S03.E06: The Lord of No Mercy

[VCRTracking]

I hope that wasn't actual ice in the tub that Mary Elizabeth Winstead had to lie in because BRRRRRRR!

I thought Emmit's reaction to accidentally killing Ray was Ewan's best work so far on the show.

So there is method to Gloria's apparent madness on not wanting anything to do with computers.

[AuntiePam]

11 hours ago, Accidental Martyr said:

Stussy is a clothing brand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stüssy

https://www.pinterest.com/Lizzie23xx/stussy-stuff/

Thank you for that.  I live in the boonies and haven't seen any Stussy-wear.  Heck, we're just now seeing UnderArmor.

Well, it was fun for a minute, thinking it was a shout-out to Fargo.

[luna1122]

13 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

 

Off topic:  Is anyone watching Downward Dog?  Alison Tolman -- Molly Solverson from S1 stars.  In tonight's episode, she's dealing with a co-worker (I think it's her boss) who is wearing a tee-shirt with "Stussy" on the front.  Just "Stussy". 

I knew it was a clothing brand but I still found it fun and interesting and serendipitous that he wore that shirt.

[Eulipian 5k]

After the "Varga Barges In scene", what did Varga mean when he said to Emmit, "Looks like your brother has backbone after all"?

[Bort]

10 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

After the "Varga Barges In scene", what did Varga mean when he said to Emmit, "Looks like your brother has backbone after all"?

That Varga is (correctly) assuming that Ray  attempted something illegal and underhanded to get the best of Emmit. 

[Accidental Martyr]

11 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

Thank you for that.  I live in the boonies and haven't seen any Stussy-wear.  Heck, we're just now seeing UnderArmor.

Well, it was fun for a minute, thinking it was a shout-out to Fargo.

I don't really see it much anymore. I think I had a Stussy hat sometime during the late 80's-early 90's period.

[AzureOwl]

On 2017-5-27 at 11:08 PM, welcomerain said:

Wearing a uniform you have no authority to wear in a context where you have been ordered not to act in that office is not a power move. I am done explaining this to you.

Well, last night's episode settled this. She does have the authority to wear the uniform and conduct her investigation as she pleases... for another 8 days.

[LGGirl]

I may be in the minority here but I don't think Fargo is Ewan McGreggor's (sp?) best work.  His accent keeps coming and going and acting not that great.

I do feel sorry for Emmett.  He seems like he's not a bad guy.  Helped his brother who was a loser.  I hope he's ok at the end of the season. 

[ghoulina]

18 hours ago, LGGirl said:

 

I may be in the minority here but I don't think Fargo is Ewan McGreggor's (sp?) best work.  His accent keeps coming and going and acting not that great.

 

I agree. He's not really doing it here for me. I, personally, thought his Ray death scene was awful. 

[MisterBluxom]

7 hours ago, ghoulina said:

I agree. He's not really doing it here for me. I, personally, thought his Ray death scene was awful. 

I agree. I thought that death scene was just very strange and absent any kind of emotional acting. I would think that scene would be a great opportunity for any actor to do some strong acting and convey some strong emotion to the audience. But I got nothing from EM's work in that scene.

Also, about the same actor playing both Emmet and Ray  ...  I don't know what is wrong with me. I can't see any similarity between Ray and Emmet. I would bet money they were not played by the same actor. No way. It's amazing what a wig can do to disguise someone. This has been a most valuable lesson.

Edited June 2, 2017 by MissBluxom

[MisterBluxom]

On 2017-05-30 at 9:35 AM, cardigirl said:

I have been enjoying this (my first) season of Fargo.  Really enjoying it.  I'm usually on the edge of my seat because I know that death tends to arrive swiftly and without warning in this show.  This past weekend, my son introduced me to Season 2, which I also enjoyed very much.  I'm looking forward to seeing if there are tie-ins in the last 4 shows to the previous seasons, as there were tie-ins from season 2 to season 1.

I don't ponder the legality of what Gloria is doing, I just marvel at her ability to read people.  There is a stillness in her portrayal that indicates to me a very deep well of thoughtfulness and the desire to do good and stop evil.  I think, when she met Varga, she recognized Evil. When she met Winnie, or soon after, she recognized a fellow soul who is also good at her job. 

I don't know what's going to happen, I hope my favorite characters avoid death, and I hope the story leaves few hanging threads.  Looking forward to watching to see what does happen, I hope the writer(s) continue to hold my interest.

Very nice post. Good observations and you show a real deep appreciation. If this was an award show, I'd give you a 10 out of 10.

