Patterico's Pontifications

8/3/2006

L.A. Times Makes Numerous Misstatements Regarding Mel Gibson Case

Filed under: Crime,Current Events,Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 10:28 pm



Yes, there are more important things going on in the world right now. But I know something about this, so I’m going to talk about this.

The L.A. Times reports: Some Attorneys Voice Surprise as Gibson Is Charged Only With DUI.

Some veteran DUI attorneys said they were surprised that an “excessive speed enhancement” was not filed against Gibson — a charge that would mandate jail time.

“If you’re going 25 mph over the speed limit, that would greatly increase your chances of jail time,” said attorney Jonathan I. Kelman. “The fact that they didn’t file the speed enhancement — that makes me wonder,” Kelman said. “Ninety percent of my clients out of Malibu would face that enhancement if [law enforcement officials] thought they could prove the speeding.”

Under state law, a driver under the influence whose speed exceeds the posted limit by 20 mph or more on streets or 30 mph on highways faces a minimum of 60 days in jail.

Wrong.

It is not enough to be DUI and drive over 20 mph on streets or 30 mph on highways. You also have to be driving recklessly.

California Vehicle Code section 23582 states:

Any person who drives a vehicle 30 or more miles per hour over the maximum, prima facie, or posted speed limit on a freeway, or 20 or more miles per hour over the maximum, prima facie, or posted speed limit on any other street or highway, and in a manner prohibited by Section 23103 during the commission of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 shall, in addition to the punishment prescribed for that person upon conviction of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, be punished by an additional and consecutive term of 60 days in the county jail.

Section 23103 prevents reckless driving.

So it’s not enough to be DUI and speeding — you also have to be driving recklessly. And the presence of the word “and” means that being DUI and speeding is not enough. There must be something more to amount to reckless driving.

I don’t know all the facts of this case, but I’m not aware of any facts that would satisfy that element.

Next we have Laurie Levenson weighing in, as she always does:

Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola Law School, said Gibson’s bellicose behavior toward the deputy made it a borderline case for resisting arrest and making criminal threats, both felonies.

Criminal threats? That requires a victim who says they feared for their safety. But:

In an interview with The Times on Monday, Mee called the incident “just another routine stop that just got a little escalated…. This is just another drunk driving incident. It just happened to be a celebrity versus Joe Blow public.”

Doesn’t sound too threatened. There goes any “criminal threats” case.

And for resisting arrest to be a felony, it has to be by means of force or violence. I have no knowledge of any such behavior by Gibson. So where is the felony???

I don’t know whether these silly statements are the paper’s fault or Levenson’s. Favoring the former theory, she seems to agree with the charges — I think:

“Prosecutors had to use their discretion. A different defendant, a different situation, you might have seen those charges added,” Levenson said, adding that the charges filed appeared to be appropriate. “But I think people will be suspicious as to whether he has received celebrity treatment because of the way this case has been handled from the beginning.”

To recap, as a certain sock-puppet might say: the speed enhancement requires more than speed, despite what the paper says. Criminal threats cases require someone who was scared, which we don’t have here. And felony resisting requires force or violence, which we don’t have here.

Other than that, it’s a great story.

52 Responses to “L.A. Times Makes Numerous Misstatements Regarding Mel Gibson Case”

  1. Reporters almost never understand laws that the claim to report on. It is very rare that they have a clue. One would think that papers would hire employees with minimal understanding of how law works before entrusting them with presenting legal issues to readers. It’s not like there aren’t people with legal education and experience out there to advise the paper.

    But then again, it may well be that the point of the LAT (and other papers) is to intentionally deceive the public. If that is the case, the refusal to hire qualified reporters makes excellent sense.

    Federal Dog (9afd6c)

  2. Heh.

    Patterico if you get a chance this and are so inclined give us a post this weekend about your experience with the new plasma TV. I’m curious how you’re doing with it.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  3. Section 23103 prevents reckless driving.

    Indeed it does, but how do we know Gibson wasn’t guilty of that, as well? To find out, let’s look at the statute itself, of which Subsection (a) reads:

    Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property, or who drives any vehicle at all after having starred in a movie depicting a road warrior, is guilty of reckless driving.

    Sounds to me like they’ve got him dead to rights.

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  4. or who drives any vehicle at all after having starred in a movie depicting a road warrior

    Yeah, but that was in Australia. Does that count in Cali?

    Pablo (efa871)

  5. I think so, as the movie was shown in Cali, as well. Cali’s pretty grabby when it comes to conflict of law issues.

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  6. This is why I think that it would be a good idea (not to mention a potential cash cow) for more law schools to offer M.S.L. programs like Yale does.

    Plus, anything that makes journalists have to pay for an extra year of school is a good thing.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  7. I’m not an attorney, but it just seems like common sense that driving 30 mph over the speed limit would BE reckless driving. I understand the technical angle involved (for court purposes), but your average joe is gonna be scratching his head at this one.

