"Deception" - It WAS a righteous shoot!!!
Pete B.
episode and exonerate Mikey completely. Stivers set the mess in motion with
her calling in the Homicide team on the death of the Nigerian courier. I
found it amusing that they were investigating the death of an otherwise
healthy looking traveler from Africa without any face masks in a era of
Ebola (jeez - EMT's 'round here suit up in armor because of AIDS and
hepatitis these days) . . .
Then we have Gee putting forth the bright idea of putting baking soda in the
stash. Isn't shooting up with baking soda likely to kill a lot of junkies?
Never mind that the female USDA quite correctly said there would be a blood
bath as a result. Mikey had nothing to do with any of these Machiavellian
plots though he ended up taking almost all the heat for it. But let's just
move onto Meldrick taking a shot at Luther, then, knowing his gun has
jammed, not clearing the jam, holstering the jammed weapon insecurely and
then going for a kick fest with Luther till his gun gets "took." When Mikey
arrived he really didn't even have to give Luther a warning when he had a
bead on his head. That courtesy could have cost Meldrick his life right
then and there.
Luther had very obviously racked the slide back and cleared the jam. Luther
never said nor indicated to Mikey he was surrendering. He asked, "Watcha
gonna do?" I was watching the angle of the gun and how it waved up and
down, clearly NEVER, NEVER, EVER at his side pointing completely downwards.
Mikey ordered him FOUR times to drop the gun and Luther refused. Not once,
not twice, but FOUR freaking times. Luther refused to comply. Then, as
Mikey started the Miranda warning Luther began to laugh hysterically and
although he appeared he might be raising his hands to surrender that
freakin' gun was coming up and in the direction of Meldrick. That gun was
coming up and it was coming up aimed at Meldrick when Mikey shot.
They all knew Luther was snake and a multiple murderer and what he was
capable of. In fact, as Luther went down after the shot his gun waved all
over the place, and even briefly pointed at Mikey. Mikey saw the gun moving
up, I saw the gun moving up and Luther, laughing like a madman, with his
empire in ruins, might be entirely capable of a suicidal move like shooting
Meldrick, even with Stiver and Mikey there. This was also pursuit of the
hottest kind. I've talked this over with a number of cop friends and their
take is the same. Luther would die every time. Most of them would have put
more than one bullet in him, too. Remember, the Pope took three 9mm slugs
to the gut and lived.
You tell a known, cold-blooded killer who just made a death threat against
your partner ("you're a ghost") to drop the gun but the gun moves upward
instead to threaten your life or anyone else's, you have the right if not
the obligation to put him down. The reaction times of human beings don't
allow for any other safe outcomes. It's even done routinely and justifiably
with assailants armed with only knives. I'd rather live with the death of
Luther on my conscience than the death of my partner.
For Meldrick to "diss" Mikey in future eps after saving his life like that
is inconceivable. Meldrick clearly had the "I'm a dead man" look when Mikey
rode in to the rescue. Had Mikey not had the brains to know where Meldrick
went, Meldrick would have been dead. As I said, Mikey could have put one in
Luther's brain upon arrival, no questions asked. It's done all the time in
hostage situations by the sniper teams, sometimes using outright lies and
subterfuge to maneuver the subject into the kill zone.
Stivers' inability to hold her water over this affair really bugged me, too.
She'd never partner with me after telliing her fellow cops she had no
problem with it but then slowly developing one. That says, in 60 point bold
type, "I don't even trust or know myself, so how can anyone trust me as a
partner?" The bloodbath that followed is more correctly laid at her feet,
Gee's feet or Meldrick's feet rather than Mikey's. Stivers' kind of cop
bugs me nearly as much as weepy Mariska on the sex squad. Were she alone
without Mikey, Luther would have popped both her and Meldrick in a New York
second because he knew her and would have known she would hesitate.
Jeez, Louise, this is dirty, dangerous work that requires guts and
determination, not soul-searching.
If you're not careful some perp's likely to send that soul back to its maker
while you're busy examining it for moral defects.
Pete B.
ukrm
"Pete B." wrote:
> Here we go again!
<completely correct argument snipped>
Yep, here we go again. You do realize what you've done, don't you?
--
Shel
RCB
Pete B.
argued this I was working from memory and as we all know, eyewitness
testimony is weak and subjective.
Mikey got the shaft for saving Meldrick's life. Stivers hatched the plot,
Gee sat on the nest and Meldrick flew away with the hatchling while Mikey
looked through birdwatcher's glasses.
Pete B.
ukrm wrote in message <37F0F817...@mindspring.com>...
NDSEB
>Mikey got the shaft for saving Meldrick's life. Stivers hatched the plot,
>Gee sat on the nest and Meldrick flew away with the hatchling while Mikey
>looked through birdwatcher's glasses.
All of what you say is true about Stivers hatching the plot and Meldrick
getting his gun took, etc., etc., etc.
But Mikey pulled the trigger. And it was stone cold blooded murder.
Nina
morpheus
"Pete B." wrote:
>
snipped at places..
>
> Then we have Gee putting forth the bright idea of putting baking soda in the
> stash. Isn't shooting up with baking soda likely to kill a lot of junkies?
> Never mind that the female USDA quite correctly said there would be a blood
> bath as a result. Mikey had nothing to do with any of these Machiavellian
> plots though he ended up taking almost all the heat for it. But let's just
> move onto Meldrick taking a shot at Luther, then, knowing his gun has
> jammed, not clearing the jam, holstering the jammed weapon insecurely and
> then going for a kick fest with Luther till his gun gets "took." When Mikey
> arrived he really didn't even have to give Luther a warning when he had a
> bead on his head. That courtesy could have cost Meldrick his life right
> then and there.
I really don't think the gun jammed. I'm pretty certain that the gun
only held one round (a blank) for safety purposes during the shooting of
the scene. Go back and check something. The camera on Mel shows the gun
empty (barrel back). Then the camera cuts to Luther, then back to Mel
who is still holding the gun in his hand, and the barrel has been
reset. Now look at Mikey's shot. Reed immediately cocks his gun after
his shot because his gun also only contained one round, a blank. If the
gun contained another round, it would have reset itself for firing. But
it didn't, and Reed had to do it himself and did so because it was now
realized by everybody due to the Meldrick scene that automatics have to
be recocked after the last round is spent.
> ... Luther
I didn't see Meldrick havin a problem with Mikey till Mikey started
having his own demons let loose. His behavior got more brash and
reckless concerning anything Mahoney, and since he may have been a bit
shaky in Lewis' mind to start with (clean boat) I can see Lewis' desire
for a bit more distance between them. I do agree it was a justifiable,
if not totally clean shoot. I also agree that in reality, there would
have been no issue made about it by the Dept.
> Stivers' inability to hold her water over this affair really bugged me, too.
> She'd never partner with me after telliing her fellow cops she had no
> problem with it but then slowly developing one. That says, in 60 point bold
> type, "I don't even trust or know myself, so how can anyone trust me as a
> partner?" The bloodbath that followed is more correctly laid at her feet,
> Gee's feet or Meldrick's feet rather than Mikey's. Stivers' kind of cop
> bugs me nearly as much as weepy Mariska on the sex squad. Were she alone
> without Mikey, Luther would have popped both her and Meldrick in a New York
> second because he knew her and would have known she would hesitate.
>
I didn't like Meldrick's line to Mikey about going to Gee immediately if
he had known what was coming (in Mikey's last ep as a cop) because I saw
it as Meldrick blaming Mikey for the whole gig because of the shoot,
instead of Mikey's destructive behavior afterwards, but I also
considered it out of character for Lewis to utter this line and saw it
as a product of the writers tinkering too much.
Stivers part in this bugged me too, and I would have loved to see her
partner with Sheppard. Ms. Lewis may be a better actress than Ms.
Michelle but Sheppard was a much better cop than Stivers.
As an aside, I saw Michelle in that awful Substitute 2 flick, and
thought she showed better chops than she did in Homicide. Had facial
expressions and everything, who'd a thunk it.
Another aside. I just saw an interview with Sassa and Ancier on CNBC.
They said in essence that NBC programming is catered to who the
advertisers want to sell to, as opposed to the best programming they
could create. They said the target was the "upscale 18-49 demographic"
Whenever Ancier was asked a question about the consumer, he always
referred to the consumer as "she". I'm not saying that's bad in any way.
I'm just pointing out his mindset. It certainly cements the notion that
Ancier wants female friendly programming. I'm not sure if he's succeding
in that or not, all I know is that my show ain't on anymore and wish a
large group of irate women would skin him alive and paint Providence
sucks with his blood all over Sassa's office. Then they can write, "Hey
Sassa, we got Ancier and guess what? You nex". Of course a bloody smiley
has to follow....
morph- wants Jr to take NBC downtown
Dave Locke
> Here we go again! With my slowmo video remote I went over that whole
> episode and exonerate Mikey completely. [snip]
A year or more ago several of us argued this to the point where there
simply wasn't anything new to be said. Certainly there's nothing new
here, and beyond that nothing which hasn't already been addressed from
every angle.
If you're interested in viewpoints you probably haven't seen before,
I recommend:
In <http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=351978452> Lynn put forth a good
recap which I commented on.
My own final overview on the matter was in
<http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=406560858> and it breaks through the
walls between what did happen (on film) and what mightabeen (in real
life) and notes how the two are intertwined but slippery if you're not
careful where you're walking. If I had to pick just one post to
express everything I was allowed say about the issue, this would be
the one.
You'll find <http://www.texnews.com/opinion97/pitts111797.html> an
interesting professional article on the topic, described at the Links
site with: "In this 11/17/97 Abilene Reporter-News article, Leonard
Pitts lays out the arguments for and against the 'clean shoot'."
If you're interested...
As for me, been there done that, been there done that, been there done
that, taped off the button on the time machine. There's a lot of good
stuff on the so-called Clean Shoot issue in the Deja.Com archives for
alt.tv.homicide, and also a lot of hairy-chested thumpings which prove
nothing except that certainty is not the test of certitude.
But it's all there, spread out over time, the good and the bad and the
mediocre and the brainless all rolled together in the archives. As
Einstein noted: "People like us, who believe in physics, know that
the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly
persistent illusion." As a fellow believer, I can point you at
Deja.Com (the above links are a good start), knowing that the words
read exactly the same today as they did yesterday, and will still read
the same tomorrow. No need for me to throw the same words in a hopper
and see if I can make them come out in a different order only to say
the same thing...
Fire up your browser, Pete!
--
DaveLockeCorkEarthlingCorkNetCork | Remove the Corks | Caveat Lector
"That is one of several reasons why I didn't like the finale. Seven
years of character history flushed for a tv-friendly moment."
-- TVFan87656, 9/11/99
Pamela Rose
Beau and Stan can be suspended for doing a little public strip tease in
Atlantic City, I think at least a six-month suspension for Mike for
using excessive force wouldn't be such a bad thing.
I don't like the idea that Tim shot Ryland either, and there are plenty
of ways to squirm out of that one, but it's obvious that was the
impression we were meant to be left with. Just like the Luther shoot
was intended to show us a cop stepping over the line. We can kick and
whine all we want about both issues, but the bottom line remains the
same. If you dismiss or deny or excuse the actions, you lose the point
altogether--unpleasant as it may be.
--
Pamela
morpheus
Pamela Rose wrote:
>
> Oh dear. Listen, I love Mikey (and I would've shot Luther, too), but if
> Beau and Stan can be suspended for doing a little public strip tease in
> Atlantic City, I think at least a six-month suspension for Mike for
> using excessive force wouldn't be such a bad thing.
If the shoot were ever questioned, which it wasn't, and a board hearing
decided that Mikey had no reason to believe anybody's life was in
danger, rendering his actions as excessive force, I wouldn't have had
any problem with that at all. It would have been a judgement call by the
board. If the board believed that Luther was still a threat, or that
Mikey was justified in thinking so, they wouldn't have reprimanded him
at all.
> I don't like the idea that Tim shot Ryland either, and there are plenty
> of ways to squirm out of that one, but it's obvious that was the
> impression we were meant to be left with. Just like the Luther shoot
> was intended to show us a cop stepping over the line. We can kick and
> whine all we want about both issues, but the bottom line remains the
> same. If you dismiss or deny or excuse the actions, you lose the point
> altogether--unpleasant as it may be.
>
Well, umm, I think Tim stepped a helluvalot more over that line than
Mikey did. There is the possibility that Mikey thought someone's life
was in danger, and he did tell Lutha to drop the gun many times. If
Lutha had dropped it, and Mike shot him, I'd agree the scene had
definitive intent on showing us a cop going over the line. Since Lutha
didn't, and twitched in a way that could be interpreted as raising the
gun, it's a bit more muddled. Personally, I think Mikey shot him because
he was tired of Luther gettin away with what he always got away with. A
board may not have seen it that way however.
The real issue to me is this. If this had happened in real life (it
never ever does in NYC) and there are no witnesses except other cops,
Mikey is scott free. Period. That's reality, as unpleasant as it may be.
The fact that the show left reality and buckled under the pressure of
being politically correct is what caused them to take Mikey to task for
his actions. They should have let Mikey get away with it. Is it wrong?
Maybe, I'm not judging that. Is it illegal? Yes. Do cops normally get
away with it anyway despite it being illegal? Yes. Can a TV show, that
once prided itself in portraying cops in the real world, show a cop
getting away with it? Apparently not.
morph- who agrees Stan should have been suspended but not Beau, cuz Beau
is so good-looking naked....
Pete B.
>
>Nina
Nah, Nina, it wasn't murder; it was jural homicide, by the book. Luther
could have saved his own life at any time by dropping and not raising the
gun. To be sure of saving Meldrick's life there was no other choice for
Mikey. It happens, I'll bet not just every day, but several times a day in
America where dopeheads, drunks, perverts and whackos come at cops with all
kinds of weapons in an virtually endless stream.
"America suffered the loss of 68 crime fighters this year. As a result,
nearly 100 children mourned the death of a parent; 46 spouses became
widows."
Source: http://www.nleomf.com/News/LineofDuty/lowest.html (National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund)
Want to break your heart? See:
http://www.nleomf.com/News/LineofDuty/balto.htm for a description of how
more than a few Baltimore cops have died in the line of duty.
