|
bucketybuck posted:So if Stringer was a little bit smarter, instead of saying "not on the phone" he should just always end a call like that by saying "I have to go"? Just the fact that he's acknowledging what the guy is saying instead of acting confused is enough to demonstrate to a jury that he's involved in the organization. Its the most literal meaning of when Lester says "all the pieces matter", a criminal conspiracy case is built on little bits that add up to a convincing whole. Stringer has positioned himself so as to convince those watching that he's totally out of the game, so just a simple conversation that proves he's still involved is a big piece of the puzzle the unit is trying to put together. These known Barksdale associates(or known gangsters from NYC, whatever) are communicating with Stringer and he clearly knows who they are, that's enough. The unit had long given up on finding Stringer with a smoking gun in his hand or something like that. They realize he's too smart for that.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 12, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Kevyn posted:At the end of season 3, after they get up on Stringer's cell, they catch this conversation... "not on the phone" indicates that Stringer knows what he's doing is illegal and is trying to hide it. there aren't many other ways to interpret that statement. It would be weaker evidence if he said what are you talking about, what hitters? bucketybuck posted:So if Stringer was a little bit smarter, instead of saying "not on the phone" he should just always end a call like that by saying "I have to go"? it could give levy more ammo to claim that the police are misinterpreting things. that's why they use coded language in the first place
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Who was Stringer actually arranging to have hit? Clay Davis. He wasn't going to just take getting played without retaliating, regardless of what Avon said.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
bucketybuck posted:Didn't Omar get that info from reading the details wall charts? Nah, he got that from Prop Joe in the episode with the East vs West basketball game. Omar robbed a stash and went to Joe to exchange it for info about how to reach Avon. He got some info from the board, but mostly about Stinkum I think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
bucketybuck posted:Didn't Omar get that info from reading the details wall charts? He gets it from Joe actually, when he's giving Joe some of Avon's drugs in exchange for helping set up the hit on Avon. Every time I see that episode I'm not sure whether they modified the Joe character a bit in between season 1 and 2. I mean yeah, keeping his ringer on the bench so he can up the bet with Avon at halftime is classic Joe but being so ruthlessly opportunistic in agreeing to Avon's murder - just for a chance at taking the West Side - doesn't really seem like the same character we see later. It's one of my favorite episodes in season 1 regardless just because of Avon insulting him for dressing like "Pat loving Riley". Popular Thug Drink posted:"not on the phone" indicates that Stringer knows what he's doing is illegal and is trying to hide it. there aren't many other ways to interpret that statement. It would be weaker evidence if he said what are you talking about, what hitters? Yeah and Stringer was previously pretty smart about it. When he meets with Omar in season 1, he claims to not actually know Avon and just be some messenger, saying very vague stuff, because he knows (or strongly suspects) Omar is wearing a wire. He even makes Bodie prove he's not wearing one at one point in season 3. Also I don't know if they were planning to arrest Stringer the next day just based off that one call - Stringer getting killed the next day makes it look that way, but I think they were just celebrating the very fact they had him talking at all. I think they might have wanted to tap as many calls as they could before he switched phones, to make the case as strong as possible. grading essays nude fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
bucketybuck posted:Didn't Omar get that info from reading the details wall charts?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
grading essays nude posted:He gets it from Joe actually, when he's giving Joe some of Avon's drugs in exchange for helping set up the hit on Avon. "You walking around with a fake loving clipboard! You can't even read a playbook!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:"not on the phone" indicates that Stringer knows what he's doing is illegal and is trying to hide it. there aren't many other ways to interpret that statement. It would be weaker evidence if he said what are you talking about, what hitters? It always cracks me up when bodie goes to him in season 3 "Yo, the police picked me up man" *String looks away uneasily* "Well you shouldn't sell drugs"
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
And Bodie's exasperation as he starts stripping down to show he's not wearing a wire 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Stringer is cautious as gently caress. OMAR: Y'all aced Bailey, and what you did to my boy? So, y'all think after what you did to Brandon, we supposed to find some even on this, huh? STRINGER: Yo, I don't know poo poo about poo poo, a-ight? I'm just the messenger. OMAR: Whatever, man. STRINGER: You know there's dead on both sides, right? And there's gonna be a whole lot more if this beef keep up. But the truth be told... There be more soldiers in one half than the other. You know what I'm sayin'? OMAR: Hey, look here, son, you tell Barksdale, that he's been paid back for what he did to my peoples. But as for his product, well, a man's got to earn a living, you know? STRINGER: I don't know nobody called Barksdale, "B". The man I'm talking about, can't have his poo poo taken like that. That won't do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBdGOrcUEg8 This was my favorite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
The North Tower posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBdGOrcUEg8 The best part of this is that, a few episodes later, Stringer again seizes Shamrock's legal pad only to see that he's just drawing naked chicks. It's a very brief, two-second, blink-and-you'll-miss-it joke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
