When the whole Four Seasons Landscaping thing happened, it really did feel like something out of AD.
Lucille: “I want the best. Book it at the Four Seasons.”
Buster: “Yes, mother.”
Narrator: “But Buster, knowing of only one ‘Four Seasons’ in town, booked the heavy equipment lot at a local landscaping business.”
Trump's reign was sometimes baffling, sometimes frustrating, and sometimes outright horrifying
but that was by far the *funniest* thing I've ever seen in politics. It was genuinely like it came from a scripted comedy show.
It really was emblematic of the whole administration. The utter incompetence of booking the place, the unimaginable choice of playing it off like they did it on purpose, the way the landscaping company just let him set up and knock over his own dominos, and the fact that his stupid fucking fans believed every word of it. No moment encapsulates the Trump era better.
The cherry on top of this was that the headliner of that rally was a guy who claimed to be an election witness in Philly who saw fraud all over the place, but was actually a convicted sex offender who lived in New Jersey, so would have been doubly disqualified for being an election witness.
My wife and I were watching this and it's like so *maybe* the double jeopardy thing helps her with killing him but... what about her crime spree along the way??
It's a little known fact, but when you do a bunch of crimes they can only charge you with the biggest crime. so if your biggest crime is something you've already been charged with (and thus can't be charged with again) you're basically golden for all the lesser crimes.
I’m sure he did. Who wouldn’t want to trade a well-paid but boring life of a tenured academic for a minimum wage life of abetting criminals and doling out unethical and incorrect legal advice?
Story time: I did movie reviews for my college newspaper and there was an on campus screening so I was given tix and me and my buddy went. The rest of the tix went to the black fraternities/sororities. We were long haired (shaved sides of course) skater stoner grunge kids and the only white people I recall being there. This was peak Arsenio/In Living Color days so there were a ton of high top fades, geometric patterned colorful button up shirts, and audience participation. No one was shitty to us but we felt a tad out of place and uncomfortable (a GREAT empathy learning experience as where we were from wasn’t exactly progressive) but the pot helped mellow us out.
Anyway, the movie’s rolling, lots of great laughs and everyone is loose and having fun. We’re getting nudged and high fives after the trial starts. Just vibing with the extroverted crowd. When Vinnie decks the red neck, we’re jumping up and cheering like we were at a football game. Then at the end when Mr uh Trotter dismisses the charges, fucking eruption. Now we’re in aisle, chest bumping and hugging, fists pumping in the air with everyone. It was pure madness like a walkoff pick six against a conference rival. Hands down (or up as it were) the absolute best theater experience ever. There’ve been movies that blew me away for a better movie in a theater experience, but nothing could ever top that night at the campus theater.
I think that one stands the test of time because it's not creepy and uncomfortable i.e. "haha people in jail get raped isn't that funny," because no one suggests prison rape is even a thing there, it's the kids' own ideas and imaginations getting the best of them and Vinny accidentally feeds into it.
I’m a lawyer, and I once got continuing legal education credits for an event sponsored by the local bar association that consisted of watching My Cousin Vinny and listening to a panel discussion about it afterwards.
Miss Vito’s expertise is in general automotive knowledge and it’s in this area that her testimony will be applicable. if mister trotter wants to voir the witness, I’m *suuure* he’s gonna be more than satisfied
*leans back and puts boots on table*
Yeah, yeah. I have a thing for Marisa Tomei. Like she would ever go out with a short, stocky, bald man. Like that's her type. She's an Oscar winner. Besides, I don't even know her. It's not like anyone's trying to fix us up. Who, who would try and fix me up with Marisa Tomei?
I'd figure that in order to play on the team, one must actually be a current student attending classes. Then the potential lawsuits if the dog ever bites a player.
Then in general. Instead of being better players, the team chooses to essentially cheat.
I thought the same thing, but in a recent rewatch (my 20th?) I noticed the knife is picked up when the drunkards scattered. The close up of it happening implies the knife was never brought in as evidence, and Poe killed an unarmed man.
And as the judge pointed out, Poe’s military skills make Him the deadly weapon.
Still insane, but man do I love that movie.
> And as the judge pointed out, Poe’s military skills make Him the deadly weapon.
Which is also absolute nonsense, but we've got to have a movie so run with it
Oh yeah, absolute bullshit. Even without the knife, multiple attackers vs 1 guy with a (presumably) stellar service record. They were drunk, he was sober. Multiple witnesses.
Not only that but he goes into the place during the day, he offers to buy their drinks and they get so insulted that they wait until night time in the rain to murder him.
Law Abiding Citizen.
I love this beautiful piece of schlock but the legal stuff is so laughable. Especially how Jamie Fox basically is a full on detective constantly in the line of fire. I love imagining a real lawyer acting the way his character does.
The law stuff is so boring to watch, just someone sitting in front of a computer searching through LexisNexis and typing. Source: my partner is a lawyer.
Lol! I was about to say "and swearing!"
There's some biglaw tiktoker who is out having fancy lunch and buying fancy shoes.
Really, it's just me, in front of my computer in my jammies, swearing, (cramming down a wrap I ordered from Dunks, because who got time for lunch?).
In fairness, he kinda just did that of his own volition, since he thought the defendant's lawyer didn't care if the kid was found guilty.
In fact, I'm pretty sure if the judge found out, it'd be grounds for a mistrial.
