Options

Roman Polanski: he made a thriller

145791071

Posts

  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I was referring to joshofalltrades' post.

    It's like how after the initial Michael Jackson hearings in the early '90s, everything you heard about Michael Jackson suddenly had a molestation joke in there somewhere. Same thing with OJ Simpson and murder.

    I'm sure they're holding molestation and murder parties all the time, right?

    I respect the shit out of Roman Polanski's work as a director, and he has had an incredibly hard life. He made some stupid choices, and I agree that, in retrospect, he should have stayed and faced them, but seeing as his entire life had fallen apart in a matter of years, and then being armed with the knowledge that the judge working on his case may not be exactly honest, I can forgive the man for panicking and fleeing.

    People are going to make jokes about him. You have two choices:

    1) Deal with it

    2) Get all huffy and defensive for him because the internet is serious business

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    How wonderfully closed-minded.

    How is this a hard issue? He raped a 13 year old girl then ran. This isn't complicated. His movies don't amount to a "hill of beans" next to that.

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    TheBlackWindTheBlackWind Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Ed321 wrote: »
    UV, all you have to ask yourself is that if it wasn't a famed director, would anyone give a shit?

    Maybe not the world at large, but if I knew of his case, I certainly would.

    He had his whole world pulled out from under him. Twice. That's goddamn crazy.

    Unless Polanski has been mentally unfit from the 1970s onwards and not responsible for his actions (hoho, debauched parties notwithstanding), all this means is that he had a shitty life. That's as far as it goes. It has zero bearing on his crimes. You can be sympathetic to him, but you should care more about his victim.

    I'd care more about his victim if that's what were really the issue here. Even she doesn't seem to care anymore.

    It's solely about the justice system at this point, which I admittedly care less about.

    Just wanted to get some clarification here. Everything I have read indicates that the girl who was raped does not fall under "doesn't care". The media just fires up such a shitstorm that it is actually more painful to her to have the flashbulbs in her face all the time. I sittl don't think that means she "doesn't care."

    TheBlackWind on
    PAD ID - 328,762,218
  • Options
    UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I missed the part of his movies that are about raping 13-year-olds!

    People that can't separate art from the artist make me chuckle. The kind of people that all of a sudden can't enjoy Michael Jackson or Phil Spector music because molestation or murder charges suddenly made their music awful, apparently.

    UnbreakableVow on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Mostly that the moral outrage that someone would dare flaunt the will of the US justice system is dumb, and that somehow letting this go would do any more damage to it than has already been done.
    How many of those people have been tried, convicted, and flee with no good faith attempts made to have them captured and brought back?

    I'm gonna say that not convicting or even not charging someone in the first place just because they happen to be a cop is far worse. And that is a disturbingly common occurrence, far more common than people fleeing to Europe.

    Also, if the justice system has already proven to be crooked (and a attorney having ex parte secret meetings with the judge is definitely that) expecting it to not be crooked when you appeal seems like a less than rational position to take, and fleeing the jurisdiction a far more rational one.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    How wonderfully closed-minded.

    More like the movies he has produced since the event have not been of a cultural significance or value to overlook the drug and rape of a child when considering granting awards. Similarly, we take away Olympic medals from people that have done drugs, even non-performance enhancing ones.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I missed the part of his movies that are about raping 13-year-olds!

    People that can't separate art from the artist make me chuckle. The kind of people that all of a sudden can't enjoy Michael Jackson or Phil Spector music because molestation or murder charges suddenly made their music awful, apparently.

    I am simply putting forth that I would rather not have 30 years of his movies and rather have him in jail, ya know paying for his crime. I guess I an weird like that.

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    How wonderfully closed-minded.

    More like the movies he has produced since the event have not been of a cultural significance or value to overlook the drug and rape of a child when considering granting awards. Similarly, we take away Olympic medals from people that have done drugs, even non-performance enhancing ones.

    Which is also bullshit, but whatever.

    Tess and The Pianist are both goddamn fantastic films made after the rape, and both of those films deserved to be recognized. Hell, it was a crime that The Pianist didn't win Best Picture over fucking Chicago of all things, but at least he got Best Director.

    UnbreakableVow on
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Mostly that the moral outrage that someone would dare flaunt the will of the US justice system is dumb, and that somehow letting this go would do any more damage to it than has already been done.
    How many of those people have been tried, convicted, and flee with no good faith attempts made to have them captured and brought back?

    I'm gonna say that not convicting or even not charging someone in the first place just because they happen to be a cop is far worse. And that is a disturbingly common occurrence, far more common than people fleeing to Europe.

