Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the Lauer interview, Lochte seems 22 not 32. He seems like a slow thinker

Why did a 32 yo trash and vandalize a business?

More like 12. 22-year-olds are adults.

More like 9. Oh, and dying his hair back to brown was a good move.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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'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.

I completely agree with you. I don't understand how our media can just turn on them like this. Make them out to be horrible villains and criminals. They had guns drawn on them. And imo were robbed at gunpoint over a sign . The media really got this one wrong.

The undisputed fact? There was a witness there, the guy who translate for them at that gas station, that claims there were no guns draws on them, period.
Oh, and Lochte's not speaking now 'for the sake of the other swimmers', he's speaking because his PR rep's trying to salvage the situation and failing nonetheless.

Let's face it, the dude fabricated the story for his own perceived gain. He wasn't 'confused', and he didn't 'over-exaggerate' ('over-exaggerate?), he was desperate for airtime with whoever was willing to interview him.

THe other swimmers have said a gun was drawn on them.

The security guard, name undisclosed, said that he drew a gun. The Brazilian police accepted that guns were drawn, but thought that was fine.

Speaking as a publicist, I would NEVER have allowed Ryan to do this interview. At least not yet. He didn't need to "explain himself" to the public or to his sponsors - not like this. There was absolutely no need for him to take more time away from other Olympians and the end of the Olympic games. The proper protocol would have been for him to wait until AFTER the games, as he has already taken so much away from the games and other competitors. So much air time has been devoted to covering his shenanigans, that he just should've laid low for a few more days.

He was also completely unprepared and you can tell he had absolutely no media training prior to this. This is what happens when you use a lawyer for your crisis PR needs instead of pairing the lawyer up with a true publicist who is experienced in this realm. Ryan needed to work with a trainer this weekend on everything from his posture to his language to his enunciation. You can tell that they didn't prepare answers in advance either, as he kept going back to being intoxicated. His sponsors DO NOT want to hear this and they certainly DO NOT want to hear it repeated like an excuse.

It's so unprofessional that he was allowed to do this interview, and that he was allowed to do it without anyone to guide him. He ends up looking like even more of a loser and he did nothing that would make his sponsors think this is a guy they should keep on paying. I feel for him, I really do, and I hope he at least thinks about hiring someone in the PR world - not just for any future interviews he does, but also to control how he re-enters the world of social media and to prevent any future issues like his upcoming birthday party in Vegas that coincides with his gf's paid appearance. He needs to totally avoid any upcoming partying, he honestly needs to send the Playboy playmate packing for now as she's not a good look for him either, and he needs to do some major re-branding and re-imaging before re-emerging in the public eye.

Matt Lauer is lazy. The media is extremely lazy, and Lochte isn't smart enough to deal with it. He can't articulate anything, and this entire incident is about semantics, and point of view. Lochte isn't well spoken, and quick witted enough to handle it.

Anonymous wrote:

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'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.

I completely agree with you. I don't understand how our media can just turn on them like this. Make them out to be horrible villains and criminals. They had guns drawn on them. And imo were robbed at gunpoint over a sign . The media really got this one wrong.

The undisputed fact? There was a witness there, the guy who translate for them at that gas station, that claims there were no guns draws on them, period.
Oh, and Lochte's not speaking now 'for the sake of the other swimmers', he's speaking because his PR rep's trying to salvage the situation and failing nonetheless.

Let's face it, the dude fabricated the story for his own perceived gain. He wasn't 'confused', and he didn't 'over-exaggerate' ('over-exaggerate?), he was desperate for airtime with whoever was willing to interview him.

Anonymous wrote:

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'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.

I completely agree with you. I don't understand how our media can just turn on them like this. Make them out to be horrible villains and criminals. They had guns drawn on them. And imo were robbed at gunpoint over a sign . The media really got this one wrong.

I agree. No one is an angel here, but this feels a little ridiculous, given the evidence about what actually occurred.

Anonymous wrote:In the Lauer interview, Lochte seems 22 not 32. He seems like a slow thinker

Why did a 32 yo trash and vandalize a business?

More like 12. 22-year-olds are adults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, you kind of sound like you do GAF.

(Look, I don't think anyone here is really concerned about what the crime would be technically called in the U.S. I mean, it would depend on the jurisdiction.)

The crime would be extortion, in Brazil and here. The Brazilian police declined to investigate whether the Americans may have felt coercion because of having guns drawn on them.

Yes, they sure did.

Anonymous wrote:In the Lauer interview, Lochte seems 22 not 32. He seems like a slow thinker

Why did a 32 yo trash and vandalize a business?

This is not rocket science. It's because he is not very smart and he's arrogant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, you kind of sound like you do GAF.

(Look, I don't think anyone here is really concerned about what the crime would be technically called in the U.S. I mean, it would depend on the jurisdiction.)

The crime would be extortion, in Brazil and here. The Brazilian police declined to investigate whether the Americans may have felt coercion because of having guns drawn on them.

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'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.

I completely agree with you. I don't understand how our media can just turn on them like this. Make them out to be horrible villains and criminals. They had guns drawn on them. And imo were robbed at gunpoint over a sign . The media really got this one wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Heck, that's a bargain!

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, you kind of sound like you do GAF.

(Look, I don't think anyone here is really concerned about what the crime would be technically called in the U.S. I mean, it would depend on the jurisdiction.)

In the Lauer interview, Lochte seems 22 not 32. He seems like a slow thinker

Why did a 32 yo trash and vandalize a business?