LA police are investigating the tapes and it is not entirely clear whether the recording was, in fact, illegal under the circumstances.
What? The first line of that story says that both parties must consent. I think you are confusing illegality with admissibility as evidence.
The reason it's not admissible is that it was obtained illegally. It sounds like there is an exception to the illegality of it if she falls under a certain exception. I wish that article would have cited some law instead of just quoting a dude.
EDIT: Aha
Section 631-632 describes the crime of recording someone without their consent.
This part lays out the exception.
633.5. Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7
prohibits one party to a confidential communication from recording
the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably
believed to relate to the commission by another party to the
communication of the crime of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any
felony involving violence against the person, or a violation of
Section 653m. Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7
renders any evidence so obtained inadmissible in a prosecution for
extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against
the person, a violation of Section 653m, or any crime in connection
therewith.
One of the podcasts (A Conspiracy theory one..) I listen to was talking about Mel Gibson and one of the hosts was going on about how he thinks Mel Gibson is on Chantix. A stop smoking drug that apparently has some nasty mood side effects.
Right now they are just making this guess of one of his comments on the phone recordings where he makes a comment about wanting to smoke again. Would be interesting if he turns of to be actually is on this drug.
It's not that interesting.
I've been on Chantix, It fucked with my moods hard. I woke up pissed off. It's still not a valid excuse.
p.s. Dont use Chantix, quit cold turkey.
I know I know, off topic, but still.
I've been on Chantix. It didn't touch my moods at all. I smoked the first 3 days on the pill and haven't touched a cigarette since Dec 1 2009.
Now, to tie back to Mel, who is an assmonkey, is it possible that Chantix or some other drugs can be causing his mood swings? yes.
But Mood swings are one thing, for him to say those things while 'swinging'... they're already in his mind.
What's particularly amusing is if she hadn't taped his calls, at least half of the people attacking her here would be arguing that she was full of shit, has no proof and why didn't Miss Smarty tape his phone calls if he kept calling and making threats, huh?
I think at this point you could tell me that Mel stripped naked, penciled in a Hitler-stache, and berated a maple ham for thirty minutes and I would be inclined to believe it.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
What's particularly amusing is if she hadn't taped his calls, at least half of the people attacking her here would be arguing that she was full of shit, has no proof and why didn't Miss Smarty tape his phone calls if he kept calling and making threats, huh?
I think at this point you could tell me that Mel stripped naked, penciled in a Hitler-stache, and berated a maple ham for thirty minutes and I would be inclined to believe it.
This would almost be amusing.
Especially if he were throwing anti-semitic slurs at the Ham.
This is OT for the current line of discussion, but pertains to the OP...
I like all three Mad Max movies. Sure, Thunderdome gets annoying with some of the kid stuff, but the first part of the movie is pretty solid. I remember when this movie came out and the first time seeing Bartertown, as a functioning post-apocalyptic civilization-- pretty damn cool! The action sequence at the end is awesome too. And the opening song by Tina Turner... fan-fucking-tastic.
OTOH, I would argue that Lethal Weapon 2 doesn't stand up so well these days. I watched it just a few days ago and the anti-apartheid message the movie was trying to convey just seems so forced. Like they were trying too hard to make something "ripped from the headlines". Plus, Riggs is a massively raging asshole in that movie. I will admit that the endless "80's movie guitar noodling music" makes me smile.
I don't find something like "stop bitching" or "son of a bitch" to be more offensive than calling someone a "cock". I'm pretty sure I don't know a single person who does. Yet apparently as a guy I'm supposed to?
You're being really disingenuous here. Neither of your examples involve a man being called a bitch, which is what I said, and also the context of this conversation. Do you have an argument for what I actually wrote, or is that it?
If calling someone a "bitch" is necessarily comparing them to a female, then wouldn't saying that they are "bitching" necessarily mean that they are engaging in an expressly female behavior? Or is it okay to use an offensive word as long as you change the part of speech?
