Danielg342
-
Posts
3.9k -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Danielg342
-
-
Well...ok, let's start with the positives.
For once, I felt that no one did anything stupid. The writers actually let the characters guide the story, they played the beats they were supposed to and resisted the urge to do something crazy or shocking for the sake of the plot.
It was actually an enjoyable hour where the episode and the show were allowed to breathe, and it was so much better for it.
Which I think is great because this show, far too often, forces things and makes characters be stupid just to advance plots the writers want to advance, even if that plotline is abjectly stupid and drags the whole show down with it.
...but then I thought, "I'm praising the show for doing the absolute bare minimum."
I mean, great that Bode didn't do something stupid and wind up back in jail.
Great that Gabriella didn't run away from the aisle and ruin her wedding.
Great that Manny decided to show up to the wedding and accepted his fate.
Oh, and finally, great that the person the show was setting up to be this season's Sleeper turned out to be the exact opposite.
(It was also great that W. Tre Davis came back as Freddy and that Eve is sticking around as Three Rock captain, but those are side points)
All of it was great work...all of it. A great show of restraint and a great sense of letting things be and be organic as well as a great job of keeping things simple.
...but, while it's commendable, it's really only a start. Episodes like this are the episodes for which you form the basis for developing the story later, taking what you can build from and going from there.
If the show is treating this episode like a second pilot, well, it did the job.
However, the real test is taking what they have here and building upon it. Which is a straightforward task but it's one the writers have already shown they're not capable of doing, if S1 was any example.
About the only positive- and the only hope that maybe things will be different- is that this was the kind of episode that could have went 600 different ways sideways and it didn't go any of those ways, so maybe the writers are learning.
The only question will be can the writers keep up this momentum, or will the urge to be "shocking" make them slip up?
Only time will tell, but at least I can say- with a lot of reservations and a healthy dose of "show me what you got"- that I'm actually looking forward to next season.
-
5
-
-
Well, there were some heartwarming moments in the end between Hondo Jr. and Senior, Deacon deciding to stay (and Annie letting him stay) and Alfaro and Tan patching things up.
I'm also left wondering just, exactly, what was re-shot and how this episode would have wound up if it really was the series finale.
Does Deacon decide to stay retired?
Does 20-Squad implode because of the Tan-Alfaro rift?
Does Hondo die on top of that tanker?
Lots of questions, but they, thankfully, don't have to be answered.
The only lingering thread- the hook for next season- will be what 20-Squad will look like come the fall.
Even though Tan and Alfaro patched things up, there's no guarantee that everyone will return.
Even if they do, Hicks told Hondo that there's a sixth spot where Hondo can pick "whomever he likes". I wonder if that spot will be reserved for whom I suspect will be the cast newcomer the show decides to hire in order to "freshen up" the series.
Lots to digest over the summer, a summer we didn't think we'd see after last summer, but, here we are.
As for this Season 7 finale...well, it was bleh, like the rest of the season. Diplomatically, the best I can say is that it was "there"...aside from Hondo's cool stunt, did any of it really register?
A good part of it was that the acting by those playing the villains was sub-par, as was the writing. Saying they were "going through the motions" is being kind.
Hopefully, now that the writers know they have a whole season to work with and one that may not even likely be the last one, they'll up their game and do better than this uneven season where the writing staff seemed largely disinterested.
Hondo was told to up his game...well, now Shemar Moore, you gotta get the writers to up theirs, if you all want to see the show go to S9, S10 and beyond.
-
On 12/9/2014 at 12:52 AM, giovannif7 said:
Disco started catching on in the mid 70s, then remained mainstream through 1980
I'm not sure disco ever really "died"- it, like other forms of music, just morphed into something else. Lots of the dance and electronic music genres today owe their debt to disco. Heck, a lot of modern pop music has clear disco influences.
I just think that dance music- in general- tends to go through a bit deeper "boom and bust" cycles than most other kinds of music. You get periods where it gets immensely popular- like in the '90s or the EDM craze from the last decade- and periods where you just get one or two hits per year, if that. My guess is that it's because dance never really has shied away from its reputation for being "simple, fun music"- which has its place in the music marketplace but it's not something with a lot of staying power.
To tie it back to the thread, I don't know if I could ever say that a disco scene is truly "out of place". The music and the fashions might be out of place, but the mentality is the same. Every generation seems to have some kind of cheesy dance music fandom- be it the boy bands of yore or the EDM bros of today- to make fun of.
That, I'm sure, will never go away.
-
5
-
-
On 5/13/2024 at 2:30 AM, sweetandsour said:
I wish that I had Jesse's girl! Where can I find a woman like that?
Coheed and Cambria want to tell you be careful what you wish for.
7 hours ago, possibilities said:I don't want them to get rid of Eve in order to elevate Bode, though.
