Law & Order Discussion Topic (2019 - 2021)

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

Are you confusing the episodes? The guy in Flight infected his own son, the guy in Patient Zero infected his the son of his mistress I’m pretty sure, I don’t think he was the father of the kid.

D’OH! You’re right.

[an463]

I need help with a quote from the Season 8 episode "Monster" that has always confused me, as it doesn't seem to make sense. I feel I'm missing a reference. This is the only place I can think of to go for an answer.

In the scene where Judge Gary Feldman dismisses the charges against the previous defendant Stokes and then immediately arraigns the new suspect Jessie Castillo (he moves the case to his court) he and jack have this exchange:

Feldman: Step up, Mr. Considine. I'm gonna arraign your client right here.

McCoy: Your Honor...

Feldman: Quiet, Mr. McCoy.

Feldman: I want this case assigned to this part for trial.

McCoy: With all due respect, Your Honor, you can't handpick your cases. They're put into the wheel.

Feldman: This one don't.

Then there's a pause as he stares at McCoy and Jack gives him a look of bafflement. What the hell does "This one don't" mean?! It doesn't make any sense as a response to Jack's comment. I would expect, "Not this one" or maybe "this one isn't [put into the wheel]". Or if Jack had said "New cases GET put into the wheel" then "This one don't [get put into the wheel]" would at least make more sense, but still, why is he suddenly talking this way?

Any thoughts? I've wondered about this one for years.

 

[Ailianna]

I thought he said "This one doesn't."  Which makes sense.

[Xeliou66]

22 hours ago, balmz said:

from tv tropes mentioning a number of legal issues with patient zero 

 

In "Patient Zero," a man is charged with killing his mistress's child (dosing them with stolen SARS virus that she survived). His wife testifies that she was with him at the time, but breaks down on the stand and changes her story a couple of times. Outside the courtroom, she admits that she was deliberately playing the jury, and the jury returns a not guilty verdict because they can't be sure what the truth is. McCoy and Southerlyn watch the husband and wife walk out of court hand-in-hand, and are apparently so bewildered by their defeat that they completely forget they have an iron-clad case for perjury against the wife. Not to mention completely ignoring the handful of felonies the husband committed in getting the SARS virus to begin with.

How could they prove perjury against the wife, I mean she told 2 different stories on the stand but they couldn’t prove which one was true and which was false, so how could they convict her of perjury when they couldn’t prove it either way? Regarding the husband, I would have to rewatch the episode but since they acquitted him for the murder they must not have been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the one who caused the SARS outbreak, again I would have to rewatch the episode it’s been a while since I’ve seen it but I think that answers the questions. 

[an463]

2 hours ago, Ailianna said:

I thought he said "This one doesn't."  Which makes sense.

I have the episode on my laptop and he definitely is saying, "This one don't" which lines up with the transcript here: https://subslikescript.com/series/Law__Order-98844/season-8/episode-24-Monster

[Ailianna]

On 4/13/2020 at 9:41 PM, Xeliou66 said:

How could they prove perjury against the wife, I mean she told 2 different stories on the stand but they couldn’t prove which one was true and which was false, so how could they convict her of perjury when they couldn’t prove it either way? 

This is actually a perfect perjury case.  The People don't have to prove that one is true and one is false.  Only that she said both under oath, and that they cannot both be true.  They don't even have to pick one to be true or not, just that it isn't possible for both statements to be true.  It's the kind of case that you dream of when witnesses screw you over, and that you almost never actually get.

[Xeliou66]

2 hours ago, Ailianna said:

This is actually a perfect perjury case.  The People don't have to prove that one is true and one is false.  Only that she said both under oath, and that they cannot both be true.  They don't even have to pick one to be true or not, just that it isn't possible for both statements to be true.  It's the kind of case that you dream of when witnesses screw you over, and that you almost never actually get.

Interesting. Nothing was said about prosecuting the wife for perjury, I wonder if the DA’s office would pursue that case or if they would just dismiss it as a waste of time since they couldn’t prosecute the husband again. 

[Xeliou66]

I saw Crimebusters today, I really like this episode, even though those Operation Molly people were beyond irritating, I wanted to slap them, they repeatedly crossed the line in trying to play crime stoppers. Van Buren chewing their leader out was awesome. 

