Did the stabbing nun kill Susan Robinette? ( possible spoiler for tapers )
Thaddeus L. Olczyk
name, you know head-in-the-bag-lady) Or was he just driven nuts by all
the stuff happening to him, mostly after being accused? I didn't seem
to get a sense of that question.
Manh Tuong Lewis Nguyen
: So. Did George Vogelman kill Susan Robionette? ( I think that was her
: name, you know head-in-the-bag-lady) Or was he just driven nuts by all
: the stuff happening to him, mostly after being accused? I didn't seem
: to get a sense of that question.
I think this storyline will still go one until November sweeps. There's
still Joey Heric. Elinor, ridden with guilt, will try to find out why
George did all of this.
Lewis.
Rob Bright
(long time fans will get this connection)
Speaking of the gun purchase, and sincerely hoping not to offend anyone
(!), did anyone else notice how Lindsay turned this into a "woman thing"
when Bobby took her into his office to discuss it? The fact is, she is a
lawyer and she knowingly broke the law by purchasing the gun. I think
that's the point Bobby was trying to make. Lindsay took this as an
opportunity to go all emotional. From what I have been able to
determine, "emotions" are not supposed to be a factor in deciding
innocence or guilt in a court of law. Off to jail Lindsay ...!
Rob
"B. Richardson" wrote:
>
> Manh Tuong Lewis Nguyen wrote:
>
> > I think this storyline will still go one until November sweeps. There's
> > still Joey Heric. Elinor, ridden with guilt, will try to find out why
> > George did all of this.
>
> Not to mention Ellenore and Helen both being in possession of unlicensed
> firearms. We know Ellenore's wasn't licensed, but I guess Helen could have
> had a permit since she's a DA and probably subject to a lot of threats.
> However, Ellenore could be facing some criminal charges herself in future
> episodes.
MJWORKMAN
main problem that I had with this terrible episode (I can't figure out if David
Kelley is corrupted by success and trying to provide "entertainment" to the
masses or if he is just stretched too thin) is that George Vogleman passed a
lie detector test that the firm made him take in connection with the death of
Susan Robbins! While it is not admissible in court, it is 99% accurate.
Therefore, if David Kelley plans to get out of this with any intellectual
integrity (which I am not sure is his intent) he will have to explain why
George did not kill Susan Robbins but did attempt to kill Lindsey (in place of
Eleanor?) or why he is in the .001 percent of the population who can fool a lie
decector machine. Either way, he's got a tough job ahead of him.
Ronnie Wexler
just need an enormous amount of concentration..
Ronnie
In article <19991011185820...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
mjwo...@aol.com (MJWORKMAN) wrote:
--
Jeff Bishop
Rob Bright <buz...@autobahn.mb.ca> wrote:
>Speaking of the gun purchase, and sincerely hoping not to offend anyone
>(!), did anyone else notice how Lindsay turned this into a "woman thing"
>when Bobby took her into his office to discuss it? The fact is, she is a
>lawyer and she knowingly broke the law by purchasing the gun.
Do we know that? All I remember is Ellenor buying a gun illegally, and
Lindsay having had her since last season. As far as we know, she owns her gun
legally, though she probably carries illegally. Of course, helping Ellenor purchase
the gun wasn't exactly kosher, either.
>I think
>that's the point Bobby was trying to make. Lindsay took this as an
>opportunity to go all emotional.
Partly, but also to point out what an idiot he was to say such a thing under
those circumstances, where both LIndsay and Ellenor had to choose between
being safe and legal.
>From what I have been able to
>determine, "emotions" are not supposed to be a factor in deciding
>innocence or guilt in a court of law. Off to jail Lindsay ...!
Prison, schmison. Let's give Lindsay and Ellenor a medal. Their only "crime"
is living in Massachusetts.
Celeste
>just need an enormous amount of concentration..
