ACORN workers caught on tape apparently advising on child prostitution

If it’s not on the first page of a google image search, I don’t believe it exists. :wink:

(And in this case, it’s not even on the second so… I’ll go find Vinyl Turnip’s post.

I figure they’re taking some standard legal advice not to talk to the press. I think most lawyers say this in most situations no matter what the situation is, just because they want to avoid the possibility their client might make a mistake.

Or if not lawyers (since apparently they’re not being indicted? May be fighting their firing though) they may just be wary of talking to people now that they’ve been made a fool of once.

I did a bit of poking around, on the assumption that nobody should miss out on a chance to laugh…

Not the best I’ve seen, there was a snippet of video of him similarly dressed and facing the grueling interrogation by Fox and Friends, but this will do. It also has other snippets of information of marginal interest to fans of fungoids…

Thank Heavens it wasn’t Froot Loops.

(Emphasis added to underscore what appears to a serious case of irony deficiency…)

Well, if you were dying to know what an Eagle Scout from Westwood thinks an urban pimp looks like, well, there you have it.

The good news? He’s making a career of it! They’re going to give him the gunpowder and the fuses, and he’s going to spread himself all over the neighborhood.

ACORN worker in video had reported fakers to police.

You can’t go around further undermining already illogical hysteria on the basis of evidence. It’s just not cricket.

I’m sure the only response we’ll see from… various interested parties… will be thus:

It sounds more like “spoke to someone he knew in the police department who asked for more information, and then dropped it when it became apparent it was a dupe” rather than any sort of formal report. But it still suggests that at least some ACORNers didn’t just blithely go along with the story.

It wasn’t the detective that said he’d been “duped,” it was the ACORN worker.

Juan Carlos Vera, the ACORN worker, called the detective after the initial incident at the ACORN office. The detective asked for more info. A few days later, Vera called back and told the detective he’d been duped.

This actually nicely explains WHY Vera went along with O’Keefe. Given the choice of throwing these two pieces of crap out of the office, on the one hand, and finding out as much detail about their operation so you can go to the police about it and possibly get these poor girls rescued, on the other, which one are you more likely to do if you’re already predisposed to want to help people in bad situations?

Sorry - unclear writing on my part. I meant the ACORN worker.

So how was it not a formal report then?

By “the detective,” you mean his cousin?

By “cousin,” you mean “the detective?”

Is there some reason you believe it’s relevant that the detective was his cousin? So fucking what?

Is your point that Vera’s report lacks veracity because the police detective was related to him?

If so, why not come right out and say that? Don’t dance around man!

The issue is whether it was treated as a report to the police (in which case the call will have been documented and on file with the police) or just an informal call to the guy’s cousin asking for advice (in which case it won’t be).

See Bricker - was that so hard?

I don’t see how it makes any difference. He still called the cops either way, and his cousin took it seriously enough to request more information.

Could an argument not be made that the best way to deal with a customer that claims to be doing something illegal is to play along, and then afterwards call the police?

That way you hear about the full extent of the illegal activities, and you also don’t put yourself at risk (of violence, e.g. if you were to tell the customer that you were calling the police).
…I guess this logic falls down against the danger that you’re being filmed by a conservative news agency. :smack:

I thought my criticism was obvious. One can make a good-faith argument either way – even though it’s his cousin he’s calling, it was still a report to the police, OR the fact that it was his cousin clearly undercuts the story that he wanted to make an official report.

My rebuke was to Diogenes for carefully omitting the fact that it was hsi cousin by referring only to “the detective.”

For myself, I’m inclined to say that this guy did not act inappropriately. He called his cousin, a cop, to check on what he should do. That’s enough of a call to authorities to satisfy me… and to illustrate what DIDN’T happen at other offices.

Sure. Except that in these stories, we don’t have too many “call the cops later” events.