SEC=UGA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 The DA is sworn to uphold the law, not the will of the people. Juries are what were meant to give legal proceedings latitude, not DA's. The DA is doing what he or she was sworn to do. Would you have he/she break their sworn oath? I thinkthey need to exercise common sense in pursuing cases. Roman poses no danger to the people of CA, putting him in jail in CA does not do the taxpayers of CA any good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 The state and the accused. In this case, though if you read my earlier post, the prosecution was based on a complaint by a woman, a citizen who is still alive and functioning. She wants this case dropped, since the state is pursuing this case on her behalf, I feel that she should have the right to decide whether she wants them to pursue it on her behalf or not. Further, since the arrest for fleeing is attache dto this case, much like laws regarding evidence, I feel that since she wants the initial case dropped that led to the fleeing that the fleeing charges should be dropped as well.. The DA brought the case on behalf of the People of the State of California not on behalf of Samantha Gailey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Aples and oranges he already admitted guilt. The circumstances surrounding his plea are in question... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 The DA brought the case on behalf of the People of the State of California not on behalf of Samantha Gailey. Without her, they have no case. You act like the party that is wronged does not exist. W/O the offended party, the case has no standing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 It is your position then that the state should take precedent of the will of the people? Or that a court, more specifically a DA should be able to pursue an arrest at whatever cost he deems necessary even if the will of the people is against him pursuing it? What is mor eimportant, the state proving a point in a 30 year old case or the wishes of a victim to have this case dismissed and alow this traumatic saga in her life be put behind her? At this point no good is coming from pursuing the charges against Roman, the only thing it is doing is causing a great deal of turmoil for two individuals. In a sense, the court is assaulting this woman again by making her relive this nightmare in the most public of venues. We all saw what happened to a certain DA in Durham that was pursuing a case against people, dragging their names through the gutter. Maybe this DA will get what's coming to him by forcing this poor woman to go through this torturous moment again. utter ridiculousness. the woman doesn't have to "go through" anything, aside from media fine upstanding young mans trying to track her down for comment. the dude has been found guilty, the state doesn't need her testimony or comment. a few years ago, she was happy to go out and attend the premier of an HBO documentary about her ordeal, so I hardly think the story making headlines again is like being raped all over again by the court, as you put it. and if it is, you know what? the responsibility for that goes squarely on the rapist himself. if he would have faced his sentence when he pled guilty to the crime, it never would have been an issue here 30 years later. the real question here is whether he should be able to duck his sentence by fleeing the country for 30 years. personally, I don't think leaving the country should absolve anyone of child rape, regardless of what the raped child says about it to the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 All the more reason for the state not to pursue the charges, they are placing their ego ahead of the will of the affected. Hell, CA can't afford to house the prisoners thye have now, I don't think throwing an old man in the slammer for something he did 30 years ago is going to make the populace any safer. Also, I will go back to the idea that this case against him currently stems directly from her case that she was raped. I feel that since this is the fruit of that case that she should have more weight in determining whether these current charges get dropped and that she be allowed to resume her life of normalcy So, in other words, if you get convicted (or in this case plead guilty) of a crime and leave the country for long enough, we should just move on? I mean, if you can do that after raping a kid, pretty much anything else has got to be fair game, right? That's what's at stake here, not the state's ego, it's the precedent of having to pay the piper when you're convicted of a heinous crime. Some may paint having to spend 30 years in France as some horrible ordeal because he couldn't make movies in Hollywood. Dude, some of us pay to hang out in France. If you've got money, I'm sure hanging out in France for 30 years beats the hell out of going to prison, which was his option. I mean, to hear these people you'd think that he was banished. He wasn't freaking banished, he split. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 All the more reason for the state not to pursue the charges, they are placing their ego ahead of the will of the affected. Hell, CA can't afford to house the prisoners thye have now, I don't think throwing an old man in the slammer for something he did 30 years ago is going to make the populace any safer. Also, I will go back to the idea that this case against him currently stems directly from her case that she was raped. I feel that since this is the fruit of that case that she should have more weight in determining whether these current charges get dropped and that she be allowed to resume her life of normalcy I thinkthey need to exercise common sense in pursuing cases. Roman poses no danger to the people of CA, putting him in jail in CA does not do the taxpayers of CA any good. If Kalifornia can't afford to jail him, send him to Texas, it will cost me all of about $0.41 to make sure he gets what he deserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackshi17 Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 The trial transcript reads "The people of the state of California" vs " Roman Polanski" so I guess you no longer need the victim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Without her, they have no case. You act like the party that is wronged does not exist. W/O the offended party, the case has no standing. Flat out wrong. He is on the record as admitting his guilt in court. I doubt many people will argue that pedophilia is also an act against society. You're tyring to allow him to get away with that, while demonstrably butchering the facts. He has not served a day of jail time to this day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Flat out wrong. He is on the record as admitting his guilt in court. I doubt many people will argue that pedophilia is also an act against society. You're tyring to allow him to get away with that, while demonstrably butchering the facts. He has not served a day of jail time to this day. If I'm not mistaken, he served 40 or so day's in jail while awaiting the court date... He had initiated a plea agreement stating that he would receive no more prison time... He caught wind of some information that the judge was contemplating vacating the plea deal and they had his confession which they could use against him should the trial have gone froward and the plea deal vacated. He lived up to his side of the agreement, the state was about to reneg... So he fled. The state caused him to flee due to their underhandedness. And again,. how is putting this man in jail going to make Californians any safer? What is the purpose of bringing him to the US to face trial? It is pure and simple revenge and trying to make an example of an otherwise upstanding citizen who has done no wrong in the years following this sordid transgression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 If I'm not mistaken, he served 40 or so day's in jail while awaiting the court date... He had initiated a plea agreement