Nice reply there. So are you going to try to argue that calling a man a cunt is no more offensive than calling him a dick, or keep dodging that?
(For what it's worth, yes, I would argue that "bitching", i.e. complaining like an uncooperative woman, is more offensive than the equivalent "dicking", i.e. fooling around in an irritating but largely harmless way. But that's not what I'm talking about here.)
I never said "stems from". If "bastards" were an extant oppressed class, yeah, I'd have a problem with it. Woo?
So when women are considered as equal to men as fatherless children are to children with two parents - that is, close but still no cigar - we can start using "cunt" and "bitch" with impunity, yes?
Yes.
Why, what were you expecting me to say?
(Mind you, I don't necessarily agree that we should be using the term "bastard" with impunity— for all I know, there may be people born out of wedlock now who find that term hurtful, and I do think we should be sensitive to that. But on a broad scale, I don't think it's that damaging.)
Anyone seen that yet? Audio experts claim the recordings were done with professional equipment and could have been edited to remove parts or piece together phrases.
To be honest, from the moment I heard the tapes I thought something was fishy. Not with any of the audio fading but simply how crystal clear she is. She doesn't sound like she's on a phone. He does. If you go back and listen to any of the other famous tapes, even the person recording sounds like they are on the phone. That threw me off the first time I heard the tapes and I thought it was a bit fishy.
So, even if these were edited, in what context is screaming "n***ers" in a rage okay? 'Cause, he still had to say every word on those tapes to piece them all together.
More likely, they're both fucking rich, and she just bought some nice equipment when she decided to record him being abusive.
So, even if these were edited, in what context is screaming "n***ers" in a rage okay? 'Cause, he still had to say every word on those tapes to piece them all together.
More likely, they're both fucking rich, and she just bought some nice equipment when she decided to record him being abusive.
I've read that the fact that it was Gibson screaming is now in doubt.
Well, if they are edited, it still doesn't excuse his behavior, but it's entirely possible she goaded him into saying a lot of it, then re-recorded a calm, rational version of herself. Or simply clipped out all the sane parts and distilled it down to the insanity to concentrate the crazy. Or maybe the "experts" are just paid off and spewing bullshit. Who knows?
Again, none of which excuses the Gibber's crazy shit, but does kinda give one the impression that both sides of this relationship may have been making frequent visits to crazytown. It'd be interesting to know the full truth if for no other reason than the child is likely to be raised by one of them. Likely we'll never know 100% either way.
It's not a question of whether he said those things in the way he did, he definitely did. There is no way you can construct whole sentences word by word and make it sound believable. What's possible is that a whole sentence of what he already said is added to another sentence what of what he said, which is implausible because every single thing he says is so fucking crazy that there would be no point in mixing any of it up.
What there would be a point to is editing out what she said and replacing it with something she recorded in a studio. Still, Mel Gibson tends to use whole sentences when he goes on his insane rants, so it's hard to argue that he didn't mean the things he said in the way we heard them.
I think he's a little bitch getting his lawyers to make broad accusations that he can't.
To be honest, from the moment I heard the tapes I thought something was fishy. Not with any of the audio fading but simply how crystal clear she is. She doesn't sound like she's on a phone. He does. If you go back and listen to any of the other famous tapes, even the person recording sounds like they are on the phone. That threw me off the first time I heard the tapes and I thought it was a bit fishy.
You'd get a recording like that if you called a traditional phone with Skype and recorded the conversation on the computer.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
There have been reports that the "broken teeth" story was not true. Her dentist failed to report it, and Mel's ex-wife made a statement that he never verbally or physically abused her in their 28 year marriage.
How far fetched is it then that his "you deserved it" was from a different part of the conversation altogether, edited with professional recording equipment in order to extort money?
She is Russian after all, and we all know how the KGB trained them all to use spy equipment
I don't find something like "stop bitching" or "son of a bitch" to be more offensive than calling someone a "cock". I'm pretty sure I don't know a single person who does. Yet apparently as a guy I'm supposed to?