    BTW, about journalists and the law: the only law class journalists are required to take is a course in 1st Amendment law, and it is an extremely watered down version of what you might get in law school (I know because I took both and found the differences to be fascinating).

    The biggest problem, I think, facing journalists today when covering almost any issue like the courts or crime or even politics is that they cannot leave their ingrained skepticism at the door. They always believe that there’s some “inside angle” which explains why something happened the way it did. So, for instance, in this case, Gibson was “obviously” given the star treatment because he’s a celebrity, not that he’s just a loud-mouthed drunken shmoe whose crime didn’t rise to the lvl of jailtime. This quality of skepticism can be helpful in some cases, but most of the time, it just makes journalists look like assholes.

    sharon (63d8f8)

  8. fact: mel’s police report was redacted before release.
    fact: mel’s mug shot was initially withheld.
    fact: mel was given a ten mile ride back to his car, an accommodation one deputy sheriff referred to in an l.a. times article as previously granted only once in his experience, to an attractive woman.
    the “ingrained skepticism” of journalists has nothing to do with these facts.
    i agree that driving 30 over the speed limit is inherently reckless, although the statute apparently requires an additional component. driving 42 over the speed limit on the coast highway (87 minus 45) is a fortiori reckless.

    just another hollywood phony getting his just desserts. from the same people who told us the holocaust didn’t really happen – how did they expect people to react? now we come to find he’s all anti-semitism all the time, even in utterly non-religious contexts like traffic stops (unless the driver is going to pray to avoid a ticket/arrest right in front of the officer). as a connoisseur of spin, i am pleased to watch people tieing themselves in knots spinning mel as a hapless victim of a rapacious media horde. ok, let’s go horde!

    assistant devil's advocate (b909ae)

  9. Mel isn’t a victim. He said hateful irresponsible things, albeit while doused.

    What’s worse is the public gathering to blacklist someone for their thoughts. Mel hasn’t been treated like a celebrity. He’s been thrown to the lions.

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  10. That Mel Gibson must have mad motor vehicle skillz to be able to drive at nearly twice the posted speed limit with a blood alcohol level of .12% and not be driving recklessly.

    As to this: ” In an interview with The Times on Monday, Mee called the incident “just another routine stop that just got a little escalated…. This is just another drunk driving incident. It just happened to be a celebrity versus Joe Blow public.”

    [Patterico:] Doesn’t sound too threatened.”

    Alternatively: it could be evidence that Mel “You mother f****r. I’m going to f*** you” Gibson’s threats were effective and Mee is clamming up.

    And I’m not a lawyer, but it would also appear that Mel Gibson, in trying to escape to his own car, resisted arrest according to CPC 148(a) A misdemeanor to be sure, not a felony, but a crime nonetheless.

    Lucky guy, that Gibson. I hope he doesn’t hurt somebody next time around. I remember when Patterico was more law-and-orderly (anybody remember Domingo Esqueda?).

    m.croche (4daac4)

  11. blacklist someone for their thoughts?
    mel is an actor, director and producer. his fortunes live and die at the box office. the term “blacklist” suggests rendering him unemployable, as a number of writers were rendered unemployable during the mccarthy era. writers serve at the pleasure of studios, in mel’s expanded role, he serves at the pleasure of the public. are you suggesting that film auteurs, even the ones who aren’t on record that jews have caused all the wars in the world, have some kind of legal right entitling them to a stream of peons coming in off the street and paying ten bucks each to see their movies?
    “he’s been thrown to the lions” bwahahaha, an overtly christian metaphor incongruous in its false victimology. whatever was done to him, he did it himself. ok, let’s go lions!

    assistant devil's advocate (b909ae)

  12. If speeding is synonomous with reckless driving why have a separate statute? I don’t think they are the same. Additionally, charges are going to reflect what they think they can prove.

    tom scott (e91ab8)

  13. [quote]Section 23103 prevents reckless driving.[endquote]

    No it doesn’t. It defines reckless driving. Laws prevent nothing. They define them and assign punishment when caught.

    And, as a patial sop to the reporters, if you are driving a commercial vehicle 15 over it is considered reckless driving and goodbye license right there.

    Jeff (fccab8)

  14. It’s hard to keep up with all of “assistant devil’s advocate’s” angry aliases…”brent mack,” etc.

    Nonetheless, “assistant devil’s advocate” hates Jews, too, but that doesn’t mean we should take away “a.d.a.’s” driver’s license.

    Desert Rat (d8da01)

  15. I find this media frenzy over what counts were not filed hilarious. As long as Mel pleads to the (b) count on the DUI (over .08 BAC), all the other counts will — or would be — dismissed anyway. So it’s a big non issue.

