news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

OPINION

Leonard Pitts Jr.: Justice for Roman Polanski

Wednesday, October 7, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

Somebody please help me with this. Obviously, I'm missing something.

So we've got a 43-year-old man who takes a 13-year-old girl into a hot tub. According to the girl, this is what follows: He gives her part of a Quaalude and some champagne. He gets into the hot tub, naked. She flees to a bedroom. He follows. He puts his mouth to her vagina. He removes her panties. He asks if she is on the pill. She is not, and he asks if she wants him to penetrate her anally instead. She says no. He does anyway. During all this, she's begging him to stop.

In court, he admits to having sex with the child. He admits he knew she was 13. He is indicted on six charges. To spare the child the pain of testifying, the DA agrees to let him plead guilty on a single lesser charge. The man spends 42 days behind bars for pre-sentencing diagnostic tests. In 1978, on the eve of his actual sentencing, he flees the country and returns to his native France. He is finally arrested 31 years later.

And now he is the victim?!

I have no idea how anyone arrives at that conclusion. I could not arrive at that conclusion with a GPS navigator.

Yet the case of director Roman Polanski, now 76 and in a Swiss jail fighting extradition to the United States, has attracted a slew of high-profile defenders. French and Polish officials have condemned his arrest, which came last month at a film festival in Zurich. Filmmakers like Woody Allen, Jonathan Demme, Michael Mann and Martin Scorsese have reportedly signed a petition calling for his release. Whoopi Goldberg, splitting legal hairs down to the micron, argues that because he pleaded to a lesser charge, Polanski is not guilty of " 'rape,' rape." Producer Harvey Weinstein refers to Polanski's "so-called crime."

Polanski's defenders would want you to know that he's experienced tragedy in his life. He is a Holocaust survivor. His wife was murdered by the Manson gang. They'd want you to know he settled a civil suit brought by his victim, who has forgiven him and doesn't wish to see him punished. They'd want you to know the original trial judge is alleged to have improperly discussed the case with a prosecutor who was not involved in it.

All of it's true. None of it matters.

At this point, it might be valuable to try a little brain exercise. Imagine for a moment, we were not talking about Roman Polanski, the celebrated director. Imagine, instead, it was Roman Polanski the bus driver, Roman Polanski the accountant or architect who had -- apologies to Whoopi Goldberg -- "raped" a child and then fled the country to avoid punishment.

Would we still be having this discussion? Would he even have defenders?

Of course not.

People often speak of Hollywood's values as being out of sync with the nation's. But though it may flatter us to believe that, it's a specious argument. "Zombieland" made $25 million last weekend. You do not sell $25 million worth of any product in three days at less than $10 a unit, unless you are closely in sync with what your customers want.

No, this episode says less about Hollywood's values than its sense of its own exceptionalism, e.g., the belief that because a person is famous, beautiful, talented, we should expect and overlook such petty eccentricities as occasional rudeness, chronic vanity or -- cover your eyes, Whoopi -- the odd rape of a 13-year-old girl.

That sense of exceptionalism is enabled by fans and media when we use terms like "troubled" and "bad boy actor" to describe behavior that would leave us cursing if the person in question were not someone we "know" because we saw him in a movie. We treat fame like a free pass from judgment or consequence, so it's no surprise some people are signing petitions on behalf of poor Roman Polanski.

Consider this my counter petition. May he get what's coming to him -- with interest.