Me neither. I always thought that Bode would be more of an assistant at Three Rock than the person completely in charge. Bode becoming a captain seems like an "end of series" kind of thing, though I guess- who knows- that maybe the show thinks Bode's trajectory is replacing his father and mother at the top of the Cal Fire food chain.
Which I know is patently unbelievable...but when has this show made sense?
-
On 5/4/2024 at 5:38 PM, bluegirl147 said:
Considering Harvey would meet these women wearing nothing but a bathrobe I'm going to say the problem was definitely with Harvey.
Not to belabour the Harvey Weinstein discussion, but I once knew a man who claimed that women who wore baggy sweaters and pants were being "sexual" because of "what they were hiding".
Which I think only further proves the point that clothing is meaningless to a predator.
-
11
-
2
-
-
Looks like we're getting Vasquez again and, at the very least, Deacon's agreed to suit back up officially this one time. I wonder if the top photo will come at the end of the episode.
-
A note about pressing charges:
With the understanding that the show's writers may not realize this either, technically speaking, the decision to press charges has absolutely nothing to do with the victim's wishes- that decision rests solely and entirely with the prosecutor. Now, usually, the prosecution won't bother pressing charges if the victim won't co-operate because it can be very hard to secure a conviction, but it's not an ironclad rule.
In Manny's case, he did get into a fight with Luke in front of a lot of people. With the Governor of California- and, more than likely, the California Attorney General- in attendance. The prosecution could likely say they have enough witnesses to support charges, even though Luke (maybe) has said he isn't co-operating.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Well, that's an ending.
Good for Bode, and I hope they stick the landing.
I'm also hoping that maybe Bode comes back as Eve's assistant and/or has some kind of supervisory role at Three Rock because one of the main problems with this series is that it's supposed main character does little more than stand around and mope.
So I hope, now that Bode is free, he actually gets to start doing things instead of just being there.
Maybe Manny's trajectory is to go back to Three Rock. Bode being Manny's guide for rehabilitation is one way for both characters to go full circle, and it could be interesting to watch.
I also like that Vince was honest with himself and at least his health "secret" is finally out with his family (not that he ever should have kept that secret). There may be some dangling loose ends, but it looks like Vince may be on the mend and the worst is behind him.
I know Billy Burke said an interview that he hopes Vince can find some peace and solace in S3, so here's hoping next week is the start of that. Hey, now that the family back together, I think they need some happy times.
Stephanie Arcilla did really well playing with Gabby's conflicting emotions. Her strange dance with Bode is a "whatever", really...sometimes I wish Hollywood would stop insisting on "will they or won't they?" storylines, but Gabby/Bode is what it is, I guess.
As for the rest of the episode...it was really just "there". Aside from the ending, there's not much here for casual fans to watch. All I'll do is repost this meme:
Switch the ballcap and the glasses with "goggles" for the characters in this episode and you'll get my point.
-
1
-
-
I guess the plan for next season is to literally blow everything up and start anew. At this stage, apart from Hondo, likely Hicks and Nichelle, who knows who will come back?
Alfaro dug his own grave, but it also looks like Powell and Tan might join him for stabbing him in the back. The "who stays and who goes?" drama might be interesting if it didn't also come with some trepidation with how this will play out with the casting for next season.
I know this episode was likely shot without knowledge of the renewal, and I know that, no matter what happens with the cast, we're sure to have a new cast member to "liven" the series. Likely, when the writer wrote the "blow up 20-Squad" story", it was with the knowledge that the series would be over.
However, knowing that Season 8 will be a soft reboot means that the showrunners don't have to hit a soft "reset" for next season either, and that's a dangerous game.
People come and go, yes, but S.W.A.T. has lost two regular cast members already, could lose a third and, potentially, lose a fourth and a fifth. How much turnover is OK?
They might as well start a new show if they're going to go with an almost completely brand new cast.
So I'll just close this thought by saying that the showrunners have to tread carefully and be like Hondo- find the right mix of regulars and newcomers to keep this show afloat in S8 and beyond.
The rest of the episode itself was uneven. The Hondo drama was a gut punch, though it really lacked depth. The damsel in distress storyline was also similarly shallow, doing little more than being a race against time and featuring baddies who had capabilities a bit beyond being believable.
Then Deacon showed up again, and, unlike the press release, really only hinted about coming back.
Honestly, this feels like there could have been three episodes written out of it, but they were all needlessly jammed into one. As a result, none of the storylines really worked.
Still, it was a watchable hour, and the fact this episode was personal for the characters gave it some meaning.
They just need to figure out, "where do we go from here?"
-
2 hours ago, possibilities said:
I couldn't stand Gabriella's mother! But Manny has also been insufferable lately. And of course Luke, who pretty much always is.
