Mel Gibson 's racist rant

We could 'feel' for Frankenstein's monster; feel for King Kong; feel for the Wolfman..especially the teenage one played by Little Joe Cartwright...

But zombies? We can't care about them, almost by definition?

If that's the case, I predict Mel's next movie will star him, as a zombie on meth or crack or both. He won't go down easy, but the fans will all be waiting for the gruesome end. He will go down. Sammy Davis Jr., back from the dead, or time traveling, will do the deed. He will force Mel to eat his own brain.

(I really need to call my agent.)
 
applecorped said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/15/mel-gibsons-oksana-rants-_n_647168.html

"Sources tell TMZ ... Mel Gibson's lawyers claim to have hard evidence the tapes Oksana Grigorieva secretly recorded have been tampered with and edited, which, if true, would make them inadmissible in a court of law."
Click to expand...

Well I don't care if nine tenths of the purportedly "edited" tapes have Mel reciting bible verses and singing lullabies, he still has to be held accountable for the one tenth of the tapes that include him confessing to a felony assault while she was holding newborn baby, and also his death threat.

Of course she may have possibly edited out anything she said that "provoked" him, I don't care if she danced on his head he has no right to verbally abuse or threaten anyone, not her or anyone , it is a cime.
 
quarky said:
We could 'feel' for Frankenstein's monster; feel for King Kong; feel for the Wolfman..especially the teenage one played by Little Joe Cartwright...

But zombies? We can't care about them, almost by definition?

If that's the case, I predict Mel's next movie will star him, as a zombie on meth or crack or both. He won't go down easy, but the fans will all be waiting for the gruesome end. He will go down. Sammy Davis Jr., back from the dead, or time traveling, will do the deed. He will force Mel to eat his own brain.

(I really need to call my agent.)
Click to expand...
You can care about zombies all you want. You just can't empathize with them. Just like you can care about that rock in your garden, your dad's torque wrench, or that mole on your girlfriend's cheek, but you can't empathize with them because THEY DON'T HAVE EMOTIONS. Their "feelings" consists of Braaaains and that's it.
 
What if he is just bipolar?

If that is the case, people who are exploiting him are the ones who should really be ashamed.
 
grunion said:
You can care about zombies all you want. You just can't empathize with them. Just like you can care about that rock in your garden, your dad's torque wrench, or that mole on your girlfriend's cheek, but you can't empathize with them because THEY DON'T HAVE EMOTIONS. Their "feelings" consists of Braaaains and that's it.
Click to expand...


Spooky that you mention my dad's torque-wrench...

I left it out in the rain last night, and I felt sorry for the suffering of that wrench.

I can empathize with inanimate objects. Its probably a disease, with meds and all...but:

Zombies are a bit more than inanimate objects, aren't they?

Wasn't one of them that cute girl that worked at the 7-11?
The one that was always so nice to you?

Wait until we find out how horribly abused Mel was as a child!
It will up his rating by 27 points.
 
Nursefoxfire said:
I was watching some news clip the other day where they had an expert on who listened to the tapes released by Radaronline, who definitively stated that they haven't been tampered with.

He also stressed that there's a HUGE difference between "editing" a tape and "tampering" with it. He said the sections were long enough and unbroken enough that the gist of the meaning was evident, and that the sound levels and modulation (I don't remember the technical terms he used) proved to him that this was actually as stated: one very angry man shouting down a phone line to a much calmer woman ( calmer because she knew she was taping him, perhaps?).

In other words, sections may have been removed (edited), but there was no evidence that multiple sound clips were patched together to make Mel say anything different than what he actually said.
Click to expand...

The problem I'm having with this is if she did not inform Mel she was recording the conversation, she broke the law in recording these tapes. I'm questioning why the DA hasn't filed charges against her.

IANAL, but was involved in a civil case as a witness. Someone on our side even had a taped phone call of the otherside requesting we not perform a certain task. (We were being sued for negligence, and not performing this particular task was a major case point).

Not only was the conversation inadmissible, but the guy that recorded it got charges filed against him. They were reduced greatly later, but the point was that even though they clearly absolved us of negligence, as they were recorded illegally, they were of no use.

However, it is very possible that the moment the custody battle started, there is a record in the courts that she informed Mel that she is recording every conversation between them. That should be enough to allow the tapes to be use in the custody battle.

Please not that I am in no way supporting Mel in any of this. He is a pig and if this whole issue leads to him disappering from the film world, then it was all worth it. I'm just curious about the law and how this all works.
 
PhreePhly said:
The problem I'm having with this is if she did not inform Mel she was recording the conversation, she broke the law in recording these tapes.
Click to expand...
What law? Are these state or fed laws? What about when the fed wiretaps?
 
Neally said:
What law? Are these state or fed laws? What about when the fed wiretaps?
Click to expand...


State laws vary. California is a "two (all) party consent" state. All parties to a conversation must provide informed consent. Other states only require the consent of one involved party. Many variations on this theme can apply. Interstate phone calls can be even more problematic. Fed law is another discussion entirely. Wiretaps, be they state or federal, are warrant authorized actions, or illegal (in theory :rolleyes:).
 
grunion said:
You can care about zombies all you want. You just can't empathize with them. Just like you can care about that rock in your garden, your dad's torque wrench, or that mole on your girlfriend's cheek, but you can't empathize with them because THEY DON'T HAVE EMOTIONS. Their "feelings" consists of Braaaains and that's it.
Click to expand...

Hey, I remember the TV commentator from the Original "Dawn Of The Dead" also.
 
quadraginta said:
State laws vary. California is a "two (all) party consent" state. All parties to a conversation must provide informed consent. Other states only require the consent of one involved party. Many variations on this theme can apply. Interstate phone calls can be even more problematic. Fed law is another discussion entirely. Wiretaps, be they state or federal, are warrant authorized actions, or illegal (in theory :rolleyes:).
Click to expand...

Not against the law if she was being threatened.
She had a restraining order at the time of that phone call.
People who are in fear of their lives or are being threatened do not have to get any informed consent from the person who is threatening them.
Falls under the "terrorist threat" exclusion.
 
I have heard bipolar people throw the N word arond when they are having a manic episode and then when they are well they don't remember it. Someone being manic is a lot like when someone is on speed. I know. It is a family member I am talking about. When they are well, they are sweet, smart and kind and, of course, not racist.

Since Mel Gibson was panting and out of breath on the phone. I suspect he was manic and the phone conversation was contrived and the girlfriend is a the real monster in this story. She is taking advantage of him. She is no loving partner. And, oddly enough, perhaps Mel's rage is justified.
 
Last edited:
What is the public opinion?
Is it for or against Mel?
If it is against Mel, it says alot for the stupidity of public opinon and our rush to judgement.
 
Roma said:
Not against the law if she was being threatened.
She had a restraining order at the time of that phone call.
People who are in fear of their lives or are being threatened do not have to get any informed consent from the person who is threatening them.
Falls under the "terrorist threat" exclusion.
Click to expand...


Yes. Or perhaps, maybe.

I wasn't trying to give Neally a comprehensive treatise, just a rough breakdown.

The admissibility of these particular recordings is, as I understand, still under review, so even that aspect is not straightforward. Their release to the public after having been placed under seal by the judge is unfortunate. I hope that doesn't affect the issue.
 
Last edited:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...-leaves-States-selling-mansion-cut-price.html

"He has told friends that he will move back to Australia - where he grew up after moving from America when he was 12 - with his ex-wife Robyn, who still supports him.

‘Robyn has never seen a violent side to him.

‘She has persuaded him that he needs to get away from Hollywood and find peace on his ranch and she will go with him along with some of the children."



​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom