Since Gibson is not on trial for saying what was heard and reported by a police officer (or deputy sheriff) it doesn't matter. Gibson apologized for offending a group of people, and now he has offended many more with his outrageous remarks about the Bush Administration. Gibson has lost millions of fans now.
One can't help but wonder if he is badmouthing President Bush just to get back into the good graces of the Hollywood elite.
In spite of Hollywood's intense and public criticism of Gibson, he's kicked their a$$es at the box office.
Why would he NEED Hollywood? Hollywood NEEDS Gibson.
But I happen to agree (assuming we believe the media reports of what can be verified)
However, if you will admit that you were wrong in your baseless attacks on my position, I might consider thinking about you having a point in this regard. (hint, hint, read my tag line)
Straight statement, no artifice or guile, if you can answer the implicit question you raise in your post then I am very interested in the result and very open to whatever conclusion that can be proved. I have clearly stood up against the "conventional wisdom" as passed on by the powers that be about what "really happened" in this incident. I don't deny that account. I simply deny that that account has been proved, not only to my satisfaction but to the simplest level of honest discourse.
And Mel Gibson is not "on trial" for anything except DUI, which he has agreed to a plea deal over. Nothing else is a "fact" in any legal sense.
There is more to this than is apparent. Watson, the game is afoot!
It may not be apparent, but I'm having fun over this. Not the argument, per se, but the argument over the question. I don't revel in "you said - I said" crap. I do revel in really strong "here is this idea and here is the evidence" kind of posts. In fact, that is why I participate here on FR.
You have now proved to me that you want to go that way by what you have posted on this thread, even when we could have driven right off of a cliff. Thank you.