regardless of the victim calling for his forgiveness, the fact remains that she was thirteen years old at the time. "he said/she said" doesn't matter when it's a child. What if she did say "yeah, okay" to something he did? He still drugged her and she was still 13.
Although I also believe that artists should be recognized for their work and getting a "Best director" means that he was recognized for his direction of a movie, I believe that he needs to account for his crime. The biggest crime he commited was skipping out on answering for what he did. I don't believe they are pursuing him for his original crime so much as for jumping bail and fleeing. What kind of person does that? Why should I think he's anything but scum when his reaction to being caught drugging and raping a thirteen year old was to run away?
The only thing I can think of that mitigates my disgust at Mr. Polanski is the fact that his first wife (and unborn child) was brutally murdered by Charles Manson. That's gotta mess with your head.
he said she said IS relevant regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it or not. it's a thing called being able to disproove charges against you. a right guaranteed to you under the constitution. since we have no idea of what all DID or DID not happen and since there has never been an actual trial with evidence presented and refuted you don't know either.
if you think 13 year old's ALWAYS tell the truth and that they NEVER lie and the parents of children don't have ULTERIOR motives some of the time then you live in a bubble or another planet. because those things happen all the time.
Why should I think he's anything but scum when his reaction to being caught drugging and raping a thirteen year old was to run away?
because the legal system in america is such that someone could present fact upon fact upon fact of being innocent but all the jury sees is a 13 year old girl. you think it doesn't happen? think again. people flee it doesn't always mean their guilty.
and i think it's wrong to offer the murder of his wife as an excuse one way or another. my sister was murdered at the age of 15. i was there. i watched her die. the same person who tried to kill her tried to kill me too. that messes with one's head. watching the legal system let the person off on a technicality. that messes with one's head. REGARDLESS that is not an excuse to go out and do something that is illegal neither is it justification for behaviour.
i have no doubt as i said before though you seem to have overlooked it that something did happen. i just pointed out as someone else did there are MANY other factors at play.
so far as "he said/she said" goes, the most important "anyone said" is that they BOTH agreed to what happened. After the deed has been admitted to, "he said/she said" only affects whether or not it was a crime; i.e. was it consensual? In the case of a girl of 13, it doesn't matter if it was "consensual".
Roman Polanski certainly had enough money to afford a fabulous team of lawyers. Running away does not mean he's guilty, but it doesn't mean he's honorable either.
he has NEVER admitted that everything she said happened. he's never said it's exactly like it happened. he's never alluded to the fact that it's exactly what she said. therefore he didn't necessarily drug her or get her drunk. we don't even know if he had actual sex with her. the only person on record is HER.
do you think having good lawyers is enough to get you off the hook? think again. celebrities like oj simpson may have enough money to hire a passle of lawyers as gifted as can be. it doesn't mean you'll get off the hook.
you honestly seem to think that law is either black or white and that there is no grey area. the problem is THERE IS MORE grey than there is black or white.
thanks for deciding what I think about Law. Yes, he HAS admitted to having sexual relations with a minor. Dishonorable count one. Then he fled. Dishonorable count two. My mind as to his honor is made up.
there is obviously no point in debating with you. I never said it was black and white. I stated my opinion on the matter. So you don't agree. big deal.
he said although he engaged in sexual misconduct with her, it was not exactly what she said. sexual misconduct runs the spectrum from rape to simple harassment.
no one decided law for you. you're the one who attacked me over the girl saying she wanted the charges dropped. the funniest part is I DIDN'T SAY IT. someone else did. please read the responses again.
I dont appreciate being accused of attacking someone. I did not attack you. in both situations, YOU brought up something then denied it later. I thought you might need some reminding.
You said but what happend i don't think anyone will ever know for sure. with the rate this girl keeps saying to drop charges against polanski i wouldn't be surprised if some of the stuff was added to try and recieve money or a payoff. - your words.
you also said you honestly seem to think that law is either black or white and that there is no grey area. - your words.
All I was saying was that regardless of any of that, sexual misconduct happened, she was 13, he ran away. Therefore, he is in violation of criminal codes in america. so lawyers don't ensure justice.... because he's Roman Polanski, it's to be overlooked that he ran from his country's justice system? because it might be skewed? sorry, I can't go with that.
