Libtard Finally Admits to Raping A Child...Then Declares The Matter Is OVER...Because He Says So.

[hadit]

If he wants it to go away, absolutely. Otherwise, he can stay where he is.

Or he can just keep pointing out the ludicrous nature of California's position.

Which he probably should.

Oh my god, he has to live in a Chateau in France and send someone else to pick up his awards.... oh, the horror!

If he wants to come to the US, he needs to face a judge and go on the sex offenders list. Bottom line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

If he wants to come to the US, he needs to face a judge and go on the sex offenders list. Bottom line.

Bottom line. This was an abuse of the judicial process.

and putting a guy on a list for something he did 40 years ago, kind of defeats the purpose of having a list.

 

[hadit]

If he wants to come to the US, he needs to face a judge and go on the sex offenders list. Bottom line.

Bottom line. This was an abuse of the judicial process.

and putting a guy on a list for something he did 40 years ago, kind of defeats the purpose of having a list.

If it's such an abuse, a lawyer should have no problem getting it thrown out. He's a sex offender, he raped an underage girl, the list is tailor made for him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

If it's such an abuse, a lawyer should have no problem getting it thrown out. He's a sex offender, he raped an underage girl, the list is tailor made for him.

Um, no, sorry, having sex with a little grifter is not the same as raping someone at knifepoint.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If it's such an abuse, a lawyer should have no problem getting it thrown out. He's a sex offender, he raped an underage girl, the list is tailor made for him.

Um, no, sorry, having sex with a little grifter is not the same as raping someone at knifepoint.

Like Whoopie Goldberg said, it wasn't rape rape.

Sorry, calling the 13 year old rape victim a grifter is not a defense to drugging, raping and sodomizing a minor.

 

[hadit]

If it's such an abuse, a lawyer should have no problem getting it thrown out. He's a sex offender, he raped an underage girl, the list is tailor made for him.

Um, no, sorry, having sex with a little grifter is not the same as raping someone at knifepoint.

He didn't have to use a knife. He drugged her and raped her. It simply doesn't matter that your fantasy puts her at fault and makes him an innocent victim. He was the adult, knew she was underage and had the responsibility to leave her alone.

We won't excuse the driver in Charlottesville for plowing into the crowd because somebody hit his car with something. He had the responsibility, as a driver, to avoid hitting pedestrians, period. You're attempting to defend an adult male who deliberately gave an underage girl drugs, then raped her.

You can face prosecution for buying a minor alcohol or tobacco. You want this guy to skate for drugging and raping a minor. Your lame attempts to call her a grifter are just that, lame.

He belongs on the list and the neighbors should be alerted anywhere he wants to live.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

Like Whoopie Goldberg said, it wasn't rape rape.

Sorry, calling the 13 year old rape victim a grifter is not a defense to drugging, raping and sodomizing a minor.

But what if she really is a grifter, looking for a big payday?

He drugged her and raped her.

You means she willingly took drugs and had sex, like she had done many times before and since?

You can face prosecution for buying a minor alcohol or tobacco. You want this guy to skate for drugging and raping a minor. Your lame attempts to call her a grifter are just that, lame.

Except she and her mother were grifters... so there's that.

More to the point, though, is that behavior of the judge in the case was so outrageous that it blots out any crime Polanski might have committed.

Roman Polanski: The truth about his notorious sex crime

Polanski was released after 42 days of his 90-day term, but here the story gets complicated. Polanski had been led to believe by Rittenband that after Chino, his time behind bars would be over. However, the judge was overheard boasting at his country club that he would put Polanski away "for 100 years".

This was just part of Rittenband's bizarre behaviour. We learn from Zenovich's film that the judge, anxious to impress on the media that he was in control of proceedings, twice proposed to prosecuting Assistant District Attorney Roger Gunson and to Polanski's defence lawyer Douglas Dalton that they should plead their cases to him, after which he would pronounce a sentence that he had decided beforehand – in effect, amounting to a mock trial. We learn that Rittenband was inordinately influenced by publicity, and that, quite inappropriately, he solicited other people's advice on how he should act: one of them, reporter Richard Brenneman, who was startled to be asked, "What the hell do I do with Polanski?"

