Comments (28) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   rayannina said, about 1 month ago

   Badly timed, Sid.

2. 

   TheSkulker said, about 1 month ago

   From yesterday: DavidDow said, about 14 hours ago

   The facts: Thirty-two years ago, Roman Polanski, widowed, age 44, took some photos of Samantha Gailey, age thirteen, because the girl, her mother, & Polanski all thought that the girl might have a career in modeling or in the movies. After spending some hours posing & photographing, Polanski & Gailey drank champagne, took Quaaludes, & had sex.

   Those are not facts, that is a white wash. “drank champagne, took Quaaludes, & had sex.” Such a matter of fact dismissal of a pedophiles actions. Unbelievable response. Go read the police report. She was scared. He forced himself on her and would not let her go home. At 13 years old she is not capable of “consensual” anything.

   My neighbor made the mistake of having sex with a girl one month short of her 18th BD and got THREE YEARS in jail, not a threat of 45 days. But then, he hadn’t “given so much behind the camera”. It makes me sick to hear all this “poor boy” we’re above the law whining. He is a pedophile, pure and simple and confessed to committed statutory rape.
   To say he that because he confessed he wasn’t convicted is just asinine.

   And as far as the “settlement out of court” Polanski reneged on the agreement and didn’t pay anything.

   Also, although you didn’t bring it up I’m sure the “it’s been 30 years, just move on” is in your arsenal of arguments. Tell that to the FBI prosecuting the hijacker of the flight to Cuba. That was only 40 years ago.

3. 

   Margueritem said, about 1 month ago

   TheSkulker, so good to see you!

   Bootsie, good move!

4. 

   DavidDow said, about 1 month ago

   Skulker, I did not use the word “consensual”. Thirty-two years ago, you were not there. Thus, your claim that Roman Polanski “forced himself on [Samantha Gailey]” is fictitious. Furthermore, your blanket statements about what a thirteen-year-old can & cannot do is more of a faith claim than anything rooted in fact.

   I am very sorry for your neighbor, and I am glad that you stood up for him. Furthermore, I didn’t say that Polanski wasn’t convicted. I said that he was not convicted of rape. As for the settlement between Polanski & Geimer [née Gailey], Polanski did make payment. It is unclear—and none of our business—whether there are still payments to be made. To the best of our knowledge, Geimer is not re-suing Polanski.

   Please stick to the facts, and stop drooling over this case.

5. 

   DavidDow said, about 1 month ago

   Replying to a comment from yesterday:

   Stebon, please: calm down, get your hand out of your pants, and read what you write before clicking “Post”. Is there such a thing as raping a thirteen-year-old girl with her will? In addition, if Roman Polanski committed rape, then does the age of the victim matter? Is raping a thirteen-year-old worse than raping a 33-year-old or a 63-year-old?

6. 

   baslim_the_begger said, about 1 month ago

   Someone here sounds like a lawyer waiting to leap to Polanski’s defense. That is, he sets out a minimalist description of events, which in this case does not include whether said sex was consensual. It may be quite sufficient, legally, that sex occured between Polanski and a 13 year old, to bring charges of statutory rape. But more is involved.

   The girl’s testimony, as I have read it,

   http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez30-2009sep30,0,4549479.column

   makes it clear he was not taking a 13 year old’s “No!” for an answer. Sex was therefore not consensual, according to the victim (and Polanski did not seem to dispute that at the time). Sounds a lot like a rape, regardless of age.

   Polanski plead guilty to a lesser charge and fled justice. A judge is just that, a judge. He calls the shots and can refuse a plea bargain. Polanski decided he did not want any part of further jail time and skipped the country. If Joe Blow from nowhere USA would be extradited for said skipping, why not Polanski?

7. 

   albertonencioni said, about 1 month ago

   There is nothing like a 13 years kid having consensual sex with anybody, let alone a 44 years old drunken pig. It is always rape, period. It is not like playing doctor and patient with a boy of the same age: this is a perv grownup drugging and sodomising a kid, then flying away to a glamour life abroad.
   Alberto

8. 

   DavidDow said, about 1 month ago

   What you read, Baslim, are excerpts from statements to a grand jury. There was no cross-examination, and the statements do not count as testimony in a trial. You have excerpts selected from an article against Roman Polanski. This is hardly enough information to make a judgment.

   Polanski did not flee justice. He left the country when he discovered that the judge would not honor the plea bargain. The French did not extradite him, because he has French citizenship.

9. 

   Ravenswing said, about 1 month ago

   Boy, it sure says something about this country that there are people DEFENDING a middle-aged man drugging a 13 year old girl, stripping her and doing her. What the hell? Skulker is right: NO one is disputing the facts of the case.

