S22.E16: Wolves In Sheep's Clothing

[Devonte Huntley]

7 hours ago, dttruman said:

I have to agree with the previous commenter and say that these ladies showed no real signs of exploitation. Don't blame us for our opinions, I believe your problem is with the writers and producers. They hardly showed the seedier side of prostitution, in fact I would say they showed the positive side (or the advantages) of prostitution and none of the dark consequences. The observations you made about the tenants of that building were mostly assumptions.

No, my problem is not with the writers because how many times have things seemed "fine" when they weren't? Something seeming fine doesn't mean it's okay to allow happen. The fact is, a desperate woman is being "forced" in a way to do something she really doesn't as she sees no other alternative that wouldn't land her in a crap shelter or out on the streets. All the women wanted an out but their need to live the good life kept them from making smarter decisions. 

4 hours ago, melon said:

1. I am consistent about law enforcement staying in their lane when it comes to family matters and victims wishing to be left alone.  I had the same response last week when Garland and the team strong armed the husband to end his marriage and press charges, when he didn't want to (at least, initially). 

2. I am against the police (Finn) conducting an interview with a small child without the mother being present.  Especially when the questions are geared towards if the mom is a prostitute.  Last week, I also didn't like it when Garland had the victim's young son over dinner and obtained information that he used against the mother.

3.  The "ignore and move along" concept has a lot to do with an understaffed and overworked squad.  With that combination, cases without evidence of a crime and without an obvious victim are put on the back burner behind more pressing cases.  In this case, the johns clearly had no interest in the boy. 

4.  I think Dick Wolf wanted us to debate this case and set up the characters where good points can be argued on both sides.  He did the same thing last episode with the large man and small wife.

1. And regardless of what the victims say, you really think they want or NEED to be left alone? And it was all in good favor because his wife was a mess and treating him like garbage. The man wasn't thinking clearly because his wife got him to think that way that would keep him wrapped around her finger for further abuse. Why on earth would you allow this?

2. Not explicitly, but in a way that Finn at least knew what the deal was and can piece the puzzle together. The bottom line is, that child had no need to be near all of that and it's clear you're not even thinking about the boy in the midst of his mother's activities, but so concerned over a cop talking to him without her present? The fudge? And in Garland's case, the boy was with him because he knew the family well to be with them and Garland wanted to get to the bottom of what the deal is, which is what any cop's job is and that boy is a witness. And as it turns out, mommy was lying and thus needed to be looked into more. If they haven't daddy would be abused more and even dead. See why minding one's business is not always a good thing especially in this case where some one's LIFE is at stack here?

3. And SVU clearly isn't understaffed or overworked so they have the time to do this. Your argument doesn't even seem to reason with that notion even if it was the case, but more-so you just feel it isn't their responsibility to push further than you think is necessary because a victim just says things are fine or because they have a fancy environment and fancy items. Yep, no need to dig through the mask to uncover deep corruption even with a child present. Oh sure, the johns had no interest in the boy, YET. But it was only a matter of time. Could you be so sure the boy was always going to be safe? No and child predators do exist and there's a first time for everything. One of those men could be wanting to put the moves on the boy if they finally got the urge. You are aware people take advantage every way they can especially when they see the mom is already desperate to screw them? Let's push the envelope and see if they'd allow their child to be involved. You can never be too closed minded on these things just because at present it's not an issue. 

4. I don't think he did because the cops acted on good faith and no one should even be complaining about their actions because these families were truly in despair and needed resolution and as usual are too scared to speak up. It's more-so he's trying to push people to not be selfish and think about yourselves and take more responsibility to help others even if they act like they don't want it, which often only shows they really do, than just brush it aside and allow bad things to escalate which won't be good for anyone in the end; which is why a lot of these things go unnoticed and people are end up dead under our noses. If you're in this situation and want some one to help you above and beyond then you better be able to do it with some one else you see is in trouble. We live in a world together, you best believe making sure we all live happy and healthy is something we ought to contribute making the deal of as a number one priority. 

Edited June 6, 2021 by Devonte Huntley

[dttruman]

8 hours ago, Devonte Huntley said:

Oh sure, the johns had no interest in the boy, YET. But it was only a matter of time. Could you be so sure the boy was always going to be safe? No and child predators do exist and there's a first time for everything. One of those men could be wanting to put the moves on the boy if they finally got the urge. You are aware people take advantage every way they can especially when they see the mom is already desperate to screw them? Let's push the envelope and see if they'd allow their child to be involved. You can never be too closed minded on these things just because at present it's not an issue. 

I am sorry but this all presumption. When the writers and producers give us more evidence than yes, then you are right. Don't you remember when Benson was up on abuse charges, they found Noah had been bruised and she was brought before a hearing. Then by your standards, Noah should have been taken away from Benson.

[Devonte Huntley]

1 hour ago, dttruman said:

I am sorry but this all presumption. When the writers and producers give us more evidence than yes, then you are right. Don't you remember when Benson was up on abuse charges, they found Noah had been bruised and she was brought before a hearing. Then by your standards, Noah should have been taken away from Benson.

Yes, he should have because they don't truly know Benson's life behind closed doors, but they do know the job of a cop can be very stressful that she could very well turn abusive. This is what we call investigating. Then when it's clear Benson is not abusing Noah if either she or they can produce proof there is an outside abuser involved, he can be returned to her. But no one should take a chance leaving him with her if she is a probable suspect being the only guardian and relative he has around him primarily.