grading essays nude posted:Every time I see that episode I'm not sure whether they modified the Joe character a bit in between season 1 and 2. I mean yeah, keeping his ringer on the bench so he can up the bet with Avon at halftime is classic Joe but being so ruthlessly opportunistic in agreeing to Avon's murder - just for a chance at taking the West Side - doesn't really seem like the same character we see later. It's one of my favorite episodes in season 1 regardless just because of Avon insulting him for dressing like "Pat loving Riley". Prop Joe's as ruthless as any other Baltimore druglord. He had a head for business, and he had the sense to see that the co-op was good for business, but before then he couldn't have imagined a wholly nonviolent approach to dealing drugs any more than anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Finally getting around to watching it in HD. I appreciate how much clearer and detailed the picture is but eh the aspect ratio just feels so off. Maybe it's because I've seen the whole series five or six times but the shots just don't seem tight enough. They're missing their true purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
grading essays nude posted:The best part of this is that, a few episodes later, Stringer again seizes Shamrock's legal pad only to see that he's just drawing naked chicks. It's a very brief, two-second, blink-and-you'll-miss-it joke. What episode is this? I think I've missed that, and I don't miss many of those.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Akileese posted:Finally getting around to watching it in HD. I appreciate how much clearer and detailed the picture is but eh the aspect ratio just feels so off. Maybe it's because I've seen the whole series five or six times but the shots just don't seem tight enough. They're missing their true purpose. It actually gets a lot better after the first few episodes of season 1 - after that they rarely use any closeups or tight shots on people, which is generally the only thing that really draws my attention to the aspect ratio feeling "off" - when you get that overly close/tight shot where things feel unreasonably close; it felt like this rarely happened in the latter parts of season 1 and seasons 2, 3, and 4 at least (not into 5 yet) and more often than not a lot of shots/sequences felt improved. They fell into the habit of using a ton of medium shots almost as a rule later on which (to my eyes) ultimately translated well to a 16x9 remaster. Even tight, enclosed spaces that I thought could feel weird (like Franks union office/trailer) work just fine ultimately. And to be honest, much of the show is shot outdoors (with medium shots as I said) and the streets of Baltimore look great in 16x9, in general. I felt like season 4 especially look good in the remaster but maybe it's just 'cos it's season 4.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
I started watching The Wire two years ago when I went through season 1 in about one week, afterwards I dropped watching it for some weird reason and now I finally bothered to try it again with season 2. I just finished the last episode and now I feel drat empty, having finished the best thing I've ever watched. I can't decide whether I love Prop Joe, Stringer Bell or Tommy Carcetti the most, but the way they manipulate and move up the ranks is glorious. Not to mention Clay Davis' "Shieeeeeeeeeeeeeeet". I'm considering an immediate re-watch now along with a friend, to haul him into it and fill the void.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
Been a while since I watched this so it's great to read the episode writeups by Jerusalem. I'm reading through season 1 now and Omar is such a strange character; he gives them Bird's location so they can arrest him, instead of just killing him (he knew exactly where he was and that he probably would be alone getting high, making him a easy target for someone like Omar). I'm guessing it was a sort of thank you to McNulty for letting him see Brandon? "You can have Bird, but I'm going to take out the rest myself." He's a very interesting character in a show so rooted in realism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
grading essays nude posted:He gets it from Joe actually, when he's giving Joe some of Avon's drugs in exchange for helping set up the hit on Avon. Joe always wanted to get into the project towers, whether it was through Avon dying and him scooping up the real estate, or working out a deal with Stringer, which he later did. It was the most lucrative drug-dealing real estate in the city. And, as far as stringers phone call, they were absolutely celebrating the fact that they got the evidence they needed off the wire to make the arrest. They immediately called for warrants after that call and were about to serve them when they found out he had been killed. Also if you remember McNulty was extremely upset because he knew he was going to arrest him that day, but Stringer was dead and didn't know that McNulty had finally caught him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Bleh Maestro posted:And, as far as stringers phone call, they were absolutely celebrating the fact that they got the evidence they needed off the wire to make the arrest. Does this not come back to the original point though. I get that him saying "Not on the phone" could be used as one piece of evidence showing conspiracy, but can it be the only piece? Can they charge him based on that one thing, what other evidence do they have?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
bucketybuck posted:Does this not come back to the original point though. I get that him saying "Not on the phone" could be used as one piece of evidence showing conspiracy, but can it be the only piece? Can they charge him based on that one thing, what other evidence do they have? They have pretty much everyone around him deep in the game. With this, not only do they get him acknowledging shamrock, but they also confirmed that the phone number on the burner was Stringer's. Show the conspiracy involving everyone around Stringer, show a bunch of calls to Stringer's burner (the ones that were not recorded), and then show Stringer using that burner and acknowledging Shamrock and talking about "hitters."