Send e-mail to Leonard Pitts Jr. at lpitts@miamiherald.com

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

wscbd

October 7, 2009 - 8:23 am EDT

We don't know the facts of this case. There is a strong chance that the victim's story had some major embellishments, such as whether this was forcible. We've all seen the photos of this 13 year old so we know that she was quite physically mature, and we know that by her own admission and others' she was already promiscuous at that age and using drugs. That's no excuse in Polanski's favor if he was coercive, but despite contemporary silliness, in itself the act of offering drugs and alcohol to a partner before sex is not evidence of coercion. So, the facts of the case are that an older man had sex with a teenage girl. The rest is subjective; he said/she said (with both parties clearly bending the truth, probably out of fear and embarrassment) and what's acceptible or not. Now we come to the director's subsequent actions. He accepted his punishment, whether he believed it was fair or not. And then he fled. He should've given himself up years ago and appealed his case on the grounds of misconduct by the judge and prosecutor, which is well-documented. He didn't, so now is his chance to redeem himself. No appellate court would claim that the orignial trial was fair after seeing the evidence of misconduct.

asu784heels

October 7, 2009 - 9:07 am EDT

I can't believe what you just wrote. This guy is a PEDOPHILE. Peroid. End of discussion. He plead GUILTY. What do you mean, "we don't know the facts of this case." The facts aren't important if he's admitted to having sex with a 13 year old. It doesn't matter whether he did or did not drug her. It doesn't matter whether they were or were not in a hot tub. It doesn't matter is she was begging him for sex because she's promiscuous......it's freaking illegal. The facts of the case became irrelevent as soon as he admitted to having sex with a 13 YEAR OLD GIRL. He fled the country to avoid going to prison, not because he thought he was wrongly accused. Everything about your paragraph sickens me.

wscbd

October 7, 2009 - 9:55 am EDT

And everything about yours sickens me. The one-size-fits-all statutory rape laws in this country are sickening. The puritanical mindset that spawned such ludicrous laws is sickening. Rape cannot be statutory. Rape is forcible sex; sex under coercion or even threat or actuality of violence. An older man having sex with a teenage girl cannot be automatically classified as rape. You need to judge each indvidual case on its own facts, and this particular case did not have the facts for a jury to decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Polanski forced himself on the girl. Perhaps contributing to the delinquency of a minor would have been justified, but the only sex crime that could be proved is this archaic notion of "statutory" rape - an automatic crime regardless of circmstances. How something so subjective, so dependent on the facts of the specific case, can be decided without regard to those circumstances is utterly un-American. But this is all moot because this man pled to a lesser charge and should have been sentenced based on that charge, and he should've accepted his punishment. Either that, or he should've gone through with the trial and appealed the decision based on the well-documented misconduct. Your comment indeed sickens me. A pedophile? Where is your proof of this vile accusation? She was 13! I don't know what fantasy land you inhabit, but where I'm from (Earth) a 13 year old is hardly a child. When I was 11-13, I knew few peers who were not sexually active and not recreational or habitual users of illicit and/or prescription drugs, and many of the females had slept with men in their 20s and 30s (not 40s that I'm aware of, but that's splitting hairs). They were not coerced, and some of those relationships lasted longer than many marriages. We need to take the power away from people like you who want to use laws to tell teens (and adults, too, I presume) what they can do with their bodies. Some adults prefer younger partners, just as some teens prefer older partners. It's part of nature. It only becomes a problem when it's a compulsion or mental defect, in which the condition is marked by a desire for control and dominance or even violence, which can be a serious problem at any age. There was no evidence presented that showed Polanski to be a pedophile. He pled to a crime and he should've accepted his punishment, but in a perfect world, this case would only have come about if he had, indeed, raped the girl, which as I already noted boils down to his word against hers, and it's not our place to make that judgment.

asu784heels

October 7, 2009 - 10:07 am EDT

Wow. For the first time in quite awhile..........I'm actually at a lost for words. So let me get this straight. A 13 year old should be allowed, if they want too, to have a relationship with a 40 year old man? A sexual relationship? And this is based on the premise that you think a 11-13 year old is NOT a child? This sounds like the words of a 13 year old. I'm sure I thought I was an adult when I was 13 too. I don't think you're actually 13 because although I vehemently disagree with everything you wrote, you wrote it eloquently.
My "puritanical morals???" Are you serious??? So I'm a prued because I think an adult of 40 years of age having sex (coerced or not) with a 13 year girl is immoral? I'm going to go out on a limb and confirm what I believed earlier.........Powlanski is a pedophile. Call me crazy. But I'm pretty sure a pedophile is an adult who gets their rocks off, off children. And I'm pretty sure, at least in the United States, that a 13 year old girl would qualify as a child. Call me crazy. I cannot believe I'm actually having to defend my position.