Did Luther lay down his weapon? No. Did he offer to surrender? No. Did
he wise ass to the cops and act like an unpredictable maniac crackhead in
the midst of a supremely deadly situation? Yes. Did he raise his weapon
after being ordered to drop it four times? Yes. Was he an imminent threat
to the lives of everyone in that room? Beyond a shadow of a doubt. Did he
do everything possible to try to get himself killed? Yes. He forced Mikey
to shoot him, clear and simple.
Cops have walked, no make that skated, on shooting people in the same sort
of situations who were armed with only toy guns. Why do you think the
barrels of toys are all painted red now? Mikey got railed. Without a
doubt. Look at the damage Junior Bunk did with a Glock in matter of
seconds.
A far greater crime occurs daily in this country when innocent people are
killed in car crashes caused by high speed police pursuits involving
misdemeanor crimes like B&E's and speeding. No threat to life is usually
involved in the precipitating event. However the threat to innocent lives
rapidly develops when hyperadrenal cops chase mental midgets (who are often
drunk, stoned or whacked out and clearly untrained in high speed driving)
around at deadly speeds. That's murder. And thank God for all of us most
jurisdictions are redefining and severely limiting the rules governing fast
pursuit.
Mikey was simply doing his job as lots of cops will tell you. Luther's hand
was raising, not failing. Should he have completed the arc, Mikey would
have been too late to intervene and Meldrick would be dead. It's purely
physics and physiology. I'm trying to find a police training text that
spells it out but from what I know if you're clearly and repeatedly ordered
to drop a lethal and threatening weapon and fail to, you're dead meat and
it's a righteous shoot. A murdering madman like Mahoney on the run from a
ten minute old murder with an automatic pistol in his hands is a *very*
deadly threat until disarmed. It was Luther's choice and his alone to hold
onto the gun and die. If Mikey erred, it was in not emptying his gun into
Luther to prevent him from firing after he was hit by the first shot. 9mm
rounds are parabolically shaped and copper jacketed and can often pass
through a victim without knocking them down.
Did you know that there's a well-established class of suicide that involves
the person wishing to die forcing the cops to kill him? Very prevalent in
barricade situations. Luther may have been so shattered by his rapid
reversal of fortune that he was subconsciously daring Mikey to shoot. He
certainly did not do even the very minimum required to try to keep himself
alive in such a dangerous situation.
If you think that was murder, what about the SWAT teams that shoot snipers
and hostage takers? Is that murder, too? I don't think so and that happens
all the time. What about the John Cazales character in "Dog Day Afternoon?"
The FBI kept working to have him keep the gun pointed up and then they blew
his brains out at point blank range. True life story. SWAT teams send in
food and drink many times just to get the gun out of the perp's hand for a
clear shot with no "deadman" reflex trigger pulls. Threaten to kill and be
killed. Luther had four full chances to drop the gun and he chose not to.
Instead the gun rose toward Meldrick and Mikey did what he had to.
BTW, do you believe the FBI killed the Branch Davidians?
Pete B.
NDSEB wrote in message <19990928142404...@ng-fs1.aol.com>...
Dave Locke
[snip the tired and rambling and non-sequitur apologia for Clean
Shoot, followed by this abrupt digression]
> BTW, do you believe the FBI killed the Branch Davidians?
The evidence begins to look unfavorable for our boys with the shades.
I wouldn't be surprised if they did or they didn't, but we know what
they did at Ruby Ridge and that alone seems to grease the skids which
could haul the evidence for the prosecution. At the moment they
couldn't pay me enough to join their Public Relations team.
Pete B.
morpheus wrote in message <37F10888...@worldnet.att.net>...
>I really don't think the gun jammed. I'm pretty certain that the gun
>only held one round (a blank) for safety purposes during the shooting of
>the scene.
Oh boy, first we Zaprudered SVU's credits, now it's Luther's farewell party
video!
They've been accurate about so much stuff in the past I couldn't see them
making this deliberate sort of NYPD-B gaffe. Just recently, on the
Sopranos, when Mikey Palmici gets shot they show Christopher clicking away
with an empty automatic as if it were an empty wheel gun spinning the
cylinder. I so want to believe H:LotS does better than that in continuity.
>Go back and check something. The camera on Mel shows the gun
>empty (barrel back). Then the camera cuts to Luther, then back to Mel
>who is still holding the gun in his hand, and the barrel has been
>reset.
Nope. Meldrick clearly holsters his weapon with the slide racked back. Not
a chance that it's reset in the closeup they present. It is too hard to
tell whether it's racked open in the long shot. A real automatic would be
either empty or jammed at this point. A prop gun with a single blank would
behave this way but it's highly inaccurate to let that stand. As Meldrick
holsters his weapon it's in a tight closeup and it is either empty or
jammed. As far as I can tell (although it's out of direct sight) he doesn't
slide the safety strap over the butt, either. Very bad police procedure.
Now, as far as I can tell when Luther gets it away from Lewis, it's
miraculously racked back and cleared. There are some sounds and hand
motions that are clearly Luther working the slide but I really believe he
grabs it up already cleared with the slide forward and re-racks it.
>Now look at Mikey's shot. Reed immediately cocks his gun after
>his shot because his gun also only contained one round, a blank.
This is true and it sucks. It implies Mikey's gun was either empty or
jammed, or worse, still, that it's a freaking prop gun and the technical and
continuity editors were off somewhere shooting double star bags. <sigh>
That's almost as bad as seven shots from a six-shooter in spaghetti
westerns.
>for a bit more distance between them. I do agree it was a justifiable,
>if not totally clean shoot. I also agree that in reality, there would
>have been no issue made about it by the Dept.
That's my main point and I'm glad you agree. The world's seen plenty of
"grayer" shoots than Luther's and no one even got an afternoon of detention
for them. Whatever else Mikey did I've never known one cop to ever forget
when someone saved his life. In fact, I've seen cops overlook things their
saviors did that were way outside the lines. Maybe Meldrick keeping him
from eating his piece evened out the score for both of them.
>I didn't like Meldrick's line to Mikey about going to Gee immediately if
>he had known what was coming (in Mikey's last ep as a cop) because I saw
>it as Meldrick blaming Mikey for the whole gig because of the shoot,
>instead of Mikey's destructive behavior afterwards, but I also
>considered it out of character for Lewis to utter this line and saw it
>as a product of the writers tinkering too much.
For sure. This is where the bad writing, the bad continuity, the improbable
plotting and the technical gaffes began to flower like mold on year-old
bread.
>Stivers part in this bugged me too, and I would have loved to see her
>partner with Sheppard. Ms. Lewis may be a better actress than Ms.
>Michelle but Sheppard was a much better cop than Stivers.
They'll burn ye for that, sure, warlock! I hear some of the Riot Chix
gathering kindling as I type this.
>As an aside, I saw Michelle in that awful Substitute 2 flick, and
>thought she showed better chops than she did in Homicide. Had facial
>expressions and everything, who'd a thunk it.
It's waiting for me on tape along with Isabella's SciFi flick. I'm starting
a collection of the afterlives of H:LotS stars.
Pete B.
Pete B.
same reasons you mention and society collapses. You don't think I'd follow
that same path and assume that all that's to be said has been said? I don't
believe it for a moment.
I do, however, understand that you've been there and done that and choose
not to do it again. That's very clearly your right. I'm having too much
fun, though, to simply research the previous takes on the issue. Why would
I even be here, then? H:LotS is no more. Close the newsgroup, read the
archives. No thanks!
I re-ignited this particular issue because upon second viewing I saw
something very different than what I saw the first time.
Through the dialectic I learn much about my groupmates and their thought
processes and they mine. That, to me, is a major part of Usenet.
Pete B.
>But it's all there, spread out over time, the good and the bad and the
>mediocre and the brainless all rolled together in the archives. As
>Einstein noted: "People like us, who believe in physics, know that
>the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly
>persistent illusion." As a fellow believer, I can point you at
>Deja.Com (the above links are a good start), knowing that the words
>read exactly the same today as they did yesterday, and will still read
>the same tomorrow. No need for me to throw the same words in a hopper
>and see if I can make them come out in a different order only to say
>the same thing...
>
>Fire up your browser, Pete!
>
>--
>DaveLockeCorkEarthlingCorkNetCork | Remove the Corks | Caveat Lector
Pete B.
>Oh dear. Listen, I love Mikey (and I would've shot Luther, too), but if
>Beau and Stan can be suspended for doing a little public strip tease in
>Atlantic City, I think at least a six-month suspension for Mike for
>using excessive force wouldn't be such a bad thing.
Public shame on the department always brings reprimands. I used to work for
the naval officer that upon receiving his new command sailed his nuke sub
off from Florida with two go-go dancers on the fantail. He did it to help
boost morale on a ship that had suffered under a real martinet. The crew
loved him but the Navy dumped him the moment they found out. Had he shot
down an Iranian airbus by accident he would have faced less punishment.
Really. Like Stan and Beau he had shamed the force.
You're assuming Mikey used excessive force without any basis I can see.
I've covered a lot of police activity in my life and this was a clean shoot.
No one's yet made a remote case to the contrary. I've known cops to walk
from shooting unarmed people reaching for their licenses in the glovebox.
H:LotS writers made it seem dirty but sadly, the gaffes with automatic
pistol slides shows they are not omniscient about police procedures and
equipment. Luther failed to surrender his weapon, behaved erratically,
raised the gun towards Meldrick and got himself righteously shot to death.
Open and shut except for H:LotS writers concerned less and less with the
truth and more and more with hotdogs and peaches.
Mike would have cleared any shooting board I've ever had knowledge of with
flying colors. Luther should have been head shot after his second refusal
because of the damage he could have inflicted with that loaded gun before he
died of gunshot wounds to the torso. Christ, they just cleared one cop for
shooting and killing another in an off-duty nightclub brawl down here in
D.C. Fontana and his boys were way off base in making Mikey seem a stone
killer and a lot of people bought it and that's sad. Mikey was within the
rules of engagement. The NYC cops who fired 41 shots at an unarmed street
vendor are likely guilty of excessive force but not Mikey. Mikey saved
Meldrick's life (and probably Stiver's, too). Is there a person here that
believes if Luther could have killed them all he wouldn't have?
>I don't like the idea that Tim shot Ryland either, and there are plenty
>of ways to squirm out of that one, but it's obvious that was the
>impression we were meant to be left with.
I can't slow motion the alleged Ryland killing the way I can Luther's actual
shooting so they're apples and oranges to me and can't be compared along the
lines you suggest. Don't we all form our own impressions, anyway?
> If you dismiss or deny or excuse the actions, you lose the point
>altogether--unpleasant as it may be.
If you know for sure what the point is or was. The point may just as easily
have been that Mikey was being scapegoated by his fellow officers for their
gross blunders. That's so common in the military it's legendary. The Navy
has a saying: "We don't fix the problem, we fix the blame." Police
departments are clearly built on the military model and Mikey was the lamb
put out to slaughter, not a cop who used excessive force. Somebody had to
take the hit - blame it on the new guy if there's no dead guy handy to blame
it on. Very military.
Ever see Breaker Morant? Mikey's the Breaker in this go-round.
Pete B.
Karing21
>"Pete B." wrote:
>
>> Here we go again!
>
><completely correct argument snipped>
>
>Yep, here we go again. You do realize what you've done, don't you?
He knows it's really an incantation to lure Cheryl away from her Homicon99
preparations. You *know* she can't resist getting her eleven cents in on a
debate about the Mahoney Shoot.
Karin,
who won't be at Homicon99, but all the same wants to salute Kathy, Maura, and
Cheryl for putting so much of their time & resources into making this year's
Homicon extra special for everyone lucky enough to attend
AntMarga
hooked on HLOTS! I agee the shooting could have justified, but it seems Mike
was too sensitve..he was a nag-ee, not a nag.
Pete B.
>Mikey did. There is the possibility that Mikey thought someone's life
>was in danger, and he did tell Lutha to drop the gun many times. If
>Lutha had dropped it, and Mike shot him, I'd agree the scene had
>definitive intent on showing us a cop going over the line.
Agreed - they softpedaled it. It would be murder if Luther had no gun. But
he did have one, therefore, justifiable homicide.
>Since Lutha didn't, and twitched in a way that could be interpreted as
>raising the gun, it's a bit more muddled. Personally, I think Mikey shot
>him because he was tired of Luther gettin away with what he always
>got away with. A board may not have seen it that way however.
Agreed - his motives clearly contained the element of nailing the teflon
dopeslinger for once and for all. But that doesn't make the circumstances
any different. Don't drop a deadly weapon when ordered to and you've just
changed your name to "target." Shooting boards mostly labor over the
shooting of unarmed subjects or fleeing teenage bicycle thieves in the back.
Mikey would have got an instant in/out/thank you ma'am from a board and
maybe a commendation for shooting the murderer of someone's innocent
bystander mother in Droodle Park.
>morph- who agrees Stan should have been suspended but not Beau, cuz Beau
>is so good-looking naked....
Oh No! Lane Bellamy is in labor, I hope, and won't be needlessly stimulated
by your sig.
Pete B.
Dave Locke
> I do, however, understand that you've been there and done that and choose
> not to do it again. That's very clearly your right. I'm having too much
> fun, though, to simply research the previous takes on the issue. Why would
> I even be here, then? H:LotS is no more. Close the newsgroup, read the
> archives. No thanks!
Actually, Pete, the point is to note the previous takes (hell, I even
gave you three direct links) and not ignore them, though I suppose you
would find it easier to think I was suggesting you read them and not
respond.
On the contrary. What you're writing now, from the standpoint of
someone who has seen the argument get very finely honed indeed, is
rather rough-edged. Almost pulp, in some areas. Were you to take
that relatively brief digression to read the opinions of some others,
including myself, you might be able to stand on the shoulders of that
in-depth look and provide an apologia which was worth a serious look.
What you're doing now, however, is merely reinventing the wheel and
it's no more compelling that everyone else's early fumblings on the
topic.
> Through the dialectic I learn much about my groupmates and their thought
> processes and they mine. That, to me, is a major part of Usenet.
If you believe that, then you would follow those links I provided.
However, right now I don't think you're interested in learning much
about your groupmates and their thought processes, because you're
tuning them out. I think you just want catharsis based upon some
epiphany you feel you've experienced...