>
>Ronnie
Not to mention the whole lie-detector was an inconsistancy. The episode he took
it, it was made know the results were inconclusive, that's why the surrendered
him. Then all through the trial they were saying he passed it.
While we're at it, where did Vogelman's ex-wife and kids go? He mentioned them
when he sued Ellenor, but denied them while on trial himself...
Not that's I'm a nit-picky or anything :)
--
Celeste
Ronnie Wexler
Ronnie
In article <19991011195918...@ng-cr1.aol.com>, crh...@aol.com
(Celeste) wrote:
--
B. Richardson
> That is a good question about Susan Robbins-- whether George killed her. The
> main problem that I had with this terrible episode (I can't figure out if David
> Kelley is corrupted by success and trying to provide "entertainment" to the
> masses or if he is just stretched too thin) is that George Vogleman passed a
> lie detector test that the firm made him take in connection with the death of
> Susan Robbins! While it is not admissible in court, it is 99% accurate.
Polygraphs are not 99% accurate. In fact, they are relatively easy to fool. A
recent study on polygraph accuracy conducted by MIT showed them to be accurate
only 39% of the time. In fact, because of this study and others like it, there has
been a call to require the FBI (and other federal agencies) to stop using the
polygraph as part of its pre-employment screening, as many otherwise-qualified
candidates have been rejected for failing a polygraph examination which gave a
false reading.
B. Richardson
> or why he is in the .001 percent of the population who can fool a lie
> decector machine. Either way, he's got a tough job ahead of him.
Also, anyone who practices yoga or deep meditation has no problem fooling a
polygraph. Such people are quite numerous and make up a lot more than .001% of the
population.
B. Richardson
Rob Bright
> Prison, schmison. Let's give Lindsay and Ellenor a medal. Their only "crime"
> is living in Massachusetts.
Hoping NOT to start a new discussion that has no "right" answer, but
would your middle name happen to be "Charleton Heston" :-)
Celeste
Oh my god, I sound like an idiot!
"Not that's I'm a nit-picky", yeah that makes sense :)
--
Celeste
Baby Yoda
law.....I believe that DAs are actually the only people allowed to won
"unlicensed" guns for protection (but I"m not entirely sure so please don't
jump on me if I"m wrong). Eleanor didn't shoot him - and to be quite
honest, it wouldn't have mattered if she did because she was protecting
herself and you are allowed to react with EQUAL force that your attacker is
exerting. I'mm not sure about equal intent.....but I believe that holds as
well.
Alison.
B. Richardson <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:38036AF4...@ix.netcom.com...
Sue
Baby Yoda wrote in message ...
>for what???? I don't see what Eleanor did as illegal or in violation of
ANY
>law.....I believe that DAs are actually the only people allowed to won
>"unlicensed" guns for protection (but I"m not entirely sure so please don't
>jump on me if I"m wrong).
Lindsay made some reference that to do it legally they would have had
to wait a month. I assume that is a waiting period, but I don't know the
laws in Massachusetts. The transaction on the street was clearly
illegal.
> Eleanor didn't shoot him - and to be quite
>honest, it wouldn't have mattered if she did because she was protecting
>herself and you are allowed to react with EQUAL force that your attacker is
>exerting. I'mm not sure about equal intent.....but I believe that holds as
>well.
It's not so clear-cut. I know of cases where people have been prosecuted
for using their legally owned guns to kill an attacker, because of the
prosecutor's own ideological feelings about guns. Of course, they
were acquitted, but still had to go through the hassle and expense of
trial.
Also, I've read a fascinating book studying societal and legal
attitudes of women who defend themselves -- with or without guns --
and there is a LOT of ambivalence about women defending
themselves with force, which shows up in court. (The same
society and legal system that blames the victim when they
don't fight back. Go figure.) According to this book, women
are more likely to be tried if they kill (or even just hurt) an
attacker, than men are in similar circumstances. For example,
women have been charged when they legally fought back,
because the prosecutor contends they could have fled.
