• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

USA TODAY Sports investigation raises questions about Rio cops, Lochte incident

American said:
You have a third party news organization that disagrees with you, and they've seen the evidence. What have you seen?
Click to expand...
I have just seen the few video tapes, but the reality remains that if the group had remained silent,
there would be no repercussions.
 
longview said:
I have just seen the few video tapes, but the reality remains that if the group had remained silent,
there would be no repercussions.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to the story.
 
longview said:
It hardly even sounds like a shakedown,
They caused damage to private property, and the owner asked to be compensated.
Compensation was paid, everyone was happy
If they had not said they were robbed, none of this needed to happen.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why they even bothered to tell the police a bull**** story.
 
American said:
USA TODAY Sports investigation raises questions about Rio cops, Lochte incident


Looks like things aren't what was originally portrayed.
Click to expand...

The facts indicate he and the other swimmers were told they were being detained unless they could pay for the damage done by Lochte to some property belonging to the store. In his inebriated condition, its understandable, plausible, that Lochte was confused as to what was transpiring. In the alternative, it is equally plausible Lochte comprehended what was occurring, was pissed about being caught and having to pay anything, and conjured up a fabricated story of a robbery interspersed with facts.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The police were never involved at the gas station vandalism.
Click to expand...

It has been reported, by USA Today, the security officer(s) at the gas station were off duty police officers working security for the gas station. This would be consistent with Lochte's account of seeing a "badge."
 
jmotivator said:
No, he admitted that he tore the sign down. His assumption that night that guys drawing guns and demanding money was a street crime wasn't really wrong, that isn't how Brazilian law is supposed to work... but then Brazilian law doesn't really run the way it's written.

Lochte and his companions were jerks, but they were also shaken down at gun point.
Click to expand...

"Shaken down at gun point," is a phrase inconsistent with what has been reported. The off duty officers working as security at the gas station were, according to a third party citizen, DJ, who was interpreting for both sides, demanding the three inebriated U.S. swimmers remain at the scene until they paid for the property damage or until the police arrived.
 
jmotivator said:
If this were American police demanding money at gun point from visiting foreign athletes I am fairly certain your position would be exactly opposite...
Click to expand...

Except, based on the reported facts, what is asserted above is not what happened. You may want to begin with a parallel example to make your point as opposed to invoking a scenario not analogous to what the facts indicate to have actually transpired in Rio.

How quickly Americans are to damn their fellow Americans and excuse foreigners for their misdeeds.

The reason is because we Americans have a low standard for the rest of the world that the rest of the world exploits endlessly.
Click to expand...

Lochte may not have been lying. It is possible Lochte was so intoxicated as to have misperceived the situation and erroneously believed he was being robbed at the time and subsequently, as he recalled the events. Of course, his two different accounts and the magnitude of the differences between his accounts and the number of variations of what transpired, justify skepticism as to his capacity of believing he is speaking truthfully, even if doing so erroneously. Denouncing Locthe as a liar is not the equivalent of "excuse foreigners for their misdeeds."
 
Enlighten Me said:
This was a shakedown and extortion by the police. We would call that 'robbery'. They call it part of their income as police officers.
Click to expand...

This was not a "shakedown" or "extortion by the police." This was not a "robbery." The facts do not support either characterization.
 
NotreDame said:
It has been reported, by USA Today, the security officer(s) at the gas station were off duty police officers working security for the gas station. This would be consistent with Lochte's account of seeing a "badge."
Click to expand...

Given his proven lies, who would choose to believe the drunken frat boy?
 
NotreDame said:
"Shaken down at gun point," is a phrase inconsistent with what has been reported. The off duty officers working as security at the gas station were, according to a third party citizen, DJ, who was interpreting for both sides, demanding the three inebriated U.S. swimmers remain at the scene until they paid for the property damage or until the police arrived.
Click to expand...
Where do you suppose the money they paid them went?
 
NotreDame said:
"Shaken down at gun point," is a phrase inconsistent with what has been reported. The off duty officers working as security at the gas station were, according to a third party citizen, DJ, who was interpreting for both sides, demanding the three inebriated U.S. swimmers remain at the scene until they paid for the property damage or until the police arrived.
Click to expand...

Demanding money at gun point is not any more legal in Brazil than it is in the US.
 
NotreDame said:
Based on what has been reported, the money went to the gas station as compensation for the damaged property.
Click to expand...
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight......
 
NotreDame said:
The facts indicate he and the other swimmers were told they were being detained unless they could pay for the damage done by Lochte to some property belonging to the store. In his inebriated condition, its understandable, plausible, that Lochte was confused as to what was transpiring. In the alternative, it is equally plausible Lochte comprehended what was occurring, was pissed about being caught and having to pay anything, and conjured up a fabricated story of a robbery interspersed with facts.
Click to expand...

And it could be that the cops are idiots and believed every word the security guards told them, and maybe USA today is correct. The even states one of the swimmers who was a witness saw no vandalism other then a signed pulled off a wall. No kicked in door, and no busted up restroom. The photos support that.
 
