Friday, October 02, 2009

Why is Whoopi Goldberg Making Excuses For a Rapist?

According to Whoopi Goldberg, predator Roman Polanski didn't commit real rape when he attacked a 13 year old girl back in 1977. I had to do a double take when I saw the news reports of Whoopi claiming that the assault wasn't really "Rape-Rape". In her mind, the victim, Samantha Geimer, must have wanted it. So it was just a little taste of Rape...was that it Whoopi?

So what exactly is "Rape-Rape" to Whoopi Goldberg? Does the suspect have to kill the victim when he's done? Was she not aware of the victims testimony where she stated that she told Polanski repeatedly "No" and "Stop"?

I used to have a lot of respect for Whoopi.... but that started to fade once she joined the panel of idiots on "The View". And now it appears that she has really become one of them..... just another Hollywood mouthpiece that I don't care much for.

When she's on stage doing what she does best- comedy/acting/entertainment - she's a genius. But when it comes to her actual opinions and commentary outside of that arena, I don't think that she should be (or can be) taken seriously. She went down in flames on this one. You can't even walk this one back and offer very many plausible explanations.


Jamaicafest said...

I didn't get the impression that Whoopi Goldberg was condoning Roman Polanski's actions. She was trying to provide the legal context in which the case took place. Polanski was initially charged with "rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor." However under a plea bargain those charges were dropped in exchange for pleading guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor".

rikyrah said...

the victim was

13 and drugged

let me say that again..

13 and drugged

there ARE no complications.
there ARE no ' mitigating circumstances'.

13 and drugged and he RAN AWAY.
that's about it.