Danielg342

The reason, if nothing else, is for precedent. All court systems use previous rulings to inform and influence future rulings, but this is especially important in the North American law system which is based on common law. Precedents allow the court system to clarify points government laws don't cover and can become just as strong as actual government legislation. Which is why getting the ruling right is so important. As much as many of us want Harvey Weinstein to rot in jail, we shouldn't want our passion to get him in jail to muck up rulings and set bad precedents for the future. Because then we'd risk throwing a good person in jail who doesn't deserve it all because of a bad ruling.

I liked Jake telling Bode that Bode needs to learn that fighting for himself can be good enough, he need not always attach himself to someone else. I also thought Alix West Lefler (Genevieve) did really well in this episode. It was also great seeing Lochlyn Munro again and I appreciated that this episode didn't follow the usual story beat where people campaigning for the shutdown of the show-central institution see how good said institution is and the institution is saved. No, even though Three Rock more than proved their worth to the community, they're still getting shut down. I don't know where the story goes from here and I don't know if it's the right choice, but the show made a move that took some guts, so credit to them. ...but...Billy Burke... Sure, Fire Country may not always know the best about how to use him, but I'd have to say, it's a deal breaker if he leaves, especially if they write him out so cheaply. Burke and Diane Farr really centre and ground this show and give it its heart and soul, so the show should be wise to keep those two around because you can't replace actors like that. Yeah, likely we'll get some more Hollywood health and Vince is going to wind up being just fine despite the scare, just like Sharon was with her kidney (remember that storyline?), but I'd appreciate it if the show gave Vince and Sharon more meaningful things to do other than cheap drama like the kidney and Vince's electric shock. Just like S.W.A.T. before it, we've got three more episodes of Fire Country to go. Will Three Rock survive? Will Bode understand the meaning of life? Will we ever get competent writers on this show? One thing's for sure though- if a tree falls in a forest, at least Station 42 will notice.

I actually thought this was one of the better episodes...then the ending happened. Which only heightens my own fears that, heading into S8, S.W.A.T. has made a giant mess of things that it may not be able to recover from. If this was the final season, Deacon leaving at the end of the episode would have simply been heartbreaking. It may also still be frustrating, since Deacon leaving so abruptly makes the character look bad, but, in a final season scenario, it wouldn't be worth too much getting worked up about because there's only a few more episodes to slog through anyway. In this, new, situation...I can't help but feel with Luca, Street and now Deacon leaving that the show is falling apart. (There was also no Hicks or Nichelle today too, which only adds to the frustration) At this stage, it's almost imperative that, at least, one of those three scheduled to leave don't actually leave. It's also imperative that S.W.A.T. hires another lead character that can shoulder the load- even if one of the old guard returns- because the quality of the acting has declined too much and S.W.A.T. really needs something to freshen it up if it wants a longer run past S8. Some positive signs did come from this episode- Alfaro and Powell looked like they may have some actual chemistry, though I hope they keep those two platonic. We don't need Stris 2.0. As for the actual case itself, it was nice that the show gave another nod to what was supposed to be the hook for the show- Hondo having to juggle his role with the badge with his ties to the street. The show is at its best when it leans into the struggle Hondo has with trying to convince a cynical and leery community that it really can trust the police, because the show has done a brilliant job showing how Herculean that task really is. Hondo must feel that no matter how many steps forward he takes, he's also always taking two steps back. Two military vets who team up and take on the gangs to avenge their fallen daughter is a great way to highlight that, and, as much as you see the pain in the father's face that no one seemed to care about his daughter, you could also see the pain written all over Hondo's face, frustrated that many of the things he still fights against still happens, regardless of everything he does to make things better. It's this kind of wider but personal conflicts that the show has been missing. This was the first case that truly felt like it had some meaning, and the show really needs to have more cases like this. Plus, creating cases that leave a personal mark with SWAT members is an easy way to develop those characters since we get an insight into those characters. Three more episodes for this season, folks.