Memory is a funny thing. I find this whole situation fascinating from a cognitive perspective. Given the state he was in at the time of the event and the sheer number of situational factors that have been shown to lead to inaccurate/false memory formation and recall present in this case, it isn't out of the realm of possibility that Lochte sincerely believes he told the truth with minimal embellishment.

I'm not sure I can say the same thing about the odd discrepancies in the accounts of the Brazilian authorities (e.g., strangely edited releases of video and personal statements from the swimmers and other witnesses, inaccurate information, an odd lack of still photographic evidence). It appears to me we have two storytellers battling for supremacy. The only thing I find sad in all this is that it certainly gives the appearance that the Brazilian authorities are more dedicated to maintaining their face over this story than actually improving conditions down there. For example, if the authorities were called at the time of the incident, why wouldn't they at least have a record of events with photos of the damaged areas ready pretty quickly? It seems like if they had a decent response time and were diligent in their duties it would have taken much less time than 3-4 days for them to decide to question them further.
 
jmotivator said:
Demanding money at gun point is not any more legal in Brazil than it is in the US.
Click to expand...

The facts, as reported in this article, do not indicate to me this is a robbery. On the basis of the facts as reported in the article, this is not only a case I would not file felony charges, however, should I be so delusional at the moment to think a crime occurred and I filed robbery charges, then this is not a case I'd take to a jury. Why? Unlikely, very unlikely a jury would convict for the crime of robbery because when one thinks of "robbery," this incident is not what one thinks of in terms of a robbery. These facts, as conveyed in this article, do not constitute as a robbery. The order of events is important. I rephrase the facts below with quotes from the article.

Damage is done to a sign. The suspects enter a taxi cab attempting to leave the scene. Security officers approach the can in an apparent attempt to keep the suspects from leaving the property in the cab. The swimmers are ordered out of the cab. At this point, no gun has been reported to have been pointed at the swimmers or intentionally displayed by the security guards at the swimmers. A gun is not displayed and/or pulled and/or pointed at or in the direction of the swimmers until two of the swimmers attempts to leave the scene. "Two men, whom I believe to have been security guards, then instructed us to exit the vehicle. No guns were drawn during this exchange, but we did see a gun tucked into one of the guard's waistband,” Bentz said. “As Jimmy (Feigen) and Jack (Conger) were walking away from the vehicle, the first security guard held up a badge to me and drew his handgun. I yelled to them to come back toward us, and they complied. Then the second guard drew his weapon and both guards pointed their guns at us and yelled at us to sit on a nearby sidewalk.”

To this point, there has been no report the security guards were insisting for money or payment at the time the swimmers were demanded to exit the cab. The display and/or pointing a firearm at or in the direction of the swimmers was done in response to some of the swimmers attempting to leave the scene. There is no evidence at this moment to suggest or indicate the security guards were demanding money at the time they displayed and/or pointed their firearm at or in the direction of the swimmers at the moment two of the swimmers attempted to leave the scene. The security guards' conduct of pulling their weapons was done to keep the men from leaving the scene. The security guards can truthfully testify they pulled their weapons to keep the swimmers from leaving the scene and not to effectuate a robbery or to demand the swimmers give money to them or the store owner/manager/employee. At the moment the guns are used by the security guards it is in conjunction with and response to the some of the swimmers attempting to leave. "Bystander Deluz described the drawing of the weapons by the two guards as a reaction to the athletes' attempt to leave the scene." The DJ also said, "Deluz thinks the men understood they were detained because of the damaged sign, as the broken advertisement was shown to them.

It is also unclear as to whether the security guards or the store employee is the one who was demanding payment. The facts suggest the store employee was wanting money. "Deluz said a station employee had established the cost of the damage at 100 reais, but the swimmers paid about 160 reais, – 100 reais plus a $20 bill...Deluz thinks the men understood they were detained because of the damaged sign, as the broken advertisement was shown to them. An athlete even asked him how much he needed to pay, Deluz says. The disc jockey said he conferred with an employee and responded, "One hundred money." When one swimmer finally opened his wallet, it had plenty of cash in it beyond that amount. Had the armed men been robbers, Deluz reasoned, they would have taken all the money.

Conger, in his statement, acknowledged Deluz tied the payment to the damaged poster.

"Eventually, a man appeared who was able to translate for us, helping to defuse the situation," Conger said. "We paid some money to compensate them for the torn poster, and returned to the Village in a different taxi."

It's not even clear the security guards, holding the guns, were demanding money or had any intention to demand money. It seems the security guards' intention was to keep the subjects from fleeing and the DJ brokered a deal with the store employee of if the swimmers paid, then the store employee would advise the security guards to back off. In other words, the store employee received compensation, and advised the security guards to let the boys go and no longer detain them.

These facts hardly suggest the security guards committed a robbery.
 
Last edited:
American said:
And it could be that the cops are idiots and believed every word the security guards told them, and maybe USA today is correct. The even states one of the swimmers who was a witness saw no vandalism other then a signed pulled off a wall. No kicked in door, and no busted up restroom. The photos support that.
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly, the police involved in the investigation created reports which could not be corroborated and some of the police accounts are unsupported, in some areas, by any evidence, facts, or witness statements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom