<style> #emf p{margin:0; padding:0;} </style>
<!-- close mainstory --> <table id="documentcontainer" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td id="prevtab">
</td> <td id="document"> <!-- document is here -->
</td></tr></tbody></table>"I was sitting in the car and I was crying..."
13 year old gets drugged with multiple drugs by a 40+ year old man,
gets raped and sodomized,
and is sitting there crying afterward, but idiot Preussen says:
"She did not mention that she was injured in any way or felt terrible or anything"
fucking dumb ass.
CLUE: Do you think her actions were in any way influenced by the fact
that she had alcohol and quaaludes in the system?
hno:Zit, you obviously cannot or don't want to understand my point. Insults are still the only thing you are good at, apparently. You even ignore most of my arguments and reply to just one of them.
Let me repeat it once more, just for you - I'm not at all saying what Polanski did was okay.
But even by the victim's own testimony Polanski did not break any actual physical resistance. And she herself described that after the act she went into the bathroom, put on her dress, combed her hair, walks into the next room where she goes around a divider to greet another woman and then walks to Polanski's car where she waits more than 10 minutes for him. According to her testimomy she may have cried in the car, but apparently not before, and she mentions no reaction from Polanski so she apparently wasn't exactly lost in tears. And it's also no proof for a rape as it's not unusual for a woman to cry even after having had consensual sex when she realises afterwards that it might not have been the right thing to have done.
And don't forget this is only the girl's version, do we have Polanski's story somewhere?
I admit that I don't know exactly what effect quaaludes and alcohol have but as far as I know it is not incapacitating. The girl had previous experiences with sex and alcohol and wanted to shoot photos for magazines, so she obviously was no naive child.
All I'm saying is that the only thing that seems to be obvious is that Polanski slept with a girl he must have known was younger than 18 and that he used alcohol and probably part of a quaalude to make the girl more willing. For this he should be punished. But everyone who paints Polanski as a monster who drugged and then raped and sodomised a harmless cute little girlie jump to conclusions that are by no means justified by what little evidence is known to us. You simply have no case for this, Zit, and you know it, otherwise you probably would resort to quite so many insults.
Let me repeat it once more, just for you - I'm not at all saying what Polanski did was okay.
But even by the victim's own testimony Polanski did not break any actual physical resistance. And she herself described that after the act she went into the bathroom, put on her dress, combed her hair, walks into the next room where she goes around a divider to greet another woman and then walks to Polanski's car where she waits more than 10 minutes for him. According to her testimomy she may have cried in the car, but apparently not before, and she mentions no reaction from Polanski so she apparently wasn't exactly lost in tears. And it's also no proof for a rape as it's not unusual for a woman to cry even after having had consensual sex when she realises afterwards that it might not have been the right thing to have done.
And don't forget this is only the girl's version, do we have Polanski's story somewhere?
I admit that I don't know exactly what effect quaaludes and alcohol have but as far as I know it is not incapacitating. The girl had previous experiences with sex and alcohol and wanted to shoot photos for magazines, so she obviously was no naive child.
All I'm saying is that the only thing that seems to be obvious is that Polanski slept with a girl he must have known was younger than 18 and that he used alcohol and probably part of a quaalude to make the girl more willing. For this he should be punished. But everyone who paints Polanski as a monster who drugged and then raped and sodomised a harmless cute little girlie jump to conclusions that are by no means justified by what little evidence is known to us. You simply have no case for this, Zit, and you know it, otherwise you probably would resort to quite so many insults.
I ignore your points? ROFL. You have no points. Your main argument
makes no sense. You say that his punishment should be mitigated by
the fact that she didn't offer much resistance, and/or didn't seem
too upset.
#1. What you said is a lie anyway, because according to her testimony
she did offer some resistance, and I already pointed out that your
other statement is another lie, because she was crying in the car
afterward.
#2. The *reason* she didn't offer more resistance was because she
was under the influence of alcohol and quaaludes.
It's very simple and easy to understand.
Yes, please do that.
And while you're at it, would you care to explain why you think it's correct to judge an alleged criminal's actions solely by the account of the victim (and even construing that account beyond what was actually said)? I think even in America this is not "due process of law".
For the umpteenth time: I do not defend Polanski, I only hold that he has a right to be punished only for what actually happened.
And while you're at it, would you care to explain why you think it's correct to judge an alleged criminal's actions solely by the account of the victim (and even construing that account beyond what was actually said)? I think even in America this is not "due process of law".
For the umpteenth time: I do not defend Polanski, I only hold that he has a right to be punished only for what actually happened.
somebody posted somewhere that i should reply to this thread...ok
Whats really sick here is that the President of the U.S. has a "safe schools' czar who would have told her had she brought the complaint to him as a counselor to "next time use a condom" ..........Pretty pathetic cocksucker aint he?
