Lochte Robbery Story: True or False

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG! His interview is so embarrassing I almost wished he'd kept his mouth shut.

I think he did the interview partially as an attempt to fall on his sword if you will. I suspect he really and truly isn't a smart person. I don't think it's cool to make fun of him for that. I won't be teaching my kids to make fun of peers who are dumber than them.

Pp said she wishes he'd kept his mouth shut rather than embarrass himself. That's not making fun, and IMO better than referring to kids who are "dumber" than your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG! His interview is so embarrassing I almost wished he'd kept his mouth shut.

I think he did the interview partially as an attempt to fall on his sword if you will. I suspect he really and truly isn't a smart person. I don't think it's cool to make fun of him for that. I won't be teaching my kids to make fun of peers who are dumber than them.

You act like we're mocking him for a bad gpa or low SAT scores. This is about being a good human - you don't have to be a genius to be an upstanding human. How hard is it to say -- I lied; I was wrong; it'll never happen again; I hope USA Swimming and my sponsors give me a 2nd chance but I'll live with the consequences bc I know I did the wrong thing. Period. Get in, get out, and let the chips fall where they will. Sitting there making excuses about immaturity or intoxication or well - depends on how you look at it . . . is NOT falling on your sword.

Well, I kinda thought that was what he was trying to do. We can disagree on that.

However, the posts I am seeing are talking about how dumb he is. Did you not see those? I really don't think that's a worthwhile topic. You disagree?

[Anonymous]

I, like many regulars on DCUM, am a licensed attorney. Robbery is a specific intent crime. You must have the specific intent to 'steal that which is not yours by threats of violence'. In this case, the security officers were seeking payment for the damage to the gas station. That was there INTENT for legal purposes. There WAS NO ROBBERY under US law. I cannot speak to Brazilian law.

They negotiated a deal with these people. There was no 'robbery'. As a lawyer, it is laughable to hear the repeated chanting of this when there is NO legal basis for it. NONE.

[Anonymous]

Except he never lied.

They had guns drawn on them by people they mistook as police officers.
Lotche is dumb, and he should not be talking anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG! His interview is so embarrassing I almost wished he'd kept his mouth shut.

I think he did the interview partially as an attempt to fall on his sword if you will. I suspect he really and truly isn't a smart person. I don't think it's cool to make fun of him for that. I won't be teaching my kids to make fun of peers who are dumber than them.

Pp said she wishes he'd kept his mouth shut rather than embarrass himself. That's not making fun, and IMO better than referring to kids who are "dumber" than your own.

Fair enough. My point about making fun of him for being dumb wasn't meant directly for PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I, like many regulars on DCUM, am a licensed attorney. Robbery is a specific intent crime. You must have the specific intent to 'steal that which is not yours by threats of violence'. In this case, the security officers were seeking payment for the damage to the gas station. That was there INTENT for legal purposes. There WAS NO ROBBERY under US law. I cannot speak to Brazilian law.

They negotiated a deal with these people. There was no 'robbery'. As a lawyer, it is laughable to hear the repeated chanting of this when there is NO legal basis for it. NONE.

How could the swimmers know the security guards intent if they were being yelled at in Portuguese?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I, like many regulars on DCUM, am a licensed attorney. Robbery is a specific intent crime. You must have the specific intent to 'steal that which is not yours by threats of violence'. In this case, the security officers were seeking payment for the damage to the gas station. That was there INTENT for legal purposes. There WAS NO ROBBERY under US law. I cannot speak to Brazilian law.

They negotiated a deal with these people. There was no 'robbery'. As a lawyer, it is laughable to hear the repeated chanting of this when there is NO legal basis for it. NONE.

Shakedowns are neither common nor legal in this country. That's not universally true.

I notice you didn't address the special plea made by Feigen, which is legal and proper in Brazil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I, like many regulars on DCUM, am a licensed attorney. Robbery is a specific intent crime. You must have the specific intent to 'steal that which is not yours by threats of violence'. In this case, the security officers were seeking payment for the damage to the gas station. That was there INTENT for legal purposes. There WAS NO ROBBERY under US law. I cannot speak to Brazilian law.

They negotiated a deal with these people. There was no 'robbery'. As a lawyer, it is laughable to hear the repeated chanting of this when there is NO legal basis for it. NONE.

Please stop. You're wrong of course. Security guards cannot legally demand payment in the U.S. at gunpoint. Everyone is a lawyer here. No one is impressed by your argument. But, regardless, this has already been "litigated" on this thread. Let's move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Except he never lied.

