Patterico's Pontifications

10/11/2009

Roman Polanski Is Depressed

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:20 pm

Roman Polanski is depressed:

Roman Polanski is depressed and in an “unsettled state of mind” as he begins his third week in a Zurich jail, his attorney told two Swiss newspapers.

Attorney Herve Temime has visited Polanski in jail, where he faces extradition to Los Angeles for sentencing after having pleaded guilty three decades ago to sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl.

“I found him to be tired and depressed,” Temime told the Sonntag newspaper.

He was quoted in the newspaper NZZ as saying Polanski “seemed very dejected when I visited him.”

I have only one question: who cares?

Criminal defendants who are incarcerated are often depressed — but if they are incarcerated because of their own actions, you don’t usually see newspaper articles about it.

What about the depression this rape and its aftermath caused the victim? A depression that is constantly blamed on my employer, the L.A. County D.A. (for whom I do not speak), but which is fairly blamed on the rapist: Mr. Polanski.

There is no mention of her feelings.

There should be.

But this is how Big Media operates: when the leftists writing the story sympathize with the prisoner — such as Polanski, or Gitmo detainees — we get to read about how sad they are while locked up. If the prisoner is unpopular — say, for example, someone accused of a hate crime against a gay victim — you’d never see such a story in a million years. “My client is depressed,” the lawyer would say. “Who cares?” reporters would say.

And that’s what they should say here. The fact that they don’t indicates a lingering feeling of sympathy towards this child rapist.

It’s time to get over that, Big Media. A Dog Bites Man Story is just that — even if the dog is a famous director.

237 Responses to “Roman Polanski Is Depressed”

  1. Sympathy?
    Envy?
    Projection?

    glenn (757adc)

  2. Well, he could take the coward’s way out, and save everyone a whole lot of trouble.

    AD - RtR/OS! (6e8409)

  3. There is no mention of her feelings.

    There should be.

    Who gives a shit about what’s-her-face’s feelings? (can’t even be bothered to look up her name, which is unimportant anyway) She’s not a great artiste who makes films which stir MY feelings and make me more sophisticated about the human condition!

    These people are unutterably despicable – every single one defending him. How I hate them.

    the very pissed no one you know (1ebbb1)

  4. Wait until he gets in a cell with a guy named Bubba – then ask him what he feels.

    Two wrongs don’t make a right but it would be closer to justice than his running from the law for over 3 decades.

    MU789 (3f9d29)

  5. I look at the world and I notice its turning
    While my guitar gently weeps
    With every mistake we must surely be learning
    Still my guitar gently weeps
    I dont know how my friends were diverted
    They’re all perverted too
    I dont know why nobody told me
    No one alerted me.

    The most depressing song I can think of.
    Dedicated to RP.
    If his middle name is Irving then it would be dedicated to RIP.

    papertiger (b40a74)

  6. tell the molester that if he wants sympathy, its in the dictionary…..

    right between “shit” & “syphilis”.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  7. Polanski is depressed? I wonder why…

    Could it be that it appears that he’s going to finally be held accountable for his crime? Poor baby.

    Guess he shouldn’t have drugged and raped a 13-year old then…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  8. Forgive him. He is obviously sorry for his crime. It’s been 30 years.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  9. How was your hangover this morning, lovie/chimperor?

    We owe him no foregiveness, lovie. Plus, since he is obviously not repentant, he is not likely to get it from those that matter.

    JD (c0e41e)

  10. Do you forgive people who have shown no remorse? I think you can move on but you can’t forgive, because the lack of remorse shows forgiveness isn’t wanted.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  11. Tookie Williams is depressed too.

    By the way, if you “forgive” someone who hasn’t repented, you aren’t forgiving them.

    You’re condoning them.

    JayC (187ef9)

  12. Look, I don’t want to fight with this Emperor person. He or she curses and gets personal. But…

    “..He is obviously sorry for his crime. …”

    I will self-censor the response this statement so richly merits.

    I don’t think there is a shred of evidence that Mr. Polanski is sorry for his crimes. I mean, what did he do when he fled this country? Continue to have an affair with a sixteen year old (Nastassja Kinski)—and remember, he started that relationship before he drugged and raped the thirteen year old, when Kinski was fifteen.

    Then there is that great interview where he claimed that “everybody wants to (insert language Emperor used last night) young girls.”

    What in the local group of solar systems could possibly lead anyone to thinking this bit of toilet film is sorry for his actions?

    30 years of chalet living, supermodel wives, and awards from Hollywood and Europe? He hasn’t exactly been on the lam.

    Sheesh.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  13. Hey JayC: Mr. Williams is beyond depressed right now. He is the opposite of a composer.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  14. People often get depressed when they are forced to face the consequences of their actions. Kids are sad when they get busted and mom & dad ground them or take away TV privileges. Regular old non-Hollywood criminals get depressed when they suddenly find themselves locked up.

    Had Polanski not run away, he would have had a brief stint of depression 30 years ago (when he was given a really lenient deal to begin with, because the victim did not want to have to have her identity revealed, as would be required if she went to trial), and then it would have been over with.

    He’s scum, and he’s even bigger scum for telling his lawyer to go out and try to garner sympathy for him.

    PatHMV (a00c3c)

  15. Forgive him. He is obviously sorry for his crime. It’s been 30 years.

    Comment by The Emperor — 10/11/2009 @ 3:05 pm

    What evidences to you that he is sorry for his crime?

    Because if you don’t have any evidence, this is a preposterous assertion.

    Dana (863a65)

  16. My statement is not a very intellectual one. It’s more of a moral thing. Come on. Who really cares what happened thirty two yeas ago? The girl in question should be what? 45 years by now? The man lost his wife violently. A lot of stuff has happened since then. Besides he has produced some really nice works. I am sure the victim may have moved on beyond this. So should we. We all make mistakes.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  17. Emperor,

    I don’t know what qualifies as an intellectual statement but this followup comment of yours is even more preposterous than the first.

    Everyone does make makes mistakes but living in a civilized society includes consequences for those actions and laws that establish standards.

    That said, just because time has elapsed, or because a victim has aged, or because tragedy has befallen a person, does not equate to remorse, regret or sorrow over one’s actions.

    The victim may have moved on but it doesn’t matter in light of the law. Evidence of true sorrow, regret and remorse for a crime committed against another person might very well include one acknowledging their crime, submitting themselves to a court of law and the decisions of sentencing. Anything but running away.

    His running from serving his time spoke nothing about sorrow for his crime and everything about his own self-preservation.

    Dana (863a65)

  18. Chimperor is an amoral twit.

    JD (2eff36)

  19. “My statement is not a very intellectual one.”

    Lovey – Thanks for the statement of the obvious. Your words apply equally well to all your comments or equivocations.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  20. Oh. My. God.

    “My statement is not a very intellectual one. It’s more of a moral thing. Come on. Who really cares what happened thirty two yeas ago? The girl in question should be what? 45 years by now? The man lost his wife violently. A lot of stuff has happened since then. Besides he has produced some really nice works. I am sure the victim may have moved on beyond this. So should we. We all make mistakes.”

    I think that the “thirty two yeas ago” typo may be Freudian.

    And “intellectual” the statement ain’t. Nor is it “moral,” except in Bizarroworld.

    Well, Emperor, I certainly hope that no “mistake” such as Polanski did (and not just once, remember, he had a pattern of using underaged girls for sex, and bragged about it) happens to you or a loved one.

    But it is nice to know you would forgive that “mistake” happening to you or a loved one.

    Right?

    Being drugged and raped is no big deal. Especially if it was someone all cool and dreamy, right? You cannot mean that. Even though you play troll games here often, you cannot mean that.

    You remind me of Ace’s line: that Polanski’s next film is so awesome they are going to let him have sex with an eight year old.

    It’s fine to say you were wrong, though I have to believe this is why you are writing such patently bizarre nonsense. Rule number one of holes: quit digging.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  21. Lovey is A Hole, EB. He/she/it (say it really fast and you find out what Lovey is) can’t quit digging because that’s all Lovey has. A Hole and a spade.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  22. Well, regardless, the person is not cover him or herself with honor.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  23. I keep hearing about a great, talented Polish director in jail in Switzerland, and I was really concerned that the Swiss might have actually have one locked up. But I checked and they don’t have Andrzej Wajda. What a relief!

    Of course, as I’ve commented before, there are about five solid pieces of evidence in the case that Polanski, the not-so-great-and-talented director, is a serial pedophile.

    To the Hollyweird satraps who signed the famous petition, that may be no big deal… after all, there are at least two “out” pedos on the list, daughter-marrying Woody Allen and child-sex-vacationer François Mitterand.

    No morals, no class. Just appetites. Why see their entertainments and enable these animals?

    Kevin R.C. O'Brien (3a5209)

  24. Hatred runs deep here.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  25. Let him have his belt and shoelaces back. Creative potential abounds.

    RB (529753)

  26. Haven’t you had enough ass-kicking, john?

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  27. Who really cares what happened thirty two yeas ago?

    That one sentence at first made me think you were being facetious and doing a parody of a liberal or “progressive.”

    Whether you see yourself as a “lefty” or not, I hope you’re at least honest enough to realize a left-leaning ideology doesn’t make you or anyone else a more humane, caring, generous human being. It sure as hell doesn’t, and the apparently non-tongue-in-cheek but flip comment of “who really cares what happened…” proves it.

    Mark (411533)

  28. Hatred runs deep here.

    Who is more worthy of one’s hatred than an unrepentant child rapist?

    Seriously. This is the reason hundreds of thousands of years of evolution have endowed us with this specific emotion.

    RB (529753)

  29. Lovey – Why don’t you just pray for Roman and keep your “morals” to yourself?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  30. “…Haven’t you had enough ass-kicking, john?…

    Now that is funny. I have very seldom seen such a succinct example of projection, based on this thread and last night’s fine and mature performance.

    After defending drugging and raping underaged girls by saying it was a long time ago and besides, the guy made great movies, you might want to take a break.

    And put down the shovel.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  31. Hatred runs deep here.

    Comment by The Emperor — 10/11/2009 @ 6:01 pm

    If you mean for solipsistic, unrepentant child rapists and those who defend them, you are 100% correct. Am not supposed to hate anyone but God help me, because I do.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  32. Comment by Eric Blair — 10/11/2009 @ 5:01 pm

    Very well said.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  33. Lovey, you got your posterior bloodied badly by many more than just myself. Then you projected racism into the mix and got your posterior bloodied even further. Yet you continue with your passive-aggressive adamantly ignorant bovine byproduct, claiming you are “special.” If, by “special” you mean you rode the short bus while wearing a helmet and you are still riding that short bus, you are right.