Edited June 6, 2021 by Devonte Huntley

[dttruman]

19 minutes ago, Devonte Huntley said:

Yes, he should have because they don't truly know Benson's life behind closed doors, but they do know the job of a cop can be very stressful that she could very well turn abusive. This is what we call investigating. Then when it's clear Benson is not abusing Noah if either she or they can produce proof there is an outside abuser involved, he can be returned to her. But no one should take a chance leaving him with her if she is a probable suspect being the only guardian and relative he has around him primarily.

So according to you police, should always be suspicious to the point of obsessiveness? I don't think the writers would be allowed to writer for characters that are so paranoid or that go looking for crimes when there is no apparent evidence. This would make it so easy to for unfriendly neighbors to call the police on the people next door.

Edited June 6, 2021 by dttruman

[linger]

19 hours ago, dttruman said:

I agree there are some "good ole boy cops" and they need to be held accountable but what about those other innocent bystander victims out there who are struck by bullets when there is so much gang violence going on. The writers and producers seem to let Benson overlook those victims.

1) That’s not her job.

2) This feels very close to the “Sure, black men seem to be injured by white cops at an unusual rate, but what about the gang violence (ie black-on-black) crime” debate. I am really OK with the show not going down that road with Benson.

[Devonte Huntley]

2 hours ago, dttruman said:

So according to you police, should always be suspicious to the point of obsessiveness? I don't think the writers would be allowed to writer for characters that are so paranoid or that go looking for crimes when there is no apparent evidence. This would make it so easy to for unfriendly neighbors to call the police on the people next door.

If it's to protect some one who could very well be hurt by said person in their care and or to avoid further chances of that child being abused regardless of who is responsible that they're easily accessible to then yes they should always be suspicious. Say what you want about noisy neighbors, at least they show care to make sure whatever is wrong and doesn't seem right is handled with the quickness before it gets out of hand. 

MarylandGirl, agree with ME. 

Edited June 6, 2021 by Devonte Huntley

[dttruman]

5 minutes ago, linger said:

1) That’s not her job.

2) This feels very close to the “Sure, black men seem to be injured by white cops at an unusual rate, but what about the gang violence (ie black-on-black) crime” debate. I am really OK with the show not going down that road with Benson.

I am a little confused? Benson is allowed to venture into other crimes that don't involve Special Victims and the writers and producers turn the episode into a political statement or a condemnation on some social issue or two. Remember "Zero Tolerance"? Why isn't she given the same privilege here to interfere?

[Sake614]

I think they did show that the last woman was not ‘perfectly fine’ with the arrangement. Every time the super left, she was in tears. But she felt trapped because the alternative was going back to the shelter. Her son was happy, they had a nice apartment. She was being told repeatedly that her only choices were sleep with whomever was sent to her or lose what they had. She didn’t believe she had any recourse. But I didn’t see anything consensual about her situation. The others maybe, but not her.

[Devonte Huntley]

5 minutes ago, Sake614 said:

I think they did show that the last woman was not ‘perfectly fine’ with the arrangement. Every time the super left, she was in tears. But she felt trapped because the alternative was going back to the shelter. Her son was happy, they had a nice apartment. She was being told repeatedly that her only choices were sleep with whomever was sent to her or lose what they had. She didn’t believe she had any recourse. But I didn’t see anything consensual about her situation. The others maybe, but not her.

Ding. Ding. DING. We have a winner! Finally some one who can see the righteous side of this instead of being so steady because they believe a person has to be complaining in order to be rescued. Like we should know better than to fall for this idiotic trope for the sake of not getting involved because it's not our concern when the truth of it is, just showing these sorts of people are selfish and just don't care for the well-being of others. Let it be you, you're gonna wish some one took the time and sacrifice out of their hands to even give you an eye blink of their time of day, especially from cops who most people already feel are uncaring and corrupt? If anything, this extra push makes the cops come off more appreciating. 

Edited June 6, 2021 by Devonte Huntley

[linger]

18 minutes ago, dttruman said:

I am a little confused? Benson is allowed to venture into other crimes that don't involve Special Victims and the writers and producers turn the episode into a political statement or a condemnation on some social issue or two. Remember "Zero Tolerance"? Why isn't she given the same privilege here to interfere?

That would be a question for the writers. I sincerely hope they do not go down the road of the “but what about black-on-black crime?” false equivalency since I find it reprehensible, but if they do, I’ll be discussing it in that episode thread.

[MarylandGirl]

2 hours ago, Devonte Huntley said:

If it's to protect some one who could very well be hurt by said person in their care and or to avoid further chances of that child being abused regardless of who is responsible that they're easily accessible to then yes they should always be suspicious. Say what you want about noisy neighbors, at least they show care to make sure whatever is wrong and doesn't seem right is handled with the quickness before it gets out of hand. 

MarylandGirl, agree with ME. 

Yes, I do agree, reading your point here. I think there are elements to both sides. But I think the child tips the scales to being more careful and investigating what's going on, even if it turns out to be nothing. Because I'm also thinking about my friend who fostered a baby (who she later ended up adopting), where the mother had been turning tricks with the baby in the room. Which was putting the baby at risk (I think there were also drugs involved). If it had just been a woman with no child, then there wouldn't have been a reason to have Special Victims involved, might have more been a case for Vice.

[Gigi43]

I wish the mother with three kids and a husband in a one bedroom could have been given an apartment or switched with one of the women with one child. I know there was no way for Rollins to make it happen but that family got the shaft. 

