|
Post by dirtypillows on Apr 28, 2019 21:01:06 GMT
why “was”? he is still alive. and not really qualify as an outright bad a person in my book from what i know cannot even comprehend why someone would want to in any way ask this question, to compare Manson and Polanski. I know, Nora. My awkward attempt at trying to get at something. I have always believed that RP was a victim. He was not only a victim of the Holocaust (lost mother and sisters) AND lost his wife and unborn son to extreme violence. But so many people will only focus on his statutory rape conviction. I don't believe it. I don't trust these people and I don't believe them. Having sex with a minor is upsetting and it is wrong to the extent that it robs the young person of the innocent and trusting nature that accompanies (and SHOULD accompany) youth. People are naturally protective towards their own experience as a young person, and child molesters make them see red. I get that. But, first - I don't believe that Samantha Geimer was totally innocent, re: Lolita, and second - Roman Polanski suffered so much extreme trauma in his life and I think sometimes a free pass is warranted. And if anybody deserves this special consideration, it is Roman Polanski. But people are irrational sheep and never mind the awful things that happened to RP, no, never mind that his unborn child was practically cut out of the mother's stomach, no, what RP did to SG was much, much worse. Never mind the Holocaust. I want to rock their misplaced focus. So, that's what this is about, for me. Toasted Cheese has been going to bat for me on this one for a long time. He has been a good friend!
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Apr 28, 2019 21:12:22 GMT
Posters here (some of y'all at least) are so odd. Grown ass adult women that go to a hotel room at 3 am for an "audition" and then suck a dick and then years later cry about it are somehow victims. A CHILD of 12 who is given drugs and booze and then raped by Polanski is not only NOT a victim in the eyes of the more idiotic posters but more to blame somehow than creepy child rapist Roman. White folks (some of them) are terrifying in their lack of compassion and bat shit crazy ideas of morality. #whitefolksarescary #notallwhitefolkstho #streamamovieinsteadofrapingachild I love Polanski's movies but he is a huge pile of shit as a person. Apparently many of y'all don't understand this FACT but it's WRONG to have sex with children. It's WRONG to have sex with a person of any age that is drunk out of their minds. Who needs to be told these things? Sociopaths. And for some of you to actually think Polanski is a victim here. Loathsome and proves my suspicion that some here want to rape children and be given a free pass. Manson despite never actually murdering anyone is worse than pedo Polanski tho. Who has ever said they were not moved by the tragedy of what happened to Sharon Tate? Provide a link to someone on this site saying that. It's horrifying and heart breaking. Still doesn't give her husband a free pass to rape kids tho. So, do you believe in showing mercy and forgiveness to somebody whom you personally don't like? I agree that I've never read a post that actually said that what happened to Sharon Tate and unborn Stephen was not horrible and tragic. So, you are right about that. But many people have posted that Roman Polanski is a terrible person and for reasons that I can only speculate, the fact that he WAS A VICTIM of both the HOLOCAUST and Charles Manson "family" seems to slide right past their radar. And I do believe that these posters are more focused on and more outraged by what Polanski did in 1977 then everything that came before, and this is due to their own tunnel vision and personal issues. Man's capacity to judge his fellow man is really on gross display here, and I think it's a terrible, terrible shame. I really think it's akin to blood lust. I do think that mercy and compassion and forgiveness should be afforded to people - and this is my own judgment call here, and I know this is a person to person thing - and I think Roman Polanski is one person who definitely qualifies for the so-called "free pass" program. Put yourself in his shoes, if you have the courage and the heart to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 29, 2019 10:32:45 GMT
Polanski knowingly committed a crime and should have accepted his punishment but Manson easily wins this contest.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 29, 2019 20:53:06 GMT
Polanski knowingly committed a crime and should have accepted his punishment but Manson easily wins this contest. What punishment should he have accepted? He pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor because he refused to plead guilty to the rape charges. Had it gone to trial, the evidence would not have held up too strongly. The DA knew this and it saved a lot of embarrassment for all involved, including the legally unethical judge presiding over the case. Under a plea deal, Polanski was sentenced 90 days incarceration. He spent around 42 days under psychiatric valuation and they let him go. Why? They already had him locked up.
So why did he run? Why doesn’t he want to return? He should have stayed because the people who supported and championed him and financed his films would still have done the same after he came out of prison, wouldn’t they?
