Posted on 10/19/2006 4:01:14 PM PDT by flixxx
Never before had I made an intercontinental flight to see a movie. But that's what I did this month when I accepted Mel Gibson's invitation to preview and critique his new film “Apocalypto,” scheduled to appear in theaters on December 8th.
I didn't make the trek across the ocean for entertainment value. My work as a consultant on and off the set of Gibson's “Passion of the Christ,” gave me a new appreciation of the power of well-made, serious, and widely-distributed movies. They influence culture. They affect the way we think about the story they tell. Sometimes they warp our view of history or of humanity. Other times they inform, inspire, and challenge. But they always leave a mark.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So much for our defense of Gibson. Oh well, Hollywood elite. What did we expect.
The good father does not work for Mr. Gibson. He was an unpaid religious consultant on The Passion. He is viewing Apocalypto has a favor for Mel.
You already specifically challenged someone on the contents of the report. Hearsay is admissible in civil courts. Getting a copy of a police report is no crime, AFAIK. TMZ is showing a copy, and the same news company probably has hardcopy.
* I am not an attorney. If readers of this message want legal advice, they should seek properly licensed attorneys.
But I appears that you are an attorney (and if so, one I would not hire).
>the slaughter of thousands of inhabitants as human sacrifices
>in a bid to save the nation from collapsing.
There's a much stronger comparison to be made to our (USA) propensity to abort millions of children each year.
Please provide proof of that statement. So far I have found nothing that would be accepted in a court of law. I am not defending the alleged conduct. I'm asking for something beyond a lynch mob who "knows the truth" regardless of evidence.
If you can provide something that will stand up to scrutiny (an illegally leaked version of a supposed "police report" doesn't count, sorry, breaking the law destroys the chain of evidence and we can't tell if it's real or BS) then I'll listen. If you have anything else, I'll listen. If you are basing your comments on "what you just know, in your gut" or "what you heard from a friend" or even what you "learned on the net" then, quite simply, we are done.
I want evidence. I'm sorry if that's a problem for you. I want to establish the facts of this story. I refuse to be swept up by the mob. Are you that gullible? Are you that open to truth, as opposed to "Truth?"
Convince me.
...it appears, even.
"I remember the English complaining about "Braveheart." Then there were the ludicrously unsupported claims of "The Passion of the Christ" being anti-Jew."
Gay groups voiced hatred for Mel as well. They objected to that scene where Longshanks throws his son's lover out a window.
They sure got even didn't they?
Follow the link (from the article I posted) to TMZ's photocopy (PDF) of the report. Mel's comment as quoted by the police witness is there.
"four pages of the original report prepared by
the arresting officer in the case"
http://cdn.digitalcity.com/tmz_documents/gibson_wm_docs_072806.pdf
Even when moved, this goalpost tends to snap back into place, doesn't it.
Mel Gibson has said and done some strange things over the past year. But I'm still suspending judgment on the movie.
I've seen the previews at the website, and now I've read this review. It looks like a great film. Maybe it won't be. But frankly, however politically correct and Hollywoodishly Mel talked about it in recent interviews, I'd rather let the movie speak for itself.
I'll be very surprised if it's politically correct. Yes, it will be about the downfall of an empire built on cruelty. That's not America, at least not yet. Only a leftist idiot would think so. If there's any parallel between the blood sacrifices of the Aztec Empire and America, it's the abortion holocaust. But it would have caused too much of a firestorm for Mel to say so. I think he's trailing a false scent across liberal noses with those interviews.
If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Mel may be antisemitic, drunk, and crazy, but he makes great movies, and I doubt whether he will suddenly reverse himself on that. We'll see.
BS. The crap out there on the net about this supposed police report is 100% impeachable and worthless. No competent judge would allow it and, if they did, they would be reversed on appeal in about 10 seconds.
This would 100% require the original police report. If this went to court that would be made available under court order. If the report provided by the police matched what is on the web then we're in business, but that is hardly a foregone conclusion, or are you that dumb? If you are then I have this bridge I want to sell you in Brooklyn.
Again, I'm not challenging the conclusion, if evidence can be provided. I'm challenging both the evidence and THE INTELLIGENCE AND HONESTY of the folks pushing rumor as if it were fact.
Now I'm beginning to question what the agenda is of those who are so invested in proving that Mel Gibson is "the son of Satan." Might there be a Moby in the mix? Maybe a Pelosi warrior? It's clear that some in the DBM are serving that agenda. Are folks here? What is the motive of those who are so anxious to trash someone without verifiable proof? Could it be political? Could it be associated with trying to trash the Christian voters, particularly those associated with embracing Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ? Particularly in the two and one half weeks before the election? Enguiring minds want to know. What, pray tell, is your motivation here?
Is that you, Moby?
The fact that Gibson hasn't hauled TMZ (and/or the police officers in question) into court on libel/defamation seems muchmore relevent than the hysterical denials on this thread.
Provide proof that this is really the police report.
That's real simple.
Who wrote it? Who released it? Was it legal for them to do that? If they broke the law in releasing it, what value does it have? If they released it without approval then they broke a much bigger law than Gibson is alleged to have broken, so who will you believe? Who will a jury believe?
Those really are simple questions.
If you don't understand that then we don't have a basis for a reasonable discussion.
So far what I see could be the fantasy of a person who really really hates Mel Gibson. Whether that be the alleged officer who wrote this (not established as fact) or the miscreant who faked it.
Did he do this and say these things? Right now, that's not the question for me. For me the question is is there any evidence that can be taken into a court of law on this topic? I can't determine that so far.
LOLOLOLOL........
Guess he goes on my $hi! list. Whats he trying to prove now?
Well, you got that right.
This speculation provided here has zero value in a court of law and less in this discussion.
I'm beginning to get much more interested in why certain folks are so invested in trashing Mel Gibson, particularly relating that trashing to The Passion Of The Christ, than I am in what he did or didn't say when he was arrested for driving drunk several weeks ago. And remember, he was DRUNK. That means, by definition, he isn't in control of what he does and says. Or does that concept escape you?
What is the agenda here that so many are so emotionally invested in?
Don't give me the "I know" crap. Provide something, anything, that can be taken into a court of law.
What is so difficult about that concept?
Or don't you believe in the rule of law?
Since Mel Gibson made it a point to apologize for saying it, he likely said it, wouldn't you think? Why apologize for something you DIDN'T say?
I was on Gibson's side too until I read that post. He doesn't like Jews or Christians, seems like. He knows the President is a Christian. Mel is nothing to me now and he was a hero of mine.
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.