Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

S24.E05 Report Card


Xeliou66
  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

I liked Shaw in this episode.  I'm glad the actor got a chance to shine again.

Ultimately, it didn't matter.  The minute the DA would have gotten the fingerprint report, they would have known the kid lied.  The kid's confession to Shaw (without his lawyer present) wouldn't have been admissible. 

The thing that irked me is that it took them until trial to get the fingerprint report.  That isn't something that takes long to get back compared to DNA. 

  • Like 12
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

I liked Shaw in this episode.  I'm glad the actor got a chance to shine again.

Ultimately, it didn't matter.  The minute the DA would have gotten the fingerprint report, they would have known the kid lied.  The kid's confession to Shaw (without his lawyer present) wouldn't have been admissible. 

The thing that irked me is that it took them until trial to get the fingerprint report.  That isn't something that takes long to get back compared to DNA. 

It was weird in all aspects. I thought it was this franchise that they wouldn't talk to a child without a parent, much less without a lawyer. Not to mention the arrest where all of those ESU officers after a kid and none had less lethal weapons.

1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

Shaw is getting on my nerves just as much as Maroun.

It wasn't on my nerves because I liked Fontana as a different kind of L&O cop but I had a grin when Shaw corrected the rapper calling him "officer" to "Detective". It had been a while since we heard from ex lawyer Shaw.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

This was very strong overall - interesting case and interesting issues raised. I liked both the investigation and the legal proceedings and thought it was a compelling case. The shooter had a rough background but in the end he murdered a teacher just because the teacher was doing his job and he didn’t get much sympathy from me, he was a kid but he was definitely old enough know murder is wrong, and he lied under oath about it, the DA’s had no choice but to void the deal.

Shaw didn’t really annoy me, I got that he related to the kid but Riley was spot on at the end that Shaw never would’ve killed a teacher no matter how rough his childhood was. The teacher here was completely innocent and had no part in the perp’s rough life, and plenty of people have rough childhoods and never kill innocent people. I really like the Riley/Shaw partnership, and I liked that we got more insight into Shaw in a way that was relevant to the case and didn’t feel forced or soapy, and I also liked that this was different than the usual “black guy who’s a cop” thing that they frequently do when they focus on Shaw. We knew Shaw had a dad in the military and had a brother but we didn’t know anything else about him personally.

The stuff about the principal was interesting and I could see both sides, I actually felt at the end that 5 years was a bit harsh for the principal - yes he could’ve done a much better job but I don’t think he was a bad person, just overwhelmed and not up for the task of running a school. He should definitely have told the victim about the threat and the gun though, and he shouldn’t have lied about searching the backpack. So I did think he needed to be held accountable but the shooter was more responsible than the principal.

I enjoyed Baxter’s scenes as usual, would like to see him used a bit more but he’s a good DA who adds to the legal side. Price was decent and Maroun didn’t annoy me here, neither did the LT, and there were no glaring flaws in the episode. The only thing that might’ve been a plot hole was the fingerprint report coming in late but there are explanations for that.

Overall I liked this episode quite a bit, very solid.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
6 hours ago, mommalib said:

I can understand why Shaw felt a connection to this kid. I was disappointed that it ended up the kids committed premeditated murder. Shaw always does the right thing in the end. 

Yeah but I was disgusted that he was still considering NOT giving the evidence to the DA when he realized the kid lied to him, still acting like the kid’s tough life was an excuse. Riley was right, some people are just beyond saving.

  • Useful 1
Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

Yeah but I was disgusted that he was still considering NOT giving the evidence to the DA when he realized the kid lied to him, still acting like the kid’s tough life was an excuse. Riley was right, some people are just beyond saving.

Based on what we know about Shaw I don't think he ever really considered not doing the right thing. The conflict is that he felt like maybe he could have been that kid if he didn't have a father to come back and get him. 

6 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

This was very strong overall - interesting case and interesting issues raised. I liked both the investigation and the legal proceedings and thought it was a compelling case. The shooter had a rough background but in the end he murdered a teacher just because the teacher was doing his job and he didn’t get much sympathy from me, he was a kid but he was definitely old enough know murder is wrong, and he lied under oath about it, the DA’s had no choice but to void the deal.

Shaw didn’t really annoy me, I got that he related to the kid but Riley was spot on at the end that Shaw never would’ve killed a teacher no matter how rough his childhood was. The teacher here was completely innocent and had no part in the perp’s rough life, and plenty of people have rough childhoods and never kill innocent people. I really like the Riley/Shaw partnership, and I liked that we got more insight into Shaw in a way that was relevant to the case and didn’t feel forced or soapy, and I also liked that this was different than the usual “black guy who’s a cop” thing that they frequently do when they focus on Shaw. We knew Shaw had a dad in the military and had a brother but we didn’t know anything else about him personally.

The stuff about the principal was interesting and I could see both sides, I actually felt at the end that 5 years was a bit harsh for the principal - yes he could’ve done a much better job but I don’t think he was a bad person, just overwhelmed and not up for the task of running a school. He should definitely have told the victim about the threat and the gun though, and he shouldn’t have lied about searching the backpack. So I did think he needed to be held accountable but the shooter was more responsible than the principal.