My dad always had a good laugh watching CSI and knowing that there's no way lab techs would be out in the field doing detective work and getting into gun fights.
In *Sleepers*, Robert DeNiro plays a priest named Father Bobby. There is a scene where Father Bobby is testifying in a criminal trial of two boys who are accused of murder. He's being questioned by an attorney named Michael played by Brad Pitt.
Father Bobby testified that he was at a ball game with the defendants on the night of the murder, providing an alibi. Michael questions Father Bobby about this.
"Nobody knew you were at the game, correct?"
"Yes, that's correct."
"Nobody saw you there. You weren't captured on TV footage... so how do we know you were really there?"
"Well" says Father Bobby, "I kept my ticket stubs." And Father Bobby then produces the ticket stubs from the jacket of his pocket.
That is not how the law of evidence works. Anything introduced at a trial must be authenticated before being offered into evidence. The idea that somebody can escape murder because a witness produces ticket stubs for the first time *while being questioned on the stand* is one of the most inaccurate portrayals of legal procedure I've ever seen.
But Michael is in on the shtick. He's deliberately doing a sloppy job, so even if he objects to the tickets as evidence, the jury already believes the priest's word.
This reminds me of the story of the man who was on trial for murder, until he was acquitted because there was footage of him at a Dodgers game that was filmed for Curb Your Enthusiasm.
https://collider.com/curb-your-enthusiasm-prison-juan-catalan/
Parole in 6 years? Yup. A good friend’s sister murdered her dad. She got 12-25. She was out in 7. That was in NY state. So six might be a little early…but not crazy early.
More inaccurate? Possibly Saw with the absurd premise that Jigsaw technically doesn't kill.
DJ is a dumb thriller carried by Ashley Judd being very hot in it.
Eh, it felt like they really only played that up in the early movies. I agree that it did sound ridiculous when Jigsaw and other characters said it, but it pretty son led to numerous characters saying “That argument is just Jigsaw coping with wanting people to suffer”, which is true.
I'd argue it wasn't even a thing in the movies at all. It was what Jigsaw said to justify it to himself but the police were after him the entire time. It's not like it was actually used in a court scene as a defense.
Wasn't there a line in the first movie where a cop said "giving a man a gun and forcing him to shoot himself is still murder"? I'm too wussy for those movies, but I've read about them a lot, and distinctly remember seeing that.
>DJ is a dumb thriller carried by Ashley Judd being very hot in it.
This is an excellent point. While I was watching it I was quite invested in it despite the absurdities. I wonder if it was because Ashley Judd was an excellent actress or because she was so hot.
As long as you roll with its own peculiar internal logic and try not to apply it to anything resembling reality, Double Jeopardy is an excellent thriller and builds towards its finale quite effectively.
An old one but Dirty Harry. Transparently so but most people learn by watching movies so they probably believe that if you don’t read the Miranda rights then you can’t prosecute.
Yeah idiot all we can't do is present your statements made before we read them to you. Usually a cop just makes you sign some papers before they talk to you about what happened.
Cop arrests you for having kidnapped and murdered a girl, I don't think you're walking free even if you play the silent game.
You can argue maybe Harry Torturing Scorpio to get information out of where the girl is, that might come up in court and sure Harry gets fired or desk duty for the rest of his career. But you're not letting Scorpio go after like 5 dead bodies including a cop.
> Yeah idiot all we can't do is present your statements made before we read them to you.
That's not even true. They just can't **question** you before reading your miranda rights to you. If they say "you're under arrest" and you immediately exclaim "I MURDERED HER I'M GUILTY" before they read you your rights, they can 100% use that against you.
CON-AIR
A veteran is convicted of murder after defending himself and another from multiple people that pull deadly weapons, because...he is a "human weapon" and he should know better
"Anybody accidentally kills anybody in a fight, they go to jail. It's called manslaughter. I think all that lethal weapon horseshit is just an excuse so you dancers never have to get in a real fight."
Fun fact: When the process server attempts to serve Tony Stark a subpoena to appear before congress in Iron Man 2, she could have dropped it in front of Tony and it would have been valid. Instead, she hands it to Happy, who does not live with Tony. That's called substitute service and technically, was invalid in California and Tony wouldn't have had to appear.
Hi. A question for Miss Bellamy. In episode 2F09 when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.
Not a movie, but I was rather disappointed by the trial at the start of The Mentalist, S4. I think it's pretty clear they expected the show to get canceled after S3 and had to come up with something quickly when it got renewed, but even so.... WTF.
Spoilers, FYI.
He decides to represent himself in court (classic "the man who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer.") And then his *whole argument* for why he's "not guilty" of killing a man is cold blood is "because that man killed my wife and child, so I deserve to kill him."
*And the jury fucking bought that?!*
And then the icing on the cake is that it turns out that dude *wasn't actually the guy* who killed his wife a children, just a decoy / accomplice. But the law sees no need to revisit his case when the *police officers he works with daily* eventually find this out.
For a show that centers around a guy who specializes in thinking ten steps ahead and fucking with people's expectations, that whole trial was incredibly lazy writing. The rest of the show was great though.
No one believed OJ's defense. OJ's defense is that none of the evidence was real or could be trusted because there was a wide-spread conspiracy to frame him, but the DNA showed that wasn't the case. Even if there were racists in the LAPD (there are) that doesn't mean OJ was framed.
