Recommend you run this through your “reasonable man” test:
One of the swimmers reported that a highly intoxicated Lochte got in an argument with the station manager over the cost of damages caused by Lochte. The cops appeared and the matter concluded with Locte paying the manager. Thereafter, everyone went back to the compound.
What lie did he tell his mother? ...nobody seems willing to inform me... (It is surprising given your strong views of this incident that you haven't researched that point yourself.)
His original assertion that he was pulled over and robbed at gunpoint by police. The U.S. press contacted her and it hit the world press. He thereafter appeared on U.S. television and republished the lie. He later recanted and admitted he had embellished the lie. Perhaps his retraction occurred after the U.S. Olympic Committee viewed a security video of the incident, admitted an act of vandalism had taken place and apologized.
You and I are through wrestling in the mud.
I feel like i'm trying to explain color to a blind man. The evidence that has so far come forth demonstrates there was no "damages" beyond that poster. The damages alleged by the Rio Police department have been proven false.
So let's put the "reasonable man" test on you. Do you think $400.00 is a reasonable amount to pay for the damages to a wall poster advertisement? Even by Rio standards?
What lie did he tell his mother? ...nobody seems willing to inform me... (It is surprising given your strong views of this incident that you haven't researched that point yourself.)
One would think it would be sufficiently easy for any one of you who alleges he lied to his mother, to say what the lie was, but yet once again, you have missed the perfect opportunity to relate to me of what this supposed "lie" consisted.
His original assertion that he was pulled over and robbed at gunpoint by police.
Which turns out to be essentially correct. The only thing about which he could be considered mistaken, is his claim that he was "pulled over". But a drunk sitting in a Taxi, and then rousted out suddenly, may very well have believed he had been "pulled over."
He thereafter appeared on U.S. television and republished the lie.
Which was not a lie, but was in fact the truth.
He later recanted and admitted he had embellished the lie.
While the corrupt socialist third world hell-hole police had his team mates for hostages and was threatening to prosecute them. This is known as "confession under duress" and is not admissible in a US Court.
As I have stated before, if my friends and team mates were being held hostage by a corrupt third world hell-hole, I would admit to being the second gunman on the grassy knoll if I thought it would get them out of that third world sewer.
He said what he needed to say to get the Corrupt Rio authorities to back off from ransoming his friends. Even so, they forced them to pay $11,000 to get their passport back. Do you think *THAT* was reasonable?
You and I are through wrestling in the mud.
I haven't been wrestling in the mud. I have been telling the accurate truth, and *YOU* keep parroting the lies spread by the corrupt Rio Police force who were trying to cover their own @$$ for robbing an American of $400.00 at gunpoint.
Again, we can *PROVE* that the Rio police lied about the Vandalism. If they lied about the vandalism, they have no credibility in any of their other statements.
Do you not grasp that their veracity has been impeached?