I have a feeling we weren't supposed to like her, and that we were supposed to get a sense as to why her and Manny didn't work out.
I will say Paola Nunez seemed to have a lot of fun playing the character. For that reason alone I want to see her again.
-
2
-
-
This show likes talking about bringing the fire...
...well...
Manny really brought the fire. So did Paola Nunez, Gabriella's mother Roberta. I could totally buy they were once young, passionate lovers whose love fizzled out because they were both impulsive, pushy, intense and awfully stubborn. The kind of people who'd fall in love with each other instantly and go all-in, only for that spark to fizzle out when they realize they both drive each other nuts.
It was fun, all of it, and I think I'd be down for more of it.
I also want Luke vs. Manny in Hell in a Cell. Make it happen, WWE...
The rest of the episode was rather uneven. I mean, it was great seeing everyone- especially Gabriella, Roberta and Sharon- dressed to the nines, though I wonder why the Three Rock inmates couldn't have been given some nice threads so they don't look out of place in their jumpsuits.
Alix West Lefler did great as Genevieve, and Jordan Calloway sold Jake's awkwardness. They also have a cute handshake.
We also got some rousing speeches from you-know-who...I have to wonder if a speech really would sway a Governor, but this is Hollywood, after all.
The big letdown was Vince.
OK, Vince has his reasons...they're actually good reasons in that tremors and a heart condition would be the end of Vince's firefighting career.
...but...gosh...it still felt like Vince was being stupid for the sake of the plot.
I know there's stubbornness...but this is next-level stuff. Stupid stuff. Vince could have died, and playing with the heart is no joke. It's extremely risky of Vince to say "just shock me and I'll be OK", because there really is no guarantee that he will be.
Again, I understand that Vince was worried about his job if he went to the hospital, so his actions still made sense...but that doesn't mean he still wasn't acting incredibly stupid and being reckless with his life.
I also don't buy that whatever heart condition Vince has that Sharon wouldn't know about it. They've been married for too long...even if Vince is undiagnosed, he said the tremors and the arrhythmia happened before, so I doubt Sharon would never have noticed it before.
Regardless, it's Vince's turn to be stupidly hiding something from his wife, just like Sharon stupidly hid something from her husband. Full circle, but...
Episodes like this display the frustration with this show- they can make some real magic sometimes, especially when they let the characters drive the story (as what Roberta did tonight).
They just fail to find it, mostly because they force it too many times.
-
4
-
-
The Hicks/Buck/Mumford fight did produce a touching moment.
Emily Alabi also did well as Olivia. I'm glad she's decided to stay...and judging by the muscles she's got...Olivia should join SWAT.
I also thought Zoe Powell was a bit more likeable in this episode than she usually is. Maybe Anna Enger Ritch is cut out for the main cast after all.
Nichelle and Hondo also displayed some great teamwork too, though a home break-in will be tough to overcome in one night. Walter Fauntleroy did pretty well as the unhinged Bruce too.
That's about it for the positives.
It was a pretty rote case, and it succumbed to several cliches, like the British bad guy and the first guy to die was the black guy. I also have to ask questions about why important newspaper material was kept at a vault in the same place that hosts a swanky ball.
We also had S.W.A.T.'s usual quick pace in its usual attempt to establish urgency...oh, and bad guys who are dangerous who will stop at nothing and kill whomever is in their way to get what they want.
I've heard of shows having formulas but...this is over the top.
No Deacon in this episode.
Two more episodes to go...
-
59 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:
I do think that he preferred "Hollywood hot" type women because there are some men who judge their success by how hot the women they can bed are.
The other part of that is what Harvey Weinstein would consider "Hollywood hot" is not what someone else would consider "Hollywood hot". Some may want Kaley Cuoco. Others will want Amy Farrah Fowler. Others will target someone else entirely.
There's no "foolproof" look.
Looking at those who have accused Weinstein of at least some kind of impropriety and I don't really see a "type". There's brunettes. There are blondes. There are people who are not what you would consider "Hollywood hot" on that list. There's young actresses and old actresses. Most are, admittedly, white but you still have Latinas (like Lina Esco) and you have Rowena Chiu and Lupita Nyong'o.
If that doesn't reinforce the idea that predators are opportunistic and will target anyone if the mood suits them then I don't know what will.
-
13
-
-
4 hours ago, JH Lipton said:
Our company makes sure that there is no vegetation around the wires and shuts the power if there is a chance of a wildfire. We even have goats keeping brush down. Safety is the number one concern .
Did Southern California Edison change management recently?
I ask because I understand your company did have to settle numerous lawsuits related to allegations SCE equipment caused forest fires. Maybe it's due to my own cynicism having worked for a big company in the past that was completely profit driven, but my guess is that SCE only really started caring about safety once they realized negligence is going to cost them, literally, a lot of money.
