Okay, when someone would call me and tells me that he is a cop I wouldn't believe him and wouldn't to anything that he tells me on the phone. I would hang up after 20 seconds. They do everything he said without an evidence that he is a real cop ?! How stupid are they ?!
shareAnd is it legal in the U.S. that cops can go into your apparatment without a search warrant ?
sharehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_phone_call_scam
--Ju know what a "Hasa" is Frank!?! Dat's a PIG, that don't "FLY STRAIGHT"
No not really. It would also be useless for cops to search without a warrent as anything they find would be useless in court. Search warrents are also very specific for example a search warrent that only mentions a search of the downstairs units of an apartment the cops woulden't be able to use anything they found say in the back yard or upstairs woulden't be usable in court.
shareIts based on true events
shareIts based on true events
You should do a bit of research. The events of this film are so close to reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FE9SLJ2Xoc
You're an idiot.
shareThis story isn't about non specific criminals calling non specific resturants to trick female employess out of their clothes. This was based on the mountain view kentucky incident. Pretty much all the behavioral details depicted in the movie did happen and you can even find the leaked security footage of the girl doing jumping jacks, the vagina inspection the oral sex incident etc.
share[deleted]
He was arrested but aquitted of all charges as even though he was shown buyiing the AT&T cards used in the incident they coulden't connect him with the actual calls. After the arrest though all pranks stopped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_phone_call_scam
[deleted]
She probably could have won in a civil case but she was better off suing mcdonalds since they are solvent enough to payout a lawsuit.
shareAbsolutely agree with you. It's utterly ridiculous to believe anything remotely like the film showed ever happened. I mean spanking her? and then she's sucking his dick? come off it!
I would have asked for the badge number for a start.
---
Scientologists love Narnia, there's plenty of closet space.
Did you check the Wikipedia article? The film fairly closely tracks what really happened, and there has since been extensive media coverage in the states; it's on Youtube. Do a Google search and you can even watch the surveillance video.
So cool it with the assertions that it can't have happened.
http://redkincaid.com
I find it amazing that even though the events really took place and are well documented people still refuse to believe it.
There are interviews with the manager Donna Summers as well as with the victim Louise Ogborn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFXeXK3szOk
Because the second someone asked her to describe the panties over the phone, they should have known. That is obviously not professional....everything before that, I could understand a person maybe falling for. But then, to carry on after he asked what her body looked like, her nipples? I mean cmon...how could someone be gullible enough to fall for that?
sharefluffchop, Have you looked it up yet? A simple Google search would tell you it really happened.
shareI would have asked for the badge number for a start.
That is how you would react. The film is about people who are so used to obeying somebody in authority they obey without thinking.
Believe it or not, it happened. The manager's boyfriend was convicted of sodomy, the prankster was acquitted by a jury.
the prankster was acquitted by a jury.
On the off chance that you're not a troll:
People in America are not found "innocent," they're found "not guilty." The prosecutor has failed to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They may still be guilty, but the prosecutor just couldn't prove it.
http://redkincaid.com
People in America are not found "innocent," they're found "not guilty." The prosecutor has failed to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They may still be guilty, but the prosecutor just couldn't prove it.
You said:
Wouldn't that make him NOT the prankster? I guess its guilty until and after being proven innocent now. Worse than China. Funny coming from someone looking down their nose at people who allow authority figures too much power.
Type in 'not guilty' and search for a definition. You are splitting semantic hairs.
Civil court is much more lenient. They never actually proved he did anything. The civil trial proved he was at the scene of the crime that night. The rest of the physical evidence points away from OJ being the killer. Being at the scene was enough for at least 7/12 jurors to side with the plaintiff. I think that was the right call, personally.
I do not think he killed her, or ordered it, but I do think he was aware it was going to happen, and I say that with confidence. I do not know because i wasn't there, but I am confident in this assertion.
Civil court is much more lenient. They never actually proved he did anything. The civil trial proved he was at the scene of the crime that night. The rest of the physical evidence points away from OJ being the killer. Being at the scene was enough for at least 7/12 jurors to side with the plaintiff. I think that was the right call, personally.
Wow, where did you go to law school? (I went to the University of Michigan.)
No, "being at the scene" is not enough to justify an award of damages -- nor is it enough for "7/12 jurors to side with the plaintiff." Besides the fact that juries don't get to decide things by majority vote -- criminal juries have to be unanimous, though civil juries can sometimes get away with having one dissenter -- they can't just decide that they like the plaintiff better. They have to find that O.J. fulfilled the legal standard for "wrongful death," which would involve either killing them or being directly responsible, such as by ordering the killing. The only difference between civil and criminal actions is that civil damages can be awarded by finding a "preponderance of the evidence," while a criminal conviction requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's why the civil jury was not bound by what was found at the criminal trial; there can be too little evidence for a finding BARD but enough for a POTE, so the two verdicts are not inconsistent.