[John Potts]

I feel sorry for Emmit - he tries to be the bigger man and just end the feud (not entirely out of brotherly love, it's at least partly because he feel things are spinning out of control, but still). Ray REALLY annoyed me by further showing he was the sort that blames everyone else for his own failings - if the chip on his shoulder was any bigger, his arm would drop off. Well, I guess he's paid for it now (though was anyone else thinking of Pulp Fiction during that whole segment?). OTOH, I'm really hoping Nikki makes it out now, even if she is a murderer, purely because the people after her are worse (I would be OK with her getting arrested, but I definitely want her to live).

On ‎25‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 5:04 AM, knaankos said:

Why did Emmit make zero attempt at all to save Ray?

Initially, I guess he just froze: once he started thinking, he may have thought that he might be better off with Ray dead and that it would be better for him if there was no trace of him being there. On that subject:

On ‎25‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 5:33 PM, iMonrey said:

I myself freeze up in a crisis (don't die around me).

...I'll try not to!

On ‎25‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 6:32 AM, MissBluxom said:

I always thought then when a police officer asks you to identify yourself, you must tell them your name, address and date of birth. Doesn't matter if you are driving a car or not.

I'm pretty sure that isn't true. In general, the police rely on suggesting that you're better off talking to them, but it's rarely in your interests to do so: see this article. If you're innocent, but especially if you're guilty, there's little you can say that will help you and lots that will make things worse. Don't fall for the "We'd just like to clear up one or two things..." (has Columbo taught us nothing!?), they're asking questions for their benefit, not yours.

On ‎25‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 4:33 AM, thuganomics85 said:

Varga talks a big game, but I actually think he overplayed his hand by getting involved with Gloria and Lopez interviewing Emmit.

I agree. He could have (legally) insisted that Emmit didn't have to answer their questions (he wasn't under arrest) and certainly insisted on a lawyer being present. But by talking his usual bullshit, he's only served to bring himself onto her radar.*

On ‎25‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 3:23 PM, Bannon said:

The IRS thing only makes sense if it is a relatively short term play, say 6 months or less, leaving Emmitt as the patsy who takes the fall for everything

That would be my guess. But legally blocking the investigation makes far more sense than trying to intimidate a government official.

On ‎25‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 3:30 PM, MissBluxom said:

Was she [Nikki] really just playing him [Ray]? Or was she seriously in love with him? My guess is she won't hardly even blink when she learns he is dead

Before last week, I was pretty sure she was playing him. But having taken a beating and not left, I guess she really did care. That doesn't mean she might not just flee when she learns he's dead - I'm sure she has a high sense of self preservation.

On ‎25‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 9:00 PM, MissBluxom said:

So, I think that anyone who tries cheating at bridge will have a very hard time getting away with it. Plus, it's a pretty dim-witted thing to do because it's easy to detect and there is isn't much money to be made by cheating.

I'd say that would be a pretty accurate assessment of Ray's personality, no?

* Presumably an analogue one!

[MisterBluxom]

Regarding the law concerning whether police have the right to demand you show them identification:

 

On 2017-07-07 at 9:50 AM, John Potts said:

I'm pretty sure that isn't true. In general, the police rely on suggesting that you're better off talking to them, but it's rarely in your interests to do so: see this article. If you're innocent, but especially if you're guilty, there's little you can say that will help you and lots that will make things worse. Don't fall for the "We'd just like to clear up one or two things..." (has Columbo taught us nothing!?), they're asking questions for their benefit, not yours.

 

I tried to figure out a way to say this without insulting you. I'm looking for a polite way to say, "...  just because you are pretty sure of something doesn't really help determine whether it is correct or not."

Anyone can be "pretty sure" about something. But that doesn't make it any more right or any more wrong. Here is a link to an article that makes things a little more clear. My conclusion is that it's not entirely clear and it's best to always be polite to the police - no matter what is happening:

https://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/when-can-police-ask-for-id/

 

So when can police ask for ID?

Carrying an ID is generally required if you’re driving a vehicle or a passenger on a commercial airline. These requirements have been upheld on the slippery premise that individuals who prefer not to carry ID can choose not to drive or fly.

From here, ID laws only get more complicated. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to reveal their identity when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as “stop-and-identify” statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.

As of 2013, 24 states had stop-and-identify laws. Regardless of your state’s law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you’re involved in illegal activity.

But how can you tell if an officer asking you to identify yourself has reasonable suspicion? Remember, police need reasonable suspicion to detain you. So one way to tell if they have reasonable suspicion is to determine if you’re free to go. You can do this by saying “Excuse me officer. Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?” If the officer says you’re free to go, leave immediately and don’t answer any more questions.

If you’re detained, you’ll have to decide if withholding your identity is worth the possibility of arrest or a prolonged detention. In cases of mistaken identity, revealing who you are might help to resolve the situation quickly. On the other hand, if you’re on parole in California, for example, revealing your identity could lead to a legal search. Knowing your state’s laws can help you make the best choice.