They had guns drawn on them by people they mistook as police officers.
Lotche is dumb, and he should not be talking anymore.

He lied. He was not robbed. He was free to wait there until the police arrived. He chose to pay to avoid publicity. Then went back to the village and cried to mommy.
HE WAS NOT ROBBED. Matt Lauer even said it--and I hate Matt Lauer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I, like many regulars on DCUM, am a licensed attorney. Robbery is a specific intent crime. You must have the specific intent to 'steal that which is not yours by threats of violence'. In this case, the security officers were seeking payment for the damage to the gas station. That was there INTENT for legal purposes. There WAS NO ROBBERY under US law. I cannot speak to Brazilian law.

They negotiated a deal with these people. There was no 'robbery'. As a lawyer, it is laughable to hear the repeated chanting of this when there is NO legal basis for it. NONE.

You point a gun at me and demand payment for anything I am calling you an armed robber.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I, like many regulars on DCUM, am a licensed attorney. Robbery is a specific intent crime. You must have the specific intent to 'steal that which is not yours by threats of violence'. In this case, the security officers were seeking payment for the damage to the gas station. That was there INTENT for legal purposes. There WAS NO ROBBERY under US law. I cannot speak to Brazilian law.

They negotiated a deal with these people. There was no 'robbery'. As a lawyer, it is laughable to hear the repeated chanting of this when there is NO legal basis for it. NONE.

OK, I'm a lawyer too, but come on now. Maybe it's not robbery, but it's not legal. If the mailman intentionally knocks my mailbox off my house, I chase him down the street, pull a gun on him, and make him pay me $100 for the damages, are you saying that's legal? The answer is clearly, no. Maybe it's not robbery, but it's a crime (but I'm a civil lawyer, so honestly I don't know what crime it is).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Except he never lied.

They had guns drawn on them by people they mistook as police officers.
Lotche is dumb, and he should not be talking anymore.

He's speaking now for the sake of the other swimmers, and also to explain himself to the public and to his sponsors. Unlike this thread, the general media has been extremely critical of Lochte with no thought at all to the undisputed fact of the swimmers having guns drawn on them, and as having their passports held and requiring $11k fees to leave the country.

I suppose it would be rude to criticize Rio while the games are still going on, but it's crazy the harsh reaction to Lochte's"crime" without fully discussing everything that happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I, like many regulars on DCUM, am a licensed attorney. Robbery is a specific intent crime. You must have the specific intent to 'steal that which is not yours by threats of violence'. In this case, the security officers were seeking payment for the damage to the gas station. That was there INTENT for legal purposes. There WAS NO ROBBERY under US law. I cannot speak to Brazilian law.

They negotiated a deal with these people. There was no 'robbery'. As a lawyer, it is laughable to hear the repeated chanting of this when there is NO legal basis for it. NONE.

Please stop. You're wrong of course. Security guards cannot legally demand payment in the U.S. at gunpoint. Everyone is a lawyer here. No one is impressed by your argument. But, regardless, this has already been "litigated" on this thread. Let's move on.

No. Security guards cannot point guns at you and ask for money in the US. But the crime they would be committing in that instance would not be robbery. That is my point. Words matter in law--and I don't GAF if you're impressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I, like many regulars on DCUM, am a licensed attorney. Robbery is a specific intent crime. You must have the specific intent to 'steal that which is not yours by threats of violence'. In this case, the security officers were seeking payment for the damage to the gas station. That was there INTENT for legal purposes. There WAS NO ROBBERY under US law. I cannot speak to Brazilian law.

They negotiated a deal with these people. There was no 'robbery'. As a lawyer, it is laughable to hear the repeated chanting of this when there is NO legal basis for it. NONE.

You point a gun at me and demand payment for anything I am calling you an armed robber.

Well, it's a good thing you live in your mother's basement and as such are in charge of nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except he never lied.

They had guns drawn on them by people they mistook as police officers.
Lotche is dumb, and he should not be talking anymore.

He lied. He was not robbed. He was free to wait there until the police arrived. He chose to pay to avoid publicity. Then went back to the village and cried to mommy.
HE WAS NOT ROBBED. Matt Lauer even said it--and I hate Matt Lauer.

Haha. No one is going to say that the swimmers were robbed, we've all seen the response to that: a fee of $47k reduced to$11k.