    MOG (59bfb8)

  16. @desert rat:
    what evidence do you have for these lies, and why would i need any more than one name to mau mau the morons like you on here?

    assistant devil's advocate (b909ae)

  17. >>> “have some kind of legal right entitling them to a stream of peons coming in off the street and paying ten bucks each to see their movies? ” >>>

    I don’t know the tenets of law as far as thoughts that allow one gainful employment, and thoughts that preclude means of earning a living. The world has come together to agree on one thing. And Mel Gibson already knows it. He made a fool of himself.

    The blacklist request has been in the news for a couple of days now, and it’s just something I don’t agree with. Sorry. I’ll never live in a world where thought equals action.

    I just feel that religion is not only personal, but should be respected, always respected in its many forms. . . precluding of course religions that call for the killing of groups of people. But Mel was at some level of drunk, and as a lifer he knows to stay away from the sauce.

    I was not happy with how the film community treated Mel’s deeply personal expression of his religious faith with the intolerance he encountered for Passion of The Christ.

    If there’s a silver lining here, and there may be, it’s that Mel is in a position to make amends. He’ll contribute great deals of money and time to match his recent apologies, and attack hate where it starts: at home.

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  18. I’m not an attorney, but it just seems like common sense that driving 30 mph over the speed limit would BE reckless driving.

    Pardon, but i’m not convinced. In the days where there was a uniform statewide 55MPH speed limit, people regularly drove at or above 85 MPH on I-5 through the part of the Central Valley between Stockton and Bakersfield. Doing so was as safe then as it is today (when the speed limit on that road is 70); and, at that time, driving 50 MPH on that road might well have been construed as ‘reckless driving’.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  19. Mel Gibson’s success with “The Passion” made the Hollywood establishment look silly. He rubbed their noses in it too, and they didn’t like that. Now, it’s payback time.

    So far we’ve only seen previews of the coming attraction. They’re going to rip out his guts. Remember Braveheart? He’s going to be their own personal substitute for GWB, a scapegoat. Why, he’ll never take lunch in Tinsel Town again.

    I’m guessing the only way out is for Gibson to host a couple of fundraisers, one for Ned Lamont and one for Hillary Clinton, invite loads of Hollywood Lefties to some neutral site, get Al Franken and Babs to entertain, and then pick up the bar tab. For icing on the cake, he could always announce he was gay, but even then, the whole thing’s probably a long shot anyway.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  20. Without commenting upon the depth and breadth Gibson’s moral failings, I take it that California does not have a “reckless driving by speed.” Over here, 20 miles an hour in excess of the speed limit, or over 80 miles an hour no matter the postes speed, is automatically charged as reckless driving.

    Lysander (b9a564)

  21. You give Hollyweird too much credit, Black Jack. If Mel Gibson is still a bankable star and/or director, he will quickly be forgiven. No sense standing on principles when there is money to be made.

    JVW (e9cc13)

  22. over 80 miles an hour no matter the postes speed, is automatically charged as reckless driving.

    Oh good lord … you do UNDER mph on certain freeways in So Cal and you’re going to find fellow motorists up your tailpipe… (quick musing … 10 freeway east near Fontana, 15 freeway out to Vegas, 215 freeway north of Temecula)

    #15 MOG

    About 1/4 to 1/3 of our daily misdemeanor calendar is DUI’s, and “plead to b count a/o/c’s dismissed” is standard plea at pre-trial.

    Darleen (03346c)

  23. should be “UNDER 80 mph”

    Darleen (03346c)

  24. Lysander: it really depends on the context and location, but traffic on 280 (on the periphery of the urban part of the bay area) regularly runs at faster than 80. That’s presumed normal for that road.

    aphrael (e7c761)

  25. Just saw Jackie Mason in TV, he came up with a sure fire way for Gibson to put all this behind him. He should quit apologizing and get circumcised.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  26. JVW, yep, that would be the usual and normal Hollywood reaction, but since Gibson made “The Passion” himself without significant studio participation, funded it, released it, and handled the distribution too, well, you see, there was just no room for the Hollywood establishment to get in on all that lovely lucre. Now, they have an excuse to get even.

    Greed, envy, and revenge are major factors behind all the outrage over Gibson’s drunken rant. That and the fact Israel is under attack provides all the pretext necessary to pile on.

    The way they’re going after Gibson you’d think he was making GOP campaign commercials, or worse, had endorsed Joe Lieberman for the Senate.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  27. Slightly OT, but the following piece of semi-hidden editorialization in today’s article on Mel by Mary McNamara really pisses me off.

    It has no basis other than the author’s (and the layers of LA Times editors’) bias:

    ‘and whose last film, “The Passion of the Christ,” left many Jews — and Christians — feeling angered over the film’s portrayal of events leading up to the Crucifixion.’ Having seen the movie, it’s a faithful production of the events described in the bible. If you don’t like what was on the screen your problem is with the New Testament.