You're being really disingenuous here. Neither of your examples involve a man being called a bitch, which is what I said, and also the context of this conversation. Do you have an argument for what I actually wrote, or is that it?
If calling someone a "bitch" is necessarily comparing them to a female, then wouldn't saying that they are "bitching" necessarily mean that they are engaging in an expressly female behavior? Or is it okay to use an offensive word as long as you change the part of speech?
Nice reply there. So are you going to try to argue that calling a man a cunt is no more offensive than calling him a dick, or keep dodging that?
(For what it's worth, yes, I would argue that "bitching", i.e. complaining like an uncooperative woman, is more offensive than the equivalent "dicking", i.e. fooling around in an irritating but largely harmless way. But that's not what I'm talking about here.)
Wow. Just...wow. So who are we electing to decide what is offensive enough to warrant your politically correct thought police bullshit and what isn't offensive enough?
Ugh, the "severity of insults" side discussion is irritating. Some people will get offended over the silliest of insults, and some insults culturally are taboo. We don't need to set up a scale and start ranking them to know what's appropriate or not in any given context or intent. I'm pretty sure most of us can figure it out.
I was once called a "cracker ass farm boy". The individual stating as much was angry because I caught him trying to steal beer from the grocery where I worked. Given that he was lashing out because he sucked at thievery, I have a hard time getting offended. Context + Culture. Figure it out.
Ugh, the "severity of insults" side discussion is irritating. Some people will get offended over the silliest of insults, and some insults culturally are taboo. We don't need to set up a scale and start ranking them to know what's appropriate or not in any given context or intent. I'm pretty sure most of us can figure it out.
I was once called a "cracker ass farm boy". The individual stating as much was angry because I caught him trying to steal beer from the grocery where I worked. Given that he was lashing out because he sucked at thievery, I have a hard time getting offended. Context + Culture. Figure it out.
Exactly. Now try to explain that to the guy that thinks the word 'cunt' should never be used in any context ever because all the piteous oppressed women of the world will intrinsically have their feelings hurt.
i just want to poke in to say to that guy from a couple of pages ago: ghostface isn't made up. it does have some usage as a slur against white people.
And it greatly offends me! I demand an apology because my delicate feelings have been bruised.
Let this man massage those bruises.
Anywho, to find out the tapes may have been edited doesn't really help, imo. Some of the most damning rants sounds pretty consistent especially the one where he all but admits to hitting her.
Technology has come a long way, so who knows at this point besides an audio expert. Too bad my job blocks most flash stuff. I can't see these news reports.
i just want to poke in to say to that guy from a couple of pages ago: ghostface isn't made up. it does have some usage as a slur against white people.
And it greatly offends me! I demand an apology because my delicate feelings have been bruised.
Let this man massage those bruises.
Anywho, to find out the tapes may have been edited doesn't really help, imo. Some of the most damning rants sounds pretty consistent especially the one where he all but admits to hitting her.
Technology has come a long way, so who knows at this point besides an audio expert. Too bad my job blocks most flash stuff. I can't see these news reports.
You can't think of a different question that would still elicit a "you deserve it" response? I personally don't think they've been doctored because if they had been Mel would have been all over the damn place screaming about it. His silence speaks volumes.
If something illegal has been done to you, is it right for investigators to automatically assume that you have not committed any illegal acts related to the crime committed against you?
If you have no idea whether an act is legal or illegal, or what investigators are or are not "assuming" about it, is it right to pull not-really-hypotheticals out of your ass?
There was nothing hypothetical about this question. In any criminal situation, should the circumstances under which the crime was committed not be investigated? Regardless of gender, regardless of socio-economic status--is it appropriate for an alleged victim to get a pass because they claim or because there has been a crime committed against them?
What's particularly amusing is if she hadn't taped his calls, at least half of the people attacking her here would be arguing that she was full of shit, has no proof and why didn't Miss Smarty tape his phone calls if he kept calling and making threats, huh?
