Chris Kyle American Sniper

Topper Harley

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

I don't need to name call beyond pointing out that you are intellectually dishonest. I gave you two named sources above who heard the stories directly from Kyle above and two other (different) sources that were presented in the New Yorker article who were not named. Webb's story doesn't contradict theirs, it's simply different and he is clearly trying to help Kyle's reputation. Having said that, I'm sure Kyle said different things to different people - he was a drunk with anger issues and frequently made these claims in bars.

Nobody cares what you believe, I only objected to your false claims that there was no hard evidence he said these things - by any reasonable standard short of having a recordding of him saying them there is.

I think it's funny that you accuse me of being intellectually dishonest when I'm not the one claiming to know everything based on repeated hearsay. I don't think it's the forgone conclusion you think it is that this evidence would hold up in court.

And thanks for letting me know that nobody cares what I believe. I'm glad you have the ability to speak for everyone.

Topper Harley

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

SOURCE: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/06/03/in-the-crosshairs

Where does the below above from the New Yorker reference Michael Mooney?

Sorry, I previously missed this question. To answer that:

In January, 2010, Kyle later told friends, he was once again put to the test: two men tried to carjack his truck. He was parked at a gas station, southwest of Dallas. “He told the robbers that he just needed to reach back into the truck to get the keys,” Michael J. Mooney wrote in a recent article about Kyle, in D Magazine. Mooney, who had worked on the piece with Kyle’s coöperation, wrote that Kyle “turned around and reached under his winter coat instead, into his waistband. With his right hand, he grabbed his Colt 1911”—a sidearm that is popular with military personnel. “He fired two shots under his left armpit, hitting the first man twice in the chest. Then he turned slightly and fired two more times, hitting the second man twice in the chest. Both men fell dead.”

SOURCE: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...the-crosshairs

Paul_Hacket

Topper Harley wrote: »

Sorry, I previously missed this question. To answer that:



SOURCE: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...the-crosshairs

You don't deserve any further responses since literally everything you are typing has already been dubunked repeatedly. If you read above you claimed that:

"If you read those articles closely enough you'd see that the ones not written by Michael J. Mooney, actually reference him and his articles as their source that Kyle made these claims."

I then quoted you the following from the New Yorker article in order to demonstrate than Mooney was not the sole source of the claims:

"Afterward, a larger group went out for dinner, closed the hotel bar, and hung out in Kyle’s suite, drinking until late. The SEALs began telling stories, and Kyle offered a shocking one. In the days after Hurricane Katrina, he said, the law-and-order situation was dire. He and another sniper travelled to New Orleans, set up on top of the Superdome, and proceeded to shoot dozens of armed residents who were contributing to the chaos. Three people shared with me varied recollections of that evening: the first said that Kyle claimed to have shot thirty men on his own; according to the second, the story was that Kyle and the other sniper had shot thirty men between them; the third said that she couldn’t recall specific details."

Your response now is to go off to cite a part of the article that does cite Mooney. So what? That's not what we were discussing. What we were discussing was your false claim that he was the sole source cited in these articles. Which he demonstrably, per above, was not.

Your stance that the fact that Kyle's statements should be regarded as 'hearsay' since he only said them to multiple people, several of whom were journalists is a standard that most people would regard as ridiculous and which would not even meet the test of 'hearsay' in a court of law, never mind in the world of public discourse.

You might have a slender point if (A) the people who make these claims had some reason to lie and (B) Kyle himself had not been exposed as a liar and a braggart or (C) Kyle had repudiated the claims during his lifetime, which he did not. Given that both of these are not true you are simply being a tedious pedant as well as someone who is repeatedly making false claims.

Topper Harley

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

You don't deserve any further responses since literally everything you are typing has already been dubunked repeatedly. If you read above you claimed that:



I then quoted you the following from the New Yorker article in order to demonstrate than Mooney was not the sole source of the claims:


Your response now is to go off to cite a part of the article that does cite Mooney. So what? That's not what we were discussing. What we were discussing was your false claim that he was the sole source cited in these articles. Which he demonstrably, per above, was not.

Your stance that the fact that Kyle's statements should be regarded as 'hearsay' since he only said them to multiple people, several of whom were journalists is a standard that most people would regard as ridiculous and which would not even meet the test of 'hearsay' in a court of law, never mind in the world of public discourse.

You might have a slender point if (A) the people who make these claims had some reason to lie and (B) Kyle himself had not been exposed as a liar and a braggart or (C) Kyle had repudiated the claims during his lifetime, which he did not. Given that both of these are not true you are simply being a tedious pedant as well as someone who is repeatedly making false claims.

Ok, I think we've made some ground here. We've been going around in circles and I'll admit I haven't made myself completely clear but I think you should have been able to notice that I've also referenced Brandon Webb as a source and when I said Michael J. Mooney was the sole source, it was regarding the carjacking story. Brandon Webb is named as a source of the New Orleans story.

