UPDATED: Roman Polanski's a free man

In this is Jan. 15, 2009 file photo, film director Roman Polanski looks on in Montrouge, France. Full Story
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
john

Pico Rivera, CA

#1 Jul 12, 2010
This punk has got to face justice. He thinks he could come here with no shame and rape one of our American Daughters. Hell get it in the end. God will get him!
Will

Columbus, OH

#2 Jul 12, 2010
You can run but you can't hide, Roman. Not forever.
snore

Los Angeles, CA

#4 Jul 12, 2010
I don't care much about what happened between a french pervert and a teen skank a hundred years ago, but running from the law is another issue.
He's paid the price insofar as it's ruined his career, and legacy. Bottom line is, you can't come back here, Roman! Retire, stay in France, and be quiet. You're over.
Will

Columbus, OH

#5 Jul 12, 2010
snore wrote:
I don't care much about what happened between a french pervert and a teen skank a hundred years ago, but running from the law is another issue.
He's paid the price insofar as it's ruined his career, and legacy. Bottom line is, you can't come back here, Roman! Retire, stay in France, and be quiet. You're over.
He's Polish, she was an innocent 13-year-old auditioning for him, and he drugged and repeatedly raped her. Yes, he ran from the law, but let's not ignore the vicious crime he committed or the fact that he STILL hasn't done time for it.

He's paid NO price. He's lived in luxury and prospered. Stop condoning rape and brutality toward women. Or is that just OK with you LA types?
snore

Los Angeles, CA

#6 Jul 12, 2010
Will wrote:
<quoted text>
He's Polish, she was an innocent 13-year-old auditioning for him, and he drugged and repeatedly raped her. Yes, he ran from the law, but let's not ignore the vicious crime he committed or the fact that he STILL hasn't done time for it.
He's paid NO price. He's lived in luxury and prospered. Stop condoning rape and brutality toward women. Or is that just OK with you LA types?
I guess you're right. Let's keep dogging him till he dies.
TRUTH

Long Beach, CA

#7 Jul 12, 2010
Correction, lets keep "dogging" him until he answers for the crimes he committed. He fled right before he was to be sentenced. He has not been punished for his crimes yet.
snore wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you're right. Let's keep dogging him till he dies.
Red W Blue

Washington, DC

#8 Jul 12, 2010
Reality escapes the young and foolish! Charlie Manson and his groupies should have been dumped in the ocean for the sharks to dine on!
Frees Beach

Long Beach, CA

#9 Jul 12, 2010
I have always supported returning Polanski to the U.S. for sentencing. Now, I might change my mind.

For the first time I have learned the actual sentence Polanski is ducking. 90-days w/psychiatric evaluation! That's it. Plus, after serving 42 prison days, he was released by the evaluator, who said Polanski was unlikely to be a repeat offender. Only then did the judge say he wanted Polanski to do the remaining 48 days, after which he wanted Polanski to agree to voluntary deportation.

Capping that ridiculously low, albeit legitimate, sentence is the U.S. refusal to answer the defense claim that Polanski had served his sentence. I agree with Switzerland's releasing Polanski.

Moreover, Polanski voluntarily deported himself and his (now) adult victim wants the charges dropped and for him to be left alone.(Was she paid off???)

All this over 48 days which are questionable anyway, considering the confidential ex parte meeting in chambers with judge and prosecutor?

What Polanski did was disgusting, obscene and damaging. Yet, so was his sentence.
OldGuysRule

Long Beach, CA

#10 Jul 12, 2010
New Hampshire: A female between the age of 13 and 17 years and a male between the age of 14 and 17 years can be married only with the permission of their parent (guardian) and a waiver. A female below the age of 13 and a male below the age of 14 are not allowed to marry under any conditions. If both parties are nonresidents of NH and are below the age of 18 they cannot be married in NH under any conditions.

So a young woman can get married at age 13 in New Hamshire. Other states are similar. Wow!

It's just so different all around the world.

They really should just ask him to pay a fine, donate to a "protect the children cause" and drop the charges.
OldGuysRule

Long Beach, CA

#12 Jul 12, 2010
We spend millions of dollars chasing some hollywood party guy from decades ago and Iran and North Korea are on the brink of getting nuclear weapons. Heck, we let Michael Jackson off the hook and everyone goes ape when he dies.