    The sound you hear is the LA Times’ slow collapse in respectability, asymptotically approaching zero.

    I think they’ll get there.

    Soon, if they haven’t got there already.

    Greg Toombs (9f1401)

  28. Greg — well, I would imagine that most Jews, and some “Christians”, have problems with the New Testament, so maybe the LA Times isn’t as off on its claims as you think. 🙂

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  29. I’m with aphrael on this one, Greg- people did get mad at the movie.

    Yes, the movie was primarily based upon the Gospels (but also upon various visions etc. too), but that doesn’t mean, necessarily, that the problem that people had with the film were the result of items in the source, rather than how they were emphasized or portrayed.

    Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  30. Aphrael brought up a good point about speeding. I didn’t think about it from that point of view. In that light, the law requiring “something more” than just speeding to be “reckless driving” makes sense.

    As for A.D.A.’s rants:

    Hollywood blacklisting–of those McCarthy accused, who was not a Communist?

    So, any person who fails the moral standard they set is a “phony”? I sincerely hope you don’t consider yourself a Christian, since one of the tenets of the church is that no one is worthy and that all need God’s grace. I guess that would mean if one thought one should behave in an exemplary manner but failed, that God should consider that person a phony. That would be some grace.

    But it’s understandable that you are so bitter that someone else got a break. I mean, you never got off with a warning. Like I have. Like my husband has. Like many other people I know have. I guess we were all “celebrities.”

    And as for the quote about the Passion of the Christ:

    The only people who were “upset” about the portrayal of Jews in TPOTC are upset that Gibson did a film about Jesus’s final days at all. I mean, the Gospels weren’t exactly kind to pharasees and other Jewish leaders.

    sharon (63d8f8)

  31. Christians viewing “The Passion of the Christ” were watching a film about Christ being crucified for their sins, while some Jews saw a film about Jesus of Nazareth being killed ‘by Jews.’

    Essentially, each group was watching a ‘DIFFERENT’ movie.

    However, what’s most important is that Christians who actually ‘understand’ their religion, recognize that Jesus of Nazareth’s death was PAR OF GOD’S PLAN, therefore, any Christian who ‘blames’ Jews for God’s plan of Christ’s death, is just plain misguided, and should take up the issue with God, rather than Jews.
    Other than Mel’s father Hutton Gibson, and other fringe crazies, I don’t know any Christians who ‘blame’ Jews.

    Furthermore, the Romans were the governing authority, and it was generally the Romans who put Jesus of Nazareth to death—not ‘the Jews,’ as so many people misinterpret.
    On top of that, Jesus, Joseph & Mary, and the apostles were all practicing Jews.
    The Last Supper was a Passover Seder.

    Historically, there has always been vicious anti-Semitism in Europe. For example, Europeans never use the term, “Judeo-Christian values,” or “Judeo-Christian heritage,” as Americans traditionally do.
    That is because Americans generally recognize the connection between Judaism and Christianity, whereas Europeans couldn’t care less.
    The point is, American Christians embrace Jews.
    In fact, that seems to be the big criticism by the LA Times, the left, the UN, and Europe—that American Christians have “too much regard” for Israel, and Jews.

    I would say the LA Times is the last publication I would trust to give an accurate portrayal of the film, the reaction by moviegoers to the film, or especially a theological explanation of the New Testament.

    Besides, I’m more concerned about the true threats to Jews by Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Iran, Syria, the UN, etc. than I am what Mel Gibson said in a middle of the night drunken rage.
    I’m more concerned about the anti-Semite who murdered a woman & shot 5 others at the Jewish Federation in Seattle last Friday—they are the real threats to Jews.

    Unfortunately, the Los Angeles Times’ news and editorial pages do not appear alarmed by the anti-Semitism of Hamas, Hezbollah, the UN, Iran, etc., or the guy who shot people at the Jewish Federation in Seattle.

    And that is why it is apparent that the Times’ anger at Mel Gibson’s film emanates more out of resentment for Christianity than it does out of any prurient regard for fighting anti-Semitism.

    Desert Rat (d8da01)

  32. Give it a fucking rest about The Passion.

    Especially since the Romans only executed Jesus because Pontius Pilate had previously done some stuff like place a Roman eagle in the Temple and caused huge riots by the locals that he was NOT EAGER to repeat.

    Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  33. Christians viewing “The Passion of the Christ” were watching a film about Christ being crucified for their sins, while some Jews saw a film about Jesus of Nazareth being killed ‘by Jews.’

    Essentially, each group was watching a ‘DIFFERENT’ movie.

    I heard Dennis Prager say almost the same thing a couple of days ago.

    GMTA

    And you’re closing is dead on.

