Interesting reads
-
@jegga said in Interesting reads:
@gollum I found it odd that she kept saying Polanski went on the run because the judge lied to him despite people giving her quite lengthy explanations as to why she was wrong .
Yeah. I chuckled at that too, welcome to the internet eh, where people who have "done the research" know more about the case than the people in the actual case, apparently. It is sureal the number of people telling her she had the facts wrong.
-
@gollum said in Interesting reads:
@antipodean
A surprisingly high number of folks on here bring it up, and categorically state an opinion on it. So I'm assuming have an interst in the case.Yeah, you already said that. It doesn't tell me why it's a good read.
So having the actual victim explain her position is a good read.
Which would be..?
-
Seriously? just read the fricking thing if you are interested in the case. Or don't read it if you aren't
Like literally every single read on this thread...
-
-
@jegga said in Interesting reads:
@gollum I found it odd that she kept saying Polanski went on the run because the judge lied to him despite people giving her quite lengthy explanations as to why she was wrong .
The forgiveness she's found is no doubt healthy for her emotional and mental state, but she really does come over as an apologist/ advocate for her attacker. Like a strange Stockholm syndrome.
@gollum said in Interesting reads:
@jegga said in Interesting reads:
@gollum I found it odd that she kept saying Polanski went on the run because the judge lied to him despite people giving her quite lengthy explanations as to why she was wrong .
Yeah. I chuckled at that too, welcome to the internet eh, where people who have "done the research" know more about the case than the people in the actual case, apparently. It is sureal the number of people telling her she had the facts wrong.
Because the victim of a crime is the authority on the applicable statute?
-
@antipodean said in Interesting reads:
@jegga said in Interesting reads:
@gollum I found it odd that she kept saying Polanski went on the run because the judge lied to him despite people giving her quite lengthy explanations as to why she was wrong .
The forgiveness she's found is no doubt healthy for her emotional and mental state, but she really does come over as an apologist/ advocate for her attacker. Like a strange Stockholm syndrome.
@gollum said in Interesting reads:
@jegga said in Interesting reads:
@gollum I found it odd that she kept saying Polanski went on the run because the judge lied to him despite people giving her quite lengthy explanations as to why she was wrong .
Yeah. I chuckled at that too, welcome to the internet eh, where people who have "done the research" know more about the case than the people in the actual case, apparently. It is sureal the number of people telling her she had the facts wrong.
Because the victim of a crime is the authority on the applicable statute?
Agree it's part of helping her move on , I didn't realise his apologists had built up such a myth about why he did a runner . It seems like she's bought into it too as a coping mechanism even in the face of people quoting large chunks of the law to show why she is wrong.
-
@jegga said in Interesting reads:
@gollum calm down , I never said it wasn't interesting. I think it's pretty odd she empathises with Polanski and see the judge as the villain though.
To me it read that Polanski (to her) made a big mistake & was a shitty guy for doing that. But what happened next was out of all proportion & has been distorted WAY beyond what it was. She also has an attitude that this - guys in power sexually abusing kids, was 100% the norm then & still is in Hollywood, and thats horrific, but its reality, so crucifying Polanksi & destroying her life to do so is almost worse. And anyone going "oh my god! Polanski must pay!!" & going on a crusade is a hypocrite (to her) as can they possibly not know this is 1 of thousands? Where are they in those cases?
She points out that she has more of an issue with the people who had no idea what happened but blew it up - thus causing her endless trauma, than she does with Polanski. With a judge who agreed a deal (a situation that is almost never renegged on - literally never) but then for whatever reason switched. I can buy that. Its less she now likes Polanski its more she sees & can judge what he did & what others have done in response & personally can see which ones caused her the most trauma & damage.
She only empathises with Polanski in that, like her, this event was drawn out to define & destroy both their lives by people who very much did not have justice for her at the forefront of their minds.
She doesn't in any way empathise with him re what he did to her.
This case should have been a gateway to Hollywood going "ok this shit is happening & we need to stop" instead it became "we are all good, we just need to get Polanski". And her life being thrown under the bus was just collateral.
-
@gollum said in Interesting reads:
@jegga said in Interesting reads:
@gollum calm down , I never said it wasn't interesting. I think it's pretty odd she empathises with Polanski and see the judge as the villain though.
To me it read that Polanski (to her) made a big mistake & was a shitty guy for doing that. But what happened next was out of all proportion & has been distorted WAY beyond what it was. She also has an attitude that this - guys in power sexually abusing kids, was 100% the norm then & still is in Hollywood, and thats horrific, but its reality, so crucifying Polanksi & destroying her life to do so is almost worse. And anyone going "oh my god! Polanski must pay!!" & going on a crusade is a hypocrite (to her) as can they possibly not know this is 1 of thousands? Where are they in those cases?
So despite her allegation and the fact he absconded, we should ignore it? Or we should ignore all rape cases in future because not all of them are reported?
She points out that she has more of an issue with the people who had no idea what happened but blew it up - thus causing her endless trauma, than she does with Polanski. With a judge who agreed a deal (a situation that is almost never renegged on - literally never) but then for whatever reason switched. I can buy that. Its less she now likes Polanski its more she sees & can judge what he did & what others have done in response & personally can see which ones caused her the most trauma & damage.
