Posted on 08/18/2006 9:59:50 AM PDT by Hal1950
LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - Mel Gibson has escaped jail after pleading guilty to drunk driving.
The 'Mad Max' star agreed a plea bargain with prosecutors on Thursday (17.08.06) and in return was given three years probation, ordered to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and told to enrol in an alcohol abuse programme for three months.
Mel - who was also fined $1,300 and had his driving license restricted for 90 days - was arrested on July 28 after being pulled over on Pacific Coast Highway, in Maui, for speeding.
He then launched into an anti-Semitic tirade, during which he allegedly said: "Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world."
Afterwards, the 50-year-old actor profusely apologised for his comments.
Mel said: "I acted like a persson completely out of control when I was arrested, and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable.
"I am deeply ashamed of everything I said, and I apologise to anyone who I have offended."
Mel - who signed the plea agreement and waived his right to a jury trial on Monday (14.08.06) - did not appear in court for the hearing. His lawyer Blair Berk entered the plea on his behalf.
Malibu's deputy district attorney Gina Satriano said in a statement: "This was an appropriate outcome which addresses all the public safety concerns of drinking and driving."
Brigada, you just can't take the truth about your fallen idol.
According to the kool aide drinkers on this thread, he was "drinking water". So he was arrested while driving under the influence of . . . water!
YES, IT IS TRUE - I WAS
Oh, wait, maybe he was better off the way he went. My bad.
I'm not that familiar with alcoholism, but I had previously thought that an alcoholic could not utter statements which they believed to patently false. Live and learn, eh?
I assume there must be cases of drunk SS men claiming to love Jews or hate Adolph Hitler - (loved to have been a fly on the wall for that)..
Where is Cal's article?
Really, I thought The Passion was one of the most beautiful movies ever made. We all see what we want to see.
You don't want to believe the two women in the resturant. He went to the resturant to sober up. He was drunk, and he couldn't go home.
If you are not much of a fan of his, why do you have so many posts about him???
I have already read Cal Thomas's article and I am not impressed. Oh do you put Cal Thomas in between your reading of the National Enquirer and Page Six of the New York Post? I suppose next you will be believing that a three headed man will be coming down from Mars.
Just because Cal Thomas says it doesn't make it say.
If you want to read a good article, why don't you read this link from Jackie Mason.
http://www.counterpunch.org/mason08092006.html
Hey know it all, he was drunk BEFORE he got to the resturant, he was drinking water when he was in the resturant. EVERYONE in the resturant who has been asked says the same thing.
And again, I will ask, if you don't care about Mel Gibson, and you never liked him-why do you have so many posts about him? The same question can be asked about Julie?
Oh, because YOU SAY IT, IT IS SO!
You can access it via Townhall - it was about two weeks ago. Cal Thomas has an archive on it.
Don't you know that he went to a bar to discuss the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola with two nubile young ladies in the expectation that it would help develop their bosoms.
Right - he was arrested for driving under the influence of "water"! And you expect us to believe that - you Kool Aide drinkers should let go of your "Mel is a saint" obsession. Find a more worthy object of love - like G-D!
Funny that you can't answer my question Julie, if you don't care about Mel Gibson, why do you keep posting about him?
The people in the resturant already said why he went to there. He was drunk when he got in there, and went in to sober up before he went home. He isn't allowed to drink at home, as most recovering alcoholics aren't allowed to. The men in the resturant said the said things. But you with your dirty mind, want to make more out of it. And by the way, the young woman fans were just asking him to take pictures. But of course you want to make more out of it.
Why don't you try answering my question-why do you keep posting about Mel, if you don't care about him?
Because I am interested in Hollywood and politics, and I concerned about anti-semitism, all of which are elements of this story.
You are entitled to your opinion of him, as am I.
I do worship God and Jesus, and I also remember that Jesus said a little something about forgiveness, something that you seem to forgetting about Miss Julie.
I also seem to remember that Mel Gibson apologized twice for his comments.
If you are really a worshiper of God you will remember what he said about forgiveness.