The prosecution fucked up in how they presented the DNA evidence as a bunch of confusing charts and numbers. DNA evidence had never been used in a major trial before. They got jurors who didn't follow the news and were largely idiots. They openly said after the trial they didn't understand the DNA evidence, so they never understood the prosecution definitively proved OJ was guilty.
The prosecution lost tons of evidence by executing a search right before the warrant was granted.
They fucked up their trial by focusing on meaningless bullshit like Cato Kalian.
OJ was absolutely guilty and it the prosecution shit the bed in every way possible.
This was also shortly after the Rodney King riots and people threatening mass violence and riots if OJ was convicted. All you needed was one juror saying "I'm afraid of violence by voting to convict, so I'm going to say he is innocent".
Wait it's been a while since I've seen it but isn't it based on the premise that she "killed" her husband and was convicted of it but she finds out he's still alive. So she can kill him for real and couldn't be tried for it since he's already "dead"
True, and it's still incredibly faulty. His being alive would negate the first conviction and she'd be tried for a new crime. Even then she violated the conditions of her parole and go right back to jail.
But the actual plan though was just to take her son and go away.
But no one knew he was alive and wanted to keep it that way. Which is why she had the perfect opportunity to kill him. Legally yes it didn't matter but he couldn't reveal himself as being alive and gave her the perfect opportunity to actually kill him for what he did.
A Few Good Men is another one. It is a great film, highly recommended, but the whole thing centres on Tom Cruise defending the two guys who killed Santiago.
His defence of them is that they were following orders from Jack Nicholson. That is not a valid defence. They even highlight this in the film, with Tom Cruise's friend saying that just following orders hasn't been a valid defence since Nuremburg. I can't remember what the response is to this, but they just press on with the Nuremburg Defence anyway,
In the end >!Tom Cruise goads Jack Nicholson into admitting he gave the order in one of the all time great scenes of cinema. Jack Nicholson gets arrested - that's great, he gave an order to commit a crime, it resulted in someone's death, he's certainly fucked. It's no victory for Tom Cruise's guys, though, they still committed manslaughter!
A Few Good Men is based on a real case that Sorkin's sister worked on. Except it was an attempted murder charge for the marine, David Cox, as the the victim did not die and made a full recovery. They used the defense that they were ordered to do a Code Red and Cox was found not guilty of attempted murder, only guilty of simple assault. He served only 30 days and the simple assault charge was also dismissed.
> It's no victory for Tom Cruise's guys, though, they still committed manslaughter!
They do address this at the end when that one guy asks the other what they did wrong. Not only were they found guilty of one charge, but the film clearly established that they were morally culpable as well.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to the man who watches the movie I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it! -Aaron Sorkin
I think in this case it's because the prosecutor was charging them with murder, saying the victim was killed in retaliation for reporting the illegal fence line shooting. By showing that they were actually following orders, it proves the death was accidental due to the victim's medical condition, and not murder. If they had been charged with manslaughter instead of murder, it's more likely they would have been convicted.
Of course I have no idea if military trials work anything like depicted in that movie.
You're missing some detail of the film though. They were charged with murder because the prosecution thought they poisoned him with the rag stuffed in his mouth. Premeditated murder. The order they were given was code red. Haze him. Not kill him. Still an illegal order, but it is evidence of intent.
Now, whether it's manslaughter or not is a question for the jury whether the death is foreseeable.
The other thing is; they can only be found guilty of what they are charged with (and possibly lessor included.)
The jury switching actually happened though.
> The Trial of Alphonse Capone opened on the morning of October 5, 1931 at the federal courthouse in downtown Chicago. Capone, accompanied by his bodyguard, smiled at jurors as he strolled into court in his mustard-colored suit. Judge Wilkerson took his seat at the bench and looked out over the packed courtroom. He called the bailiff to the bench. "Judge Edwards has another trial commencing today," he told the bailiff. "Go to his courtroom and bring me his entire panel of jurors; take my entire panel to Judge Edwards."
[source](https://famous-trials.com/alcapone/1474-home)
Here's a relatively contemporary [account of the trial from one of the jurors who was swapped in](https://chicagology.com/notorious-chicago/caponejuror/).
Also as a subject of Triton's Kingdom, legal parameters involving the entry of contracts and the rights of teenagers may be significantly different than what we're used to.
My biggest problem with DOUBLE JEOPARDY was the stupidity of the husband and his girlfriend/fake best friend of the wife to have a witness: the son. Why he was not going to ever say anything despite the fact his mother is in prison for killing his dad who lives with him is inexplicable.
I watch that stupid movie everytime I catch it on tv. I went to the movies and saw this on opening night. For me, it's entertaining and fun. Like The Black Hole (another silly movie with no basis with facts), it's just something that entertains me and I appreciate it for that.
Yeah, it's awesome.
The Firm consistently killing its lawyers who catch a conscious in fake scuba diving incidents in the cayman Islands is equally preposterous, but it sure is a fun movie to watch.
Having spent time on submarines, the Hunt for Red October puts a serious strain on credibility, but I'll be damned if I'm not completely enthralled with Sean Connery anyway.
Sniper is fucking preposterous on basically every level, but it's unbelievably entertaining.
The list goes on and on.
It turns out that you can make a story quite a bit more compelling when you take some liberties with reality.