I loved the references to Adam Schiff, with McCoy on the phone with him thanking him for his endorsement and then saying that Schiff was in Africa with Jimmy Carter, that was great, it was a great way of letting people know what a beloved character was up to years after he left the show, that was awesome continuity and very fitting for Schiff to still be active in his retirement and to call and offer McCoy his support. And I loved Cutter’s line about that’s who McCoy was getting his let’s make a deal advice from, we all know Schiff’s catchphrase was “make the deal”. 

While the ending of the episode was a downer, I liked how it was left ambiguous as to which suspect was guilty, not all cases are closed and justice isn’t always served, and I liked the final scene where McCoy decided not to prosecute either one since they didn’t know who was guilty. 

[Cotypubby]

“Patient Zero” was actually just on tv today, that was eerie to hear the detectives specifically mentioning “coronavirus” and worrying about a possible outbreak in nyc. 😕

[shapeshifter]

"Hunters" (2/10/1999,  Season 9 / Episode 13) is on right now. To refresh memories:

Quote

Investigating detectives Lennie Briscoe and Rey Curtis will have to race against time in order to locate the killer of a parolee, before two relentless bounty hunters searching for the suspected murderer find him first

There is a bit part of a prostitute played by Hope Chernov, who would have been about 31 when it was shot. I can't find pictures of her, but she has a very pretty face   --which is my beef. 
Too many prostitutes are portrayed by very pretty faces. 

[Waterston Fan]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

"Hunters" (2/10/1999,  Season 9 / Episode 13) is on right now. To refresh memories:

There is a bit part of a prostitute played by Hope Chernov, who would have been about 31 when it was shot. I can't find pictures of her, but she has a very pretty face   --which is my beef. 
Too many prostitutes are portrayed by very pretty faces. 

Was that the episode where Briscoe punched one of the hunters out? Seems like they got away with murder. 

[Xeliou66]

1 hour ago, Waterston Fan said:

Was that the episode where Briscoe punched one of the hunters out? Seems like they got away with murder. 

Yeah that was the episode where Briscoe slugged one of those assholes after they shot up an apartment and killed a couple of innocents. That was awesome and one of the only times Briscoe ever lost his temper on a case.

The ending of that episode was both infuriating and puzzling as they did get away with it all, but it seems like they should’ve been charged with manslaughter at the least, even though the judge ruled the prosecution couldn’t prove their actions were premeditated murder designed to cover up the first death, it seems like that shouldn’t have been needed to charge them with manslaughter for either the first death or the shootout at the apartment. Why weren’t they charged? Instead they got off with a slap on the wrist. That’s always puzzled me about that episode. 

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Yeah that was the episode where Briscoe slugged one of those assholes after they shot up an apartment and killed a couple of innocents. That was awesome and one of the only times Briscoe ever lost his temper on a case.

The ending of that episode was both infuriating and puzzling as they did get away with it all, but it seems like they should’ve been charged with manslaughter at the least, even though the judge ruled the prosecution couldn’t prove their actions were premeditated murder designed to cover up the first death, it seems like that shouldn’t have been needed to charge them with manslaughter for either the first death or the shootout at the apartment. Why weren’t they charged? Instead they got off with a slap on the wrist. That’s always puzzled me about that episode. 

That's what always confuses me on that episode too. I might buy they couldn't be charged with first degree murder because that usually means premeditation. Okay they expected to find someone else at the apartment. But how that rules out second degree murder? They still shot up the place and so clearly killed them. They showed up and they did shoot up the apartment. Anyone who died from that should be at least second degree murder. They also murdered the first guy. Even if they weren't sure they planned to kill the first the fact that they did and then went to shoot up the apartment seems like a pattern of murder.  But even if somehow that doesn't work then definitely manslaughter. When the judge is talking that there's nothing he can do because of somehow dated law, ah murder and manslaughter are still on the books Judge. They haven't been crossed off the list. They either totally planned on killing people which I think they did because they'd already killed someone by the time they make it to the apartment but that might still be a stretch to prove. They can still be charged with second degree murder or manslaughter.

Edited April 22, 2020 by andromeda331

[Broderbits]

5 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

The ending of that episode was both infuriating and puzzling as they did get away with it all, but it seems like they should’ve been charged with manslaughter at the least, even though the judge ruled the prosecution couldn’t prove their actions were premeditated murder designed to cover up the first death, it seems like that shouldn’t have been needed to charge them with manslaughter for either the first death or the shootout at the apartment. Why weren’t they charged? Instead they got off with a slap on the wrist. That’s always puzzled me about that episode. 