    Like I said to blu, the next time you provide an argument with substantiated facts will be the first time you provide an argument with substantiated facts.

    I would suggest you buy a clue but I suspect you are too broke from buying all those BHO kneepads.

    (Sorry, EB, I just couldn’t help myself.)

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  34. You know, John, when someone is willing to give a “pass” to people who drug little girls and rape them three different ways and say it was a long time ago, and besides, he made great movies, you can be just as rude as you like so far as I am concerned.

    Come to think of it, this person even said that his or her position was a moral one. So some degree of outrage is perfectly understandable.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  35. Lovie/chimperor appears to be on quite the bender.

    JD (be8dcd)

  36. Let me be clear. I am not defending Roman Polanski. I think his behavior was disgusting, as well as despicable. I am not saying he does not deserve to be punished for it. He does. My issue is that nothing is gained from this whole stuff. Except opening up old wounds for the victim. What is she saying in all this? Is she seeking justice for this? What is she really saying? Forgiveness is a Christian, as well as a universal injunction. That is the only way for real healing to start. To err is human. To forgive is divine.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  37. Thanks for the basket of cliches sermon, Fr. Empy.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  38. “Let me be clear. I am not defending Roman Polanski.”

    Lovey – Then I suggest you stop digging.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  39. Eric – I missed last night. Where was Lovey in fine form? Which thread(s)?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  40. Lovey, to rape is to be punished by stoning to death. Forgiveness can follow the carrying out of the sentence, not precede it. And, yes, that’s Biblical. And, no, the NT does not cancel the OT, but completes it.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  41. Guys,
    This is no loughing matter. European contries have extremely liberal rules of imprisonment/release. One can get out of prison on account of “severe illness” or “severe emotional distress.”
    Polanski’s lawayers are cooking up a case for his release on “humanitarian” grounds.

    Pansy (5e70a6)

  42. It appears the rape victim wants the case dismissed. She has settled with him and has moved on. Try catching up with her folks.

    NEW YORK (CBS/AP) Roman Polanski’s rape victim, Samantha Geimer, who identified herself long ago, is asking that the Oscar-winning director’s case be dismissed.

    Photos: Roman Polanski

    If Polanski is brought to an American court, Geimer, who is now an adult and living with her husband in Hawaii, cannot be forced to testify against him. What she really wants, she says, is for the case to be over. Geimer has already sued him and reached an undisclosed settlement. She filed court papers earlier this year asking the charges against Polanski be dismissed, according to CNN.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  43. Daley, start around here and wander a bit.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  44. Lovey, how do you testify against someone who pled guilty then ran away before sentencing? Are both of your brain cells dead?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  45. Lovie – Victims do not get to make those decisions. You don’t want him punished. We get that.

    JD (09647a)

  46. FWIW, American and English common law embraces the concept of venue. In the criminal law context, this means most crimes must be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where they occurred. That’s why a theft, rape or murder that occurs in LA is prosecuted by the LA authorities in a California court.

    But many European countries do not recognize the concept of venue the way Anglo courts do. Thus:

    The localization in England of crime, and the procedure for punishing it, differ largely from the view taken in France and most European countries. The French theory is that a Frenchman owes allegiance to the French state, and commits a breach of that allegiance whenever he commits a crime against French law, even although he is not at the time within French territory. In modern days this theory has been extended so as to allow French and German courts to punish their subjects for crimes committed in foreign countries, and by reason of this power certain countries refuse to extradite their subjects who have committed crimes in other states.

    I think this explains, in part, why the French, Swiss and others focus on what their laws provide instead of willingly giving full faith and credit to Polanski’s US conviction. Put another way, they recognize the US conviction because of applicable treaties but that doesn’t mean they are comfortable with it.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  47. The victim’s wishes are not completely germane;
    it is, after all, The State of California v. Roman Polanski,
    and he has already pled guilty to the charge of Unlawful Intercourse with a Minor.
    The only unknown is what term of imprisonment he will have to serve.

    AD - RtR/OS! (6e8409)

  48. Says who, jd? So she has no say in this matter?

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  49. Emperor,

    American justice isn’t about vengeance so victims don’t get to decide when charges are filed or which cases are plead/tried. Instead, the government prosecutes crimes to protect society and do justice. Some cases, like DUI, don’t even need a victim for charges to be brought.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  50. “Says who, jd? So she has no say in this matter?”

    Lovey – This was fully discussed when Polanski was first arrested. Why are you rehashing old topics?

    John – Thanks for the link. Lovey was certainly the aggressive potty mouthed commenter last night.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  51. You should step away from the keyboard, chimperor.

    JD (a5d4c8)

  52. JD – I want her to call somebody tiny dick because they are not black again tonight. That was some special bigotry.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  53. Lovey, how do you testify against someone who pled guilty then ran away before sentencing?

    That’s another reminder that MSM journalists, even at the supposedly highest levels, often haven’t the faintest about what they’re writing about.

    I checked the story, and of course it’s uncorrected. The same is true for an idiotic Washington Post lead editorial saying the Nobel Peace Prize should have been awarded to an Iranian dissident killed in the crackdown. But not only were the nominations due by February, before the crackdown, but Nobels aren’t given posthumously.

    But for this lengthy, lead editorial to have appeared in the Post yesterday, it had to have passed through at least three people’s hands — and probably many more. Those three would be: the editorial board member who wrote it; the editor of that section; and the copy editor who was on duty for the page as a whole. In reality, other people almost certainly saw it before publication.

    The editorial as published — with its recommendation that the Peace Prize should instead have been given posthumously to the martyred young woman Neda from the Iranian uprising — required that none of those three people was aware that Nobel prizes are not given posthumously . . . But it also required that none of the three people was curious enough or worried enough to check, before publishing not a blog post or a real-time update but a major paper’s main editorial.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  54. Well…

    “I am not defending Roman Polanski. I think his behavior was disgusting, as well as despicable. I am not saying he does not deserve to be punished for it. He does. “

    Sounds good, right? Except the following was stated earlier in the same thread, by the same person a few hours earlier:

    My statement is not a very intellectual one. It’s more of a moral thing. Come on. Who really cares what happened thirty two yeas ago? The girl in question should be what? 45 years by now? The man lost his wife violently. A lot of stuff has happened since then. Besides he has produced some really nice works. I am sure the victim may have moved on beyond this. So should we. We all make mistakes.

    Same person. Same thread. Cognitive dissonance, thy name is Emperor.

    Let’s review. “We all make mistakes.”

    Well, I haven’t drugged and raped any thirteen year olds. I doubt you have either. I think your use of the word “mistake” is jaw droppingly insensitive and inappropriate.

    So you then bring up the victim’s statements. Nice job. I would like to hear her response to your statement, in reference to her drugging and rape (three ways, I would remind you) that “we all make mistakes.”

    Of course, this is the same individual who crows that other people were having their butts kicked, debate style, by that individual.

    Hmmm.

    Seriously, this is what happens when a person is overly invested in a thoughtless post with “my idea is right” disease. But then, you are posting here to bring fairness and civility to Patterico’s, right?

    You end up defending child rapists by claiming that they made boss movies. Then, when called on it, you reverse course and claim you certainly weren’t defending child rapists.

    You even get to invoke God while defending your own spaghetti arguments.

    And as for forgiving, I notice you still aren’t apologizing for your foul mouthed tirade last night. I guess that is divine as well.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  55. I think what Polanski needs now is a good lawyer.
    If he can make a strong case for judicial misconduct his guilty plea will be thrown off and a new trial ordered. Then her present testimony will be admitted. Case dismissed.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  56. Personally, I hope they fry the stupid SOB. If the girl had been willing, that’d be different—but he admitted that he drugged her, and that he knew perfectly well that she wasn’t willing.

    technomad (eefe5a)

  57. I think he’s in a situational depression, finally facing the guilty conscience he’s been hiding from for many, many years.

    htom (412a17)

  58. Polanski also needs apologists. He has some. Including some people here. Like you.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  59. By which I mean this person who plays “how low can you go limbo” with the truth and argumentation: Emperor.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  60. Comment by DRJ — 10/11/2009 @ 7:24 pm
    Is this why the trial is not holding in France? Can an offender in one country be free in another. Or do the french have a different law for sex offenders?

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  61. Bradley:

    But for this lengthy, lead editorial to have appeared in the Post yesterday, it had to have passed through at least three people’s hands — and probably many more. Those three would be: the editorial board member who wrote it; the editor of that section; and the copy editor who was on duty for the page as a whole. In reality, other people almost certainly saw it before publication.

    According to NPR, one of the reasons given for making bloggers subject to the new FTC rule regarding disclosures (which I agree with) but exempting newspapers, etc., (which I don’t) is that the mainstream media has ethics policies … and editors:

    The FTC said it understood that bloggers were being held to a different standard than reviewers in traditional media like newspapers and magazines since journalists in those media don’t have the FTC telling them they have to reveal whether they received a free product.

    The commission said that, as far as it was concerned, positive reviews in newspapers and magazines aren’t endorsements because there exists an “independent editorial” process leading to the publication of such reviews.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  62. If he can make a strong case for judicial misconduct his guilty plea will be thrown off and a new trial ordered. Then her present testimony will be admitted. Case dismissed.

    Huh?

    Why would judicial misconduct void the guilty plea — given that, if it happened, it came after the guilty plea??

    And if she testified again, she would presumably reaffirm her grand jury testimony, which she has never disavowed. Why would that result in a dismissal??

    Patterico (64318f)

  63. Lovie is a child rapist apologist for Polansky. Disgusting.

    JD (26478a)

  64. Is this why the trial is not holding in France?

    Another victim of Government “Education”. Doesn’t anyone teach civics anymore?

    RB (529753)

  65. I think what Polanski needs now is a good lawyer.
    If he can make a strong case for judicial misconduct his guilty plea will be thrown off and a new trial ordered. Then her present testimony will be admitted. Case dismissed.

    Comment by The Emperor — 10/11/2009 @ 8:11 pm

    *speechless*

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  66. If he can make a strong case for judicial misconduct . . .

    Not bloody well likely, given that the strongest supposed witness to such supposed misconduct has recanted.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  67. That’s what we need: better educated trolls!

    Chuck Roast (9e482f)

  68. You should have quit at “I think”, lovie/chimperor, because once you have told such an obvious untruth, anything that follows is likely to be skeptically viewed.