Men are not held to the same standard that it's only OK
to fight if you are backed into a corner. This is from societal
attitudes that expect men to fight, and women not to.
Rob Bright
here in the frozen north, you can only defend yourself with a force
equal to or less than that of the attacker. Volgelman had a knife,
Ellenor had a gun. If she shot him in Canada, she would be wrong and
would be subject to prosecution. Kinda stupid to bring a knife to a
gunfight anyway!!
Rob
Jeff Bishop
David S Chesler <che...@world.std.com> wrote:
>In article <7ttt79$sk1$1...@agate-ether.berkeley.edu>,
>Jeff Bishop <jwbi...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>Lindsay having had her since last season. As far as we know, she owns her gun
>>legally, though she probably carries illegally.
>
What is Chapter 180? What I understand from the NRA web site is that normal
people can still obtain a handgun in Massachusetts, but that they must first
apply for an FID, which can take up to a month. This is also consistent with
Lindsay's remark that a legal gun would take a month to get in Massachusets.
There may be other hurdles I am unaware of.
Jeff Bishop
Rob Bright <buz...@autobahn.mb.ca> wrote:
>Also not sure of the laws in Boston (or the USA for that matter), but up
>here in the frozen north, you can only defend yourself with a force
>equal to or less than that of the attacker. Volgelman had a knife,
>Ellenor had a gun.
Oh, please! Is the theory that people who get shot to death are more dead
than those who get stabbed to death? What if George had a .38 and Ellenor
(actually, it was Helen that fired the fatal shots) had used a .357?
If your statement of Canadian law is accurate, thank God for international
borders. I'm sure most Canadian criminals would agree.
B. Richardson
> Also not sure of the laws in Boston (or the USA for that matter), but up
> here in the frozen north, you can only defend yourself with a force
> equal to or less than that of the attacker. Volgelman had a knife,
> Ellenor had a gun. If she shot him in Canada, she would be wrong and
> would be subject to prosecution. Kinda stupid to bring a knife to a
> gunfight anyway!!
This is ridiculous. You mean if a man comes after you with an ax or a
chainsaw, the only way you can defend yourself is by grabbing another ax or
chainsaw?
If a psycho comes after a woman with a carving knife, it's ludicrous to
expect her to grab another knife (being careful not to grab one bigger than
her attacker's-- lest she be accused of using greater force) and have a
slice and dice knife fight with him.
kincaid
>
> Also, I've read a fascinating book studying societal and legal
> attitudes of women who defend themselves -- with or without guns --
> and there is a LOT of ambivalence about women defending
> themselves with force, which shows up in court. (The same
> society and legal system that blames the victim when they
> don't fight back. Go figure.) According to this book, women
> are more likely to be tried if they kill (or even just hurt) an
> attacker, than men are in similar circumstances. For example,
> women have been charged when they legally fought back,
> because the prosecutor contends they could have fled.
> Men are not held to the same standard that it's only OK
> to fight if you are backed into a corner. This is from societal
> attitudes that expect men to fight, and women not to.
Did they control for the presence of a "retreat rule"? The law is
different in different states as to whether you have to "retreat" --
i.e., try to get away -- before fighting back. Some states say you do,
but most don't. (More than a few DA's don't have the law straight on
this point.) Where there is no retreat rule, you can get weird
situations where someone simply stands watching an attacker come from a
block or more away, waiting until the guy gets within attacking distance
before blowing him away.
kincaid
--
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
--The Well-Manicured Man
Kincaid's Site (http://kincaid.simplenet.com/)
Resources for building a new world
kincaid
>
> Also not sure of the laws in Boston (or the USA for that matter), but up
> here in the frozen north, you can only defend yourself with a force
> equal to or less than that of the attacker. Volgelman had a knife,
> Ellenor had a gun. If she shot him in Canada, she would be wrong and
> would be subject to prosecution. Kinda stupid to bring a knife to a
> gunfight anyway!!