-
2
-
-
It's common on police procedurals to portray the departments the heroes don't work for as nothing but obstructionists who do what's needed to hinder the heroes in their plot (think pushy FBI guys, procedure-obsessed bureaucrats, lawyers...etc.). So it doesn't surprise me that Fire Country resorts to the same storytelling tactic.
I didn't have too much of a problem with how the electricity was portrayed in the episode, aside from the air of "things are happening because the writer needs them to happen that way for the plot". Of course, I don't know that much about electricity in the first place, so I likely missed some of the details.
My guess is that the electricity storyline was written by someone who didn't have any knowledge about how it worked and simply read some things about it, applying what little they learned. It's understandable given the time constraints surrounding a typical Hollywood season, but it's also on the showrunner to better organize the writing so episodes are not left to writers who don't know what they're writing about.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:
Not the cops, but:
Yeah, it doesn't matter what time of day or where they are or what condition they're supposed to be in...in Hollywood, everyone is always dolled up, especially the women.
Step by Step kind of parodied this in an episode. Carol spots one of her kids (I believe it was Karen) going back into her room after she had just snuck out of the house. Carol asks Karen what she was doing, and Karen tries to fool her mother by saying she was just using the bathroom.
Carol then asks rhetorically, "you put on mascara and all this makeup just to use the bathroom?"
Karen seemed to understand her fate by asking how long she'd be grounded for and I forget what Carol responded with but Karen sure was benched for a while.
-
4
-
-
9 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:
I think what finally turned me off procedurals was ones like Bones or Hawaii 5-0 where they are clearly solving a complicated murder in one day since they don't even change clothes during the episode.
Criminal Minds is pretty bad with this too, as often the agents will work deep into the night and forgo sleeping just to catch their killer. Now, the agents of CM were supposed to deal with really "dangerous" killers who were almost always at risk of "devolving" into spree killers (which also doesn't make any sense, as that's now how real serial killers act) so you could justify the sleepless nights in order to catch the killer, but the show wasn't always consistent with the need to forgo sleep (the need for rest was even a plot point in S5) and I sometimes wonder if the stakes were really that high many times. Sure, the town might be on edge because they're dealing with an active serial killer, but it's not like the killer was always operating- there would have been times the agents could have slept.
1 hour ago, Annber03 said:Will he sleep on his right or left side? Or his back? Will he snore? Tune in to find out!
LOL.
Well, Jack Bauer not sleeping isn't totally inaccurate- lots of people go without sleep, especially special operatives.
What gets me about Bauer is that we never see him having to use the toilet or eating or drinking. He's in a highly stressful situation, he fights off sleep, he routinely exerts himself physically...that makes me hungry thinking about it. How Bauer doesn't need to eat despite all that is beyond me.
Besides, they could have easily filmed him having a breakthrough while having his lunch or sitting on the toilet. I can do a lot of good thinking during those times, and Bauer could have too.
-
6
-
-
10 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:
As @Quof says above, due process requires that even a scummy jerk like Harvey Weinstein get a fair trial.
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.
-
11
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, ABay said:
I don't think it's lazy to do your job and want to go home at the end of the regular work day.
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.
-
2
-
-
On 4/23/2024 at 7:11 PM, Kel Varnsen said:
Of course they are. You would be too if so many of your cases had some sort of connection to your personal life.
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.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, andromeda331 said:
Terrible news. I'm confused on why it was overturned. Didn't the women testifying establish a pattern?
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.
-
1
-
7
-
10 hours ago, Irlandesa said:
I don't see it that way. Gossip is "I heard this about so and so." The women who testified shared their personal, lived experiences with Weinstein about how he abused them. That kind of testimony is often allowed in court. The original judge and 3 of the 7 upper court judges thought it met the burden. 4 in the upper court felt it did not. So the judges looking at the case were split evenly overall. It just happens that 4 happened to be an upper-court majority.
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.
-
1
-
4
-
S02.E10: I Do
in Fire Country
I'd love it if Bode and Gabriella realized they're better off as friends and the show crafted a great story about platonic love between a man and a woman because Hollywood never seems to go that route (or at least stick to it). Of course, I realize it's a pipe dream, but if the show wanted to really be different, that's one direction they could take.
Fair, but I will give the show writers credit for not having it happen in this episode. Considering that Hollywood loves to have its "shocking twists" in season finales- or, at least, the tease of one come the fall- the fact that the writers resisted the urge for Gabby to do something "shocking" is commendable. Yeah, there's a good chance all that gets undone with a "shocking" S3 premiere and I know mileage varies on this, but I feel the writing in this episode gives me hope that perhaps the writers are actually learning from their mistakes.