Didn't the smarmy wise-ass bail bondsman say something about bounty hunters on an active case being "agents of the state" and therefore couldn't be prosecuted for using deadly force? Or some such nonsense. I can't watch that episode anymore because it makes me so angry!

[shapeshifter]

6 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

. Why weren’t they charged? Instead they got off with a slap on the wrist. That’s always puzzled me about that episode. 

2 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

That's what always confuses me on that episode too. I might buy they couldn't be charged with first degree murder because that usually means premeditation. Okay they expected to find someone else at the apartment. But how that rules out second degree murder? They still shot up the place and so clearly killed them. They showed up and they did shoot up the apartment. Anyone who died from that should be at least second degree murder. They also murdered the first guy. Even if they weren't sure they planned to kill the first the fact that they did and then went to shoot up the apartment seems like a pattern of murder.  But even if somehow that doesn't work then definitely manslaughter. When the judge is talking that there's nothing he can do because of somehow dated law, ah murder and manslaughter are still on the books Judge. They haven't been crossed off the list. They either totally planned on killing people which I think they did because they'd already killed someone by the time they make it to the apartment but that might still be a stretch to prove. They can still be charged with second degree murder or manslaughter.

Here's the relevant script bits for all y'all  armchair lawyers to parse. I'm just a librarian with a black belt in GoogleFu.

Quote

[Judge?] In Taylor v. Taintor, the Supreme Court says that bounty hunters, they may pursue into another state, and if necessary, break and enter the subject's house. For better or for worse, the bounty hunter may use force, including deadly force, to effectuate a just recapture. Doug Bender's shooting was lamentable, but not criminal. Ron Difka's zealousness just doesn't rise to the level of homicide. 

[McCoy?] A shooting in anger? Covering it up by killing unarmed women?

[??] Mr. McCoy is using the first shooting as evidence of a criminal motive for the other two.
Yet the first shooting was in no way criminal.
Mr. Branson's position would give these men unfettered discretion... They're bail agents.
The Supreme Court gives them just that discretion.
Taylor and its progeny are nearly a 100 years old.
And they've never been overruled.

[McCoy?] ... A society that tolerates or turns a blind eye to this kind of behavior is one step from barbarity.
[???] The point remains, bail agents can do most anything without fear of prosecution. I don't say it, Your Honor. The Supreme Court does.

[Judge?] Mr. McCoy, your theories of the crimes make sense,given the motive that you ascribe to the defendants. Unfortunately, you can't substitute theory for evidence. This court shares the People's outrage
at the conduct of these bail agents.
It seems that the Fourth Amendment's protection that persons should be free from unreasonable search and seizures, ought to apply equally to them as to police officers. But what little law there is on the subject indicates otherwise. The Supreme Court has given its imprimatur, however long ago. And the legislature, in its wisdom, has not seen fit to eliminate this scourge.
As to the shooting of Doug Bender, the depraved-indifference homicide charges are dismissed. Insofar as the allegations that Millie Bender, Janet Tuckman, and Max Sheridan were shot as part of a conspiracy,
this court sees insufficient credible evidence to sustain the indictment.

[(later) Abbie]  We arraigned them, they posted bail. $2,000. And they walk away from three murders.

[Schiff] We can always hope they jump bail.
 
 
 

 

[Xeliou66]

Thanks for posting that. 

I still think that the bounty hunters should’ve been charged with manslaughter for the deaths of Millie Bender and Janet Tuckman, just because they couldn’t prove their actions were part of a conspiracy to cover up Doug Bender’s death doesn’t mean they couldn’t be charged with manslaughter simply for their actions in shooting up the apartment, killing 2 women, the prosecutors shouldn’t have had to prove the shootings were part of a cover up, they should’ve just argued that their actions constituted manslaughter. It made no sense to me why they didn’t do so. 

[andromeda331]

5 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Thanks for posting that. 

I still think that the bounty hunters should’ve been charged with manslaughter for the deaths of Millie Bender and Janet Tuckman, just because they couldn’t prove their actions were part of a conspiracy to cover up Doug Bender’s death doesn’t mean they couldn’t be charged with manslaughter simply for their actions in shooting up the apartment, killing 2 women, the prosecutors shouldn’t have had to prove the shootings were part of a cover up, they should’ve just argued that their actions constituted manslaughter. It made no sense to me why they didn’t do so. 

So do I.

[shapeshifter]

17 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Thanks for posting that. 

I still think that the bounty hunters should’ve been charged with manslaughter for the deaths of Millie Bender and Janet Tuckman, just because they couldn’t prove their actions were part of a conspiracy to cover up Doug Bender’s death doesn’t mean they couldn’t be charged with manslaughter simply for their actions in shooting up the apartment, killing 2 women, the prosecutors shouldn’t have had to prove the shootings were part of a cover up, they should’ve just argued that their actions constituted manslaughter. It made no sense to me why they didn’t do so. 

I think the legal defense was that the bounty hunters claimed there was a gun (pointed at them?) when they entered the apartment, so it was some sort of "self defense" and that there was no evidence to refute those claims. I'd have to rewatch.

So we are left to hope that since they were arraigned for "tampering with evidence. An "E" felony," that they might fail to show up for their court date, as Schiff says, "We can always hope they jump bail," so that they too might meet a kind of death penalty at the end of a gun fired by another overzealous bounty hunter.

We could fanwank that Lenny and Rey manage to detain them the day before they're due in court and loose the paper work, while an anonymous tip is phoned into another unscrupulous bounty hunter that a couple of dead-or-alive bail jumpers are going to be leaving the precinct in an hour.

But I think the point of the episode was that there are laws that need to be changed WRT bounty hunting.

Meanwhile Mary and Marshall from "In Plain Sight" would be very offended at the picture painted of bounty hunters in this episode. 
Oops. As @Calamity Jane notes below, "Mary and Marshall were US Marshals, not bounty hunters."
 

Edited April 23, 2020 by shapeshifter

[Calamity Jane]

3 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I think the legal defense was that the bounty hunters claimed there was a gun (pointed at them?) when they entered the apartment, so it was some sort of "self defense" and that there was no evidence to refute those claims. I'd have to rewatch.

So we are left to hope that since they were arraigned for "tampering with evidence. An "E" felony," that they might fail to show up for their court date, as Schiff says, "We can always hope they jump bail," so that they too might meet a kind of death penalty at the end of a gun fired by another overzealous bounty hunter.

We could fanwank that Lenny and Rey manage to detain them the day before they're due in court and loose the paper work, while an anonymous tip is phoned into another unscrupulous bounty hunter that a couple of dead-or-alive bail jumpers are going to be leaving the precinct in an hour.

But I think the point of the episode was that there are laws that need to be changed WRT bounty hunting.

Meanwhile Mary and Marshall from "In Plain Sight" would be very offended at the picture painted of bounty hunters in this episode. 

Mary and Marshall were US Marshals, not bounty hunters. 

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Calamity Jane said:

Mary and Marshall were US Marshals, not bounty hunters. 

Oops. 
Would Dog the Bounty Hunter be offended by the episode?

[Calamity Jane]

5 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Oops. 
Would Dog the Bounty Hunter be offended by the episode?

The only reason I can always remember they were marshals is because of the on-going gag about Marshal Marshall.  

[Xeliou66]

I’ve got another pick for evil perp - Janet Weston from Born Again, she was a piece of shit who murdered her own daughter just because she was fed up with her daughter’s behavior and who tried to cover it up through the whole “rebirthing” procedure with the doctor. And then whining about how “she deserved a life”, I loved McCoy’s response about her daughter deserving a life as well. She shouldn’t have adopted a daughter if she wanted some busy social life. Fuck her, she was an evil monstrous bitch, I hope she either got the death penalty or went to prison for life. 

[balmz]

here's a new topic and thought thread, who are some of the most evil victims in the show you can recall, not the perps but the victims themselves who were either killed or attacked or whatever?

[WendyCR72]

"Blaze" from S14 is on Sundance now. Obviously a take on the horrific Rhode Island fire at The Station. 😞 A video of that horror is actually still up on YT, too.

Also read a book, "Killer Show", about it.