    Also, if the justice system has already proven to be crooked (and a attorney having ex parte secret meetings with the judge is definitely that) expecting it to not be crooked when you appeal seems like a less than rational position to take, and fleeing the jurisdiction a far more rational one.

    do you think he is guilty?

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Fucking budget cuts taking out the "Best Direction by a Child Rapest" award in 2000. Such a shame.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    lsukalel wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Mostly that the moral outrage that someone would dare flaunt the will of the US justice system is dumb, and that somehow letting this go would do any more damage to it than has already been done.
    How many of those people have been tried, convicted, and flee with no good faith attempts made to have them captured and brought back?

    I'm gonna say that not convicting or even not charging someone in the first place just because they happen to be a cop is far worse. And that is a disturbingly common occurrence, far more common than people fleeing to Europe.

    Also, if the justice system has already proven to be crooked (and a attorney having ex parte secret meetings with the judge is definitely that) expecting it to not be crooked when you appeal seems like a less than rational position to take, and fleeing the jurisdiction a far more rational one.

    do you think he is guilty?

    If the trial was conducted in an improper manner, it doesn't matter.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    How wonderfully closed-minded.

    More like the movies he has produced since the event have not been of a cultural significance or value to overlook the drug and rape of a child when considering granting awards. Similarly, we take away Olympic medals from people that have done drugs, even non-performance enhancing ones.

    Which is also bullshit, but whatever.

    Tess and The Pianist are both goddamn fantastic films made after the rape, and both of those films deserved to be recognized. Hell, it was a crime that The Pianist didn't win Best Picture over fucking Chicago of all things, but at least he got Best Director.

    Do you think his films are worth him being free?

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Mostly that the moral outrage that someone would dare flaunt the will of the US justice system is dumb, and that somehow letting this go would do any more damage to it than has already been done.
    How many of those people have been tried, convicted, and flee with no good faith attempts made to have them captured and brought back?

    I'm gonna say that not convicting or even not charging someone in the first place just because they happen to be a cop is far worse. And that is a disturbingly common occurrence, far more common than people fleeing to Europe.

    Also, if the justice system has already proven to be crooked (and a attorney having ex parte secret meetings with the judge is definitely that) expecting it to not be crooked when you appeal seems like a less than rational position to take, and fleeing the jurisdiction a far more rational one.

    do you think he is guilty?

    If the trial was conducted in an improper manner, it doesn't matter.

    So you aren't going to answer the question. K just so we are clear.

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    lsukalel wrote: »
    How wonderfully closed-minded.

    More like the movies he has produced since the event have not been of a cultural significance or value to overlook the drug and rape of a child when considering granting awards. Similarly, we take away Olympic medals from people that have done drugs, even non-performance enhancing ones.

    Which is also bullshit, but whatever.

    Tess and The Pianist are both goddamn fantastic films made after the rape, and both of those films deserved to be recognized. Hell, it was a crime that The Pianist didn't win Best Picture over fucking Chicago of all things, but at least he got Best Director.

    Do you think his films are worth him being free?

    Irrelevant to waste time on hypotheticals.

    Case in point, he was free and he made some movies, and they were quite great ones.

    UnbreakableVow on
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Mostly that the moral outrage that someone would dare flaunt the will of the US justice system is dumb, and that somehow letting this go would do any more damage to it than has already been done.
    How many of those people have been tried, convicted, and flee with no good faith attempts made to have them captured and brought back?

    I'm gonna say that not convicting or even not charging someone in the first place just because they happen to be a cop is far worse. And that is a disturbingly common occurrence, far more common than people fleeing to Europe.

    Also, if the justice system has already proven to be crooked (and a attorney having ex parte secret meetings with the judge is definitely that) expecting it to not be crooked when you appeal seems like a less than rational position to take, and fleeing the jurisdiction a far more rational one.

    do you think he is guilty?

    If the trial was conducted in an improper manner, it doesn't matter.

    He pled guilty. And there's no real evidence that it was except for the claims of a child rapist who fled the country after pleading guilty.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    lsukalel wrote: »
    How wonderfully closed-minded.

    More like the movies he has produced since the event have not been of a cultural significance or value to overlook the drug and rape of a child when considering granting awards. Similarly, we take away Olympic medals from people that have done drugs, even non-performance enhancing ones.

    Which is also bullshit, but whatever.

    Tess and The Pianist are both goddamn fantastic films made after the rape, and both of those films deserved to be recognized. Hell, it was a crime that The Pianist didn't win Best Picture over fucking Chicago of all things, but at least he got Best Director.

    Do you think his films are worth him being free?

    Irrelevant to waste time on hypotheticals.

    Case in point, he was free and he made some movies, and they were quite great ones.