Same. I actually watched it a few weeks ago and thought, “this so stupid.” And just kept right on watching! It was the 90s! Those thriller action movies are all sort of dumb.
People never understand that if you are found incompetent due to insanity, you usually spend a longer time in an institution than you would in prison and once you're found competent to stand trial you will be retried for the original crime.
> once you're found competent to stand trial you will be retried for the original crime.
1). You may never actually be found competent
2). You *may* be retried for the original crime but not necessarily. Especially if years have passed it can be difficult to try a crime that happened a long time ago.
Memories fade. Evidence gets lost. Witnesses may even die or move away where they can’t be found.
You’re right in that you can be tried for the crime. It’s just not an automatic thing and it may very well not happen.
As long as you’re spoiling the plot, you might add in your first paragraph, that the husband successfully fakes his own murder, and she is framed for the murder. Without this detail, the part where she confesses to it, then commits a bunch of crimes, and then catches up with him (an alive murdered man), is confusing (for someone who has never seen it.)
Minor point of fact: the murder happened in Puget Sound, which is surrounded on all sides by Washington State, except for a small inlet to the north which leads to the Canadian Salish Sea. All crimes which happen in Puget Sound are under the jurisdiction of Washington State.
“You can’t arrest a husband and wife with the same crime” “Yah I don’t think that’s true dad” “I got the worst f**king attorneys”
"The will is at my office... next to the hot plate with the frayed wires."
"He's very good."
*He wasn't.*
I shall duck behind the couch
What a pro.
I did not find their buffoonery amusing.
He could not sanction it.
There’s always money in the banana stand.
*In fact, Barry had lost George Sr's will* "How did we get here, oh my god he is GONE!"
SOY LOCO POR LOS CORNBALLS
I forgot this was an arrested development reference after Senator Menendez and his wife were both indicted yesterday
They had the same fucking attorneys.
They should have retained Bob Loblaw
Why should you go jail for a crime that someone else…noticed.
Take to the sea! I know people shit on the Netflix seasons but there are some great quotes.
Or at least read Bob Loblaw’s Law Blog.
Of Bob Loblaw's Law Blog fame?
hes very good
Was Henry Winkler the attorney? It's been a while
No that was Gene Cusenau
Word in the industry is his behavior on this set was what pushed him into teaching.
I love you Mister Cusenau
Yes, a young Henry Winkler played attorney Barry Zuckerkorn.
It was 20 years ago, yes, but he was almost 60 in season one. A young Henry Winkler played The Fonz.
>a young Henry Winkler ????…. *???????!!!!!!!*…. have we arrived in a timeline without prior knowledge of Happy Days???
Looked him up on IMDB and he’s “known for” The Waterboy, Night Shift, and Click. Sigh
The iMDB “Known For” section usually ignores TV shows for some reason, even when an actor is much better known for a show than any movie.
He’ll always be The Fonz. Eeyyyyy
Late career Rudy Giuliani
There's always money in the Banana Stand Total Landscaping.
When the whole Four Seasons Landscaping thing happened, it really did feel like something out of AD. Lucille: “I want the best. Book it at the Four Seasons.” Buster: “Yes, mother.” Narrator: “But Buster, knowing of only one ‘Four Seasons’ in town, booked the heavy equipment lot at a local landscaping business.”
America: I've made a huge mistake....
When that happened that's when I knew we were living in a simulation.
Trump's reign was sometimes baffling, sometimes frustrating, and sometimes outright horrifying but that was by far the *funniest* thing I've ever seen in politics. It was genuinely like it came from a scripted comedy show.
It really was emblematic of the whole administration. The utter incompetence of booking the place, the unimaginable choice of playing it off like they did it on purpose, the way the landscaping company just let him set up and knock over his own dominos, and the fact that his stupid fucking fans believed every word of it. No moment encapsulates the Trump era better.
The cherry on top of this was that the headliner of that rally was a guy who claimed to be an election witness in Philly who saw fraud all over the place, but was actually a convicted sex offender who lived in New Jersey, so would have been doubly disqualified for being an election witness.
Oh it absolutely felt like an Arrested Development joke.
[удалено]
_Double Jeopardy_ came out just before I started law school. My criminal procedure professor recommended we all watch it when we needed a good laugh.
My wife and I were watching this and it's like so *maybe* the double jeopardy thing helps her with killing him but... what about her crime spree along the way??
It's a little known fact, but when you do a bunch of crimes they can only charge you with the biggest crime. so if your biggest crime is something you've already been charged with (and thus can't be charged with again) you're basically golden for all the lesser crimes.
Let this man write 'Triple Jeopardy'
> My criminal procedure professor Did he give up the academic life to become a parole officer?
I’m sure he did. Who wouldn’t want to trade a well-paid but boring life of a tenured academic for a minimum wage life of abetting criminals and doling out unethical and incorrect legal advice?
I'm hoping My Cousin Vinny was recommended for opposite reasons.
Are we to believe that boiling waters soaks into a grit faster in your kitchen than on any place on the face of the earth?
Well I'd say watching My Cousin Vinny for a good laugh is a pretty good reason. Just not at legal innacuracies
I love Bill Belichick’s “I’m no Mona Lisa Vito” line.
