0
Gawain

Polanski: Extradition Based on a Lie - wtf?!

Recommended Posts

  Quote

  Quote

...esp since his constitutional rights were never violatated, unlike that girl's ass.



His US Const rights would have been violated if there was a trial / sentencing; no way to get an impartial jury after he admitted to it, then the judge decided to think about changing the agreement. But of course the Nevada OJ trial was totally filled with US Const violations too, but you don't see it as that for 2 reasons:

- You like the outcome

- You don't understand the US Const

Guys like you don't care about constitutional rights unless we're talking about yours.



Um, there was no trial because he pleaded guilty.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

...esp since his constitutional rights were never violatated, unlike that girl's ass.



His US Const rights would have been violated if there was a trial / sentencing; no way to get an impartial jury after he admitted to it, then the judge decided to think about changing the agreement. But of course the Nevada OJ trial was totally filled with US Const violations too, but you don't see it as that for 2 reasons:

- You like the outcome

- You don't understand the US Const

Guys like you don't care about constitutional rights unless we're talking about yours.



Um, there was no trial because he pleaded guilty.



See if you can follow along.

- Polanski charged

- Plea deal offered

- Judge accepted

- Polanski pled and admitted all

- Judge started to change his mind on some conditions of the plea

- Polanski fled for fear of a raw deal after admitting to the world of what he did



SO if there was a trial, he would have a hard time rounding up fair and impartial jury. So he has 2 options:

- Flee

- Stand an unfair trial

So no trial, but his rights were still violated in that the judge accepted teh deal, Poalnski pled (he would not have absent the judge's acceptance of the deal) and now face a potentially long sentence for which he didn't sign on for or a trial where he can't have an impartial jury.

Of course you saw nothing wrong with the OJ trial in Nevada, so I see that you would see nothing wrong with Polanski's judge's actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote


SO if there was a trial, he would have a hard time rounding up fair and impartial jury. So he has 2 options:



There's wasn't going to be a trial - he already plead guilty. This was sentencing. The judge is not required to follow the recommendations by others, and sure as hell isn't going to care what the defendant expected.

BTW, I never claimed to be moderate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote


SO if there was a trial, he would have a hard time rounding up fair and impartial jury. So he has 2 options:



There's wasn't going to be a trial - he already plead guilty. This was sentencing. The judge is not required to follow the recommendations by others, and sure as hell isn't going to care what the defendant expected.

BTW, I never claimed to be moderate.





The judge's essential changing of his mind and refusal to accept psychiatric evals is relevant. It sounds like a totally fucked up plea deal anyway, he was charged with 5 counts, pled to 1, I think sodomy and then a 42-day psych eval ordered. The whole thing sounds AFU to begin with; why psych eval someone unless that is the crux of your basis for sentencing? The judge should have just sentenced and been done, he was obviously pissed that the psych eval didn't render what he wanted to hear.

On another related note, how bout those greaseballs: Reagan and Steinbrenner? Huh, what a great and sleezy team, one getting convicted for tax eveansion, the otehr greaser getting the former off teh hook 100% by abusing the powers of pardon. Oh yea, no comment, right?

>>>>>> BTW, I never claimed to be moderate.

Yea, you just say you're not RW....uh, where is there then? You're as RW as most of the RWers on here; quit the denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote


>>>>>> BTW, I never claimed to be moderate.

Yea, you just say you're not RW....uh, where is there then? You're as RW as most of the RWers on here; quit the denial.



I'll quit the 'denial' when you quit the bullshit. There are so many more options besides RW, moderate, and looney left. Intelligent people actually can be in multiple categories based on the issue. Morons can only be in one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote


I don't see what being a savant has to do with personal political decisions, which is the context of his post.

  Quote

There are so many more options besides RW, moderate, and looney left. Intelligent people actually can be in multiple categories based on the issue. Morons can only be in one.



But, yeah, I get it ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote


>>>>>> BTW, I never claimed to be moderate.

Yea, you just say you're not RW....uh, where is there then? You're as RW as most of the RWers on here; quit the denial.



I'll quit the 'denial' when you quit the bullshit. There are so many more options besides RW, moderate, and looney left. Intelligent people actually can be in multiple categories based on the issue. Morons can only be in one.



That's why I have voted Dem, Repub and indep (Perot), am mostly left but am pro-guns and anti-Aff Action (current version).

And you? You've voted for how many Dems as CIC, congress? As I thought, did you just define yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote

This guy pleaded guilty.



The way the dysfunctional judicial system is set up in the US, those who plead guilty are often not, and do it to save money and time.

The real criminals are the prosecutors with their plea bargains (otherwise known as extortion). This allows them to win the case and keep their worthless jobs, but then again "they" are worthless people.