stating that he would receive no more prison time... He caught wind of some information that the judge was contemplating vacating the plea deal and they had his confession which they could use against him should the trial have gone froward and the plea deal vacated. He lived up to his side of the agreement, the state was about to reneg... So he fled. The state caused him to flee due to their underhandedness. And again,. how is putting this man in jail going to make Californians any safer? What is the purpose of bringing him to the US to face trial? It is pure and simple revenge and trying to make an example of an otherwise upstanding citizen who has done no wrong in the years following this sordid transgression. You are mistaken: he did 42 days under a psychiatrict evaluation which was part of his plea deal. Which he then fled. California's safety isn't the point. The integrity of its system of laws is the point. Just because ol' Roman pulled a fast one for 30 years doesn't mean he should get away with it. There's no online article posted yet, but today's LA Times ran a story that was basically this: 2 or 3 months ago Polanski filed to have all charges dropped in part because the LA DA office wasn't serious about pressing charges since they hadn't actively sought his arrest in years. He basically accused them of not being serious. Whoops. You're defending a pedophile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 You are mistaken: he did 42 days under a psychiatrict evaluation which was part of his plea deal. Which he then fled. California's safety isn't the point. The integrity of its system of laws is the point. Just because ol' Roman pulled a fast one for 30 years doesn't mean he should get away with it. There's no online article posted yet, but today's LA Times ran a story that was basically this: 2 or 3 months ago Polanski filed to have all charges dropped in part because the LA DA office wasn't serious about pressing charges since they hadn't actively sought his arrest in years. He basically accused them of not being serious. Whoops. You're defending a pedophile. The integrity of the system of law? The same system that allows killers to walk free because evidence wasn't properly catalogued or through a clerical glitch, the same system that allows for large corporations to defraud the public and not hold their officers accountable, the same system of laws that allows children of neglect and being beaten be placed abck in the custody of their parents, the same system that disporoportionately prosecutess blacks and hispanics, the system of laws that allows for politicians to be exempt from due process, the same system of laws that allows people to be tortured and held w/o a trial... Yeah, the legal system will fall apart if we don't bring Roman Polanski to justice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 The integrity of the system of law? The same system that allows killers to walk free because evidence wasn't properly catalogued or through a clerical glitch, the same system that allows for large corporations to defraud the public and not hold their officers accountable, the same system of laws that allows children of neglect and being beaten be placed abck in the custody of their parents, the same system that disporoportionately prosecutess blacks and hispanics, the system of laws that allows for politicians to be exempt from due process, the same system of laws that allows people to be tortured and held w/o a trial... Yeah, the legal system will fall apart if we don't bring Roman Polanski to justice... Shut the hell up, creep. Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm. http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/featur...olanski_arrest/ Get off your high horse and stop being an apologist for the guy. Is ths system perfect? Of course not. But you rape a kid, you should go to jail. If you flee those charges, you should serve MORE time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 (edited) Simply because I seemed to have pushed Pope too far and I'm not sure he can handle it any more I will no longer continue this fishing expedition. It's been fun though. I think anyone in here that has read my posts in the past will know that the only thing I dislike more than the french are probably the liberal elitists in Hollywood.... and the Irish. I had to take the other side because there was no one willing to do it, so Pope, my apologies, hope you had your heart pills handy... I see you got your blood presure up. http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...25&start=25 Go to the 3rd post Edited September 29, 2009 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 welcome brack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 welcome brack TY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 This guy is a pedophile what makes you think he doesn't continue to live this lifestyle? He's got money, fame and it's apparent that the French don' give a poopy. Technically, he is not a pedophile as the victim must be prepubescent for one to be diagnosed a pedophile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Simply because I seemed to have pushed Pope too far and I'm not sure he can handle it any more I will no longer continue this fishing expedition. It's been fun though. I think anyone in here that has read my posts in the past will know that the only thing I dislike more than the french are probably the liberal elitists in Hollywood.... and the Irish. I had to take the other side because there was no one willing to do it, so Pope, my apologies, hope you had your heart pills handy... I see you got your blood presure up. http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...25&start=25 Go to the 3rd post I was just going to post that people like you are what is killing this country. I am very happy to know that you were fishing and also very happy that nobody else jumped in to agree with all of your arguments. Let this dude rot in hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I was just going to post that people like you are what is killing this country. I am very happy to know that you were fishing and also very happy that nobody else jumped in to agree with all of your arguments. Let this dude rot in hell. the only thing killing this country is freaken cheesheads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egret Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 We might question how fairly the government confiscated the money, but never the less, if what they choose to do with it is their business, then what business is it of yours to question what they choose to do with it now, provided that what they choose to do with it is within their power to do? If the gov't confiscated money, I wonder if it confistated any guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I agree with SEC that sometimes the 13 year old girls are asking for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I agree with SEC that sometimes the 13 year old girls are asking for it. Especially whne hopped up on wine and ludes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 welcome brack I've just been sittin' back enjoying!! oh, and I'll just disregard your comments in the other forum about FSU as another expedition... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share Posted September 30, 2009 Technically, he is not a pedophile as the victim must be prepubescent for one to be diagnosed a pedophile.From a medical diagnosis you are correct. However many states define it as under the age of consent, not of prepubescence. Whether he fits the legal or medical definition of pedophile, what he did was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 From a medical diagnosis you are correct. However many states define it as under the age of consent, not of prepubescence. Whether he fits the legal or medical definition of pedophile, what he did was wrong. Why would a state redefine a medical term? Legally they can define a statutory rapist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.