In the documentary, Geimer says of Rittenband, "He didn't care what happened to me, and he didn't care what happened to Polanski. He was orchestrating some little show ' that I didn't want to be in." Even Gunson comments – and this is the prosecutor, mark you – "I'm not surprised that [Polanski] left under those circumstances."

Sorry, I care more about due process under the law than some Little Grifter.

 

[Syriusly]

Why do men like you think that a girl who is no longer a virgin- can't be raped?

I think it's bullshit to call consensual sex by a minor "rape". Because most people are having sex well below the age of consent.

And most of history, women got married a lot younger than they do now.

And that really is what bugs you about this.

First of all you have an odd view of the word 'consensual' since Polansky's victim said she repeatedly said no. And she was drugged. So it would appear to be that by 'consensual' you mean any child who hasn't tried to physically fight off her rapist.

Secondly- you just think that men should be able to have sex with boys and girls of whatever age.

I don't.

I have known too many women who were raped as minors by men- especially men in authority.

Yes- a 13 year old cannot legally give consent- and that makes it rape. A person who has been drugged by someone also cannot give consent- and that is rape.

That you don't believe that there is anything wrong with a 50 year old man having sex with a 13 year old girl- is just a reflection on you.

 

[Syriusly]

Well, in this case the guy is a pedophile who raped a child. He is well suited for the list.

Except it was consensual and the girl knew exactly what she was doing.. but don't let that stop you.

Except that is all your fantasy- not the facts. But don't let that stop you from making up crap in order to defend Polansky.

It hasn't stopped you so far.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Except she and her mother were grifters... so there's that. r.

Except there is no one but you declaring that they were grifters.....so there is that.

Why do you feel a need to lie about the victim- in order to defend Polansky?

 

[JoeB131]

And that really is what bugs you about this.

First of all you have an odd view of the word 'consensual' since Polansky's victim said she repeatedly said no. And she was drugged. So it would appear to be that by 'consensual' you mean any child who hasn't tried to physically fight off her rapist.

The thing is she hasn't told a consistant story, ever, and even the prosecutors didn't really believe her (hence, why the offered Polanski a slap on the wrist.)

Secondly- you just think that men should be able to have sex with boys and girls of whatever age.

And where did I say that? I think it should be a case by case basis. The thing is, the shrink that evaluated her determined she did consent and she understood what she was doing.

I have known too many women who were raped as minors by men- especially men in authority.

Awesome. How many of them were driven to the place by their mothers and then later shook the guy down for $600,000?

Except there is no one but you declaring that they were grifters.....so there is that.

Why do you feel a need to lie about the victim- in order to defend Polansky?

She sued him and settled for $600,000. Grifter!!!!!!!!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Like Whoopie Goldberg said, it wasn't rape rape.

Sorry, calling the 13 year old rape victim a grifter is not a defense to drugging, raping and sodomizing a minor.

But what if she really is a grifter, looking for a big payday?

He drugged her and raped her.

You means she willingly took drugs and had sex, like she had done many times before and since?

You can face prosecution for buying a minor alcohol or tobacco. You want this guy to skate for drugging and raping a minor. Your lame attempts to call her a grifter are just that, lame.

Except she and her mother were grifters... so there's that.

More to the point, though, is that behavior of the judge in the case was so outrageous that it blots out any crime Polanski might have committed.

Roman Polanski: The truth about his notorious sex crime

Polanski was released after 42 days of his 90-day term, but here the story gets complicated. Polanski had been led to believe by Rittenband that after Chino, his time behind bars would be over. However, the judge was overheard boasting at his country club that he would put Polanski away "for 100 years".

This was just part of Rittenband's bizarre behaviour. We learn from Zenovich's film that the judge, anxious to impress on the media that he was in control of proceedings, twice proposed to prosecuting Assistant District Attorney Roger Gunson and to Polanski's defence lawyer Douglas Dalton that they should plead their cases to him, after which he would pronounce a sentence that he had decided beforehand – in effect, amounting to a mock trial. We learn that Rittenband was inordinately influenced by publicity, and that, quite inappropriately, he solicited other people's advice on how he should act: one of them, reporter Richard Brenneman, who was startled to be asked, "What the hell do I do with Polanski?"