    JD (26478a)

  69. Don’t blame Lovey. Both of its brain cells died 20 years ago as they were battling each other for supremacy in the otherwise vacant skull cavity.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  70. Patterico, we are dealing with a new set of circumstances. The fact that the principal victim is not pressing charges means there is no case. But not until the first case is nullified. I think that is the case his lawyers are making. But let me ask you, if you were asked to defend Polanski, how would you proceed? Wouldn’t your first aim be to go for a mistrial? Citing judicial misconduct, but real and perceived?

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  71. Patterico, we are dealing with a new set of circumstances. The fact that the principal victim is not pressing charges means there is no case. But not until the first case is nullified. I think that is the case his lawyers are making. But let me ask you, if you were asked to defend Polanski, how would you proceed? Wouldn’t your first aim be to go for a mistrial? Citing judicial misconduct, both real and perceived?

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  72. ZOMFG – lovie is a simpering simian, a babbling baboon.

    JD (26478a)

  73. @60
    I think my words didn’t quite come out the way I meant to ask it. I believe there is a word for that. Coupled with the fact that I have a limited knowledge of law/international law. I am not a lawyer. So feel free to correct me where you feel I am wrong. We learn everyday.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  74. What part of “He pled guilty” is it that you don’t understand? Oh- and in a criminal proceeding the State brings charges, not the victim. (It’s that blasted education thing again.)

    Chuck Roast (9e482f)

  75. Hell yes Polanski is depressed; he should be. Finally the bill for his little harmless everybody does it, you can’t tell the 13 year olds without a score card pecker dillo is coming due. He’s facing a few long over due years in the slammer. El Tougho Shitto as they say in the Spanish Marines. Don’t do the crime on the 13 year old girl unless you can do the time.

    Mike Myers (710e8b)

  76. Emperor,

    I don’t know French law but for this to be something the French could prosecute, I think it would have to be an offense under French law and Polanski would have to be a French citizen at the time it occurred. If that is correct, I assume rape is an offense under French law and that this incident is considered rape.

    However, I’m not sure whether Polanski was a French citizen when the rape occurred. From what I’ve read, he was born in France but birth does confer citizenship — he must request it as an adult, something he may not have done until after he fled the U.S.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  77. And there was no trial, so there could be no mistrial, due to the aforementioned guilty plea. But lovie/chimperor’s ignorance runs deep.

    JD (26478a)

  78. But even if France could prosecute, that doesn’t prevent the U.S. from prosecuting nor should it.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  79. “…I have a limited knowledge of law/international law..”

    That phrase is half correct, friends and neighbors.

    But I notice it didn’t stop you from contradicting yourself earlier in the thread. Which suggests you are just playing word games, as usual.

    About a child rapist.

    The smart move would be to move on and find a new topic, after all the glory that this person has spread. But…well, you all know the rest.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  80. Pleading guilty and fleeing, as opposed to a trial, is one of those minor legal nuances brilliant minds such as Anne Applebaum assure us would confuse the matter further.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  81. Basically, lovie/chimperor is engaging in a series of asspulls in its capacity as an apologist for child assrapist Polansky. Sick.

    JD (26478a)

  82. because once you have told such an obvious untruth, anything that follows is likely to be skeptically viewed.

    Comment by JD — 10/11/2009 @ 8:34 pm
    What untruth are you talking about? I have not made any assertions. Merely stating an opinion.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  83. Lovie/chimperor – the untruth you told was when you said “I think”. There is no evidence to support this assertion, and a mountain of it that argues against it.

    JD (26478a)

  84. comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 10/11/2009 @ 8:33 pm
    Ouch!!! That link hurts deeply.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  85. No untruths? Um. Like some of the self-contradictory nonsense you have posted in this thread already?

    I used to think you were an on again/off again troll. Now I see you are a full on troll, 24/7/365.

    And you are fighting about an admitted child rapist. With a history of using underage girls as sex partners. Who brags about it in interviews.

    Is this part of your fairness and civility you claim to bring to this website?

    Or is the way you contradicted yourself—your own words—as I showed in #54?

    The fact is, you shot your mouth off, and you couldn’t admit that you made a thoughtless post. Then you simply dug in, refusing to admit error, and tried to muddy the water with other topics.

    That is the very definition of a troll.

    You are a Child Rapist Apologist for Polanski—or CRAP.

    Your new name. No “Emperor,” you.

    I’m done dealing with a person who splits hairs over a child rapist. Because it was “a long time ago” and “who cares” and “everybody makes mistakes.” Your words.

    You should be ashamed.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  86. Let me be clear. I am not defending Roman Polanski. I think his behavior was disgusting, as well as despicable.

    Hey Lovey, I have a novel idea. Why don’t you try “criminal” or “felonious” in your description? Shooting crows with a bb gun and then eating their raw flesh while they are still alive is disgusting and despicable, but not criminal. And your “he made a mistake and 30 years went by” business says you don’t think his acts were criminal. Only disgusting and despicable.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  87. @82
    jd,if you were Polanski’s attorney, how would you proceed in trying to save him jail time for this crime? What would you do? Seriously.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  88. You even tried to bring God into it. Shameful.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  89. If I were Polanski’s attorney, I would shoot him myself and save the government some money in the process.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  90. Comment by DRJ — 10/11/2009 @ 8:53 pm
    Thank you for the insight. You are the best.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  91. Oops, forgot the /snark

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  92. You are not defending Roman Polanski? Even though you wrote:

    “My statement is not a very intellectual one. It’s more of a moral thing. Come on. Who really cares what happened thirty two yeas ago? The girl in question should be what? 45 years by now? The man lost his wife violently. A lot of stuff has happened since then. Besides he has produced some really nice works. I am sure the victim may have moved on beyond this. So should we. We all make mistakes.”

    Everyone needs to read it again.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  93. Like I said in that other thread, Lovey is no liberal. Lovey is too busy giving Obama Lewinskys to consider politics.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  94. I’m more concerned about those “32 yeas” myself, John. Very Freudian.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  95. Chimperor – were I polansky’s atty, I would beg beg beg to get the 48 days that they expected in the original plea deal. But, since you show a complete ignorance of pretty much everything, I am not sure why my opinion would matter to you.

    JD (26478a)

  96. Yup, Lovey just sharted on another thread. Completely consistent with her behavior since arriving here claiming not to favor one candidate over another.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  97. EB, are you suggesting the 13-y-o rape victim should’ve been saying “neigh” instead of “no” to the old fart rapist? Would that have been enough to convince An Apple Bottom, a Whoopie Cushion, and Lovey that the rapist committed a rape-rape felony and not just a disgusting despicable thing?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  98. You see, John, I think Emperor is a woman, and thus the defense of Polanski (and she was defending him) is just beyond me.

    Kind of like Whoopi Goldberg.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  99. I would also add that I was never blessed with daughters, as you h have been. Just two happy and healthy sons, which is more of a blessing than I probably deserve.

    So I cannot imagine how the father of a daughter would feel about this. Especially given Polanski’s history, and his interviews on the topic.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  100. Comment by John Hitchcock — 10/11/2009 @ 9:15 pm
    I forgive you john. You are just another sinner with perversion issues. I will pray for. just hang in there. Help is on the way.

    I am not sure why my opinion would matter to you.

    Comment by JD — 10/11/2009 @ 9:17 pm

    jd, of course your opinion matters to me. you misunderstand me.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  101. The problem with eric blair is that he does not live in the real world.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  102. You go right ahead. I refer everyone to your own words. YOURS. It’s in post #16.

    Here. Let’s have it again. Remember, it is about a person who drugged a thirteen year old, and raped her vaginally, rectally, and orally. While she was saying “no” repeatedly. Drugged. Raped.

    All of which Polanski admitted to doing, in the process of trying to plead downward. So now what we have is our good friend CRAP looking for loopholes for this fugitive from his own crimes. And here is what this person said about it:

    “…My statement is not a very intellectual one. It’s more of a moral thing. Come on. Who really cares what happened thirty two yeas ago? The girl in question should be what? 45 years by now? The man lost his wife violently. A lot of stuff has happened since then. Besides he has produced some really nice works. I am sure the victim may have moved on beyond this. So should we. We all make mistakes.…”

    We all make mistakes? Oh, dear Lord. Mistakes? I wonder what kinds of mistakes this poster has made? This is not a word I would apply to what Polanski did.

    But, when called it, the person then wrote:

    “….Let me be clear. I am not defending Roman Polanski. I think his behavior was disgusting, as well as despicable. I am not saying he does not deserve to be punished for it. He does. My issue is that nothing is gained from this whole stuff. Except opening up old wounds for the victim. What is she saying in all this? Is she seeking justice for this? What is she really saying? Forgiveness is a Christian, as well as a universal injunction. That is the only way for real healing to start. To err is human. To forgive is divine….”

    Two hours apart. Leaving out the concept that drugging and raping a thirteen year old is being described as “erring.”

    Is this, again, part of the fairness and civility you bring to this blog? I want to hear again how your defending a child rapist brings fairness and civility. I’ll leave out how you keep shucking and jiving about your own words.

    Or maybe defending child rapists is part of your “real world”? I don’t think so. I just think you are playing troll games. It’s disgusting. The fact is, you just shot your mouth off, electronically, and are doubling and tripling down. Do you have any idea how those two posts make you look?

    And you honestly think you have been kicking John Hitchcock’s butt? The fact is, you have been sufficiently yogic to have spent all evening kicking your own butt, with your own weasel words.

    And, again, to bring God into it. Shameful beyond words.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  103. “Chimperor – were I polansky’s atty, I would beg beg beg to get the 48 days that they expected in the original plea deal.”

    They didn’t even expect that at the time of the plea. There were no promises at all, at the time of the plea.

    Patterico (64318f)


  104. “…You are just another sinner with perversion issues….”

    Um. I don’t think John Hitchcock is the one with issues, based on your view of “a moral thing” that seems to be related to the number of years that have passed, and the types of movies a child rapist makes. Again, you wrote some truly memorable posts about your views of crime and punishment tonight. I suggest you stay far, far away from calling anyone else a pervert around here.

    Unless you are just a troll.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  105. Let’s see now. The Biblical punishment for the crime of rape is … stoning to death.
    US law has ‘accessory after the fact’ statutes.
    I could, with a little liberal twisting, put Lovey in the ‘accessory after the fact’ category.
    And that category carries the same penalties as the actual actor in the crime, if memory serves.
    So, according to current law, and a liberal reading of that law, Lovey could find itself under the same sentence as the rapist, felon, Polanski, which, according to the Bible is… stoning to death.

    I could be less liberal in my decipherings, but then I would have to leave Lovey’s world. Ya know?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  106. Re Post #71–Emperor, you’re trying to pack two quarts of bullshit into a one pint bag.

