proteus_lives
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-21-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
| 11. Ahh, a Polanski defender. |
|
Which film of his made you decide it was ok for him to rape a 13 year-old girl?
|
| -Appeals court denies Roman Polanski's bid to throw out sex case |
Scurrilous |
Dec-21-09 01:36 PM |
#0 |
 -
It's a RAPE case, not a sex case |
slackmaster |
Dec-21-09 01:39 PM |
#1 |
 -
I thought she was a hooker... |
WriteDown |
Dec-21-09 01:40 PM |
#3 |
| -
I caught that too, disgusting! |
Odin2005 |
Dec-21-09 02:54 PM |
#6 |
| -
NO, it's unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor |
tonysam |
Dec-21-09 02:56 PM |
#7 |
| -
You're right |
leftynyc |
Dec-21-09 02:57 PM |
#8 |
 -
Statutory rape is worse than rape? That's ridiculous. |
Flaneur |
Dec-21-09 03:07 PM |
#9 |
| -
Both involve non-consent |
leftynyc |
Dec-22-09 04:45 AM |
#25 |
| -
Wrong - Because he dosed her with drugs and alcohol, one of the original charges is rape |
slackmaster |
Dec-21-09 03:29 PM |
#12 |
| -
Statutory rape is a strict liability crime anyway. Intent (or lack thereof) |
blondeatlast |
Dec-21-09 09:58 PM |
#21 |
| -
The rape charge has not been dismissed |
slackmaster |
Dec-22-09 09:35 AM |
#27 |
| -
Did you miss him DRUGGING a 13 year old? |
AtheistCrusader |
Dec-21-09 05:05 PM |
#16 |
| -
Wrong==look up "strict liability." Oh, hell, here, strict liability defined: |
blondeatlast |
Dec-21-09 09:53 PM |
#18 |
| -
Isn't that called statutory rape? |
JonQ |
Dec-21-09 10:14 PM |
#22 |
| -
He was charged with rape and worked out a plea bargain under which the rape charge would be dropped |
slackmaster |
Dec-22-09 09:36 AM |
#28 |
| -
It was both... |
MellowDem |
Dec-21-09 10:36 PM |
#24 |
| -
Whoever gave you your legal degree, failed. |
boppers |
Dec-22-09 04:56 AM |
#26 |
| -
What a strange opinion. |
Realityhack |
Dec-22-09 01:37 PM |
#29 |
| -
No, it's a sex case |
cmkramer |
Dec-23-09 11:45 AM |
#32 |
| -
Unanimous? |
WriteDown |
Dec-21-09 01:39 PM |
#2 |
| -
Wanna get out of it, Polanski? |
zbdent |
Dec-21-09 01:45 PM |
#4 |
| -
Good! |
proteus_lives |
Dec-21-09 01:59 PM |
#5 |
| -
I doubt it |
tonysam |
Dec-21-09 03:13 PM |
#10 |
| -
Ahh, a Polanski defender. |
proteus_lives |
Dec-21-09 03:18 PM |
#11 |
| -
A bit overboard, aren't you? |
Flaneur |
Dec-21-09 03:34 PM |
#13 |
| -
Actually, a defender of the Bill of Rights |
depakid |
Dec-21-09 03:50 PM |
#14 |
| -
Gore Vidal, is that you? nt |
WriteDown |
Dec-21-09 04:34 PM |
#15 |
| -
Geneva Conventions. Nice job shoe-horning that into the thread. |
proteus_lives |
Dec-21-09 09:56 PM |
#20 |
| -
Give It A Rest........ (n/t) |
Paladin |
Dec-21-09 08:13 PM |
#17 |
| -
No. |
proteus_lives |
Dec-21-09 09:54 PM |
#19 |
| -
I agree. All Polanski did was to anally rape a 13 year old girl |
Nye Bevan |
Dec-23-09 10:38 AM |
#31 |
| -
That was uncalled for. There was no "Polanski apologism" in that post. -nt |
Commie Pinko Dirtbag |
Dec-23-09 11:48 AM |
#33 |
| -
Did the court not realize that he's a talented artist? |
JonQ |
Dec-21-09 10:15 PM |
#23 |
| -
Or that it may have been rape, but it wasn't "rape-rape" |
Nye Bevan |
Dec-23-09 09:28 AM |
#30 |
| -
The New Yorker has a nicely balanced and nuanced article on this case. |
Flaneur |
Dec-23-09 12:05 PM |
#34 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