Whats really sick here is that the President of the U.S. has a "safe schools' czar who would have told her had she brought the complaint to him as a counselor to "next time use a condom" ..........Pretty pathetic cocksucker aint he?
Not sure what mindlessly flaming means, but if the US doesn't appeal to you, even with our problems, we must be doing something right. However, there must be something that draws you to the US, considering you come to this, US dominated forum, to debate US dominated topics. What, no forums in Germany?
Interesting that you choose to reply to my post without even attempting to adress the questions I asked you. So I take it you have nothing to back up your allegations with. Not that I'm surprised...
As to the things you mentioned:
Of course we have forums in Germany. But unlike many Americans we Germans know that there is more in the world (and especially in the web) than our home country. I stumbled onto this forum some years ago when I did some experiments with sportsbetting. I was mostly disappointed in what I hoped to find here but still come back from time to time because the politics forum provides a lot of (mostly unintended)entertainment.
Actually it was a discussion about Polanski's case on a German forum that made me enter this thread. I had hoped to find some additional information but, as I should have expected, I found more hate than common sense.
As to "flaming", this term is used in German forums to describe the act of a poster insulting/deriding another poster without providing any arguments. I assumed it has the same meaning in English. If it doesn't then I'm sorry for being unclear.
Preussen's Lies so far in this thread:
1. When a 40+ year old man drugs a 13 year old with alcohol and quaaludes, and then fucks her vaginally
and up the ass, "it is not rape, but seduction"
2. Since this is not a *typcial* rape case, "it's not correct to use such language as happened in this thread" WTF?
3. "she did not mind posing nude for him" - From the deposition this is clearly not the case
4. "she let him touch and later penetrate her apparently without any physical resistance" - From the deposition
this is clearly not the case, AND even if she didn't give physical resistance, she was fucking drugged!!
5. "it does not seem to have hurt or traumatized her much" - From the deposition this is clearly not the case
6. "from what I read it seems *unlikely* that Polanksi could have known the girl was only 13" - There is absolutely
nothing in the deposition that leads one to believe that this is true
7. "what I know so far is only enough for a relatively "mild" case of statutory rape." - Statutory rape does not
apply when one person has been drugged to the point of: "barely remembering anything that happened"
1. When a 40+ year old man drugs a 13 year old with alcohol and quaaludes, and then fucks her vaginally
and up the ass, "it is not rape, but seduction"
2. Since this is not a *typcial* rape case, "it's not correct to use such language as happened in this thread" WTF?
3. "she did not mind posing nude for him" - From the deposition this is clearly not the case
4. "she let him touch and later penetrate her apparently without any physical resistance" - From the deposition
this is clearly not the case, AND even if she didn't give physical resistance, she was fucking drugged!!
5. "it does not seem to have hurt or traumatized her much" - From the deposition this is clearly not the case
6. "from what I read it seems *unlikely* that Polanksi could have known the girl was only 13" - There is absolutely
nothing in the deposition that leads one to believe that this is true
7. "what I know so far is only enough for a relatively "mild" case of statutory rape." - Statutory rape does not
apply when one person has been drugged to the point of: "barely remembering anything that happened"
Zit, prove that some champagne and less than one half of a quaalude pill decisively impair a girl's will and ability to resist the sexual advances of a man. If you can, then I will agree with you that it was rape. But so far you have not. Do you have any experiences with alcohol and quaaludes? I don't, but as far as I know the effect is by no means incapacitating.
So you will have to bring a lot more to call the point I was making a "lie".
Apart from the fact that this is rather an opinion instead of a stated fact and therefore can per definitionem not be a lie, "WTF" is very little in the way of a counter-argument, is it? Again, it will need a lot more than this to justify calling me a liar.
You think so? Do you care to point out the respective passages in the testimony or are we to just believe your word? For example she did not mention any kind of reserve when he asked her to pose topless. Even if she really thought her breast would not be on the photos posing topless when asked to without asking questions is not exactly what your typical shy 13-year old girl would have done. Also, she had no reserves to go naked into the jacuzzi and let Polanski shoot photos there. So where did I lie?
As to the "drugged" part, see point 1. As to the physical resistance, okay, I take back the "without any" and replace it with (in her words) "a little bit but not really". Doesn't change my point a lot, does it?
Again you don't even try substantiate your assertion. The girl does not mention one single time that she felt any pain or was feeling terrible when Polanski took her. Also she seemed to act quite normal after Polanski was finished with her. She may have cried when waiting in Polanski's car, but that alone does not prove anything. Many girls would cry when they realised they had been used by a man even when there was no rape. Actually I have never heard from a rape victim that got into the rapist's car and wait for him to drive her home (but I do admit that my knowledge in this are is not that good).