Is the word almost figurative or literal as well? Are you now an expert in plea bargaining in California?
She only empathises with Polanski in that, like her, this event was drawn out to define & destroy both their lives by people who very much did not have justice for her at the forefront of their minds.
Strange claim to make; that the judge didn't have justice 'at the forefront of' his mind.
This case should have been a gateway to Hollywood going "ok this shit is happening & we need to stop" instead it became "we are all good, we just need to get Polanski". And her life being thrown under the bus was just collateral.
Ahh no. The case is about the allegation. It's not a witch hunt into Hollywood. You certainly don't get to complain that people are using it to go after Polanski and then say it should have been used to go after everyone, McCarthy style.
-
@gollum agree with all of that apart from the last part, when he was arrested in 2009 a decent chunk of Hollywood got behind him
That foxs take on it , you might think that's what I expect fox to say about Hollywood liberals and then you read Harvey Weinstein
-
@antipodean a doco was made about the judge, he had the temerity to think 42 days in jail wasn't enough for drugging and raping a 13 year old........ I mean he was using the case as a way of boosting his profile and besides his partner was 30 years younger than him so who is he to point the finger? Well the last part is what the doco alleges , it's hard to take someone like Meryl Streep seriously when she says Hollywood is vilified when they behave like this.
Anyway back to thread topic and kind of related to the AMA since it goes into justice and sentencing
-
No, the case should have been prosecuted as is & he should have done the agreed time - which the victim seems on board with. How many other cases do you get the victim going "yep, that punishment is OK with me".
That should then have led to a realisation that this happened / happens a huge amount in hollywood & an open discussion about it - and those crimes punished at the same level. I want Polanski punished for the crime he committed, not for the crime you & others on the net think he committed. And then I want others who were committing the same crime punished at the same level.
Instead it became a 1 man witch hunt and it almost became "Hollywood is fine, nothing to see here, we just need to send Polanski for jail forever & everything is good". Weinstein is not arguing Polanksi is innocent, he is arguing Polanski has been punished for what he did at a level equal to what he did. Others want him punished more. Tho notably not the victim.
@antipodean said in Interesting reads:
Are you now an expert in plea bargaining in California?
Are you? The same way you were an expert on US immigration law?
-
@gollum said in Interesting reads:
No, the case should have been prosecuted as is & he should have done the agreed time - which the victim seems on board with. How many other cases do you get the victim going "yep, that punishment is OK with me".
The victim's wishes are irrelevant. That way we also get to avoid retribution in sentencing.
That should then have led to a realisation that this happened / happens a huge amount in hollywood & an open discussion about it - and those crimes punished at the same level. I want Polanski punished for the crime he committed, not for the crime you & others on the net think he committed. And then I want others who were committing the same crime punished at the same level.
Well according to the Grand Jury transcript he provided alcohol and quaaludes to a 13-year-old and then raped her orally, vaginally and anally. What crime do you think he committed? One that six weeks are sufficient?
@antipodean said in Interesting reads:
Are you now an expert in plea bargaining in California?
Are you? The same way you were an expert on US immigration law?
I didn't claim to be, in either example. But we can safely deduce that your attempt at diversion neatly sums up your competence to make your assertion.
-
@jegga INteresting. Particularly this bit:
Back at their base, Perez asked Siatta to explain his shot. “Were you sighted on that guy?” he said.
Siatta, he said, answered, “Yes.”
“He told me he wanted to feel what it was like to kill someone,” Perez later recalled.
Perez was angry and concerned. He reported the incident to Kurtz, and the company began investigating Siatta. Kurtz, too, was disturbed. He sensed trouble. Villagers had been gathering at the gate, complaining about every mistake Fox Company made. Kurtz expected they would soon arrive with a body.
He warned Siatta that he stood to face charges. “We’ll see how this plays out for you, bud,” he told him. Kurtz took away his rifle and suspended him from patrols. Siatta was near tears. Perez supported the lieutenant’s position and said he wondered about Siatta’s suitability for war. “There is a difference between wanting to kill a person and killing the right person,” he said. “Our concern was that Siatta would fall into the trap of killing for pleasure, which he had the ability to do.”
Years later, the shot remains a point of contention. Siatta said he understood the reprimand but steadfastly defends his actions. “This is one of the stressors of being a designated marksman,” he told me. “You have to make that call. That guy was bad news. That was a shady guy.” In the same circumstance, he said, he would take the shot again. “You could save your buddies’ lives,” he said, “at the expense of your own ass.” Perez said these answers are unacceptable. “He can say the guy looked shady, but that doesn’t give you the right to shoot him,” he said. “If I let my squad shoot everyone who was shady, we could have killed an entire village.”Reminds me of some dialogue from a Jack Reacher novel:
There are four types of people who join the military. For some, it's a family trade. Others are patriots, eager to serve. Next, you have those who just need a job. Then there's the kind who want a legal means of killing other people.
Based on my experience, that's true. I'd have had Siatta charged based on Perez's testimony.
My feelings on the epidemic of PTSD probably belongs in a different thread.
-
@antipodean you could post them on the mental health thread.
Interview with Rachel Dolezal, it's hard to be sympathetic towards her .
-
And a video that goes a bit further explaining an aspect of the article.
http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/how-wolves-change-rivers/