 

Oh and it bothered me the ex-wife of the vet said "he finally did something for the daughter " by killing the abuser who was in police custody held without bond. First of all he was a war vet and he had major injuries and PTSD, she made it sound like he was just negligent until that point meanwhile she was on drugs and lost custody, and apparently thinks it takes murder to be a good parent. Second,  all killing someone in police custody does is put the daught at risk for always seeing her father behind bars. That wasn't a heroic act. I dislike her. 

[nittany cougar]

On 6/4/2021 at 11:16 AM, tennisgurl said:

Then of course the big ending which basically becomes a romance novel for the last five minutes. I don't hate Rollins/Carisi like some people do, but they have negative chemistry and honestly Carisi can do better. Does he really want to be dragged into the hot mess that is the Rollins family? Or the hot mess that is Rollins herself? We don't really know much about Carisi's kind of girlfriend but she has been rubbing me the wrong way in both her first appearance and her in offscreen land, so its not that he has many good options, but I really just don't want this romance to start taking up too much time and dragging Carisi into Rollins drama. The over the top schmaltzy camera spinning as they kissed just makes it feel really silly, like its turned into a full on rom com instead of a cop show. Then of course we get Benson/Stabler shipper baiting, and they really just need to get them together or don't. Its also more of the "you have to watch both shows" stuff that I mentioned I dislike. Not that I am annoyed that Stabler was there, it makes sense for him to be at Finn's wedding, but this double show overarching "epic" of Benson/Stabler is just so not working for me. I still don't buy this huge romance, I know that they had an intense connection and all but its been a whole decade since they saw each other, if they are true loves they really need to take things slow. 

The Benson/Stabler thing doesn't work for me either.  My biggest problem with it is that Elliott was separated from Kathy for months (maybe a year?), and he never reached out to Liv romantically.   That would have been a perfect chance for them to attempt to cross from partners into a dating relationship  If he didn't try it after being over with Kathy the first time, why would he suddenly realize this great love for Olivia?  If it's because Kathy is dead now and no one else will put up with Elliott, that's not a very good reason.

I am similarly unconvinced on Rollins/Carisi.  My problem with those two is that Rollins has repeatedly made a fool of Carisi.  When they were undercover in West Virginia, she blew him off and fucked a random bartender.  Then she went and got pregnant twice and she used Carisi as her babysitting service.  She walked all over him and now suddenly realized he's a good guy.  It is not romantic at all. 

I'm all for a good story about a friendship turning to romance, but this makes no sense, given how Rollins treated him.  I feel like Carisi should have given her an ultimatum long ago and made good on it.   Even the nicest guy gets sick of being used and cucked.

Edited June 6, 2021 by nittany cougar

[linger]

3 hours ago, nittany cougar said:

The Benson/Stabler thing doesn't work for me either.  My biggest problem with it is that Elliott was separated from Kathy for months (maybe a year?), and he never reached out to Liv romantically.   That would have been a perfect chance for them to attempt to cross from partners into a dating relationship  If he didn't try it after being over with Kathy the first time, why would he suddenly realize this great love for Olivia?  If it's because Kathy is dead now and no one else will put up with Elliott, that's not a very good reason.

I am similarly unconvinced on Rollins/Carisi.  My problem with those two is that Rollins has repeatedly made a fool of Carisi.  When they were undercover in West Virginia, she blew him off and fucked a random bartender.  Then she went and got pregnant twice and she used Carisi as her babysitting service.  She walked all over him and now suddenly realized he's a good guy.  It is not romantic at all. 

I'm all for a good story about a friendship turning to romance, but this makes no sense, given how Rollins treated him.  I feel like Carisi should have given her an ultimatum long ago and made good on it.   Even the nicest guy gets sick of being used and cucked.

IMO Elliot not pursuing Olivia (or vice versa) is because 1) They were work partners in a job they were both passionate about - a romantic relationship would require that to end; 2) Elliot was separated, not divorced, which I expect would be an issue for him (being a “good” Catholic) and her (the very real possibility he would go back to his wife - which he did); 3) Olivia’s investment in his marriage/family - whether that’s projection because she never had a real family or because she just really cared about them all, I think it would be difficult for her to be the “other woman”; 4) TPTB had no idea how to write it. Teasing it is one thing, finding a way to successfully bring it to fruition quite another, as so many other shows (RIP Moonlighting) have proven. 

[dttruman]

7 hours ago, linger said:

That would be a question for the writers. I sincerely hope they do not go down the road of the “but what about black-on-black crime?” false equivalency since I find it reprehensible, but if they do, I’ll be discussing it in that episode thread.

I only brought that up because I was using it as an example to show that both sides of an issue need to be explored. The police should be cautious with their suspicions especially if they are one sided. Benson's holier-than-thou attitude resulted in a kid's death in one episode.

 

10 hours ago, Devonte Huntley said:

This is what we call investigating. Then when it's clear Benson is not abusing Noah if either she or they can produce proof there is an outside abuser involved, he can be returned to her. But no one should take a chance leaving him with her if she is a probable suspect being the only guardian and relative he has around him primarily.

Then why was Benson and some of the other SVU members were so upset with child services. They kept complaining that the accusations were so baseless and a waste of time. So even their own unit complained about the over suspicions of others.