Remember that the officer’s decision to detain you will not always hold up in court. Reasonable suspicion is a vague legal standard, and police often make mistakes. So if you’re searched or arrested following an officer’s ID request, you may contact an attorney to discuss the incident and explore your legal options.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the advice given in the above article is worth remembering when police ask you for ID and you don't want to show any:

"You can do this by saying “Excuse me officer. Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?” If the officer says you’re free to go, leave immediately and don’t answer any more questions."

The previous sentence (which I did not write BTW) sounds to me like the very best advice anyone can get for dealing with the police.

Edited July 8, 2017 by MissBluxom

[John Potts]

OK, first off, I'm neither an American nor a lawyer (and I'm not at all insulted). However, my point is: if the police have come to ask you questions, it's almost never to help you (unless you initially called them to report the crime). Even if Gloria did have the legal authority to be there (which is not entirely clear) the fact that Varga flat out refused to identify himself when asked implies she didn't have the right to demand this information. Which suggests she was there on a fishing expedition and (as you suggest) Emmit should simply have asked if he was under arrest and/or they had a warrant and asked the pair to leave.

1 hour ago, MissBluxom said:

As of 2013, 24 states had stop-and-identify laws. Regardless of your state’s law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you’re involved in illegal activity.

...which by my arithmetic means in 26 States, they don't, even with reasonable suspicion, assuming by States you mean "US States" (whether that's a majority of cases will depend on which States it is). But whatever the case, you're almost never better off volunteering information you're not required to (the Fifth Amendment is far stronger than, for example, the Right to Silence in the UK), especially if you ARE guilty.

[MisterBluxom]

5 hours ago, John Potts said:

OK, first off, I'm neither an American nor a lawyer (and I'm not at all insulted). However, my point is: if the police have come to ask you questions, it's almost never to help you (unless you initially called them to report the crime). Even if Gloria did have the legal authority to be there (which is not entirely clear) the fact that Varga flat out refused to identify himself when asked implies she didn't have the right to demand this information. Which suggests she was there on a fishing expedition and (as you suggest) Emmit should simply have asked if he was under arrest and/or they had a warrant and asked the pair to leave.

...which by my arithmetic means in 26 States, they don't, even with reasonable suspicion, assuming by States you mean "US States" (whether that's a majority of cases will depend on which States it is). But whatever the case, you're almost never better off volunteering information you're not required to (the Fifth Amendment is far stronger than, for example, the Right to Silence in the UK), especially if you ARE guilty.

 

The one point you make about answering questions is far and away more important than all the rest of this discussion and I cannot agree with you more.

When the police approach you to ask you questions, it is almost always to help them and to do you harm. It is always best to politely tell the police that your lawyer has advised you not to answer any questions without your lawyer present. There are a great many very sad cases (and links on the Internet) about people who go to prison for a very long time because they happily co-operated with the police and were imprisoned as a result of what they said.

In the vast majority of cases, it is what comes out of your own mouth that is used to arrest you, convict you and then imprison you. It's almost always better to decline to co-operate with the police until your lawyer is present. When it comes to dealing with the police, I fully agree with you. That is by far and away the most important advice anyone should remember.

Edited July 7, 2017 by MissBluxom

[shapeshifter]

10 hours ago, John Potts said:

10 hours ago, John Potts said:

Why did Emmit make zero attempt at all to save Ray?

Initially, I guess he just froze: once he started thinking, he may have thought that he might be better off with Ray dead and that it would be better for him if there was no trace of him being there.

Just in case this wasn't explicitly stated upthread: When Ray reached up to pull the glass shard out of his neck, Emmit advised him against doing that. I assumed Emmit had spent time with his wife watching crime or doctor shows (or would that also be on The Discovery Channel?) and knew not to pull out a sharp or impaling object because it was likely serving as a dam against the flow of blood from a severed artery. Sadly, Ray and Nikki spent their evenings practicing their Bridge strategies instead of watching shows like Fargo. Is this a good example of irony? I never know.

I'd have to rewatch to see if Emmit actually caused the glass to break into Ray's neck, or if it was Ray's own fault, or just a freak accident—unless someone else can post convincingly here.

[Kel Varnsen]

On 5/26/2017 at 9:35 PM, Nancypants said:

Is The Ambassador Motel the same motel where everyone gets shot up at the end of season 2? It looks like it...

It wasn't the same motel or even the same town, but I really thought the location was a hint that someone was going to die there in the episode. Not bodies stacked to the second floor but at least maybe Vagas's goon.

On 5/30/2017 at 10:40 PM, Magic said:

. Gluing someone's nose and mouth shut seems more premeditated.

Gluing someone's nose and mouth shut seem like it would be really difficult. Anytime my kids break something and I have to super glue it I find you always have to hold the two sides together for a minute or two to get them to dry. Doing that with someone else's mouth would be hard. Gluing the mouth and then the nostrils without getting your fingers stuck to them would be even harder.