    K read this, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html, what do you think of that? I mean that is just another type of work from Polanski.

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Mostly that the moral outrage that someone would dare flaunt the will of the US justice system is dumb, and that somehow letting this go would do any more damage to it than has already been done.
    How many of those people have been tried, convicted, and flee with no good faith attempts made to have them captured and brought back?

    I'm gonna say that not convicting or even not charging someone in the first place just because they happen to be a cop is far worse. And that is a disturbingly common occurrence, far more common than people fleeing to Europe.

    Also, if the justice system has already proven to be crooked (and a attorney having ex parte secret meetings with the judge is definitely that) expecting it to not be crooked when you appeal seems like a less than rational position to take, and fleeing the jurisdiction a far more rational one.

    do you think he is guilty?

    If the trial was conducted in an improper manner, it doesn't matter.

    He plead guilty. It doesn't matter how badly the trial was conducted, so long as he plead guilty without being unfairly coerced.

    And a man who's innocent does not flee the country for 30 years, so there goes the "Maybe he just plead guilty as part of a plea bargain!" theory.

    EDIT: And this isn't fucking GTA or Fable. You can't just hide until the authorities get bored and get off scott free.

    The Muffin Man on
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    We let people get away with far worse things all the time in the name of political expediency. Hell, we've done worse things to people in the name of the War on Terror.

    The law has to apply to everyone equally or else it has no moral right to do anything. Since it is abundantly clear that the law in the US is not equal, morally it has no right to judge anyone.

    EDIT: Also, the evidence of impropriety on the part of the judge would seem to suggest that he never even got a fair trail in the first place which would frankly nullify the whole thing.
    How many of those people weren't properly tried, convicted, and ran away?

    The legal system does not judge people based on morality; it judges people based on a combination of various factors. Its authority to judge people does not come from morality.

    No, it does not nullify the whole thing. If he wanted to appeal or get it dismissed because of a lack of fair trial, he could have attempted to do so. He did not and instead ran away. He has refused to return in order to argue his case.

    Don't we have a person serving a prison sentence for owning lolicon? I'd say that's based on morality.

    It's also kind of moot to this case, but I thought I'd point out that US laws are often morality based.

    override367 on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Running from the police is not an admission of guilt, which is why it's a separate matter under the law.

    Robman on
  • Options
    UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    lsukalel wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »
    How wonderfully closed-minded.

    More like the movies he has produced since the event have not been of a cultural significance or value to overlook the drug and rape of a child when considering granting awards. Similarly, we take away Olympic medals from people that have done drugs, even non-performance enhancing ones.

    Which is also bullshit, but whatever.

    Tess and The Pianist are both goddamn fantastic films made after the rape, and both of those films deserved to be recognized. Hell, it was a crime that The Pianist didn't win Best Picture over fucking Chicago of all things, but at least he got Best Director.

    Do you think his films are worth him being free?

    Irrelevant to waste time on hypotheticals.

    Case in point, he was free and he made some movies, and they were quite great ones.

    K read this, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html, what do you think of that? I mean that is just another type of work from Polanski.

    Not really sure of the point you're trying to make here.

    UnbreakableVow on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    And a man who's innocent does not flee the country for 30 years, so there goes the "Maybe he just plead guilty as part of a plea bargain!" theory.

    What the hell kind of logic is this? "If you're innocent you should be fine with being wrongly convicted of a crime!"

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    And a man who's innocent does not flee the country for 30 years, so there goes the "Maybe he just plead guilty as part of a plea bargain!" theory.

    What the hell kind of logic is this? "If you're innocent you should be fine with being wrongly convicted of a crime!"

    Er, except that there's an entire process that lets you clear your name if you ARE innocent and the trial was rigged.

    The Muffin Man on
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    And a man who's innocent does not flee the country for 30 years, so there goes the "Maybe he just plead guilty as part of a plea bargain!" theory.

    What the hell kind of logic is this? "If you're innocent you should be fine with being wrongly convicted of a crime!"

    He wasn't convicted, he plead guilty. He admitted it. And then he used the leniency of the court (they let him finish a movie) to flee the country, which is also a felony that carries significant jail time.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Running from the police is not an admission of guilt, which is why it's a separate matter under the law.

    Are you gonna tell me a man who admits to being guilty, and then hauling ass to get away from the law for 30 years isn't guilty?

    The Muffin Man on
  • Options
    dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    maybe he changed his mind

    dlinfiniti on
    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    lsukalel wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »
    How wonderfully closed-minded.

    More like the movies he has produced since the event have not been of a cultural significance or value to overlook the drug and rape of a child when considering granting awards. Similarly, we take away Olympic medals from people that have done drugs, even non-performance enhancing ones.