    Darleen (03346c)

  34. @sharon:
    what does it matter if the blacklisted writers were communists? do you support corporate blacklisting of communists, but oppose public market action effectively blacklisting catholic anti-semites?
    i am not a christian. i am on record on this blog as being a proud pagan. i don’t need god’s grace, because the doctrine of original sin is just horse manure.
    i am happy for you that you and your husband have got off with warnings. i’m big enough to own up when i get caught for a traffic violation about once every ten years. i certainly don’t beg for a warning like you do, nor do i claim to own the city where i’m stopped and threaten the officer, nor do i boast about receiving warnings instead of tickets on blogs. what **is** your problem?

    for the rational people on here, once again, the issue is not anti-semitism, but disparate treatment of citizens by law enforcement. mel gibson is not the first catholic in history to hate jews, nor will he be the last. if it takes a billionaire moviemaker falling from grace and getting utterly trashed in the media to call attention and perhaps ameliorate the issue of disparate treatment, i consider that acceptable collateral damage.

    assistant devil's advocate (8908bb)

  35. If only the un-hinged lefties like “assistant devil’s advocate” were so agitated by ‘preferential treatment from the police’ when Ted Kennedy left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown and didn’t bother to report it until after lunch the next day.

    If Mel Gibson had been given “preferential treatment by the police,” they would have driven him home as they did Patrick Kennedy, after Kennedy crashed his car a couple months ago near the capitol building at 2:30 in the morning.
    Patrick Kennedy wasn’t even given a DUI test, even though the police report stated that Kennedy appeared to be under the influence.

    The daily mantra of “assistant devil’s advocate” (and his aliases) must be, “so much hatred and nihilism, and too many blogs to spew it at !”

    “assistant devil’s advocate’s” own saving grace is that he furiously types 50 words per minute—and 55 words per minute when he’s riding an adrenaline wave of particular hatred for whomever he’s ranting at.

    Mel Gibson must elicit quite the conundrum for “a.d.a.”

    On the one hand, Gibson shouted a bunch of wacko anti-Semitic remarks which appeals to “a.d.a.’s” own hatred for Israel & Jews in general.

    On the other hand, Gibson is a Christian—another one of “a.d.a.’s” least favorite groups–and Gibson had the nerve to offend his secularism with a movie called, “The Passion of the Christ.”

    What is so anachronistic about “a.d.a.”—despite his penchant for post-modern hipster irony—is that the global threat of Islamo-fascism threatens us, yet “a.d.a.” is more animated by trying to re-fight the Cold War with Sharon, as well as trying to prove that the D.A’s office is going soft on Gibson for not seeking the death penalty for Mel as punishment for calling a female deputy “sugar tits.”

    Maybe we should ask Mary Jo Kopechne who she believes is getting ‘preferential treatment.’

    Desert Rat (d8da01)

  36. Desert Rat-

    I’m really right wing.

    I hope that they nail Mel Gibson’s ass to the wall, just like I wish they had nailed Rep. Kennedy (the young one who recently crashed his car after doing a bunch of drugs), and just like I wish they would nail the hell out of all these actors/actresses who very publicly consume massive quantities of drugs that would get a normal person 10-20 for PWID.

    I’d love to see, say, Whitney Houston be sent down for a decade or two for all the blow that she’s got to have lying around.

    Or how about Christian Slater, whose legal run-ins, none of which seem to have resulted in much, if any, jail time, include

    – 12/29/89: High speed chase that ends in resisting arrest and assault on a police officer.

    – 12/23/94: Bringing a firearm onto an airplane. Hello federal felony!

    – 8/11/97: High on heroin, Slater attacked, with a deadly weapon (I believe it was a Louisville Slugger, although it might have been a knife) his girlfriend and a man who was trying to protect her. When police arrived, he attacked them as well, and once again resisted arrest and assaulted the officers. Slater received a mere ninety day sentence, of which only 59 were served.

    – 5/31/05: Slater commits third degree sexual abuse by physically accosting a woman in New York. The court ultimately dismisses the charges if Slater manages to avoid arrest for the next six months.

    Seriously, it shouldn’t be too hard to obtain warrants to search the homes of these people due to their conspicuous drug use. And, better yet, in California a prosecutor does not need to indict via grand jury, but can simply file an information.

    This could be a winning DA campaign issue – “JUSTICE FOR ALL.”

    Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  37. “what does it matter if the blacklisted writers were communists?”

    The reason it matters is that “McCarthyism” is thrown around as if Joseph McCarthy made rash accusations that were false. He didn’t. That’s why I always ask this question whenever some dumbass starts spewing about McCarthyism.

    “do you support corporate blacklisting of communists, but oppose public market action effectively blacklisting catholic anti-semites?”

    To my knowledge, Catholic anti-semites didn’t hand state secrets to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. They didn’t actively (or even passively) support the overthrow of democracy for communist dictatorships that killed millions (and still does) and imprisoned millions more. If you think supporting the undermining of your country by giving away secrets is a good idea, there’s a word for you.