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:They have pretty much everyone around him deep in the game. With this, not only do they get him acknowledging shamrock, but they also confirmed that the phone number on the burner was Stringer's. Show the conspiracy involving everyone around Stringer, show a bunch of calls to Stringer's burner (the ones that were not recorded), and then show Stringer using that burner and acknowledging Shamrock and talking about "hitters." And what will that get him? Proving that he knows people in the game and that they know his number seems very small beans really, would a first timer get prison for that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
bucketybuck posted:And what will that get him? Proving that he knows people in the game and that they know his number seems very small beans really, would a first timer get prison for that? RICO and other conspiracy charges? Yes. A bunch of the mob and gang convictions at the federal level lead to 20+ years in prison, especially since you can just keep adding conspiracy charges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
bucketybuck posted:Does this not come back to the original point though. I get that him saying "Not on the phone" could be used as one piece of evidence showing conspiracy, but can it be the only piece? Can they charge him based on that one thing, what other evidence do they have? They built up the evidence of the entire drug organization through the network of burner cell phones that they had been tapping for weeks / months. The person on the top of that tree then called stringer and he acknowledged his involvement with the criminal activity with his response on the phone. All of the "pieces" were then put together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
bucketybuck posted:And what will that get him? Proving that he knows people in the game and that they know his number seems very small beans really, would a first timer get prison for that? You have to go get the warrants signed off on, and the people who you need to convince are hard to convince people. "Trust us he's part of this network but he hasn't said anything" doesn't really get you far. If you say "We have a phone call from a guy who we have evidence of him being involved with drug activity calling stringer bell and stringer responds 'not on the phone'" then they whip the pen out and sign that warrant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
To be completely fair, they're hard to convince because they follow the law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
LordPants posted:You have to go get the warrants signed off on, and the people who you need to convince are hard to convince people. "Trust us he's part of this network but he hasn't said anything" doesn't really get you far. If you say "We have a phone call from a guy who we have evidence of him being involved with drug activity calling stringer bell and stringer responds 'not on the phone'" then they whip the pen out and sign that warrant. But could that logic not apply to every single person that Shamrock ever calls, from his mother to the pizza guy? If getting the phone call from known drug dealer is part A and saying something that maybe could be construed as conspiracy is part B, then I would imagine its possible for a creative cop to accuse quite a few people of conspiracy whether they are actually drug kingpins or not. Which comes back to my point, I can accept that the phone call could give the detail enough to convince a judge to sign a warrant, and using that warrant they could hope to find other evidence with which to charge Stringer. But surely they will need that other evidence to charge and convict him? People are saying that the phone call is enough to arrest him, but how can it alone put him in jail, surely there needs to be more concrete physical evidence? "Whats the charge?" "RICO and conspiracy your honor" "Whats the evidence" "A known drug dealer called him and he said "not on the phone" "And what else?" "Thats it, we couldn't find any other admissible evidence of him dealing drugs" "Ok 20 years in jail" I admit my ignorance of American law but there must be more evidence needed than just the phone call?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
Remember that Shamrock was the "top" as far as the proven criminal conspiracy went, so to have him call Stringer and talk about "those hitters you asked about, they good with it" and have Stringer acknowledge this with a warning not to talk about such things on the phone indicates both knowledge of the criminal conspiracy, an attempt to hide his involvement, as well as an indicator of his authority over this "top" guy. What Shamrock means by "Hitters" is pretty drat telling in the context of just who is talking, and while a defense attorney might try and suggest Stringer was putting together a scratch baseball team, it's unlikely that would hold much water with either a judge or a jury.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
It's not like they would have ended the case there anyway. Remember that after Stringer's dead and McNulty checks out his apartment and is surprised that it's all clean - "who the gently caress was I chasing" - the expectation was that they would be able to move against Stringer, then build up a stronger case against him by court date.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
Stringer is definitely like what Dee was saying about Gatsby; some of the props are more visible in the HD release. Guy was apparently a fan of Asimov?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