[Xeliou66]

I saw Patient Zero tonight, and it’s really bizarre how in that episode they had an outbreak of SARS/coronavirus given what is going on now. Infuriating ending as the wife changed her story and then changed her story again and got her husband off, the husband/doctor was a piece of shit. I wonder if they would charge the wife with perjury. 

Also interesting about the episode is how the initial crime, the carjacking murder, was quickly solved and was unrelated to the crime that took center stage later in the episode about the guy infecting his lover with SARS. 

[Xeliou66]

5 hours ago, balmz said:

here's a new topic and thought thread, who are some of the most evil victims in the show you can recall, not the perps but the victims themselves who were either killed or attacked or whatever?

The one that immediately comes to mind is also one that I mentioned in the most evil perps discussion - Leon Vorgitch from Deadlock, the mass murderer who escaped and killed the children in the school before being murdered outside the courthouse by the father of one of his victims. He was one of the most evil people in the show’s history, and immediately comes to mind as an evil victim. 

[wknt3]

19 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

"Blaze" from S14 is on Sundance now. Obviously a take on the horrific Rhode Island fire at The Station. 😞 A video of that horror is actually still up on YT, too.

Also read a book, "Killer Show", about it.

It's a good example of one of my favorite franchise phenomena, On any other series you could grumble about how they had already done basically the same story before but they had an ironclad defense in that they were ripping from totally different and newer headlines. They had done the multiple death nightclub fire almost a decade before with "Heaven" which was based on the Happy Land Social Club fire. My favorite example is "Who Let the Dogs Out" which was their take on the DIane Whipple case in San Francisco and "Submisson" which was "inspired" by Michael Vick. Anyone else have any similar pairs (or more!) they like?

[Xeliou66]

I saw Manhood today, this episode is awesome, one of my favorites, despite having arguably the most infuriating ending in L&O history, with the jury letting the scum cops who let the gay cop die walk. But it’s a great episode with some great moments for all of the characters. 

I love Briscoe and Logan’s investigation and how they got to the bottom of it, and Logan’s anger at Captain O’Hara, who was quite pathetic IMO, and I liked the exchange between Cragen and Lennie

Cragen “I’m worried about you losing your house and eating macaroni for the next 20 years”

Briscoe “I’ve already lost 2 houses and I like macaroni”

I also liked Schiff’s disgust at the whole situation and Stone’s prosecution. I did wonder if Stone could’ve gone a bit harder after both the defense expert doctor and O’Hara, but I really don’t think it would’ve mattered, that jury wanted to acquit regardless and the defense gave them an excuse to - Schiff said as much at the end. I loved the Stone/Schiff scene at the end, you could see how Stone felt sick about losing and Schiff reassured him he did everything he could, that was a great scene. 

[WendyCR72]

It was so odd seeing Charles Hallahan as sort of scummy Captain O'Hara here when he played such an upbeat, squeaky-clean captain on Hunter for five seasons as Charlie Devane.

(On a side note, hard to believe the actor will have been gone for 23 years now this coming November, not to mention Jerry Orbach gone 16 years this December!)

[balmz]

1 hour ago, Xeliou66 said:

I saw Manhood today, this episode is awesome, one of my favorites, despite having arguably the most infuriating ending in L&O history, with the jury letting the scum cops who let the gay cop die walk. But it’s a great episode with some great moments for all of the characters. 

I love Briscoe and Logan’s investigation and how they got to the bottom of it, and Logan’s anger at Captain O’Hara, who was quite pathetic IMO, and I liked the exchange between Cragen and Lennie

Cragen “I’m worried about you losing your house and eating macaroni for the next 20 years”

Briscoe “I’ve already lost 2 houses and I like macaroni”

I also liked Schiff’s disgust at the whole situation and Stone’s prosecution. I did wonder if Stone could’ve gone a bit harder after both the defense expert doctor and O’Hara, but I really don’t think it would’ve mattered, that jury wanted to acquit regardless and the defense gave them an excuse to - Schiff said as much at the end. I loved the Stone/Schiff scene at the end, you could see how Stone felt sick about losing and Schiff reassured him he did everything he could, that was a great scene. 

 

one thing you can take comfort in, new york is a dangerous city and being a cop in new york is pretty dangerous....

[Xeliou66]

3 minutes ago, balmz said:

 

one thing you can take comfort in, new york is a dangerous city and being a cop in new york is pretty dangerous....