No, I don't think so either. There's just a difference between completing your task with time to spare so you can go home early and cutting corners on said task just so you can go home early. One is happenstance, the other is laziness. What I was also saying is that, sometimes, when we finish a task, we may not have necessarily finished it. It's not because we were bad at our jobs- it's another matter of us being human, in that we all make mistakes and overlook things. What tends to happen on these police procedurals is that, unless it's a plot point, you never get the protagonists leaving the crime scene thinking they've done their job when they actually haven't. If the task isn't done despite looking like so, one of the protagonists will have a "hunch" and they'll be back on the case, when, in reality, that wouldn't always happen.

I've mentioned it before, I think, but it's something Hollywood seems to always get wrong about every job, at least as far as the main protagonist is concerned. Focal characters are always diligent, punctual go-getters who put in the extra work to make sure they've done their jobs right, even if it means having to re-open a task at the end of the day instead of simply declaring the task "done" and going home. I have no statistics, obviously, but having worked in workplaces with lots of other people, I can safely say that there are very few people who are so dedicated to their jobs that they'll put in the extra mile to get things right. Now, I grant that the amount of people who "hot dog" at their jobs likely depends on the field, and most of my experiences are at low-paying jobs where employee motivation is already a struggle, but, knowing we're all humans, even at so-called "better" jobs, not everyone is going to be on top of their jobs all the time. Even the best will get lazy and give in to the temptation to cut corners, even if it would be disastrous for them to do so. Perhaps there's a good reason why Hollywood makes their characters so dedicated to their jobs. Firstly, a character who is lazy is typically not very likeable, and, secondly, it's not a very satisfying story if plots were always resolved because a character was simply lazy. This goes both ways- for the protagonist and the antagonist. You want your protagonist to succeed because they overcame everything the antagonist threw at them, not because the antagonist got bored halfway through the story. Conversely, a loss for the protagonists would not be impactful if they were not shown trying so hard to do everything they can to succeed at the challenge only to fall short. If the protagonist simply went through the motions and failed because of it, the audience would very much wonder if the protagonist would have succeeded had they actually tried, and they might wonder how serious the challenge really was if the protagonist didn't offer any effort in trying to overcome it. So while it's not accurate for Hollywood characters to be dedicated go-getters, it's a more satisfying story to write them that way.

Here's what was at issue. The appeals court basically stated the following: Harvey Weinstein had no criminal record before the New York trial, so, in the eyes of the court, he had not been proven to have done anything wrong before the trial Despite this, the prosecutor brought forth as evidence the testimony of several women who accused Weinstein of crimes he was not on trial for, and thus were not being tested by the trial at hand nor were they tested previously The jury then based too much of their reasoning for conviction on these untested accusations, instead of properly evaluating the accusations that Weinstein was actually on trial for. It's like this- you've got a murder trial with a defendant who has no criminal record. The prosecutor brings in all these people who testify the defendant committed murder in prior incidents. The prosecutor then says "because all these people said the defendant committed murder before, he must have committed this murder!" Well, you can't base a fair conviction on crimes the accused is not trial for, because those crimes are not being tested by the court. The defendant needs the proper ability to defend themselves, and they can't if they're faced with the prospect of having to answer for crimes they haven't been charged with (since charges need to be supported by physical evidence, not simply on hearsay alone). You also can't use, as evidence, accusations of crimes that haven't yet been tested by the court, since, in the eyes of the court, it is not proven that the defendant actually committed those crimes. Because of the presumption of innocence, since the accusations are not proven, you cannot say the defendant committed those crimes. Now, you are allowed to use character witnesses and use unrelated incidents to establish motive. Getting back to my hypothetical murder case, if part of the prosecutor's case revolves around suggesting the defendant has anger issues and wants to argue the evidence points to the defendant killing the victim in a moment of rage, the prosecutor can definitely bring in people who have witnessed the defendant get violently angry before, because then the prosecutor can prove the defendant can let their anger get the better of themselves. The prosecutor would still have to prove that the rest of the evidence proves the defendant's guilt, but at least the prosecutor can establish part of their case. My guess is that Weinstein's previous trial judge thought that by using the testimony of the women who brought forward the untested allegations, the prosecution would simply use it as evidence that Weinstein was the kind of guy who simply "would commit rape", not as evidence that he actually committed rape. The appeals court ruled that the trial judge erred in this assessment, as that the trial judge didn't stop the jury from using those untested allegations as evidence Weinstein committed the crimes he was actually on trial for. One other tangentially related point- Weinstein and his lawyers brought up the claim that the #MeToo movement unfairly influenced his trial, and there may be something to this. I mean, I really don't know how a jury can be expected to judge a case fairly when, on a daily basis, they're confronted by thousands of protesters who loudly shout at them and implore them to convict. There's a reason why juries are typically sequestered for deliberations- put in a hotel room without TV or newspapers and (I suspect) the Internet, because the judge can't risk the jurors being influenced by anything that would bias their evaluation of the case. How all those jurors- and the judge- can't be influenced by those protesters is beyond me.

