn't have to honor it, but then polanski gets to withdraw his guilty plea. His fleeing doesn't change the fact that he plead guilty pursuant to that agreement that the prosecutor would recommend x if he plead guilty. The facts of the crime and what went into the prosecutor making the deal haven't changed. They can charge him separately for a new crime - the crime of fleeing - if a crime in that jurisdiction - and recommend whatever they want for that crime. But they have already agreed to recommend x at sentencing in exchange for his plea. Therefore, they still have to recommend x at sentencing. If they don't want to honor the recommendation, then he gets to withdraw the plea. All of this is moot anyway because I highly doubt he'll try to do so. We'll see. He'll probably let the prosecutors make a new recommendation, then he'll plead for some mercy based on the fact that he's been law abiding for close to 40 years, and fact that victim doesn't want jail. Then the judge will balance that out with the fact that he jumped bail, and had committed a horrible crime. I'm intrigued to find out what he ultimately gets. I think he's likely to get slammed, and deservedly so. If he isn't, just watch O'Reilly go on a rant about the judge being horrid and influenced by the Hollywood phonies.

  19. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Incheon, South Korea
    Posts
    1,893
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Here's what Sherri Shepherd said, "...45-year-old man plies a 13-yr-old w/drugs & Liquor and anally & orally penetrates her w/o her consent is a RAPIST. We hunt down 75-year-old Nazis. We must protect our children."

    What are the chances Sherri reads CBZ?

    OK probably not.
    It is kind of sad eh? Look at Mel Gibson.. The guy utters a drunken racial slur and he is effectively blackliisted by the Hollywood community, Polanski is defended and even celebrated.

  20. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,283
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Yeah, I guess Mel Gibson "really didn't mean it" because he was drunk...

    To me, he is infinitely more dangerous than Polanski, though Roman himself belongs in prison for a long time.

  21. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    706
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    I think that Hitchens stretches the connections here, but I agree with his comments about Polanski:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2231463/

    And, yes, I agree that the British libel laws don't make much sense.

  22. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Incheon, South Korea
    Posts
    1,893
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Hitchens Stretchens everything he can when it comes to religion, especially Islam, but he's right about a lot of things as well.

  23. #53
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,509
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Frank
    Yeah, I guess Mel Gibson "really didn't mean it" because he was drunk...

    To me, he is infinitely more dangerous than Polanski,.
    Interesting. How come?

  24. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,444
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Frank
    To me, he is infinitely more dangerous than Polanski
    Huh?

  25. #55
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    If Michael is indeed comparing Gibson to Polanski, I assume he is trying
    to get across the point that Gibson's rant has serious ramifications and far reaching influence across a wide spectrum; inciting hatred and all that

    But, just comparing the act of a racial slur vs. what Polanski did, well, I think the latter is far more heinous.

  26. #56
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Incheon, South Korea
    Posts
    1,893
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    If I had a dollar for ever racial slur I uttered, I'd take all my French buddies out for beers.

  27. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    875
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Quote Originally Posted by 10-8
    Huh?
    How in the world is Gibson "dangerous" because of his issuing a slur during his arrest for DUI? If that makes him dangerous, then what does that make Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, Louis Farrakhan, Chris Rock, the Rev. Wright, Jeanene Garafola and about a hundred others I can think of who have made intemperate statements in a racial/political/ethnic vein?

    Christ, I would hazard a guess and say that Mel Gibson has done far more good in his life ($1M donation in Veracruz, Mexico to build housing for victims of deadly floods there; $500K for rainforest conservation in Central America; and countless other financial and personal commitment contributions to charities around the world. Oh, he also got Robert Downey, Jr. and Courtney Love the help they needed to kick their respective habits a few years ago), than all of the preceding names put together.

    But somehow his drunken blabbering makes him more dangerous than a pedophile/rapist?

    Your liberal bias showing much, Michael?

    Kyoodle

  28. #58
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    706
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyoodle
    Your liberal bias showing much, Michael?

    Kyoodle
    Heck, Kyoodle: I'm somewhat more liberal than, say, Che Guevara. I am a proud member of the ACLU.

    But I agree with you that Gibson's rant--disturbing though it may have been--was a drop in the 55-gallon drum next to Polanski's conduct. Gibson's speech was just that: speech. As a member of the ACLU, I believe very much in freedom of speech.* I think that the truly liberal standpoint would be to support Gibson's free speech--stupid though it may have been.

    We should not draw the conclusion that speech necessarily has consequences. Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't. If we assume that speech always has consequences, then we would significantly limit our freedom.

    I think that Gibson's drunken rant would have had essentially no persuasive effect. If anything, that rant foregrounded the lingering issue of anti-Semitism and provided a forum for people to explain why anti-Semitism is still a problem.

    By contrast, Polanski injured someone in one of the most profoundly personal ways that one can imagine. In the United States, we as a society long ago concluded--and, as a matter of social policy, we continue to agree--that conduct like Polanski's is far more egregious than conduct like Gibson's. After all, Polanksi's conduct has been criminalized for many, many years. Gibson's "conduct"--i.e., his speech act--is not criminal.

    Back to the question about liberal versus conservative attitudes: As set out above, I believe that a truly liberal position on Gibson's speech would be to say, "Gee, that was unfortunate. Let's talk about it." I also think that the truly liberal position on Polanski's conduct would be to support appropriate punishment for it. I do not know of any liberal justification for leniency to rapists.

    With that said, why is it that some people who claim to be liberal have supported Polanksi? The simple fact is that people are not always consistent. I think that Polanski's supporters are supporting him because they perceive him as being of their class.

    Now, I don't think that his supporters are aware of that basis for their support. In fact, I'm quite sure that they could not allow themselves to say, "Gee, Roman is one of us: one of the wealthy and cultured, the artistic elite. He should not be punished for this mere peccadillo."

    Instead of admitting this essentially classist attitude, Polanski's supporters have offered a number of weak arguments against his being returned and either accepting his sentence or facing trial. The weakness of the arguments betrays the fact that they are not reasons, but rationalizations.

    And let me add that class divisions cut across political divisions. (One of the interesting things about the last 75 years of U.S. history is how the two major parties have skewed away from what one would think would be their natural socioeconomic bases. But that issue is far too complicated for discussion here.) The Polanski supporters who are liberal in some dimensions have abandoned liberal principles in support of him. Their inconsistency does not make support of Polanski a liberal position.



    * Let me add that people often try to push First Amendment values into inappropriate venues. For example, I used to be in charge of an Internet bulletin board, and some knuckle-heads would complain when I'd take down offending posts. "Free speech!" they'd cry. "First Amendment!"

    Nonsense: The First Amendment says nothing about what a private person can do on a forum that he or she owns or controls.

  29. #59
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

    Dan wrote:

    I think that Polanski's supporters are supporting him because they perceive him as being of their class.

    That could well be the reason, or, it could be that they, like him, are simply kinky and perverted.

  30. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,890
    vCash
    500

    Re: Defending the indefensible

    Remember, guys: no politics, no religion. PeteLeo.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Defending Today's Heavyweight Divison?
    By Monte Cox in forum Modern
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 11-21-2006, 10:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia Links Home