EXCLUSIVE: TMZ has learned that Mel Gibson went on a rampage when he was arrested Friday on suspicion of drunk driving, hurling religious epithets. TMZ has also learned that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's department had the initial report doctored to keep the real story under wraps.
TMZ has four pages of the original report prepared by the arresting officer in the case, L.A. County Sheriff's Deputy James Mee. According to the report, Gibson became agitated after he was stopped on Pacific Coast Highway and told he was to be detained for drunk driving Friday morning in Malibu. The actor began swearing uncontrollably. Gibson repeatedly said, "My life is *beep* Law enforcement sources say the deputy, worried that Gibson might become violent, told the actor that he was supposed to cuff him but would not, as long as Gibson cooperated. As the two stood next to the hood of the patrol car, the deputy asked Gibson to get inside. Deputy Mee then walked over to the passenger door and opened it. The report says Gibson then said, "I'm not going to get in your car," and bolted to his car. The deputy quickly subdued Gibson, cuffed him and put him inside the patrol car.
TMZ has learned that Deputy Mee audiotaped the entire exchange between himself and Gibson, from the time of the traffic stop to the time Gibson was put in the patrol car, and that the tape fully corroborates the written report.
Once inside the car, a source directly connected with the case says Gibson began banging himself against the seat. The report says Gibson told the deputy, "You mother *beep* I'm going to *beep* you." The report also says "Gibson almost continually [sic] threatened me saying he 'owns Malibu' and will spend all of his money to 'get even' with me."
The report says Gibson then launched into a barrage of anti-Semitic statements: *beep* Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Gibson then asked the deputy, "Are you a Jew?"
The deputy became alarmed as Gibson's tirade escalated, and called ahead for a sergeant to meet them when they arrived at the station. When they arrived, a sergeant began videotaping Gibson, who noticed the camera and then said, "What the *beep* do you think you're doing?"
A law enforcement source says Gibson then noticed another female sergeant and yelled, "What do you think you're looking at, sugar tits?"
We're told Gibson took two blood alcohol tests, which were videotaped, and continued saying how *beep* he was and how he was going to *beep* Deputy Mee.
Gibson was put in a cell with handcuffs on. He said he needed to urinate, and after a few minutes tried manipulating his hands to unzip his pants. Sources say Deputy Mee thought Gibson was going to urinate on the floor of the booking cell and asked someone to take Gibson to the bathroom.
After leaving the bathroom, Gibson then demanded to make a phone call. He was taken to a pay phone and, when he didn't get a dial tone, we're told Gibson threw the receiver against the phone. Deputy Mee then warned Gibson that if he damaged the phone he could be charged with felony vandalism. We're told Gibson was then asked, and refused, to sign the necessary paperwork and was thrown in a detox cell.
Deputy Mee then wrote an eight-page report detailing Gibson's rampage and comments. Sources say the sergeant on duty felt it was too "inflammatory." A lieutenant and captain then got involved and calls were made to Sheriff's headquarters. Sources say Mee was told Gibson's comments would incite a lot of "Jewish hatred," that the situation in Israel was "way too inflammatory." It was mentioned several times that Gibson, who wrote, directed, and produced 2004's "The Passion of the Christ," had incited "anti-Jewish sentiment" and "For a drunk driving arrest, is this really worth all that?"
We're told Deputy Mee was then ordered to write another report, leaving out the incendiary comments and conduct. Sources say Deputy Mee was told the sanitized report would eventually end up in the media and that he could write a supplemental report that contained the redacted information -- a report that would be locked in the watch commander's safe.
Initially, a Sheriff's official told TMZ the arrest occurred "without incident." On Friday night, Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore told TMZ: "The L.A. County Sheriff's Department investigation into the arrest of Mr. Gibson on suspicion of driving under the influence will be complete and will contain every factual piece of evidence. Nothing will be sanitized. There was absolutely no favoritism shown to this suspect or any other. When this file is presented to the Los Angeles County District Attorney, it will contain everything. Nothing will be left out."