I don't know Canadian law, but I doubt you have it straight. Down here
the basic rule is that you may use only "reasonable" force. Force is
also divided into "deadly" -- which doesn't mean literally lethal but
only having a tendency to inflict very severe injuries -- and
"non-deadly," with the understanding that "deadly" can only be employed
against deadly. A weapon is a weapon for these purposes, and attackers
don't even have to be armed if they outnumber their victim. (Two or
three unarmed guys, if they're a mind to, can do a lot of damage.)
That doesn't exclude the possibility that you've heard a garbled account
of someone being charged or convicted for taking someone out when the
decedent was armed; there's probably more to the story.
Rob Bright
> This is ridiculous. You mean if a man comes after you with an ax or a
> chainsaw, the only way you can defend yourself is by grabbing another ax or
> chainsaw?
Or something similar (big sword, knife for example, but not a gun!).
Crazy eh! If, for example, I had a gun in my home (which I don't), and
somebody broke in during the middle of the night and came at my wife
with a baseball bat, and I shot the prick, I'd go to jail. There was an
incident in BC a few years ago where a 17 year old (I think) punk
attempted a home invasion. The owner of the home was a 70 year old man,
an easy target thought the punk. Well, the man grabbed a cane or
something and beat the snot out of the intruder. Because the intruder
was "unarmed", the old man went to court for using excessive force! I'm
not sure of the outcome, but it just goes to show you that the bad guys
have more rights than the good guys. If someone came after me, my wife,
or either of my sons, I'd do whatever I had to do to defend us. Screw
the law in this type of case!
Rob
Rob Bright
That would gun vs gun - it wouldn't matter who had the "bigger gun".
Read the response I posted further down about an actual incident that
occurred in BC. Makes you sick eh! On the plus side though, most judges
are reasonable and would not send you to jail for protecting yourself or
your loved ones. I don't know the logic behind the law - perhaps a legal
mind could help us out here. This particular law bugs me just as much as
those that let a criminal go free because the cops forgot to dot an 'I'
or cross a 'T' on the search warrant. Never mind that they found the
smoking gun - it's not admissible in court. Catch an ep or two of Law &
Order - happens there all the time.
Rob
Jeff Bishop
Rob Bright <buz...@autobahn.mb.ca> wrote:
>That would gun vs gun - it wouldn't matter who had the "bigger gun".
Glad to know the silly ness has SOME limitation, though you must admit, if the
logic were taken one step further, it would matter who had the "bigger" (more
deadly) gun. I'd be willing to bet that the differences in lethality (?)
between different brands of guns is greater than the difference between big,
nasty knives and *most* guns - or certainly the low end ones.
>Read the response I posted further down about an actual incident that
>occurred in BC. Makes you sick eh
Indeed - almost physically sick.
>! On the plus side though, most judges
>are reasonable and would not send you to jail for protecting yourself or
>your loved ones. I don't know the logic behind the law - perhaps a legal
>mind could help us out here.
It's not an inherently unreasonable idea; it's just taken to an unreasonable
extreme. In most U.S. jurisidictions, you can meet nonlethal force with non-
lethal force, and you can meet deadly force with deadly force. A finer
distinction than that is dangerous, especially since it fails to take into
account certain other inequalityalities (e.g., the criminal may be stronger
than you, and is certainly a much more experienced fighrter, etc.).
> This particular law bugs me just as much as
>those that let a criminal go free because the cops forgot to dot an 'I'
>or cross a 'T' on the search warrant. Never mind that they found the
>smoking gun - it's not admissible in court. Catch an ep or two of Law &
>Order - happens there all the time.
I don't konw for sure, but I have a hunch it happens on teevee a lot more
often than it does in real life.
STread7213
>or either of my sons, I'd do whatever I had to do to defend us. Screw
>the law in this type of case!
>
exactly right...I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6
++++++TREAD+++++++
Always ask for paper, the enviromental choice
Trees, are a renewable resource
Rob Bright
dig up that article about the old man who defended himself from a home
invader and post it here. It'll make for an interesting discussion on
some of the idiocies of Canadian law...