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 30, 2019 8:26:06 GMT
So why did he run? Why doesn’t he want to return? He should have stayed because the people who supported and championed him and financed his films would still have done the same after he came out of prison, wouldn’t they? He ran because he was released before his final sentencing trial. He had had enough of the bulls<>t games they were playing. What do you think would have happened if he didn't abscond? Rittenband's behavior as a judge could have had him disbarred. Polanski did him a favor. I wouldn't be surprised if he was given some clandestine passage to leave. There was corruption from all parties involved. He was apparently going to be deported at Rittenband's behest anyway. Rittenband also claimed he was going to sentence him to 50yrs prison as well, which does appear absurd.
wiki linkIf Polanski's plea deal was able to be over-turned after the fact, which was the main ethical legality issue with Rittenband, could Polanski change his plea then to not guilty? If Polanski went back to the States, all they could really nab him for is perverting the course of justice. The guilty plea he entered and the deal arranged would still stand. They do not really want him back, because of the can of worms it will open. Geimer was not a traumatized victim and was not a good witness due to her alleged previous sexual exploits with older men. All she had in her favor in the eyes of the law was her young age. She also had a bf at the time who was an adult, 19. She has forgiven Polanski, she kept in friendly touch with him—her vile rapist— and she wants him exonerated and for very good reason. The thing that I am most curious about and only Polanski would know this and it doesn't appear to have been mentioned in what I have read; did he know Geimer's real age? Did he ask her how old she was? Did her mother at any stage tell Polanski how old she was? How old did Geimer tell Polanski she was?
All the more reason to stay. The sentence would have been overturned and I very much doubt he’d have gotten 50 years.
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Apr 30, 2019 18:50:30 GMT
I haven't taken anyone's word about either of them.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jun 13, 2019 18:00:46 GMT
why “was”? he is still alive. and not really qualify as an outright bad a person in my book from what i know cannot even comprehend why someone would want to in any way ask this question, to compare Manson and Polanski. Well if Polanski tried to get you drunk, photograph you naked and anally rape you when you were thirteen you might feel differently.
But I still said Manson. Polanski was trying to get some ass, but Mansons actions led to murders.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jun 13, 2019 20:13:04 GMT
Basically they're both scumbags, but for the sake of this thread we're choosing which is MORE scumbaggy. Manson. But they're both scumbags.
|
|
|
Post by cryptoflovecraft on Jun 13, 2019 21:56:30 GMT
I think Charlie was just a misunderstood philosopher-cum-folk musician; he never ordered anyone to be murdered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 7:53:00 GMT
Charles Manson. From what I heard he was a massive hypocrite who was originally a peace loving hippie that didn't like things like things like fame, power and money 'cause he believed they divided people and everybody should be equal but when his music career flopped despite having the help of Dennis Wilson from the Beach Boys fame, power and money was all he cared about and it was why he got people to kill for him. Other than him I think Henry Lee Lucas is probably one of the worst human beings of all time and I read he killed over 1000 people moving from town to town and that is more than any terrorist or mass shooter in history and is insane.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 15, 2019 20:57:26 GMT
Charles Manson. From what I heard he was a massive hypocrite who was originally a peace loving hippie that didn't like things like things like fame, power and money 'cause he believed they divided people and everybody should be equal but when his music career flopped despite having the help of Dennis Wilson from the Beach Boys fame, power and money was all he cared about and it was why he got people to kill for him. Other than him I think Henry Lee Lucas is probably one of the worst human beings of all time and I read he killed over 1000 people moving from town to town and that is more than any terrorist or mass shooter in history and is insane. Actually, there are questions about his guilt in many of the killings he confessed to. www.murderpedia.org/male.L/l/lucas-henry-lee.htmThis topic - who is the worst, should being a victim give a perpetrator a 'free pass' - was a subject of heated argument on the old IMDb "Criminal Minds" board. Some posters were sympathetic to killers that had been abused or victimized in some way. Other posters weren't sympathetic, citing that becoming a perpetrator was still a choice. Not all victims become abusers. The argument was never totally settled. Honestly, I think every case needs to be evaluated separately, and no general conclusion can be made. Behavioral analysis operates on the theory that there are four components to a person's behavior - genetics, brain chemistry, psychology and environment. And each individual is on a unique point in this spectrum. Edit: While the TV series "Criminal Minds" is a fictional work, it is based on the very real-life Behavioral Analysis Unit of the FBI. Former FBI agents acted as consultants on the show, and many episodes were variations on actual, documented serial killers. Many references were made to those actual serial killers, and the crimes they committed.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 16, 2019 3:11:00 GMT
Actually, there are questions about his guilt in many of the killings he confessed to. www.murderpedia.org/male.L/l/lucas-henry-lee.htmThis topic - who is the worst, should being a victim give a perpetrator a 'free pass' - was a subject of heated argument on the old IMDb "Criminal Minds" board. Some posters were sympathetic to killers that had been abused or victimized in some way. Other posters weren't sympathetic, citing that becoming a perpetrator was still a choice. Not all victims become abusers. The argument was never totally settled. Honestly, I think every case needs to be evaluated separately, and no general conclusion can be made. Behavioral analysis operates on the theory that there are four components to a person's behavior - genetics, brain chemistry, psychology and environment. And each individual is on a unique point in this spectrum. Edit: While the TV series "Criminal Minds" is a fictional work, it is based on the very real-life Behavioral Analysis Unit of the FBI. Former FBI agents acted as consultants on the show, and many episodes were variations on actual, documented serial killers. Many references were made to those actual serial killers, and the crimes they committed. Genetics and brain chemistry are biological\physiological. That is the package the person comes with. The psychology is an intangible and is largely affected by environmental conditioning. This is what determines mind, or state of mind. The attitude and behavior of a person is largely due to what is conditioned onto them.