    A. There is “no case” since the victim is no longer pressing charges. That may be true for her civil action in damages against Polanski–but having carnal knowledge of a drugged out drunked out 13 year old is a crime–and the state has an interest in prosecuting crimes that were committed. There is a case. Get over it. It may be tougher to prove some 30 plus years down the road but there IS a case.

    B. Go for a mistrial? Utter bullshit again. He made a plea bargain and he plead guilty to a lesser included offense. Once the defendant up and says “I done the deed, I’m guilty” there is no question of a trial. He admitted his guilt.
    There was no mistrial, no miscarriage of justice or whatever else you lily wavers want to believe. Get over it. He admitted he was guilty.

    C. Judicial misconduct–my bleeding ass. The defendant having raped, sodomized and had oral sex with the 13 year old victim–cops a plea to Whoopi Goldberg’s “not rape rape”. He hopes the judge won’t lock him up and throw away the key (which a jury might well have done had Polanski not plead guilty–you take your chances with a jury–they might “OJ” you and let you walk–or they may convict you on all counts). When it looks like the judge is going to hang him out to dry, Polanski beats feet for Europe. The simple fact is that the judge is usually not bound in his sentencing by the plea deal that the prosecutor and the defendant work out. Polanski thought he’d get six months in Club Med, then probation for some period of time. The judge had another sentence in mind–tougho Mr. Polanski, because the judge can do that. It is not misconduct.

    [Found in spam filter — DRJ]

    Mike Myers (710e8b)

  107. I’m more mystified by her claims of kicking your butt in terms of debate, while being flexible enough to kick her own butt, with her words, several times this evening.

    Just a troll, John. And one who should be chastened by this disgusting defense of Polanski.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  108. Lovey hasn’t been chaste (or chased) for at least 20 years.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  109. There is a reason this crime is called statutory rape. This is a case of illegal sexual act with a minor. It is called rape because a minor is considered incapable of making a matured decision on sex. It would be a real case of rape as john de-tinycock is referring to in the Bible if the victim can prove she was forced against her will and that she shouted. This 13 year old evidently did not scream nor attempt to escape. Yes you may point out that she was drugged and kept saying “no, no. stop…” But we know how a rape victim behaves. Real rape victims. This remains a case of statutory rape. Sex with a minor. Not forcible rape. There is a difference. It does not make Polanski’s act less criminal and vile, though. But it is what it is.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  110. But we know how a rape victim behaves. Real rape victims. This remains a case of statutory rape. Sex with a minor. Not forcible rape.

    Comment by The Emperor — 10/12/2009 @ 4:46 am

    The Emperor,

    This is the kindest way I can think of to say this: You are extremely ignorant of how a child victim of rape behaves.

    This is not even to mention the fact that even an adult victim of rape may not, depending on various circumstances (for example, did you forget the drugs?), scream or try to get away.

    Even if it were true that it was consensual (it certainly was not; she said she was afraid and said no repeatedly) that you don’t consider it “real” rape to sexually penetrate a person who has no capacity to truly consent to sex, is incomprehensible. And angering.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  111. I am going to dissent. i do want to know if he is depressed. specifically any information indicating how close he is to kiling himself and taking one more pervert off of the streets.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  112. I wonder if Polanski had raped Lovey, if Lovey would still be posting so stupidly after all theses years?

    Lovey, you have no concept of the law or of logic, just your emotions. Take a ‘lude and some two buck chuck, we’ll get you to Polanski’s hot tub. First hand experience is the only thing that clues in clueless liberals like Lovey.

    Oh, in NYC a Hijacker from 1968 is surrendering. Lovey, you think they should let this fugitive go too since it was so long ago, and the airline whose plane he hijacked no longer exists?

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  113. Not forcible rape.
    Comment by The Emperor — 10/12/2009 @ 4:46 am

    Stop, Emperor. On this thread, you are patently offensive and need to just stop.

    There is nothing you can say to dig out of this and there is nothing you can say that will bring you any credibility on this matter.

    So on behalf of rape victims of all ages, just STFU.

    Dana (863a65)

  114. Emotions. Emotions! Can we act like adults here and stop with the emotions? Gosh!

    The Emperor (1b037c)


  115. Emotions. Emotions! Can we act like adults here and stop with the emotions? Gosh!

    Comment by The Emperor — 10/12/2009 @ 6:22 am

    My statement is not a very intellectual one. It’s more of a moral emotional thing. Come on. Who really cares [doesn’t engage MY feelings so why should anyone care] what happened thirty two yeas ago? The girl in question should be what? 45 years by now? The man lost his wife violently. [pity] A lot of stuff has happened since then. {I just feel that time erases crimes] Besides he has produced some really nice works. [IOW he makes me feel good] I am sure the victim may have moved on beyond this. [may have but am not sure; I just feel it] So should we. We all make mistakes. [which fact I just feel should excuse rape]

    Comment by The Emperor — 10/11/2009 @ 4:22 pm

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  116. Wow, a whole lot of silliness comping from the Emptyror on this one.

    > Forgive him. He is obviously sorry for his crime. It’s been 30 years.

    Really? Where is the evidence of regret. I just see him saying everyone wants to have sex with children, having sex with another child, and evading justice for 30 years. I don’t think he regrets anything but being caught.

    > My statement is not a very intellectual one.

    You said a mouthful.

    > It’s more of a moral thing.

    Or amoral, depending on the person.

    > Who really cares what happened thirty two yea[r]s ago?

    I do. But here, why don’t you hire him to babysit your 13 year old daughter…

    > The man lost his wife violently.

    Which excuses his conduct how exactly?

    > Besides he has produced some really nice works.

    Well, nice to see this expressed openly for once.

    > I am sure the victim may have moved on beyond this.

    Actually publicly she forgives him. but its not her place anyway.

    > We all make mistakes.

    Mistake? Are you under the impression that he tripped and fell and accidentally raped a little girl?

    > My issue is that nothing is gained from this whole stuff. Except opening up old wounds for the victim.

    And giving California the justice it has been denied all these years.

    > That is the only way for real healing to start. To err is human. To forgive is divine.

    Forgiveness doesn’t mean you get to ignore the consequences of what you did.

    > So she has no say in this matter?

    Actually, yes, she has no say. that’s why the case is “the people v. Roman Polanski” because the aggrieved party is the state.

    Take the OJ trials. First we had the people v. OJ, criminal case. then when they lost that, we had the Goldman and Brown families v. OJ. Why the repeat? Because the parties were different. The first case was about satisfying the state’s need for justice. The second was about compensating the victims. (The of course OJ committed a fresh crime and went to prison and is currently someone’s b—-h.)

    > I think what Polanski needs now is a good lawyer.

    I am sure you will donate to his defense fund.

    > If he can make a strong case for judicial misconduct his guilty plea will be thrown off and a new trial ordered. Then her present testimony will be admitted. Case dismissed

    Wow, that is a whole lot of idiocy. Here’s how a new case would go:

    prosecutor: did he have sex with you?

    Victim: yes.

    Prosecutor: and how old were you at the time?

    Victim: 13.

    Case closed. He would be lucky only to be convicted of statutory rape.

    > Can an offender in one country be free in another.

    Are you clueless? Yes, Cali has no jurisdiction in france. Now most countries will extradite idiots like Polanski, but its not guaranteed.

    > The fact that the principal victim is not pressing charges means there is no case.

    Really, you should get your legal information from a source other than TV. There is no “pressing charges.” In criminal justice, while victims’ attitudes are taken into account, it is the state that decides whether to charge.

    > Yes you may point out that she was drugged and kept saying “no, no. stop…” But we know how a rape victim behaves. Real rape victims. This remains a case of statutory rape.

    Wow you are a pig. The first rule of holes: stop digging.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  117. no one you know…

    That was harsh what you just did to the emptyror just now.

    I fully approve.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  118. Wow noyk. Thanks for the stuff you did with my comment. Is that how you interpreted it? Talk about projecting ones view on another. That is a classic example. Thanks.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  119. Nice work A.W. Really.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  120. Not forcible rape? #109 is breath-taking.

    JD (da8b51)

  121. JD

    Well, as horrific as the Emptyror’s comments are frequently, that is somewhat defensible. in many states they distinguish between “rape” “statutory rape” and “forceable rape.” in that context, plain rape is “no consent.” But forceable rape is where you actually use “force” to accomplish the rape. now i have seen in some states where “force” is defined down so low as to make practically any lack of consent forceable rape, but there is a distinction to be made, and there is half a chance Polanski didn’t committ it.

    And yes, forceable rape carries a longer sentence, typically.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  122. I am happy for you, lovie/chimperor, that you have earned enough gold stars to go outside without supervision. It does not seem to be working out too well for you.

    JD (da8b51)

  123. Nice work A.W. Really.

    Comment by The Emperor — 10/12/2009 @ 6:50 am

    Welll…it’s nice to see that you agree with A.W. that you’re a pig for saying being drugged and saying “no, no, stop” doesn’t constitute being forcibly raped.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  124. Listen, Emperor. Enough is enough. You keep saying that you have kicked other people’s butts with your boss debate moves. Instead, with what I will now call “Emperor style Yoga” flexibility, you have been kicking yourself in the butt repeatedly, using your own words. For example, you snidely critique people for being emotional, when you have freely admitted to be emotional yourself with regard to this issue.

    Most people think you have made yourself look horrible in this thread. Do you want us to take a vote? Dana has finally weighed in. Show me where Dana has ever been intemperate with anyone. I know you think you are all cool and everything, but please: look at your posts. Look at how you keep changing your arguments, and struggle to distract from your own hypocritical comments.

    I think, initially, you posted something thoughtlessly. Maybe you believe it, maybe you don’t. You have long claimed that you bring “fairness” and “civility” to this particular comments section of a blog. I believe you have become reflexively contrarian, and will post automatically in opposition to any number of declarative statements made here.

    But you made a mistake, and I think you know it. Yet you will not back down, drop the subject, or do anything but triple or quadruple down. And it makes you look worse, not better, each time you do it.

    You win the Golden Shovel award for digging yourself in deeper.

    No matter how you want to spin it, Polanski drugged and raped a thirteen year old. You now want people to think it was consensual, when the testimony of the girl disagrees. I guess you know more about it. Then you want charges dropped because the victim did. You show an appalling lack of knowledge of the law.

    But your first post is the most telling, and it may be the most honest representation of your views. It’s no big deal to you. It’s been decades. And the guy made some great movies. So we should just get over it.

    Still, we remember what “it” was: drugging and raping (three ways again) a thirteen year old.

    To you, it may not be any big deal (though later, hypocritically, you claim it was a big deal to you). But it is to many, many people.