Maybe I used the wrong word but it's semantics. The court simply said that the trial judge can't use as evidence the testimony of women who allege crimes against Harvey Weinstein that have not been proven in court. Which is especially important because those allegations were for similar crimes that Weinstein was on trial for. The judge ruled that because Weinstein had no prior criminal history before the New York convictions, it is a grievous error to allow testimony of people who accuse Weinstein of the same crimes as those he was actually on trial for, since it made the jury believe he had committed those crimes before when no court had deemed he had done so. My level of legal expertise is nowhere near a level where I'm in a position comfortable enough to say "the judge got it right" or "the judge got it wrong". I'm only going to comment on what I see. I know there will be people who will read what the court says and find confusion with it, since, in their minds, the "untested allegations" against Weinstein are as true as they can be, but, you have to remember that, in a court of law, if allegations have not been tested in court, a court cannot see those allegations as "true". It'd be like if someone was convicted of murder based solely on testimony of others that the person committed other murders other than the murder they're accused of committing. That's not a conviction that can be allowed to stand, because then you're risking people getting convicted purely on the weight of others simply running their mouths, with what they're saying being, potentially, falsehoods. People should only be convicted of the crimes they're actually accused of, not only crimes that stand simply on hearsay.

I think the problem is that the claims of the women unrelated to the case had not been tested in court, so they were little more than hearsay. It would be like if the judge had allowed testimony from someone who said "Harvey Weinstein is an alien from another planet" or "Harvey is a murderous cannibal"- since there is no proof that happened, you can't use it as proof that Harvey acted in that manner before. It seems to me that Harvey was convicted on little more than Hollywood gossip. That's a poor standard for conviction, and I rightly think the prosecution needs to do better. True justice deserves no less.

😢 😢 😢 😢 😢 Well, I hope for your sake at least he is brought back. I do think there's a high probability of that. Agreed. My guess it'll be someone who is high profile, and maybe younger. I might get behind a storyline where Hondo sees himself- the good and bad- in a new recruit. Oh. My bad. It was Kristin who had cancer- must have confused the two.

Somewhat...I believe Carolyn had cancer, not ALS. Same idea, though. I'm not looking forward to it either, but something tells me that one of the three that appear to be written out- Deacon, Luca or Street- will be back for S8, likely filling the old role that Cortez used to fill (my guess is Deacon because Jay Harrington made a lot of posts celebrating SWAT getting a S8, whereas Kenny Johnson only tangentially acknowledged it and Alex Russell didn't mention it at all). I'm also predicting a new cast member for S8 in a bid to "freshen" the series.