For someone like Manson, he was pretty much f<>ed up right from the start with extreme dysfunction. Polanski suffered and survived through the holocaust as a child\youth. While dysfunction was raging around him, he would have been caught up in shared, collective community support from his own people all put into the same box. The difference also, Polanski didn't grow up to be a psychotic, so this is perhaps not a great compare, apart from the fact that they are connected by the abhorrent and tragic events his wife, his almost about to be birthed newborn son and friends suffered at the hands of Manson's cult. Polanski dipping his wick where he shouldn't have pales in comparison to all that went before.
Actually, the term is a psychopath, and they are born without the ability to have empathy. So are sociopaths. Whether or not they become criminals depends on their environment. Are you familiar with the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual 5? This sort of thing is clearly outlined, and is considered the standard in psychology, especially forensic psychology. The World Health Organization has a similar manual, and there are subtle differences. But the DSM 5 is the standard in the US. It is used by law enforcement to develop a 'profile' of a criminal, based on behavior and evidence. It is a separate area of study in the law enforcement community. Your favorite "homicidal maniac", Norman, was loosely based on the actual psychopathology of serial murderer Ed Gein. Gein had an Oedipal complex which developed in the years he nursed his paralyzed mother back from a stroke. After she died, his obsession compelled him to dig up corpses of women who resembled his mother. So persistent was his desire to resurrect his dead mother that he actually dressed in female suits fashioned from human skin. Eventually, Gein grew unhappy with the flesh of dead bodies, which had a tendency to dry and crack, so he shifted his focus to live victims, whose bodies he could better preserve. It is an interesting area of research.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jun 16, 2019 5:16:19 GMT
I just got done listening to "Twelve Thirty", by The Mamas and Papas, and every time I do listen to I think of Sharon Tate and it makes me sad and it chills me to the bone. I have always liked Roman Polanski, never thought he was a bad person, not by a long shot, and I have brought the topic up before, though never perhaps in such a direct way. I have read posts here that have judged and demonized RP and I have never been able to wrap my head around such rabid judgment and unforgiving attitude. And while RP seems to trigger a lot of people, much of the time I think they were unmoved by the tragedy of Sharon Tate. There is something to that. Hence, the poll... Anyway, I voted for Susan Denise Atkins because she was the one who actually killed Sharon, and she has always scared the hell out of me. Actually, when you think about it, this question & poll, would be almost like asking who was worse between Kenneth Parnell & Carey Stayner.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 16, 2019 10:47:50 GMT
Actually, the term is a psychopath, and they are born without the ability to have empathy. So are sociopaths. Whether or not they become criminals depends on their environment. Are you familiar with the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual 5? This sort of thing is clearly outlined, and is considered the standard in psychology, especially forensic psychology. The World Health Organization has a similar manual, and there are subtle differences. But the DSM 5 is the standard in the US. It is used by law enforcement to develop a 'profile' of a criminal, based on behavior and evidence. It is a separate area of study in the law enforcement community. Your favorite "homicidal maniac", Norman, was loosely based on the actual psychopathology of serial murderer Ed Gein. Gein had an Oedipal complex which developed in the years he nursed his paralyzed mother back from a stroke. After she died, his obsession compelled him to dig up corpses of women who resembled his mother. So persistent was his desire to resurrect his dead mother that he actually dressed in female suits fashioned from human skin. Eventually, Gein grew unhappy with the flesh of dead bodies, which had a tendency to dry and crack, so he shifted his focus to live victims, whose bodies he could better preserve. It is an interesting area of research. Yes, I am familiar with the DSM5 and it is used as reference in many countries, not just the US.
I'd day Manson was psychotic first and foremost and drug addiction would have been a contributing factor to this. I don't believe people are born violent psychopaths. From what I have read sociopathy is something that is learned as well. This woman is worth listening too.
I will view that later today... Manson had the worst of nature and nurture; I read his bio on Wikipedia. Yikes. Psychology is an interesting, and inexact science. What tips the scales towards violent behavior? I don't believe that there is a separate 'entity' of evil, as most religious people do. That is too easy an excuse - "the devil made me do it". It's in nature or nurture, to varying degrees. And some of us are more aware of it than others. And cats do have radar...
|
|