bucketybuck posted:But could that logic not apply to every single person that Shamrock ever calls, from his mother to the pizza guy? If getting the phone call from known drug dealer is part A and saying something that maybe could be construed as conspiracy is part B, then I would imagine its possible for a creative cop to accuse quite a few people of conspiracy whether they are actually drug kingpins or not. The evidence wouldn't just be "not on the phone." It would be: essentially all Stringer's friends and acquaintances are involved in a massive drug distribution organization a lot of the money generated through this drug organization gets funneled through Stringer's legitimate business. Now, to this point everything is circumstantial. Nothing proves that stringer is directly involved, and it may all be a coincidence. Then, when they hear Stringer having that conversation on the phone with Shamrock, that not only indicates that Stringer is talking to a known top guy in a drug organization about "hitters," but also confirms Stringer's phone. Remember that the way they get Stringer's phone is through a pattern of calls made to his burner. They narrow down Stringer's number by looking at what numbers show up whenever they know Shamrock or another big player in the game call Stringer, and it takes quite a few calls to narrow that down. So not only do they have the "not on the phone," they have a pattern of calls from top gang members to Stringer's phone. And besides the several calls to Stringer, they then have the fact that Stringer is using a burner (just like the rest of the gang). Stringer may be able to explain away the "not on the phone" bit, but would he be able to explain why he is using a burner, taking calls from known gang members all the time, and then funneling all that drug money to business?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
He could pull a Clay Davis and BS his way through court
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:He could pull a Clay Davis and BS his way through court Can't pull a Clay Davis without butchering Classics for good measure. "What are you reading there, Senator?" "This here? Prom-ethus Bound...  In the words of A-silly-us... "
Wheres Wallace fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:15
|
|
keep on keepin' on 
|
kaworu posted:It actually gets a lot better after the first few episodes of season 1 - after that they rarely use any closeups or tight shots on people, which is generally the only thing that really draws my attention to the aspect ratio feeling "off" - when you get that overly close/tight shot where things feel unreasonably close; it felt like this rarely happened in the latter parts of season 1 and seasons 2, 3, and 4 at least (not into 5 yet) and more often than not a lot of shots/sequences felt improved. They fell into the habit of using a ton of medium shots almost as a rule later on which (to my eyes) ultimately translated well to a 16x9 remaster. Even tight, enclosed spaces that I thought could feel weird (like Franks union office/trailer) work just fine ultimately. And to be honest, much of the show is shot outdoors (with medium shots as I said) and the streets of Baltimore look great in 16x9, in general. I felt like season 4 especially look good in the remaster but maybe it's just 'cos it's season 4. Yeah I noticed this. Just finished up season 2 and it worked a lot better. My favorite moments of this season were the Sergei interrogation where they ask him The Greek's name. Sergei just stares at them like "come on really? You expect me to know his name? He just looks so befuddled." Also when Kima drives right by him leaving the car park, which I somehow missed all the times I've seen the show. The wire, for me, is still one of the easiest shows to binge watch. If I didn't have a job I could probably shotgun the entire show in a week and not feel like I missed anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
This discussion is basically the whole point of RICO. It exists so kingpins of organized crime can't just get off by saying "oh well I happen to be friends with those guys and they do give me a shitload of money every month but I had no knowledge of any of these horrific murders you speak of." That's why the sentences are harsh, its anticipating that it may be impossible to get a murder conviction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Grumpwagon posted:What episode is this? I think I've missed that, and I don't miss many of those. To answer my own question: Season 3 episode 9, about 7 minutes in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
So, in the rewatch a question came up for me: In season three, shortly before the primarys, state delegate Watkins breaks up with Royce for several reasons. One of these where some flyer which made Watkins raging around. What exactly was his problem about that flyer? I never got that scene, although it might be drat obvious. It's in season 4 episode 4 around 32 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Nobnob posted:So, in the rewatch a question came up for me: In season three, shortly before the primarys, state delegate Watkins breaks up with Royce for several reasons. One of these where some flyer which made Watkins raging around. What exactly was his problem about that flyer? I never got that scene, although it might be drat obvious. It had Eunetta Perkins on it as on his ticket instead of Marla Daniels, who Royce had promised Watkins he'd back. He put whichever candidate was polling higher in a given district on his fliers for that district, instead of supporting the candidate he promised he would.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:It had Eunetta Perkins on it as on his ticket instead of Marla Daniels, who Royce had promised Watkins he'd back. He put whichever candidate was polling higher in a given district on his fliers for that district, instead of supporting the candidate he promised he would. Oh I see, I wasn't aware Watkins would be supporting Lady Daniels there for whatever reason. Her career is kind of shady around that for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 12, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Nobnob posted:Oh I see, I wasn't aware Watkins would be supporting Lady Daniels there for whatever reason. Her career is kind of shady around that for me. There's a bunch of things that show that. He asks Royce earlier to drop Eunetta and he says no. He has Daniels help Cutty with the permits for his gym, and they are together there. (He complains about Eunetta there was well, something like "Do you know Miss Perkins? No? Few do these days" as if Cutty would have any shot of knowing his councilperson.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 00:28
|
|