I hope those cops were all fired despite their acquittal, their actions showed they were unfit to be cops and hopefully they lost their jobs. I hope O’Hara was fired or demoted as well, he acted like he was some kind of good leader when actually he was on the side of the defendants and let them get away with their behavior because he supported it. He was a piece of shit. 

[Ailianna]

56 minutes ago, balmz said:

 

one thing you can take comfort in, new york is a dangerous city and being a cop in new york is pretty dangerous....

How on earth could anyone take comfort from that?

[shapeshifter]

"Mother's Milk" aired this morning. I need to remember to not ever watch it again -- even if it's just on in the background while I'm working on stuff.
The so-called lactation consultant makes me so angry with her self-righteous, know-it-all disdain for bottle feeding even when it would be better. I wanted her to get jail time. And I write this a mother who breast-fed 3 children for 2-3 years each, including the first when I was a single mother with no family within 2,000 miles.

I was also mad that the grandparents were totally ignored regarding responsibility. The mom was 19. I realize that when the episode aired in the 90s the neuroscience of brain maturation (about age 26) had not yet reached popular culture.
But when Abbie was grilling the young mother on the witness stand, I wanted her to at least ask her why she didn't ask her baby's grandmothers for advice. 
And when the grandparents were questioned, I don't think anyone even asked them if they ever went to see their grandchild.
Argh. 
Must. Not. Watch. Again.

[Mrs. P.]

Whenever I see that this episode is coming on, I change the channel. It's very upsetting for me.

[Xeliou66]

Yeah Mother’s Milk was sort of frustrating, I hated the lactation counselor, she was a self righteous bitch. The parents were irresponsible and I wondered why the grandparents weren’t more involved. There was a lot of blame to go around, but I still like the episode pretty good. 

It was interesting how Carmichael took the lead in prosecuting, it was very rare that we saw one of the lesser ranking ADA’s take the lead in prosecuting, there was very little of McCoy in that episode. As much as I love McCoy, I kind of wish there had been a few more episodes where his assistant took the lead because it would’ve been interesting to see how they did it. 

[WendyCR72]

10 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

Yeah Mother’s Milk was sort of frustrating, I hated the lactation counselor, she was a self righteous bitch. The parents were irresponsible and I wondered why the grandparents weren’t more involved. There was a lot of blame to go around, but I still like the episode pretty good. 

It was interesting how Carmichael took the lead in prosecuting, it was very rare that we saw one of the lesser ranking ADA’s take the lead in prosecuting, there was very little of McCoy in that episode. As much as I love McCoy, I kind of wish there had been a few more episodes where his assistant took the lead because it would’ve been interesting to see how they did it. 

I think Claire also did the questioning in an episode. Pretty sure I saw it recently, too. Just can't remember the episode and if I saw it on WE or Sundance.

[Xeliou66]

1 hour ago, WendyCR72 said:

I think Claire also did the questioning in an episode. Pretty sure I saw it recently, too. Just can't remember the episode and if I saw it on WE or Sundance.

In the episode Trophy, Claire was the lead prosecutor in the Diana Hawthorne trial because McCoy was a witness. I believe Claire did some of the questioning in Pro Se as well. 

[blondiec0332]

13 hours ago, Mrs. P. said:

Whenever I see that this episode is coming on, I change the channel. It's very upsetting for me.

I've said before I skip any episode that has a child dying. I just can't watch them.  I also can't watch the one with dogs. Any babies or animals dying (yes I know it's not real) is just too upsetting to watch.

[balmz]

10 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Yeah Mother’s Milk was sort of frustrating, I hated the lactation counselor, she was a self righteous bitch. The parents were irresponsible and I wondered why the grandparents weren’t more involved. There was a lot of blame to go around, but I still like the episode pretty good. 

It was interesting how Carmichael took the lead in prosecuting, it was very rare that we saw one of the lesser ranking ADA’s take the lead in prosecuting, there was very little of McCoy in that episode. As much as I love McCoy, I kind of wish there had been a few more episodes where his assistant took the lead because it would’ve been interesting to see how they did it. 

abbie also did the case in the episode harm, very well btw

[WendyCR72]

Chris Noth has a new gig - on a re-imagined version of The Equalizer which has been handed a series order. As with the original series, it will air on CBS. It stars Queen Latifah in the main role and also features Lorraine Toussaint (who also recurred on The Mothership as Shambala Green!).