In the documentary, Geimer says of Rittenband, "He didn't care what happened to me, and he didn't care what happened to Polanski. He was orchestrating some little show ' that I didn't want to be in." Even Gunson comments – and this is the prosecutor, mark you – "I'm not surprised that [Polanski] left under those circumstances."

Sorry, I care more about due process under the law than some Little Grifter.

It really doesn't matter if the girl was a grifter or her mother was pimping her out and her daddy was holding a warm towel. He drugged and raped a minor. It doesn't matter if she told him she was 22 and both her parents swore to it. It wouldn't matter if it was her drugs. He drugged and raped a minor. There is no possible defense.

 

[Syriusly]

[

I have known too many women who were raped as minors by men- especially men in authority.

Awesome. How many of them were driven to the place by their mothers and then later shook the guy down for $600,000?

Except there is no one but you declaring that they were grifters.....so there is that.

Why do you feel a need to lie about the victim- in order to defend Polansky?

She sued him and settled for $600,000. Grifter!!!!!!!!

So you think that anyone who has ever sued anyone- and got a payment- is a "Grifter"

Both Sandusky's victims and Hastert's victims were likely driven by their parents to meet with their future rapists also.

You are an apologist for a rapist- and you lie about his victims.

What an asshole.

 

[Syriusly]

Like Whoopie Goldberg said, it wasn't rape rape.

Sorry, calling the 13 year old rape victim a grifter is not a defense to drugging, raping and sodomizing a minor.

But what if she really is a grifter, looking for a big payday?

He drugged her and raped her.

You means she willingly took drugs and had sex, like she had done many times before and since?

You can face prosecution for buying a minor alcohol or tobacco. You want this guy to skate for drugging and raping a minor. Your lame attempts to call her a grifter are just that, lame.

Except she and her mother were grifters... so there's that.

More to the point, though, is that behavior of the judge in the case was so outrageous that it blots out any crime Polanski might have committed.

Roman Polanski: The truth about his notorious sex crime

Polanski was released after 42 days of his 90-day term, but here the story gets complicated. Polanski had been led to believe by Rittenband that after Chino, his time behind bars would be over. However, the judge was overheard boasting at his country club that he would put Polanski away "for 100 years".

This was just part of Rittenband's bizarre behaviour. We learn from Zenovich's film that the judge, anxious to impress on the media that he was in control of proceedings, twice proposed to prosecuting Assistant District Attorney Roger Gunson and to Polanski's defence lawyer Douglas Dalton that they should plead their cases to him, after which he would pronounce a sentence that he had decided beforehand – in effect, amounting to a mock trial. We learn that Rittenband was inordinately influenced by publicity, and that, quite inappropriately, he solicited other people's advice on how he should act: one of them, reporter Richard Brenneman, who was startled to be asked, "What the hell do I do with Polanski?"

In the documentary, Geimer says of Rittenband, "He didn't care what happened to me, and he didn't care what happened to Polanski. He was orchestrating some little show ' that I didn't want to be in." Even Gunson comments – and this is the prosecutor, mark you – "I'm not surprised that [Polanski] left under those circumstances."

Sorry, I care more about due process under the law than some Little Grifter.

It really doesn't matter if the girl was a grifter or her mother was pimping her out and her daddy was holding a warm towel. He drugged and raped a minor. It doesn't matter if she told him she was 22 and both her parents swore to it. It wouldn't matter if it was her drugs. He drugged and raped a minor. There is no possible defense.

It makes my skin crawl to agree with Tipsy on anything but in this extremely rare case- she is absolutely correct.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Buried in the rape rape noise is the crime he will have to be tried for if he comes back. That's fleeing the jurisdiction to evade punishment. That's a complete and separate crime having nothing to do with the rape.

 

[hadit]

Like Whoopie Goldberg said, it wasn't rape rape.

Sorry, calling the 13 year old rape victim a grifter is not a defense to drugging, raping and sodomizing a minor.

But what if she really is a grifter, looking for a big payday?

He drugged her and raped her.

You means she willingly took drugs and had sex, like she had done many times before and since?

You can face prosecution for buying a minor alcohol or tobacco. You want this guy to skate for drugging and raping a minor. Your lame attempts to call her a grifter are just that, lame.

Except she and her mother were grifters... so there's that.

