Polanski

rio · **Posted:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:21 pm

warfleloup wrote:

I don't think he's gone though. This kind of people enjoys teh internet flamewars too much not to return.

Yes... it reminds me of........ someone else. Can't remember his name... I think he was French.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:55 pm

I miss our old MR Debate threads. Someone should start them more often.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:59 pm

Chris Rock wrote:

People are defending Roman Polanski because he made some good movies. Are you kidding me? He made good movies 30 years ago! Even Johnnie Cochran don’t have the nerve to go, “Well, did you see O.J. play against New England?”

traptunderice · **Posted:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:49 pm

Goat wrote:

Quote:

"Polanski... didn't he murder Sharon Tate?"

Honestly guys, I hate to find myself arguing on the same side as Frigid, and there is no excuse for child rape whether you've been through the holocaust and seen your wife gutted by nutters or not (seriously, I'm not saying it's an excuse, but it must have all done something to his head - read up on it...). And what Fridge said re 'she deserved it, the slag' is horrendous and marks him out as the worst sort of Daily Mail-reading lunatic.

But it appears from what you guys are saying that rape is so awful a crime that the natural process of law must be lifted and HE MUST BE PUNISHED!!111 Why? Because WHAT IF IT WAS YOUR WIFE/SISTER/DAUGHTER, YOU WOULD WANT TO KILL HIM. Yeah. And? The law is the law, and you can't start saying that someone didn't get a harsh enough sentence according to public opinion so must be tried and punished again. It's an emotional response that comes from the same insane place as lynching murderers and castrating paedophiles, both actions of a dangerous, mob-ruled society that acts according to its whims - they may deserve lynching/castrating according to our emotional responses, but this is one of the many reasons that civilised society is so great, that that doesn't happen.

You guys really can't get my point here?

You can't understand our point. He wasn't tried and punished. He submitted himself to psychiatric evaluation in an attempt to reduce his sentence. I just want him crucified once, not a second time because the first wasn't satisfactory for my blood lust.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:02 pm

It wasn't some lawlerly trick like you make it sound, it was a plea arrangement which they and the prosecution worked out with the full knowledge of the victim. That was the deal. What should have happened, pray tell?

GeneralDiomedes · **Posted:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:29 pm

Goat wrote:

It wasn't some lawlerly trick like you make it sound, it was a plea arrangement which they and the prosecution worked out with the full knowledge of the victim. That was the deal. What should have happened, pray tell?

--------------->
<---------------

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:44 pm

Plea arrangements =! lawyerly tricks

GeneralDiomedes · **Posted:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:07 pm

Goat wrote:

Plea arrangements =! lawyerly tricks

Nobody said they were.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:08 pm

Oh, sorry, must have misunderstood your cryptic arrows there.

GeneralDiomedes · **Posted:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:11 pm

Goat wrote:

Oh, sorry, must have misunderstood your cryptic arrows there.

Just meant both sides are refuting claims neither side made, nobody seems to understand anybody, we're all just pissing in the wind as Polanski will live out the rest of his life in France no matter what we say.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:40 pm

That's internet debate for you, bro.

North From Here · **Posted:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:09 pm

Goat wrote:

That's internet debate for you, bro.

If we lived in a world without internet debate, we would have cured cancer and aids by now, avoided the global financial crisis, and paved Africa with roads of gold from Capetown to Algiers.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:48 pm

Goat wrote:

It wasn't some lawlerly trick like you make it sound, it was a plea arrangement which they and the prosecution worked out with the full knowledge of the victim. That was the deal. What should have happened, pray tell?

What should have happened? After he submitted himself for the evaluation, the evaluators, the psychiatrists, should've submitted their findings to the judge to consider in his sentencing. They would evaluate whether the Holocaust or Tate's death really could've led him to be so fucked up. If the psychiatrists and the judge then saw this a fitting reason, they could've reduced his sentence. The "plea arrangement" dropped the drug and sodomy charges to just the unlawful sex act. The unlawful sex act would guarantee him up to one year. The judge couldn't go higher than that. What he ran from was "up to a year" in jail or prison; if the judge really wanted to fuck him over it would've been prison rather than jail.

This initial 90 days which we've talked about isn't his sentencing; it was a 90 day evaluation period which would weigh on his final sentencing.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:56 pm

Yeah, but didn't said doctors find that he wasn't a threat, etc, though? The whole issue is that the judge was going to change his mind after agreeing to the plea bargain because he was worried about his image in the conservative press. Polanski's lawyers got wind of this and advised him to piss off to France, to avoid that. If the judge actually had rejected the plea, wouldn't Polanski have faced drug, sodomy and unlawful sex charges?

traptunderice · **Posted:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:49 pm

Goat wrote:

Yeah, but didn't said doctors find that he wasn't a threat, etc, though? The whole issue is that the judge was going to change his mind after agreeing to the plea bargain because he was worried about his image in the conservative press. Polanski's lawyers got wind of this and advised him to piss off to France, to avoid that. If the judge actually had rejected the plea, wouldn't Polanski have faced drug, sodomy and unlawful sex charges?

They may have not found him a threat but he still faced the unlawful sex charges. Them not finding him to be a threat should've led the judge to consider a reduced sentence, rather than the maximum of 1 year. The judge already accepted the plea so he couldn't be charged with drug and sodomy charges, yet the unlawful sex charges would've still been on the table.

Cú Chulainn · **Posted:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:57 pm

As far as I remember the judge was about to give him 50 years.

GeneralDiomedes · **Posted:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:58 pm

FrigidSymphony wrote:

As far as I remember the judge was about to give him 50 years.

Where do you get this information?

Cú Chulainn · **Posted:** Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:05 am

GeneralDiomedes wrote:

FrigidSymphony wrote:

As far as I remember the judge was about to give him 50 years.

Where do you get this information?

Cannae remember. Probably either wikipedia or that documentary about the whole schtick.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:46 am

warfleloup wrote:

Proofs?
If not, STFU.

warfleloup · **Posted:** Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:42 am

traptunderice wrote:

Proofs?
If not, STFU.

Something many people should have done in this thread including you, Trapt.

Metal Reviews

Polanski

Who is online