--
DaveLockeCorkEarthlingCorkNetCork | Remove the Corks | Caveat Lector
Get the FAQs, the latest news, or anything to do with Homicide right
here: Homicide: Links on the Sites - http://member.aol.com/hlotslinks/
~ The 3rd installment of "The H:LotS Files" is online at the Links ~
Pete B.
posters, whomever they may be. I guess I want to palp about in the here and
now. You can lead a catharsis to an epiphany, but you can't make it link .
. .
But I will look at them when I get around to it.
I save my finely honed writing for those editors wonderful enough to pay me
for it. I bang out words here for fun. There really is quite a difference.
Pete B.
morpheus
"Pete B." wrote:
>
> >Since Lutha didn't, and twitched in a way that could be interpreted as
> >raising the gun, it's a bit more muddled. Personally, I think Mikey shot
> >him because he was tired of Luther gettin away with what he always
> >got away with. A board may not have seen it that way however.
>
> Agreed - his motives clearly contained the element of nailing the teflon
> dopeslinger for once and for all. But that doesn't make the circumstances
> any different. Don't drop a deadly weapon when ordered to and you've just
> changed your name to "target." Shooting boards mostly labor over the
> shooting of unarmed subjects or fleeing teenage bicycle thieves in the back.
> Mikey would have got an instant in/out/thank you ma'am from a board and
> maybe a commendation for shooting the murderer of someone's innocent
> bystander mother in Droodle Park.
That's what I thought too. No city PD in America, oops, in the country
that actually has America in it's name, would chastise Mikey for the
shoot unless Stivers testified against him. Even then it's unlikely, and
she'd have to resign.
morph
ukrm
NDSEB wrote:
> But Mikey pulled the trigger. And it was stone cold blooded murder.
You say that like stone cold-blooded murder is a bad thing.
--
Shelshka
RC Borgia
morpheus
"Pete B." wrote:
>
> morpheus wrote in message <37F10888...@worldnet.att.net>...
> >I really don't think the gun jammed. I'm pretty certain that the gun
> >only held one round (a blank) for safety purposes during the shooting of
> >the scene.
>
> Oh boy, first we Zaprudered SVU's credits, now it's Luther's farewell party
> video!
>
> They've been accurate about so much stuff in the past I couldn't see them
> making this deliberate sort of NYPD-B gaffe. Just recently, on the
> Sopranos, when Mikey Palmici gets shot they show Christopher clicking away
> with an empty automatic as if it were an empty wheel gun spinning the
> cylinder. I so want to believe H:LotS does better than that in continuity.
Well melad, sorry to disappoint, but it was in fact, a mistake. They had
to use real weapons for that scene, and they only put in the one round.
I just got off the phone where I was confirming my theory. It's
definitly a continuity mistake.
I can't find my tape of this, so I'll grudgingly take your word about
Mel holstering the gun with slide back. I'm almost sure I remembered a
shot of the gun in Mel's hand after he shoots, with the slide forward
tho. hmmmm. Guess I'll look for it next airing...
Found out some info on the movie. Some stuff I can't post, but this much
I can.
M
I
D
P
O
S
T
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Seda wrote the movie, and Thorne is directing. Ok, I'm lying.
Yosh and Fontana are writing it. Jean is directing, Alex is behind the
camera.
EVERYBODY is back. Well, maybe not the second shift guys, but every
previous cast-member whose face graced the opening credits. This is what
I was told. I asked singly about Beau, Kay, Megan and Crosetti, source
said yes each time, and finally said as far as he's been told, every
single main cast member is in the movie. I stopped asking at this point.
So barring any unruliness out of the actors, (and you know who you are)
there should be a hot time in Balmer starting Nov 17th...
Morpheus- informing some that their dreams have come true.
Dave Locke
> Newsgroups are living entities that pretty much belong to the current
> posters, whomever they may be. I guess I want to palp about in the here
> and now. You can lead a catharsis to an epiphany, but you can't make it
> link .
>
> But I will look at them when I get around to it.
>
> I save my finely honed writing for those editors wonderful enough to pay me
> for it. I bang out words here for fun. There really is quite a
> difference.
Ah, you can't see it, then. As Einstein noted: "People like us, who
believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present,
and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." As a fellow
believer, I can point you at Deja.Com (links provided earlier),
knowing that the words read exactly the same today as they did
yesterday, and will still read the same tomorrow. No need for me to
throw the same words in a hopper and see if I can make them come out
in a different order only to say the same thing, just because someone
popped into class late and won't read the history book...
As I'd also indicated, if I had to pick just one post of my own to
express everything I was allowed to say about the issue, this would be
the one <http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=406560858>. Wow, look, you
can click on it and, very much like magic, my words will appear before
you. As absolutely nothing has changed since I wrote them, there
really is no "distinction between past, present, and future" in this
particular regard. You can even pretend that they were written just
two minutes ago. I could even copy&paste them here, but then that
would ruin the beauty of it; on Usenet, your words live on and on and
on.
By the time you get to reading the best words, most of them not even
written by me -- if you do -- then all this will have been for naught
and you'll be provoked into starting all over again...
Kay
morpheus wrote:
> "Pete B." wrote:
> >
> > morpheus wrote in message <37F10888...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > >I really don't think the gun jammed. I'm pretty certain that the gun
> > >only held one round (a blank) for safety purposes during the shooting of
> > >the scene.
> >
> > Oh boy, first we Zaprudered SVU's credits, now it's Luther's farewell party
> > video!
> >
> > They've been accurate about so much stuff in the past I couldn't see them
> > making this deliberate sort of NYPD-B gaffe. Just recently, on the
> > Sopranos, when Mikey Palmici gets shot they show Christopher clicking away
> > with an empty automatic as if it were an empty wheel gun spinning the
> > cylinder. I so want to believe H:LotS does better than that in continuity.
>
> Well melad, sorry to disappoint, but it was in fact, a mistake. They had
> to use real weapons for that scene, and they only put in the one round.
On a side note, just slightly related to the topic, did you notice that when
Mahoney, Brookdale, and the Nigerians were at the park talking things out, they
were all wearing tiny little earplugs(well, not that tiny since I was able to see
them)? I didn't notice this until last night, which was probably the 5th or 6th
time I've seen the episode. It was a bit distracting and also a bit
foreshadowing since they obviously had the earplugs in since shots were going to
be fired. I can't figure out why they made the actors wear the plugs for the
entire scene though instead of just having them pop them in right before Luther
starts firing.
Anyway, I don't know anything about guns so I can't comment on whether the
weapons were real, how they were loaded, etc... It's all Greek to me.
-Kay (who actually is Greek, but still doesn't know a darn thing about guns.)
>
> I just got off the phone where I was confirming my theory. It's
> definitly a continuity mistake.
>
> I can't find my tape of this, so I'll grudgingly take your word about
> Mel holstering the gun with slide back. I'm almost sure I remembered a
> shot of the gun in Mel's hand after he shoots, with the slide forward
> tho. hmmmm. Guess I'll look for it next airing...
....much snippage
TVFan87656
Bad shoot.....still a horrible episode.
I'm amazed this glossy piece of trash is actually put in some people's top 10
lists. It embodies everything that made the last few seasons of Homicide poor.
A melodramatic plot, style over substance, and the Mahoney arc.
I hope you all realize that Cheryl may be forced to respond to this thread if
it doesn't stop soon. For nostalgia lovers, we may even get a replay of the
Cheryl/Dave "we've fought about this before, please don't bring it up again"
mantra.
------------------------------------------------
"You got chased out of Seattle, didn't you?"
Meldrick Lewis (to Laura Ballard), Homicide: Life on the Street
------------------------------------------------
Pete B.
>that actually has America in it's name, would chastise Mikey for the
>shoot unless Stivers testified against him. Even then it's unlikely, and
>she'd have to resign.
>
>morph
And Meldrick would take an assault charge since his beating of Luther was
clearly an unprovoked criminal assault. He was unscathed while Luther was a
turned into a spokesman for rare ground beef. It's the fault of crummy
writing. Stivers wouldn't have made it as far as she did in Vice had she
not known the critical difference between what is right and what is
necessary and how important it is for cops to be team players.
Ever see Russian police videos? Mikey would be canonized there.
As for those single shot Glocks you've uncovered, Morph, it reminds me of
those old coffee commercials: "We've taken away the BPD's Smith and Wesson
revolvers and replaced them with single shot hogleg musket pistols. Let's
see if they can tell the difference . . ."
Pete B.
Lisa B
Kay <mit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On a side note, just slightly related to the topic, did you notice
that when
> Mahoney, Brookdale, and the Nigerians were at the park talking things
out, they
> were all wearing tiny little earplugs(well, not that tiny since I was
able to see
> them)? I didn't notice this until last night, which was probably the
5th or 6th
> time I've seen the episode. It was a bit distracting and also a bit
> foreshadowing since they obviously had the earplugs in since shots
were going to
> be fired. I can't figure out why they made the actors wear the plugs
for the
> entire scene though instead of just having them pop them in right
before Luther
> starts firing.
I would guess that time constraints and filming style had a lot to do
with this. If I recall correctly, H:LotS filmed each scene from each
character's POV, then cut together the shots in the editing room. Thus,
a particular scene, say the Box scene from Hate Crimes, would have been
filmed in shots favoring Diamond, Johnson, Allison Smith, and Dean
Winters, each of them through the whole scene. (And if I'm wrong,
please correct me, 'K?)
So, with the scene in Deception, here's what I think happened. The crew
had a one-day filming permit from the Baltimore Parks Department to do
the scene in Druid Hill Park. In order to maintain continuity regarding
time of day (mid-morning, if I recall correctly), the entire scene had
to be completed by, say, mid-afternoon at the latest in order for the
light to look like it was mid-morning and not the hour or so before
sundown (called "the golden hour") when the light turns, well, golden.
(This is assuming that the audience wouldn't pick up on whether the sun
was casting shadows in two different directions, because this shot on
Erik Todd Dellums had been shot at 10 a.m. and that shot favoring the
Nigerian was shot at 3 p.m. And I haven't noticed that. But then, I
never noticed the earplugs, either. Anyhoo....) Matching light for
scenes taking place at the same time, but filming on different days, is
a real pain in the ass, trust me; the script supervisor not only takes
notes on who was standing where, who was wearing what, how much water
was in so-and-so's glass, but also on cloudiness/sunniness, windiness,
whether an actor's hair has changed appreciably between takes
(hairspray becomes VERY important in your life).
So, you have just a few hours to get the whole scene filmed, and you're
paying off-duty cops to be security for the cast/crew and keep yahoos
from walking through the park (a public space) so they don't disrupt
the filming. You're having to film the scene (a rather long one,
really) about 7 times in order to cover all of the actors sufficiently
to have enough stuff to cut together in editing, and keep track of
extras and make sure they do the same thing during every take, so their
actions match throughout the scene. Coupled with the safety issues of
shooting a gun (blanks or no, they have to be really careful) and cars
screeching out of the park at relatively high speed, it's a lot easier
for the script supervisor and/or the actors to just leave in the
earplugs for the whole day.
But that's just my take. It could be that Luther's gang was trying to
make earplugs the hot new accessory, like Flavor Flav's clock-on-a-
necklace look from the late 1980s. ;-)
Lisa.
So tired last night, she swore she saw Casey Affleck and SNL's Jimmy
Fallon in the "Everybody in leather" Gap commercial. Even though she's
seen it before and knows neither of them are in it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pete B.
I have some friends I'd like you to beat . . .
Pete B.
>NDSEB wrote:
Pete B.
>Well melad, sorry to disappoint, but it was in fact, a mistake. They had
>to use real weapons for that scene, and they only put in the one round.
>definitly a continuity mistake.
The dumb bastids. They've ruined my life! The single shot prop theory
makes sense. Still, I'd rather have bad continuity than a f'ck-up like "The
Crow" that killed Brandon Lee.
>I can't find my tape of this, so I'll grudgingly take your word about
>Mel holstering the gun with slide back. I'm almost sure I remembered a
>shot of the gun in Mel's hand after he shoots, with the slide forward
>tho. hmmmm. Guess I'll look for it next airing...
I will agree the slide may be forward in the scene after he shoots but when
he holsters that puppy it's so racked back you can see it doesn't even fit
the holster properly. Want me to send you a screen shot? If they made two
glaring continuity errors, what's a third to them?
>Found out some info on the movie.
>Morpheus- informing some that their dreams have come true.
So Who DO you know, Mr. Morpheoso?
Pete B. - who's just cracked a tooth in half at 5AM. Scheiss!!!!
Pete B.
>As I'd also indicated, if I had to pick just one post of my own to
>express everything I was allowed to say about the issue, this would be
>the one <http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=406560858>.
OK read it. Read your "However, what he was covering up was that he'd toyed
with Luther beyond the point where Luther was a threat" and I conclude that
you're flat out wrong. (-: It was clearly the other way around. Luther
was toying with MIKEY, saying "What are you going to do, read me my rights?"
as he slowly brings his gun hand up up to almost a 45 degree angle towards
Lewis. Luther was always a deadly threat as long as that loaded and cocked
pistol was in his hand. A suspect is always a threat until disarmed and
properly restrained. Luther wouldn't be the first perp to get perfed while
being read his rights. He won't be the last, either,
I'm sure we discussed this but the Colt .45 came into being as the US Army
sidearm until recently because the Maori tribesman in the Phillipines would
still hack our soldiers to death after being shot multiple times with the
much smaller .38 caliber round that had been used until then. The .45 had
enough force to physically knock the tribesman back AND down. Cops all know
how much damage a 'dead' man can do, particularly with an semi-automatic
weapon in their hands or charging forward with a knife. The 9mm does not
have the low velocity, high momentum stopping/knockdown power of the .45 so
Luther shot once could have still easily killed all of them. In fact a drug
hyped, adrenalin crazed and desperate Luther shot even several times
probably could have k, too.
Though I know I've seen them lately (perhaps re: Ruby Ridge) I can't seem to
find them tonight. I'm pretty sure the FBI rules are if the perps don't
drop the weapon the Feds keep shooting till the armed perp is down. And
when they are down, they get that gun away from the perp, even if they are
"sure" he's dead. I'm sure you've seen them run up and step on the dead
guy's gun hand. Particularly in these days of readily available body armor
and perps like those two LA bank robbers that use them. They've already
lost agents to the gunfire of the dead.
