--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > I'm fascinated by this Polanski situation not > because I'm a fan of his, or even his movies.
No, the reason Barry's so obsessed with it is because it gives him something to attack the FFLers he doesn't like about. > But that has been perverted by the revenge fantasists > on FFL to me "supporting and enabling a child rapist." > Go figure. Yeah, it's because Barry is supporting a child rapist. But the "revenge fantasies" bit is *his fantasy*, and as such it's very revealing of *his motivations*. > The amount of time Polanski serves is now a moot point. > By the time his extradition is settled, he will have > spend more time behind bars than he was originally > sentenced to, and that will be *before* he is returned > to the US, if he is. He was never sentenced. He fled the country to avoid being sentenced. > The larger issue in my opinion is that people in the > media and on this forum HAVE LOST THEIR FUCKING > MINDS with regard to Roman Polanski. They don't > seem to be able to remember even simple facts about > the legal system they claim to be upholding. Well, Barry got one simple fact wrong already in this post; let's see if he gets any of the others right. > Roman Polanski was convicted of (after having been > talked into confessing to it as part of a plea bargain > that was not honored) only *one* thing -- having had > sex with a minor. That's it. That is ALL that he was > convicted of. > > The people screaming for revenge can't seem to remember > this. They talk about the supposed drugging and the anal > rape as if they were facts, and had been proven to be > facts in court, and as if Polanski had been convicted > of doing these things. THAT NEVER HAPPENED. These > things were never established as fact; he was never found > guilty of these things. They were, and remain, hearsay. Nope, not hearsay, firsthand grand jury testimony. This is hearsay: "evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath" The victim testified under oath to a grand jury about her own personal knowledge of what happened. > Roman Polanski can be held accountable (some would > say "unfortunately," and I agree with them) for only one > thing -- having had sex with a minor. *That* is the only > thing he was convicted of. The *only* penalties that can > be applied to him are penalties appropriate to that crime. Nope, he can also be penalized for fleeing prosecution. > That's the appeal of reason and of legal fact. <guffaw> "Legal fact" that Barry gets completely wrong. But this > case isn't *about* reason or fact; it's about emotion. > Normally sane people get so emotional that Cokie Roberts > said yesterday on This Week (only partly tongue in cheek), > "Roman Polanski is a criminal. He raped and drugged and > raped and sodomized a child. And then was a fugitive from > justice. As far as I'm concerned, just take him out and > shoot him." > > This normally sane reporter doesn't even realize that > she is so emotional she said "raped" twice, let alone > that she's calling for him to be punished for *things > he was not convicted of*. Yes, he *was* convicted of rape. Rape is what he pled guilty to, see, so Roberts (who knew exactly what she was saying) was entirely correct to refer to it as such. > The guy should have received the same jail sentence as > anyone else in the state of California convicted of > having had sex with a minor. End of story. "Weighting" > his sentence and making it lighter because he was famous > is unacceptable. "Weighting" his sentence and making it > longer because of hearsay Not "hearsay." Barry obviously doesn't know what "hearsay" means. that was never allowed to be > presented in court (because of the plea bargain) and > that he was never convicted of is unacceptable. Nobody here thinks he should be penalized for raping a minor and fleeing prosecution any more than anyone else in the state of California who committed the same crimes. > Stop letting emotion poison your brains, people. Step > away from the outrage (faux or real) and away from the > revenge fantasies and try to remember the *facts*. Roman > Polanski was convicted of having sex with a minor. Period. Having sex with a minor is called "statutory rape." A minor is legally considered incapable of consenting to sex, therefore sex with a minor is legally nonconsensual, which means it's rape. > If you're calling for "punishment" for more than that, > the person who considers themselves "above the law" > is YOU. Among all his other myriad confusions, Barry's getting us confused with Cokie Roberts. Another thing Barry is confused about: He seems to think expressions of outrage on an Internet forum or blog *will somehow change the laws to which Polanski is subject*. Barry should stop letting emotion poison his brain, and then maybe he'd be able to think straight and remember the *facts*. He might also want to look up the legal terms he tosses around and find out what they actually *mean* before he tries to use them in his arguments.