    “i am not a christian. i am on record on this blog as being a proud pagan. i don’t need god’s grace, because the doctrine of original sin is just horse manure.”

    Fantastic. That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. But it also ensures that you are in no position to criticize any other religion.

    “i am happy for you that you and your husband have got off with warnings.”

    I was pleasantly surprised, as well.

    “i certainly don’t beg for a warning like you do, nor do i claim to own the city where i’m stopped and threaten the officer, nor do i boast about receiving warnings instead of tickets on blogs. what **is** your problem?”

    Wow, what a dumbass statement. Nowhere in my comment about getting warnings from police officers did I ever state or even imply that I “begged” for one. I was polite to the officer who, obviously, decided to give me (and others) a break. I would say that having it happen to me more than once indicates that I must come across as a nicer person than you do. Or maybe that police officers DO, in fact, give people breaks based on nothing other than their desire not to always be an asshole, an idea obviously lost on you.

    Of course, the reason I brought it up was your insistence that the ONLY possible reason Mel Gibson wasn’t given the harshest penalties possible was because of his “celebrity status.” You then went on to whine that it “made a mockery of our justice system.” All I was doing was pointing out that celebrities aren’t the only people who get a break from police officers. YOU are the one with the problem.

    “for the rational people on here, once again, the issue is not anti-semitism, but disparate treatment of citizens by law enforcement.”

    Yes, and your opinion has already been debunked. Disparate treatment by law enforcement happens all the time. And it isn’t just based on celebrity status. It’s a judgement call the officer makes at the time.

    “mel gibson is not the first catholic in history to hate jews, nor will he be the last. if it takes a billionaire moviemaker falling from grace and getting utterly trashed in the media to call attention and perhaps ameliorate the issue of disparate treatment, i consider that acceptable collateral damage.”

    How wonderful that you don’t mind someone else getting treated more harshly to satisfy your idea of “equal treatment.” I guess if I never got a break from a police officer, I might be bitter about it, as well.

    sharon (63d8f8)

  38. Angry Clam

    Gibson’s charges are STANDARD. He is getting absolutely no preferential treatment.

    So why do you want him “nailed to the wall”?

    As “payback” for Kennedy and Slater?

    Whaaa…?

     TAC: Read the comment immediately above it, which argues that Gibson is being somehow victimized by being prosecuted, and claims that this is because he directed The Passion.

    Darleen (03346c)

  39. Oh.

    And Winona Ryder didn’t get any preferential treatment. Indeed, because she hired an idiot for a defense lawyer she ended up with a felony conviction.

     TAC: And what exactly was her sentence for that felony? Convictions aren’t the only way celebrity defendants are treated better than everyone else.

    Darleen (03346c)

  40. damn, i’ve picked up two raving, foaming, fixating trolls!
    @desert rat:
    yes, hatred of the kennedys is what unites you people, isn’t it? i’ll bet it’s all the women associated with them over the years. marilyn monroe wouldn’t even have given you her autograph.
    is there something bad about post-modern hipster irony?
    i don’t use other names on blogs. show your evidence or stfu.
    @sharon:
    joe mccarthy didn’t make rash accusations that were false? what about his list of communist infiltrators in the army? have you no sense of decency, no, wait, how’s your grip on reality?
    you support corporate blacklisting of communists, but oppose public market action effectively blacklisting catholic anti-semites because, because……
    “catholic anti-semites didn’t hand state secrets to the soviet union during the cold war.”
    holy shit! the people who were convicted of doing that were jews. it’s ok to blacklist jews but not catholics, uh-huh. that’s a pretty ugly area of your mind you just illuminated for us.
    i don’t know where you see this “bitterness” you keep talking about. i have no problem paying tickets, i can afford to pay a ticket every day (if they let me keep driving after the first 30 tickets/month). you’re doing a projection thing here, aren’t you?
    the cold war is o-ver, all done, finito, but you’re still fighting it. thank you for your interesting presentation in pathology.

    assistant devil's advocate (a25e25)

  41. the cold war is o-ver,

    So’s Vietnam, but you’d never know it from how many times the American Left drops it into every conversation. But that’s as far back as their collective “memory” goes. Kinda like the Taliban blowing up statues of Buddha, cuz no history exists before Islam and no culture is worthy of tolerating outside of dar ul Islam.

    Grow up, ADA and read some actual history books (not whacko stuff by Howard Zinn)

    Darleen (03346c)

  42. We all know that “a.d.a.” (and his aliases) is a Jew-hater, Christian-hater, Wal-Mart-hater, Bush-hater, America-hater, Israel-hater, and probably even resents fuzzy bunny rabbits and pretty daffodils on a lovely spring day, but his deep-seeded resentment at women reveals itself in the most Freudian of conflicts.