Never personally involved with any of it, I know enough people who have and tend to side with Polanski.

Apparently the judge in the case was another one of those worthless fucks.



The judge was not, apparently, a "worthless fuck." Polanski describes a plea deal that he made. Judges are empowered to accept of decline a plea deal.

Perhaps you are unaware of the graphic details of what Polanski did to a thirteen year-old girl.

I will not post details of what that he did. But if you've got the stomach, read this:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

And he fled possible prison time. Yeah, poor Roman Polanski was soooo wronged.

Prosecutors at at the top of my legal shit list. But in this circumstance, Polanski should have done his time.



And so should have Steinbrenner, Libby and several others, but I don't hear the call for time there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

This guy pleaded guilty.



The way the dysfunctional judicial system is set up in the US, those who plead guilty are often not, and do it to save money and time.

The real criminals are the prosecutors with their plea bargains (otherwise known as extortion). This allows them to win the case and keep their worthless jobs, but then again "they" are worthless people.

Never personally involved with any of it, I know enough people who have and tend to side with Polanski.

Apparently the judge in the case was another one of those worthless fucks.


The judge was not, apparently, a "worthless fuck." Polanski describes a plea deal that he made. Judges are empowered to accept of decline a plea deal.

Perhaps you are unaware of the graphic details of what Polanski did to a thirteen year-old girl.

I will not post details of what that he did. But if you've got the stomach, read this:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

And he fled possible prison time. Yeah, poor Roman Polanski was soooo wronged.

Prosecutors at at the top of my legal shit list. But in this circumstance, Polanski should have done his time.


I actually took the time to read some of that...Polanski will get his...>:(>:(>:(

No he won't, he's as free as a bird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

I don't advocate what he supposedly did, but if you make a deal to avoid a trial, then it should be honored.



Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong:

Aren't most plea deals made with the guilty plea an exchange for reduction of charges (either in total number or degree of severity)?

And often with a recommendation of lower sentence from the prosecutor?

Polanski got six charges reduced to one (basically statutory rape). Although the prosecutor recommended no jail or prison time, the judge was still free to impose whatever sentence he saw fit.

The deal wasn't no prison time. The deal was six charges down to one.




I guess the judge is free to impose whatever he wants, but to go against a plea deal the prosecutor made stinks. You either go with the program or get the hell out.



It is the judge that presides over the courtroom, not the prosecutor...and I'm still amazed that you're making excuses for Polanski. There's no "supposedly"...even Polanski isn't saying that...



And I'm not surprised you're avoiding the pig we call Reagan pardoning the elitist pig we called Steinbrenner.

Or shall we talk GWB and Libby?

I see, some guys shoudl serve time, some skate based upon political affiliation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote

I'm still amazed that you're making excuses for Polanski. There's no "supposedly"...even Polanski isn't saying that...



I'm amazed that anyone can chastise someone for doing something wrong 30 years ago. But I guess there are those here that never did anything wrong and are first to judge others.

Nice to know there are still perfect human beings out there.



  Quote

Okay, so you think there should be an expiration date for hideous crimes against kids then? All someone has to do is hide-out for a couple decades and all is well?



There are statutes for most crimes except murder/conspiracy. So yes, a person can hide out in the same jurisdiction unless there is a trial in absetia of course.

  Quote

I'm not claiming perfection. I just happen to know first hand that there are consequences to actions.



Unless you are Steinbrenner, Libby, a cop who accidentally murders innocnent people and is real, real sorry, etc.

  Quote

Polanski was able to strike a bargain, and he pussied out. Now he's claiming his extradition is based on a lie....I take that to mean, his lie, when he said he'd follow a plea agreement (what he thinks might happen from a judge doesn't count as an excuse), and then skipped town.



The judge misled, disregarded prosecutor's wishes and psych eval, which was weird to order anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

The judge misled, disregarded prosecutor's wishes and psych eval, which was weird to order anyway.



Not weird at all. A psych eval is not an uncommon part of a post-plea/verdict, pre-sentence investigation in a sex crime, especially with a juvenile complainant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote


  Quote

Okay, so you think there should be an expiration date for hideous crimes against kids then? All someone has to do is hide-out for a couple decades and all is well?



There are statutes for most crimes except murder/conspiracy. So yes, a person can hide out in the same jurisdiction unless there is a trial in absetia of course.



Doesn't apply here - the statute of limitations is to the filing of charges.

> No he won't, he's as free as a bird.

So long as the bird doesn't leave French or $wiss soil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote


That's why I have voted Dem, Repub and indep (Perot), am mostly left but am pro-guns and anti-Aff Action (current version).

And you? You've voted for how many Dems as CIC, congress? As I thought, did you just define yourself?