I've seen a few comments before and after the information about the possible edits made to the tapes that she may have had reason beyond getting out of an abusive situation to record Gibson. That said, when you say "attack" it makes it sound very much like people are saying she deserved what she got and blowing the whistle makes her a money-grubbing bitch.
That is not the case. It never has been. The only concern is that the case is investigated properly, not clouded by media bullshit.
i just want to poke in to say to that guy from a couple of pages ago: ghostface isn't made up. it does have some usage as a slur against white people.
And it greatly offends me! I demand an apology because my delicate feelings have been bruised.
Let this man massage those bruises.
Anywho, to find out the tapes may have been edited doesn't really help, imo. Some of the most damning rants sounds pretty consistent especially the one where he all but admits to hitting her.
Technology has come a long way, so who knows at this point besides an audio expert. Too bad my job blocks most flash stuff. I can't see these news reports.
That's actually the quote the experts went over and said had clear elements where it was edited. His response of "You deserved it" could have been to anything.
So the new info is that the tapes have been allegedly edited
If it is true all established context is out the window.
Um, yeah. The "new info" comes from Gibson's lawyers. You know, the ones whose job it is to get his ass acquitted on domestic-violence charges. This is what lawyers call "poisoning the well".
As an example of what this means: Let's say you're defending a guy on a murder charge and you want to persuade the jury that, despite all the evidence, it wasn't your guy, it was a mysterious Satanic cult that actually killed his estranged wife and then vanished. If you bring this up in front of a jury for the first time they're going to think you're an idiot - so you want to get the Satanic cult story out into the media right away. That way, when you actually get to trial and present your cult story, the jurors have already heard this extensively and think "Oh yeah, I think I heard something about that in TV." It's more credible.
Is it possible that the whole tape is a fake? Sure, anything's possible (that's another lawyer saying). And I wouldn't be deeply shocked if she tried to use the tapes to pry a big chunk of cash out of him. But, again, it's amazing how many people are scrambling to justify Gibson's behavior with Blame the Bitches.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
i just want to poke in to say to that guy from a couple of pages ago: ghostface isn't made up. it does have some usage as a slur against white people.
And it greatly offends me! I demand an apology because my delicate feelings have been bruised.
Let this man massage those bruises.
Anywho, to find out the tapes may have been edited doesn't really help, imo. Some of the most damning rants sounds pretty consistent especially the one where he all but admits to hitting her.
Technology has come a long way, so who knows at this point besides an audio expert. Too bad my job blocks most flash stuff. I can't see these news reports.
You can't think of a different question that would still elicit a "you deserve it" response? I personally don't think they've been doctored because if they had been Mel would have been all over the damn place screaming about it. His silence speaks volumes.
That's true. I merged the "you've deserve it" thing with the rose garden thing in my head. I bet he hasn't spoke up about it because it's probably a jumble in head as well. He knows what he said, but I bet there is a lot of stuff that hasn't been released.
Although I know not to underestimate stupidity, I find it hard to believe that anyone in 2010 could be:
a) smart enough to tape a phone conversation;
b) smart enough to have it edited;
but c) not smart enough to know that said editing would be found out.
Nice reply there. So are you going to try to argue that calling a man a cunt is no more offensive than calling him a dick, or keep dodging that?
(For what it's worth, yes, I would argue that "bitching", i.e. complaining like an uncooperative woman, is more offensive than the equivalent "dicking", i.e. fooling around in an irritating but largely harmless way. But that's not what I'm talking about here.)
Wow. Just...wow. So who are we electing to decide what is offensive enough to warrant your politically correct thought police bullshit and what isn't offensive enough?
It's nice to know that advising someone to reconsider using terms that are implicitly derogatory towards women is "politically correct thought police bullshit." Real nice.
Anyway, you're missing the point same as Jeff— I'm not saying we shouldn't use those terms because they're more offensive, I'm asking why you think it is that female terms are universally more derogatory than male or ungendered ones. Why do you think that is?