I enjoyed Baxter’s scenes as usual, would like to see him used a bit more but he’s a good DA who adds to the legal side. Price was decent and Maroun didn’t annoy me here, neither did the LT, and there were no glaring flaws in the episode. The only thing that might’ve been a plot hole was the fingerprint report coming in late but there are explanations for that.

Overall I liked this episode quite a bit, very solid.

I have said this before and i'll say it again Mechad/Shaw has been the best thing about this show since it came back on air a few years ago. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
1 hour ago, mommalib said:

Based on what we know about Shaw I don't think he ever really considered not doing the right thing. The conflict is that he felt like maybe he could have been that kid if he didn't have a father to come back and get him

Yeah. Upon reflection, I think he knew by not giving the evidence even after telling Riley, he’d be expecting Riley to keep quiet too, which wouldn’t have been fair. I was just annoyed that he didn’t call out the kid at the end for lying to his face instead of letting the kid act all “why am I being retried?”

I felt bad for the principal. I can understand why he was worn out by all the times he rightfully intervened only to have the stupid parents bleat at him—call me crazy, but if my child was BEATING UP A TEACHER, I would be more upset about that instead of the principal grabbing them.

  • Like 4
  • Applause 2
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

The thing that irked me is that it took them until trial to get the fingerprint report.  That isn't something that takes long to get back compared to DNA. 

This annoyed me too. The show always does this, and it makes everyone look incompetent.

A lot of topics were covered here, as seems the case with this season. I'm glad Mehcad Brooks got an opportunity to shine, but I'm also getting tired of there always being some sort of personal connection to the weekly case.

  • Like 5
  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

if my child was BEATING UP A TEACHER, I would be more upset about that instead of the principal grabbing them.

Yeah maybe 50 years ago. Now? It’s all ‘my baby! He’s a good boy! That teacher did (insert whatever) and deserved the beat down.’ Or skip the my baby is a good boy and just go straight to ‘that MF teacher dissed my child. He’s lucky it was my kid and not me.’ Teachers are not allowed to lay a hand on children, no matter what the kid does. My friend was a teacher in NYC and was punched in the face by a student. This was 40 years ago. All she could do was report it to the principal.if she retaliated in any way, SHE would have been in trouble. Nothing happened to the kid. He even stayed in her class. 🤬

  • Mind Blown 1
  • Angry 4
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

The stuff about the principal was interesting and I could see both sides, I actually felt at the end that 5 years was a bit harsh for the principal

Agreed. 

And it was a lose/lose situation for the barely 13-year-old, which seemed even more tragic because his parents died respectively by accident and from cancer, so if they'd lived, his life would have been very different.
However, IRL, I would imagine there would have been an aunt or a grandma to take care of him. So it was not typical, but if there are, as the principal said, “more than 25,000 kids in the foster care system right here in the state of New York,” there probably are a few more who started out with good parents and lost everything.

Was it clear that Shaw's delay in telling the attorneys about the fingerprints didn't matter at that point? It only mattered that he let them know before Ant was sentenced for the lesser crime, right? Or am I confusing it? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Sake614 said:

Teachers are not allowed to lay a hand on children, no matter what the kid does.

The thing is, I understand the principal not wanting/can't grab the child. But, while he did search the kid's locker, it doesn't look like he even asked to look inside the backpack! Grabbing a kid is one thing. Grabbing a backpack is another. Furthermore, while the cops did a "good faith effort" to find the kid's foster mother/"interested adult", they should have contacted his PO or CPS, who could have served as an "interested adult". If the kid was 15/16, I could understand the "we'll talk to him without an adult". But 13?!

  • Like 3
  • Applause 1
Link to comment
(edited)

I recognized this case immediately. This was obviously based on the case in Newport News, Virginia a couple of years ago where an elementary school student  ( I think he was as young as first grade?) shot his teacher and the principal had some prior knowledge of the gun. Luckily the teacher survived, though. 

I liked the episode. I really enjoy the Reilly/Shaw partnership. I think all the LTs are always going to live in the shadow of Van Buren for me. The legal side has improved, especially when Maroun is not front and center.I keep hoping for more guest appearances from Jamie or even Abbie.

Edited by vb68
  • Like 4
Link to comment

I love love loved this episode. (This season's turning out great). I will say though, this episode used the hell out of what one building which would be (Bethel Gospel Assembly) on 120/119th btw. 5th Avenue. (The Juvi facility that the kid was walking out of at the end of the episode used it) and most of the school scenes. Once you've been in there it's a very identifiable location. 

Shaw is a really good character, I wish Maroun had been able to express further feelings in not liking prosecuting a young black boy. 

8 hours ago, Zaffy said:

But I am kind of tired of trying to connect each effing case to the main character's lives and traumas.

The only episode that didn't do this was episode 2 which had Olivia Benson guest starring. I do agree it feels a little much, but they have a lot of catching up to do in terms of characterizations for all of them. I think Riley is still behind on characterizations. 

