Thoughts on Law and Order- 'Nullification'

[Shawn Wilson]

Armored car hijacking goes bad, two perps are killed. They have identical
tattoos that lead the cops to a militia group. Search warrants against the
group lead to a cache of weapons similar to the ones in the robbery. Trial
is full of militia-esque showboating by defendants (we're POWs, military
court because flag has fringe, etc).

Obvious defense is not used- search warrant that turned up guns is
predicated on membership in a group, no other evidence or testimony. You
think you can search my house because a criminal belongs to some group I
also belong to? No. Bad legal thinking by writers.

Clumsy attempted slur of militia movement by portraying them as loons.
Issue of jury nullification talked about a lot but not really addressed.
Defense wants it, McCoy is afraid of it. No discussion of the issue itself.
Doesn't really make sense here- it's a straight up armored car robbery. A
bad episode, but it could have been interesting if it had tried even a
little bit.

[Lars Eighner]

In our last episode, <WWZ9e.8250$***@fed1read01>, the
lovely and talented Shawn Wilson broadcast on

Post by Shawn Wilson
Clumsy attempted slur of militia movement by portraying them as loons.

I don't know of any that are not loons. Perhaps you could give
us an example.

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Lars Eighner
lovely and talented Shawn Wilson broadcast on

Post by Shawn Wilson
Clumsy attempted slur of militia movement by portraying them as loons.

I don't know of any that are not loons. Perhaps you could give
us an example.

How many do you actually know that ARE loons? Be specific. Do you know
ANY?

[Tim Wright]

Post by Lars Eighner
lovely and talented Shawn Wilson broadcast on

Post by Shawn Wilson
Clumsy attempted slur of militia movement by portraying them as loons.

I don't know of any that are not loons. Perhaps you could give
us an example.

What do you call a Seperatist lesbian?



s
c
r
o
l
l

d
o
w
n















m
o
r
e









Militia Etheridge

[D.F. Manno]

Post by Shawn Wilson
Armored car hijacking goes bad, two perps are killed. They have identical
tattoos that lead the cops to a militia group. Search warrants against the
group lead to a cache of weapons similar to the ones in the robbery. Trial
is full of militia-esque showboating by defendants (we're POWs, military
court because flag has fringe, etc).
Obvious defense is not used- search warrant that turned up guns is
predicated on membership in a group, no other evidence or testimony. You
think you can search my house because a criminal belongs to some group I
also belong to? No. Bad legal thinking by writers.
Clumsy attempted slur of militia movement by portraying them as loons.
Issue of jury nullification talked about a lot but not really addressed.
Defense wants it, McCoy is afraid of it. No discussion of the issue itself.
Doesn't really make sense here- it's a straight up armored car robbery. A
bad episode, but it could have been interesting if it had tried even a
little bit.

Pretty slow on the uptake, aren't you? It only took you seven years to
come up with these thoughts. ("Nullification" first aired 5 Nov 97.)

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by D.F. Manno
Pretty slow on the uptake, aren't you? It only took you seven years to
come up with these thoughts. ("Nullification" first aired 5 Nov 97.)

Some of the legal issues in L&O I find interesting or worthy of comment.
'Nullification' was aired today on TNT, indeed it was ending as I was
posting. Findlaw used to have articles about the law in media, which I
loved. I'm interested in more discussion of the law in L&O. You'll see
more posts like that one.

[E.I.]

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by D.F. Manno
Pretty slow on the uptake, aren't you? It only took you seven years to
come up with these thoughts. ("Nullification" first aired 5 Nov 97.)

Some of the legal issues in L&O I find interesting or worthy of comment.
'Nullification' was aired today on TNT, indeed it was ending as I was
posting. Findlaw used to have articles about the law in media, which I
loved. I'm interested in more discussion of the law in L&O. You'll see
more posts like that one.

Given your record for posting here and your political and diplomatic persona
...



I'd say there are those who COULD wait ...

[Rob Novak]

Post by E.I.
Given your record for posting here and your political and diplomatic persona

Do you ever contribute anything positive to a thread? Because your
"cutting wit" is nowhere near as sharp as you imagine.

[groo]

Post by Rob Novak
Strange, Geometrical Hinges: http://rob.rnovak.net

I looked, but couldn't find any hinges, strange or geometrical.

[Richard R. Hershberger]

Post by Shawn Wilson
I'm interested in more discussion of the law in L&O.