Luther was a deadly threat every second that he was armed. Any claims
otherwise are not supportable by the facts or the history of the military or
law enforcement.
Judith's quote of Reed in your cited message confirms this: "Every cop I
have ever talked with said it was a clean shoot." Should he have waited,
like Tim, until the perp actually fired a round at him to return fire? Not
required. Even as dead Luther dropped to the floor that gun waved in a
number of directions and a half ounce trigger pull/death spasm could have
taken any one of our detective's heads off.
Pete B.
Pete B.
aware of them it's about all you could focus on.
>On a side note, just slightly related to the topic, did you notice that
when
>Mahoney, Brookdale, and the Nigerians were at the park talking things out,
they
>were all wearing tiny little earplugs(well, not that tiny since I was able
to see
>them)?
>Anyway, I don't know anything about guns so I can't comment on whether the
>weapons were real, how they were loaded, etc... It's all Greek to me.
I was unlucky enough to be in a very small room when some dork fired a round
from a 9mm pistol into the wall. They are 'supersonic' rounds and I could
not hear a thing for an hour other than ringing and faint whispers. It took
days for my hearing to recover completely. Prop gun blanks are often "hot
loaded" (using two to three times the normal amount of gunpowder to make a
louder noise and bigger flash). The plugs were likely in all the time
because one mistake could deafen an actor for life. Big lawsuit for Fontana
and crew.
James Cagney once said in an interview that in the gangster films of the
30's they used real machine guns with real .50 slugs and that more than once
he was cut by flying brick dust from the gunfire raking a nearby wall. I
had the privilege of firing one once. All I could think was: "So this is a
'hail' of gunfire." You can cut down trees with it. The oddest part was
that it made a 'cherchunk' sounding noise that sounded very much like a
steroid version of my grandmother's Singer sewing machine. I remember just
having seen "Alien" in the theatre and feeling a remarkable kinship between
the two. Mindless killing machines. Ironic that the gun that Col. Thompson
hoped would put an end to crime became the trademark of Prohibition
criminals.
Pete B.
morpheus
"Pete B." wrote:
>
> >That's what I thought too. No city PD in America, oops, in the country
> >that actually has America in it's name, would chastise Mikey for the
> >shoot unless Stivers testified against him. Even then it's unlikely, and
> >she'd have to resign.
> >
> >morph
>
> And Meldrick would take an assault charge since his beating of Luther was
> clearly an unprovoked criminal assault. He was unscathed while Luther was a
> turned into a spokesman for rare ground beef. It's the fault of crummy
> writing. Stivers wouldn't have made it as far as she did in Vice had she
> not known the critical difference between what is right and what is
> necessary and how important it is for cops to be team players.
>
Bang. I guess what disappointed me most was the focus on the shoot,
which should have realistically been a non-issue, and the lack of focus
on the team player concept, which is most certainly a true to life
issue. There ain't no cop that squeals and keeps his/her job. Wait,
except for Serpico, who is lucky to be living.
> As for those single shot Glocks you've uncovered, Morph, it reminds me of
> those old coffee commercials: "We've taken away the BPD's Smith and Wesson
> revolvers and replaced them with single shot hogleg musket pistols. Let's
> see if they can tell the difference . . ."
>
They weren't single shot glocks. they wuz glocks with only one round
(blank) in them. Real weapons. No Hollywood customization to them. The
Powers That Were just didn't anticipate what the gun would look like
after it's one and only round was spent. I can understand this entirely.
After all, this show wasn't supposed to have alot of gunplay. Most
Homicide cops never ever shoot their weapons, and most cops in general
never do either. This wasn't supposed to be a comic book show like Nash
or NYPD. These guys were supposed to be the cops that never had to fire.
TVF was right. Clean shoot, it's a poor excuse for an H:LotS episode.
Bad shoot, it's worse. The episode was great television. better than
just about anything else on tv. It wasn't Homicide tho. It wasn't art.
Succumbing to the masses had already begun, it wasn't being stopped at
this point.
morph- knows art when he likes it
morpheus
Kay wrote:
>
> On a side note, just slightly related to the topic, did you notice that when
> Mahoney, Brookdale, and the Nigerians were at the park talking things out, they
> were all wearing tiny little earplugs(well, not that tiny since I was able to see
> them)? I didn't notice this until last night, which was probably the 5th or 6th
> time I've seen the episode. It was a bit distracting and also a bit
> foreshadowing since they obviously had the earplugs in since shots were going to
> be fired. I can't figure out why they made the actors wear the plugs for the
> entire scene though instead of just having them pop them in right before Luther
> starts firing.
Easily explained Kay. They all had their own central control rooms err,
feeding them intel on uhh the approaching vehicles! That's it! They all
were listening to their homey's telling them the coast was clear and no
cops were in sight. How's that? I can come up with another one if you
don't like this one...
morpheus- who should be greek, but isn't this incarnation.
morpheus
"Pete B." wrote:
>
> morpheus wrote in message
> >Well melad, sorry to disappoint, but it was in fact, a mistake. They had
> >to use real weapons for that scene, and they only put in the one round.
> >I just got off the phone where I was confirming my theory. It's
> >definitly a continuity mistake.
>
> The dumb bastids. They've ruined my life! The single shot prop theory
> makes sense. Still, I'd rather have bad continuity than a f'ck-up like "The
> Crow" that killed Brandon Lee.
zactly
snipped meself there i think
> I will agree the slide may be forward in the scene after he shoots but when
> he holsters that puppy it's so racked back you can see it doesn't even fit
> the holster properly. Want me to send you a screen shot? If they made two
> glaring continuity errors, what's a third to them?
Screen shot? You can do that (he asks in awe-inspired desire to
worship)? Nah, I'll agree now. Editing probly fucked up the sequence,
showing him holstering with slide back despite showing the gun ready to
fire in another take. I figure that since they bogeyed the hole, what
harm can a triple bogey be?
> >Found out some info on the movie.
> >Morpheus- informing some that their dreams have come true.
>
> So Who DO you know, Mr. Morpheoso?
>
Petey, my esteemed, but fragily mortal lad :) who don't I know? I'd say
I know everybody, but 99% of these lifelings would claim no knowledge of
me. okokok, 99.999999% of them. It's their loss as far as i'm concerned,
and i couldn't toss a midget as far as i was concerned. ga'head, respond
with puns. I'm not gonna hurt ya.
Morpheus- Greek god, something to do with dreams. Which are free by the
way.
no ya didn't.....:closeparenthesis
Dave Locke
> Thus spake Dave:
>
> >As I'd also indicated, if I had to pick just one post of my own to
> >express everything I was allowed to say about the issue [...]
>
> OK read it. Read your "However, what he was covering up was that he'd toyed
> with Luther beyond the point where Luther was a threat" and I conclude that
> you're flat out wrong. (-: It was clearly the other way around. Luther
> was toying with MIKEY
Yes, in the sense of making him think he'd get an end run around the
legal system once again if they took him in. Killerman takes the time
to answer Luther's question about reading him his rights by responding
"you have the right to remain silent--" and then immediately murdering
him. *This* is what you call toying with someone, and it's a good
part of what lets us, the viewer, know that this was not a pristine
shoot.
> Judith's quote of Reed in your cited message confirms this: "Every cop I
> have ever talked with said it was a clean shoot." Should he have waited,
> like Tim, until the perp actually fired a round at him to return fire? Not
> required.
I answered that in the post you're responding to. If Mikey had
drilled Luther when first coming in, clean shoot. If he had drilled
him after a non-response to a request to drop the gun, clean shoot.
But, no, he toyed with him first, doing a play on words by quoting
just the "you have a right to remain silent" part of the Miranda. Bad
shoot. How it might appear to someone who wasn't there (*we* were;
before, during, and after) is another matter. In the Mahoney arc, we
saw how it appeared to others based on the collusion to falsify the
reports of the shooting, and we saw how it appeared to others after
Frank worked out a more accurate story in The Box with Killerman.
Whatever would have or could have happened in real life is rather
academic at this point because we know how it was that they told the
story and that's what we have to deal with. We know from what went on
before that Mikey stated he wanted to kill Luther, had bad blood with
him, and then killed him because he suspected Luther would weasel his
way through the court system once again if they brought him in. We
know all that. We also know, from what went on afterward, that Mikey
went hotheaded and paranoid and became impossible to deal with which
is why his partners and his fellow detectives began steering clear of
him. Beyond that, he became dangerous and was the cause of many
deaths, but we discussed that last time we talked about it.
It's all there, right up on the screen. Actually, all of *this* is in
the message you're responding to, also, plus more.
At this point, because recycling the argument even to just this point
makes me tired in the head (particularly since the points were in the
original document you linked to, but even so otherwise), I'm going to
retire on the subject rather than take on any appearance of being
obsessed to the point where I could be replaced by flash cards anytime
someone new comes along who wants to play this exciting New game. You
can feel free to pick an angle and noodle on it like it's All New, but
from this direction I can see that you don't have anything new to add.
It's just a recycling of the same old stuff, even though it's new to
you.
At one point I felt this way in the past, but people did come along
who injected something new into the discussion, and that made it fair
game again. But, not this time. Or, certainly, not yet. If it
happens, I'll jump back in if the thread doesn't make my ass slam shut
before then.
NDSEB
>> But Mikey pulled the trigger. And it was stone cold blooded murder.
>
>You say that like stone cold-blooded murder is a bad thing.
In this case it was a *very* bad thing, because it brought us Georgia Rae
Mahoney. And all the rest.
Nina
morpheus
Dave Locke wrote: he'll rethink this post later.
>
> Pete B. set words in phosphor:
>
> > Newsgroups are living entities that pretty much belong to the current
> > posters, whomever they may be. I guess I want to palp about in the here
> > and now. You can lead a catharsis to an epiphany, but you can't make it
> > link .
> >
> > But I will look at them when I get around to it.
> >
> > I save my finely honed writing for those editors wonderful enough to pay me
> > for it. I bang out words here for fun. There really is quite a
> > difference.
>
> Ah, you can't see it, then. As Einstein noted: "People like us, who
> believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present,
> and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." As a fellow
> believer, I can point you at Deja.Com (links provided earlier),
> knowing that the words read exactly the same today as they did
> yesterday, and will still read the same tomorrow. No need for me to
> throw the same words in a hopper and see if I can make them come out
> in a different order only to say the same thing, just because someone
> popped into class late and won't read the history book...
I get it. Locke Messy hasn't incurred an additional single grey hair
since his all-wise post some time(a fragile concept) ago. Nothing has
changed since then and my kids will be able to ask Dave questions a
zillion years from now, because he will still be there, and time is just
an illusion. Past? Present? Future? All misconceptions of the human
experience while trying to gauge the span of human experience. Makes
sense. yeah,rite.
If one was immortal, one may be able to make this argument. since I'm
not, (and highly doubt anyone else is) I can only agree that the
knowledge of experience left by those before us (damn, that time concept
again) would always and forever be there for the seeking, but the
seekers themselves will pass on. That in itself can define time.
Who gave PadLocke my secret stash of totally mind-numbing drapes?
> As I'd also indicated, if I had to pick just one post of my own to
> express everything I was allowed to say about the issue, this would be
> the one <http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=406560858>. Wow, look, you
> can click on it and, very much like magic, my words will appear before
> you. As absolutely nothing has changed since I wrote them, there
> really is no "distinction between past, present, and future" in this
> particular regard. You can even pretend that they were written just
> two minutes ago. I could even copy&paste them here, but then that
> would ruin the beauty of it; on Usenet, your words live on and on and
> on.
>
> By the time you get to reading the best words, most of them not even
> written by me -- if you do -- then all this will have been for naught
> and you'll be provoked into starting all over again...
>
> --
> DaveLockeCorkEarthlingCorkNetCork | Remove the Corks | Caveat Lector
In your post Dave, the one where you summarize all that can be known on
the topic, you didn't indicate the point that you missed. I hate to
bring that up, but it should be noted yaknow. Most of the best words on
the subject have yet to even be written , much less having been penned
by your humble self. Of course you knew that. I mean, like since you
can see the future for the illusion that it is and all. So I won't go
into it then. You obviously see your folly.
Morpheus- can play holier than thee if neccessary, but just likes to
play....
NDSEB
>Did you know that there's a well-established class of suicide that involves
>the person wishing to die forcing the cops to kill him?
It did occur to me for a fleeting moment that Luther wanted to die. But that's
just one more example of how badly written this manipulative episode is in
terms of character. Luther, as originally presented, the cool "nothing gets to
him" Kevlar Man, completely unravels and freaks out, shoots someone in front of
witnesses in broad daylight (High Noon) in the middle of a park? Then with
half the Baltimore police department on his tail goes home? It's ludicrous.
As far as high-speed police chases, parabolically shaped 9mm rounds, Dog Day
Afternoon and the Branch Davidians go .... whew, Pete! What it all boils down
to for me is those few tense moments, the silence, the shot, the "anybody got a
problem?"
Yeah, I got a big problem.
Nina
Dave Locke
rational order:
> Dave Locke wrote:
> > [...]
>
> I get it. Locke Messy hasn't incurred an additional single grey hair
> since his all-wise post some time(a fragile concept) ago. Nothing has
> changed since then and my kids will be able to ask Dave questions a
> zillion years from now, because he will still be there, and time is just
> an illusion. Past? Present? Future? All misconceptions of the human
> experience while trying to gauge the span of human experience. Makes
> sense. yeah,rite.
Yeah, right. The Mahoney arc was over and speculation about where it
was headed wouldn't darken our doorsteps again. At which point we
hashed it all out. Until people came along a bit later with new ways
of looking at the subject, we pretty much left it alone, then we got
back into it again. Now, at present, there are no extant new ways of
looking at it, so my thoughts the last time I summarized them still
stand.
> If one was immortal, one may be able to make this argument. since I'm
> not, (and highly doubt anyone else is) I can only agree that the
> knowledge of experience left by those before us (damn, that time concept
> again) would always and forever be there for the seeking, but the
> seekers themselves will pass on. That in itself can define time.
This has some meaning in terms of what we were talking about?
> > By the time you get to reading the best words, most of them not even
> > written by me -- if you do -- then all this will have been for naught
> > and you'll be provoked into starting all over again...