[Broderbits]

21 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

Lorraine Toussaint (who also recurred on The Mothership as Shambala Green!).

I loved that character! She and Ben Stone were the very definition of "worthy adversaries"; they seemed to do their best work facing each other.

[Xeliou66]

On 5/7/2020 at 12:37 PM, balmz said:

abbie also did the case in the episode harm, very well btw

Now that I think about it, I believe we got to see every ADA except Robinette do some questioning at some point or another. It’s too bad we never got to see Robinette prosecute a case as I really liked him up until his character totally changed as a defense lawyer. 

52 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

I loved that character! She and Ben Stone were the very definition of "worthy adversaries"; they seemed to do their best work facing each other.

I loved Shambala as well, she was a really good lawyer and I liked her face offs with Stone. She’s one of my favorite recurring defense lawyers. 

[Scarlett45]

On 5/6/2020 at 7:59 PM, shapeshifter said:

"Mother's Milk" aired this morning. I need to remember to not ever watch it again -- even if it's just on in the background while I'm working on stuff.
The so-called lactation consultant makes me so angry with her self-righteous, know-it-all disdain for bottle feeding even when it would be better. I wanted her to get jail time. And I write this a mother who breast-fed 3 children for 2-3 years each, including the first when I was a single mother with no family within 2,000 miles.

I was also mad that the grandparents were totally ignored regarding responsibility. The mom was 19. I realize that when the episode aired in the 90s the neuroscience of brain maturation (about age 26) had not yet reached popular culture.
But when Abbie was grilling the young mother on the witness stand, I wanted her to at least ask her why she didn't ask her baby's grandmothers for advice. 
And when the grandparents were questioned, I don't think anyone even asked them if they ever went to see their grandchild.
Argh. 
Must. Not. Watch. Again.

I hate to watch Mother’s Milk- and I think the lactation consultant should’ve been at least civilly liable but I didn’t blame the grandparents at all. If the baby had been living in their home and they turned a blind eye to the abuse/neglect that would be depraved indifference (and thus a crime), but grandparents have no legal responsibility to visit their grandchildren just in case the parents are starving them to death. The baby was pretty young still, I believe the grandparents had no idea. And it wasn’t their job to watch their child who chose to leave the home because they were a legal adult, I’m sure they felt horribly but it wasn’t their fault. 
 

I also think the Mom never wanted the child in the first place and was passive aggressive regarding feeding the baby. This woman wasn’t so mentally ill or mentally disabled she didn’t know the baby wasn’t eating or drinking. If you’re old enough to know to feed a pet you can know to feed your own child no matter what a lactation consultant says. 

[Xeliou66]

I’ve been watching episodes from the Fontana years and I have to say the more I watch Fontana the more I dislike him - he acted like an asshole most of the time, and seemed to enjoy treating civilians like crap and using his authority to bully them, he was smug and arrogant as well. He had moments where I liked him, and I appreciated that they wanted someone very different from Briscoe to replace him as Lennie was hard to replace, but overall he behaved like an obnoxious jackass. Fortunately Green was there to balance him out. 

I know most people agree that seasons 15-17 were the weakest seasons of L&O and I agree, but there were still a lot of good stories in those seasons and it was still better than 99.9% of the garbage on TV. Those seasons were still solid, but the writing was slightly weaker, especially in some season 17 episodes, and I’m not a big fan of Fontana as I mentioned above, or Borgia, or Beauty Queen Cassady. 

[Xeliou66]

I’m watching on Sundance today, I saw the first episode of season 18, Called Home, our introduction to Lupo and Cutter and McCoy’s first episode as DA. I thought that these transitions were made incredibly smoothly and I liked how nothing felt forced or awkward despite big changes happening - I liked how Cutter’s intro was very lowkey, it was clear he had been in the DA’s office for a while and was familiar with everyone, and I thought McCoy-Cutter-Rubirosa had good chemistry from the start. McCoy’s transition into being DA was handled very well also, it added a spark to the show while keeping McCoy’s character the same. And while Lupo got a personal case it actually worked well as a way to bring him in and it was handled well, and Lupo had nice chemistry with everyone from the start as well. I really liked how season 18 started and the changes improved the show, the writing was sharper and the show felt fresher, I thought the show did a great job handling the transitions-changes and the show felt like it got new life in season 18, after its worst season in season 17. What does everyone else think about this?