It's the same with this pot smoking stuff. We spend billions fighting it when really the police departments just want to have someone to chase so they have a job.

We need to worry about our nation and the security of our people. The global economy is handing our power away to many other countries. China just about owns us. Israel is not going to let Iran have a nuke. As soon as they strike it's world war three.

Let's get our priorities straight. This one should have been handled a long time ago.
Different

Huntington Beach, CA

#13 Jul 12, 2010
OldGuysRule wrote:
We spend millions of dollars chasing some hollywood party guy from decades ago and Iran and North Korea are on the brink of getting nuclear weapons. Heck, we let Michael Jackson off the hook and everyone goes ape when he dies.
It's the same with this pot smoking stuff. We spend billions fighting it when really the police departments just want to have someone to chase so they have a job.
We need to worry about our nation and the security of our people. The global economy is handing our power away to many other countries. China just about owns us. Israel is not going to let Iran have a nuke. As soon as they strike it's world war three.
Let's get our priorities straight. This one should have been handled a long time ago.
No one let Michael Jackson off the hook. In court he was found not guilty. Roman Polanski was convicted (found guilty in court). So the comparison is far from accurate.
OldGuysRule

Long Beach, CA

#14 Jul 13, 2010
Different wrote:
<quoted text>
No one let Michael Jackson off the hook. In court he was found not guilty. Roman Polanski was convicted (found guilty in court). So the comparison is far from accurate.
Not guilty? OJ Simpson was found not guilty. Do you really think I am buying that story? Where there is smoke there is fire and Michael Jackson was surrounded by smoke.(justice4mj)
TRUTH

Long Beach, CA

#15 Jul 13, 2010
By all means, lets NOT pursue criminal cases because they are too costly. The next serial killer we arrest we should just drop the case because it will cost to much to prosecute him/her. The next criminal that escapes to another country to avoid prosecution, lets just let it go because we don't want to spend the money to go after them.

I know, why don't we just cut out he BS and don't even prosecute those who can pay money up front and then just let them go.

Sometimes the cost of "doing business" (prosecuting criminals) can be rather high. The costs of the alternative that you are promoting are even higher. We need to pursue criminals and put them in jail if that is where they belong.
OldGuysRule wrote:
We spend millions of dollars chasing some hollywood party guy from decades ago and Iran and North Korea are on the brink of getting nuclear weapons. Heck, we let Michael Jackson off the hook and everyone goes ape when he dies.
It's the same with this pot smoking stuff. We spend billions fighting it when really the police departments just want to have someone to chase so they have a job.
We need to worry about our nation and the security of our people. The global economy is handing our power away to many other countries. China just about owns us. Israel is not going to let Iran have a nuke. As soon as they strike it's world war three.
Let's get our priorities straight. This one should have been handled a long time ago.
Will

Columbus, OH

#16 Jul 13, 2010
OldGuysRule wrote:
New Hampshire: A female between the age of 13 and 17 years and a male between the age of 14 and 17 years can be married only with the permission of their parent (guardian) and a waiver. A female below the age of 13 and a male below the age of 14 are not allowed to marry under any conditions. If both parties are nonresidents of NH and are below the age of 18 they cannot be married in NH under any conditions.
So a young woman can get married at age 13 in New Hamshire. Other states are similar. Wow!
It's just so different all around the world.
They really should just ask him to pay a fine, donate to a "protect the children cause" and drop the charges.
So tell me first, how NH law applies in California, and second, how allowing a 13-year-old to marry with parental permission is in any way related to someone RAPING a 13-year-old after DRUGGING her? Huh? Got an answer there, you idiot geezer?

You sound like someone whose years of psychedelic drug abuse have finally caught up to you. Just unbelievable.
Will

Columbus, OH

#17 Jul 13, 2010
OldGuysRule wrote:
<quoted text>
Not guilty? OJ Simpson was found not guilty. Do you really think I am buying that story? Where there is smoke there is fire and Michael Jackson was surrounded by smoke.(justice4mj)
LOL...jesus, you're stupid.

First, Jackson was FOUND NOT GUILTY IN COURT. At the same time, Polanski WAS found guilty in court. So which is more guilty and deserving of punishment before the eyes of the law? That's right, Polanski is.