>
> In your post Dave, the one where you summarize all that can be known on
> the topic, you didn't indicate the point that you missed. I hate to
> bring that up, but it should be noted yaknow. Most of the best words on
> the subject have yet to even be written , much less having been penned
> by your humble self.
I didn't summarize all that can be known on the subject, I summarized
my position on the subject (as I said), and I specifically stated the
best words weren't written by me (you're responding to that statement,
though apparently you didn't read it or you wouldn't come back with
such a non-sequitur response). This is gratuitous boolsheet, of
course. The words are right on the screen, quoted by yourself, and
you respond as though they said other things altogether.
"you didn't indicate the point that you missed". Say what? Been
taking your illiteracy pills lately?
> Of course you knew that. I mean, like since you can see the future
> for the illusion that it is and all. So I won't go into it then.
> You obviously see your folly.
Your last sentences were generated out of some lunacy which might be
understandable somewhere. Probably in some alternate universe where
people point out what they miss.
Pete B.
>terms of character. Luther, as originally presented, the cool "nothing
gets to
>him" Kevlar Man, completely unravels and freaks out, shoots someone in
front of
>witnesses in broad daylight (High Noon) in the middle of a park? Then with
>half the Baltimore police department on his tail goes home? It's
ludicrous.
Agreed. I assumed by that time he was mainlining the quinine and baking
soda he got from the feds and adding a little pixie dust, too. By that time
he had become a non sequitur character.
>to for me is those few tense moments, the silence, the shot, the "anybody
got a
>problem?"
>
>Yeah, I got a big problem.
Ever see the show "Fridays" from a long time ago? The pharmacy skit went
like this: "Got a problem? Take a pill? Got a big problem? Take a BIG
pill!"
Stivers had the chance to express her problems right then and there. Had
she, a different course of action might have ensued for everyone. Instead
she got the "stunned mullet" look on her face and flip-flopped about what
happened later on.
Well, it's been decreed that this has been discussed to finality during the
Holy First Telecast so we have to put a Sacred Sock in it. I hear the will
of Landru and obey! (-:
Pete B.
Pete B.
this! Good day to you, brother! Peace and contentment.
Pete B.
>In your post Dave, the one where you summarize all that can be known on
>the topic, you didn't indicate the point that you missed. I hate to
>bring that up, but it should be noted yaknow. Most of the best words on
>the subject have yet to even be written , much less having been penned
>by your humble self. Of course you knew that. I mean, like since you
>can see the future for the illusion that it is and all. So I won't go
>into it then. You obviously see your folly.
>
>
defra...@my-deja.com
In article <7sqmck$ici$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>,
"Pete B." <petey...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Here we go again! With my slowmo video remote I went over that whole
> episode and exonerate Mikey completely. Stivers set the mess in
motion with
> her calling in the Homicide team on the death of the Nigerian
courier. I
> found it amusing that they were investigating the death of an
otherwise
> healthy looking traveler from Africa without any face masks in a era
of
> Ebola (jeez - EMT's 'round here suit up in armor because of AIDS and
> hepatitis these days) . . .
>
> Then we have Gee putting forth the bright idea of putting baking soda
in the
> stash. Isn't shooting up with baking soda likely to kill a lot of
junkies?
> Never mind that the female USDA quite correctly said there would be a
blood
> bath as a result. Mikey had nothing to do with any of these
Machiavellian
> plots though he ended up taking almost all the heat for it. But
let's just
> move onto Meldrick taking a shot at Luther, then, knowing his gun has
> jammed, not clearing the jam, holstering the jammed weapon insecurely
and
> then going for a kick fest with Luther till his gun gets "took."
When Mikey
> arrived he really didn't even have to give Luther a warning when he
had a
> bead on his head. That courtesy could have cost Meldrick his life
right
> then and there.
>
> Luther had very obviously racked the slide back and cleared the jam.
Luther
> never said nor indicated to Mikey he was surrendering. He
asked, "Watcha
> gonna do?" I was watching the angle of the gun and how it waved up
and
> down, clearly NEVER, NEVER, EVER at his side pointing completely
downwards.
> Mikey ordered him FOUR times to drop the gun and Luther refused. Not
once,
> not twice, but FOUR freaking times. Luther refused to comply. Then,
as
> Mikey started the Miranda warning Luther began to laugh hysterically
and
> although he appeared he might be raising his hands to surrender that
> freakin' gun was coming up and in the direction of Meldrick. That
gun was
> coming up and it was coming up aimed at Meldrick when Mikey shot.
>
> They all knew Luther was snake and a multiple murderer and what he was
> capable of. In fact, as Luther went down after the shot his gun
waved all
> over the place, and even briefly pointed at Mikey. Mikey saw the gun
moving
> up, I saw the gun moving up and Luther, laughing like a madman, with
his
> empire in ruins, might be entirely capable of a suicidal move like
shooting
> Meldrick, even with Stiver and Mikey there. This was also pursuit of
the
> hottest kind. I've talked this over with a number of cop friends and
their
> take is the same. Luther would die every time. Most of them would
have put
> more than one bullet in him, too. Remember, the Pope took three 9mm
slugs
> to the gut and lived.
>
> You tell a known, cold-blooded killer who just made a death threat
against
> your partner ("you're a ghost") to drop the gun but the gun moves
upward
> instead to threaten your life or anyone else's, you have the right if
not
> the obligation to put him down. The reaction times of human beings
don't
> allow for any other safe outcomes. It's even done routinely and
justifiably
> with assailants armed with only knives. I'd rather live with the
death of
> Luther on my conscience than the death of my partner.
>
> For Meldrick to "diss" Mikey in future eps after saving his life like
that
> is inconceivable. Meldrick clearly had the "I'm a dead man" look
when Mikey
> rode in to the rescue. Had Mikey not had the brains to know where
Meldrick
> went, Meldrick would have been dead. As I said, Mikey could have put
one in
> Luther's brain upon arrival, no questions asked. It's done all the
time in
> hostage situations by the sniper teams, sometimes using outright lies
and
> subterfuge to maneuver the subject into the kill zone.
>
> Stivers' inability to hold her water over this affair really bugged
me, too.
> She'd never partner with me after telliing her fellow cops she had no
> problem with it but then slowly developing one. That says, in 60
point bold
> type, "I don't even trust or know myself, so how can anyone trust me
as a
> partner?" The bloodbath that followed is more correctly laid at her
feet,
> Gee's feet or Meldrick's feet rather than Mikey's. Stivers' kind of
cop
> bugs me nearly as much as weepy Mariska on the sex squad. Were she
alone
> without Mikey, Luther would have popped both her and Meldrick in a
New York
> second because he knew her and would have known she would hesitate.
>
> Jeez, Louise, this is dirty, dangerous work that requires guts and
> determination, not soul-searching.
> If you're not careful some perp's likely to send that soul back to
its maker
> while you're busy examining it for moral defects.
>
> Pete B.
morpheus
C'mon Nina, you're almost saying the ends justified the cause. If the
show chose to let Mikey skate, like it would have happenned in lotsa
real towns, there never would have been a Georgia Rae. That character
was created soley to give an avenue allowing Mikey to spiral downward
and act stupid and other things most H:LotS fans didn't like about
season 6, in order to show that a cop can't get away with "street
justice" type shootings. The fact that it happens all the time
notwithstanding, we just can't show that on TV.
morpheus- hopes the movie makes up for 2 unneccessary seasons
NDSEB
>C'mon Nina, you're almost saying the ends justified the cause. If the
>show chose to let Mikey skate, like it would have happenned in lotsa
>real towns, there never would have been a Georgia Rae. That character
>was created soley to give an avenue allowing Mikey to spiral downward
>and act stupid and other things most H:LotS fans didn't like about
>season 6, in order to show that a cop can't get away with "street
>justice" type shootings. The fact that it happens all the time
>notwithstanding, we just can't show that on TV.
Is that what I'm saying? What I meant was, excusing all the continuity and
character fuck-ups, if what they intended was to set us up for the aftermath,
as a long-time fan, I was willing to go along for the ride. I waited all
summer to get back on that ride to see where it would lead. When it lead to
Georgia Rae, and Paul Falsone, and helicopters and car chases, and none of the
regulars acting "regular", I wanted my money back.
>morpheus- hopes the movie makes up for 2 unneccessary seasons
So do I. But I am *so* not holding my breath.
Nina
morpheus
Dave Locke wrote. Typed more likely
>
> morpheus set words in phosphor, but didn't assemble them in any
> rational order:
:) that you could discern, you mean. just cuz you don't understand it,
don't mean it's ununderstandable....you proved that with kayleigh
recently.
>
> > Dave Locke wrote:
> > > [...]
> >
> > I get it. Locke Messy hasn't incurred an additional single grey hair
> > since his all-wise post some time(a fragile concept) ago. Nothing has
> > changed since then and my kids will be able to ask Dave questions a
> > zillion years from now, because he will still be there, and time is just
> > an illusion. Past? Present? Future? All misconceptions of the human
> > experience while trying to gauge the span of human experience. Makes
> > sense. yeah,rite.
>
> Yeah, right. The Mahoney arc was over and speculation about where it
> was headed wouldn't darken our doorsteps again. At which point we
> hashed it all out. Until people came along a bit later with new ways
> of looking at the subject, we pretty much left it alone, then we got
> back into it again. Now, at present, there are no extant new ways of
> looking at it, so my thoughts the last time I summarized them still
> stand.
My point there sir, stated plainly, was this. There are new viewpoints
out there. New viewers, new lurkers, new posters. Even if they are the
same old same old, they deserve to be heard. The fact that you think
every angle of the issue was covered does not mean that every angle of
the issue was covered. the possibility exists that a new perspective
could emerge. For you to discourage posts on this issue, assuming that
every angle has been covered is wrong, and unlike you. If I had said I
heard all there was ever to hear on this, I'm sure you would be among
the first to show me my error. No one can ever say that a subject is
exhausted. I mena they can, but they won't be correct. At least they
weren't correct when they said the Earth was flat, or that it was the
center of the universe, or that some moron god (probly Roman) carried
the sun across the sky on his chariot. Previously accepted absolute
truths can, and do, change.
> > If one was immortal, one may be able to make this argument. since I'm
> > not, (and highly doubt anyone else is) I can only agree that the
> > knowledge of experience left by those before us (damn, that time concept
> > again) would always and forever be there for the seeking, but the
> > seekers themselves will pass on. That in itself can define time.
>
> This has some meaning in terms of what we were talking about?
Your sig implied time was an illusion. I think you quoted some famous
guy. Time is a valid human concept gauging the passing of human life,
among other things. The word means little, the concept is an absolute.
Now, before, and later.
> > > By the time you get to reading the best words, most of them not even
> > > written by me -- if you do -- then all this will have been for naught
> > > and you'll be provoked into starting all over again...
> >
> > In your post Dave, the one where you summarize all that can be known on
> > the topic, you didn't indicate the point that you missed. I hate to
> > bring that up, but it should be noted yaknow. Most of the best words on
> > the subject have yet to even be written , much less having been penned
> > by your humble self.
>
> I didn't summarize all that can be known on the subject, I summarized
> my position on the subject (as I said), and I specifically stated the
> best words weren't written by me (you're responding to that statement,
> though apparently you didn't read it or you wouldn't come back with
> such a non-sequitur response). This is gratuitous boolsheet, of
> course. The words are right on the screen, quoted by yourself, and
> you respond as though they said other things altogether.
You stated, while discouraging new posts upon the matter, that the best
words on the subject have already been written. "Been there, done that.
Been there, done that" ring a bell?
> "you didn't indicate the point that you missed". Say what? Been
> taking your illiteracy pills lately?
3 times a sunspan.....
The statement is obvious. You cannot indicate a point you missed, by
definition. It's your non-acceptance of the premise that you may have
missed a point, that hinders your comprehension of the possibility a new
angle of the subject may come forth in discussion at a future time.
Don't mind me hemLocke, I always get this way when someone states they
know the last word on a subject. Since I know that's impossible, I
sometimes get carried away. Whether you realize it or not, you did come
off as saying that any discussion of the Lutha shoot is moot (i luv doin
that) and that your recap, Lynn's post, and the "professional opinion",
were pretty much the last words on the subject. The comment about some
of these words 'even not written by you' kinda adds to the arrogance you
seemed to be displaying. Other posts about how silly the thread is by
yourself didn't help either.
So I figured I'd joust before another troll singles you out, and maybe
show why they do single you out at times. Not that I believe you didn't
know. No hard feelings on my end. Hope same is true on yours.
morpheus- who loves being carried away, but hates the landings...
Dave Locke
> My point there sir, stated plainly, was this. There are new viewpoints
> out there. New viewers, new lurkers, new posters. Even if they are the
> same old same old, they deserve to be heard. The fact that you think
> every angle of the issue was covered does not mean that every angle of
> the issue was covered. the possibility exists that a new perspective
> could emerge. For you to discourage posts on this issue, assuming that
> every angle has been covered is wrong, and unlike you. If I had said I
> heard all there was ever to hear on this, I'm sure you would be among
> the first to show me my error. No one can ever say that a subject is
> exhausted. I mena they can, but they won't be correct. At least they
> weren't correct when they said the Earth was flat, or that it was the
> center of the universe, or that some moron god (probly Roman) carried
> the sun across the sky on his chariot. Previously accepted absolute
> truths can, and do, change.
An elequent paragraph responding to some conversation you must have
overheard between Rice Krispies in your morning cereal bowl.
Fortunately it has no relevance to what I was saying.
What I was saying, to Pete, was that he was saying absolutely nothing
new on the issue, and might benefit by following a few links I
provided so that he'd know *what* had already been said, since it was
several levels of conversation ahead of where he was entering in on
the topic.
If Pete, or anyone else, would like to play Daniel Boone and pretend
that path had never been explored before, be my guest, Edgar. Just
don't trip over the suburbanites or get trapped in the cul de sacs,
and if you don't see me or some other jaded folks joining you it might
provide comfort to know that we're only a click away. Of course, that
click will take you to the Web, and to Deja.com, but don't let that
frighten you off.
> It's your non-acceptance of the premise that you may have missed a
> point, that hinders your comprehension of the possibility a new
> angle of the subject may come forth in discussion at a future time.