As the saying goes, "don't confuse your google search with my law degree." You clearly do not understand how the law works.
Perhaps you can enlighten me with your supreme knowledge, oh great arbiter of legal information. What did they prove? As far as I can tell, it all hinged around foot prints matching shoes he owned. How does that prove he was directly responsible for the deaths(murders)?
LoL! Yes, I am well aware of the fundamentals of our judicial system. When did I say they were "found innocent"?
He went to court and was found not guilty, but now must still be treated as though he is guilty? Whats the point in even having a trial? Just put everyone in prison once accused. You clearly don't give it any weight. You should petition to abolish our pathetic and limp wristed so called "due process". Revamp it using your supreme wisdom and insight.
We all know pretty much that he was the prankster based on the walmart footage of him buying the at&t phone cards that were used in the pranks. To convict in court though the case needs to be proven beyond a resonable doubt and in the this case his defense raised the doubts that possibly some one other then him got access to those cards and made the prank call. Its total bullshit but courts are rigged like this so that for the purpose of avoiding false convictions we must accept that a lot of criminals will go free based on "beyond reasonable doubt".convictions.
[deleted]
This kind of thing happens all the time in court though. Like a lot of drug dealers are like "I don't know where that came from its not mine. Some one must have left it in my house". And to be safe and not risk sending an innocent man to jail will be like "ok I guess he's innocent".
In a criminal trial all juriors have to agree when voting. IE they all vote innocent or all vote guilty so it only takes 1 nimrod out of 12 to hijack the case and say "I think he's innocent" when the rest of the jury says "he's guilty". And the jury has to go back to deliberations all over again and vote.
If they all can't agree then a judge will eventualy declare a mistrial and that really sucks if the trial was going on for a while cause it means all that time was for nothing. The prosecutor then has to start all over with a new jury.
No we arn't supposed to believe some one stole the cards but it could be considered a resonable doubt I guess It all depends on how the case was presented and what evidence the jury was actually allowed to see. I mean OJ simpson had DNA evidence that confirmed their was only a 1 in 9 billion chance that the blood on his socks didn't match the victims and the jury aquited him. I'm pretty sure it was like you know that one guy that woulden't budge.
In a civil case you can depending on the state do a 7 out of 12 vote just like a grand jury trial but as far as I know all criminal cases have to be all innocent or all guilty. They shoulden't even call it a vote at that point.
Also note that the call was made from a payphone in panama city rather then the suspects home as was implied in the movie. So tieing david stewewart to the crime was more difficult.
this movie is stereotyping fast food workers as dumbest in society. the movie is saying bring up 10 of their kind in a workplace, chances of seeing a smart 1 is still zero.
zero suspense after 30 minutes, hurried up to pc. search compliance in imdb. 1 star it. post in forum.
Seriously? The actions of a couple workers (which did take place, as many others pointed out, actually happen) stereotypes all? Where does the movie "say" anything about 1 in 10 being "smart?"
So you didn't like the movie. So give it 1 star. Whatever.
Just started watching it and it took about 0.2 seconds to start question the authenticity of that call.
Totally weak and annoying, but if it really happened it did...what morons though.
Ed Powers = Woody Allen
Couldn't agree with you! I find this truely sad and unbelievable that this kind of thing would even remotely happened in this day and age. How absolutely stupid! I'm not even half way through it and I see it getting worse. I'll probably turn if off. I mean, do people really think police are this incompetent? Worst part, these people (as protrayed by the actors anyway) know what they're doing is wrong! Lesson here people..... If something feels wrong, DONT *beep* DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!! Unbelievable!!!!!! My rant is done. The movie is going off and I'm gonna try to forget people are this stupid!!!!!!!! I hope the people involved are truely ashamed of themselves!!!
shareIt's based on actual events though.
It's actually something that actually happened. For real. In real life.
As people have pointed out in this thread several times already.
So, keep that in mind before ranting about people not being this stupid in real life.
Umm... is your reply actually in response to my message? Just asking because what you're saying has nothing to do with anything I said. I can't see anywhere where I said or even implied that it didn't really happen. Also, I can sit here and say how stupid these people are all I like because they ARE!!!
Feel free to reply. Just make sure you read what I've said this time.
[deleted]
Based on true events.
share