Incredible that you seem to want Jackson to be more "guilty" than admitted rapist and child-molester Polanski.
Will

Columbus, OH

#18 Jul 13, 2010
TRUTH wrote:
By all means, lets NOT pursue criminal cases because they are too costly. The next serial killer we arrest we should just drop the case because it will cost to much to prosecute him/her. The next criminal that escapes to another country to avoid prosecution, lets just let it go because we don't want to spend the money to go after them.
I know, why don't we just cut out he BS and don't even prosecute those who can pay money up front and then just let them go.
Sometimes the cost of "doing business" (prosecuting criminals) can be rather high. The costs of the alternative that you are promoting are even higher. We need to pursue criminals and put them in jail if that is where they belong.
<quoted text>
Amen to THAT, Truth. Agreed 100%.
CHS

La Habra, CA

#19 Jul 13, 2010
I think that all of those folks who supported Roman should throw a party for him and invite all of their underage daughters and granddaughters.
CharlesP

East Dublin, GA

#20 Jul 13, 2010
Frees Beach wrote:
I have always supported returning Polanski to the U.S. for sentencing. Now, I might change my mind.
For the first time I have learned the actual sentence Polanski is ducking. 90-days w/psychiatric evaluation! That's it. Plus, after serving 42 prison days, he was released by the evaluator, who said Polanski was unlikely to be a repeat offender. Only then did the judge say he wanted Polanski to do the remaining 48 days, after which he wanted Polanski to agree to voluntary deportation.
Capping that ridiculously low, albeit legitimate, sentence is the U.S. refusal to answer the defense claim that Polanski had served his sentence. I agree with Switzerland's releasing Polanski.
Moreover, Polanski voluntarily deported himself and his (now) adult victim wants the charges dropped and for him to be left alone.(Was she paid off???)
All this over 48 days which are questionable anyway, considering the confidential ex parte meeting in chambers with judge and prosecutor?
What Polanski did was disgusting, obscene and damaging. Yet, so was his sentence.
You are confused by the news medias lies.
Polanski was to get a 90 day psych exam. On the first or second day of the exam, Movie studio execs went to the prison and offered to replace Polanski with a body double. Polanski refused, BECAUSE HE HAD ALREADY BRIBED THE PRISON OFFICIALS TO LET HIM OUT IN LESS THAN HALF THE 90 DAYS. Polanski BRAGGED that his intent was to MAKE IT APPEAR THAT ALL OF THE JUDGES RULINGS WERE TOO HARSH! Polanski ADMITTED HE WAS OUT TO DESTROY THE JUDGES REPUTATION, because the judge had REFUSED TO LEGALIZE ADULTS HAVING SEX WITH CHILDREN, in the USA!(This conversation WAS ALL TELEVISED ON LIVE NEWS BROADCAST.)
Polanski FALSELY claims that the 90 days was his total sentence. Problem: The day that Judge Rittenband ordered Polanski to get a psych exam, NBC and CBS news reported that "AFTER THE RESULTS OF THE PSYCH EXAM ARE FOUND, then the judge will give a FINAL SENTENCE"! THey all HEARD THE JUDGE SAY THIS, and THE JUDGE ARRANGED A LATER COURT DATE WITH BOTH SIDES, for the purpose of the final sentencing!(If the psych exam were the final sentence, then the judge would NOT have scheduled another court date! FINAL SENTENCING MEANS THE LAST OF THE COURTS BUSINESS!)
You are CORRECT about the LA Prosecutors not providing proof that the psych exam was NOT the final sentence. THe LA PROSECUTORS WILL BE WORKING FOR THE BIG TV/MOVIE INDUSTRY CORPORATIONS IN THE FUTURE!! They CLEARLY THREW THE CASE AWAY, in exchange for the promise of a big job, fame, or something (much in the way Hollywood covered up for Polanski arranging the Manson family to kill his wife, and Prosecutor Bugliosi was promised a book/movie deal for the cover-up!!
The Judge wanted a voluntary deportation from Polanski BECAUSE POLANSKI ADMITTED ON LIVE TV TO ARRANGING THE MURDERS COMMITTED BY THE MANSON FAMILY, then POLANSKI BRAGGED that HE WAS GOING TO KILL MORE CELEBRITIES IN THE FUTURE!!! The judge was trying to PROTECT HIS FRIENDS IN SHOW BUSINESS.
OldGuysRule