More to the point, though, is that behavior of the judge in the case was so outrageous that it blots out any crime Polanski might have committed.

Roman Polanski: The truth about his notorious sex crime

Polanski was released after 42 days of his 90-day term, but here the story gets complicated. Polanski had been led to believe by Rittenband that after Chino, his time behind bars would be over. However, the judge was overheard boasting at his country club that he would put Polanski away "for 100 years".

This was just part of Rittenband's bizarre behaviour. We learn from Zenovich's film that the judge, anxious to impress on the media that he was in control of proceedings, twice proposed to prosecuting Assistant District Attorney Roger Gunson and to Polanski's defence lawyer Douglas Dalton that they should plead their cases to him, after which he would pronounce a sentence that he had decided beforehand – in effect, amounting to a mock trial. We learn that Rittenband was inordinately influenced by publicity, and that, quite inappropriately, he solicited other people's advice on how he should act: one of them, reporter Richard Brenneman, who was startled to be asked, "What the hell do I do with Polanski?"

In the documentary, Geimer says of Rittenband, "He didn't care what happened to me, and he didn't care what happened to Polanski. He was orchestrating some little show ' that I didn't want to be in." Even Gunson comments – and this is the prosecutor, mark you – "I'm not surprised that [Polanski] left under those circumstances."

Sorry, I care more about due process under the law than some Little Grifter.

Ever hear of a retrial?

He's a pedophile and a rapist. It's irrelevant what she did before he raped her because he was the adult and it was his responsibility to avoid her. He is a pedophile, a rapist, and belongs and the sex offenders list.

Maybe we should excuse the Charlottesville driver for ramming the crowd on the grounds that someone hit his car. That's the kind of stretch you're making.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LuckyDuck]

After raping a child he fled the country to avoid prosecution...
He now admits to raping the child...
'It is over now', he claims...because he says so...
His lawyers want him to be allowed to come back to the US without being charged for his crime...

View attachment 152521
What The.....?!



Roman Polanski finally admits to child rape but says, "It's over" - Hot Air

Well, we're allowing in huge numbers of Sunni Muslims and they're religion allows their adult males to marry girls as young as one year old and to have penetration sex with them at the age of nine years old. I say we need to keep both examples out....period.

 

[JoeB131]

It really doesn't matter if the girl was a grifter or her mother was pimping her out and her daddy was holding a warm towel. He drugged and raped a minor. It doesn't matter if she told him she was 22 and both her parents swore to it. It wouldn't matter if it was her drugs. He drugged and raped a minor. There is no possible defense.

All those things would matter, and the very fact that the prosecutors plead him down to a misdemeanor says they knew they had a pretty weak case.

So you are going to put up a holocaust survivor whose wife was murdered by a cult, up against a little grifter and her family who were shaking him down for money and call that a case?

The prosecutor had better sense than you do on that one.

And you know what, that's fine. Really, I think we have better things to do with our resources. The money the LA district Attorney is spending STILL litigating this case is money they can't spend putting real rapists behind bars and giving them sweatheart deals.

But but but, Polanski is a Hollywood Liberal!!!! We need to get that guy!

Man, you people are fucking stupid.

 

[JoeB131]

He's a pedophile and a rapist. It's irrelevant what she did before he raped her because he was the adult and it was his responsibility to avoid her. He is a pedophile, a rapist, and belongs and the sex offenders list.

Maybe we should excuse the Charlottesville driver for ramming the crowd on the grounds that someone hit his car. That's the kind of stretch you're making.

Uh, here's the thing. In Charlottesville, someone died.

No one died here. No one really had their fundamental nature changed. Samantha Geilly was a slut before she slept with Polanski and she was still a slut afterwards. I guess she found Jesus at some point in her messed up life, but Polanski isn't the guy who messed up her life. She did that all on her own, along with her Grifter Mom.

There won't be a retrail because the rest of the civilized world knows "American Justice" is an oxymoron.

 

[JoeB131]

I think the real point is that JoeB131 thinks that it is no big deal for an old man to rape a young girl, after giving her drugs.

No, I don't think it's cool to violate someone's fifth and sixth amendment rights because you want to get a celebrity for something you let people get away with every day if they aren't famous.

The rest of your post has been reported for violating the rules.