   I’m with Boopsie - I’m d@mned glad those perverts out there (a couple of you apparently among them) are well clear of my loved ones.

10. 

    Hugh B. Hayve said, about 1 month ago

    This David guy sure has a lot of excuses…

11. 

    farren said, about 1 month ago

    Drugging? 1/2 a Quaalude? Some serious agendas going on here, seems to me.

    I suggest you go back and read the contemporary reports. Polanski pled guilty. The prosecutor’s office (hardly soft on criminals) recommended no prison time. The judge, deciding he was the modern reincarnaion of Roy Bean, law west of the Pecos, rejected the plea bargain and, by all reports, was going to sentence Polanski to serious, serious time - like 40 years, not 45 days. Polanski felt that this was a betrayal, which it pretty much was, and that he’d rather flee than be railroaded like that. So he did.

    And anyone of you who doesn’t think that a 13-year old can be seriously into sex (not saying that this one was) must never have taken a look at 13-year-olds lately, if ever. I knew a 13-year old when I was in middle school who would sleep with just about anybody. She later became one of the high school’s snooty elite. I talked with her long after the fact, and there was no coercion, no abuse - she just liked sex, period.

12. 

    baslim_the_begger said, about 1 month ago

    I repeat, Polanski did not dispute the charges. He did not proclaim in a court of law, “I am innocent!” He elected to try for a plea bargain.

    Apparently he who shall not be named also didn’t get the part about a judge being able to reject a plea bargain. That is not a legal excuse to flee the country and its justice.

    It makes no difference if the article was for or against Polanski, because I did not cite the author’s statements but only the victim’s testimony.
    Pay attention!

    I would certainly judge probable cause for some serious crimes, had that evidence been presented to me when I was serving on a grand jury. And the finding would have been unanimous by my fellow jurors. Unless, apparently, he who shall not be named somehow were on it.

13. 

    DavidDow said, about 1 month ago

    Baslim, I am afraid that you are not paying attention. Since these excerpts of Samantha Gailey’s grand-jury testimony are from an article damning Roman Polanski, then we can hardly trust the excerpting as being objective. Most importantly, though, are three points about her grand-jury testimony that I must repeat: (1) These are just excerpts. (2) There was no cross-examination. (3) This is not testimony in a trial. You are in no position to make a judgment. Yet, you do, showing your own prejudice, and we needn’t be Freud to see that such pre-judging of the Polanski-Gailey matter has more to do with our unresolved issues about sexuality than it does about Polanski.

    Yes, the judge can reject a plea bargain. Of course, a judge who has read ALL the information has stated that the original judge committed misconduct, which is not a judge’s right. As for legal rights, Polanski has French citizenship, so he moved to France, which was within its rights in not extraditing him. If you defend the judge’s decision, then you must defend Polanski’s residence. They are equally legal.

    Farren, I agree that many of the fact-distorters here have their own agenda, and I agree with you that sexuality is much more complex than some here will see, but when you characterize the original judge as “deciding he was the modern reincarnation of Roy Bean”, you distort the facts, also, unless you can cite a source where the judge says that he wants to be Roy Bean.

    I trust that we can continue to have a calm, rational, factual discussion without hysterics, snideness, or name-calling. I would love to see where DOONESBURY is going with this story, because Boopsie has just let her emotions get the better of her. It is not fair to treat Sid, slimeball though he is in other matters, as a child-molester simply because he has joined a movement to free Polanski. Sid is simply being who he always is: an amoral creature of Hollywood. Boopsie benefited from his work & those traits when she lived there. Why is she surprised now?

14. 

    brewwitch said, about 1 month ago

    Is there any strip like Doonesbury that can arouse such a discussion among its readers?

    I’m not taking sides on this; I’m just commenting on the boldness of Mr. Trudeau in not backing away from a story line like this.

    Well done, sir.

15. 

    Nemesys said, about 1 month ago

    Kudo’s to Garry for doing a good story relevant to current events. What a wonderful twist to point out that any testimony against Polanski isn’t valid because it’s only one sided, and it’s one-sided because he ran away! This is how we have ruined this country by electing lawyers to congress, where truth has become simply a matter of presonal greed and ambition in order to dodge responsibility and reap the rewards.

    This forum isn’t a courtroom. Polanski’s actions against a child were vile. He should be held accountible for them and punished accordingly.