wscbd

October 7, 2009 - 10:27 am EDT

A pedophile is a person who has a sexual compulsion toward children. A man who has sex with a 13 year old is not, by definition, a pedophile. A man who has sex with a 13 year old BECAUSE she is 13 might be a pedophile, and if he does it because he can only become aroused by 13 year olds (and younger) then he probably is a pedophile. And yes, you are a prude because you accept that it is impossible for a 13 year old and 40 year old to have a mature, healthy sexual encounter or relationship. I think that it is highly unlikely that such an encounter (assuming no coercion) would truly be between 2 individuals of superb mental health, but I cannot say that, beyond any reasonable doubt, sex between a 13 year old and a 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 year old is by default the act of a predator taking advantage of a teen (however disgusting the thought might be in my own mind). A 13 year old is certainly rarely an adult but is just as rarely a child, and it is not the place of law to decide en masse that only adults can have sex nor that a certain age is an inflexible indicator of adulthood. Too often, Americans want the gov't to regulate citizens where family and education would be more effective.

wscbd

October 7, 2009 - 10:38 am EDT

And I might add that Polanski in particular has shown no such compulsion in subsequent years. He might prefer younger partners, but he's hardly alone in that regard.

Panacea

October 7, 2009 - 3:25 pm EDT

A 13 year old girl cannot give informed consent to have sex with a 40 year old man. She is not a woman, she is a child. Children cannot consent to sex; even if they think they want it, because they do not understand what they are agreeing to. Children have not formed the parts of their brains that allow them to make rational choices.

Polanski's guilt in this is clear cut. Pitts is right on the money.

wscbd

October 7, 2009 - 3:48 pm EDT

Again, I'm not referring specifically to this case, but in your argument you make some flawed judgments based on (I presume) what YOU think to be fact, specifcally that a 13 year old is not a woman (What defines womanhood? If it's merely that she has begun menstruating, then most are women. If it's any other factor, then the matter becomes wholly subjective and not conducive to rigidly defined judgments), and that a 13 year old is not emotionally mature enough to consent to sex (Many are, and many do). Just because MANY or MOST 13 year olds are not capable of making an informed and mature choice in such matters is NOT reason enough to enact laws to prevent ALL 13 year olds from that freedom. MOST adults are not well-suited to become parents, and yet we do not prevent them from making that choice. This is a family matter and not one for the state to decide on a comprehensive basis. Is it a good idea to investigate any relationship discovered between a 13 and 46 year old? Probably. Is such a relationship, whether long-term or just for one night, by default a sign of violence, coercion or sexual deviance? Definitely not. Case-by-case. This is the only way to fairly treat such matters.

jbcarper

October 7, 2009 - 9:14 am EDT

It is NEVER acceptable for an adult male/female to have sexual relations with a 13 year old. It matters not whether the child was passive, resistive, or aggressive. It doesn't matter if the child is sexually mature. It doesn't matter if the child has been promiscuous or not. It doesn't matter if the child was sober, drunk, or drugged. Adults are required to be adults in situations where sex with a child may be involved and must walk away from any such situation.
There is no excuse, no mitigating circumstances, no explanations that can change the fact that Polanski is an adult who, having confessed to sex with a child, should be behind bars.

gsostudent

October 7, 2009 - 11:06 am EDT

Lock him up!