    Just go back and compare the way he historically makes vicious attacks on female commenters such as Sharon and Darleen, vs. his more “temperate” attacks against posters he identifies as men.

    “a.d.a.’s” anger at women probably reaches back to his high school days, which, from his never-ending obsession with the McCarthy Era & pubescent fantasies of old-time movie star Marilyn Monroe, places him at a year of birth which likely makes him many years older than my parents.

    Naturally, “a.d.a.’s” Freudian explanation for why someone would disparage a Kennedy who leaves a woman to drown, or disparage a Kennedy who recklessly crashes his car at 2:30 in the morning in a drunken stupor (Patrick Kennedy, uh, like 2 months ago), is merely due to resenting the Kennedys because they score lots of chicks !

    Hey, it’s the same reason “a.d.a.” believes most people hate OJ Simpson—not because he murdered his ex-wife and got away with it, but because OJ scored hot blondes !

    “a.d.a.”, you should call up Dr. Phil, or Dr. Laura—they might be able to help you out with your problem of resenting the ladies.
    And you may find that those resentments can explain away the anger behind your other pathologies.

    As far as your Stalinist fantasies of how Communism was misunderstood despite the tens of millions of dead bodies it left in its path…I’m afraid the answer is that your decades long anger at America and its institutions reveals that you’re just morally confused.

    But then again, THAT IS what being an aging, post-modern, hip, practitioner of ironic moral equivalency is all about.

    Desert Rat (d8da01)

  43. While I’m of the school of thought that says a person is more likely to blurt out their deep, dark, yet real thoughts when drinking (although I grant that everyone can has such thoughts, however good people actively suppress them and replace them with better ones), many people who know Mel Gibson say that he’s not anti-semitic, but that the worst parts of his nature are magnified out of all proportion to his real self when he’s drinking.

    That could be. They know him and I don’t. If you haven’t read it already, you may want to read Pat Boone’s article, “Lay off Mel Gibson, for Christ’s sake!

    I have probably been overly harsh in my rush to judgement of Mr. Gibson because of my previous admiration of him, a feeling of disappointment, and my sensitivity to the plight of the Jewish people which was taught to me as a child and is very much relevant today.

    So I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and, while he’ll never know it, apologize for said rush to judgement.

    After all, a certain memorable Jew did in fact make a good point about being without sin and casting the first stone. On that basis, I should keep my hands away from the ground and, as a good Chinese man once said, sweep the snow off my own door step.

    Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6)

  44. Who are any of us to judge him? How does it affect us? Let’s instead judge people who we “voted” in who are screwing up the world. Why the big rush to see Mel screwed and not a peep with all the other way worse things going on in the world?

    Kathy (a90377)

  45. “joe mccarthy didn’t make rash accusations that were false?”

    I said Joseph McCarthy never accused anyone of being a Communist who wasn’t. Can you name a person he accused of being a Communist who wasn’t? Didn’t think so.

    “you support corporate blacklisting of communists, but oppose public market action effectively blacklisting catholic anti-semites because, because……”

    I support blacklisting traitors to this country. I support blacklisting people who support foreign governments who killed millions of their own people.

    “holy shit! the people who were convicted of doing that were jews. it’s ok to blacklist jews but not catholics, uh-huh. that’s a pretty ugly area of your mind you just illuminated for us.”

    What’s pretty ugly is you twisting it into a Catholic vs. Jew thing. I don’t give a damn if the person is Jewish, Catholic, or pagan like you. But I do support blacklisting traitors. Nice try, though.

    “i don’t know where you see this “bitterness” you keep talking about.”

    Really? It’s pretty obvious. I mean, I state that I’ve been given warnings by police officers and you twist it into me “begging” for a warning. Then there’s all the whining that celebrities get treated differently. And since you can’t refute that police officers do write warnings for ordinary citizens, you have to twist it into some sort of action on my part. Sounds pretty bitter to me.

    “i have no problem paying tickets, i can afford to pay a ticket every day (if they let me keep driving after the first 30 tickets/month).”

    Oh, good. Then you’ll stfu about everybody not being treated the same under the law, right?

    “you’re doing a projection thing here, aren’t you?”

    ROFLMAO! Why is it whenever some guy gets his ass handed to him on a platter it becomes a “projection” thing. What, pray tell, am I projecting? I have no bitterness that Mr. Gibson didn’t get a ticket. I’m not the one railing that Gibson made a “mockery of our justice system,” blah, blah, blah. I, in fact, pointed out that police officers do this sort of thing all the time. You, on the other hand, tried to make it into something else.

    “the cold war is o-ver, all done, finito, but you’re still fighting it. thank you for your interesting presentation in pathology.”