I answered that question before, but since it didn't meet your preconceived definitions, you blanked it out.

But good to see the reminder that you're a Perot voter. Did you do it twice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote

The judge misled, disregarded prosecutor's wishes and psych eval, which was weird to order anyway.



Not weird at all. A psych eval is not an uncommon part of a post-plea/verdict, pre-sentence investigation in a sex crime, especially with a juvenile complainant.



In this case it was, I believe, as Polanski was known. I realize knowing someone publicoy isn't the same as knowing them psychiatrically, but the judge was looking for a reason to senten c him longer when he gave the inferrence that it would be wrapped up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote


  Quote

Okay, so you think there should be an expiration date for hideous crimes against kids then? All someone has to do is hide-out for a couple decades and all is well?



There are statutes for most crimes except murder/conspiracy. So yes, a person can hide out in the same jurisdiction unless there is a trial in absetia of course.



Doesn't apply here - the statute of limitations is to the filing of charges.

> No he won't, he's as free as a bird.

So long as the bird doesn't leave French or $wiss soil.



Hence the reason I stated if he was tried in absentia - pretty clear.

Hey, France or Switzerland with millions is a prison I could endure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote


That's why I have voted Dem, Repub and indep (Perot), am mostly left but am pro-guns and anti-Aff Action (current version).

And you? You've voted for how many Dems as CIC, congress? As I thought, did you just define yourself?



I answered that question before, but since it didn't meet your preconceived definitions, you blanked it out.

But good to see the reminder that you're a Perot voter. Did you do it twice?



Nope, just 92. So, list all the Dems you've voted for, or do you fit the definition you posted?

I didn't see your answer, shoot it again; we'll try not to let teh other conservatives see you try to slam the GOP criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote


I didn't see your answer, shoot it again; we'll try not to let teh other conservatives see you try to slam the GOP criminals.



That approach is just as silly as when the anti gays ask why we don't advocate for polygamy or bestiality.

So how long after 92 did you finally admit to yourself that Perot was fucking nuts? Clinton was a slam dunk choice in that election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

The judge misled, disregarded prosecutor's wishes and psych eval, which was weird to order anyway.



Not weird at all. A psych eval is not an uncommon part of a post-plea/verdict, pre-sentence investigation in a sex crime, especially with a juvenile complainant.



In this case it was, I believe, as Polanski was known. I realize knowing someone publicoy isn't the same as knowing them psychiatrically, but the judge was looking for a reason to senten c him longer when he gave the inferrence that it would be wrapped up.



You're not correct. A pre-sentence investigation is SOP in almost all felony cases, and a psych eval is SOP in most PSIs involving a sex crime - again, especially an adult-on-juvenile one. The fact that Polanski was well known, or for that matter most any other factor, would not trump this SOP. I learned the the nuts & bolts of how a PSI is prepared in 1978; and I've dealt with ... well, quite a few of them in the 32 years since then. I really am quite certain about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote


I didn't see your answer, shoot it again; we'll try not to let teh other conservatives see you try to slam the GOP criminals.



That approach is just as silly as when the anti gays ask why we don't advocate for polygamy or bestiality.

So how long after 92 did you finally admit to yourself that Perot was fucking nuts? Clinton was a slam dunk choice in that election.



So you won't be telling us what you think of fascist Ronnie pardoning Steinbrenner? Yea, it's fun to run-n-hide, huh?

I was in transition politically, I always voted Dem since 80, then for some reason blamed the recession on them and would have voted for GHWB, but Perot seemed like a good change from 2-party. I voted for Dole in 96 and then entered college. A year later realized that most of the BS since teh GD has come from the Republican Party and hacen't voted R since. I voted all R in 94 with the R takeover of congress.

So. list all the D's you've voted for, or I guess we can say you defined yourself earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

The judge misled, disregarded prosecutor's wishes and psych eval, which was weird to order anyway.



Not weird at all. A psych eval is not an uncommon part of a post-plea/verdict, pre-sentence investigation in a sex crime, especially with a juvenile complainant.



In this case it was, I believe, as Polanski was known. I realize knowing someone publicoy isn't the same as knowing them psychiatrically, but the judge was looking for a reason to senten c him longer when he gave the inferrence that it would be wrapped up.



You're not correct. A pre-sentence investigation is SOP in almost all felony cases, and a psych eval is SOP in most PSIs involving a sex crime - again, especially an adult-on-juvenile one. The fact that Polanski was well known, or for that matter most any other factor, would not trump this SOP. I learned the the nuts & bolts of how a PSI is prepared in 1978; and I've dealt with ... well, quite a few of them in the 32 years since then. I really am quite certain about this.



A 42-day inpatient eval? Come on, it's usually a session or 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0