wscbd

October 7, 2009 - 12:07 pm EDT

This isn't a situation with strong similarities to the Polanski case, but I want to present this for those who apparently believe our current sex laws are reasonable - One of my employees who has been with me for several years now and also was an acquaintance in college was 22 when he began dating a 15 year old girl. They dated for several months before her parents found out and had him arrested. He would've been convicted for her rape at trial, so he pled to a lesser charge that resulted in no jail time. However, as part of the agreement, he was registered as a sex offender. They began dating under the radar after more than a year of staying in contact discreetly, and when she was 21, they married. They now have a child, but because he fell in love with a teenager whom he later married, he cannot take his daughter to the park, or pick her up at school, or attend PTA meetings, etc. Does this sound fair to you?

asu784heels

October 7, 2009 - 1:29 pm EDT

Since you've brought this up, I'll answer you. No, that does not sound fair. But since you're bringing oranges to apple argument let me give you another example that relates much closer. I.E....Fill in the blank Priest and fill in the blank altar boy. If instead of talking Powlanski, what if we're talking about a catholic priest and a 13 year old boy, would you still feel that this was acceptable? There are so many issues that are at stake here that, again, I can't believe I'm actually having to debate this. In your example, you're talking about more or less peers having a 7 year age gap getting into a relationship. In my example, as well as the actual case of Roman Powlanski.........we're talking about an adult in a position of power (much like a priest, teacher, coach, etc...). There is a HUGE difference between a college kid (or Senior in High School) having a relationship (or even just sex) with a Freshman in High School than there is with a movie director in his 40's having sex with a 13 year old girl....and not just any 13 year old girl, but the 13 year old girl who's auditioning for the 40 year old director (or in this case, a photo shoot). We have laws in a civilized society to protect the week, the young, and the disabled. While there may actually be an occasional 13 year old who's maturity is on the level of a 21 year old, I'm pretty comfortable in these cases to fire first and ask questions later.

wscbd

October 7, 2009 - 2:58 pm EDT

Priests are barred by their church from having sexual relationships. On its own, I see no reason for a state or federal law against this. As I've said previously, it should be judged on a case-by-case basis. With this example, however, we must remember that the younger person already shows signs of a tendency toward submission and a possible lack of self-respect, having taken the position of altar boy with an organization that encourages submission to elders, secrecy, and that one's physical and emotional urges are manifestations of evil. You are incorrect in assuming that there is a "huge difference" in sex between a 13 and 46 year old versus with a 22 year old. Who are you, and indeed, who is the state to decide that 22 is different from 46? This is such an arbitrary bit of nonsense. It allows for no exceptions to the rule. According to the law, no 13 year old is mature enough to make decisions regarding his/her own body. Heck, by the time I was 15 I was living alone and working to pay my rent while still in school. And yet, according to the law, it would have been illegal for me to find some hot sugar-mama should I have so desired (illegal for HER, that is). And still, you think we should not judge each individual case on its own circumstances? How can you just blindly accept that the gov't is qualified to decide these arbitrary age requirements for an act that IN NO WAY concerns anyone outside of the two participants? I'd accept a law that allows for qualifications and judgments based on the individual circumstances, so that it would still be illegal to coerce a youngster (or anyone) into sex, but there would be no inflexible mandate stating that any 30 year old found to have had sex with a 13 year old has committed a crime. A civilized legal system accepts that there are always shades of grey. Such cases should only proceed IF an investigation finds that it was, in fact, rape. Do none of you remember college? I lost count of the number of girls I dated who turned out to be in high school. According to these ridiculous laws, I and countless others are guilty of who knows how many crimes. Heck, I must be a serial rapist and a pedophile. Lock me up!