Even if you were right then the mere fact that my assertion was not sufficiently substantiated would be no proof that it's wrong, so you have no right to call it a lie, correct?
And I do believe that when you know that the girl was already sexually active, was interested in shooting Vogue-like photos and that Polanski, while apparently not averse to sex with girls younger than 18, has to my knowledge never shown an interest in child-like girls, it does not take a great stretch of imagination to assume that she probbaly was (at least physically) developed beyond her age.
I did already say in this thread that she is unlikely to have looked like 18.
For "barely remembering what has happened" the girl gives a rather long and detailed account of what happened. I especially took not of the conversation she had with Polanski when he had already entered her about whether she was on the pill and when she had last had her period. I really cannot imagine such a conversation to take place when the victim is either drugged to a state of helplessness or so terrified of the rapists that she doesn't dare to resist.
And never forget, we are only talking about the account of the victim. Without any additional evidence there is no proof whatsoever that what she says is the truth.
Is this all you have, Zit? I hope in the real word you are a little more careful calling another person a liar when you have nothing to back it up. some people take this personally, and libel can get expensive.
Zit, prove that some champagne and less than one half of a quaalude pill decisively impair a girl's will and ability to resist the sexual advances of a man. If you can, then I will agree with you that it was rape. But so far you have not. Do you have any experiences with alcohol and quaaludes? I don't, but as far as I know the effect is by no means incapacitating.
So you will have to bring a lot more to call the point I was making a "lie".
Apart from the fact that this is rather an opinion instead of a stated fact and therefore can per definitionem not be a lie, "WTF" is very little in the way of a counter-argument, is it? Again, it will need a lot more than this to justify calling me a liar.
You think so? Do you care to point out the respective passages in the testimony or are we to just believe your word? For example she did not mention any kind of reserve when he asked her to pose topless. Even if she really thought her breast would not be on the photos posing topless when asked to without asking questions is not exactly what your typical shy 13-year old girl would have done. Also, she had no reserves to go naked into the jacuzzi and let Polanski shoot photos there. So where did I lie?
As to the "drugged" part, see point 1. As to the physical resistance, okay, I take back the "without any" and replace it with (in her words) "a little bit but not really". Doesn't change my point a lot, does it?
Again you don't even try substantiate your assertion. The girl does not mention one single time that she felt any pain or was feeling terrible when Polanski took her. Also she seemed to act quite normal after Polanski was finished with her. She may have cried when waiting in Polanski's car, but that alone does not prove anything. Many girls would cry when they realised they had been used by a man even when there was no rape. Actually I have never heard from a rape victim that got into the rapist's car and wait for him to drive her home (but I do admit that my knowledge in this are is not that good).
Even if you were right then the mere fact that my assertion was not sufficiently substantiated would be no proof that it's wrong, so you have no right to call it a lie, correct?
And I do believe that when you know that the girl was already sexually active, was interested in shooting Vogue-like photos and that Polanski, while apparently not averse to sex with girls younger than 18, has to my knowledge never shown an interest in child-like girls, it does not take a great stretch of imagination to assume that she probbaly was (at least physically) developed beyond her age.
I did already say in this thread that she is unlikely to have looked like 18.
For "barely remembering what has happened" the girl gives a rather long and detailed account of what happened. I especially took not of the conversation she had with Polanski when he had already entered her about whether she was on the pill and when she had last had her period. I really cannot imagine such a conversation to take place when the victim is either drugged to a state of helplessness or so terrified of the rapists that she doesn't dare to resist.
And never forget, we are only talking about the account of the victim. Without any additional evidence there is no proof whatsoever that what she says is the truth.
Is this all you have, Zit? I hope in the real word you are a little more careful calling another person a liar when you have nothing to back it up. some people take this personally, and libel can get expensive.
I stand by all 7 points.
Now you're telling me the onus is on me to prove that alcohol and
quaaludes affect a 13 year old girl? I repeat, you're a fucking idiot.
So you have nothing substantial at all to reply? My, is this weak, Zit, even for you.
And yes, if you want to call me a liar you have to prove me wrong. And the question is not whether alcohol and quaaludes affected the girl (I have never disputed that) but whether it affected her to an extent that made her lose control. There's no proof for that (actually without any additional evidence the girl's testimony would not even be sufficient proof that she did indeed consume alcohol and part of a quaalude if Polanski chose to dispute this).
Zit, we already know that you are better at insulting people than at sensible argumentation, you don't have to show this time and again...