Well, that's easy: the law in L&O is crap. It is slickly produced
crap, but crap nonetheless.

Post by Shawn Wilson
You'll see more posts like that one.

I'll go out on a limb: the law in L&O will be crap in those, too. Any
show which considers "ripped from the headlines" to be a positive
selling point can safely be ignored so far as the real world goes.

Richard R. Hershberger

[Mark Steese]

Post by Richard R. Hershberger

Post by Shawn Wilson
I'm interested in more discussion of the law in L&O.

Well, that's easy: the law in L&O is crap. It is slickly produced
crap, but crap nonetheless.

Yep. Discussing the law in Law & Order is like discussing the history in
The Da Vinci Code, or the science in Jurassic Park.

As drama, L&O has had great moments (my favorite being "Double Blind," from
1996), but even at its best it bears about as much relevance to modern
jurisprudence as "Hamlet" bears to Elizabethan geopolitics.

Post by Richard R. Hershberger

Post by Shawn Wilson
You'll see more posts like that one.

I'll go out on a limb: the law in L&O will be crap in those, too.
Any show which considers "ripped from the headlines" to be a positive
selling point can safely be ignored so far as the real world goes.

The conflict between the producers' hyping of the "ripped from the
headlines!" aspect and their need to cover their asses by claiming that all
the characters are 100% fictional and bear no resemblance to real-life
people always amuses me.

[Dana Carpender]

Post by Mark Steese

Post by Richard R. Hershberger

Post by Shawn Wilson
I'm interested in more discussion of the law in L&O.

Well, that's easy: the law in L&O is crap. It is slickly produced
crap, but crap nonetheless.

Yep. Discussing the law in Law & Order is like discussing the history in
The Da Vinci Code, or the science in Jurassic Park.
As drama, L&O has had great moments (my favorite being "Double Blind," from
1996), but even at its best it bears about as much relevance to modern
jurisprudence as "Hamlet" bears to Elizabethan geopolitics.

Post by Richard R. Hershberger

Post by Shawn Wilson
You'll see more posts like that one.

I'll go out on a limb: the law in L&O will be crap in those, too.
Any show which considers "ripped from the headlines" to be a positive
selling point can safely be ignored so far as the real world goes.

The conflict between the producers' hyping of the "ripped from the
headlines!" aspect and their need to cover their asses by claiming that all
the characters are 100% fictional and bear no resemblance to real-life
people always amuses me.

Actually, they've done some episodes that they admit use real-life
characters, and tell you at the end of the episode what happened.

Dana

[Mark Steese]

Post by Dana Carpender

Post by Mark Steese

Post by Richard R. Hershberger
I'll go out on a limb: the law in L&O will be crap in those, too.
Any show which considers "ripped from the headlines" to be a positive
selling point can safely be ignored so far as the real world goes.

The conflict between the producers' hyping of the "ripped from the
headlines!" aspect and their need to cover their asses by claiming
that all the characters are 100% fictional and bear no resemblance to
real-life people always amuses me.

Actually, they've done some episodes that they admit use real-life
characters, and tell you at the end of the episode what happened.

I recall a few where they acknowledged that they ran a disclaimer
acknowledging that the ep was based on real-life events (IIRC, there was
one for the Season 12 episode "Missing," which was based on the Gary
Condit-Chandra Levy case), but I don't remember a disclaimer admitting the
characters were based on real-life counterparts. Doing so would open NBC up
to some pretty nasty liability issues -- Carolyn Condit was reportedly
infuriated by the way her fictional counterpart behaved.

[Jane Chaplin]

"Mark Steese" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@130.133.1.4...
:
: I recall a few where they acknowledged that they ran a disclaimer
: acknowledging that the ep was based on real-life events (IIRC, there was
: one for the Season 12 episode "Missing," which was based on the Gary
: Condit-Chandra Levy case), but I don't remember a disclaimer admitting the
: characters were based on real-life counterparts. Doing so would open NBC
up
: to some pretty nasty liability issues -- Carolyn Condit was reportedly
: infuriated by the way her fictional counterpart behaved.

There was a 1st season episode based on the Lisa Steinberg case, and there
was a text screen at the saying as much. There was a sequel to that episode
this season, in which the Joel Steinberg guy got out of prison and was
murdered, but that story was totally fictional.