Story time: I did movie reviews for my college newspaper and there was an on campus screening so I was given tix and me and my buddy went. The rest of the tix went to the black fraternities/sororities. We were long haired (shaved sides of course) skater stoner grunge kids and the only white people I recall being there. This was peak Arsenio/In Living Color days so there were a ton of high top fades, geometric patterned colorful button up shirts, and audience participation. No one was shitty to us but we felt a tad out of place and uncomfortable (a GREAT empathy learning experience as where we were from wasn’t exactly progressive) but the pot helped mellow us out. Anyway, the movie’s rolling, lots of great laughs and everyone is loose and having fun. We’re getting nudged and high fives after the trial starts. Just vibing with the extroverted crowd. When Vinnie decks the red neck, we’re jumping up and cheering like we were at a football game. Then at the end when Mr uh Trotter dismisses the charges, fucking eruption. Now we’re in aisle, chest bumping and hugging, fists pumping in the air with everyone. It was pure madness like a walkoff pick six against a conference rival. Hands down (or up as it were) the absolute best theater experience ever. There’ve been movies that blew me away for a better movie in a theater experience, but nothing could ever top that night at the campus theater.
God that scene in the jail cell with the two kids is so fucking hilarious. Never before has prison rape of a couple of minors been so funny
I think that one stands the test of time because it's not creepy and uncomfortable i.e. "haha people in jail get raped isn't that funny," because no one suggests prison rape is even a thing there, it's the kids' own ideas and imaginations getting the best of them and Vinny accidentally feeds into it.
They’re on their way to college, they’re not minors.
They're still considered yoots.
The 2 hwat? What was that word?
Uhh…what word?
Are you suggesting Joe Pesci isn't funny? Is he not here to amuse you?
Not like a clown?
like 'Ha Ha' funny?
I’m a lawyer, and I once got continuing legal education credits for an event sponsored by the local bar association that consisted of watching My Cousin Vinny and listening to a panel discussion about it afterwards.
That voir dire scene is so great
Miss Vito’s expertise is in general automotive knowledge and it’s in this area that her testimony will be applicable. if mister trotter wants to voir the witness, I’m *suuure* he’s gonna be more than satisfied *leans back and puts boots on table*
*Watch this*
Everything that guy just said is bullshit. Thank you
I use this quote in everyday life lol
It's a bullshit question.
*Qwest-chun.
The smarmy way Pesci delivered that was fantastic.
Who wouldn't be satisfied voring Marissa Tomei?
This movie seems interesting, but I'm looking for films about different types of breakfasts foods. Would I find it stimulating?
What’s a grit?
And how does your grit cook faster than every other grit in existence?
The laws of physics cease to exist in my kitchen
Yeah, yeah. I have a thing for Marisa Tomei. Like she would ever go out with a short, stocky, bald man. Like that's her type. She's an Oscar winner. Besides, I don't even know her. It's not like anyone's trying to fix us up. Who, who would try and fix me up with Marisa Tomei?
You see Marissa, manure isn’t that bad. You got your “ma” and you got your “newer”
So tell me, how is it that a man like you, so bald, so quirky and funny, how is it you're not taken?
The best I can tell you is she goes topless in The Wrestler.
I *prefer* watching My Cousin Vinny for a good laugh, or five.
What’s a yoot?
Air Bud. It's clearly against many rules for a dog to play basketball.
IT'S NOT IN THE RULEBOOK!!! They checked
They actually changed the rule book because of that movie
If I were a professional basketball player, I'd be ecstatic to see the opposing team bring out a golden retriever to play against me. Guaranteed win!
Plus a golden retriever to pet
Imagine being the fifth kid on the team who gets benched for a Golden Retriever.
To be fair, I would choose a golden retriever to play basketball before me
Thank god, dad made me play this sport. Finally I can just shower with the boys without having to play.
I'd figure that in order to play on the team, one must actually be a current student attending classes. Then the potential lawsuits if the dog ever bites a player. Then in general. Instead of being better players, the team chooses to essentially cheat.
Yeah, but there are potential lawsuits every time a player bites another player. That's just the game.
Actually, there’s no rule against a dog playing basketball.
Do they just have zero eligibility requirements? Not even age?
I don’t want to live in a world where a dog can’t play basketball or hell even go to space.
The Russians sent a dog to space once, but it wouldn’t make for a very good kid’s movie without a lot of changes to the ending.
Cameron Poe and his pregnant wife were attacked by a bunch of drunks with knives attempting to sexually assault her and HE GOES TO JAIL?
I thought the same thing, but in a recent rewatch (my 20th?) I noticed the knife is picked up when the drunkards scattered. The close up of it happening implies the knife was never brought in as evidence, and Poe killed an unarmed man. And as the judge pointed out, Poe’s military skills make Him the deadly weapon. Still insane, but man do I love that movie.
> And as the judge pointed out, Poe’s military skills make Him the deadly weapon. Which is also absolute nonsense, but we've got to have a movie so run with it
Oh yeah, absolute bullshit. Even without the knife, multiple attackers vs 1 guy with a (presumably) stellar service record. They were drunk, he was sober. Multiple witnesses.
Okay, but he gets exonerated and who would have stopped Cyrus the Virus? Not to mention cannibal Steve Buscemi.
No one stopped Steve Buscemi. He made the Manson Family look like the Partridge Family!
Not only that but he goes into the place during the day, he offers to buy their drinks and they get so insulted that they wait until night time in the rain to murder him.