 

21 hours ago, Devonte Huntley said:

3. And SVU clearly isn't understaffed or overworked so they have the time to do this. Your argument doesn't even seem to reason with that notion even if it was the case, but more-so you just feel it isn't their responsibility to push further than you think is necessary because a victim just says things are fine or because they have a fancy environment and fancy items. Yep, no need to dig through the mask to uncover deep corruption even with a child present. Oh sure, the johns had no interest in the boy, YET. But it was only a matter of time. Could you be so sure the boy was always going to be safe? No and child predators do exist and there's a first time for everything. One of those men could be wanting to put the moves on the boy if they finally got the urge. You are aware people take advantage every way they can especially when they see the mom is already desperate to screw them? Let's push the envelope and see if they'd allow their child to be involved. You can never be too closed minded on these things just because at present it's not an issue. 

I believe SVU is clearly understaffed and overworked because (no matter how reprehensible he is) Chief McGrath stated that rape numbers have been going up by a large margin. Garland made a statement that that is good because many rapes go unreported. What makes no sense here is that how are they suppose to investigate all these reports when the police and SVU are de-funded? The writers and producers have not exactly come up with an answer for this.

 

8 hours ago, Devonte Huntley said:

8 hours ago, Sake614 said:

I think they did show that the last woman was not ‘perfectly fine’ with the arrangement. Every time the super left, she was in tears. But she felt trapped because the alternative was going back to the shelter. Her son was happy, they had a nice apartment. She was being told repeatedly that her only choices were sleep with whomever was sent to her or lose what they had. She didn’t believe she had any recourse. But I didn’t see anything consensual about her situation. The others maybe, but not her.

Ding. Ding. DING. We have a winner! Finally some one who can see the righteous side of this instead of being so steady because they believe a person has to be complaining in order to be rescued. Like we should know better than to fall for this idiotic trope for the sake of not getting involved because it's not our concern when the truth of it is, just showing these sorts of people are selfish and just don't care for the well-being of others. Let it be you, you're gonna wish some one took the time and sacrifice out of their hands to even give you an eye blink of their time of day, especially from cops who most people already feel are uncaring and corrupt? If anything, this extra push makes the cops come off more appreciating.

All I am saying is that the producers and writers could have come up with a better scenario to give the police a better reason to investigate this type of crime. The "righteous side" and the "not getting involved" has nothing to do with it, it's the practicality of it that matters in these times. The police and other departments social services are understaffed and overworked because of the de-funding, so assuming the son could be at risk is a Big Jump when they are not showing any endangerment. When the writers and producers try to rationalize a Benson investigation, it comes off questionable at times. Benson's investigations become even overzealous and that is what I got out of this episode. When they make these type of episodes you wonder how they get from A to B to C and so on.

[Devonte Huntley]

20 hours ago, MarylandGirl said:

Yes, I do agree, reading your point here. I think there are elements to both sides. But I think the child tips the scales to being more careful and investigating what's going on, even if it turns out to be nothing. Because I'm also thinking about my friend who fostered a baby (who she later ended up adopting), where the mother had been turning tricks with the baby in the room. Which was putting the baby at risk (I think there were also drugs involved). If it had just been a woman with no child, then there wouldn't have been a reason to have Special Victims involved, might have more been a case for Vice.

Exactly, the child makes the investigating more important to do while people here are all "Well the mother says things are okay and they live in a fancy lifestyle" like shows how caring they are which is very little. I'm not too familiar with "Vice" though I've heard of it a lot particularly in the show Miami Vice which is about uncover cops. Are you suggesting there should have been undercover johns here?

18 hours ago, nittany cougar said:

The Benson/Stabler thing doesn't work for me either.  My biggest problem with it is that Elliott was separated from Kathy for months (maybe a year?), and he never reached out to Liv romantically.   That would have been a perfect chance for them to attempt to cross from partners into a dating relationship  If he didn't try it after being over with Kathy the first time, why would he suddenly realize this great love for Olivia?  If it's because Kathy is dead now and no one else will put up with Elliott, that's not a very good reason.

Elliot probably wasn't the kind of guy to jump to another woman so quickly after separating. As far as him and Liv not getting together, blame Neal Baer for that. He NEVER wanted them to actually get together while the writers were slowly pushing for it. Then by the time he left the show so did Chris, so there was no opportunity to do anything with this apparent romance. Now they're able to do something with it if they want with Chris back and them making it more obvious he's had feelings for Olivia. 

13 hours ago, dttruman said:

Then why was Benson and some of the other SVU members were so upset with child services. They kept complaining that the accusations were so baseless and a waste of time. So even their own unit complained about the over suspicions of others.

I believe SVU is clearly understaffed and overworked because (no matter how reprehensible he is) Chief McGrath stated that rape numbers have been going up by a large margin. Garland made a statement that that is good because many rapes go unreported. What makes no sense here is that how are they suppose to investigate all these reports when the police and SVU are de-funded? The writers and producers have not exactly come up with an answer for this.

1. Well because they're cops with a good reputation and Olivia especially reacts like any innocent parent would. I don't expect her to be all okay with them taking Noah away, but look at it from the perspective of the social worker. They don't know these people like we know them so it makes sense for them to react and handle things as though they were dealing with a stranger.

2. Well they are just that dedicated and generous to solve a problem and help people regardless of how much money they are being given. A defunding shouldn't stop them from bringing about justice. Do you think it should? That's sad. Like I said, many people hate the police as it is and to see them working even when the odds are against them will bring respect to them. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Devonte Huntley

[melon]

11 hours ago, Sake614 said:

I think they did show that the last woman was not ‘perfectly fine’ with the arrangement. Every time the super left, she was in tears. But she felt trapped because the alternative was going back to the shelter. Her son was happy, they had a nice apartment. She was being told repeatedly that her only choices were sleep with whomever was sent to her or lose what they had. She didn’t believe she had any recourse. But I didn’t see anything consensual about her situation. The others maybe, but not her.

