(Law & Order) Vs. gun maker re-run

M

Mantas

New member
I was wondering if anyone else got to see the re-run of the L&O where Jack McCoy(Sam Waterston) goes after a gun manufacturer that makes a gun which is easily convertable to full auto.
Now I know everyone is going to cry out for NBC's and Sam Waterston's head, but I thought it would end up to be worse for us (knowing NBC's liberal background) and it looked like McCoy was the only one for his anti- tactics; with most of the cast on our side(which won). It would have been nice if the gun maker could have won by verdict.
L&O says that their show is "ripped from todays headlines" and this was one of those cases. Who else could see a prosecutor from NY trying to get to the gun manufacturers?
 
I saw that episode on its first run and won't see it tonite.

L&O is an interesting show, I like the cop work...but...
when it gets to the prosecution its pure emotional propaganda. DA "McCoy" thinks the Constitution is an impediment. Of course, every case he deals with is the one where the Constitution protects a clear bad guy, and so the show ends up questioning the Constitution....and of course, we must make the magnitude jump that since all of us are good guys, not affected, then maybe the Constitution is too liberal in its protection.


Emotionally, you tend to agree....this is a clear bad guy so screw the Constitution and fry him......thats the point....they want you to agree that the Constitution is in the way, and a jacked up New York lawyer knows best ;)

They are socialists and don't you ever forget it

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
I don't watch L&O anymore. I know the slant, it disgusts me, and it is a complete waste of my time.

I'm certainly willing to listen to alternative, interesting perspectives. But, this show is just worthless, IMHO.
 
I missed it the first time so I made a point of watching it this time. I disagree that the other DAs were on our side. To me they seemed to object because McCoy was on a personal crusade that they believed he couldn't win. They thought it was a waste of time, nothing more. Nobody ever told McCoy that he was dead wrong.
I used to like this show, but the last couple of years its taken such a liberial slant that it borders on stupidity.
 
I saw it was on last night. I posted a thread when it originally ran. My feeling is, despite the gun maker getting off the hook, it is nevertheless very biased anti-gun, because of the misrepresentations in the episode (the FFL who make an internet sell with no background check, and gets off with a "traffic ticket" - my arse).
 
The show was a rewrite of the 1980's shooting in Monteal, Canada. I believe that this week is the anniversary of the shooting. The story was very similar to reality except the real gunman used a semi-auto mini-14 (they just had to make it more emotionally charged).

I cheered that the judge issued a directed verdict of not guilty and specifically cited the wrongness of the jury's emotionally based verdict. I enjoy the show. It is biased, but so is NYC. The show simply reflects its location.

[This message has been edited by Libertarian (edited December 04, 1999).]
 
When a police psychiatrist has more common sense and integrity than the other characters, there is something not right with that situation.

------------------
CCW for Ohio action site.
http://www.ofcc.net
Do what you C.A.N.

http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html
 
I have to agree with the above posts on the content of the episode...very slanted, timing, etc... I only saw the last 20 minutes of the show, so I didn't catch all the facts of the case.

But, I felt the the last statement of the show was very powerful for the pro-gun side. "This is not about being right; it is about doing right."

The judge overturned the jury's verdict because the gunman took a legal weapon and made it an illegal one (by converting it to a fully automatic-firing handgun). Even though this was shown to be an easy conversion, IMO it is not the fault of the gun manufacturer. The defense atty. stated something like "...(the gunman) could have used any of several weapons that can be converted..." This is part of the heart of the problem - penalties are not strong enough to deter this kind of activity. What were the charges brought against the gunman, what was he convicted on, and what was his sentence/term? And what were the (15 total) charges brought against the gun manufacturer?
 
If you're talking about the guy who killed 10 women for being women, this is the week. There are body outlines on the floor of my college's cafeteria, each with one victim's name. I don't know how I feel about that.

One hand: Good to remember victims of a horrible crime. Need more of this.

Other hand: Stupid that it's more worth remembering if they were killed for an idiotic reason. The feminists on campus say this crime is worse because it was based on misogyny. I say bulls--t, but at least they're remembering some victims, right?

------------------
Don

"Its not criminals that go into schools and shoot children"
--Ann Pearston, British Gun Control apologist and moron
 
Gwinnydapooh -- If you want to REALLY get those feminists up tight, take a cue from that outfit on the West Coast and write "unarmed victim" inside each outline. (evil [g])

BTW, what sentence did the shooter get? If he wasn't killed, it would pay to write something like "and the guy who did this got only xxx years".


------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top