16. 

    bmwk12ltc said, about 1 month ago

    brewwitch the only other strip I see that is more argumentative in the comments section is State of the Union. Usually a good, heated discussion (I use that term loosely) goes on over the days strip there. Usually Doonesbury isn’t this heated.
    My feeling if Polanski was going to live in this country and commit an act that was a crime in this country then he should have faced the penalty. If he wanted to be a French Citizen and commit the same act there (where he apparently thinks it’s legal) he should have never come here. Nobody has yet disputed that he had sex with a 13 year old who whether some like it or not doesn’t have the legal right to consent to, that alcohol and drugs were involved (which is also a crime in this country), and that he fled prosecution when he was not happy with what he thought was going to happen to him.

17. 

    Potrzebie said, about 1 month ago

    Sid must be related to duke and that fake cowboy (uncle poopyhead?).

18. 

    Wildcard24365 said, about 1 month ago

    @Potrzebie: there’s kind of a sense that show-biz types of about all leagues just do not “get it,” like somehow either being celebrities or artists makes them immune or exempt from the laws of “mortals.”

19. 

    Susan001 said, about 1 month ago

    Don’t you guys get tired typing such L-O-O-ONG messages?
    Especially since most people won’t even read all of ‘em.

20. 

    vinobop said, about 1 month ago

    It is called “statutory” rape for a reason. It violates a statute that makes it illegel to engage in sexual acts with a person of that age!
    It doesn’t matter if that young person likes sex, wants sex, PLEADS for sex - they are too young to understand what they are embarking upon, and thus in its wisdom, society has said it’s not permissible.
    Mr Dow, I hope you do not now, nor ever will, have children!

21. 

    baslim_the_begger said, about 1 month ago

    As a legal adult, I am in the position to make any judgment I choose, whether he who shall not be named agrees or not. Whether it is binding on others is another matter.

    On the grand jury, it did matter. So we asked questions of the witnesses. Perhaps we were not trained defense attorneys but we were informed and cognizant of the duties of the grand jury, one of which is to prevent arbitrary indictment. The minimum knowledge we would have needed to indict for statutory rape would be the victim’s age, which was 13.

    The old trick of throwing verbal grenades, then calling for rational discussion! Very revealing.

    Yeah! Boopsie! Make your judgments!

22. 

    Ushindi said, about 1 month ago

    Reminds me of the cop who saw a car parked on a lover’s lane with the interior light on. Stopping, he saw a young man in front and a young girl sitting in back. He asked the boy what he was doing, and the reply was “reading a book”, and he held it up. Asked what the girl was doing, he said”knitting”, and she held up her knitting for the policeman to see. Puzzled, the cop then asked the boy how old he was. The boy said 19. Then, asked how old the girl was, the boy looked at his watch and said “in 12 more minutes she’ll be 18.”

    Sorry - couldn’t help myself…

23. 

    sandfan said, about 1 month ago

    Hey, Ushindi, nice to see some humor in this discussion of a comic strip by wannabe lawyers and judges. Love your joke.

24. 

    blueprairie said, about 1 month ago

    In what universe is sex between a 13 year old and a 44 year old consensual?

25. 

    seablood said, about 1 month ago

    Thirty years ago the mores were different. The sexual revolution was going full force. People fell for the stupid message: ” if it feels good, do it!” Obviously, this was wrong. Yet, this message pervaded the media. I, myself, was persuaded to think this was a valid way of living—-fortunately I was way too ugly to be able to act this out, and no girl would allow me to have sex with her. consensual or otherwise. How lucky I was!! The point I’m trying to make is this: there are mitigating circumstances involved. Polanski shouldn’t be absolved, But neither should we pursue him with all the level of indignation that we, today, have toward sexual predators. We all get the point that rape is wrong, but lets not get too self righteous. Don’t give our country a black eye in other countries. Don’t act like nazi hunters that pursue war criminals all over the world.—Polanski is not an escaped Auschwitz guard!!! Grant the guy amnesty, not for him, but for our own benefit.

26. 

    Badto Thebone said, about 1 month ago

    For all the Polanski defenders if you feel it is okay for a 44 year old man to rape your 13 year old daughter okay. I can understand you have a different of opinion of Mr. Polanski. The overwhelming amount of U.S. citizens and the legal system have a different opinion of that child rapist.

27. 

    seablood said, about 1 month ago

    It is disturbing how many people on this board are “out for blood” You are so interested in making sure that a 30 year old crime ( wherein the victim asked that the perpetrator get amnesty! ) gets “solved”. Why don’t you all spend your energy trying to end the Afghanistan war instead of such nit picking. It serves no purpose to go after a sexual predator, escaped to a foreign country, who did his crime 30 years ago. It makes me suspicious of what your real motives are; you certainly don’t appear interested in doing good.

28. 

    Herbabee said, about 1 month ago

    Well stated, seablood. Where’s all the outrage over something reallly vital - like Jon & Kate +/- 8!!!

    That thar’ babyface sure wants his pound of flesh alright~