I sure hope you forgot your /sarcasm tag because those stats are nothing but BS for scaremongering and sensationalism to drum up more money for political lobbying (MADD) and law enforcement. The first problems is how they count "alcohol related" accidents- if someone walking out after having a beer with lunch gets run over by someone stone sober running a red light they are the casualty of an "alcohol related" accident by the counting methods. The survey goes to show drunks just can't count- 2000 times is the equivalent of saying they drove drunk once a day, everyday for 5 and a half years. I don't believe one bit of it.
I am also interested in Hollywood in politics, and work closley in both.
But unlike you, I am a fan of Mr. Gibson. As you say, that is my right, just as it is your right to not be a fan.
What bothers me is when people get on this board and say inaccurate things. If they want to criticize the horrible things Mr. Gibson said when he was drunk, fine, if they want to criticize his drinking and driving, also fine, if you didn't care for a particular movie, again fine, but don't make up things that you don't know about.
I am sure you would feel the same way about someone you liked and admired.
YOU SAID: whatever it was that you said. I fail to see where it needs repeating, or why I need to argue about what you said. You're absolutely correct about the money grubbing aspect of the issue. MADD isn't about solving problems or gaining closure, or whatever their objectives are: MADD is a victims retribution/vengeance organization.
I can sympathize with the pain of the families who've lost loved ones because of drunk drivers; I can never empathize with their loss. I hope never having to do so, and it is my fervent prayer that I may never be the cause of such pain; especially with recidivism rate as high as it is.
That being said, and notwithstanding, "alcohol related" is exactly what you intimated it to be. And even more chilling is what you said about the pedestrian getting run over. The thing that the previously convicted driver for alcohol offense has to consider: if a pedestrian steps out in front of their moving vehicle (and the driver has any measurable amount of BAC), despite said pedestrian being a jay-walker, said driver is at fault pro se, and MADD is not the least concerned about that.
The pedestrian always has the right of way no matter what, eh? But in certain circumstances, that will be outright ignored.
I'm unclear where you're getting the time frame from with respect to that last objection you made. There's no way you could make such assertion without knowing the age of the individuals when they were convicted of their first alcohol related offense.
Un-asked for opinion is just that: unasked for. Nevertherthes, and the foregoing notwithstanding, I'm going to be so bold to tell you what I think: anybody that ever comes into contact with the police for harming anybody or anything, should have the book thrown at them. If they get pulled over for no seat-belt, and they fail field sobriety test(s), then they are issued a ticket for public intoxication while operating a motor vehicle. The insurance companies should be aware of these individuals. If their premiums double, quadruple, pentuple or even hexituple, I wouldn't care. Insurance companies know things about stuff. The stuff that they know about things is contained in what is known as "actuarial tables". These tables define the insurance companies risk to its shareholders and investors.
Its not so much the drunk driver that I have issue with, but I have issues with creased cars, dented fenders, knocked over mailboxes that don't cost $25k+. We catch you weaving down the road, we pull you over and give you $50 ticket (you're insurance will increase according to actuarial tables). You can't afford insurance and we catch you driving (or with revoked license), minimum 10 years in jail. In the case of lack of insurance, one should be compelled to prove the ability to self-insure for $10 million in catastrophic damages (or one goes to jail for reckless endangerment). Who pays the bill if the offender can't? And how much is paid to the family that lost their loved one? What is the worth of a human life? I've heard it said that no company would put into place safety measures that would in aggregate be more expensive than what could be actuarialy be expected to be the litiginous risk. Believe me when I tell you that many business do this (especially airlines). The objective conclusion to this is that certain people have to die before things are done about it.
Just what are the risks for drunken driving? I'm certain if the private insurance companies bore the full brunt of that burden, things would be quite a bit different.
Well, Jesus turned water into wine, so that "wine" either turned into BAC either subjectively inferred or objectively observed.
In either case: Mel copped to the plea. End of story. Now I'm interested with what he does with the rest of his life.
Frankly, I'm praying for the guy. It is my fervent prayer that he comes to know Jesus Christ and accepts Him as his personal savior. Its not my place to judge the heathen (they're already under a far worse judgement than I could ever render), nor is it for me to discern the state of their eternal soul. All I can do is impugn, at times seemingly without remorse, what I percieve to be sinful behavior by those professing to be "born again".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.