As I already said, and again you overlooked seeing it, show me a new
angle and I'll join in. But if you're really interested in a new
angle, probably reinventing the wheel is the long way around to
reaching it. Most new discoveries are made by standing on the
shoulders of those who came before. Those who don't read history are
doomed to repeat it yada yada yada.
> Don't mind me hemLocke, I always get this way when someone states they
> know the last word on a subject. Since I know that's impossible, I
> sometimes get carried away.
Since I didn't say that, obviously you get carried away at other
things, too.
> Whether you realize it or not, you did come off as saying that any
> discussion of the Lutha shoot is moot (i luv doin that) and that
> your recap, Lynn's post, and the "professional opinion", were
> pretty much the last words on the subject. The comment about some
> of these words 'even not written by you' kinda adds to the arrogance you
> seemed to be displaying. Other posts about how silly the thread is by
> yourself didn't help either.
I was talking to Pete, so stop promoting the local to the universal as
to what I "come off as saying". For the final time, there was a lot
of work went into sifting through things and presenting finely tuned
viewpoints on the issue once the Mahoney arc was over. It would be
useful reading to someone who seriously wishes to discuss the topic.
If you want to ignore what even present posters have already said on
the issue, then you're really saying that you don't much care what
their opinions are one way or the other and you're not really serious
about saying something new.
In that case, if someone equally new -- or not yet jaded on the topic
-- wishes to discuss it with you on the pre-101 level, have at it, but
don't expect to be taken too seriously and definitely don't be
surprised when people who've been through it before don't jump back in
at the level in which you're playing the game. Our wheels are
steel-belted radials; yours aren't even round yet...
Mardelle
>I'm amazed this glossy piece of trash is actually put in some people's top 10
>lists. It embodies everything that made the last few seasons of Homicide
>poor.
>A melodramatic plot, style over substance, and the Mahoney arc.
Not to mention helicopters, "The French Connection"-type car chases, smashing
barricades, Olde West-style fistfights, guns a-blazin' -- everything the real
homicide po-leece distains and Nash Bridges embraces.
The real loss I think we suffer is one in which our population is being "dumbed
down" by the media (well, I don't know who's actually leading in this process,
because the population seems hellbent on self-destruction) through action over
substance, scenes requiring the attention span of a fruit fly, Nintendo
sensibilities, VH1 and E vacuous morality . . oh, nuts, now I'm on my soapbox.
I recognize that the networks need to show profits, that popularity/Nielsen
numbers leads to prosperity, that every day good people in TV are struggling
with hard decisions about the lines between intelligent, thoughtful programming
and mindless entertainment. Don't get me wrong -- there's room for stuff that
doesn't require you to think.
It's just that once in awhile I root for a program of substance, such as HlotS,
to stay the course and not give in to the "sniffing around" mindset. It's
obvious that Sport Utility Vehicle has learned from HlotS' losses (say that
three times in a row), so we have sex crimes victims and cops in teensy blue
briefs.
I just hope there is room on all zillion channels running 24 hours a day, for
intelligent, adult programming and it doesn't all have to come from across the
pond.
---------------
Mardelle, who just bought a house in Nevada by phone, can't sleep as a result
of worry, and is feeling a little cranky today!
Pamela Rose
>
> Stivers had the chance to express her problems right then and there. Had
> she, a different course of action might have ensued for everyone. Instead
> she got the "stunned mullet" look on her face and flip-flopped about what
> happened later on.
I'm not sure how you can have it both ways, Petey. You're pissed at
Stivers for squealing, and yet you say it's a clean shoot so there's
nothing to squeal about. In fact, Stivers didn't name Mike at all. She
said it was *her* fault and Gee jumped immediately to the Mahoney
shoot. She left the decision up to Gee to make (when she could have
gone to IA and received immunity, by the way).
I keep going back to the idea that if it was a clean shoot, what exactly
were they hiding? Why was Mikey so worried about the videotape? All
three of them knew it wasn't completely kosher. That's the point.
Their biggest mistake was NOT taking it before a review board and having
it cleared openly (which I think it would have been), and thus removing
the need for secrecy. It was the cover up that caused the problems, not
just the shooting itself.
Pamela
Pamela Rose
>
> Ooh, you bad, free-thinking Archon, you. Landru will clearly smite you for
> this! Good day to you, brother! Peace and contentment.
>
> Pete B.
The Red Hour approaches. Festival! Festival!
--
Pamela (you Morg, I Imorg) (do you get the feeling we've watched way too
much Classic Trek?)
Pamela Rose
>
> NDSEB wrote:
> >
> > Shelshka wrote:
> >
> > >> But Mikey pulled the trigger. And it was stone cold blooded murder.
> > >
> > >You say that like stone cold-blooded murder is a bad thing.
> >
> > In this case it was a *very* bad thing, because it brought us Georgia Rae
> > Mahoney. And all the rest.
> >
> > Nina
>
> show chose to let Mikey skate, like it would have happenned in lotsa
> real towns, there never would have been a Georgia Rae. That character
> was created soley to give an avenue allowing Mikey to spiral downward
> and act stupid and other things most H:LotS fans didn't like about
> season 6, in order to show that a cop can't get away with "street
> justice" type shootings. The fact that it happens all the time
> notwithstanding, we just can't show that on TV.
I dunno. Somebody got away with the Pratt shooting (Gee).
--
Pamela
Msongbird
Or was it Munch?
--
Martha K.
"You homicide guys, always pickin' up on small details." Stivers, Homicide:
Life on the Street
Dave Locke
> Pamela wrote
>
> >I dunno. Somebody got away with the Pratt shooting (Gee).
>
> Or was it Munch?
Bayliss did that one, also. If not, Mitch did it. If Mitch didn't do
it, the Baldwin's character did it. Any of the Baldwins' characters.
Msongbird
>Msongbird set words in phosphor:
>
>> Pamela wrote
>>
>> >I dunno. Somebody got away with the Pratt shooting (Gee).
>>
>> Or was it Munch?
>
>Bayliss did that one, also. If not, Mitch did it. If Mitch didn't do
>it, the Baldwin's character did it. Any of the Baldwins' characters.
Were they nekkid and hairy at the time?
Dave Locke
> I just hope there is room on all zillion channels running 24 hours a
> day, for intelligent, adult programming and it doesn't all have to
> come from across the pond.
It's not too much to hope for, and things are certainly better in
terms of being able to find something reasonable because of a greater
number of channels.
But we're still behind the times, and with consideration to the number
of cable subscribers in this country there's no reason we should be.
The mentality is that the Networks are still all that really count,
for one thing, and for another people get excited about what timeslot
a show is airing in and what other shows are "up against it", as
though the VCR were really just a toaster oven with a clock that
always tells you when it's noon or midnight.
I don't know what milieu these cable subscribers without VCRs who only
watch network TV can be found grazing in, but I think the potential
for television is being held back by -- for one major thing -- an
antiquated industry which revolves around the networks and the
Nielsens.
> Mardelle, who just bought a house in Nevada by phone, can't sleep as
> a result of worry, and is feeling a little cranky today!
What a Luddite. You could have bought it online...
Pete B.
flies through the sky, Miramani. I know a good, albeit a bit crotchety,
country doctor that could work on that for you.
Kiroc B.
Pamela Rose wrote in message <37F277FF...@infohwy.com>...
Dave Locke
> Dave Locke wrote
> >Msongbird set words in phosphor:
> >
> >> Pamela wrote
> >>
> >> >I dunno. Somebody got away with the Pratt shooting (Gee).
> >>
> >> Or was it Munch?
> >
> >Bayliss did that one, also. If not, Mitch did it. If Mitch didn't do
> >it, the Baldwin's character did it. Any of the Baldwins' characters.
>
> Were they nekkid and hairy at the time?
I think the big one was even hobbling amok.
Pete B.
Pete B.
PR>I dunno. Somebody got away with the Pratt shooting (Gee).
>>
>
>Or was it Munch?
Pete B.
Pete B.
> the Baldwin's character did it. Any of the Baldwins' characters.
>
Pete B.
Pete B.
>>it, the Baldwin's character did it. Any of the Baldwins' characters.
>
>Were they nekkid and hairy at the time?
>--
>Martha K.
Karing21
>Msongbird set words in phosphor:
>
>> Pamela wrote
>>
>> >I dunno. Somebody got away with the Pratt shooting (Gee).
>>
>> Or was it Munch?
>
>Bayliss did that one, also. If not, Mitch did it. If Mitch didn't do
>it, the Baldwin's character did it. Any of the Baldwins' characters.
Pam Rose was right all along: It was Gee.
Karin,
Reina De Paréntesis
Msongbird
>Uh oh. We've entered the same rubber room in the twilight zone, Martha!
If you would prefer, perhaps I could arrange one of those little cells, a la
The Gamesters of Triskelion?
Mardelle
>What a Luddite. You could have bought it online...
I always was one step behind the times.
Did I ever tell you I grew up in Ohio?
-------
Mardelle
TVFan87656
>But we're still behind the times, and with consideration to the number
>of cable subscribers in this country there's no reason we should be.
>The mentality is that the Networks are still all that really count,
When cable shows come along that may threaten networks, some display of force
is shown to try and quell them (The Sopranos getting nominations but few Emmy
wins, ditto for Larry Sanders). Networks can't charge for advertising time on
pay cable, and advertisers can't push their products. It must frighten them
whenever certain types of cable (pay cable, HBO) gain critical *and* public
acceptance. I can see why, millions of people paying money to see a few shows,
compared to networks, where they get shows for free, but most of the quality is
so poor they are forced to turn to other sources of entertainment.
------------------------------------------------
"You got chased out of Seattle, didn't you?"
Meldrick Lewis (to Laura Ballard), Homicide: Life on the Street
------------------------------------------------
Pete B.
Dave Locke
> Dave Locke commented:
I think so. Fortunately, though, you escaped, though now you're
fleeing to Nevada. What's in Nevada besides sand, neon, and grimy
slot machine tokens?
Pete B.
>I keep going back to the idea that if it was a clean shoot, what exactly
>were they hiding?
They were hiding the writer's ludicrous ignorance of common police procedure
regarding officer involved shootings by not knowing that it would be called
a clean shoot.
>Why was Mikey so worried about the videotape?
Poor Mikey was beginning to suffer from delusions of persecution and
paranoia and began drinking like a transcontinental airline pilot. He had
nothing to worry about from ground one. But by that time the world was out
to get him. Really, though, he couldn't be any smarter than then feebs who
wrote his lines. They didn't know better so neither could he. So he was
afraid.
Cops are even authorized to shoot fleeing and unarmed felons to affect an
arrest if the subject is deemed dangerous to others. Luther's shoot was so
cut and dry "good" that only stupid, shameful, completely inaccurate writing
made it a "bad" shoot. How foolishly the feeble writing further forced the
characters to react afterwards doesn't enter into what I've contended and
continue to contend: As presented in 'Deception' (and only as presented in
that episode) Mike would have walked away a hero. Unlike Tony Soprano's
complaint that "psychiatry and cunnilingus brought us to this" H:LotS can
say "bad writing and NBC stooge-buffing brought us to this."
>I'm not sure how you can have it both ways, Petey. You're pissed at
>Stivers for squealing, and yet you say it's a clean shoot so there's
> nothing to squeal about
A rat's squeal is not defacto truth, is it? If someone at your workplace
thought they saw you stealing office supplies when in fact they saw you
taking home something you bought at Staples that day, what then? Is it
true? Of course not. Could it screw up your life because your co-worker
was a dolt and wasn't sure what she saw but ran her ruinous mouth to your
boss and coworkers anyway? U betcha it could. That's my view of Stivers.
She taught she taw a puddy tat. She obviously didn't know WTF she saw.
I agree with you that they should have gone to the board or told Gee "Luther
wouldn't drop his piece, then he raised his gun towards Lewis so I lit him
up." Instead the writers were sailing their dinky dinghy of dignity into
the maelstrom of misinformed mediocrity where they eventually got sucked in
and drowned.
And you're of course right - cover-ups only cause problems but we learn at a
very early age to claim the "boogie man" did it. What mom out there can't
remember the first time their child realized they could postpone punishment
by invoking the wide-eyed "I don't know *how* it happened, Mommy" defense?
When my friend's two-year-old first did it she even offered up a list of
possible suspects. That's innate human behavior, for sure. (-: Hell, I've
even seen cats try not to look guilty when they knock something over.
In Mikey's case there was no need to cover up. The board would establish
that Luther was asked to drop the weapon four times, he refused, Mikey
believed his arm and gun was moving towards Meldrick and he shot because of
the immediate danger. Then it would be: "Thank you, officers, you may go."
They'd LOVE to get such a cut and dry case because so many officer involved
shootings involve no weapon or a suspect that's not really a criminal. For
God sakes, folks, they routinely give passes to cops that kill people armed
with BB guns and *toy* pistols that have refused to drop those "weapons."
You don't drop it and they drop you. Very simple rules. Does anyone ever
recall hearing a cop say "lower the weapon?" No. It's "drop it" often
followed by "kick it away from you" before they'll even consider coming
close enough to cuff you. They don't want to die.
This "it was a bad shoot" business is bogus. Apparently Debbie Sarjeant,
the writer, was really a producer by trade, and hadn't known the rules.
Heaven only knows what her background was but I'm betting it wasn't law
enforcement or any of the other reality-based occupations. "Deception"
seems to be her only H:LotS writing credit. Well, I sure feel deceived.
Pete B.
Dave Locke
> Dave Locke asked:
>
> >What's in Nevada besides sand, neon, and grimy
> >slot machine tokens?
>
> Oh, Dave, now you're the Luddite. Nobody uses those tokens anymore. You
> just keep sliding $20-bills in the slot and watch them disappear in a
> matter of seconds. It's magic!
Didn't know that. I drove through the place once back in the early
'70s. On my way to Yellowstone from LA. I'd read "Las Vegas Fantasy"
(actually, I'd recently edited a collection of the author's personal
essays and that was one of them, so I'd read it twice) and I
remembered the description of the kids left outside the casinos while
mommy and daddy turned into zombies pulling on slot machine handles,
and decided I'd forego the experience.
> If you're a Homicide fan, you gotta love Las Vegas, where the business is
> good and gettin' better every year.
I assume you're talking about the death business.