    Which is also bullshit, but whatever.

    Tess and The Pianist are both goddamn fantastic films made after the rape, and both of those films deserved to be recognized. Hell, it was a crime that The Pianist didn't win Best Picture over fucking Chicago of all things, but at least he got Best Director.

    Do you think his films are worth him being free?

    Irrelevant to waste time on hypotheticals.

    Case in point, he was free and he made some movies, and they were quite great ones.

    K read this, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html, what do you think of that? I mean that is just another type of work from Polanski.

    Not really sure of the point you're trying to make here.

    My point is that you seem to be well versed in his artistic works, which is fine. It is good to have an appreciation for the arts. I was just wondering if you had actually read the details of what happened.

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    And a man who's innocent does not flee the country for 30 years, so there goes the "Maybe he just plead guilty as part of a plea bargain!" theory.

    What the hell kind of logic is this? "If you're innocent you should be fine with being wrongly convicted of a crime!"

    Er, except that there's an entire process that lets you clear your name if you ARE innocent and the trial was rigged.

    If you're lucky, well connected and the details of the case are not well known to the public, sure

    Robman on
  • Options
    UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Yes, I know the details.

    That changes nothing about his work as a director.

    Like seriously, it has no bearing. He could have murdered her as well. Whatever. It doesn't suddenly mean that Chinatown and The Pianist immediately become awful films.

    UnbreakableVow on
  • Options
    The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    And a man who's innocent does not flee the country for 30 years, so there goes the "Maybe he just plead guilty as part of a plea bargain!" theory.

    What the hell kind of logic is this? "If you're innocent you should be fine with being wrongly convicted of a crime!"

    Er, except that there's an entire process that lets you clear your name if you ARE innocent and the trial was rigged.

    If you're lucky, well connected and the details of the case are not well known to the public, sure

    Or incredibly rich.

    Also the man went 30 years without getting caught after admitting to drugging and raping a girl. I don't think "luck" is an issue.

    Like seriously, it has no bearing. He could have murdered her as well. Whatever. It doesn't suddenly mean that Chinatown and The Pianist immediately become awful films.
    Well some people (myself included) avoid certain films, books, games, etc. to avoid giving ANY amount of our money to a person we do not like. It varies, but there are people willing to say "He drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. I'm never watching Chinatown."

    The Muffin Man on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Running from the police is not an admission of guilt, which is why it's a separate matter under the law.

    Are you gonna tell me a man who admits to being guilty, and then hauling ass to get away from the law for 30 years isn't guilty?

    I am saying that running from the police is not a guilty plea. I'm not sure what you're arguing.

    Robman on
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Yes, I know the details.

    That changes nothing about his work as a director.

    Like seriously, it has no bearing. He could have murdered her as well. Whatever. It doesn't suddenly mean that Chinatown and The Pianist immediately become awful films.

    Granted, but that also doesn't change the fact that his time would have been better spent paying for his crime.

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    And a man who's innocent does not flee the country for 30 years, so there goes the "Maybe he just plead guilty as part of a plea bargain!" theory.

    What the hell kind of logic is this? "If you're innocent you should be fine with being wrongly convicted of a crime!"

    Er, except that there's an entire process that lets you clear your name if you ARE innocent and the trial was rigged.

    If you're lucky, well connected and the details of the case are not well known to the public, sure

    So because he has money he gets to flee the ENTIRE process, how is that better?

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    And a man who's innocent does not flee the country for 30 years, so there goes the "Maybe he just plead guilty as part of a plea bargain!" theory.

    What the hell kind of logic is this? "If you're innocent you should be fine with being wrongly convicted of a crime!"

    Er, except that there's an entire process that lets you clear your name if you ARE innocent and the trial was rigged.

    Because clearly the victim of a rigged trial should have complete faith that the system will treat him fairly this time around.
    PantsB wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    And a man who's innocent does not flee the country for 30 years, so there goes the "Maybe he just plead guilty as part of a plea bargain!" theory.

    What the hell kind of logic is this? "If you're innocent you should be fine with being wrongly convicted of a crime!"

    He wasn't convicted, he plead guilty. He admitted it. And then he used the leniency of the court (they let him finish a movie) to flee the country, which is also a felony that carries significant jail time.

    Because no one has ever plead guilty when they were innocent.


    Essentially, I doubt anyone here is a sufficient expert on the facts of this case to be able to decide beyond a reasonable doubt what did or did not happen. A court of law should be a body capable of making that decision, but if the judicial process was corrupted than who the fuck knows what happened.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    lsukalel wrote: »
    Yes, I know the details.

