S23.E01: Freedom of Expression

[Raja]

2 hours ago, Sake614 said:

I’d love to see an experienced female detective join the squad. Wolf’s last foray was an utter disaster with the deer in the headlights junior D. Not overly impressed with Reid yet.  He seems awfully trigger happy and I was surprise when he admitted that he’d never actually shot anyone before. ‘Stop or I’ll shoot you’ is not a very effective strategy for policing, especially in 2024…
 

and yes we’ve always known Maroun is Lebanese.

Well not for someone fleeing, when someone is advancing in contact range with his knife any bodycam footage would get used as how to at the academy. Now how 2 detectives make the approach alone in both this and the suicide by cop scene with the gun is the tactical failure 

[shapeshifter]

Why wouldn't the first "Drop the knife or I'll shoot you" have just been "Stop or I'll tase you"?

[Raja]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

Why wouldn't the first "Drop the knife or I'll shoot you" have just been "Stop or I'll tase you"?

Because for drama reasons the two detectives were alone. Being plain clothes they don't carry all the equipment uniformed officers do. Where the uniformed officers would have one or more deploying his less lethal other than melee weapon

[Sake614]

17 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Why wouldn't the first "Drop the knife or I'll shoot you" have just been "Stop or I'll tase you"?

Not every officer is trained/authorized in using a taser, and detectives definitely wouldn’t carry them. 

[Chyromaniac]

On 1/18/2024 at 9:56 PM, Door County Cherry said:

In the beginning, they had him threaten to shoot a guy simply standing around with a knife

I knew we were in for a rough one after this scene- nothing about it made any sense to me.  Let’s not even talk about the logistics of walking around with a six inch chef’s knife loose in your coat pocket- are the writers really going to tell me that the natural reaction of someone being stopped on the street by two cops with guns drawn is to pull out that huge knife, and start arguing over their rights?  And he said he didn’t know about the knife before then, right?  If two cops were about to shoot me, and I suddenly realized I had a f$&@ing knife on me, I would freak the f out, drop it on the ground and immediately start begging for my life.

Otherwise, I agree that they tried to cram in too many “ripped from the headlines” stories.  Like, why did we need Chloe at all?  I feel like they wasted a bunch of time on her just so she could get shockingly murdered- maybe that could have been used to make the trial half more plausible.

On 1/20/2024 at 1:12 PM, Sake614 said:

I wish we’d seen the closing arguments so st least we could have had an idea of what the defense argued.

This is my main issue with how they do the show these days.  The closing should be where the stakes of the case get laid out for the jury (and the audience).  The defense can say, “whatever you think of her and what she says, she has a right to her opinions.  And no matter what, she didn’t stab anyone- and you can’t blame her for what someone else did.”  And then Price can argue, “she held the kid’s future in her hands.  She wanted the victim dead, and she used her influence over Cam to make it happen.  It was a hit job, just instead of money she paid him in attention, grades, and… whatever else was going on in that relationship.”  But, by the time we got to that point in the show, there wasn’t any time to lay any of that out.  Instead they went cheap, and tried to make her inflammatory remark about “being proud” of Cam do the job, but that’s just not enough, and the verdict felt unearned as a result.

[Zaffy]

I have only two words for this episode's story: TOO SOON.

[shapeshifter]

5 hours ago, Zaffy said:

I have only two words for this episode's story: TOO SOON.

That was my initial reaction too.
Well, more like: WTH??

But, maybe the writers et al. figured as huge as the ripped-from-the-headlines headlines were, they were bound to get eclipsed by the current and foreseen circus in the U.S. headlines.

[buckboard]

On 1/21/2024 at 11:05 AM, dubbel zout said:

...It would have been useful to hear why the jury voted the way it did. And I'm surprised the jury wasn't polled, but that was probably not considered for time issues.

I know it's not part of the format of L&O to go into the jury room or discuss jury deliberations - other on those rare occasions when a defendant tampers with a juror - but it would be interesting to see why they came up with this decision.

If the advisor was up against a murder charge, they wouldn't have had to poll the jury, because doesn't a murder conviction have to be unanimous?

[Raja]

1 hour ago, buckboard said:

I know it's not part of the format of L&O to go into the jury room or discuss jury deliberations - other on those rare occasions when a defendant tampers with a juror - but it would be interesting to see why they came up with this decision.

If the advisor was up against a murder charge, they wouldn't have had to poll the jury, because doesn't a murder conviction have to be unanimous?

All criminal cases in the US have to be unanimous. The only reason for polling the jury is if you feel that  at least one gave into peer pressure and now in the open will give his real opinion and hang the jury.

[Zaffy]

10 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

That was my initial reaction too.
Well, more like: WTH??

But, maybe the writers et al. figured as huge as the ripped-from-the-headlines headlines were, they were bound to get eclipsed by the current and foreseen circus in the U.S. headlines.

They think they can be relevant with the current situation...
Of course it is a very hot topic, but also a conflict in progress where many ppl have died and still dying. I felt very uncomfortable with the whole thing, real ppl were dying while the episode was broadcasting.. It doesn't matter which side you support, it is like they exploit their horrible deaths. These are real people with real families not just your script's extras..

Also it did not contribute anything, it just used the same old same argument "of the eternal Middle East conflict". I wish they could take a side, even the side I am against at. 
 

Edited January 26 by Zaffy

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Zaffy said:

I wish they could take a side, even the side I am against at. 
 

I, OTOH, was so relieved they did not take a side. 
But I may be in the minority of viewers with my reaction. 
They may have purposely not chosen sides to provoke viewers.

[Zaffy]

2 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I, OTOH, was so relieved they did not take a side. 
But I may be in the minority of viewers with my reaction. 
They may have purposely not chosen sides to provoke viewers.

I get what you are saying. I just don't like safe writing. If you decide to make a story based on the specific conflict at least have the nuts to take a side.