I'd agree with this if Polanski had been treated by the courts the same way "we" might have been. Instead, he came up against a judge who had delusions of Hollywood grandeur, who choreographed both the DA and the defense attorney from the bench, who went back on a deal that saw Polanski serve time on a psych assessment in lieu of prison -- in short, the kind of situation that would normally get you riled up and castigating the system. Say what you will about what he did -- and there's not much that he did tha a reasonable person could be happy about -- but there was a reason, other than "I'm a celebrity, get me out of here," that he ran.
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 3:04 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > > I doubt anyone is saying that. But if you are familiar with the > > details of the case you know that it is not at all clear that Polanski > > knew, or reasonably should have known, that she was underage, that he > > settled a civil suit with her years ago, > > Again, (and I've spent way too much time on a high horse this year -- > I feel bowlegged) whatever punishment you or I would likely get, that > is what Polanski should get. Regardless of circumstance, the > punishment should be equal. > > > If Polanski had been willing to take a chance, the case most likely > > would have been resolved a long time ago satisfactorily anyway, but he > > (perhaps understandably) has never been able to trust the LA legal > > system. > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