    You are in the wrong here, and you need to change the subject and move on. The crude “sex” jokes toward John Hitchcock don’t help you, incidentally. Especially given your defense of Polanski, calling JH “perverted” rings a bit strange, wouldn’t you say?

    Or else you are just a thoughtless, heartless, and crude hypocritical troll.

    You say you are not. Why not prove it? Move on to something else.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  125. Comment by A.W. — 10/12/2009 @ 6:56 am

    Understand your distinction (cross posting) but what The Emperor meant by forcible was non-consensual (at least that was the distinction she made). (She can correct me on her gender if I’m wrong; she speaks like a woman, which is why her obtuseness re: rape is even more incomprehensible.)

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  126. No one

    Well, no denying that the emptyror is one of those knuckle draggers who says that if the woman doesn’t fight back and hard she “really wants it.” sick, but it exists.

    Btw, if the emperor is a woman, shouldn’t it be the empress? So this suggests the empress is either grammer-confused or gender-confused.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  127. Btw, if the emperor is a woman, shouldn’t it be the empress? So this suggests the empress is either grammer-confused or gender-confused.

    Comment by A.W. — 10/12/2009 @ 7:12 am

    You’re right. BTW, in a lot of threads it shouldn’t matter (the gender of a poster) except for ease of posting, and my big problem with not knowing someone’s gender (especially a contrarian one, since people talk about him/her in the third person) is what the pronoun should be. And since I refuse to post “him/her” every time, and won’t use the ungrammatical “them,” it’s merely inconvenient and hence a bit annoying not knowing.

    On this subject matter, of course, I think gender does matter. Not because men don’t appreciate the fact that rape is wrong; they do. But women have (IMO) a slightly more visceral appreciation (emotional, if you will; nothing wrong with emotions if they serve the right moral ends and do not instead become your master) of how evil rape is.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  128. @125
    The Emperor is a he, noyk. And he likes you. A lot. That is why he thinks you are free to use any form of snide remarks or insult to address him. He will never insult you back because underneath, he knows you are a good Christian woman. God love you my sister. :)

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  129. That was just plain creepy. What do you think, NOYK?

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  130. I think John Demjanjuk needs Emperor to defend him.

    HeavenSent (01a566)

  131. NYOK

    I fully get the problem of talking to people who are annonymous (and for your convenience, i am a dude). admitedly it can be fun. i can’t tell you how often someone has said something like “i hate it when white people like you…” and i respond, “and why, pray tell, do you think i am white?”

    As for the idea that women know better, there is actually some jury research that suggests that women are more likely to be sort of “catty” about it all. its messed up, if true, but there you go.

    btw, re #128 did he just hit on you? *shiver*

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  132. Easier to call it an it. It is an amoral twit.

    JD (65ccb3)

  133. Comment by The Emperor — 10/12/2009 @ 7:23 am

    Well, am sorry I got your gender wrong. I really did think you spoke like a woman; will refer to you as he from now on.

    That said, it is still incomprehensible that you, a man, don’t understand or care that drugging and having sex with a young girl saying “no, no, stop” is rape, real rape, forcible rape.

    And that you would defend that is absolutely indefensible. That you say nice things to me doesn’t change that. That is the difference between you and me, I think. I care how you treat and speak about other people as well as myself, and you treat some others with much less respect than me. In other contexts too, but specifically today, this 13 year old rape victim.

    So I cannot respect that attitude, and if you continue to hold it, you are acting like a pig. And that a man who calls himself a Christian would defend a child rapist is mind-boggling.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  134. Actually, I welcome the image of this troll actually go through the discussions here with her or his pastor or priest.

    Especially the post at #16. What they heck. Here it is, to show how good Christians think about child rape:

    “My statement is not a very intellectual one. It’s more of a moral thing. Come on. Who really cares what happened thirty two yeas ago? The girl in question should be what? 45 years by now? The man lost his wife violently. A lot of stuff has happened since then. Besides he has produced some really nice works. I am sure the victim may have moved on beyond this. So should we. We all make mistakes.

    The bold parts are my favorites.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  135. #

    That was just plain creepy. What do you think, NOYK?

    Comment by Eric Blair — 10/12/2009 @ 7:28 am

    Well, it didn’t seem creepy to me. This is my explanation: I think that The Emperor tries to make allies by treating certain people well. He forgets that we all can see how everyone gets treated by everyone else; he forgets that if someone acts too ingratiatingly to one or two people while gratuitously insulting others and treating them like garbage, that that says a lot about the character of the person speaking.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  136. Guys, this person is mentally ill. Engaging her does not help the comments section at this otherwise fine blog.

    carlitos (ad57b1)

  137. i can’t tell you how often someone has said something like “i hate it when white people like you…” and i respond, “and why, pray tell, do you think i am white?”

    Have run into that myself, A.W., and it is amusing. FTR am a female in case it wasn’t clear.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  138. Well, NOYK, I have always appreciated your posts. There are many kinds of posters here. Some like to sling strong language. Others are calmer sorts. And we all get along pretty well, which is nice.

    I do get an odd “vibe” from Emperor, regardless of gender. But I think the simplest explanation is the person is just posting to act as House Contrarian.

    He or she just didn’t stop digging this time.

    I do think it would be a car crash to hear what this person’s priest or pastor would say….

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  139. Many of us here in the past called attention to the fact that the commenter in question is mentally ill, in some form or the other – and bringing in the God part as some sort of defense is it’s usual MO. As usual, Carlitos nailed it.

    Dmac (5ddc52)

  140. That was just plain creepy. What do you think, NOYK?

    Comment by Eric Blair — 10/12/2009 @ 7:28 am

    Eric B is becoming a village nuisance to himself. What part of “mind your own business” don’t you get?

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  141. @139
    As always. Doofus is always late to the party.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  142. Do you own two shovels, Emperor?

    Honestly, look at your posts, and people’s responses to them. And crow again at your excellence at debate, consistency, and kindness.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  143. And again, Emperor, I will match my own posts to your own. Any day. You have really made a mess of things here. Your words, no one else’s.

    So I would be very, very cautious about that whole “village nuisance” business. It seems to me you are looking in a mirror, and I am far from the only person who thinks so.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  144. The best response to lovey would seem to be sarcasm, except it would be lost on her.
    That just leaves shunning.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f793c7)

  145. I’m sure you are right, AD. But the whole Polanski thing outrages me, and then we have some yo-yo playing contrarian troll games about it. It’s irritating. But that is the goal of trolls, I know.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  146. But that is the goal of trolls, I know.

    ding ding ding ding ding!!!

    carlitos (ad57b1)

  147. Mock and scorn. Point and laugh.

    JD (1a4ae5)

  148. Eric is hurt. Boo-thef**king-hoo!!!

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  149. I imagine Lovey is some 16-y-o sitting in its room, giggling over its sex jokes and curse words.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  150. Again, Emperor: see how what you post makes you look?

    This is why your kind comments toward other people don’t impress them.

    It’s better to be above your self-considered slights. But you are just here to troll and be offensive.

    Mission accomplished!

    And you call yourself a Christian! Hey, don’t take my word for it. Print out what you have written, and take it to your pastor.

    I’m very serious. Go ahead.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  151. Smiles contently, knowing that very soon Polanski will get a very specific idea what it is like to be raped.

    Don’t drop the soap, Roman. Heh.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  152. @151
    I think A.W. may have solved the riddle there. Roman Polanski is depressed because he will have to be forcibly given in marriage to someone in jail. Now I am laughing. It’s gonna really hurt. Sorry Roman. I tried my best.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  153. Emperor,

    I’ve stayed out because there were so many and I don’t like piling on, but I am so disgusted that I must say this much. You came into another thread saying one must be an a$$hole to be a Republican. I have been called that before but I don’t know what I said to you to warrant that. You proceeded to make several nasty and offensive comments about other regulars here but that was not unknown here. Where I thought you crossed a line on that thread was your craven and despicable implication about John Hitchcock and his daughter. On this thread though you have outdone yourself with your contention that victims of child sex abuse are not really victims of rape if they don’t scream and fight off their abuser. This makes me physically sick.

    I guess you have not known adults who were abused as children. I have known several and I can assure you that even if they were too afraid or too conditioned to resist a family member or person of authority, they were still rape victims. The truth is that many of them have more traumatic and longer lasting damage than an adult who is restrained and forcibly raped. I am no authority but I have seen the terrible legacy of this abuse and it makes me want child abusers to be killed so they can never do it again. I welcome correction by someone better qualified but it seems to me that children often don’t fight because they are afraid for themselves, their family, and even the abuser when it is a family member. This does not mean they really want it and are not really being raped. We condition children to submit to adults and the adults that prey on children are good at making them feel afraid, ashamed, or guilty. In some ways this is the most outrageous offense they commit as the victims blame themselves for years or a lifetime. Your comment at #152 then wraps the whole thing up as a joke.

    I join with those that call for shunning you. No matter how disgusting the subject of a thread I think that letting it center on you as this one has will degrade it to levels beneath the dignity of this site.

    Machinist (79b3ab)

  154. Machinist,

    No, shunning only eggs the miscreant on to greater outrages. Banning the person and their IP will get the point across. Lovey won’t get any jollies without their words in print or outraged reactions from normal people.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  155. PCD,
    I don’t see that happening. The host is reluctant to ban someone short of the most egregious conduct and I like that. There are far too many echo chambers out there on both sides. One fault here is how easy it is for trolls to hijack threads, it surely encourages them to keep coming back. All a troll has to do is make an outrageous comment, they can even use the same one over and over, and several of the regulars will jump in to make clever personal attacks on the troll, effectively ending the discussion the troll wanted to disrupt. Even if you try to ignore it and follow the original topic it’s hard as more then half the comments end up centering on the troll. Ignoring them gives them no reward or result and is very hard for this kind of personality to take. However long they stay the discussion continues and they are powerless to pull it on to themselves.

    Also, as revolting as I find it for Emperor to blame the victim of child abuse it seems to be a widely shared opinion and I’m not sure that should be banned.

    Machinist (79b3ab)

  156. Machinist, I think that your points are good. I don’t know where Patterico and DRJ are on this subject. But this thread has gone to some nasty, awful places, and due to one poster.

    To be sure, trolls enjoy stirring people up, and don’t care if they are liked or disliked. But I do think that, whenever this person posts, her or his commentary here needs to be brought up.

    But that’s me. Other folks may differ, and that is fine, too.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  157. We saw NOW throw out decades of progress in order to defend Bill Clinton despicable conduct and now we see it extending to children who are victims of rape by popular celebrities.