asu784heels

October 7, 2009 - 3:52 pm EDT

Clearly, you feel strongly about your position. And by reading your posts, I don't doubt that you're intelligent (misguided, in my opinion). But I've got to be honest, your arguing a cause that just isn't valid in this case. If we're arguing a blanket law that precludes a sexual relationship between anyone over 18 and anyone under 18, then we don't necessarily disagree. Freshman in college with a sophmore in High School is technically statutory rape. I don't necessarily disagree with you in that, in certain instances, the law may be hitting a fly with a hammer. But come on man, you cannot really believe that a 13 year old has the life experience or the emotional fortitude to handle a situation with a 40 year old man. I'm not sure if you're just trying to win an argument or if you truly believe what you're writing, but surely you can see the interest in government protecting children. And don't give me, "who am I to say that an 11 year old is a child." That's just ridiculous. As for your comment about sleeping with High School girls while you were in college.............not sure what to make of that. What college did you go to? Again, that's not my fight. Many freshman in college are not yet 18. I get your point. But 13 years old? Bro, that's a 7th grader.
Despite your general assumptions on me, I'm by far a prude. I'm also neither republican nor democrat and have voted for both. I generally think the government make laws for the masses to protect the few, and I often disagree with that. But this is pretty black or white. And by your logic, a true pedophile would have every bit the right to engage with a 11 year old if the 11 year agrees to sex.
Not to make assumptions about you, but I'm guessing you don't have children? But if you did, do you mean to tell me you would really stand for a 40 year old man having sex with your daughter (or son) who's 11-13?

wscbd

October 7, 2009 - 4:03 pm EDT

I won't go into too much detail, but I am a parent and my daughter is only 13 years younger than I am, so draw whatever conclusions you wish about that. Her mother is 3 years my senior. As I already stated, no, I do not believe that it is unreasonable to ASSUME that there is something improper occurring in a relationship between a 13 and 46 year old. HOWEVER, because I know that it is not impossible for this to be a consensual thing between parties mature enough to make those decisions, I cannot accept a LAW that defines guilt so arbitrarily. If we go to 11 years old, it's even less likely, though I'd still be hesitant to say impossible because I can remember being 11 and I can remember some girls I knew at that age. Certainly, there's probably a point where one can reasonably say "OK, no one this young is mature enough to make this decision unless under coercion or out of desire to please." BUT it is not the place of gov't to define that limit. Tell your kids you won't stand for it with them, but don't try to control others' kids using your own values.

asu784heels

October 7, 2009 - 4:27 pm EDT

Look, I'm not here to make assumptions about you. I don't know you from Adam. But you show me a 46 year old man engaged in any type of sexual relationship with a 13 year old child, and I'll show you a pedophile. We're not talking about my morality. We're talking about children. You have to draw a line somewhere, as even you acknowlegded. A 12 year old is a whole hell of a lot closer to a 9 year old (in both age and maturity) than they are an 18 year old. I'm not touching the subject of whether or not minors should have sex with each other (guilty as charge as were most of my friends in high school), as is your case.
There are many other injustices in our country and outisde our country that could use your outrage and your well thought out arguements. This isn't one of them.

wscbd

October 7, 2009 - 4:42 pm EDT

It is one of them, because you see this as a matter of morality, whereas I see it as a battle for personal freedoms - the foundation of our country. I refuse to relinquish my individual freedom just because of the occasional bad apple who gets hot for children. I recall a girl that I dated for a few months while I was in grad school. She was an AP/IB, honors student who shared many of my interests, volunteered for humanitarian organizations, came from a good family and had no "daddy issues" or anything of the sort. She lied about her age at first because she didn't like to date guys her age due to the typical maturity level. Now, let's assume that I wasn't in grad school. Rather, let's say that I instead meet an identical girl when I'm pushing 40 or even 50 and she is just as interested in old me as her counterpart was in 20-something me. You are claiming that this girl is fundamentally incapable of engaging in a consensual relationship with old me. Now, nothing about me has changed, except that I can't run as fast and have a few more grey hairs and a few more stories to tell. So what's the difference?