On Saturday, Gibson released the following statement:
"After drinking alcohol on Thursday night, I did a number of things that were very wrong and for which I am ashamed. I drove a car when I should not have, and was stopped by the LA County Sheriffs. The arresting officer was just doing his job and I feel fortunate that I was apprehended before I caused injury to any other person. I acted like a person 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. Also, I take this opportunity to apologize to the deputies involved for my belligerent behavior. They have always been there for me in my community and indeed probably saved me from myself. I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry. I have battled with the disease of alcoholism for all of my adult life and profoundly regret my horrific relapse. I apologize for any behavior unbecoming of me in my inebriated state and have already taken necessary steps to ensure my return to health."
posted
Well Gibson's statement is apparently correctly quoted. It certainly sounds like TMZ isn't doing much truth-stretching, if any. The statement in Gibson's own words seems to give support to the accusations. YMMV, I guess. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds like he was channelling his father (a known and vocal anti-semite) while drunk. I hate when that happens.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard this from other sources already, so I don't know how TMZ thinks it's an exclusive. But ... *sigh*
This is unfortunate. I was ready to believe that Gibson was not an anti-semite, and that all of that stuff during the release of Passion of the Christ was people mis-reading what he was trying to do with his film.
I'm not Christian, but I thought it was a brilliant film. And as a fan of movies I've always supported Mel Gibson as a filmmaker. Frankly, he's a brilliant filmmaker.
This is so disappointing. Now I won't get to see Apocalypto.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get how a person like Mel, who actually worships and Jewish man as his God, can be such an anti-semite.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is so disappointing. Now I won't get to see Apocalypto.
Yeah, it's disappointing, but I don't get the connection you're trying to make. What does Mel Gibson's legal trouble in California have to do with your ability to see a movie releasing in December?
Or do you mean, "I don't WANT to see Apocalypto."?
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I couldn't even see the Passion. I mean, aside from the fact that it probably would've turned my stomach, my church growing up never even did plays like that for Easter because they thought it was disrespectful to the Lord.
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: I don't get how a person like Mel, who actually worships and Jewish man as his God, can be such an anti-semite.
Regardless of what religion someone is, anti-Semitism, and all other forms of racism, are irrational. No one is anti-Semitic for rational reasons. Maybe there are understandable reasons, like if every Jew you've ever met was an evil, money-stealing, ***hole, then you can understand why that person would start hating Jews. It still wouldn't be rational, though.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, logically speaking, given a large enough sample size, wouldn't that be rational? Seems to me that it would.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think so. That would mean that if he met another Jew, whom he knows nothing about, he would already hate him just for being Jewish. I don't think that qualifies as rational. Understandable, but not rational. IMO.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, I think if you had a hatred of a particular kind of person based on repeated bad experiences, it'd be irrational to keep meeting the same kind of person and always expect everything to be hunky dory.
I mean, if every blonde person you meet kicks you in the shins, it's not irrational for you to be a little nervous about meeting new blonde people.
posted
I've read about a dozen Terry Goodkind books. They've all been crap. Would it be irrational of me to assume that his next book will be crap also?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It might be practical. I mean, if you've been shot every time you went to one neighborhood, then for reasons of practicality, you avoid that area.
I think though, that you would be hard pressed to meet enough individuals who were evil, that you could then extrapolate the qualities of an entire race of millions. I don't think you'd ever really get there, although you might convince yourself you had.
This whole thing though, just reaffirms how I already felt about Gibson and his holier than though spouting for the last few years. Surprise suprise, he is an unstable, emotionally disturbed alcoholic. Fine if you're an alcoholic, because its a disease, and the whole point of alcoholism is that you lack the ability to control your impulses in the fight or flight part of your brain. In fact, alcoholism genes are closely tied to strong survival skills, because the same impulses that tell you to drink are there to tell you to kill or be killed, or to keep going in the face of disaster. Here's the thing though, everything he has done is colored by this instability in his impulse control. I didn't trust him before, and I just feel more justified in not trusting him now.
This stuff about his anti-semitism? I never heard that before, so I can't say what it means. Would it seem to be important in light of TPOTC, and his other religious endeavors, if it is true? Oh yeah.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'm in a devil's advocate kind of mood:
quote:Would it seem to be important in light of TPOTC, and his other religious endeavors, if it is true? Oh yeah.