> The answer to your question is: cheap flights and entertainment (the kids
> will visit), affordable housing in the mountains above the smog, no state
> income tax, and a big pond of duplicate bridge players (my real passion).
Ah. Now, that's more like it. Good luck with that.
--
DaveLockeCorkEarthlingCorkNetCork | Remove the Corks | Caveat Lector
"Now the internet has all these people who are sitting around typing
one-handed, and they're illiterates! I mean: 'Fick me! Fick me!',
'Fondle my tots!'" -- Bette Midler, "Diva Las Vegas"
ukrm
morpheus wrote:
<bits of snippage here and there>
> My point there sir, stated plainly, was this. There are new viewpoints
> out there. New viewers, new lurkers, new posters. Even if they are the
> same old same old, they deserve to be heard. The fact that you think
> every angle of the issue was covered does not mean that every angle of
> the issue was covered. the possibility exists that a new perspective
> could emerge. For you to discourage posts on this issue, assuming that
> every angle has been covered is wrong, and unlike you.
Dave is heroically attempting to save lives. He remembers my previous
threat to unibomb anyone foolhardy enough to revive the Mahoney shoot
argument, and is trying desperately to prevent me from finally going
over the brink and fetching some explosives from the bunker.
So you see that it is really all my fault.
>If I had said I
> heard all there was ever to hear on this, I'm sure you would be among
> the first to show me my error. No one can ever say that a subject is
> exhausted. I mena they can, but they won't be correct. At least they
> weren't correct when they said the Earth was flat, or that it was the
> center of the universe, or that some moron god (probly Roman) carried
> the sun across the sky on his chariot. Previously accepted absolute
> truths can, and do, change.
Whaddaya mean they weren't correct when they said the Earth was flat!?
--
Shelshka
RC Borgia
ukrm
defra...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I'm gay.
Is this a non sequitur, or did I miss something in Petey's post?
--
Shel
RCB
Unhurried1
> Found out some info on the movie. Some stuff I can't
> post...
So, Herr Morpheus, you haff seen ze top secret plans for ze
movie, ja? Und you vill not say more? Vell, mein guten
friend, you vill perhaps have heard many stories about us,
in quiet vispers by broken peoples, and all ze stories are
true. All of zem. It would be better for you to tell us
everysing now, because... ve have vays of makingk you
talk...
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
ukrm
morpheus wrote:
> EVERYBODY is back. Well, maybe not the second shift guys, but every
> previous cast-member whose face graced the opening credits.
Aw, darn. I liked those second shift guys. I cherished the wild hope
that they'd replace Ballard and Falsone.
I still wish they would.
News sounds good otherwise, though.
--
Shelshka
RC Borgia
Mardelle
>What's in Nevada besides sand, neon, and grimy
>slot machine tokens?
Oh, Dave, now you're the Luddite. Nobody uses those tokens anymore. You just
keep sliding $20-bills in the slot and watch them disappear in a matter of
seconds. It's magic!
If you're a Homicide fan, you gotta love Las Vegas, where the business is good
and gettin' better every year.
-------------
Mardelle
P.S. The answer to your question is: cheap flights and entertainment (the kids
TVFan87656
>EVERYBODY is back. Well, maybe not the second shift guys, but every
>previous cast-member whose face graced the opening credits. This is what
>I was told. I asked singly about Beau, Kay, Megan and Crosetti, source
>said yes each time, and finally said as far as he's been told, every
>single main cast member is in the movie. I stopped asking at this point.
Script for a short segment before the film, which utilizes each of the former
cast members:
(Homicide credits roll)
Kay walks around the squad room, nostalgic about her old stomping grounds. She
heads to a carnival. At the carnival, she runs into Stan.
Kay: Stanley! How you been?
Stan: Bored. I heard your quit homicide.
Kay: Yeah. I thought about transferring back in, but the guys who replaced me
are so much better.
Stan: I know what you mean. Well, I'll be seeing you.
Kay: Bye Big Man.
Kay walks into a fortune teller's tent. She looks into a crystal ball. The
faces of Beau and Crosetti emerge from the smoke.
Crosetti: She's hotter!
Beau: No, *she's* hot, but the other is a stone-cold fox!
Kay: Hey guys, who's hot? Are you talking about me?
Crosetti: No way Howard. We were comparing Ballard and Sheppard.
Beau: Sheppard's hotter.
Crosetti: Ballard's hotter!
Beau: Even dead, you're still a salami brain.
The images fade away. Kay wipes her eyes with a Kleenex.
Kay: Oh geez, I miss those guys so much. They're right y'know. How stupid was I
to compare myself to Ballard and Sheppard. Who wears the makeup, huh? And
Laura...she's brave enough to break the dress code, and still be a spunky
detective. She even landed that hunk Falsone. They make me look like chopped
liver. (Kay looks at her watch). Oh, gotta go, time for Providence. I just love
that show.
(As she walks through the carnival exit, she stops to look at the camera one
last time.)
Kay: Don't forget to watch Stark Raving Mad, NBC's newest hit! It's the #1
comedy on NBC in the 9:30-10:00 PM timeslot. Pretty good, huh?
(Cut to the outside of Sheppard's apartment
Brodie is walking beside Sheppard on the sidewalk, toward her car.)
Brodie: Please Detective Sheppard, star in my next film. You make Michelle
Pfeiffer look as ugly as Erich Von Stroheim. You make Claire Danes into Great
Dane. Your face, the lack of expression, it's so unique. Be my muse.
(Sheppard looks at him, with an expression that could be read as many things,
since she has no ability to move her face. She gets into her car and begins
driving away. Brodie runs beside the car.)
Sheppard: Brodie, go away! Or I'll send you to the *ER*, on Thursday night at
10 PM!
(Cut to Ballard and Falsone's apartment)
Ballard: Kellerman, leave me alone!
(Mike pleads into the phone receiver)
Mike: Laura, please, teach me how to be a good detective. Teach me how to be a
man.
Ballard: I'm involved with Falsone, and (rolling eyes) he's *much* cuter.
Mike: But all those newsgroup women love my ass....
Ballard: What do they know? Those (looks into camera) Internet people shouldn't
be listened to, *especially* if they badmouth the NBC lineup. They're crazy.
Kellerman: I'm begging you Ballard. One night, a threeway with Falsone, please,
anything.
Ballard (rolling eyes): No. When I think of you, I get Cold Feet. Particularly
on Friday's at 10 PM!
(cut to a Paris apartment)
Megan (to a visiting FBI agent): I know, Mike Giardello is so wonderful, isn't
he? He managed to go back out to the streets, when he was never *on* the
streets in the first place! I didn't think anyone could ever do a better job at
standing around and doing nothing than I did, but Mike Giardello is much better
at it. Don't you agree Dr. Cox?
Julianna: Um....why the hell am I here?
Megan (whispering): Just read the card, take the paycheck, and forget this ever
happened.
Julianna: Yes....Mike...Giardello....rocks.
(cut to the squadroom. Frank stands in front of the new Box, wiping away a
tear. Falsone puts an arm around his shoulder.)
Frank: I had to see for myself. My Box is gone forever.
Falsone: Hey, things happen, OK?
Frank: (wipes away another tear) Falsone, I hadn't thought of it in that way
before. Thank you for making me feel better. In a way, I'm happy my Box has
been replaced, because it paves the way for the good detectives. The real
detectives. Detectives like you, Ballard, and Sheppard.
(as Frank walks away, Falsone smiles to himself)
Falsone: I knew it wuz true, but I didn't know he'd actually say it. I guess I
must be good.
The End
------------------------------------------------
"You got chased out of Seattle, didn't you?"
Meldrick Lewis (to Laura Ballard), Homicide: Life on the Street
------------------------------------------------
Kayleigh19
<hilarity snipperooed>
Ah, TVF...thank you for making one of the unrespectable "Internet People" much
happier....
Kayleigh
(Did I forget to say "Athaward"?)
Kayleigh19
> Instead the writers were sailing their dinky dinghy of dignity into
>the maelstrom of misinformed mediocrity where they eventually got sucked in
>and drowned.
Wonderful use of alliteration there, Petey...
Kayleigh
Kayleigh19
> What's in Nevada besides sand, neon, and grimy
>slot machine tokens?
Don't forget the hookers!
Kayleigh
Kayleigh19
>the Baldwin's character did it. Any of the Baldwins' characters.
>>
>
Hottentots? In the pansies? Someone call the Starchair Enterpoop!
Kayleigh
(the Opus-figured, but fortunately *not* herring-breath-ed.)
Kay
"Pete B." wrote:
> up." Instead the writers were sailing their dinky dinghy of dignity into
> the maelstrom of misinformed mediocrity where they eventually got sucked in
> and drowned.
>
> And you're of course right - cover-ups only cause problems but we learn at a
> very early age to claim the "boogie man" did it. What mom out there can't
> remember the first time their child realized they could postpone punishment
> by invoking the wide-eyed "I don't know *how* it happened, Mommy" defense?
> When my friend's two-year-old first did it she even offered up a list of
> possible suspects. That's innate human behavior, for sure. (-: Hell, I've
> even seen cats try not to look guilty when they knock something over.
>
> In Mikey's case there was no need to cover up. The board would establish
> that Luther was asked to drop the weapon four times, he refused, Mikey
> believed his arm and gun was moving towards Meldrick and he shot because of
> the immediate danger. Then it would be: "Thank you, officers, you may go."
> They'd LOVE to get such a cut and dry case because so many officer involved
> shootings involve no weapon or a suspect that's not really a criminal. For
> God sakes, folks, they routinely give passes to cops that kill people armed
> with BB guns and *toy* pistols that have refused to drop those "weapons."
> You don't drop it and they drop you. Very simple rules. Does anyone ever
> recall hearing a cop say "lower the weapon?" No. It's "drop it" often
> followed by "kick it away from you" before they'll even consider coming
> close enough to cuff you. They don't want to die.
First off, I'm not arguing with you because the shooting was definitely
completely justified. Luther had a gun, he was a clear threat, Mikey took care
of him.... whether or not Mikey took pleasure in pulling the trigger and/or
taunting Luther makes no difference. Basically, the shooting was clean, but
Mikey's conscience wasn't because he had strong motivations at the moment and
did want Luther dead.
I agree with you that, given the circumstances you pointed out, any board would
clear Mikey and call the shooting justified. However, I just wanted to point
something out that I think has been overlooked(at least in the current rehashing
of the argument Dave). You haven't mentioned the fact that the gun Luther was
holding belonged to Meldrick and that Luther was very obviously beaten pretty
badly before the fatal shot. These two factors would cause doubt in anyone who
wasn't actually in the room when the shooting occurred. Since it was Meldrick's
gun Luther was holding, it would be easy to think that Lewis planted it there
post-mortem to give justifiable cause for the shooting. This was discussed
briefly in Fallen Heroes when Frank and Calzone were interrogating Mike. The
interrogation of Mike was particularly interesting since usually when there's a
suspect in the box, the audience doesn't know what REALLY happened with regards
to the crime yet. We rely on the detectives and the suspect to take us through
the course of events, eventually coming to some conclusion, which may or may not
be entirely factual. In Fallen Heroes, we were able to see an interrogation
where we already knew EXACTLY what had happened at the moment in question. As
much as I hate Fallen Heroes(for obvious reasons that I've stated before), I
thought it was very interesting to see Frank giving his views on what he thought
happened and knowing that he was WAY off.
Anyway, the part of the storyline that's completely illogical is of course
Stivers and Lewis having doubts about the shooting(oh yeah, then of course hot
shot ace detective Calzone comes into the picture and starts sticking his nose
in where it doesn't belong). Now Stivers having some doubts, I could let slip
by and attribute that to her just not being as good of a cop as we thought she
was. She had worked with Mike and Meldrick before, but she didn't really know
them since they didn't hang out or work together on a daily basis. She was an
outsider, and that became very obvious after Mikey pulled the trigger and Teri
just stood there with her gun still out in front of her, not moving a muscle.
She didn't want to accept what had just happened, and part of that was because
of the way Mike was talking to Luther before he shot him.
So, okay, I guess I can accept Teri coming to Gee in "Fallen Heroes" blathering
about how her fellow detectives have been shot because of Mike. But Meldrick
too? That just doesn't ring true to me. He knows Mike saved his life and kept
him from getting a serious reprimand for beating down Luther, and now he's just
going to turn on him? I don't buy it, unless we want to buy all these little
hints that TPTB have dropped about Meldrick being a lousy partner(with
Crosetti's suicide, Mikey's near suicide(during which of course, Meldrick saved
Mike's life), Sheppard's beatdown, etc.) At any rate, it was lousy writing.
TPTB didn't convince me that Meldrick was a bad partner(a bad driver, sure, but
not a bad partner or cop), so all those little scenes where Meldrick is
portrayed as the bad guy come off as completely illogical and uncharacteristic
of a character who I believe was pretty well developed, which thus makes what
happened in Fallen Heroes completely illogical and unwatchable as well.
-Kay (okay, so I went off on a tangent... It's late, I'm tired, and I'm about a
pint low.)
Pamela Rose
>
> Pamela Rose wrote:
>
> >I keep going back to the idea that if it was a clean shoot, what exactly
> >were they hiding?
>
> They were hiding the writer's ludicrous ignorance of common police procedure
> regarding officer involved shootings by not knowing that it would be called
> a clean shoot.
You may be correct that the writers were aiming for cheap melodrama
rather than reality, but what we were given is what we have to deal
with. It was not presented to the viewer, by the reactions at the time
or the aftermath, as a clean shoot. To quote T'Pau, "De air is de air;
vhat can ve do?"
--
Pamela (bets all her quatros on Dave, who is too stubborn to ever lose)
Pamela Rose
>
> Morpheus wrote:
> > Found out some info on the movie. Some stuff I can't
> > post...
>
> So, Herr Morpheus, you haff seen ze top secret plans for ze
> movie, ja? Und you vill not say more? Vell, mein guten
> friend, you vill perhaps have heard many stories about us,
> in quiet vispers by broken peoples, and all ze stories are
> true. All of zem. It would be better for you to tell us
> everysing now, because... ve have vays of makingk you
> talk...
And Shel has them all memorized and keeps the cat-o-nines oiled and
ready at all times. I, on the other hand, favor feathers.
