The money rightfully belonged to the owner, therefore not robbery or even bribery. Was joking about bribery only if Lochte paid hundreds of dollars on top of the $50 during the three minutes of tape not released as he claimed. Obviously if the guards really did that then it is straight extortion, etc. and this situation reflects much more poorly on the guards/Brazil than Lochte.

You're aware that at the very least, he reported to the police (after the police asked them about it after his Mom went to the media) that they lost $700 (not $50) and that the fake cops pulled them over in a rando unidentified neighborhood (not at the gas station).

Anyways, I don't think he thought he was wronged. I think he chose an awful/unnecessary lie to Mom/gf (because maybe of the two girls with them), got hosed when Mom went to media, then felt cornered when cops reacted by asking him what happened and in that moment cast his fate by deciding to double down rather than deal with what had to seem like a REALLY complicated and terrible explanation. So he tells the story in a way that he thinks the cops can never ever track down (unknown taxi in middle of unknown neighborhood). Subsequently his lawyers coached him to hang onto the same hypothetical/language parsing around robbery you guys are hanging onto (when this was anything but and I think we all here actually know that) in order to maybe salvage some shred of dignity and endorsements.

Yes obviously. There's a huge difference between pulling a gun on somebody and not pulling a gun on somebody.

WE WANT THOSE 3 MINUTES, CMON TMZ.

On a lighter note...

yes, if the security guy didnt have a gun (or even if he had one and never pulled it out and just said "you ****ed up the bathroom how about $50 and we call it good?" in a non-threatening manner) then I would not consider it robbery in the slightest.

it seems like the most likely scenario is not "hey, give me money for my broken door", it's "hey, you broke my door, I'm calling the cops" "here's some money, no need to call the cops". And the police have a witness willing to back that story.

But it doesn't even matter, if you believe the police about the inconsistencies in their stories, they still lied to the police even if there was a robbery.

Can only speak to US law, but here it doesn't matter if someone rightfully owes you money, you can't demand they pay it by using threat of violence. If I lend you $50 bucks, and then you refuse to pay me back, I have to go to court to force you to pay, I can't just go point a gun at you and say pay me back.

language barrier probably makes these types of distinctions tough. as does the dudebros being drunk and the guy pointing the gun being pissed off

Again, they had the choice to wait for the cops. Everyone agrees to this. It is a fact. This wasn't "pay or get shot" it was "calm your ass down and sit"

Next, whether it was "no we don't want to wait for cops please can we pay" or "hey if you pay $50 we don't need to wait for the cops" is really irrelevant.

But I wouldn't want to wait either if I had broken several laws already.

Isn't that called "kidnapping" in civilized countries?

the fact that he lied to cops is a completely different issue. He can be guilty of lying to cops and also have forked over money at gunpoint (ie. something that it is very reasonable to consider robbery even if the Brazilian police don't term it such). We are currently talking about the issue of the money that was exchanged at gunpoint and whether or not that is robbery (opinions are split if you're not following that conversation) and not whether his initial police report was fully truthful.

Sure he lied to cops. I don't care and haven't even disputed the fact that his entire statement is not true. I don't think anyone else is disputing that some parts of his statement didn't happen either.

Anything either of us have to say about his thought on being wronged are pure speculation so I don't want to delve into it any further.

I agree they lied to the mom and the cops initially. Even though they were technically robbed they painted a scenario where it was a stick up rather than a response to their behavior

My issue is with the victim blaming and justification because the perpetrators were douchey drunk frat bros. That doesn't make it ok to get a gun pulled on you and forced to fork over cash. Plenty of victims of police/violent crime in the US are douchey, rude, or act in a way that didn't help the situation. It's still not ok to escalate the situation by pulling out a loaded weapon. A particularly hilarious quote was that the use of violence wasn't excessive and the gun only served to calm down someone. Because we all know the best way to defuse a tense situation is to pull out a ****ing gun.

Edit: as I post Clark states the use of the weapon was to calm the swimmers. It's comical. Pointing a gun at someone is not calming and there's absolutely no way his opinion would be the same if it wasn't happening in beloved RIO and the victims weren't douchey frat bros.

weren't they using a customer to translate? I'm sure nothing at all could be lost in the translation and there is no way the guys who can't understand what the guy with the gun is saying actually think he is more threatening than he is (if he actually was polite and friendly in the request).

and no one is denying that some parts of the story aren't true. What we are saying is that its very easy to see how Lochte could think he was robbed and thus was not lying about the robbery occurring.

No, again this is called a CITIZEN'S ARREST and while nuances differ from country to country, it exists in many "first world" countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest

clark, if you were a minority being held at gunpoint by a security guard would you feel more comfortable trusting Brazilian police in Rio or American police in a US city to handle everything properly and make sure you are treated fairly?

There's a fair bit of victim blaming going on, in the sense that the victims put themselves in a position where you can't trust them. Why would you give the benefit of the doubt to a group of people that have been lying to you from the start?
But sure, it's not at all unreasonable to think they might have been extorted. Their own crimes remain the same though.

not following thread closely so forgive me, has cdl been able to rule out the possibility that they were robbed after the gas station incident yet or is that still an open question

CDL,

I'd feel real bad about talking to any cops if I had just vandalized property with witnesses and was super drunk. Bad enough that I would've likely just offered some money right away. The whole point of all of us being an American Millionaires in Brazil is the ability to throw a few bucks and make things go away.

Also, I'd feel just fine dealing with cops in Brazil. Being white just might just get more preferential treatment than in the US, especially during Olympics in a rich part of town and for sure if I was an athlete. Until that is I bring the world media down on everyone and force them to conduct a thorough investigation by being completely unwilling to cooperate.

They peed on stuff


Peeing on the building is disgusting imo. They should have peed in the toiled that empties into the open sewer behind the building.

Yeah I don't disagree with this. It's not like the corrupt Rio police or the gas station should be fully trusted on their account of events either though. Especially given the edited tape footage and pictures that have surfaced.

Once it became clear the swimmers lied initially and Rio countered, the truth probably lies somewhere in between imo. Which makes the "they got a gun pulled to calm them down" narrative really silly in my opinion

that, and the small detail of filling a false police report, minor **** really

Lochte has been cited with public urination in the US before lol

I am just scratching my head at why people keep bringing up the what the laws in the USA say. Not. Relevent. To. This. Case.

And yet, here we go again...

do we have any evidence of this? A copy of the report or something?