    This needs exposure.

    I do have to wonder what the attitude would have been if his victim had been the child of another Hollywood elite instead of just one of the peasants. Would he have had to offer the parents roles in his next movie to make things right?

    Machinist (79b3ab)

  158. Thank you Eric Blair. I understand your point and when the troll resorts to unprovoked personal attacks on others here or their families it should be refereed to the host for action. As to the rest you may be right. I am no expert and have fallen into that myself. My respects, Sir.

    Machinist (79b3ab)

  159. “Who cares if Roman Polanski is depressed?!?”

    I do!

    In fact, I care about it a lot.

    It makes me very, very happy to hear that he’s depressed. For every day that he spends incarcerated as a result of his rape of a child, I will be a little bit happier, and the more depressed he becomes as a result of that incarceration, the happier it will make me.

    Beldar (b70e3c)

  160. Where’s happyfeet when you need him? I’m dying to hear his take on this topic.

    Rochf (ae9c58)

  161. It’s always good to see your posts, Machinist. I don’t have a recipe for Troll-B-Gone. And getting upset with a troll is indeed the troll’s very goal.

    But I’m with Beldar on that child rapist Polanski.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  162. I personally think there are worse things in the world than a person being contrarian for the fun of it (as i hope the emptyror is), or just being a knuckle dragger. i don’t like bans, and when, say Concurring opinions banned me, i took it more as reflection on them than me. Of course it really was a poor reflection on them. they were proposing pretty faschist legislation to ban so called “cyber stalking,” i pointed out it was pretty fascist and unconstitutional, and they banned me proving that they can’t even debate censorship openly. Heh.

    Ultimately the Emporer’s of the world are largely talk anyway. He’s just an angry breeze and while i admit have alot of fun refuting him, at the end of the day, i know little of what we say here matters a damn anyway. so let him vent and spew stupidity.

    Btw, in regards to this:

    > I do have to wonder what the attitude would have been if his victim had been the child of another Hollywood elite instead of just one of the peasants. Would he have had to offer the parents roles in his next movie to make things right.

    Well, this might not be the best analogy, but look at how they handled the brad pitt, angelina jolie, jennifer anniston. Then compare that to say, when Jim Carrey fell for Lauren Holley. Carrey was actually married at the time to a “peasant” but you barely heard a peep about that. but by comparison you see endless articles talking about how anniston felt. But in the end, it doesn’t seem to have hurt any of their careers.

    Hard to know if that would have applied to Polanski. But i think the problem might be different than just peasants v. the glitterati. i think the real distinction is gay v. straight statutory rape. i mean michael jackson took a serious blow to his career on this issue and we were never sure he was guilty. By comparison R. Kelly actually “married” Alliyah when she was 15 (it was later annulled) and she put out an album at that time under his tutelige called “age ain’t nothing but a number.” (or something close to that) so even if that isn’t R. Kelly on the infamous tape, HE IS STILL A PEDO. unless of course you think he didn’t consumate that marriage (yeah, right!). but everyone lets it go.

    And its not even a quality of music issue. i mean hell, Jackson has sung songs written by R. Kelley, but it still didn’t get him anywhere.

    Of course there is one significant difference between jackson and Kelly: kelly looks basically normal. ’nuff said. but i can’t help but think that the gay v. straight thing is at least part of the issue.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  163. Polanski has always used his “depression” as a weapon. It figured large in his presentence report. Don’t believe it. He’s a sneaky, soulless, manipulative creep making a convincing drama for an audience with the goal of not an Oscar but a get-out-of-jail-free card.

    nk (df76d4)

  164. I wonder if he’s as depressed as his victim was?

    htom (412a17)

  165. “…By comparison R. Kelly actually “married” Alliyah…”

    As did Jerry Lee Lewis his cousin IIRC, and look at the stink that caused –
    but that was in a different universe a long, long time ago.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f793c7)

  166. I wonder if he’s as depressed as his victim was?

    Comment by htom — 10/12/2009 @ 1:54 pm

    Someone would have to rape him for him to find out just how depressed she was. 😉
    I would place a suicide watch on him though.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  167. Chimperor/lovie is an amoral twit worthy of nothing but mockery and scorn.

    JD (c2254b)

  168. That’s being blatantly unfair to amoral twits.

    Dmac (5ddc52)

  169. jd is an amoral twit worthy of being put in a straight jacket and locked away from hurting minors.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  170. Re: #166. Jeez. Time for a clean up around here?

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  171. The Instigator’s joking (again) I see.

    Don’t want Polanski to be raped in jail and hope he gets protection so he isn’t (convicts aren’t known to be kind to child rapists). What I hope is (for him I suspect) far worse:

    I want Roman to sit, day after day until the day he dies, alone in a jail cell, his fair-weather artist friends sipping wine and having fun in their chalets without him, their rare visits or letters long since ceased, having deserted and forgotten him, him having to think over and over again about what he did to that girl. Hope that leads him to truly repent someday so he doesn’t have to go to Hell. But in the meantime, I hope he lives a long, long time:

    High though his titles, proud his name,
    Boundless his wealth as wish can claim,
    Despite those titles, power and pelf,
    The wretch, concentered all in self,
    Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
    And, doubly dying, shall go down
    To the vile dust from which he sprung,
    Unwept, unhonored, and unsung.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  172. Nicely quoted, NOYK. Sir Walter Scott rocks.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  173. @171
    NOYK,
    Will going to jail make him repent?

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  174. “Comment by Eric Blair”– I GOT it George Orwell!’
    Anyway, HERE’S what no one’s talking about in relation to the Roman Polanski Rape situation: The biggest crime of all? HE NEVER EVEN PUT THE POOR GIRL INTO ONE OF HIS BIG-SHOT HOLLYWOOD MOVIES!!! Yeah. If anybody still even WANTS to rape me in the booty, my name’s goin’ ABOVE THE FREAKIN’ TITLE, man!

    Rita-of-Sunland (a416bf)

  175. Well, America is not Polanski’s native land.

    nk (df76d4)

  176. Comment by The Emperor — 10/12/2009 @ 4:50 pm

    Perhaps I’ll be more inclined to take this person’s question (or anything he has to say) more seriously on a day when he isn’t making jokes –including laughter and winky-faces – about old men getting raped – or claiming young children have to behave like he wants them to when getting raped for him to believe it.

    Basic respectful treatment for other posters might also work. On another day.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  177. NOYK, at least the intentions of that poster are now clear: trolling, pure and simple.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  178. noyk,
    Very well then. If people want respect, they should show it first. But I won’t get in the way of your bias. Seeing they are your own people. To you they are perfect people who can do no wrong.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  179. See what I mean, NOYK? Trolly, trolly, trolly.

    Gosh, Troll, who does like you around here? Lots of people have given you a chance. But your own words took care of that.

    And the ironic part is how you attack others for being insulting, narrow, and judgmental.

    Unlike you own posts?

    As I say: troll to the bone.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  180. See what I mean, NOYK? Trolly, trolly, trolly.

    Gosh, Troll, who does like you around here? Lots of people have given you a chance. But your own words took care of that.

    And the ironic part is how you attack others for being insulting, narrow, hyperbolic, and judgmental.

    Unlike your own posts?

    As I say: troll to the bone.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  181. Well, it did sort of merit repeating, but apologies for the double post.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  182. If people want respect, they should show it first.
    Comment by The Emperor — 10/12/2009 @ 5:20 pm

    I encourage The Emperor to read this statement again to himself. And then to read it again.

    Well, it did sort of merit repeating, but apologies for the double post.

    Comment by Eric Blair — 10/12/2009 @ 5:26 pm

    :) Hate it when my posts double post; embarrassing. What’s up with the site lately re: comments anyway? Seems worse than usual, or is it me…

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  183. Troll troll troll troll troll, I hate trolls. I am so scared of trolls. Keep them trolls away from me!!!! My name is Eric and all I talk about is trolls. Trolls trolls trolls, trolls all the way. I am so boring but I blame it on the trolls… I am so scared. These trolls are here again….. my name is eric. please don’t call me a troll…..trolls make cry….trolls!

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  184. Well, at least I don’t drink as much as you do. At least that would be an excuse for your childish behavior.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  185. Why do you post here, incidentally? Truth to power, civility, and honesty. Right?

    Or so you said, before the mask slipped.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  186. EB…give it up. The one whose name shall not be mentioned wouldn’t know what you were saying if you hit it in the forhead with a reverse-print club where it would be reminded each and every time it looked into the mirror.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f793c7)

  187. I know, AD. It was all the holier than thou (literally) that got me irritated, give the current childish and bizarre behavior. But, as I say, the mask slipped and showed the angry troll actually there.

    Maybe this person will take some time off.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  188. The commotion it causes here is its’ Raison d’etre, me thinks.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f793c7)

  189. Time off from what, Eric? You mean an actual life?

    Dmac (5ddc52)

  190. I remember coming to the defense of Lovey against all you wing-nuts back a few months ago. And you wing-nuts told me Lovey would clarify itself to me soon enough.

    I’m a trusting person by nature, and I will give people the benefit of the doubt long after others have given up on them (unless they hit certain “hot” buttons). But I also hold a grudge and have a sometimes-sharp memory. Yeah, I trusted Lovey and gave Lovey the benefit of the doubt for quite a while. That’s the thing with passive-aggressives like Lovey, it’s hard to see the dividing line. But I’ll be one of the last to trust Lovey or respect Lovey, now. All you wing-nuts will trust and respect Lovey before I ever will.

    Not saying you wingnuts will be swayed ever. Just sayin’ . . .

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  191. I thought “Empty Roarer” had proved he was an amoral twit a long time ago, but I have to admit that his behavior on this thread is far beyond anything I ever imagined I’d see from any commenter.
    To claim that sodomozing, then raping, and then anally raping a crying barely pubescent teen as she struggles and cries, “No, no , no” over and over should not be counted a crime is the hieght of reprehensive.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  192. Comment by Have Blue — 10/12/2009 @ 9:25 pm

    Have Blue, you are a liar. I have severally condemned the actions of Polanski. You will find it if you really remove the prejudice in your eyes and read my comments up thread. I am being called all sorts of names here because I said (a) Polanski should be forgiven. It’s been a long time. (b) Even the victim herself has asked that this matter be dropped. (c) There is a big difference between Statutory rape and forcible rape. This crime is not called forcible rape but statutory because of the evidences. He did not use violence nor did he threaten her or physically abuse her in the process. Does it make it less criminal? I said no but it is important to draw a distinction. People here tend get in a frenzy about how they feel about a thing that sometimes the facts get lost in the barrage of attacks. I am just keeping everyone honest about it. They don’t like it. To them Polanski is a criminal who has done nothing good but abuse and rape little girls. No. This is just another case of an imperfect man who thinks his art can cover for his misdeeds. Well it hasn’t.
    I am not new here. I know how folks like to gang up, make an uproar, accuse and lie and misrepresent the issue all to hide their self righteous hate and arrogance. We are all sinners in the eyes of God. No sin is greater than the other before God. But He chooses to forgive us. We should in turn forgive others their trespasses as He forgives us ours. This is the issue here. So feel free to grab a stone…

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  193. Can’t believe I’m doing this but for the last time:

    –it’s been a long time only because he ran and stayed away. His doing. So we’re to overlook this because of a time lapse caused by the criminal? Uh huh.

    –Forgiveness does not mean people do not go to jail for their crimes against others. Also, we’re required to forgive sins against US, but defend the helpless, not forgive their attackers.

    –John Hitchcock has apparently been falsely accused of something heinous (sorry, missed that part of whatever thread) and has not received an apology.

    –people are being called liars for telling the truth.

    –earnestly urging “let’s forgive Polanski” (i.e. don’t send him to jail) but joke and laugh and wink about his being raped in jail. So: jailing not OK, but rape IN jail, OK. Got it.

    –the disgusting “it’s not real rape because she didn’t scream or try to run away” comment was never taken back. And judging from subsequent joking comments it looks like this line of commenting might have been just for the commenter’s amusement in any case. Even more disgusting possibility.

    Like John Hitchcock, have tried to give this commenter every possible benefit of the doubt over the last year. Re: his comments and behavior on this thread, I don’t know what’s more shocking: that he might really believe what he says or that he’s just playing around with rape comments for his own amusement.

    Either way, this thread reminds me of Mansfield Park at the turning-point moment when Edmund – who tries to believe the best of people – realizes Mary’s virtue and character is seriously wanting.

    no one you know (7a9144)

  194. Lovie/chimperor showed its true colors in this thread. Don’t think I didn’t notice that little pathetic smear @ 169, lvie.

    JD (f8be7b)

  195. Comment by no one you know — 10/13/2009 @ 6:04 am
    Why don’t you take some of your own advice and stop responding to my comments. I wasn’t really talking to you was I?

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  196. Which is why you should get off this site – now.

    Dmac (5ddc52)

  197. @196
    Not your site, doofus. Now go to your room a play husband and wife with Barbie. Ok?

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  198. The Empty Roar

    > I would place a suicide watch on him though.

    Agreed. In fact, I volunteer. Just let me get some popcorn and a comfy chair and I will be good to go.

    Sorry, I am with Dennis Miller on this one. A long time ago he said (paraphrase) that if you ever get to the point where you have to touch a child, just kill yourself. You will get to St. Peter and he will say “way to go! Way to take one for the team!”

    > and locked away from hurting minors

    Wow, given how long you have been arguing that a man who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl should not go to jail, that is a pretty ironic thing to say.

    > I have severally condemned the actions of Polanski.

    At best you condemn it in the sense of a UN resolution against Iran, deploring this and that, but wanting nothing to actually be done.

    > It’s been a long time.

    Its been a long time because he ran. I suppose next you will say that a man who murdered his parents should be pitied because he is an orphan.

    > There is a big difference between Statutory rape and forcible rape.

    Those are not the only choices. The fact is a woman merely has to say “no” and he has to stop. Even if she doesn’t resist, he has to stop. And for that matter one could argue that even if she was an adult, she lost the capacity to consent when he plied her with drugs and alcohol. Now forcible rape, where there is force, typically carries a stiffer sentence, but a lack of force doesn’t mean no rape. Duh.

    > To them Polanski is a criminal who has done nothing good but abuse and rape little girls.

    Who here denies, for instance, that Chinatown was a great movie? What we deny is that the fact that Chinatown was great means a damn in criminal justice.

    > This is just another case of an imperfect man who thinks his art can cover for his misdeeds.

    And an idiot commentator who thinks it should. To quote you:

    > Who really cares what happened thirty two yeas ago? The girl in question should be what? 45 years by now? The man lost his wife violently. A lot of stuff has happened since then. Besides he has produced some really nice works. I am sure the victim may have moved on beyond this. So should we. We all make mistakes

    Wow, and I love the condemnatory tone you have taken, too. yes clearly you deeply deplore what he did.

    > No sin is greater than the other before God.

    What an idiot thing to say. So Hitler’s sins were no greater than, say, Polanski’s?

    > But He chooses to forgive us.

    So according to you, Hitler goes to heaven? Um, NO.

    > We should in turn forgive others their trespasses as He forgives us ours. This is the issue here. So feel free to grab a stone

    [picks up stone, throws it, hits Polanski in the balls.]

    Really, seriously are you arguing against all punishment? That is not and cannot be the meaning of that passage.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  199. I wasn’t really talking to you was I?

    Comment by The Emperor — 10/13/2009 @ 7:17 am

    The Emperor,

    In your comment, you were speaking about many commenters on this site and in this thread, of which I was one, so I did feel free to respond.

    It may surprise you to learn that I’m delighted, BTW, to see you finally responding to me with the same disrespect with which I’ve seen you treating so many other commenters. The reason is that it means both that I’ve gotten my point across about how unacceptable your rape comments are, and also means that you are responding with your honest self. Both of these are good things.

    no one you know (7a9144)

  200. Dear NOYK: see what I meant about “creepy”?

    Honestly, I think that this poster is a typical contrarian troll. I think that he or she (I’m still convinced that “he” is a woman in real life) posted something without thinking, and then refused to back down.

    Now it has gotten pretty ridiculous, dealing juvenile insults (while complaining of juvenile insults toward itself, hypocritically), and attacking everyone. Not exactly mature and considered.

    While, of course, maintaining that s/he is just “telling the truth” and “bringing balance” to this site. The “civility” part seems out the door at present.

    So, despite all your kind efforts to engage and discuss, this person is Just. Another. Troll.

    And one who gets nasty quickly.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  201. @200
    So now I am being disrespectful? We are making progress then.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  202. Say goodnight, Gracie. You have revealed yourself to all.

    You will need a new nickname soon.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  203. @200
    I was wondering how long before our Troll Police showed up.
    (And my last comment at #201 is for noyk.)

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  204. “Say goodnight”? What are you drinking, Eric?

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  205. “Say goodnight”? What are you drinking, Eric?

    You don’t know what that means?

    *shakes head sadly

    pajama momma (b26652)

  206. C’mon, pal (or pal-ette). Give up. Your masquerade is over, and you lost. You never were that force for fairness, civility, and the like that you claimed.

    You are just a pathetic little loser trying to feel all powerful on the internet. You are nothing but lies and contradictions and juvenile little insults—and your use of religious imagery is flat out sad.

    What would happen, do you think, if folks took a vote about you on this website?

    Because everyone but you is dishonest, mean and partisan! Right?

    Which is why I call you a pathetic little troll. Because you are.

    Move on to a different topic, or go away.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  207. Empty – You once again prove yourself an idiot.

    The child said “NO”. Repeatedly. At every stage of Polanski’s escalation.

    She said no when he tried to fondle her.

    She said no when he tried to kiss her.

    She said no when he orally sodomized her.

    She said no when he vaginally raped her.

    And she said no when he anally raped her.

    If his victim had been fifty and not thirteen he would have been guilty of rape.

    The fact that his victim was thirteen and he had gotten her drunk and then drugged her with tranquilizers prior to the act does not make this “not Rape-Rape.”

    The only reason Statutory Rape even comes into the picture here is because the elements of the crime are so easy to prove.
    Polanski admits he had sex with her.
    Polanski admits he knew how old she was. (Note that this is not a necassary condition of the crime. He is still guilty even if he believed she was older.)
    Court checks victims birth certificate which indicates she is less that eighteen.
    Go directly to jail. For twenty years.

    Polanski only got the chance to plead to what he did because the victim was terrified of public embarrasment a trial would have caused. It is ironic that he would have been treated more harshly had his victim been older and he had been forced to trial.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  208. Have Blue, just look at the guy or gal’s posts. He or she is just posting to argue. For the sake of argument.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  209. Really, seriously are you arguing against all punishment? That is not and cannot be the meaning of that passage.

    Comment by A.W. — 10/13/2009 @ 8:05 am
    I enjoy reading you. When I said he should be forgiven I was referring to the issue at hand. I am not saying all offenders should be allowed to walk. I am sure you don’t think that is what I mean. I am simply appealing to a basic human instinct. More so, the victim has forgiven him and does not want him to be punished. I am not saying this is not a rape case. When I even brought the issue of statutory rape versus forcible rape, it was in response to John ***cock’s citing of the Bible that says rapists should be stoned. My point was that what the Bible refers to as rape is forcible, violent rape. and to prove it the victim would have to scream and that someone would have to hear her and bear witness. This is not the case here. So it would be wrong to apply that to this case. I am not supporting Polanski’s behavior. Try as much as you can to pin that on me. It’s just not true. But the fact remains that he has apologized to the victim and she has forgiven him. It’s really not anyone’s business. What I think is the real issue here is the fact that he evaded sentencing. Anyone is free to say what they like about The Emperor. It doesn’t change the truth. You don’t want to forgive him. Fine. The victim has. And so has millions of Americans who know about this case. I am not the only holding this view, by the way.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  210. See what I mean, Have Blue? Again with the childish insults (and the foolish supposed knowledge of Biblical interpretation).

    I would love to be present when this character goes to her or his pastor and repeats:

    “When I even brought the issue of statutory rape versus forcible rape, it was in response to John ***cock’s citing of the Bible that says rapists should be stoned. My point was that what the Bible refers to as rape is forcible, violent rape. and to prove it the victim would have to scream and that someone would have to hear her and bear witness. This is not the case here. So it would be wrong to apply that to this case.”

    WIth the Bible backing it up! As well as the childish insult, again.

    As I say, consider this person’s prior posts.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  211. The Empty Roar

    > I am not saying all offenders should be allowed to walk. I am sure you don’t think that is what I mean.

    Honestly, I had no idea. So what pray tell makes Polanski so frickin special that you devote this much attention to him? because he made Chinatown? What makes his crime morally uniquely capable of forgiveness?

    He raped a 13 year old girl. If you credit the girl’s testimony, she even said no. Is he the worst person in history? Of course not. But he is bad enough that he should be locked the hell up before he rapes another girl. Again. Because he has already screwed at least one other child since then, and I am with Patterico when I say I doubt those two girls he screwed were the first or the last.