Long Beach, CA

#22 Jul 13, 2010
Will wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL...jesus, you're stupid.
First, Jackson was FOUND NOT GUILTY IN COURT. At the same time, Polanski WAS found guilty in court. So which is more guilty and deserving of punishment before the eyes of the law? That's right, Polanski is.
Incredible that you seem to want Jackson to be more "guilty" than admitted rapist and child-molester Polanski.
We all know that Jackson was found not guilty, but just like OJ Simpson many, if not most, americans believe he was guilty.

Also, Jackson's alleged molestations were within the context of a child's amusement theme park and were repeated with more than one. Suggesting actions of intent, premeditation, coercion, manipulation, kidnapping and imprisoning.

A far greater criminal situation.
wondering

Los Angeles, CA

#23 Jul 13, 2010
CharlesP wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confused by the news medias lies.
Polanski was to get a 90 day psych exam. On the first or second day of the exam, Movie studio execs went to the prison and offered to replace Polanski with a body double. Polanski refused, BECAUSE HE HAD ALREADY BRIBED THE PRISON OFFICIALS TO LET HIM OUT IN LESS THAN HALF THE 90 DAYS. Polanski BRAGGED that his intent was to MAKE IT APPEAR THAT ALL OF THE JUDGES RULINGS WERE TOO HARSH! Polanski ADMITTED HE WAS OUT TO DESTROY THE JUDGES REPUTATION, because the judge had REFUSED TO LEGALIZE ADULTS HAVING SEX WITH CHILDREN, in the USA!(This conversation WAS ALL TELEVISED ON LIVE NEWS BROADCAST.)
Polanski FALSELY claims that the 90 days was his total sentence. Problem: The day that Judge Rittenband ordered Polanski to get a psych exam, NBC and CBS news reported that "AFTER THE RESULTS OF THE PSYCH EXAM ARE FOUND, then the judge will give a FINAL SENTENCE"! THey all HEARD THE JUDGE SAY THIS, and THE JUDGE ARRANGED A LATER COURT DATE WITH BOTH SIDES, for the purpose of the final sentencing!(If the psych exam were the final sentence, then the judge would NOT have scheduled another court date! FINAL SENTENCING MEANS THE LAST OF THE COURTS BUSINESS!)
You are CORRECT about the LA Prosecutors not providing proof that the psych exam was NOT the final sentence. THe LA PROSECUTORS WILL BE WORKING FOR THE BIG TV/MOVIE INDUSTRY CORPORATIONS IN THE FUTURE!! They CLEARLY THREW THE CASE AWAY, in exchange for the promise of a big job, fame, or something (much in the way Hollywood covered up for Polanski arranging the Manson family to kill his wife, and Prosecutor Bugliosi was promised a book/movie deal for the cover-up!!
The Judge wanted a voluntary deportation from Polanski BECAUSE POLANSKI ADMITTED ON LIVE TV TO ARRANGING THE MURDERS COMMITTED BY THE MANSON FAMILY, then POLANSKI BRAGGED that HE WAS GOING TO KILL MORE CELEBRITIES IN THE FUTURE!!! The judge was trying to PROTECT HIS FRIENDS IN SHOW BUSINESS.
How have the orderlies been treating you? They still buy you snicker bars and cigarettes when you ask them to, don't they?
You are still locked up, and chained to a padded wall, aren't you?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Berne, Switzerland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What climate change? (Jun '13) Sep '14 gazan 76
Can couples really get stuck together during sex? (Feb '14) Feb '14 Inquisitive in Zu... 2
7 Fairytale Alpine Towns that You have to See t... (Nov '13) Nov '13 SHYKORA PAUL arts 1
Statue of Liberty reopens amid federal shutdown (Oct '13) Oct '13 TedsLiver 1
"A Hollande presidency couldn't be any worse" (Apr '12) Jan '13 dunadd 80
Swiss economy unexpectedly grows in first quarter (Jun '12) Jun '12 neobyzantine 2
Swiss hold ex-SNC-Lavalin exec over fraud charges (May '12) May '12 Walter 2
More from around the web

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:05 pm PST