    That changes nothing about his work as a director.

    Like seriously, it has no bearing. He could have murdered her as well. Whatever. It doesn't suddenly mean that Chinatown and The Pianist immediately become awful films.

    Granted, but that also doesn't change the fact that his time would have been better spent paying for his crime.

    Yeah, I'll give you that all day.

    But he didn't, and so I'll enjoy what was produced instead.

    UnbreakableVow on
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    lsukalel wrote: »
    Yes, I know the details.

    That changes nothing about his work as a director.

    Like seriously, it has no bearing. He could have murdered her as well. Whatever. It doesn't suddenly mean that Chinatown and The Pianist immediately become awful films.

    Granted, but that also doesn't change the fact that his time would have been better spent paying for his crime.

    Yeah, I'll give you that all day.

    But he didn't, and so I'll enjoy what was produced instead.

    That's perfectly fine, but now that he can be brought to justice would you agree he needs to pay for his crime?

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Yes?

    I said that pages ago.

    UnbreakableVow on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    lsukalel wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    And a man who's innocent does not flee the country for 30 years, so there goes the "Maybe he just plead guilty as part of a plea bargain!" theory.

    What the hell kind of logic is this? "If you're innocent you should be fine with being wrongly convicted of a crime!"

    Er, except that there's an entire process that lets you clear your name if you ARE innocent and the trial was rigged.

    If you're lucky, well connected and the details of the case are not well known to the public, sure

    So because he has money he gets to flee the ENTIRE process, how is that better?

    It's better for him. I'm sure the minorities executed in Texas under questionable evidence would have loved to live in France instead of being killed to satisfy the blood lust of the state population.

    The process is broken. Why operate from within given the choice to leave it and live in exile in Europe?

    Robman on
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    And a man who's innocent does not flee the country for 30 years, so there goes the "Maybe he just plead guilty as part of a plea bargain!" theory.

    What the hell kind of logic is this? "If you're innocent you should be fine with being wrongly convicted of a crime!"

    He wasn't convicted, he plead guilty. He admitted it. And then he used the leniency of the court (they let him finish a movie) to flee the country, which is also a felony that carries significant jail time.

    Because no one has ever plead guilty when they were innocent.


    Essentially, I doubt anyone here is a sufficient expert on the facts of this case to be able to decide beyond a reasonable doubt what did or did not happen. A court of law should be a body capable of making that decision, but if the judicial process was corrupted than who the fuck knows what happened.

    How exactly do you think the judicial process was corrupted?

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    And a man who's innocent does not flee the country for 30 years, so there goes the "Maybe he just plead guilty as part of a plea bargain!" theory.

    What the hell kind of logic is this? "If you're innocent you should be fine with being wrongly convicted of a crime!"

    Er, except that there's an entire process that lets you clear your name if you ARE innocent and the trial was rigged.

    Because clearly the victim of a rigged trial should have complete faith that the system will treat him fairly this time around.
    PantsB wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    And a man who's innocent does not flee the country for 30 years, so there goes the "Maybe he just plead guilty as part of a plea bargain!" theory.

    What the hell kind of logic is this? "If you're innocent you should be fine with being wrongly convicted of a crime!"

    He wasn't convicted, he plead guilty. He admitted it. And then he used the leniency of the court (they let him finish a movie) to flee the country, which is also a felony that carries significant jail time.

    Because no one has ever plead guilty when they were innocent.


    Essentially, I doubt anyone here is a sufficient expert on the facts of this case to be able to decide beyond a reasonable doubt what did or did not happen. A court of law should be a body capable of making that decision, but if the judicial process was corrupted than who the fuck knows what happened.

    So he gets to put his concerns about a fair trial over the entire process that you and I have to stand before no matter how corrupt?

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    And a man who's innocent does not flee the country for 30 years, so there goes the "Maybe he just plead guilty as part of a plea bargain!" theory.

    What the hell kind of logic is this? "If you're innocent you should be fine with being wrongly convicted of a crime!"

    Er, except that there's an entire process that lets you clear your name if you ARE innocent and the trial was rigged.

    If you're lucky, well connected and the details of the case are not well known to the public, sure

    So because he has money he gets to flee the ENTIRE process, how is that better?

    It's better for him. I'm sure the minorities executed in Texas under questionable evidence would have loved to live in France instead of being killed to satisfy the blood lust of the state population.

    The process is broken. Why operate from within given the choice to leave it and live in exile in Europe?

    I am a minority in Texas, so I apparently have blood lust for my own people. I am confused all of a sudden.

    lsukalel on
Sign In or Register to comment.