There was nothing hypothetical about this question. In any criminal situation, should the circumstances under which the crime was committed not be investigated? Regardless of gender, regardless of socio-economic status--is it appropriate for an alleged victim to get a pass because they claim or because there has been a crime committed against them?
Has anyone argued that the police should not continue to investigate this crime, or should not review the tapes? Has anyone said that they would normally agree a full investigation should occur, but because Gibson is a rich white guy that should be thrown out the window? Why do you conflate a full investigation with "giving credence to wild-ass guesses based on nothing more than speculation"?
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
It's not necessary that all those terms be precisely as derogatory as <insert whatever term you want to get up in arms about>.
I mean, yeah, "n*****" is one of the worst terms you can call someone in terms of sheer social and personal harm. That doesn't mean that all lesser terms are completely unoffensive. It doesn't mean I'm going to not mind if you call me a big jerk, because it's still a derogatory term used to offend.
But how much damage a slur does is a separate (though related) question from whether we should consider it offensive to begin with. If someone calls me an ass, I'm going to take offense, because the intent is probably to offend me.
Similarly, calling someone a "cunt" is offensive because it's meant to create a negative association between the recipient and a bit of female anatomy. Just as "dick" creates a negative association between the recipient and a bit of male anatomy.
Is "dick" as bad as "cunt"? No, though in the UK it seems to be used practically as punctuation. Are males oppressed? No. If you are grossly offended by the mere word "cunt", irrespective of whatever context it might be in, are you a tremendous hypocrite if you don't also find the use of "dick" or "cock" or whatever offensive? Yep.
If you were right, calling a dude a cunt/whore/pussy/bitch should be no more offensive than calling him a cock/dick/bastard/asshole. Obviously that's not true, though. Why do you think it is that all of the female terms are more offensive than their male or ungendered counterparts?
Hint: It's not because I'm a hypocrite.
Really, though, "bastard" is an even better example. It was once used specifically to denigrate poor folks who were born out of wedlock. They were certainly an oppressed class, once upon a time. So "bastard" should be offensive, yes?
And this is a joke, right? I'm not talking about once upon a time, which you should really be able to pull out of context.
Write a script that contains a character saying all those words.
Claim he was practicing his lines and she edited it.
Like...seriously, people would still think hes crazy for writing such bat-shit looney words. But theyd believe it was just for a movie because "no real person could be that insane and hate filled"
Nice reply there. So are you going to try to argue that calling a man a cunt is no more offensive than calling him a dick, or keep dodging that?
(For what it's worth, yes, I would argue that "bitching", i.e. complaining like an uncooperative woman, is more offensive than the equivalent "dicking", i.e. fooling around in an irritating but largely harmless way. But that's not what I'm talking about here.)
Wow. Just...wow. So who are we electing to decide what is offensive enough to warrant your politically correct thought police bullshit and what isn't offensive enough?
It's nice to know that advising someone to reconsider using terms that are implicitly derogatory towards women is "politically correct thought police bullshit." Real nice.
Anyway, you're missing the point same as Jeff— I'm not saying we shouldn't use those terms because they're more offensive, I'm asking why you think it is that female terms are universally more derogatory than male or ungendered ones. Why do you think that is?
Because women are pussies when it comes to having their feelings hurt?
Posts
The reason it's not admissible is that it was obtained illegally. It sounds like there is an exception to the illegality of it if she falls under a certain exception. I wish that article would have cited some law instead of just quoting a dude.
EDIT: Aha
Section 631-632 describes the crime of recording someone without their consent.
This part lays out the exception.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I know I know, off topic, but still.
I've been on Chantix. It didn't touch my moods at all. I smoked the first 3 days on the pill and haven't touched a cigarette since Dec 1 2009.
Now, to tie back to Mel, who is an assmonkey, is it possible that Chantix or some other drugs can be causing his mood swings? yes.