--
Pamela
Pamela Rose
>
> morpheus <one...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >EVERYBODY is back. Well, maybe not the second shift guys, but every
> >previous cast-member whose face graced the opening credits. This is what
> >I was told. I asked singly about Beau, Kay, Megan and Crosetti, source
> >said yes each time, and finally said as far as he's been told, every
> >single main cast member is in the movie. I stopped asking at this point.
>
> Script for a short segment before the film, which utilizes each of the former
> cast members:
>
> (Homicide credits roll)
> Kay walks around the squad room, nostalgic about her old stomping grounds. She
> heads to a carnival. At the carnival, she runs into Stan.
>
> Kay: Stanley! How you been?
> Stan: Bored. I heard your quit homicide.
> Kay: Yeah. I thought about transferring back in, but the guys who replaced me
> are so much better.
> Stan: I know what you mean. Well, I'll be seeing you.
> Kay: Bye Big Man.
Have a double athaward for this one!
--
Pamela
G
thanks for making me late for again!!!!
ukrm <uk...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:37F2CF65...@mindspring.com...
Dave Locke
> "Pete B." <petey...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Here we go again! With my slowmo video remote I went over that
> > whole episode and exonerate Mikey completely.
[snip balance of 133 lines]
>
> I'm gay.
Stop it. You made me hurt myself when I fell out of my chair.
Dave Locke
> ukrm <uk...@mindspring.com> wrote
> >
> > defra...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > I'm gay.
> >
> > Is this a non sequitur, or did I miss something in Petey's post?
>
> this is fun.
> thanks for making me late for again!!!!
welcome for sharing us!!!!
Lisa B
tvfan...@aol.com (TVFan87656) wrote:
> When cable shows come along that may threaten networks, some display
of force
> is shown to try and quell them (The Sopranos getting nominations but
few Emmy
> wins, ditto for Larry Sanders). Networks can't charge for advertising
time on
> pay cable, and advertisers can't push their products. It must
frighten them
> whenever certain types of cable (pay cable, HBO) gain critical *and*
public
> acceptance. I can see why, millions of people paying money to see a
few shows,
> compared to networks, where they get shows for free, but most of the
quality is
> so poor they are forced to turn to other sources of entertainment.
David Foster Wallace discusses this very issue in two different books:
his sprawling novel "Infinite Jest," and a book of essays titled "A
Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again." Well, it's not this issue,
exactly, but rather the (future) demise of network television.
"Infinite Jest" takes place in the 2010s (I'm not sure of the year
exactly. One of the jokes is that numbered years have been replaced by
sponsored years, so it's The Year of the Whopper or The Year of the
Trial-Sized Dove Bar instead of, say, 2017.) At this time, people watch
"entertainments" (they're no longer called "programs" or "shows") on CD-
ROM, on their teleputers. The entertainments arrive in the mail and are
watched at the viewer's leisure. There is a lengthy segment where
Wallace delineates the demise of network TV, and I'll try to take a
look for it this weekend, but it's a 1000-page novel (including the
endnotes) and I can't remember exactly where in the story this subject
occurs.
The essay in "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again" is more
factual, but the research for it, I'm sure, inspired the segment in
"Infinite Jest."
Anyway, just kind of interesting. I think the networks are right to be
worried. Between the Internet, spending time with family, and the
freaks like me who still read books, the entertainment-delivery system
will change drastically over the next 10-15 years. Just reading the
Nielsen ratings proves it: the networks are excited to get a 15 share
on a Sunday night, when in the 1970s or even 1980s that would have been
more than enough justification for a show to get canned.
Lisa.
Nielsen-ratings reader since age 11, sad to report.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
CAClark
>Hottentots? In the pansies? Someone call the Starchair Enterpoop!
Waaah, I still miss Bloom County!
--
Cherie
http://members.aol.com/chersfmly
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and
the pessimist fears this is true." (James Branch Cabell, The Silver Stallion)
George Treheles
more than one bullet in him, too. Remember, the Pope took three 9mm
slugs
to the gut and lived.
This reminds me of an article I read years ago, about the popes
attempted assassination.
There was a Catholic Nun from Ireland in St. Peters square during the
attempt
on the popes life, when the media asked her if she knew what was going
on
while the shots were fired, she replied, "I thought I heard a Bren 10
being fired
but the police say it was a Browning High Power".
BTW . I feel it was a clean kill....if Bayliss did it, there
wouldn't have been any problems.
Kayleigh19
>>Hottentots? In the pansies? Someone call the Starchair Enterpoop!
>
>Waaah, I still miss Bloom County!
Ah, Cutter John, we hardly knew ye....
Kayleigh
Pete B.
>or the aftermath, as a clean shoot. To quote T'Pau, "De air is de air;
>vhat can ve do?"
T'pau, the only person ever to turn down a seat on the Federation high
council because she knew Tom Fontana had written a whoopee cushion onto it
to make the NBC execs happy.
What we were given was factually fractured and made no sense. The person
with the most to hide re: Luther was Meldrick who lost his gun to the badly
beaten Luther although he himself was unscratched. Yet Mikey's the one
acting fearful. Say what, Tom?
We went from the most factually accurate cop show ever to "I Love Lucy" with
Glocks in a heartbeat. The only rational analysis one can post against that
is to describe where they began their departure from the real world. Calling
it a bad shoot was certainly a primary launch point into lunacy, at least
for someone like me who reads newspapers from time to time and knows more
than a few real world cops. This a simple issue. Dave made a serious
factual error regarding police shootings. That has nothing to do with
Fontana & Co's subsequent misinterpretation of events. Just a simple review
of what Dave said reveals it.
In the Deja thread he pointed us to he says: "However, what he was covering
up was that he'd toyed with Luther beyond the point where Luther was a
threat, and that Luther could have been taken in. He could have justifiably
shot Luther when he first came upon the scene, but he didn't, choosing
instead to toy with him."
Dave's "beyond the point" statement was flat-out wrong. That's just not
true. Mikey had the legal and well-established right to shoot Luther during
every second of the confrontation, right up to and including the moment he
shot him. Dave is *dead* wrong in believing Luther was no longer a threat.
The legal rules say very clearly that he was a deadly threat *until* he
dropped and not just lowered the gun. A first year rookie knows that; Dave,
apparently, does not. Neither, it seems, did Fontana & Co.
Mikey, while giving Luther his rights, saw the gun rising, as I did, and
killed him quite legally. No matter how sour a face Stivers made or how much
Dave wants us to believe it was wrong it was not. The cites I gave reiterate
that fact, repeatedly. The gun didn't even need to come up, as my cites
illustrate. They gun did not need to be loaded or even real. Not dropping
it was grounds enough to shoot him. A perp is considered a deadly threat
until *completely* disarmed and subdued. Dave doesn't believe that but alas
Dave is wrong. No amount of Cujo-name calling can change that fact. It is
amusing, though, to see him try that tired and trite tactic on me. Dave,
you *gotta* know better than to ever think that would work! Is the ghost of
6th season Fontana writing your lines now?
>Pamela (bets all her quatros on Dave, who is too stubborn to ever lose)
Hard to win when you've taken up a factually incorrect position left
unchallenged for so long some people assume it to be true. You can bet it's
going to be fun to watch the sidetracking, squirming, name-calling, evasion,
bluster and denial that's bound to ensue. The last time this happened to me
someone actually said: "Well, that *is* what I said but it's not what I
meant!"
You just don't have any idea of how stubborn I am, Pamela, especially when
it's so unequivocally easy to demonstrate the truth. That's why you bet on
the wrong horse. BTW, it's quatloos. There's still time to bet a winner
(-:
See: http://www.cfar.umd.edu/~arensb/sounds/100quatloos.au
and http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~hwloidl/htg-all.html (search for "Quatloo")
Pete B. Cujo, the newcomer, here to strike fear in the hearts of the
Providers and to liberate the Thralls from their thraldom.
morpheus
Pamela Rose wrote:
>
> morpheus wrote:
> >
> > NDSEB wrote:
> > >
> > > Shelshka wrote:
> > >
> > > >> But Mikey pulled the trigger. And it was stone cold blooded murder.
> > > >
> > > >You say that like stone cold-blooded murder is a bad thing.
> > >
> > > In this case it was a *very* bad thing, because it brought us Georgia Rae
> > > Mahoney. And all the rest.
> > >
> > > Nina
> >
> > C'mon Nina, you're almost saying the ends justified the cause. If the
> > show chose to let Mikey skate, like it would have happenned in lotsa
> > real towns, there never would have been a Georgia Rae. That character
> > was created soley to give an avenue allowing Mikey to spiral downward
> > and act stupid and other things most H:LotS fans didn't like about
> > season 6, in order to show that a cop can't get away with "street
> > justice" type shootings. The fact that it happens all the time
> > notwithstanding, we just can't show that on TV.
>
> I dunno. Somebody got away with the Pratt shooting (Gee).
>
Yes, but we don't know who. Therefore nobody as yet can be chastised for
it. It woulda been interesting to see how the show handled a main
character who the audience knows had committed that murder. I suspect it
would have been handled better in season 3 than it was in seasons 5 and
6. I also suspect the way Luthers shoot was handled was due to a desire
to write for and show a character who gets eaten up by his demons. They
may have wanted the audience to believe the shoot was bad to justify the
treatment of character for the next year. All I'm contending is in
reality, this particular shoot would have been labelled clean, even it
wasn't in fact squeaky clean.
morph
morpheus
bring it on people! I can meet all torture meted out with laughter,
before I pass out that is...but I'll never talk about Tim and Frank
marrying each other! Never!
morph
TVFan87656
>
>Lisa.
>Nielsen-ratings reader since age 11, sad to report.
I've read them quite a few years as well. Do you get the USA Today on
Wednesday? They have a rundown of each primetime night, which show in the
timeslot won, which show took second place, etc. Reading them can be very
addicting.
Pamela Rose
Hey, thanks for reminding me of the interview Fontana did a few months
before Andre left where he said he wanted to end the show with Frank and
Tim in bed together. Hmmmmmm.
--
Pamela (Morph's always giving me ideas...)
Luna Vudu
>>Somebody got away with the Pratt shooting (Gee).
>>
>
See, Pamela, of course, meant to write, "Gee, I wonder how Munch got away with
it."
opinionatedly, luna
* "Er - Bimmler, Heinrich Bimmler.... I am retired vindow cleaner und
pacifist vithout doing war crimes - Damn!"
--
"Yes, there are two paths you can go by -
but in the long run, there's still time to change the road you're on."
ukrm
morpheus wrote:
> bring it on people! I can meet all torture meted out with laughter,
> before I pass out that is...but I'll never talk about Tim and Frank
> marrying each other! Never!
You won't be laughing. Give me credit for *some* skill.
--
Shel
RC Borgia
Mardelle
>Instead the writers were sailing their dinky dinghy of dignity into
>the maelstrom of misinformed mediocrity where they eventually got sucked in
>and drowned.
Certainly the super sentence of September.
---------------
Mardelle
Mardelle
I've been looking for a new career.
-------------
Mardelle, coming out of retirement
Kayleigh19
>>Don't forget the hookers!
>>
>>Kayleigh
>
>I've been looking for a new career.
>-------------
>Mardelle, coming out of retirement
Mardelle, before you leave the Big Isle, buy a grass skirt, and I'll loan you
my feather boa and a replica seventeenth century corset, and girl--you will be
one hot half-Hawaiian mama.
Kayleigh
Lisa B
tvfan...@aol.com (TVFan87656) wrote:
> Lisa B <beau...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Lisa.
> >Nielsen-ratings reader since age 11, sad to report.
>
> I've read them quite a few years as well. Do you get the USA Today on
> Wednesday? They have a rundown of each primetime night, which show in
the
> timeslot won, which show took second place, etc. Reading them can be
very
> addicting.
Tell me about it. I'm all "Check out the share, that's way important.
How did That 70's Show do? Ooh, [whatever] won the timeslot. Cool!" I
even get mildly ticked when the ratings are delayed a day because of
holidays and such.
Shoot me now.
Lisa.
Laughing, laughing, laughing, because Cold Feet's ratings were ten
percent lower that H:LotS's season 7 premiere. What was that, Sassa?
You made a mistake and humbly beg my forgiveness? I laugh in your face
and kick you when you're down.
---------------------
An Emmy? They'll give those to anyone!
-Bayliss, "H:LotS"
---------------------
Lisa B
I second your satisfactory suggestion. This original oratory provides
optimum satiety.
Lisa.
NDSEB
>> I dunno. Somebody got away with the Pratt shooting (Gee).
>>
>
>Yes, but we don't know who. Therefore nobody as yet can be chastised for
>it. It woulda been interesting to see how the show handled a main
>character who the audience knows had committed that murder. I suspect it
>would have been handled better in season 3 than it was in seasons 5 and
>6.
I bet you're right (although it's fun to keep guessing whodunnit).
> I also suspect the way Luthers shoot was handled was due to a desire
>to write for and show a character who gets eaten up by his demons. They
>may have wanted the audience to believe the shoot was bad to justify the
>treatment of character for the next year. All I'm contending is in
>reality, this particular shoot would have been labelled clean, even it
>wasn't in fact squeaky clean.
Agreed. It was completely manipulative, and as I said earlier, I was willing
to go along for the ride (until finding out that the ride was gonna suck).
At the risk of sounding like a troll (or a tool, whichever is correct ... maybe
just an asshole?) it *is* only a TV show. WAIT! What I mean is, there is such
a thing as dramatic license. Are all procedures depicted on medical shows
medically accurate? Are all developments in the course of a trial depicted on
a show about lawyers likely to happen in reality?
Pete B. can quote all the statistics and present all the facts about "real
cops" and "real life" that he wants. It doesn't really have a whole lot to do
with how I view H:LOTS, or react to what I see. I respond to what is presented
on the tube, how it is performed by the actors, how it appears visually. I
don't expect it to be reality; its interpretive, artistic, dramatic.
I'm not saying just sit back and watch and veg out (although that's always an
option). I'm all for thinking about the show and participating in or
"listening" to discussions or I wouldn't be here. I just don't understand the
need for lengthy treatises based on "outside" reference materials in order to
do so. I think this show that has us all so interested is rich enough in
material to discuss it as is.
Yes, its based on a book which (brilliantly) sets forth the reality on the
street. But it has been modified to fit your screen, and run in the time
alloted.
Nina