From all I've seen, nearly every reference to the carjacking is based on what Michael J. Mooney has said. I don't think this carries much weight to be honest. You've also pointed out that it was mentioned by Marcus Luttrell in one of his books and that this one was actually printed while Chris Kyle was still alive, yet he never denied it. This carries far more weight for me, yet is the only reference I can find to either of the claims that was printed while Kyle was still alive.

References to the New Orleans story come from a drunken meeting in a hotel suite. The named source from this story says one thing, two other unnamed sources say something slightly different.

I don't understand why you think that this would not even meet the test of 'hearsay' in a court of law. Surely it's the very definition of hearsay. The people claiming to have heard Kyle say these things have not done so under oath and are not subject to perjury or cross-examination.

But why would anyone lie? I can only speculate. Kyle might have lied while drunk to boost his own ego, his friends and fans might have lied to increase his legend, his detractors may have lied to discredit him or journalists may have lied to sell papers.

I apologise for being a tedious pedant and questioning what I read rather than mindlessly accepting hearsay as fact and naively believing in the integrity of journalists.

But ultimately, you believe know that Kyle definitely made these claims, I admit that I don't know whether or not he actually did.

Paul_Hacket

You are truly insufferable. People who harp on about 'hearsay' as if it is some sort of argument against the credibility of a statement are the worst. 'Hearsay' is only deemed as inadmissable in a court of law if the people who heard and witnessed the statements cannot be called to backup their allegations. Otherwise "hearsay" is valid evidence. This is not the case here as at least two of the people who heard these statements directly from Kyle are reputable and present to answer any claims that they have fabricated. According to your standards just about every journalistic interview you read in a newspaper is mere 'hearsay'.

Your theories about where these stories came from if not Kyle himself all of this fail to address the fact that numerous people are on record as having heard the same stories. It's pretty simple - he was a drunk who boasted about himself in bars, nothing more, nothing less. He was arrested for crashing his car into a homeowners yard while drunk and admitted to the arresting officer that he had a problem with impulse control while drunk. He has been found in open court to be a ridiculous liar.

Give it a rest, you are being tedious beyond belief.

Topper Harley

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

You are truly insufferable. People who harp on about 'hearsay' as if it is some sort of argument against the credibility of a statement are the worst. 'Hearsay' is only deemed as inadmissable in a court of law if the people who heard and witnessed the statements cannot be called to backup their allegations. Otherwise "hearsay" is valid evidence. This is not the case here as at least two of the people who heard these statements directly from Kyle are reputable and present to answer any claims that they have fabricated. According to your standards just about every journalistic interview you read in a newspaper is mere 'hearsay'.

Give it a rest, you are being tedious beyond belief.

Just when I thought this was finished, you resurrect it to tell me to give it a rest. And I've tried very hard not to stoop to your level and resort to pathetic put downs and name calling, but the term troll comes to mind, as you say I'm insufferable, yet here you are again. But I won't label you as one as you clearly have very strong feelings on this subject so I don't think you're solely trying to wind me up.

So, just put my mind as ease and give me examples of where at least two people who heard these statements directly from Kyle and are reputable, have answered claims, under oath, that they have been fabricated.

I'm not saying that they haven't, but I can't find any examples so I'm just asking you to show me.

Just as an example, a number of Kyle's SEAL buddies, such as Andrew Paul, claimed to have witnessed him knocking down Jesse Ventura. Does this make it true? Even though he later admitted that he didn't actually see it? I'm not trying to say that Kyle wasn't lying here but just because people say they saw it, doesn't mean that they did. Of course, they had to be cross-examined in court, under other before they admitted the truth.

I don't know why you get so upset that I expect a higher level of verification to you. As for treating every journalistic interview I read as hearsay. Not exactly but I don't treat them as gospel either. Journalists, for whatever reason, sometimes get things wrong. That's why you sometimes see apologies, retractions and libel and slander cases. I personally know of people who have given interviews to one source, only for another source to use that same interview to paint a completely different story.

So now I'll do as you order me to and give it a rest.

Paul_Hacket

The difference between the people you are talking about (Kyle's friends) and the people I reference is that they had an obvious motive to lie, since his estate was being sued and his reputation damaged, whereas the journalists and writers I cited do not. Most people wouldn't require that to be pointed out to them.

Further, the multiple witnesses I mentioned about Kyle's claims all told the same story, so in order for them not to have heard these claims from Kyle they either have to be involved in some form of conspiracy or perhaps there is some form of cosmic synchromicity involved?

Your "higher level of verification" is absurd simply because it is not a requirement professional level journalism or scholarship. It is your own trite and convenient standard that you have chosen to employ because your ego simply cannot for a second fathom that you may have madde a mistake in regard to this matter.