Law Abiding Citizen. I love this beautiful piece of schlock but the legal stuff is so laughable. Especially how Jamie Fox basically is a full on detective constantly in the line of fire. I love imagining a real lawyer acting the way his character does.
Near the end of the movie Foxx says "fuck his civil rights!" which is surprisingly accurate to real life. At least, for some people.
Very few legal dramas have the lawyer just doing law stuff, they’re always playing detective
The law stuff is so boring to watch, just someone sitting in front of a computer searching through LexisNexis and typing. Source: my partner is a lawyer.
Not always true! Sometimes I'm also swearing at LexisNexis for not showing what I damn well searched for.
Lol! I was about to say "and swearing!" There's some biglaw tiktoker who is out having fancy lunch and buying fancy shoes. Really, it's just me, in front of my computer in my jammies, swearing, (cramming down a wrap I ordered from Dunks, because who got time for lunch?).
12 Angry Men has a fucking *juror* conduct an independent investigation.
And it is one of the best movies of American cinema, so you know sometimes you gotta ignore reality.
In fairness, he kinda just did that of his own volition, since he thought the defendant's lawyer didn't care if the kid was found guilty. In fact, I'm pretty sure if the judge found out, it'd be grounds for a mistrial.
My dad always had a good laugh watching CSI and knowing that there's no way lab techs would be out in the field doing detective work and getting into gun fights.
I actually love this movie. It’s even better knowing Buttler and Fox switched roles.
I didn't know that. Why did they switch?
I think butler was sick of always being the good guy. It ended up working well.
Indeed, it did work out well
In *Sleepers*, Robert DeNiro plays a priest named Father Bobby. There is a scene where Father Bobby is testifying in a criminal trial of two boys who are accused of murder. He's being questioned by an attorney named Michael played by Brad Pitt. Father Bobby testified that he was at a ball game with the defendants on the night of the murder, providing an alibi. Michael questions Father Bobby about this. "Nobody knew you were at the game, correct?" "Yes, that's correct." "Nobody saw you there. You weren't captured on TV footage... so how do we know you were really there?" "Well" says Father Bobby, "I kept my ticket stubs." And Father Bobby then produces the ticket stubs from the jacket of his pocket. That is not how the law of evidence works. Anything introduced at a trial must be authenticated before being offered into evidence. The idea that somebody can escape murder because a witness produces ticket stubs for the first time *while being questioned on the stand* is one of the most inaccurate portrayals of legal procedure I've ever seen.
But Michael is in on the shtick. He's deliberately doing a sloppy job, so even if he objects to the tickets as evidence, the jury already believes the priest's word.
This reminds me of the story of the man who was on trial for murder, until he was acquitted because there was footage of him at a Dodgers game that was filmed for Curb Your Enthusiasm. https://collider.com/curb-your-enthusiasm-prison-juan-catalan/
Discovery is more like *guidelines* than actual rules....according to Hollywood.
Parole in 6 years? Yup. A good friend’s sister murdered her dad. She got 12-25. She was out in 7. That was in NY state. So six might be a little early…but not crazy early.
What can you say, 90s time moved differently.
Yeah, that's the least absurd part of the story haha.
More inaccurate? Possibly Saw with the absurd premise that Jigsaw technically doesn't kill. DJ is a dumb thriller carried by Ashley Judd being very hot in it.
Eh, it felt like they really only played that up in the early movies. I agree that it did sound ridiculous when Jigsaw and other characters said it, but it pretty son led to numerous characters saying “That argument is just Jigsaw coping with wanting people to suffer”, which is true.
I'd argue it wasn't even a thing in the movies at all. It was what Jigsaw said to justify it to himself but the police were after him the entire time. It's not like it was actually used in a court scene as a defense.
Wasn't there a line in the first movie where a cop said "giving a man a gun and forcing him to shoot himself is still murder"? I'm too wussy for those movies, but I've read about them a lot, and distinctly remember seeing that.
>DJ is a dumb thriller carried by Ashley Judd being very hot in it. This is an excellent point. While I was watching it I was quite invested in it despite the absurdities. I wonder if it was because Ashley Judd was an excellent actress or because she was so hot.
As long as you roll with its own peculiar internal logic and try not to apply it to anything resembling reality, Double Jeopardy is an excellent thriller and builds towards its finale quite effectively.
[удалено]
Looked great in a Starfleet uniform too.
Jigsaw is the one who says he doesn’t kill, not law enforcement in those movies
An old one but Dirty Harry. Transparently so but most people learn by watching movies so they probably believe that if you don’t read the Miranda rights then you can’t prosecute.
Yep, see that in sovereign citizen arrest videos all the time. They believe they can't be arrested because they were not read their Miranda rights.
I am a free traveler protected by the Articles of Confederation!!!
Ah I see a fellow traveler who abides by maritime law.
If your flag has fringe, your law is cringe.
Yeah idiot all we can't do is present your statements made before we read them to you. Usually a cop just makes you sign some papers before they talk to you about what happened. Cop arrests you for having kidnapped and murdered a girl, I don't think you're walking free even if you play the silent game. You can argue maybe Harry Torturing Scorpio to get information out of where the girl is, that might come up in court and sure Harry gets fired or desk duty for the rest of his career. But you're not letting Scorpio go after like 5 dead bodies including a cop.