All humans are flawed/sinful, right? So can an imperfect person create a meaningful or even holy work? If TPOTC (which I did not see) brought people closer to God, does it matter if Gibson is an anti-semite?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I've read about a dozen Terry Goodkind books. They've all been crap. Would it be irrational of me to assume that his next book will be crap also?"
I think this one is more straight-forward. Since all of the books are by the same author, you can expect they will have alot of the same qualities (or lack thereof). A religion/ethnicity/race is different. I'm pretty sure being Jewish doesn't say anything definite about one's personality. One Terry Goodkind book is more likely to be similar to another Terry Goodkind book than one Jew is to another Jew, I think.
Edit: Ok, I definitely posted this after Icarus posted what I quoted. Wow, I'm slow.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I've read about a dozen Terry Goodkind books. They've all been crap. Would it be irrational of me to assume that his next book will be crap also?
There's only one way to find out. I guess you'd better keep reading!
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Yes, yes it does.
It matters in the sense of his soul, etc. But in the effect of the art on you, if you didn't know he was an anti-semite? (This is assuming, for the moment, that there were no concern about TPOTC being antisemitic.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I've read about a dozen Terry Goodkind books. They've all been crap. Would it be irrational of me to assume that his next book will be crap also?
There's only one way to find out. I guess you'd better keep reading!
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I guess I'm in a devil's advocate kind of mood:
quote:Would it seem to be important in light of TPOTC, and his other religious endeavors, if it is true? Oh yeah.
All humans are flawed/sinful, right? So can an imperfect person create a meaningful or even holy work? If TPOTC (which I did not see) brought people closer to God, does it matter if Gibson is an anti-semite?
Leaving aside the specific example, IMO the one time it matters most who the source of a movie/book/etc. is for those which are meant to be deeply spiritual. I do not feel that most media touch me on a spiritual level -- nor do I expect them to. But when I am open to that, I don't want . . . "tainted" is the wrong word, but I can't think of a better one . . . anyway, I try to only open myself spiritually to that which comes from sources I consider worthwhile.
(Of course, the argument can be made that everything I am exposed to affects me spiritually, whether I want it to or not. And I agree with it, to some degree. But I use a different level of filtering for "everything" than for specifically spiritual things.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
(And of course, your tone appears to insinuate I'm anti-semitic. I'm not.)
I'll tell you one thing, though: I don't care about the people in Hollywood. I don't follow the stories of actors, actresses, directors, or any other member of the soap opera. If I truly cared, or applied my values as you say, I probably wouldn't spend a dime on entertainment.
I (almost) invariably discard anything intoxicated people say.
So, combine the fact I completely ignore the celebrity world, with my disregard for the bravado of drunks, and you have a pretty good idea how much credence I give this stuff.
I'll see Apocalypto one way or another. I rarely go to see movies in the theatre anyway, for entirely different reasons than we're discussing here. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I myself don't see how Mel Gibson is going to wriggle his way out of this one. When you make a movie that's anti-semetic, and do so in a indirect way, you may be able get out of it by saying 'I didn't mean it, because I'm a stupid idiot.' But when you say 'F****ing Jews. They're cause the cause of wars in this world.' I don't see how you can get of it.' I, personally, am glad to see the anti-semetic jerk get shunned and pushed aside. As they say, what goes around comes around.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can't people say a lot of things they don't really mean when they are that drunk? Especially if his dad said a lot of those things in his hearing. I just wonder. Is it fair to assume he thinks like that all the time and just manages to button his lip 99% of the time?
The Passion of the Christ wasn't antiSemitic in a direct or indirect way, that I'm aware of.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've said things in anger that I just felt like saying, even though I don't really believe them. It just felt good to say something hurtful at the time. And boy did I regret it later.
I honestly have different feelings about different groups of people on different days. Some days I love the whole world. Some days I'm very uncomfortable with certain groups. It's not rational or fair, but it's there in the background of my thoughts. I recognize that it's unfair and irrational, and I'm constantly trying to challenge my biases and change that about myself. I DEFINITELY control what comes out of my mouth. Because even if I have picked up some less-than-savory attitudes, I don't want to be part of passing them on.
I wonder if this is a case of someone who has picked up some unfair attitudes about Jews somewhere, and they're still in the back of his head, but he usually tries to fight those thoughts and control his behavior. In a situation where he's drunk and out of control, they come out.