Agreed.  But she should have left voluntarily or involuntarily.   Even she was surprised she could stay in the end. 

This  lady didn’t even properly apply as her application was simply being pretty.  She received the coveted home through corruption.  This type of corruption is what upsets other low income applicants that follow proper procedures.  

 I read the NY Post on a daily basis and this story would have been front page news in NYC. The single mother would have been referred to as “the prostitute” and the public (and other applicants) would be outraged that she was allowed to stay. The idea that she didn’t enjoy being a prostitute wouldn’t change things.  But I get it. Being pretty has its perks in both TV land and IRL. 
 

 

[dttruman]

2 hours ago, Devonte Huntley said:

I'm not too familiar with "Vice" though I've heard of it a lot particularly in the show Miami Vice which is about uncover cops. Are you suggesting there should have been undercover johns here?

This situation should have been investigated by Vice from the beginning, but SVU has to take the lead on it for some reason. You never heard of undercover johns? Once again the writers and producers are unfamiliar with police procedure and them trying to justify SVU involvement mystifies me.

[dttruman]

1 hour ago, melon said:

Agreed.  But she should have left voluntarily or involuntarily.   Even she was surprised she could stay in the end. 

This  lady didn’t even properly apply as her application was simply being pretty.  She received the coveted home through corruption.  This type of corruption is what upsets other low income applicants that follow proper procedures.  

 I read the NY Post on a daily basis and this story would have been front page news in NYC. The single mother would have been referred to as “the prostitute” and the public (and other applicants) would be outraged that she was allowed to stay. The idea that she didn’t enjoy being a prostitute wouldn’t change things.  But I get it. Being pretty has its perks in both TV land and IRL. 

Yeah, I agree with you here. I don't believe she was intimidated or felt threatened or she may have thought that. IMO I think she was just naive about the situation.

[dttruman]

2 hours ago, Devonte Huntley said:

1. Well because they're cops with a good reputation and Olivia especially reacts like any innocent parent would. I don't expect her to be all okay with them taking Noah away, but look at it from the perspective of the social worker. They don't know these people like we know them so it makes sense for them to react and handle things as though they were dealing with a stranger.

If we are suppose to look at it from the social workers perspective, why didn't the writers and producer have Benson and the rest of them look at it from a social worker's point of view. Benson and SVU should have some idea of what a social worker does, so you can't have it both ways.

 

2 hours ago, Devonte Huntley said:

2. Well they are just that dedicated and generous to solve a problem and help people regardless of how much money they are being given. A defunding shouldn't stop them from bringing about justice. Do you think it should? That's sad. Like I said, many people hate the police as it is and to see them working even when the odds are against them will bring respect to them. 

Defunding shouldn't stop them, but it sure makes it very hard to accomplish it. Remember the episode that had everybody working a case individually ( Something to do with Midnight if I remember)? Tell me should this case have taken priority over a couple of those other cases? It's a tough choice to make when your undermanned and your budget is cut.

[nittany cougar]

12 hours ago, Devonte Huntley said:

Exactly, the child makes the investigating more important to do while people here are all "Well the mother says things are okay and they live in a fancy lifestyle" like shows how caring they are which is very little. I'm not too familiar with "Vice" though I've heard of it a lot particularly in the show Miami Vice which is about uncover cops. Are you suggesting there should have been undercover johns here?

Elliot probably wasn't the kind of guy to jump to another woman so quickly after separating. As far as him and Liv not getting together, blame Neal Baer for that. He NEVER wanted them to actually get together while the writers were slowly pushing for it. Then by the time he left the show so did Chris, so there was no opportunity to do anything with this apparent romance. No they're able to do something with it if they want with Chris back and them making it more obvious he's had feelings for Olivia. 

This is interesting about Neal Baer.  I didn't realize that he left the show.  

I will say that I think, if they have to do it, Elliott/Olivia are better off as an implied pairing, mostly offscreen with hints that they are together.

Does anyone remember the scene of them undercover where MH was in a bra and CM was shirtless? It was in Season 7 or 8.  It was totally awkward and not at all sexy.  They have good emotional chemistry, but I do not want to see them making out.

Edited June 7, 2021 by nittany cougar

[Devonte Huntley]

12 hours ago, dttruman said:

This situation should have been investigated by Vice from the beginning, but SVU has to take the lead on it for some reason. You never heard of undercover johns? Once again the writers and producers are unfamiliar with police procedure and them trying to justify SVU involvement mystifies me.

Well it dealt with a woman having sex, this is a SEX crimes unit, and a child was involved which makes him a clear special victim too.  Vice didn't need to really be involved. I've heard of undercover johns, just now sure how they would have handled it. Would they have been paired with the john who'd have sex with the woman and what would they do if it's their turn? Reveal themselves on the spot? Please stop shading the writers and producers because it's getting silly at the moment. 

12 hours ago, dttruman said:

If we are suppose to look at it from the social workers perspective, why didn't the writers and producer have Benson and the rest of them look at it from a social worker's point of view. Benson and SVU should have some idea of what a social worker does, so you can't have it both ways.

Defunding shouldn't stop them, but it sure makes it very hard to accomplish it. Remember the episode that had everybody working a case individually ( Something to do with Midnight if I remember)? Tell me should this case have taken priority over a couple of those other cases? It's a tough choice to make when your undermanned and your budget is cut.