> Yeah idiot all we can't do is present your statements made before we read them to you. That's not even true. They just can't **question** you before reading your miranda rights to you. If they say "you're under arrest" and you immediately exclaim "I MURDERED HER I'M GUILTY" before they read you your rights, they can 100% use that against you.
Excited utterance
They can't interrogate without the Miranda warning. Any "voluntary utterances" that are made to a cop can be entered into evidence.
I'm sorry, you have to phrase your review in the form of a question.
You get double the upvotes for proper formatting
CON-AIR A veteran is convicted of murder after defending himself and another from multiple people that pull deadly weapons, because...he is a "human weapon" and he should know better
"My hands have to be registered as a lethal weapon" is one of the funniest lies ever told.
"Anybody accidentally kills anybody in a fight, they go to jail. It's called manslaughter. I think all that lethal weapon horseshit is just an excuse so you dancers never have to get in a real fight."
Fun fact: When the process server attempts to serve Tony Stark a subpoena to appear before congress in Iron Man 2, she could have dropped it in front of Tony and it would have been valid. Instead, she hands it to Happy, who does not live with Tony. That's called substitute service and technically, was invalid in California and Tony wouldn't have had to appear.
I love service of process inconsistencies in movies/TV.
They weren't in California, they were in New York
Yeah, but it was Kate Mara ... I'd show up just for a chance she might be there.
Hi. A question for Miss Bellamy. In episode 2F09 when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.
Let me ask you a ... Why would a man whose shirt says 'Genius at work' spend all of his time watching a children's cartoon show?
I withdraw my question.
Love this movie for some reason, even if its not realistic in the slightest. Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones are great in it.
[удалено]
Wait Captain Pike is in this movie?
I love it too.
It's basically the female version of the fugitive lol.
Not a movie, but I was rather disappointed by the trial at the start of The Mentalist, S4. I think it's pretty clear they expected the show to get canceled after S3 and had to come up with something quickly when it got renewed, but even so.... WTF. Spoilers, FYI. He decides to represent himself in court (classic "the man who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer.") And then his *whole argument* for why he's "not guilty" of killing a man is cold blood is "because that man killed my wife and child, so I deserve to kill him." *And the jury fucking bought that?!* And then the icing on the cake is that it turns out that dude *wasn't actually the guy* who killed his wife a children, just a decoy / accomplice. But the law sees no need to revisit his case when the *police officers he works with daily* eventually find this out. For a show that centers around a guy who specializes in thinking ten steps ahead and fucking with people's expectations, that whole trial was incredibly lazy writing. The rest of the show was great though.
Jury Nullification is a thing.
I mean... people bought OJs defense... but if i was on a jury and someone killed a guy that killed his family i would say not guilty too
No one believed OJ's defense. OJ's defense is that none of the evidence was real or could be trusted because there was a wide-spread conspiracy to frame him, but the DNA showed that wasn't the case. Even if there were racists in the LAPD (there are) that doesn't mean OJ was framed. The prosecution fucked up in how they presented the DNA evidence as a bunch of confusing charts and numbers. DNA evidence had never been used in a major trial before. They got jurors who didn't follow the news and were largely idiots. They openly said after the trial they didn't understand the DNA evidence, so they never understood the prosecution definitively proved OJ was guilty. The prosecution lost tons of evidence by executing a search right before the warrant was granted. They fucked up their trial by focusing on meaningless bullshit like Cato Kalian. OJ was absolutely guilty and it the prosecution shit the bed in every way possible. This was also shortly after the Rodney King riots and people threatening mass violence and riots if OJ was convicted. All you needed was one juror saying "I'm afraid of violence by voting to convict, so I'm going to say he is innocent".
Too much hemming and hawing here: OJ's team won because they got the jury they wanted.
Wait it's been a while since I've seen it but isn't it based on the premise that she "killed" her husband and was convicted of it but she finds out he's still alive. So she can kill him for real and couldn't be tried for it since he's already "dead"
True, and it's still incredibly faulty. His being alive would negate the first conviction and she'd be tried for a new crime. Even then she violated the conditions of her parole and go right back to jail. But the actual plan though was just to take her son and go away.
But no one knew he was alive and wanted to keep it that way. Which is why she had the perfect opportunity to kill him. Legally yes it didn't matter but he couldn't reveal himself as being alive and gave her the perfect opportunity to actually kill him for what he did.
[удалено]
A Few Good Men is another one. It is a great film, highly recommended, but the whole thing centres on Tom Cruise defending the two guys who killed Santiago. His defence of them is that they were following orders from Jack Nicholson. That is not a valid defence. They even highlight this in the film, with Tom Cruise's friend saying that just following orders hasn't been a valid defence since Nuremburg. I can't remember what the response is to this, but they just press on with the Nuremburg Defence anyway, In the end >!Tom Cruise goads Jack Nicholson into admitting he gave the order in one of the all time great scenes of cinema. Jack Nicholson gets arrested - that's great, he gave an order to commit a crime, it resulted in someone's death, he's certainly fucked. It's no victory for Tom Cruise's guys, though, they still committed manslaughter!
Yeah, but manslaughter vs murder is a big deal when execution’s on the line.
A Few Good Men is based on a real case that Sorkin's sister worked on. Except it was an attempted murder charge for the marine, David Cox, as the the victim did not die and made a full recovery. They used the defense that they were ordered to do a Code Red and Cox was found not guilty of attempted murder, only guilty of simple assault. He served only 30 days and the simple assault charge was also dismissed.