It was horrible to read all the garbage that came out of him. I felt like he was a totally different person than I had thought. But I did really respect his "sober" response to the incident. Absolutely no excuse-making or trying to get out of anything; he took full responsibility and admitted it was horrible. There's too little of that nowadays. Often it's "I'm sorry you took it that way," or, "I was misunderstood, it was taken out of context," or "I'm sorry I said it in a way that would offend people." This time it was just: "My fault, my behavior was terrible, and I'm ashamed."
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether Gibson is anti-semitic or not, I really don't know. But is it fair to assume he must be based on ravings while very drunk?
I believe each of us have parts about us that we hate or don't want to be a part of us. For example, if you are raised in a racist home and were constantly exposed to those beliefs, you may have believed them as a kid. Let's say you grow and, through education, experience, etc., you come to realize those beliefs were wrong. You now believe the latter and hate the beliefs you grew up with. Despite this, those early beliefs are still a part of you. You may disagree with them, but you may find your subconscious occasionally trying to raise those beliefs again. Of course, as soon as you recognize this, you discard the idea as wrong and recognize that you believe something else.
Just because your subconcious, or whatever you want to call it, brings certain thoughts to your head, doesn't mean you have to follow that thought. You can make a choice. You can choose to follow a different set of beliefs, even if the old ones still try to come back. This is part of changing.
I'm not saying this is the case with Gibson, but it certainly is a possibility. If he was very drunk, he may have very well said some things that he really doesn't believe in, but were just thoughts from his old belief system that he no longer accepts (except when drunk, of course).
He seemed ashamed of what he did, and I think he should also accept the consequences of his actions. Drunk driving is a very dangerous crime, and I don't think he should escape the consequences. Part of remorse is being willing to pay for your mistakes.
But let's not automatically conclude that he must be anti-semitic. On the other hand, don't be blind to the possibility.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about alcohol making him say things he doesn't believe. His blood alcohol level was 0.12, which doesn't seem like all that much to me. It looks to be seven beers over two hours for a two-hundred pound man.
The online BAC estimators seem to think that I get that high just about every time I go drinking. I sometimes drink Long Island Iced Teas, and it looks like I should have a BAC much of about 0.12 after only two of them in one hour.
I've had two in one hour many many times, and the effects are not at all obvious. I just asked Niki what I'm like after I've had that much alcohol:
"You laugh a little bit more. Jokes are just a little bit funnier to you. Your shoulders open up a bit, and you look more relaxed."
That's it. I don't start calling women "sugar-tits". I don't start spewing hate.
I know alcohol affects everyone differently, but I'm not about to let Mel off that easily. I think he's a great actor, and a better director, but I can't help but think his mind has been polluted by some awful ideas of reality.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier, it seems like Gibson was very, very obviously intoxicated from his demeanor. I'm sure BAC affects people differently.
Edit: Apparently from what I can Google, a BAC of .12 causes "significant impairment of motor coordination and loss of good judgment. Speech may be slurred; balance, vision, reaction time and hearing will all be impaired."
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Yes, yes it does.
It matters in the sense of his soul, etc. But in the effect of the art on you, if you didn't know he was an anti-semite? (This is assuming, for the moment, that there were no concern about TPOTC being antisemitic.)
Well, there is a HUGE philisophical question you're asking, so I assume you don't expect anyone to be able to adequately counter your devil's advocacy?
The question is as to whether the source and motivation of art affects the reality of that art, and the people who view it. First of all, there will be a subtle (or unsubtle) effect upon the nature of the art which depends upon the motivations of the artist. So for instance, the way in which the filming of Jewish characters is done in TPOTC may reflect the way Gibson would like them portrayed.
If it does not seem to be effected by the overt will of the artist, then secondarily (and more importantly) there is a question as to whether the source of the work effects it intrinsically, in principle, and that art in order to be valid, must be pure of source. This assumes that the act of making the art was nuetral and free of overt designs by the artist. So, say Gibson made no special effort to make Jews look bad in the movie, and maybe even made an effort to counter his own prejudices and force the images to be more nuetral. If the images are then effectively nuetral, the nature of the art is two-fold.