asu784heels

October 7, 2009 - 5:12 pm EDT

Truth be told, if she's 13 then it's wrong either way. The problem with your arguement is that you base its validity on the "state of mind" of the adult. In no ways am I calling you a pedophile.......but what's the difference between your story and a 40 year old man who gets his rocks off on a child saying he's in love? Are you saying our legal system should put " sexual motives" on trial? Do we need a jury to determine whether the 40 year old is "in love" with the child, and if found to be "in love" with the child, said relationship is legal? Come on man, that's crazy. Talking about government not having any business sticking their nose in something. Earlier I said I have a problem with government making laws for ALL to protect the FEW. And I do. This is the exact opposite. The purpose of government is to make laws for ALL to protect the vast MAJORITY. Are there exceptions to every rule? Yes. Should we change the laws for those exceptions? No. The government isn't saying you can't have sex. It's simply saying you can't have sex with a child (and since we have to define what a child is, they've determined it to be 18. If you're arguing that it should be younger, then make that your arguement. But an age has to be determined). The government also doesn't allow you to have sex in public, which infringes on your freedom but do you have a problem with that? Do you also feel a 13 year old should be allowed to vote? Serve in the military? And if you do, then nevermind.....I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree. But if you feel that a 13 year old shouldn't be allowed to vote, and shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military...........then you'll acknowledge the reasons you think that way are the same reasons why a 13 year old can't consent to sex with an adult (i.e....to young to make that decision, not mature enough, etc....). Does that mean that there aren't any 13 year olds who are smarter than me on politics? No. Does that mean that there aren't any 13 year olds who are strong enough and developed enough physically to serve in the military? No. But the vast majority are not capable........and hence our laws.

wscbd

October 7, 2009 - 7:13 pm EDT

On the contrary, I think it should be based on the circumstances of both parties involved. You're basing the legality of a minor engaging in sex on whether he/she is an adult. I don't believe that sex should be regulated by the gov't, and I certainly don't believe that only "adults" as defined by the gov't should have a right to have sex. I cannot support gov't action that limits what a citizen can do with his/her own body. If you want to limit these behaviors based on age, then do so in your house and leave others out of it. I don't support seatbelt laws, but I would not let my daughter ride in a car without wearing one.

Good Grief

October 7, 2009 - 8:18 pm EDT

So if your trustworthy employee's in-laws wanted to limit the behavior of their daughter who was 15 and living in their house, that would be OK. Therefore when your trustworthy employee came along and disrespected and dishonored their choice by seducing and having sex with their daughter, rather than calling the police and having the guy arrested, you are saying it would have been OK for the Dad to handle it himself in the manner he saw fit. Now THAT I would go along with. Your trustworthy employee, however, probably would be wishing you had stayed out of it because he would not have the daughter that he can't pick up anywhere, because he would wandering around as a steer, if he was still walking around at all.

Good Grief

October 7, 2009 - 8:03 pm EDT

The only difference would be that you would be and older, more wrinkled perv who should know better.

Good Grief

October 7, 2009 - 1:08 pm EDT

Yep.
The guy screws a teenage girl, gets busted, pleads out, then continues to screw her anyway "under the radar" for five or six more years. Sounds like a real trustworthy guy to me.
I do wonder why they waited to marry until she was 21, though, instead of when she turned 18? Just a wild guess, but probably this stand up guy was letting her parents send her to college on their dime.

As for this whole Polanski issue, he should do the time he agreed to in the plea deal.

wscbd

October 7, 2009 - 1:20 pm EDT

They were waiting for her to complete school, which they paid for together, with no help from her parents, who ostracized her after learning that she was still seeing him. "Trustworthy guy" is exactly how I'd describe him. Have you been monogamous from age 22 through to the present? You are a sick and twisted waste of space if you would judge others who have done no wrong. You desire laws that control the lives of others simply because you are envious of those happier than you. Homicide is illegal, but the law considers mitigating factors that can lessen or even invalidate the charge. This is not the case with statutory rape. There is no mandatory consideration of the facts of the individual case. This is un-American, and to support such vile, disgusting laws, you must hate America.

dcolin

October 7, 2009 - 1:33 pm EDT

He pleaded guilty and ran.

Now he is caught.
Sentence him.