Because Benson and the others needed to have conflict and react in a way that any parent would who isn't doing anything wrong. Some do come to an understanding and let their kids know (if they can walk and talk that is) that it's only temporarily and will be straightened out while others are keen on keeping them for the sake of well, they're not doing anything wrong and Benson and company just happen to fall on the latter side of the fence here. People get caught up in their heads they are not always thinking properly.

They make it work out well enough. I'm not complaining. 

2 hours ago, nittany cougar said:

This is interesting about Neal Baer.  I didn't realize that he left the show.  

He left after Season 12. He was the showrunner since Season 2, the position Warren Leight had from S13-17 and since S21. You didn't know this? 

[dttruman]

21 minutes ago, Devonte Huntley said:

They make it work out well enough. I'm not complaining. 

I am sorry but a lot of us have been complaining for the last few years about how everything Benson does is so heavenly righteous. But a miracle has occurred most of this season. Benson has taken a somewhat backseat when it come to the focus of attention. Most of the episodes have been primarily about the investigations and given the other detectives some attention and not about the trials and tribulations of Benson. It seems like Rollins got most of the soap opera attention this season. Now that the Covid protocols are being lifted, I just hope they don't go back to where the spotlight is on Benson and Noah and what they are doing most of the time and the investigations are just afterthoughts

[MarylandGirl]

So, I don't think undercover johns would have worked in this situation. From my understanding, the way they generally work is that, say, they'd arrange to meet with a suspected prostitute (or just pull up on a block where they're working), then once the suspected prostitute offers a sexual act in exchange for money (I'm not sure if they need to formally take the money from the john first--I feel I've seen both scenarios portrayed on various shows), they can arrest them for prostitution. Or if they catch a john offering money, then they can both be arrested. (Or an undercover posing as a prostitute, where they could arrest the john.)

But in this case, the johns weren't giving money to the women involved. The women's "payment" was being able to stay in the apartments. So unless someone was undercover to the point that they could have formed a relationship with the woman running the program, then maybe worn a wire to talk about, "Oh, so this woman will do this with me in exchange for the apartment?" then they couldn't really arrest/prosecute her.

I think the difference in terms of Vice vs. Special Victims Unit is the thought that for someone choosing to work as a prostitute, that's more of a crime for Vice. As they and the john are breaking the law against prostitution. But it's also something she is choosing to do. For Special Victims, it's someone, like a child, an abused spouse/partner (of any gender), an elderly person, someone with a disability (physical or intellectual), etc., who is a victim of a sex crime or abuse. If a prostitute told a john "no" and was sexually assaulted, that would also be a case for Special Victims.

At least, that's how I understand it. Vice would also handle things like illegal gambling.

[dttruman]

3 hours ago, MarylandGirl said:

But in this case, the johns weren't giving money to the women involved. The women's "payment" was being able to stay in the apartments. So unless someone was undercover to the point that they could have formed relationship with the woman running the program, then maybe worn a wire to talk about, "Oh, so this woman will do this with me in exchange for the apartment?" then they couldn't really arrest/prosecute her.

I believe that all the undercover john had to do was to get the woman to talk about the arrangement over the wire. He just needs to say is that the janitor told him to come see her for the usual and if she refused, to tell her she will be kicked out of her apt the next day.

[Devonte Huntley]

6 hours ago, dttruman said:

I am sorry but a lot of us have been complaining for the last few years about how everything Benson does is so heavenly righteous. But a miracle has occurred most of this season. Benson has taken a somewhat backseat when it come to the focus of attention. Most of the episodes have been primarily about the investigations and given the other detectives some attention and not about the trials and tribulations of Benson. It seems like Rollins got most of the soap opera attention this season. Now that the Covid protocols are being lifted, I just hope they don't go back to where the spotlight is on Benson and Noah and what they are doing most of the time and the investigations are just afterthoughts

And why is Benson doing things heavenly righteous a bad thing? And this is Mariska's show as she's the top billing actress here and this show is always meant to be focused on personal issues. You know how many episodes we have dedicated to investigations? TONS. Don't expect it to always be like that and it doesn't need to be so if we get a bit of Noah focus outside of the investigations, then who care? The investigations still take up a majority chunk of the episodes and the show overall so the little personal stuff we see is nothing you can't handle. You guys act like every episode of SVU was L&O's Aftershock episode when that is far from the truth as possible. I don't think we ever even had an episode of SVU like "Aftershock". It's always been primarily investigations or majority investigations with bits of personal life stuff spliced in but nothing to the extent of Aftershock. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Devonte Huntley

[dttruman]

3 hours ago, MarylandGirl said:

I think the difference in terms of Vice vs. Special Victims Unit is the thought that for someone choosing to work as a prostitute, that's more of a crime for Vice. As they and the john are breaking the law against prostitution. But it's also something she is choosing to do. For Special Victims, it's someone, like a child, an abused spouse/partner (of any gender), an elderly person, someone with a disability (physical or intellectual), etc., who is a victim of a sex crime or abuse. If a prostitute told a john "no" and was sexually assaulted, that would also be a case for Special Victims.

 

That last one, I think would be tough to prosecute unless you had a video or like Marylandgirl mentioned before on a wire where he confesses.

[dttruman]

1 hour ago, Devonte Huntley said:

And why is Benson doing things heavenly righteous a bad thing? And this is Mariska's show as she's the top billing actress here and this show is always meant to be focused on personal issues. You know how many episodes we have dedicated to investigations? TONS. Don't expect it to always be like that and it doesn't need to be so if we get a bit of Noah focus outside of the investigations, then who care? The investigations still take up a majority chunk of the episodes and the show overall so the little personal stuff we see is nothing you can't handle. You guys act like every episode of SVU was L&O's Aftershock episode when that is far from the truth as possible. I don't think we ever even had an episode of SVU like "Aftershock". It's always been primarily investigations or majority investigations with bits of personal life stuff spliced in but nothing to the extent of Aftershock. 