One, the peice of art as it exists on celluloid. This is a film that might be viewed by anyone a thousand years from today, or by an alien civilization unaquanted with the beliefs of the artist, or our society. This peice of art has qualities which only an uninterested observer (to borrow philosophy from Emmanuel Kant) can appraise properly. The alien civilization will only value the art on this level, as a technical or communicative achievement, because it neither expresses nor counter's their preconceptions or place in a society. (Edit to add: This alien society may only after due reflection become an "interested" party, in which case they will be much like us, and incapable of complete objectivity, for which all critics should strive)
Second, the art as it exists to the interested viewer. All humans in today's society are counted as interested viewers of TPOTC. "Interest" in this sense means simply that there is something of an argument or a view, or an opinion, or an image of society and history which all people will either agree with, or deny (or many variations on agreement and denial). Every living person is affected by this aspect of the movie because every person lives in a society in which this is a relevant topic, in some way. In this sense, the movie is NOT free from the artist who created it, because he too has an interest, an investment, in the art. It exists as a statement demanding all viewers to have a response, even if that response is not verbal or even conscious. The art cannot, in this sense, be detached from the artist and observed with a lack of interest by any living person. To do this would be an ironic solopsism, because even by attempting to detach the art from any interest one might have, one acknowledges implicitly that interest is at stake. If you could ever examine a peice of art without interest (meaning investment) in it, then you wouldn't ever have to question whether an objective view is possible. It just would be possible.
That's me, and my undergraduate understanding of this kind of thing. Still, I think the question is compelling in an of itself, and can't be dismissed by me, and certainly not in just a few short paragraphs.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still, what comes out when you're drunk is usually what's boiling up underneath, anyway.
Though on the other hand, one could argue that it is having that underneath but resisting it most of the time that shows great virtue. Bah, humbug.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Edit: Apparently from what I can Google, a BAC of .12 causes "significant impairment of motor coordination and loss of good judgment. Speech may be slurred; balance, vision, reaction time and hearing will all be impaired."
I don't know about this. Reminds of that statistic that says you're considered an alcoholic if you ever have more than 3 drinks in one evening, or one drink or more three nights a week.
I'm with Xavier. 0.12 is incredibely low. Just barely above the legally allowed driving limit. So if you're okay(in the eyes of the law) to drive a car with a BAC of .09, .12 seems like just one more beer. I don't know that that one extra beer would cause me to have a radical personality change.
Though when was the BAC test actually done? If it was done an hour or more after he was originally pulled over his BAC could have significantly fallen during that time.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: Still, what comes out when you're drunk is usually what's boiling up underneath, anyway.
Sometimes. Sometimes not. I do believe I have declared my undying love for a lamp post in the past...
Also, I dunno. In Florida, I think you're not legal to drive with a BAC of more than .08.
But I don't believe all those things necessarily, either. "Binge drinking" is more than four drinks in a night? I mean, I go out from 11pm until 4 or 5 in the morning. It is very unlikely, if I'm going out to bars with my friends, that I will consume fewer than 4 drinks.
posted
In relation to being an alcoholic, someone once told me that you're an alcoholic pretty much if you drink for...like...any reason besides showing up somewhere and thinking, "Ah, I shall have a drink, but not because my friends or drinking or this is a party or I want to be tipsy or for any reason at all."
posted
What a blow-hard thing for that person to say. I've only read a few books about addiction for the common reader, but its easy to dismiss that kind of shallow thinking pH.
Addiction, as I understand it, is something like: continuing a behavior which is self-destructive, even the face of life altering consequences.
Also, addiction has been found to be related to certain genetic factors related to the fight/flight reaction in the human nervous system. Population groups that have suffered great hardships and death in great numbers have a relatively large numbers of alchoholics in their midst. For instance, native American populations, especially in North America are actually affected in multiple ways by their genetic histories, which causes genes related to alcoholism to appear in nearly 100% of the population. First, the millenia of seperation from alcohol left no tolerance for its effects, so native Americans are more easily intoxicated. Second, the dramatic fall in population which accompanied colonization actually favored those native Americans who had alcoholism related genes. These genes are also related to strong survival instincts, higher intelligence, and better reflexes.
