The Wire: The Rewatch... and all the pieces matter.

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > TV IV > The Wire: The Rewatch... and all the pieces matter.

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

escape artist posted:

I thought Bird was eventually convicted of it. Wee-Bey tried to eat the charge but the ballistics matched Bird's favorite piece.

Yes, Bird was convicted of it. And since Bird's trial takes place after Wee-Bey tried to claim he did it, it is clear that ballistics point to Bird.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2012 08:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 16:48

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

Benny D posted:

Ive been crazy about this show for years and I cant believe it took me so long to look for a thread here. As a die-hard fan, can someone explain to me what the issue is with season 5? I hear alot of people say that they didnt care for it, and while it clearly wasnt up to snuff after how amazing season 4 was, I still found it incredibly original. The opening where Freamon and McNutty are hiding in the comm closet making the fake serial killer call always cracks me up.

Also:
"How my head look, man?"

"...it look good girl."

To me, at least, the newspaper story is done in a far more heavy handed way than what you see elsewhere. It is perhaps the one "institutional" story where good guys and bad guys, right and wrong are clearly set apart, with very little gray. Which is not to say that it is a bad season. Just not nearly as good as the others.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2013 06:47

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

Spoilers Below posted:

It does seem strange that none of that ever gets back to Avon, though. "Hey, those guys Mouzone shot said that Stringer said it was okay for them to deal here. What's going on, man? Did you tell String to do that?"

It does get back to Avon. It is why Avon ends up giving Stringer's location to Mouzone in season 3. It doesn't happen immediately because Stringer is basically the only link between the dealers on the street and Avon, but it does happen.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 01:09

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

comes along bort posted:

It actually happened during Kurt Schmoke's tenure.

No, it didn't. Schmoke came out in favor of decriminalization, but there never was an area with police sanctioned selling of drugs.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2014 08:10

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

Hedera Helix posted:

I could tolerate the serial killer subplot, but the newsroom scenes were death. I would vastly prefer a season five where those were removed, instead.

Yeah, Simon was definitely too close to the media part. It is the only part of the show where there is no nuance: the bad guys will do anything and not give a gently caress and the good guys will destroy their careers in the name of integrity.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2014 03:11

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

janklow posted:

we also get Schmoke himself snuck into a couple of those episodes, so there's definitely a reference to him going on either way.

Sure. Him coming out in favor of decriminalization was pretty controversial. But nothing like Hamsterdam existed during his term. Which is all a silly discussion anyways, because being more or less realistic doesn't detract from the show. Hamsterdam, Omar, Carcetti are all inspired by real people and events, but greatly exaggerate them for dramatic effect. It makes for great television, great drama, while also conveying issues that are real, even if depicted in unrealistic terms.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2014 03:51

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

Finndo posted:

That was what I was alluding to by referring to debate... Again, my opinion, sociology is one of those fields (like interest-group studies, soldiering, climatology, investment banking, etc.) that tends to attract a certain type of person, and so I think there's a significant amount of confirmation bias that comes out in the work product. Regardless, though, even if you discard my opinion of cause and argue that other factors worked in New York, we know those other factors weren't Hamsterdam.

I don't know what the bolded is supposed to mean, but broken windows came from sociologists as well.

# ¿ Aug 14, 2014 21:59

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

Kevyn posted:

At the end of season 3, after they get up on Stringer's cell, they catch this conversation...

Someone: One other thing, those two hitters you asked about? They good with it.
Stringer: Not on the phone, man.

and pretty much start jizzing all over the room, saying they caught him. What the gently caress kind of evidence is that? Of course they're talking about a murder, but I can't imagine that weak poo poo would stand up in a courtroom.

Conspiracy. Think back to season 1 when Freamon tells Prez to mark a call between Stinkum and Bodie pertinent even though they don't mention drugs, just the whole "don't use names on the phone" bit.

# ¿ Jan 27, 2015 19:35

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

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: Apr 5, 2012

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

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

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.

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?

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 16:48

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

31425

# ¿ Feb 7, 2018 05:38

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > TV IV > The Wire: The Rewatch... and all the pieces matter.