It is as simple as that.

wscbd

October 7, 2009 - 2:27 pm EDT

You've clearly not read any of the previous comments.

Panacea

October 7, 2009 - 3:48 pm EDT

He hardly needs to. The subject at hand is Roman Polanski, who is a convicted rapist.

The laws on this are clear; he broke them, pled guilty, and ran when he thought the judge might not honor the plea deal and send him to prison.

Your example is an apples to oranges comparison. However, this person still broke the law, and has to bear the consequences of his actions. He can always ask to have his record expunged, which would allow him to get off the sex offender registry.

Your vehemence on this subject makes me wonder if the person is question is not yourself.

Either way, a 15 year old girl is no more capable of informed consensual sex with an adult than a 13 year old is. It's one thing for teens to have sex with each other: even though inadvisable, they are not being taken advantage of by someone who is old enough to know better. And a 22 year old is old enough to know he shouldn't be sleeping with a 15 year old girl.

If he really loved her, he would wait (and make her wait if necessary) until she was of legal age to consent to sex (some states 16, don't know what it is here). He may love her now, but that first time around could not have been love. It was lust plain and simple.

The fact that he (or you) won't own this, means responsibility has not been accepted, therefore my sympathy level for this situation is minimal at best.

wscbd

October 7, 2009 - 3:53 pm EDT

I feel sorry for anyone in your life.
Again, as I already stated, Polanski should've accepted his punishment because he accepted guilt, whether by choice or under coercion. The legality of the case could have been addressed upon appeal.
And no, it's not me, although according to these archaic laws that MUST be repealed, I and innumerable others are probably "rapists" many times over.

Panacea

October 7, 2009 - 4:36 pm EDT

Hmm. Must have hit a nerve.

The laws are statutory rape are sensible, and I fully support them. If you dislike them so much, advocate for their repeal with the legislature.

Just don't expect a lot of support in such an endeavor, unless it's from NAMBLA.

Good Grief

October 7, 2009 - 4:38 pm EDT

Where in the world does that come from?
1. "monogamous from age 22 to the present?" What does that have to do with anything I said? Maybe I'm not even 22 yet. Maybe I'm 72 and single. Maybe I've been married for 30 years and yes I've been monogamous the whole time. But who cares? From what you wrote, your trustworthy guy met a girl seven years younger than he, within months was bedding her, then took a plea to avoid jail time, THEN CONTINUED TO SEE HER ON THE SLY FOR FIVE MORE YEARS. Sorry, but that alone is an indication that the guy isn't trustworthy.
2. "You are a sick and twisted waste of space..." The guy knowingly broke the law, took a deal, and now you whine about him having to live with the consequences. HE did wrong, apparently.
3. "You ... are envious of those happier than you." Since you don't know me and have no idea whatsoever how happy I am, that's easy to disregard and generally laugh at. However, I will readily admit that I do desire laws that protect innocent people, especially children of any age, from self indulgent predators.
4. There must have been some leeway for your trustworthy guy or he wouldn't have been able to plea to a lesser offense.
5. Nice try on the nonsensical un-American/hate America burp. Your Freedom as an American to do what YOU want stops, thankfully, at the point where it negatively impacts society as a whole or another individual. Wow. It must be really special to be you, living in a fantasy world where you get to pick and choose what laws you get to disregard. Here's an American idea: if you don't like it, try and change it. Otherwise, shut up about it.
6. In regard to one of your other posts, I am sorry that you were on your own at 15. That you made it through those times and now have your own business is truly commendable.
7. Oh yeah, back to the original issue: Polanski is a confessed criminal who should do his time, or at the very least turn himself in and rely on the system to sort out the mess he created.
8. You can spare me the obligatory rant about relying on the system.

wscbd

October 7, 2009 - 4:46 pm EDT

Rest assured, my resources of time, effort and money go toward all such battles against those who seek to limit personal freedom.

12next ›last »

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search