Also, PH I think you're quite right. We conflate alcholism with the definition given by the surgen general of "Binge Drinking," even though the two things are hardly related. As a white male, 230 pounds and 6 feet tall (I'm dieting though, I swear!) I have 4 beers in the course of two hours and barely feel the effects. I also get tons of exercise and drink plenty of water when I am drinking alcohol. I have had 4 drinks plenty of times, 4 or more, and not been drunk.
Why should the same standards apply when I am twice the size of some of my friends?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, I'm 135lbs, and as I said, fewer than four drinks in one outing is really unlikely to happen. I can have four drinks in two hours and be buzzed, but not wasted out of my mind.
The person who gave me that definition was actually an alcoholic himself...in counseling, but still drinking. Hardcore drinking. But of course, everyone around him was an alcoholic too, according to the definition the counselor gave him.
posted
A BAC of .12 doesn't cross the threshold into delerium, not even close. So, his commentary on Jews couldn't have been entirely out of a mental left-field. Unsurprisingly, it's probably based on some of his own irrational hatreds and frustrations. Mel Gibson? Anti-semite? Color me surprised!
Actually, in all seriousness: take a good long look at his official apology. He's avoiding directly addressing the issues of his drunken 'I hate jews and they suck and their stupid hats suck' commentary. He's still in gloss mode.
Previously, I could have cared less about Mel Gibson, but I remember the controversy over whether or not Mel had it out for the Jews with the subtle socio-theological commentary inherent to a movie he made where dastardly Jews sort of brutally torture and kill the son of God, so that totally makes this hilarious.
Also, the story now involves a potential police coverup.
quote:ALLEGATIONS that police in Malibu tried to cover up an anti-Semitic outburst by Mel Gibson are to be investigated by an independent review body.
...
However, the apology was overshadowed by the publication of a section of the arresting officer’s handwritten report. The extract, on TMZ.com, suggested that the original report had been heavily edited.
...
Mike Gennaco, head of the Office of Independent Review, told the Los Angeles Times that an investigation would begin today into the apparent editing of the report. “All that stuff about favourable treatment is something that needs to be looked at,” he said. “I’d like to see if there was a legitimate law enforcement reason for asking that the report be altered.”
He added that he would also look into Mr Gibson’s financial links to the department. In 2002 Mr Gibson served as a “celebrity representative” for the Star Organisation, which provides financial aid to the children of Sheriff’s Department officers killed while on duty.
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: I don't get how a person like Mel, who actually worships and Jewish man as his God, can be such an anti-semite.
It's kind of a long standing tradition. Surely you realize that historically speaking, his view is the norm.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Xavier, it seems like Gibson was very, very obviously intoxicated from his demeanor. I'm sure BAC affects people differently.
Edit: Apparently from what I can Google, a BAC of .12 causes "significant impairment of motor coordination and loss of good judgment. Speech may be slurred; balance, vision, reaction time and hearing will all be impaired."
And if a person is a psycho, racist, nut, it only takes a little bit of alcohol to lower his inhibitions enough for him to act like a psycho, racist, nut.
I thought he was an anti-semite when he made Passion, but when I saw an interview with him about it on TV, I was sure.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Samprimary: ... take a good long look at his official apology. He's avoiding directly addressing the issues of his drunken 'I hate jews and they suck and their stupid hats suck' commentary.
I figured this addressed that:
quote:I ... said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything I said.
I don't know whether he's anti-semitic or not. I do know that it's possible to have attitudes ingrained in the back of your mind that you're actively trying to change and fight against, that might still come out when your judgment is impaired.
And I do think that, to quote Joldo, "having it underneath but resisting it most of the time ... shows great virtue." Don't we ALL have to resist our baser attitudes and angers in order to be civilized? And if we have biased views because we've been taught them, shouldn't we resist them? "Bah, humbug" indeed. Are you saying that the only virtuous person is the person who HAS no biases to resist?
Not that I know whether this is the case. Either he's a hypocritical anti-semite, or he's gotten some bad ideas that he generally doesn't believe with his rational mind, but when his judgment is impaired, they come out. In my opinion, it's worth the benefit of the doubt.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, there is a HUGE philisophical question you're asking, so I assume you don't expect anyone to be able to adequately counter your devil's advocacy?
