This is the thread where the fringster comes back with teeth

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Perhaps I should have posted the link and let it speak for itself.

But I think you misread rather than me misquoting.

I found that interview chilling. You seem to actually find him somewhat convincing.

I found your quote misleading, failing to note an important caveat. Whether he's chilling or not is another issue. I don't have an opinion on whether he's convincing or not.

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I quoted from the NYT review, which PLF posted the link to, to answer Fugee's question about what it said. This was probably clear to everyone else, but apparently not you.

I read the review before you posted the quote. I asked PLF what the movie said. And he answered. (Thanks PLF!)

It doesn't seem like six weeks of observation is much punishment for raping a 13 year old, if that's the sentence they agreed on as part of the plea agreement. It would seem light even if it was consensual sex. But if the girl didn't want to testify (or her parents didn't want to put her through it), that might have been the best the prosecutors could do.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I would still prosecute a bail jumper, even thirty years later.

As I said, I would too.

I am also disturbed that some of your argument revolves around the fact that he is a high profile guy who will spend money and use resources - that line of argument suggests that favorable treatment for the wealthy and famous might be appropriate, just because it's a pain in the neck to prosecute them.

Yeah, I see that.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I see. Perhaps I was not clear, but my "feeling" after watching the movie that, under similar circumstances, I also would have fled, was not based on my belief that Polanski did was O.K. In fact, so the record is clear, I am just going to come right out and state that I believe that drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl is very, very wrong. In fact, I believe that drugging and vaginally raping 13 year old girl is very, very wrong. Further, I will state that there is no appreciable doubt in my mind that Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, and the fact that the girl was thurst upon him by a warped stage mother and the fact that it happened in a jacuzzi and not in an alley do not even come close to being mitigating factors in my mind. And thus, perhaps if I were in Polanski's situation, I should have had the moral courage to stay a face the music, no matter how unjust the outcome would be, because I had done a bad thing and therefore I should allow bad things to happen to me. But, in truth, based on the conduct of the judge as described in the documentary, I recall feeling that, instead of staying, I would have fled.

I would have fled regardless of the conduct of the judge. If I am facing long prison time and someone lets me out of the country - sayonara, baby.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I think a lot of people felt that Michael Vick got off very easily. I also remember a number of folks around this joint who got a bit vexed that he came out of jail and didn't have too much trouble going right back into the NFL.

I was one of the pissed off people, but I think he served his time and deserves to seek out whatever gainful employment he can.

I also find it down right fascinating that there was a lot of talk about Plaxico Burress (dumbass who shot himself in the leg with an illegal gun), but not a peep about Donte Stallworth (dumbass who got drunk, got in his car, ran over a guy and killed him).

There was a lot of indignant sputtering on my facebook feeds when Vick was let back in the league, but not a single word about Stallworth, who was suspended from the league around the same time. Maybe a Browns receiver is lower status than an Atlanta QB or a fancy New York receiver. But 30 days in jail, plus 1,000 hours of community service, 2 years of house arrest, and 8 years probation for killing a guy seems kind of light compared to 23 months in federal prison, a million dollars to care for the dogs, and a $2500 state felony fine (Vick) or two years in jail for the weapons charge (Burress).

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Thank you. You have convinced me that this judge was an idiot when he let Polanski go abroad to finish his film. You have also convinced me that you believe drugging and raping (both vaginally and anally) a 13 year old girl to be wrong and would not do it.

But now Ty is going to have to convince me that this idiot judge who was so lenient in letting him go abroad was a conniving bastard of a hanging judge out for Polanski's ass. How will I reconcile these sides of the same judge?

I don't think there is any dispute that judge was out for Polanski's ass. I believe he came out and said so to his buddies. Even the Salon piece acknowledged that the documentary made a pretty convincing argument that the judge had gone off the rails. So, if you are a bad man who has done a very bad thing, but you see that your punishment is going to be presided over by a judge who has gone off the rails, engaging in judicial misconduct, and is now solely concerned about doing whatever he can to come off as a tough guy and get more press, do you stay and accept your fate because you have done a very bad thing and therefore no amount of miscarriage of justice in the sentencing phase is too much miscarriage of justice?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I thought the 90 days was an evaluation period to see if he was certifiable, and assumed there would be one deal if he was crazy, a different one if he wasn't. He was released after 42 days of evalaution. I don't know if they determined him to be crazy or not.