When the show was successful and had good ratings the focus was on the investigation and had all the different aspects where each detective had a little different opinion and that is when they had more than 3-4 detectives like they do now. Back then they had a captain that had captain responsibilities and an ME who had solid involvement. Before this season it was Benson taking over for Cragen (who mostly worked out of his office), but not Benson she was leading a crusade against every guy who looked guilty or believed every woman who cried rape even though it wasn't sometimes. Benson put most of the suspects and ADAs through the wringer by having perps arrestedon flimsy evidence and forcing the ADAs to prosecute on hearsay or very weak circumstantial evidence. She even got a couple of people killed because of her self-righteous actions.

So I am very interested in how the show will be written and produced for next season, w/o the Covid protocols.

By the way, the episode where they were spread out so this was "Midnight in Manhattan", where they had to investigate 3 big crimes that late at night. So if they get word of some conspiracy of trading sex for a place to stay, I wonder what case they should have priority?

Edited June 8, 2021 by dttruman
Added a bottom comment.

[Kel Varnsen]

Every time they mentioned Holt Tower and all the bad things that went on there all I could think of was how it was tarnishing the good name of Captain Raymond J. Holt 

Also how many sex crimes did Garland say were reported in a year at the COMSTAT meeting? It was triple digits right? Who the hell investigates the rest of them if Benson' squad only does maybe around 22 a year and seem to get called around the clock. I mean I know there are the other boroughs but it always seems like they are the entire Manhattan SVU. Plus do major Police departments really still do COMSTAT meetings like that. It seemed pretty obvious to me that those were kind of pointless when run like that, during Season 3 of the Wire and that was back in 2004.

Carisi and Rollins at the end was pretty bad, but I am just happy it wasn't Benson and Stabler.

 

[Devonte Huntley]

34 minutes ago, dttruman said:

When the show was successful and had good ratings the focus was on the investigation and had all the different aspects where each detective had a little different opinion and that is when they had more than 3-4 detectives like they do now. Back then they had a captain that had captain responsibilities and an ME who had solid involvement. Before this season it was Benson taking over for Cragen (who mostly worked out of his office), but not Benson she was leading a crusade against every guy who looked guilty or believed every woman who cried rape even though it wasn't sometimes. Benson put most of the suspects and ADAs through the wringer by having perps arrestedon flimsy evidence and forcing the ADAs to prosecute on hearsay or very weak circumstantial evidence. She even got a couple of people killed because of her self-righteous actions.

So I am very interested in how the show will be written and produced for next season, w/o the Covid protocols.

The ratings were solid initially because that's how it is when a show is at it's beginning. Ratings go down over time with any show, that's not because of the show itself, but because people just tune out and then with these days with streaming that takes away a chunk of the TV viewings because people can hold off and watch things later. You can't even go there. 

Am I surprised they're giving Benson more to do despite being Captain being more active at crime scenes and investigations? No because we've seen her in the spotlight for so many years and being the only original cast member left, they're not going to limit her role. It's like when they made Sam Waterston the D.A. on L&O, you'd think they were going to downgrade his role? No, they still gave him a lot to do more-so than the other D.A.'s prior because we journeyed with this man through fourteen years of being the show's leading prosecutor at trials and court proceedings. He was a popular character and Sam surely didn't want to slow things down, so he was given special treatment even when he should have taken a backseat. Same with Mariska. She doesn't want to take a back seat, which is why we're still seeing more of her as Captain despite never seeing Dann Florek in such a massive spotlight during his tenure because he never started out as a focal on the show and even on L&O to warrant a large active focus pass just being a main supporting character as he's always been on the shows he was on.

And doing the right things usually takes a bit of sacrifice. This world isn't perfect and isn't always going to work out as clean as one would want it to be. It's like the civil rights movement. Some people had to unfortunately die for others to succeed and build on a legacy so look at it like that.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Devonte Huntley

[Devonte Huntley]

14 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Every time they mentioned Holt Tower and all the bad things that went on there all I could think of was how it was tarnishing the good name of Captain Raymond J. Holt 

Also how many sex crimes did Garland say were reported in a year at the COMSTAT meeting? It was triple digits right? Who the hell investigates the rest of them if Benson' squad only does maybe around 22 a year and seem to get called around the clock. I mean I know there are the other boroughs but it always seems like they are the entire Manhattan SVU. Plus do major Police departments really still do COMSTAT meetings like that. It seemed pretty obvious to me that those were kind of pointless when run like that, during Season 3 of the Wire and that was back in 2004.

Carisi and Rollins at the end was pretty bad, but I am just happy it wasn't Benson and Stabler.

Well perhaps only Manhattan's SVU department was being reported? I don't see the other SVU borough departments having complaints.

Carisi and Rollins' moment made sense because we've seen the chemistry between them build up over the years. Benson and Stabler wouldn't have worked as Stabler just lost his wife and he and Benson are just reuniting after so long too, so we ought to restart the clock with them and see more cordial time between them before we see them lock lips.

[dttruman]

47 minutes ago, Devonte Huntley said:

Same with Mariska. She doesn't want to take a back seat, which is why we're still seeing more of her as Captain despite never seeing Dann Florek in such a massive spotlight during his tenure because he never started out as a focal on the show and even on L&O to warrant a large active focus pass just being a main supporting character as he's always been on the shows he was on.