    Oh, and for bonus points, he fled the jurisdiction. That is a separate crime and another fairly serious one. No, he is not Jeffrey dahmer, but again, what makes you say that his crime should be forgiven out of the millions of offenders in the slammer right now?

    > I am simply appealing to a basic human instinct.

    Basic human instinct is to cut the man’s balls off with a rusty knife and let him bleed to death. As one wiseass said, Kennedy v. Louisiana was made obsolete the next day by the District of Columbia v. Heller.

    (and for non-legal geeks, Kennedy was the case where the supreme court said you couldn’t execute a man just for raping a child, while Heller held that we have the right to bear arms.)

    If you mean compassion, sorry my first compassion is for the victims—the ones he has already attacked and the ones he has yet to victimize.

    > I am not saying this is not a rape case.

    You have twice failed to understand that saying “no” is sufficient to make it rape, even after I explained it to you twice. Either you are stupid, or you don’t buy into that.

    > My point was that what the Bible refers to

    Um, not the last time I checked. Citation please?

    Myself I take that injunction of doing onto others as you would have done to you to be controlling. If you are a jew on a train to Auschwitz, what would you like to allies to do onto you? To kill the Nazis and set you free. And if you are a little girl being stalked by a pervy old man, what do you want? You want him thrown in jail. Do onto others, then. Throw the perv in jail. Its overdue.

    > I am not supporting Polanski’s behavior.

    Nope, merely minimizing it and saying he shouldn’t be in prison.

    > But the fact remains that he has apologized

    He has done no such thing. And I challenge you to prove otherwise. What I have seen him do is 1) proclaim that everyone likes to have sex with little girls, and 2) have sex with at least one other little girl since the crime he committed sending him out of the country. I am sure he regrets getting caught, but that isn’t quite what I am looking for in the redemption category.

    > she has forgiven him.

    Which will be taken into account, but as a matter of law or logic is not the end of the matter.

    And, by the way, the state of cali has not forgiven him for running.

    > It’s really not anyone’s business.

    Right. Its none of our business, so let’s let him use the casting couch to audition new girls to play Lolita. *rolls eyes*

    And by the way, fleeing the jurisdiction is most definitely our business.

    > I am not the only holding this view, by the way.

    Sure, you have the moral sesspool of Hollywood agreeing with you. Oh, and NAMBLA. And I have about 75% of America. But truth is not a popularity contest. However few or many your fellow travelers are you are still wrong.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  212. “I work here is done.” Now off to another thread.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  213. mmm, yeah, translation, you are sick of being beat like a bongo drum. seems that my work is done, not yours.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  214. No I am sick of trying to get people to see that there are other ways to see things. You keep your view point, let me keep mine.
    Again,
    “I work here is done!!!”

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  215. Indeed it is. Indeed it is.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  216. Empty Roar

    I don’t know what is more hilarious. the fact that your repeated your attrociously mispelled sentence or that you did so indignantly! I wondered before if you were stupid or lacked morality. I am leaning toward stupid, now.

    I mean I don’t expect perfect spelling or grammer in the blogoshpher, but that is just ridiculous.

    A.W. (b1db52)

  217. “Empty Roar”

    Classic!

    AD - RtR/OS! (48d3c8)

  218. Comment by A.W. — 10/13/2009 @ 11:57 am

    It just shows how ignorant you are. It has to do with being a new comer here. It’s not your fault. But next time ask before displaying your arrogance through ignorance.
    One more time,
    “I work here is done!!!”

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  219. Comment by A.W. — 10/13/2009 @ 11:57 am

    A.W.,

    Since you’ll likely find this amusing will let you know. Some months back a troll, who openly and repeatedly admitted only coming on threads to “stir things up,” and made comments about how much more intelligent he was than others, thought he’d made a good point at the end of a long night of arguing with a number of regulars here (he hadn’t made one) and crowed: “I work here is done.”

    No doubt he was tired at night’s end, hence the mistake, but the remark instantly became a frequent reference and inside joke by regulars referring to trolls who were both ineffective arguers and braggarts.

    The phrase has actually never been used by a troll referring to him/herself – until today. Perhaps The Emperor means this as an attempt at a self-deprecating joke but given the prior unacceptable behavior it just seems like a really good example of dramatic irony.

    no one you know (7a9144)

  220. NOYK

    Ah, so it is like a World of Warcraft fan going they “pwned” you.

    God, I am embarrassed I know to make that comparison.

    Empty Roar

    Okay, I take back my mockery of that line and even calling you stupid, although i am not sure it is much of a defense to say “no, i am not stupid. i just have a knuckle dragging attitude about rape.” My bad on that one point. every other criticism remains operative and indeed barely challenged.

    I work here is done.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  221. “..next time ask before displaying your arrogance through ignorance….”

    Always good advice, Emperor. You might consider taking it. What is it with these types with projection?

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  222. Eric

    I myself have an awful time with projection. For instance, i keep tellling everyone they are handsome, brilliant, dashing, a real king among men. Awful the way i project. :-)

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  223. A.W. is still the better man. Eric should under study him a bit. On this thread I think he won. After me, that is. :)

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  224. Lovie/chimperor could not win a debate against a compost heap.

    JD (f4ed57)

  225. Here is the list of the people who signed the pro-Polanski petition:

    http://www.indiewire.com/article/over_100_in_film_community_sign_polanski_petition/P1/

    As nice as it is to express outrage for Polanski’s crimes and impunity–what people should also think about is sending a message to Polanski’s supporters. If they had their way, Polanskis everywhere would have a free pass to rape.

    Do they not deserve to be boycotted for their criminal support as well?

    John Sinclair (b6201a)

  226. Perhaps Patterico would consider updating and renaming this thread “Lovey is depressed,” because that’s what is really going on here. The reign of Obama I is not turning out as she had hoped. His popularity is in decline, none of his major legislative initiatives have passed, the economy is not recovering, he has not gotten us out of Iraq or closed Gitmo.

    Where is the Hope? Where is the Change?

    His appointee has turned out to be a bunch of tax cheats and fringe socialist losers with wacked out views and we’re probably going to see a bunch more of them go as they get exposed. Saturday Night Live openly mocked him two weeks in a row and people are laughing about his undeserved Nobel Peace Prize.

    This is not turning out at all as Lovey had envisioned and she is depressed and reduced to lashing out in bizarre ways through confused comments on internet blogs.

    Lovey, are you an American citizen? Can you be deported?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  227. daley, you should seriously consider marrying this your “lovey”. Your names have a rhyme to it. “daley ties the “nuts” with lovey.” Cool.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  228. Wow. Emperor is very mature and grownup. Like:

    “A.W. is still the better man. Eric should under study him a bit. On this thread I think he won. After me, that is.”

    Complete with a smiley face.

    Juvenile as this is, it is a step up from defending a child rapist and claiming that the Bible and that “millions” of Americans agree with her or him.

    As I say, I am delighted to compare my posts to Emperor’s in terms of fairness, civility, and honesty. Any day at all.

    But then, I am not a contrarian troll with passive aggressive issues and what appears to be quite the immature and nasty streak.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  229. I just want this person to take a break, and come back when s/he is feeling like acting in a decent and mature fashion.

    But I guess I know what is going to happen.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  230. Empy’s faux religious excuses for Polanski are what you’d expect from a secular lefty in theistic drag. And it fools no one; neither atheists like myself nor the authentically religious persons here.

    It reeks of phoniness.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  231. Empty Roarer

    Wrong on the law.

    Wrong on the morality.

    Wrong on the puplic policy.

    Has no argument except, “I feel that it has been a long time and Polanski had suffered enough.”

    Polanski has not suffered one iota. He has been free for thirty years. He has repeated the crime, both with Kinsky and bragging about dating high school girls in Switzerland. He is a pervert and scum and belongs in a small cell with his guilt for the rest of his life.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  232. have blue…

    i didn’t see the one about the girls in switzerland. i would love a link.

    The Empty Roar

    Your lame attempt to drive a wedge between us all is just that–lame. As indeed is your declaration of victory. Indeed, you couldn’t even answer my last post’s substantive points (@ 9:45 a.m. yesterday). So the angels won this round and not just any one of us.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  233. Don’t recall where I read it (might have been here) but it concerned him bragging about girls from a finishing school in Gstadd where he has a home. Which is coincidental because I knew a young lady who went to private prep school in Switzerland back in the mid eighties. Don’t know if it was the same one though and would have no clue about how to look her up.

    Oh and in my last post there should have been another point before – Wrong on the law, and that is – Wrong on the facts.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  234. Gstaad not Gstadd

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  235. Louis Winthorpe III: Fifty bucks? No, no, no. This is a Rouchefoucauld. The thinnest water-resistant watch in the world. Singularly unique, sculptured in design, hand-crafted in Switzerland, and water resistant to three atmospheres. This is *the* sports watch of the ’80s. Six thousand, nine hundred and fifty five dollars retail!

    Pawnbroker: You got a receipt?

    Louis Winthorpe III: Look, it tells time simultaneously in Monte Carlo, Beverly Hills, London, Paris, Rome, and Gstaad.

    Pawnbroker: In Philadelphia, it’s worth 50 bucks.

    carlitos (ad57b1)

  236. This is a rather long trirade so far as I read. It is so hard to follow with all the problems with some posts..

    So here is my theory, for what it is worth as a transactions (Tax) lawyer who doesn’t deal specifically with criminal law..

    Comments back at #106 may be on point. I add the following, subject to corection by my associates of the criminal bar…

    A judge has already said that if RP feels he was wronged, he has to show up and come directly under the court’s jurisdiction. He can then plead his case.

    Let’s assume, that he has a case. The guilty plea is vacated. However, since he has been “on the lam” for 30 years, the court is not going to allow him to use the elasped time in his favor (aka tolling of the statute of limitations). Thus allowing the state’s attorney (or whatever they call them in CA), to refile the original charges.

    The state subpoenas the deal with the victum (discoverable). I beleive any clause in the deal about testifying would be held in a civil case as
    contray to public policy and unenforcable. (She gets to keep the money).

    RP is now charged with RAPE, wtih Drugs. Victum is caused to testify ( and yes they can do that)as to the accuracy of her grand jury testimony, being previously entered into the court record, (or if defense wants to truly abuse her, force her to read it.)

    ? Was this your testimony?
    Yes (If not perjury case against her)
    Was it true?
    Yes. ( See above)

    Your witness defense….

    Defense ain’t going there…..

    Obviously, he is not coming back on his own.

    Although coming back for sentencing on the original charge may not be so bad…

    Of course he has to deal with the flight issue (separate charge).

    Cheshire Cat (14abf8)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8425 secs.