All I was saying, is that two facts are known: he admitted to misconduct with a minor, and he jumped bond. I also said that his work should be judged on its own merits. I also said my PERSONAL opinion is that he is scum for what he admitted doing and then running away. I'm sure there's more factors "at play" here, so far as looking at it ethically, morally, and all whatever else makes for an interesting debate. HOWEVER, I was not talking about ethics, scruples or morals. I was talking about my opinion based on his admitted misconduct and the laws HE BROKE.
no one said he should get away with anything because he's roman polanski... except for the words you tried to shove into my mouth.
you said you were through with that matter as did i. if you insist on being insulting and argumentative i don't find it surprising for a minute that someone anyone including me doesn't want to stick around and discuss this with you.
now as i've said before, i'm through with the matter. if you have more insults, etc to hurl please seek someone else to dish them out to.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 11:38 am (UTC)Although I also believe that artists should be recognized for their work and getting a "Best director" means that he was recognized for his direction of a movie, I believe that he needs to account for his crime. The biggest crime he commited was skipping out on answering for what he did. I don't believe they are pursuing him for his original crime so much as for jumping bail and fleeing. What kind of person does that? Why should I think he's anything but scum when his reaction to being caught drugging and raping a thirteen year old was to run away?
The only thing I can think of that mitigates my disgust at Mr. Polanski is the fact that his first wife (and unborn child) was brutally murdered by Charles Manson. That's gotta mess with your head.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 11:50 am (UTC)if you think 13 year old's ALWAYS tell the truth and that they NEVER lie and the parents of children don't have ULTERIOR motives some of the time then you live in a bubble or another planet. because those things happen all the time.
Why should I think he's anything but scum when his reaction to being caught drugging and raping a thirteen year old was to run away?
because the legal system in america is such that someone could present fact upon fact upon fact of being innocent but all the jury sees is a 13 year old girl. you think it doesn't happen? think again. people flee it doesn't always mean their guilty.
and i think it's wrong to offer the murder of his wife as an excuse one way or another. my sister was murdered at the age of 15. i was there. i watched her die. the same person who tried to kill her tried to kill me too. that messes with one's head. watching the legal system let the person off on a technicality. that messes with one's head. REGARDLESS that is not an excuse to go out and do something that is illegal neither is it justification for behaviour.
i have no doubt as i said before though you seem to have overlooked it that something did happen. i just pointed out as someone else did there are MANY other factors at play.
Re:
Date: 2003-03-28 02:02 pm (UTC)After the deed has been admitted to, "he said/she said" only affects whether or not it was a crime; i.e. was it consensual? In the case of a girl of 13, it doesn't matter if it was "consensual".
Roman Polanski certainly had enough money to afford a fabulous team of lawyers. Running away does not mean he's guilty, but it doesn't mean he's honorable either.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 03:12 pm (UTC)do you think having good lawyers is enough to get you off the hook? think again. celebrities like oj simpson may have enough money to hire a passle of lawyers as gifted as can be. it doesn't mean you'll get off the hook.
you honestly seem to think that law is either black or white and that there is no grey area. the problem is THERE IS MORE grey than there is black or white.
Re:
Date: 2003-03-28 04:43 pm (UTC)there is obviously no point in debating with you. I never said it was black and white. I stated my opinion on the matter. So you don't agree. big deal.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 04:47 pm (UTC)no one decided law for you. you're the one who attacked me over the girl saying she wanted the charges dropped. the funniest part is I DIDN'T SAY IT. someone else did. please read the responses again.
i'm through with the matter.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 05:06 pm (UTC)in both situations, YOU brought up something then denied it later. I thought you might need some reminding.
You said but what happend i don't think anyone will ever know for sure. with the rate this girl keeps saying to drop charges against polanski i wouldn't be surprised if some of the stuff was added to try and recieve money or a payoff. - your words.
you also said you honestly seem to think that law is either black or white and that there is no grey area. - your words.
All I was saying was that regardless of any of that, sexual misconduct happened, she was 13, he ran away. Therefore, he is in violation of criminal codes in america. so lawyers don't ensure justice.... because he's Roman Polanski, it's to be overlooked that he ran from his country's justice system? because it might be skewed? sorry, I can't go with that.
All I was saying, is that two facts are known: he admitted to misconduct with a minor, and he jumped bond. I also said that his work should be judged on its own merits. I also said my PERSONAL opinion is that he is scum for what he admitted doing and then running away. I'm sure there's more factors "at play" here, so far as looking at it ethically, morally, and all whatever else makes for an interesting debate. HOWEVER, I was not talking about ethics, scruples or morals. I was talking about my opinion based on his admitted misconduct and the laws HE BROKE.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 05:36 pm (UTC)you said you were through with that matter as did i. if you insist on being insulting and argumentative i don't find it surprising for a minute that someone anyone including me doesn't want to stick around and discuss this with you.
now as i've said before, i'm through with the matter. if you have more insults, etc to hurl please seek someone else to dish them out to.