Yes, when she takes center stage, the investigation becomes more about her than about investigating the accusations of a victim. It's not about getting justice for a legitimate victim, it's about Benson going above and beyond to see that a supposed suspect is prosecuted, even if he might be innocent or she maybe pushing some social agenda even though it may have nothing to do with the case they started working on at the beginning.

[Devonte Huntley]

1 hour ago, dttruman said:

Yes, when she takes center stage, the investigation becomes more about her than about investigating the accusations of a victim. It's not about getting justice for a legitimate victim, it's about Benson going above and beyond to see that a supposed suspect is prosecuted, even if he might be innocent or she maybe pushing some social agenda even though it may have nothing to do with the case they started working on at the beginning.

Welcome to the 2010s and 2020s when the world became nothing but social agendas. Of course SVU is going to rip this headline to death. It's evolving with the times. 

[dttruman]

8 hours ago, Devonte Huntley said:

Welcome to the 2010s and 2020s when the world became nothing but social agendas. Of course SVU is going to rip this headline to death. It's evolving with the times. 

???????????

[Devonte Huntley]

I don't see why that's confusing. The same reason most shows incorporated the corona virus into their storylines. Why is it surprising when the shows turn into social justice when that's what going on in the world? It's a trope that has been going on since the 1970s when Norman Lear came to the scene. Real-life whatever is going to play a role in the TV shows running at the time.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Devonte Huntley

[dttruman]

5 hours ago, Devonte Huntley said:

I don't see why that's confusing. The same reason most shows incorporated the corona virus into their storylines. Why is it surprising when the shows turn into social justice when that's what going on in the world? It's a trope that has been going on since the 1970s when Norman Lear came to the scene. Real-life whatever is going to play a role in the TV shows running at the time.

First of all, I never mentioned the Covid virus. It's when the "taken from the headlines" is used and exploited so Benson can champion a bias social or political issue that is so convoluted, yet you think it's acceptable. Case in point, the episode "Zero Tolerance", where SVU is in the process of breaking up a child sex slavery ring, when they get sidetrack and try and return a child to her mother, but have to deal with the immigration policies at that time. Benson some how gets the city of New York involved with national policy by having a US Marshal arrested and it some how makes it to a court hearing. Her superiors should have suspended her or told her to get back to that child sex slavery ring they were after. It was so unrealistic and above all else prejudicial.

[DaynaPhile]

On 6/3/2021 at 8:37 PM, mtlchick said:

I’m more invested in what is going to happened to Garland due to Anthony Michael Hall and his cronies as opposed to whatever Rollins/Carasi is doing. 

I’m about to lose my Gen X street cred but I had no idea that was Anthony Michael Hall!! I knew he was familiar but I couldn’t put my finger on it and this was the one time I was too lazy to break out IMDB. 

[Devonte Huntley]

On 6/8/2021 at 10:44 PM, dttruman said:

First of all, I never mentioned the Covid virus. It's when the "taken from the headlines" is used and exploited so Benson can champion a bias social or political issue that is so convoluted, yet you think it's acceptable. Case in point, the episode "Zero Tolerance", where SVU is in the process of breaking up a child sex slavery ring, when they get sidetrack and try and return a child to her mother, but have to deal with the immigration policies at that time. Benson some how gets the city of New York involved with national policy by having a US Marshal arrested and it some how makes it to a court hearing. Her superiors should have suspended her or told her to get back to that child sex slavery ring they were after. It was so unrealistic and above all else prejudicial.

No one is saying you mentioned corona. I mentioned it to make a point. Social agendas being brought into the show is not something bad nor surprising when it's a real-life thing happening and shows take and incorporate things from real-life all the time so this is expected. Also, this show has a starring FEMALE person and about a crime unit in which FEMALES are mainly the victims they deal with out of anyone, so of course they're gonna make wave out of this. No use complaining about it when it's helping them make story content whether you like it or not. This is L&O, always ripping from the headlines since 1990 and trying to be as real as it can be outside of those speedy investigations and court proceedings, but social issues is always something these shows have, are, and will continue to grasp.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Devonte Huntley

[mommalib]

On 6/5/2021 at 2:14 PM, dttruman said:

I agree there are some "good ole boy cops" and they need to be held accountable but what about those other innocent bystander victims out there who are struck by bullets when there is so much gang violence going on. The writers and producers seem to let Benson overlook those victims.

So In other words too much attention on holding racist crooked cops accountable. I'm not with the what about stuff, all of it should be paid attention to. But the cops are the only ones that seem to damn near have a license to kill without consequence and a whole system to protect them.

Edited June 11, 2021 by mommalib

[dttruman]

12 hours ago, mommalib said:

So In other words too much attention on holding racist crooked cops accountable. I'm not with the what about stuff, all of it should be paid attention to. But the cops are the only ones that seem to damn near have a license to kill without consequence and a whole system to protect them.

I don't want to get into a morals or ethics issues concerning certain situations, that should be discussed somewhere else. But they seem to be more focused on the "racist crooked cops" angle, when the "ripped from the headlines" of late are many innocent bystanders were (and are) being shot and killed and it's being reported to be due to gang violence. Since the defunding, major crimes have been increasing. It just seems like the producers and writers have a definite agenda.

[txhorns79]

A reminder to everyone.  This thread is about the episode in question, not a general discussion about policing.  Please stay on topic.

If anyone has questions, please send a PM and myself or @WendyCR72 will be happy to assist you.