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I’m watching on Sundance today, I saw the first episode of season 18, Called Home, our introduction to Lupo and Cutter and McCoy’s first episode as DA. I thought that these transitions were made incredibly smoothly and I liked how nothing felt forced or awkward despite big changes happening - I liked how Cutter’s intro was very lowkey, it was clear he had been in the DA’s office for a while and was familiar with everyone, and I thought McCoy-Cutter-Rubirosa had good chemistry from the start. McCoy’s transition into being DA was handled very well also, it added a spark to the show while keeping McCoy’s character the same. And while Lupo got a personal case it actually worked well as a way to bring him in and it was handled well, and Lupo had nice chemistry with everyone from the start as well. I really liked how season 18 started and the changes improved the show, the writing was sharper and the show felt fresher, I thought the show did a great job handling the transitions-changes and the show felt like it got new life in season 18, after its worst season in season 17. What does everyone else think about this?

I thought so too. I wasn't even sure I was going to watch the first episode of season 18 at the time I hated season 17 that much. It had been just so bad that I thought it was time to stop watching and time to end the series. I hated Cassidy, and I hated pretty much all the cases although I did like them adding Rubirosa. Learning they were switching things up by bumping McCoy up and bring in a new ADA I was sure I really didn't think I'd like it. I did end up watching that episode and was shocked by how great it was. I liked Lupo, I liked McCoy as DA, and the episode. They really turned things around and the last three seasons were really good. Its rare for that to happen.

[Xeliou66]

59 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

I thought so too. I wasn't even sure I was going to watch the first episode of season 18 at the time I hated season 17 that much. It had been just so bad that I thought it was time to stop watching and time to end the series. I hated Cassidy, and I hated pretty much all the cases although I did like them adding Rubirosa. Learning they were switching things up by bumping McCoy up and bring in a new ADA I was sure I really didn't think I'd like it. I did end up watching that episode and was shocked by how great it was. I liked Lupo, I liked McCoy as DA, and the episode. They really turned things around and the last three seasons were really good. Its rare for that to happen.

Season 17 was the weakest season of L&O by far, it’s still watchable and better than most of the crap on TV now, but it was the weakest L&O season, a lot of the episodes just were poorly written or had heavy handed, clumsily handled political themes, or both, and seasons 15-16 weren’t as great as L&O usually was either, and season 17 was the nadir of the show (like I said though, still better than the majority of the shit on TV). Season 18 though gave the show new life, Lupo was a great addition and a million times better than Beauty Queen Cassady, and while usually I disliked personal cases, Lupo’s first episode was handled well as no one acted unprofessionally and the storyline was well done. McCoy becoming DA added a new level of interesting storylines to the show, and Cutter’s introduction was very well done and lowkey. The new cast had great chemistry, and the writing was improved and the show felt fresher. The last 3 seasons were really good and the best the show had been since season 14. 

[balmz]

here's a good question i saw on reddit once, what is the worst things the main characters have done, not the perps or victims but the characters themselves

 

imo the worst thing ever done was jack nullifying same sex marriage just to win a case, it's pretty hard to top denying a group of people rights just to win one case, i don't care if this comes off as sjw, he was completely wrong to do that and i agreed with serena,(i was always fairly indifferent to her btw), i'd argue it's the most evil thing any character in the entire franchise has ever done and yes that even includes chester lake on svu killing the cop

 

another one is fontana shoving the one guys head in a toilet or logan threatening to kill the guy who shot max

 

also there's lennie defending the woman in wages of love 😛

 

i once saw maybe on imdb or tv.com someone said the worst thing serena ever did was either being born or being alive, it amused me mildly but that's kinda too mean even if most people didn't like her

 

 

[WendyCR72]

3 hours ago, balmz said:

also there's lennie defending the woman in wages of love

Asking sincerely, not to nitpick: you know that character wasn't Lennie Briscoe, right? His name was Frank Lehrman.

[balmz]

1 hour ago, WendyCR72 said:

Asking sincerely, not to nitpick: you know that character wasn't Lennie Briscoe, right? His name was Frank Lehrman.

i know, was suppose to be a joke, oh well i tried