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

The teacher here was completely innocent and had no part in the perp’s rough life, and plenty of people have rough childhoods and never kill innocent people.

The principal wasn't completely innocent.  He didn't follow protocol when he learned a student may have a gun.  He also lied when asked whether he searched the kid's backpack.  I felt like a lot of his testimony was "poor me, it's just so hard to be a middle school principal."  This isn't to say he was as culpable as the shooter, but I do believe he had a real chance to prevent the teacher from being killed and his choices failed that man.

I liked the episode.  It was not an easy case, and unlike an episode where Olivia Benson is suddenly a person whose expertise in sexual assault and trauma is known worldwide, there were real shades of gray.  

I also remembered that the actor playing the husband was a recurring character on SVU for many seasons as a tech until I think they killed him off.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
1 minute ago, txhorns79 said:

The principal wasn't completely innocent.  He didn't follow protocol when he learned a student may have a gun.  He also lied when asked whether he searched the kid's backpack.  I felt like a lot of his testimony was "poor me, it's just so hard to be a middle school principal."  This isn't to say he was as culpable as the shooter, but I do believe he had a real chance to prevent the teacher from being killed and his choices failed that man.

I liked the episode.  It was not an easy case, and unlike an episode where Olivia Benson is suddenly a person whose expertise in sexual assault and trauma is known worldwide, there were real shades of gray.  

I also remembered that the actor playing the husband was a recurring character on SVU for many seasons as a tech until I think they killed him off.  

Agreed about the principal, when I said the teacher was completely innocent I meant the guy who was killed. The principal made serious errors in judgment and it did play a role in the teacher’s death, and the principal did need to be held accountable, I just thought 5 years was a bit hard.

I liked the episode as well, and yes the actor playing the husband did play the forensics guy O’Halloran on SVU for several seasons until they made the stupid decision to have him killed off and then never even discuss his death. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I felt bad for the principal. I can understand why he was worn out by all the times he rightfully intervened only to have the stupid parents bleat at him—call me crazy, but if my child was BEATING UP A TEACHER, I would be more upset about that instead of the principal grabbing them.

I'm pretty sure in real life teachers can put hands on students when the student is engaging in activities that could lead to physical harm, property damage, etc.  Otherwise, two students could get into a violent fight, and the teachers would be powerless to stop anything. 

Link to comment

My problem,  besides the late crime lab is the order portion all but ignoring 13 year old. Even the original plea of 5 years in the juvenile system and 5 ub the adult corrections made me appreciate my state where he would have remained in the juvenile corrections until 25 years of age.  Remembering Abby taking a 40 something to juvenile court makes me think that New York must have similar laws.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

A lot of topics were covered here, as seems the case with this season. I'm glad Mehcad Brooks got an opportunity to shine, but I'm also getting tired of there always being some sort of personal connection to the weekly case.

I agree, it feels a little stale at this point to have someone on the law enforcement and/or legal team have a personal connection to the case of the week.  This used to happen very rarely, which was more realistic and made the episode feel more unique and special.  Now, it happens every episode, so it feels very formulaic to me.  We have had 5 episodes so far and it's happened in every single one!  The one where ADA Maroun got so personally invested she almost talked to a witness without their lawyer present risking her career, the one where ADA Price's dad was in the hospital on life support while the case was about when life legally begins and ends, the one where Officer Riley's brother was an informant and reneged on his deal to testify, this one where Officer Shaw got so personally invested in the 13 year old defendant, and the one where Det. Benson felt so strongly for the defendant that she did everything she could to sabotage the prosecution (including giving the defense team legal advice and even testifying for the defense!)  I guess that means the next two episodes will feature personal connections to Baxter and the new Lt.!

2 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

The principal wasn't completely innocent.  He didn't follow protocol when he learned a student may have a gun.  He also lied when asked whether he searched the kid's backpack.  I felt like a lot of his testimony was "poor me, it's just so hard to be a middle school principal."  This isn't to say he was as culpable as the shooter, but I do believe he had a real chance to prevent the teacher from being killed and his choices failed that man.

The principal wasn't completely innocent and he didn't follow protocol.  Definitely grounds for him to face consequences such as lose his job or face a wrongful death lawsuit.  But criminally liable?  5 years did seem harsh to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Raja said:

Remembering Abby taking a 40 something to juvenile court makes me think that New York must have similar laws.

If you are talking about the episode from Season 9, Juvenile, my recollection was the 30-something was in family court because she was a juvenile when the crime occurred, and under the law in effect at that time (the '70s), she could not be charged as an adult.

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, me5671 said:

I guess that means the next two episodes will feature personal connections to Baxter and the new Lt.!

 

I don't know whether or not this is connected to a case, but in next week's episode, according to IMDB, "[Lt.] Brady's son asks for a favor"!

  • Useful 1
Link to comment

This perp is the polar opposite of a Stone case where everyone was trying to prevent a kid being sentenced as an adult. However, the defendant demanded adult sentencing - realizing that he would likely kill again...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, TeapotDiva said:

 "[Lt.] Brady's son asks for a favor"!

When she agrees but forgets about it- he gets mad and wishes she would always tell the truth...

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...