    Thank God Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War. But judging from your behavior, the pathology lingers.

    sharon (63d8f8)

  46. @desert rat:
    there you go with the aliases again. i’ve challenged you to provide evidence. no evidence just means you’re a pussy.
    “deep-seeded resentment” lol. i’m actually post-post modern, because post-modernism has gone on too long and is no longer edgy enough.
    @sharon:
    good luck trying to spin your willingness to blacklist jews versus your reluctance to blacklist catholics. maybe you can get patterico to delete that ugly comment. meanwhile, keep fighting the good fight against communism. like i always say, moderation in the pursuit of vice is no virtue.

    assistant devil's advocate (129794)

  47. “good luck trying to spin your willingness to blacklist jews versus your reluctance to blacklist catholics. maybe you can get patterico to delete that ugly comment. meanwhile, keep fighting the good fight against communism. like i always say, moderation in the pursuit of vice is no virtue.”

    Good luck? There is no luck. You’re the one trying to make it a Jew vs. Catholic thing, not I. What is it about liberals that they run to racism when they can’t win an argument logically?

    sharon (63d8f8)

  48. To the pagan blogger, a.d.a.

    Dude, give up the sauce . . . look what it did to Mel.

    You’re funny in your choice of rhetoric. Or in this case, sheer hypocrisy. Blacklisting, a phrase you use in the sense of victims. And your own phrase (priceless) is “public market action.” In case you hadn’t noticed, people are divided on aspects of this whole case. Just today, several of Mel’s friends have gone on the record to say when he drinks, he is not himself. When he doesn’t drink, he’s not anti-Semitic.

    You say celebrities are treated differently but you refuse to put the Kennedys in THAT category? Assistant! Devil’s! Advocate! Put down the bottle and step away from the keyboard. Yer pickin’ fights.

    People who trade national secrets are of any denomination, race or color. Not just the Rosenbergs. Look at Bill Clinton; his work with the Chinese has never gotten in the way of his pursuit of babes and booksignings, has it? And does that bother you? Preferential treatment apparently.

    a.d.a. . . to. . . sharon:
    “good luck trying to spin your willingness to blacklist jews versus your reluctance to blacklist catholics.” >>

    You know, this was the most transparent attempt to move something off topic in quite sometime.

    It didn’t work.

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  49. The funny part about the blacklisting comment is that there could very well be people unwilling to work with Mel Gibson already; not because of this incident but because of his conviction to make The Passion of the Christ. Frankly, discussing “blacklisting” in this context is a complete perversion of the term. If producers, actors, directors, etc. don’t want to work with Gibson, they won’t. But that won’t stop Gibson from producing whatever works he chooses.

    Nor is it “blacklisting” if people choose not to plunk down 8 bucks to see one of his films. That’s just freedom of choice.

    sharon (63d8f8)

  50. @vermont:
    when there’s a post about the kennedys, i’ll consider weighing in on that. thank you for trying to distract us with bill clinton, good try. yes, traitors come in all religions, but the only ones executed for giving secrets to the soviet union were j&e rosenberg, the ones sharon was referring to. robert hanssen (sp?), the fbi agent who also gave secrets to the russians, was a member of opus dei, so prominently featured in “the da vinci code”.
    @sharon:
    i have no problem with comment #49. remember that i distinguished “corporate blacklisting” from “public market action effectively blacklisting”, a distinction vermont neighbor, originator of the term “blacklisting” in this thread (comment #9), failed to grasp and characterized as “priceless”. i’ll let you two sort that out.

    assistant devil's advocate (96ff8a)

  51. a.d.d., you’re clearly trying to be the tiresome, oh-so-proper moral arbiter.

    I’ll let you untangle some of the nonsense that you and others have attributed to a drunken man’s words. You in fact should apologize so many times for mistakes, as Gibson has done. And we know those apologies will be followed by community projects, hefty donations, heartfelt cooperation with those offended… on and on and on.

    Your whole THESIS was that celebrities are treated differently. With that claim, you’ve simply invited inclusion of the obvious examples. Which totally mirror your thesis! —

    Kennedy? Ted, Joe, Patrick. Or which one? (The truth kinda hurts, doesn’t it.)

    Time to massage your flawed thesis…ASAP.

    (“thank you for trying to distract us with bill clinton”)

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  52. “but the only ones executed for giving secrets to the soviet union were j&e rosenberg, the ones sharon was referring to.”

    Actually, I was doing no such thing. You are the one who brought up

    ““do you support corporate blacklisting of communists, but oppose public market action effectively blacklisting catholic anti-semites?””

    (comment 34)

    My comment was that I have no problem blacklisting those who are traitors to this country and support foreign governments. The Rosenbergs were only the most famous of these. But every person Joseph McCarthy accused of being a Communist had been, imagine that, a Communist. Of course, you turned it into a “Jewish vs. Catholic” thing, thus showing your own bias. Quit trying to project such nonsense on others.

    sharon (63d8f8)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1055 secs.