Again, I could understand you having this bizarre requirement if these claims were out of character for Kyle, but he's been shown in open Court to be a boastful liar.

So, just put my mind as ease and give me examples of where at least two people who heard these statements directly from Kyle and are reputable, have answered claims, under oath, that they have been fabricated.

So from this poorly written sentence it seems that you now require people to have sworn to have heard these statements under oath? But you're not at all a predant or being a tedious bollix, right? Right.

Topper Harley

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

The difference between the people you are talking about (Kyle's friends) and the people I reference is that they had an obvious motive to lie, since his estate was being sued and his reputation damaged, whereas the journalists and writers I cited do not. Most people wouldn't require that to be pointed out to them.

Oh, okay. Ignore everything else I said about journalists so. And thanks for pointing out to me that someone having a motive is the only reason there could be any sort of contradiction between something that was said and how it is reported.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

Further, the multiple witnesses I mentioned about Kyle's claims all told the same story, so in order for them not to have heard these claims from Kyle they either have to be involved in some form of conspiracy or perhaps there is some form of cosmic synchromicity involved?

This is such shit, I just can't take you seriously any more.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

Your "higher level of verification" is absurd simply because it is not a requirement professional level journalism or scholarship. It is your own trite and convenient standard that you have chosen to employ because your ego simply cannot for a second fathom that you may have madde a mistake in regard to this matter.

Why does it bother you so much that we have different opinions regarding levels of verification on these matters? A long time ago, I asked could you to provide better examples of proof that what Kyle is reported to have claimed, is in fact entirely accurate and has not (for whatever reason, be it memory error or deceit) been altered in any way and instead you've just repeated the same stuff again and again while completely disregarding any doubt I had as (insert snide remark here), akin to putting your hands over your ears going la la la la because someone dared to question you. And you say my ego cannot fathom that I may have made a mistake, yet I'm not the one claiming to know everything.

For example, I have pointed out that one witness said Kyle claimed to know of people who went to New Orleans to shoot looters. You pointed to another who said Kyle claimed to have shot 30 looters. To me, this leads to uncertainty. To you, it's clear that one example is most definitely accurate while the other can be disregarded because it suits you. Oh, but loads of people say it *puts hands over ears going la la la la*.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

So from this poorly written sentence it seems that you now require people to have sworn to have heard these statements under oath?

Is that not what you were getting at when you said "at least two of the people who heard these statements directly from Kyle are reputable and present to answer any claims that they have fabricated" and so, even as hearsay, it would be admissible?

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

But you're not at all a predant or being a tedious bollix, right? Right.

This is just pathetic and childish now. If you can't respond properly, don't bother responding at all.

tac foley

Behind all the name-calling and general nyaaa-nyaaa going on, there is an interesting thread here about a subject hat is ALWAYS going to be contentious - sniping.

Given that the late Mr Kyle has had a pretty massive post-mortem thumping from people who weren't 'there' to experience what actually happens in a real situation, let me gently introduce you to a sniper who is still alive to face any detractors he might have calling him out.

Gentlemen, I give you 'Sniper One' by ex-Sgt Dan Mills - the true story of a SIX-MONTH-long siege of Cimic House in Al Amarah, and how an eighteen-strong team of snipers led by Sgt Mills, defended this battalion CP of the Princess of Wales Regiment under conditions that make Rorke's Drift look like a luxury holiday camp.

Comment by Andy McNab - 'One of the best accounts of combat that I've ever read'.

I agree, and recommend it unreservedly.

tac

Paul_Hacket

Topper Harley wrote: »

This is such shit, I just can't take you seriously any more.

Brilliant counter argument. Literally everything in your word vomit above has been covered repeatedly. Go ahead and stick to your "standards", just understand that they also mean that you cannot accept pretty much anything you read in the newspapers or other forms of journalism including most academic scholarship in the social sciences, as virtually none of them meet them. As has been explained to you (repeatedly) having a ridiculously high standard of multiple documented verification beyond the statements of multiple witnesses might make sense if (A) the people who are making the claims are somehow dubious or (B) the claims contradict what we otherwise know about Kyle. Neither is the case here. Therefore you are not being reasonable.

Oh and the claim you keep referencing that Kyle merely said that snipers were sent to New Orleans is also false. The ****ing government did not send snipers to New Orleans. So he lied about that too. Or do you think that George Bush sent US military to New Orleans to kill looters during the worst public relations crisis of his presidency? Makes sense.

Ultimate point: Kyle is a demonstrated and ridiculous liar and the record demonstrates this again and again. But yes, journalists and others are just making these stories up, stories his own wife couldn't even deny that he'd told.

TommyOM

Get a room you two