But Mood swings are one thing, for him to say those things while 'swinging'... they're already in his mind.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I think at this point you could tell me that Mel stripped naked, penciled in a Hitler-stache, and berated a maple ham for thirty minutes and I would be inclined to believe it.
This would almost be amusing.
Especially if he were throwing anti-semitic slurs at the Ham.
I said almost...
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I like all three Mad Max movies. Sure, Thunderdome gets annoying with some of the kid stuff, but the first part of the movie is pretty solid. I remember when this movie came out and the first time seeing Bartertown, as a functioning post-apocalyptic civilization-- pretty damn cool! The action sequence at the end is awesome too. And the opening song by Tina Turner... fan-fucking-tastic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngVOBhsVbm4
OTOH, I would argue that Lethal Weapon 2 doesn't stand up so well these days. I watched it just a few days ago and the anti-apartheid message the movie was trying to convey just seems so forced. Like they were trying too hard to make something "ripped from the headlines". Plus, Riggs is a massively raging asshole in that movie. I will admit that the endless "80's movie guitar noodling music" makes me smile.
Nice reply there. So are you going to try to argue that calling a man a cunt is no more offensive than calling him a dick, or keep dodging that?
(For what it's worth, yes, I would argue that "bitching", i.e. complaining like an uncooperative woman, is more offensive than the equivalent "dicking", i.e. fooling around in an irritating but largely harmless way. But that's not what I'm talking about here.)
Yes.
Why, what were you expecting me to say?
(Mind you, I don't necessarily agree that we should be using the term "bastard" with impunity— for all I know, there may be people born out of wedlock now who find that term hurtful, and I do think we should be sensitive to that. But on a broad scale, I don't think it's that damaging.)
Anyone seen that yet? Audio experts claim the recordings were done with professional equipment and could have been edited to remove parts or piece together phrases.
If it is true all established context is out the window.
To be honest, from the moment I heard the tapes I thought something was fishy. Not with any of the audio fading but simply how crystal clear she is. She doesn't sound like she's on a phone. He does. If you go back and listen to any of the other famous tapes, even the person recording sounds like they are on the phone. That threw me off the first time I heard the tapes and I thought it was a bit fishy.
The man directed The Passion of the Christ and was in Mad Max, Braveheart, The Patriot, Lethal Weapon and Maverick.
Maverick, you guys.
All I'm saying is let's give him the benefit of the doubt here before we start sharpening our pitchforks.
More likely, they're both fucking rich, and she just bought some nice equipment when she decided to record him being abusive.
I've read that the fact that it was Gibson screaming is now in doubt.
I never implied equivalency. Never
Again, none of which excuses the Gibber's crazy shit, but does kinda give one the impression that both sides of this relationship may have been making frequent visits to crazytown. It'd be interesting to know the full truth if for no other reason than the child is likely to be raised by one of them. Likely we'll never know 100% either way.
What there would be a point to is editing out what she said and replacing it with something she recorded in a studio. Still, Mel Gibson tends to use whole sentences when he goes on his insane rants, so it's hard to argue that he didn't mean the things he said in the way we heard them.
I think he's a little bitch getting his lawyers to make broad accusations that he can't.
You'd get a recording like that if you called a traditional phone with Skype and recorded the conversation on the computer.
There have been reports that the "broken teeth" story was not true. Her dentist failed to report it, and Mel's ex-wife made a statement that he never verbally or physically abused her in their 28 year marriage.
How far fetched is it then that his "you deserved it" was from a different part of the conversation altogether, edited with professional recording equipment in order to extort money?
Wow. Just...wow. So who are we electing to decide what is offensive enough to warrant your politically correct thought police bullshit and what isn't offensive enough?
And it greatly offends me! I demand an apology because my delicate feelings have been bruised.
I was once called a "cracker ass farm boy". The individual stating as much was angry because I caught him trying to steal beer from the grocery where I worked. Given that he was lashing out because he sucked at thievery, I have a hard time getting offended. Context + Culture. Figure it out.