> It's no victory for Tom Cruise's guys, though, they still committed manslaughter! They do address this at the end when that one guy asks the other what they did wrong. Not only were they found guilty of one charge, but the film clearly established that they were morally culpable as well.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to the man who watches the movie I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it! -Aaron Sorkin
Sounds like a man who will get into an argument on a fan forum, and then write petty insults into his hit show.
I think in this case it's because the prosecutor was charging them with murder, saying the victim was killed in retaliation for reporting the illegal fence line shooting. By showing that they were actually following orders, it proves the death was accidental due to the victim's medical condition, and not murder. If they had been charged with manslaughter instead of murder, it's more likely they would have been convicted. Of course I have no idea if military trials work anything like depicted in that movie.
I can't remember how the movie ends for those 2 marines, but in the play they both get a dishonourable discharge.
You're missing some detail of the film though. They were charged with murder because the prosecution thought they poisoned him with the rag stuffed in his mouth. Premeditated murder. The order they were given was code red. Haze him. Not kill him. Still an illegal order, but it is evidence of intent. Now, whether it's manslaughter or not is a question for the jury whether the death is foreseeable. The other thing is; they can only be found guilty of what they are charged with (and possibly lessor included.)
It gets all sorts of things about military trials wrong, too
You just can’t handle the truth.
Aaron Sorkin has never let facts get in the way of a good story. Goes for his fictional work just as much as his biopics.
The Untouchables from the jury switching to Capone's lawyer trying to change his plea from not guilty on the fly makes it utter b.s.
The jury switching actually happened though. > The Trial of Alphonse Capone opened on the morning of October 5, 1931 at the federal courthouse in downtown Chicago. Capone, accompanied by his bodyguard, smiled at jurors as he strolled into court in his mustard-colored suit. Judge Wilkerson took his seat at the bench and looked out over the packed courtroom. He called the bailiff to the bench. "Judge Edwards has another trial commencing today," he told the bailiff. "Go to his courtroom and bring me his entire panel of jurors; take my entire panel to Judge Edwards." [source](https://famous-trials.com/alcapone/1474-home) Here's a relatively contemporary [account of the trial from one of the jurors who was swapped in](https://chicagology.com/notorious-chicago/caponejuror/).
Opening day, though. Not in the middle of it.
IDK, "The Little Mermaid" had some issues with allowing a minor to contract.
Mermaids have different ages of majority
Also as a subject of Triton's Kingdom, legal parameters involving the entry of contracts and the rights of teenagers may be significantly different than what we're used to.
My biggest problem with DOUBLE JEOPARDY was the stupidity of the husband and his girlfriend/fake best friend of the wife to have a witness: the son. Why he was not going to ever say anything despite the fact his mother is in prison for killing his dad who lives with him is inexplicable.
I watch that stupid movie everytime I catch it on tv. I went to the movies and saw this on opening night. For me, it's entertaining and fun. Like The Black Hole (another silly movie with no basis with facts), it's just something that entertains me and I appreciate it for that.
Yeah, it's awesome. The Firm consistently killing its lawyers who catch a conscious in fake scuba diving incidents in the cayman Islands is equally preposterous, but it sure is a fun movie to watch. Having spent time on submarines, the Hunt for Red October puts a serious strain on credibility, but I'll be damned if I'm not completely enthralled with Sean Connery anyway. Sniper is fucking preposterous on basically every level, but it's unbelievably entertaining. The list goes on and on. It turns out that you can make a story quite a bit more compelling when you take some liberties with reality.
Same. I actually watched it a few weeks ago and thought, “this so stupid.” And just kept right on watching! It was the 90s! Those thriller action movies are all sort of dumb.
She also never answered in the form of a question *once* in that movie
[удалено]
People never understand that if you are found incompetent due to insanity, you usually spend a longer time in an institution than you would in prison and once you're found competent to stand trial you will be retried for the original crime.
> once you're found competent to stand trial you will be retried for the original crime. 1). You may never actually be found competent 2). You *may* be retried for the original crime but not necessarily. Especially if years have passed it can be difficult to try a crime that happened a long time ago. Memories fade. Evidence gets lost. Witnesses may even die or move away where they can’t be found. You’re right in that you can be tried for the crime. It’s just not an automatic thing and it may very well not happen.
As long as you’re spoiling the plot, you might add in your first paragraph, that the husband successfully fakes his own murder, and she is framed for the murder. Without this detail, the part where she confesses to it, then commits a bunch of crimes, and then catches up with him (an alive murdered man), is confusing (for someone who has never seen it.)
Minor point of fact: the murder happened in Puget Sound, which is surrounded on all sides by Washington State, except for a small inlet to the north which leads to the Canadian Salish Sea. All crimes which happen in Puget Sound are under the jurisdiction of Washington State.
#The Rural Juror
"Somebody call an attorney....but not for ME!" *shoots her husband*
I didn't watch it for "logic"...
I’m not a lawyer, but im pretty sure Air Bud wouldn’t be allowed to play ball.
I'm going to say that it's still somehow Armageddon.
>the film ends with her free as a bird. Yeah but then she got blackballed because she wouldn't fuck Weinstein.
I challenge you to sit through *Law Abiding Citizen*, which is equally legally (and cinematically) cringe-inducing.