Well sure it is! I have no great interest in whether or not Mel Gibson is an anti-semite, so I'm selfishly trying to tyurn the conversation toward a question I find more interesting!
I don't know for sure how I feel, because if someone is prominently, openly anti-semitic or racist, his or her success could possibly advocate those views for other people and help to propagate them. On the other hand, if you had no idea that someone had this particular flaw, and the work did not subtly push an anti-semitic agenda, then it seams reasonable to believe that the work could entertain you, move you, or possibly even make you a better person, end the flaws of the creator don't matter overmuch. A logical part of me thinks you really need to judge the effect of the works on people, and not the morality of the creator.
Then again, I make a point of avoiding Roman Polanski films, so clearly I am talking out of a secondary orifice.
-o-
quote:Originally posted by Theca: Can't people say a lot of things they don't really mean when they are that drunk? Especially if his dad said a lot of those things in his hearing. I just wonder. Is it fair to assume he thinks like that all the time and just manages to button his lip 99% of the time?
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: I've said things in anger that I just felt like saying, even though I don't really believe them. It just felt good to say something hurtful at the time. And boy did I regret it later.
Well, I'll tell you what. I also have, in my life, said hurtful things I did not mean or believe specifically because I wanted to be hurtful. Heat of the moment angry stuff. I'm not saying it was this bad, or particularly recently, or that it's okay. I'm throwing it out there, though, because I suspect I'm not close to unique. As a completely unrelated comment, sometimes racist thoughts go through my mind. I know they're wrong, and I feel ashamed of them the moment they pop up, but I don't know how to make ideas *not* come into my mind. They're things I try not to believe in, things I don't want to have in my character. But if someone goes and acts in a manner that fulfills a stereotype, sometimes the thought pops up unbidden. I suppose that does make me racist, but then I suspect that it's not at all unique. And I certainly don't think you need to be white or Christian to be prejudiced. My point is not to excuse Mel Gibson or argue that he's not an anti-semite; as I said, I don't care about Mel Gibson, I'm just exploring the issues. And exposing my own character flaws, I suppose. ( ::Cue Avenue Q sountrack to "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist.":: )
-o-
All these definitions of alcoholism based on concrete, externally observable criteria are, I think, absurd. Especially the low-threshhold ones referenced here. Sounds like comments made by people with an axe to grind. (Not the posters here, but the people they are quoting.)
quote:Addiction, as I understand it, is something like: continuing a behavior which is self-destructive, even the face of life altering consequences.
*nod* I agree with this. It's not as concrete, but it actually addresses the internal behavior, as opposed to trying to count the number of drinks you've had or the frequency and decide from there.
-o-
Where was his blood-alcohol measured? Back at the police station? DUI stops can sometimes take a very long time, I think. Especially if the driver is belligerent, or, say, tries to escape (like Gibson did). If he had been drinking an hour or more before he stopped, and the BAC was measured a couple of hours or so after being stopped, it seems to me like it could give a deceptively low measure.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dammit, I liked mel gibson movies. Are all actors bat-caca crazy???
If they're not howling liberals they're whacky-christian-homophobe(*)-anti-semites.
I wish I hadn't read this. I hope I can still enjoy his acting without thinking about the ugliness underneith. Just like I have to do with most actors... =(
Pix
(*) Charges that Mel Gibson was a homophobe surfaced back when Braveheart came out.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really like Mel Gibson, as for him being anti semitic.
I do not let a persons drunk behavior play a huge factor in my overall view of the person. I am expecially wary of believing every single quote and detail that article presents as it could easily have been fabricated.
But leaving the anti semitic comments in for example, he still cut the scene in The Passion where Caiaphas says, "His blood be upon us and upon our children!"
He claims people including his brother told him he was chickening out by cutting it, but he felt it was not neccesary for the message of his movie.
Its also widely known that Mel has struggled with alcoholism since he was a young and that he is certainly a violent drunk. He was cast for Mad Max 1 after having been in a huge bar brawl the previous evening.
His letter of apology seems very genuine. You all may do as you please, but I will forgive somebody who asks for forgiveness until his behavior warrants me reconsidering. Especially in cases where that person is striving to overcome an addiction.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