Exactly. Now try to explain that to the guy that thinks the word 'cunt' should never be used in any context ever because all the piteous oppressed women of the world will intrinsically have their feelings hurt.
Let this man massage those bruises.
Anywho, to find out the tapes may have been edited doesn't really help, imo. Some of the most damning rants sounds pretty consistent especially the one where he all but admits to hitting her.
Technology has come a long way, so who knows at this point besides an audio expert. Too bad my job blocks most flash stuff. I can't see these news reports.
You can't think of a different question that would still elicit a "you deserve it" response? I personally don't think they've been doctored because if they had been Mel would have been all over the damn place screaming about it. His silence speaks volumes.
There was nothing hypothetical about this question. In any criminal situation, should the circumstances under which the crime was committed not be investigated? Regardless of gender, regardless of socio-economic status--is it appropriate for an alleged victim to get a pass because they claim or because there has been a crime committed against them?
I've seen a few comments before and after the information about the possible edits made to the tapes that she may have had reason beyond getting out of an abusive situation to record Gibson. That said, when you say "attack" it makes it sound very much like people are saying she deserved what she got and blowing the whistle makes her a money-grubbing bitch.
That is not the case. It never has been. The only concern is that the case is investigated properly, not clouded by media bullshit.
That's actually the quote the experts went over and said had clear elements where it was edited. His response of "You deserved it" could have been to anything.
Um, yeah. The "new info" comes from Gibson's lawyers. You know, the ones whose job it is to get his ass acquitted on domestic-violence charges. This is what lawyers call "poisoning the well".
As an example of what this means: Let's say you're defending a guy on a murder charge and you want to persuade the jury that, despite all the evidence, it wasn't your guy, it was a mysterious Satanic cult that actually killed his estranged wife and then vanished. If you bring this up in front of a jury for the first time they're going to think you're an idiot - so you want to get the Satanic cult story out into the media right away. That way, when you actually get to trial and present your cult story, the jurors have already heard this extensively and think "Oh yeah, I think I heard something about that in TV." It's more credible.
Is it possible that the whole tape is a fake? Sure, anything's possible (that's another lawyer saying). And I wouldn't be deeply shocked if she tried to use the tapes to pry a big chunk of cash out of him. But, again, it's amazing how many people are scrambling to justify Gibson's behavior with Blame the Bitches.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
That's true. I merged the "you've deserve it" thing with the rose garden thing in my head. I bet he hasn't spoke up about it because it's probably a jumble in head as well. He knows what he said, but I bet there is a lot of stuff that hasn't been released.
He's goosed if he speaks or not at this point.
a) smart enough to tape a phone conversation;
b) smart enough to have it edited;
but c) not smart enough to know that said editing would be found out.
It's nice to know that advising someone to reconsider using terms that are implicitly derogatory towards women is "politically correct thought police bullshit." Real nice.
Anyway, you're missing the point same as Jeff— I'm not saying we shouldn't use those terms because they're more offensive, I'm asking why you think it is that female terms are universally more derogatory than male or ungendered ones. Why do you think that is?
Has anyone argued that the police should not continue to investigate this crime, or should not review the tapes? Has anyone said that they would normally agree a full investigation should occur, but because Gibson is a rich white guy that should be thrown out the window? Why do you conflate a full investigation with "giving credence to wild-ass guesses based on nothing more than speculation"?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Obviously that's not true?
According to whom, exactly?
Write a script that contains a character saying all those words.
Claim he was practicing his lines and she edited it.
Like...seriously, people would still think hes crazy for writing such bat-shit looney words. But theyd believe it was just for a movie because "no real person could be that insane and hate filled"
He will do what he did then. Go to some therapy/rehab and lay low for X amount of years.
Because women are pussies when it comes to having their feelings hurt?
[tiny]I kid...I kid...or do I? [/misogyny][/tiny]