Roman Polanski detained in Zurich

Status
Not open for further replies.
well, that was the best way for him to continue his work and escape media. that's pretty reasonable. that doesn't make him quilty.

on another note, this girl, now woman, why was she on tv after almost 30 yrs? was she faking it all the time? did she want more attention? that's what's bothering me.... in case of r*pe, u never ever want it to become public.

as for US justice system... well, ask your brothers, husbands, .... how many girls they raped in various countries in past few decades.... i know this is not sth the mods will approve, but since i am from Serbia, i know a bit more about about politics then i wanted to. this is all just media circus.

I think someone's bitter about America if you know what I mean :innocent:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Plus didn't someone say the girl had sex before? (Reason I bring that up, she should be also charged also for the previous time she had sex. Seeing she had sex before and she's a minor and such)

Why should she be charged for having sex previously? At the time she was 13... it would be statutory if the person she had sex with was an adult - and the adult would be the one charged, not the minor.

(I'm not from the US, so perhaps I'm wrong, but this is as I understand it - and it also depends on the actual laws of the time when this happened)

BTW, if you read the document posted by BerlinRocks the girl says she has had sex twice before the incident.... but how that is relevant I don't know.
Some people are talking about age of consent and so forth. If the US didn't have the age of consent set at 18 years and older, this wouldn't have been a problem.

r*pe is r*pe regardless of age.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
it's not relevent at all, just a way to drag her name into the mud highlighting the unfairness and lack of justice in r*pe cases.
 
The more I think about it, the more outrageous this thread is. Making excuses for a man accused of child r*pe. Refusing to let him even stand trial, because he happens to be famous and accomplished. "She deserved it, he wasn't thinking clearly, he's too old, he's such a great director."

What a truly disgusting display of equal parts misogyny and depraved celebrity worship.
 
I think someone's bitter about America if you know what I mean :innocent:

u can't be more wrong. i love the states, my mom lives there, and i amplanning to move there. it's a great country, with lots of good stuff going on. when obama was elected i was very proud. still, no country is perfect. i don't like that the states are involved in so many wars. and i really hate when politics create an image of some country, and that's the case with the states. i like the country, i like people, but i hate USA's politics.
 
Why should she be charged for having sex previously? She's 13... it would be statutory if the person she had sex with was an adult - and the adult would be the one charged, not the minor.

(I'm not from the US, so perhaps I'm wrong, but this is as I understand it - and it also depends on the actual laws of the time when this happened)

Not sure how to put it. Seeing she said she had sex before also, we can assume maybe it someone her age. Her and the previous person she had sex with should be hit with the book also, for not following the law. Seeing her and the previous person, thinking it was consensual it wasn't in the eyes of the law.

I know its cruel going after a r*pe victim. She should have never told anyone she had sex before.

What can I say I am a very cruel person. Plus I have a feeling most of you think its illogical what I am saying. I understand where your all coming from and I understand your point of views.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From what I recall or heard from people say. That the mother forced her daughter on Roman. If thats true, he should have walked away. As things are if its not true. True he should have never did what he did. Some people are talking about age of consent and so forth. If the US didn't have the age of consent set at 18 years and older, this wouldn't have been a problem. Plus didn't someone say the girl had sex before? (Reason I bring that up, she should be also charged also for the previous time she had sex. Seeing she had sex before and she's a minor and such)

:shock:

We have that law because 13 year olds are not capable of providing informed consent about intercourse with a grown man. This isn't even a borderline case. She was 13.

I mean christ on a bike, Rosemary's Baby was a good film but are we really going to exculpate an accused sex offender because we like his movies?
 
i defend him because i belive he is NOT quilty for r*pe!!!

and for those for u who think that the victim should stand up and talk about r*pe in front of family, press, etc... u r living in some perfect world and u have no idea what being raped means. i don't belive the story that the woman told. if i had any doubts, i would never defend him here, or at all. i do belive this was a set up for someone who was on top at the time ( and still is).

i only asked you to ask yourselves do u belive in it cos u read it or cos he moved to france or cos u talked to someone who went through the horror of r*pe and agrees with all that the woman said.
 
But he is guilty. He pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. It is NOT a matter of belief but legal FACT.
 
:shock:

We have that law because 13 year olds are not capable of providing informed consent about intercourse with a grown man. This isn't even a borderline case. She was 13.

I mean christ on a bike, Rosemary's Baby was a good film but are we really going to exculpate an accused sex offender because we like his movies?

Thing is the US thinks people under 18 can't consent to sex. While other countries have various ages. Some are 13, 14, 16 and what not (today). Who knows what it was years ago.

I am checking right now on wikipedia. If this happened in some parts of Central America it would have been fine.

Don't get me wrong. I know r*pists need to be locked up.

He should have went after the job for changing the arrangements and not running.

I see both sides of everything.
 
But he is guilty. He pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. It is NOT a matter of belief but legal FACT.


as a part of settlement. that does not proove he was really quilty, that proves he wanted to stop the circus.
 
No, not as part of a settlement. As part of the settlement he actually pleaded to a LESSER crime than the victim said he committed.
 
It is pretty shocking how many people are willing to make excuses for his behaviour and blame the victim.

Back then r*pe was the sort of crime that it was easy to get away with, as it was considered extremely harmful for the victim to publicly report, and she would inevitably be described as being of poor moral character unless she was a 90-yr-old nun or an 8-yr-old child. So victims were twice-punished, or in the case of this poor girl, repeatedly, over the decades.
 
But he is guilty. He pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. It is NOT a matter of belief but legal FACT.

True. Thing is the judge that sentenced him was going to change it.

He should have went after the judge after and not skip out of the country after all these years. Which now will screw him more than pleading guilty. What a shame.

If he does get transferred to the US. I am right now trying to research how much time he will be in prison and I have a feeling its well over 20 years. He will most likely die in prison.

What I am saying looks like I am advocating r*pists and such. Which I am not. He should have went through proper channels to have this matter drop years ago.

Anyways, I barely know any of his work. I have only seen a few of his movies. I heard more people say his name before and I never really researched him until yesterday.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If he wasn't GUILTY - why would he have PLEAD guilty? oh, and then FLEE the country. Not only is that so wrong, it's such a cowardly act. :yuk: I don't care if he's old, I don't care if he's a genius in his art - if he had any decency, he would have owned up to his acts and have stood trial just like anybody else and proved his case... and done so LONG ago.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well then he can stand up in a court of law and explain that, like every other accused offender is required to do.

Rule of law. It applies to film directors too in this country. :judge:
 
If this happened in some parts of Central America it would have been fine.

Don't get me wrong. I know r*pists need to be locked up.

This was r*pe - so how would it have been fine? :huh:

It really has nothing to do with the age of consent - even if the girl was 50 at the time, it would be r*pe.
 
I find it quite hard to believe a 13 year old could be mistaken for a 25 year old. I under stand 17 or 18 year olds being mistaken for 21 year olds but 13 to 25 seems a bit far fetched.

And whether she had sex or not before is irrelevant especially seeing as how the circumstances there are not known.

Like Fabulyss said 13 year olds are not capable of informed consent.

She was 13, so even if she had been consenting a grown man should still know better than to have sex a 13 year old. Whether the mother forced her on him or not doesn't matter an adult should still know what is acceptable behaviour and what isn't.
 
r*pe is r*pe which is bad enough but when the victim is 13 it's also child abuse.
 
If this wasn't Polanski I'm sure we wouldn't even be debating whether a man who has been legally proven as guilty of r*pe is innocent or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Statistics

Threads
210,730
Messages
15,125,442
Members
84,431
Latest member
alcatrazadam
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->