All I have seen on the deal itself is speculation that it might not have meant jail time - has anyone seen, or did that film show, the actual terms of the deal?

I haven't read it, but it is here on the Smoking Gun site.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I would have fled regardless of the conduct of the judge. If I am facing long prison time and someone lets me out of the country - sayonara, baby.

Note to Atticus: If Less ever is across from you at the bench, insist on no bail.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I was one of the pissed off people, but I think he served his time and deserves to seek out whatever gainful employment he can.

I also find it down right fascinating that there was a lot of talk about Plaxico Burress (dumbass who shot himself in the leg with an illegal gun), but not a peep about Donte Stallworth (dumbass who got drunk, got in his car, ran over a guy and killed him).

There was a lot of indignant sputtering on my facebook feeds when Vick was let back in the league, but not a single word about Stallworth, who was suspended from the league around the same time. Maybe a Browns receiver is lower status than an Atlanta QB or a fancy New York receiver. But 30 days in jail, plus 1,000 hours of community service, 2 years of house arrest, and 8 years probation for killing a guy seems kind of light compared to 23 months in federal prison, a million dollars to care for the dogs, and a $2500 state felony fine (Vick) or two years in jail for the weapons charge (Burress).

There was a difference in their respective intents. And, yes, I know that rewards being drunk. Plus, New York City really does not like guns.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I assume you are posting this in response to me because you believe my recommendation of the documentary coupled with my statement that I came away from the movie feeling that, under the circumstances, I also would have fled too constitutes an endorsement by me of child sodomy. I predicted this would happen.

If you rape a child, you should flee America. Any sane person would do so if not handcuffed to an immovable object. The fact that it took you a documentary to realize this, or that you think the fairness of the intervening trial has anything in the world to do with it, causes me to question who are you and what have you done with Flower.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I also find it down right fascinating that there was a lot of talk about Plaxico Burress (dumbass who shot himself in the leg with an illegal gun), but not a peep about Donte Stallworth (dumbass who got drunk, got in his car, ran over a guy and killed him).

In general, there is this weird conceit that automobile collisions (with other cars, stationary objects, pedestrians, bicycles) are called "accidents," whether or not the driver invited the risk by speeding, texting, drinking and driving, etc. News stories always say that the vehicle hit x, not that the driver drove into x.

eta: This is said better in a book that ncs is reading.

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I don't think there is any dispute that judge was out for Polanski's ass. I believe he came out and said so to his buddies. Even the Salon piece acknowledged that the documentary made a pretty convincing argument that the judge had gone off the rails. So, if you are a bad man who has done a very bad thing, but you see that your punishment is going to be presided over by a judge who has gone off the rails, engaging in judicial misconduct, and is now solely concerned about doing whatever he can to come off as a tough guy and get more press, do you stay and accept your fate because you have done a very bad thing and therefore no amount of miscarriage of justice in the sentencing phase is too much miscarriage of justice?

This is California state court, right? Even if he were sentenced to life, he would have been eligible for parole in, like, six months.

(In all seriousness, the issue isn't whether we can understand why the bad guy would run. Of course he would. But that's an explanation--not an excuse. I still haven't heard a convincing reason why we shouldn't care about bringing a guy who raped a 13-year old girl to justice.)

AON, the mother of my godson used to be a sex crimes prosecutor in the Bronx. The type of person we're talking about here isn't miraculously rehabilitated after 42 days of psychiatric "observation."* Far be it from me to wonder what he's been doing in France these last 30 years.

CDF

*See Garrido, Philip

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I haven't read it, but it is here on the Smoking Gun site.

Not much there except an explanation of why he had a psych evaluation--b/c the victim was under 14, Cali law at teh time provided for a Mentally Disordered Sexual Offender evaluation, to see if he needed to be committed.

[ltl/fb]

Dudes i have a metal short thingy where my tooth should be!!!

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by cheval de frise

AON, the mother of my godson used to be a sex crimes prosecutor in the Bronx. The type of person we're talking about here isn't miraculously rehabilitated after 42 days of psychiatric "observation."* Far be it from me to wonder what he's been doing in France these last 30 years.

"Sargeant, you got a lot a damn gall to ask me if I've rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I'm sittin' here on the bench, I mean I'm sittin here on the Group W bench 'cause you want to know if I'm moral enough join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages after bein' a litterbug." He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send you fingerprints off to Washington."