Rob
Steve
>George Vogleman passed a
>lie detector test that the firm made him take in connection with the death of
>Susan Robbins! While it is not admissible in court, it is 99% accurate.
First, I'm not at all sure the 99% figure is correct. Not even sure
how you'd measure accuracy, given that you might never know who's
actually telling the truth.
But let's assume the 99% figure for the moment. Let's take a random
sample of 100 people, and have one of them lie. If the machine
identifies someone as telling a lie, what's the probability that this
person is actually lying? It's 50/50. Not too useful....
Steve
>FWIW, it's possible to be guilty and still pass a lie detector test. You
>just need an enormous amount of concentration..
Or you're a sociopath who feels no guilt. Or any of a number of other
reasons, both for passing when you're actually lying, or for failing
when you're actually telling the truth.
Baby Yoda
I've never really heard of this theory/study before - and I"m a criminology
graduate. but that doesn't mean I know everything, obviously....it would be
interesting to look into this. thanks.
alison
Baby Yoda
(basically) IF you reasonably perceive that your attacker intends to end
your life (in canada). alison
Rob Bright <buz...@autobahn.mb.ca> wrote in message
news:3803BBD4...@autobahn.mb.ca...
> Also not sure of the laws in Boston (or the USA for that matter), but up
> here in the frozen north, you can only defend yourself with a force
> equal to or less than that of the attacker. Volgelman had a knife,
> Ellenor had a gun. If she shot him in Canada, she would be wrong and
> would be subject to prosecution. Kinda stupid to bring a knife to a
> gunfight anyway!!
>
> Rob
Sue
Baby Yoda wrote in message <2vkN3.3776$AN.3...@brie.direct.ca>...
>what book are you referring to?
>
>I've never really heard of this theory/study before - and I"m a criminology
>graduate. but that doesn't mean I know everything, obviously....it would
be
>interesting to look into this. thanks.
>alison
>
>> Also, I've read a fascinating book studying societal and legal
>> attitudes of women who defend themselves -- with or without guns --
>> and there is a LOT of ambivalence about women defending
>> themselves with force, which shows up in court.
The book is called "Real Knockouts" and I am not sure of the author's
name -- she is a professor at UVa, I think. I loaned this book
out to a friend -- I think the author's name is Martha McCaughney.
Last name may not be spelled right I believe this book
came out of a dissertation she did. The part I cite is not the
main thrust of the book. She studies all the various ways that
women are learning how to defend themselves -- padded attacker
classes, martial arts, learning to use guns, etc. -- and how this
is transforming women, and how this runs smack against society's
definition of what is considered "feminine". This is where the
court issues come in. She also spends a lot of time discussing
how these developments threaten long-held feminIST tenets
against violence (even in self-defense). She also notes that
many feminists, while promoting the idea that women can do
what men do in the business world and every other area of life,
still cling to old assumptions that women cannot defend themselves
against men who attack them. She proposes a new
type of feminism that incorporates the ability and the willingness
of women to be violent in their own self-defense.
Sue
Steve
>The book is called "Real Knockouts" and I am not sure of the author's
>name -- she is a professor at UVa, I think.
Real Knockouts: The Physical Feminism of Women's Self-Defense
by Martha McCaughey
From the publisher (NYU Press) -
"Illustrating how self-defense forces a confrontation with central
tensions in feminist theory over the body, violence, pleasure, and
resistance, McCaughey has given us a highly original treatise that
will change the way we think of gender politics, the female body, and
feminism itself.
Martha McCaughey is an Assistant Professor of Women's Studies in the
Center for Interdisciplinary Studies at Virginia Tech. She received
her Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of California at Santa
Barbara."
Sue
I'd never seen that last name before. It's pronounced "McCoy" btw.
Steve wrote in message <3805e16a...@news.uswest.net>...