Blah. Great to see Jessica Camacho (Agent Vasquez) again as well as Hondo's joke that kept Deacon honest, but that's about it for the positives. It was a rote case with a stereotypical criminal- women love shiny things, I mean, who knew?- with the rote obstructive bureaucrat who is only there to create artificial drama and arbitrary roadblocks for the heroes, only for said bureaucrat to see the heroes' value in the end. Blah. As for Hicks' storyline with Maggie...for real, show? This has to be one of those storylines the show wrote thinking it was the final season, because why do they have to break Hicks' heart again? Maybe they can pull the same thing Empire did and reveal Maggie doesn't actually have ALS and she has something else...implausible, maybe, but it'd be a happier story. I mean, great for Hicks to be there for Maggie through what will be some painful days ahead, but...for real, show...you can give someone like Hicks a happy story every now and then. Blah. Oh, and no Tan or Powell despite their apparent status as series regulars. At this stage, I don't know why the show bothers to list anyone other than Shemar Moore as a main cast member. Blah.

I'm aware of the sports forum. I'll put it into consideration. I hesitate to put a wrestling topic there since, technically, it's not a competitive sport- it's more appropriately "sports-themed theatre". Then again, the vast majority of wrestling fans are also sports fans, so maybe there is a fit.

Side note- I do wonder why these forums don't have a wrestling forum or at least a topic, considering it *is* on TV. In any case... Could Vincent Kennedy McMahon start his own wrestling company? I wouldn't put it past him. Many thought that McMahon would only leave WWE on his deathbed, so I could see him getting the itch to get back in the game once he's able to do so. The only question I have is whether or not it would work. On top of all the logistical concerns you mentioned- who would broadcast his promotion? Who would invest in it? Who'd be willing to work with him, etc.- the problem with McMahon's hypothetical promotion is that I'm not sure McMahon really has his finger on the pulse of wrestling like he used to. Wrestling punditry is almost universal in its proclamations that Paul Levesque- AKA Triple H- has vastly improved the WWE product since becoming the head of creative in WWE after taking over the role when McMahon was first forced out of WWE in 2021. Plus, I watched almost every WWE program for two years from June 2018 to June 2020, and a lot of that stuff was literally the worst TV I'd ever seen in my life (see Shane McMahon vs. Miz, Rusev vs. Bobby Lashley, The Big Dog eating dog food, the mishandling of The Fiend, etc.). About the only positive out of that 2018-2020 period is that Becky Lynch became a real star during that period (though it was kind of by accident) and women's wrestling grew somewhat by getting a Royal Rumble match, the Mae Young Classic and a pay-per-view of their own, Evolution. There weren't too many other positives, and those that were positives were either moments of serendipity (Kofimania) or they came from ideas the wrestlers made themselves that McMahon approved, like The Fiend and later The Bloodline. So, while I can't say for sure that a new McMahon promotion would fail, I feel that there's a good chance it will, simply because I'm not sure the old man knows what he's doing anymore. If the other stuff that could impede McMahon- like being unable to find a TV partner or investors, or even writers to work for him (remember, Vince used to love ripping up the scripts to his shows and force complete re-writes mere minutes to air time)- then McMahon's poor vision for what wrestling is in the 21st century will likely doom the promotion. It may be good for fits and giggles while we watch it implode worse than WCW did in its final years, but that's about it.

Alix West Lefler- who plays Genevieve- is 12 years old and lives close to where Fire Country shoots (the show shoots in Vancouver and Lefler is from the suburb of Burnaby). I don't know if there's something with the laws or anything but maybe that played into the writers' choice. I know that having actors younger than 18 can cause some logistical concerns and, since Genevieve isn't exactly a major part of FC, I could understand the need to give them an out, even if I don't agree with it.

It does open the narrative possibility of having a story where Genevieve meets her real dad for the first time, which can be a good story if they work it right. It also allows them to write out Genevieve if they want to do so without having to kill her. Personally, I would rather have Bode be Genevieve's actual father than one by proxy because it gives that relationship more meaning, but I can see why the writers went with this choice.